On the morning my column runs, I can't wait to
see what I meant when I wrote it. Some of the interpretations given – most, by anonymous
newspaper readers, never cease to amaze me. I am apparently so diabolically
clever that I can give a different message to a dozen people with the same 600
words, give or take a few.
When I sit down to see what I actually meant with
a particular commentary, I’m always reminded of a story told in a book called
“God Caesar: The Writing of Fiction for Beginners” by Vardis Fisher.
It seems a young author had published a book, at
some time before 1953 when Fisher wrote about it. The author thought he had
written a simple love story, a romance if you will, but a critic for a New York
newspaper saw it differently.
The critic, never named by Fisher – in fact, he
never gave the book title, either – wrote a sterling review in which he told
his readers that novel he had just read was obviously a story of love between
two men, disguised as a simple love story because the author didn’t dare tell
the real story.
When the author read the critique of his novel,
the one he considered to be a simple man-woman romance, he tried to call the
critic who refused to speak with him. The author began to write the critic
demanding a second review.
After the second or third letter, the critic
finally sent the young writer a letter that said something along the lines of, “I
won’t redo the review. You are not the first author who wrote a better book
than he knew he was writing.”
Maybe the entire matter can best be summed up in
this quote from Irish writer, Brendan Behan:
“Critics are like eunuchs
in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but
they're unable to do it themselves.”
1 comment:
Arnold designed and produced a piece that we thought was sweet and funny. Comments ranged from too spiritual to too erotic.
Post a Comment