I think these passages cover what you're indicating:
Yes, there are sloppy readers, and people who skip over things. And then there are writers who just plain fail to get their point across, and those writers should stop accusing their audience of not paying attention. If your reader walks away from your communication with a message other than what you were trying to convey, more often than not, the fault lies with the writer.
and the end bit:
Or, alternatively? Maybe we get it just fine, and still think it sucks. Stop expecting us to have a rapturous revelation if we squint at the words harder.
As a general thing, yes, no single author can guarantee that every individual will understand her meaning. Addressed specifically to what AR was saying, and with the caveats that yes, there are sloppy readers, and allowing for the fact that sometimes it is the reader, I think that Thing 2's points are well-made. AR seems to be saying that if I, as a reader, don't love her work, that's because I don't get it, because it says exactly what she wanted it to, and therefore it's (presumably) crystal clear. Her implicit argument allows for no variety of interpretation at all. Either you get it, or you're wrong, because you're not reading it right, or you're filling it up with your own limitations. ie, "You're too limited to understand my perfect prose."
So, yes, there may always be gray areas, and stories that some people don't get -- but for an author to turn around and say that if you don't get it, there's something wrong with you is...beyond presumptuous. Which I think was Thing 2's primary point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-09-21 01:51 pm (UTC)Yes, there are sloppy readers, and people who skip over things. And then there are writers who just plain fail to get their point across, and those writers should stop accusing their audience of not paying attention. If your reader walks away from your communication with a message other than what you were trying to convey, more often than not, the fault lies with the writer.
and the end bit:
Or, alternatively? Maybe we get it just fine, and still think it sucks. Stop expecting us to have a rapturous revelation if we squint at the words harder.
As a general thing, yes, no single author can guarantee that every individual will understand her meaning. Addressed specifically to what AR was saying, and with the caveats that yes, there are sloppy readers, and allowing for the fact that sometimes it is the reader, I think that Thing 2's points are well-made. AR seems to be saying that if I, as a reader, don't love her work, that's because I don't get it, because it says exactly what she wanted it to, and therefore it's (presumably) crystal clear. Her implicit argument allows for no variety of interpretation at all. Either you get it, or you're wrong, because you're not reading it right, or you're filling it up with your own limitations. ie, "You're too limited to understand my perfect prose."
So, yes, there may always be gray areas, and stories that some people don't get -- but for an author to turn around and say that if you don't get it, there's something wrong with you is...beyond presumptuous. Which I think was Thing 2's primary point.