Re: writing/publishing
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@hotpop.com)
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:11:02 +1000
Colin wrote:
> I've been thinking about the question of writing and publishing in the
> light of Alexander's reference to Salinger as an ex-writer; as if to
> write and not publish is not to write. I think it raises some
> interesting questions. There is a very real sense in which something
> which has not been published does not exist.
So ... what you're saying is: if Salinger's new book fell in the woods,
would anyone be there to read it? (:
Guess it would most likely fall in the Inverted Forest (sorry, couldn't
resist - but would that mean it would fall from the sky to the ground or
vice versa?)
I often wonder about two things:
1) Whether the world's greatest artists aren't, like the Nun in DDSBP,the
ones that we never hear of.
2) Why they don't find that fact a big shame.
There's a big tendency for people of my generation to mistrust publication
- the great mortal fear of `Selling Out'. This concern has always passed me
by - I mean, why should we not dream of making a living doing something we
love? To deny yourself that is very strange. I see all writing as an act of
communication like you say - but that implies an output and an input,
rather like a radio signal which is sent by a transmitter (the author) and
received by a radio (the reader). Now (and this is the bit that Scottie
never seems to understand) - what is the effect of hearing that
transmission through the radio in your car? Your bathroom? Your lounge?
What if the radio next door is playing `Que Sera Sera'? All of these things
alter the way we receive the transmission to the point where no one
receives it in exactly the same way.
Therefore, Salinger's unpublished writings do exist to me, but they are an
incomplete circle of transmission to us- they give out (rather like the
tree in the woods) but there is no one there to hear them. However, as you
point out, they are transmitted to - and written for - Salinger. You could
say they are published for himself. This gives him complete control on the
content - no editors, no censorship, everything is 100% his expression.
What I find is a big shame - as I have told Scottie many times - is that
JDS cannot seem to embrace the joy of multiple interpretations of his work,
nor accept that once your work is in the public domain, it's not just
yours, it's everybody's. There are as many Catchers and Holdens out there
as there are readers of the book. Sure, when people's interpretations are
at odds with your intentions, it can be annoying - but it can also be
absolutely fascinating; in fact, it's one of the main reasons I write. And,
like Jim says, if no one understands what you're trying to convey, it tends
to be your job as a writer to tell them, so the blame's on you. I'm sure he
sees this as a compromise - and if you ask me, if you're a writer
and you don't expect compromise on some level, you're crazy -
I'm interested that you mention Sarah Kane, because I attended the same
festival at which she was first discovered. I never knew her, but many of
my friends did, and opinions were enormously divided about her, from one
friend who told her she was a genius to another who denounced her simply as
the latest darling of the we're-so-cutting-edge Royal Court. I can see both
interpretations fitting equally well. And that's a case of hearing her
transmissions through two different radios - just as your conflicting
readings of `Crave' are.
Camille
verona_beach@hotpop.com
> As a brief digression it's also interesting how circumstances alter
> cases. I don't know how well known she is in the States or Australia
> but one of the most exciting and promising new playwrights in Europe,
> Sarah Kane (wrote 'Blasted', 'Phaedra's Love', 'Cleansed', 'Crave')
> killed herself a few months ago. She was pilloried by the conservative
> press in the UK because her work was regarded as too violent. 'Crave'
> was her latest play and I read the script as soon as it came out and I
> thought, yes, she's getting even better, a new departure, shows a very
> strong influence from Beckett but not too badly digested; these were the
> thoughts that went through my mind. Then she killed herself. In fact
> she killed herself twice. She took an overdose of pills (that most
> warmly beckoning of methods) but someone discovered her and she was
> rushed to hospital. But the hospital, even though she was known to be a
> suicide, left her unsupervised on an ordinary ward, she got up and
> hanged herself in the women's toilet. (I think the fact that she
> actually killed herself in hospital has been hushed up, I only know
> because a friend knows a nurse who works there.) The other week I read
> 'Crave' for the second time. And this time, with the knowledge of her
> suicide, vast tracts of the script read as one long suicide note. It
> was quite a shattering experience, the pain just came off the page and
> bit you. What had formerly been buried in the text was now blindingly
> obvious with the benefit of hindsight.
>
> --
> Colin