tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26654079.post762005550266618646..comments2023-05-21T14:46:54.138+01:00Comments on FictionBitch: Bravura InconsistencyElizabeth Baineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17193751871434773972noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26654079.post-89366251166704135192007-11-04T23:01:00.000+00:002007-11-04T23:01:00.000+00:00I'm with Winterson too. While I think that Orwell...I'm with Winterson too. While I think that Orwell was on the mark in <EM>Why I Write</EM> when he listed sheer egoism as first on his list of writer's motivations, and I think writing requires arrogance, that egoism has many forms and mastery over others is not prime among them.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of how we conceptualise the process, writing is always a dialogue we have with ourselves. For me, Winterson's idea of a code exactly describes it. But for others who envisage their audience when they write, isn't the audience also a creation of their inner language? And isn't it when writers think that audience is a rigid, external thing that they write dead words? <BR/><BR/>Writers can and do influence others, but only when they invite others to take a journey with them. Not when they tell readers where to go. <BR/><BR/>(And isn't that a phrase with a double meaning, both appropriate?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26654079.post-43626764671118559512007-11-04T17:03:00.000+00:002007-11-04T17:03:00.000+00:00An interesting-ish article from Richard Ford, but ...An interesting-ish article from Richard Ford, but he did go on a bit didn't he?Adrian Slatcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13946068316432524571noreply@blogger.com