does what we write /the way we writ/how we write reflect our personalities?
Printable View
does what we write /the way we writ/how we write reflect our personalities?
How could it not?
H
Cacian... time and time again Litnet forumgoers have said that you need to be more clear about the topics you choose to discuss:
1) What do you believe defines: what we write? the way we write? how we write?
2) What on earth is the difference between: what we write? the way we write? how we write?
3) What classification of personality do you wish to discuss? Please state a general definition, then tell us your interpretation of the definition and lastly, refine it. Prejudice? Volatility? Emotions? A specific Psychology topic? Optimism? Pessimism? Notice how each of these describes a difference, whether it be slight or significant, between equally relevant aspects of "personality".
3) In what way do YOU believe what we write, the way we write, and how we write reflects our "personalities"?
4) Do you have credible sources backed by scientific or literary research?
I never had any problem understanding Cacian. What does she have to justify to you or get entangled in your circular and unending complications? I don't think you are capable of running this show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolescent09
Good, simple question. I think that expecting what you write not to show your personality is connected to the idea that one can go about in hiding. Ridiculous. But at the same time I don't think Cacian is more than posing the question for discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by hillwalker
It has been said that wherever you go, there you are.
it is a form of expression like any other art, and uses symbols to denote feeling, so i would have to argue yes.
If a writer wrote about a sociopath, it doesn't follow that the writer has those qualities or traits. What writing does reveal is the writer's capacity to use their knowledge to imagine and empathize to the point where they can create an array of characters that are believable to the reader.
It's interesting that you refer to my perfectly reasonable and straightforward questions as "unending complications". THEN, you follow it with a completely COMPLICATED statement: Something about running shows or nonsense like that. You said that in your other rant about me. Of WHAT SHOW DO YOU SPEAK????Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
If a writer wrote about a sociopath, it doesn't follow that the writer has those qualities or traits.
That is my problem with the notion of art as "self-expression". Romanticism and Post-Freudian ideas place too much weight upon the idea that we can discern the artist from the art. I am far more of the mindset of Oscar Wilde:
"The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim."
Who is Shakespeare? Does he reveal himself in the form of any single character? We often make statements such as "Shakespeare said, "Too thine own self be true." But Shakespeare didn't say this. His character or invention, Polonius, said this. Vladimir Nabokov writes about a pedophile. Does that make him a pedophile? Does it mean that he has such leanings? I think we must be careful about reading biographical elements into an artist's work. I don't think it is as easy as that.
What writing does reveal is the writer's capacity to use their knowledge to imagine and empathize to the point where they can create an array of characters that are believable to the reader.
Of course you are assuming that characters are a central issue to all writings. This is not necessarily true of poetry, non-fiction, etc...
Of course the artist doesn't have to be the character of his writing. But by the character he might choose you can tell a lot about his personality. Yet, Wilde might still be correct about the aim. But he definitely needs a sharpshooter. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Exactly. I don't think expression means you're revealing your own qualities and traits necessarily. But it is still expression if it comes from your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Sometimes a reader of my poetry makes assumptions about me personally as if what I wrote is an emotive reflection of what is happening in my life and gives me 'advice'. Having said that, if the reader draws such a conclusion, one must ask whether making that impression as an artist is a bad thing or a good thing.
I can see why this would be frustrating. Sometimes what you express in a poem is an emotion or experience that you don't currently feel, or in fact might rarely feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Sometimes a reader of my poetry makes assumptions about me personally as if what I wrote is an emotive reflection of what is happening in my life and gives me 'advice'. Having said that, if the reader draws such a conclusion, one must ask whether making that impression as an artist is a bad thing or a good thing.
That would depend on the artist and/or the art work, wouldn't it? If you are Nabokov, writing Lolita or Egon Schiele painting erotic images, a great many may assume that you are some sort of sexual deviant if they confuse Art with Autobiography.
My studio mate paints mostly dark images rooted in the Holocaust. I paint most colorful nudes. We have a running joke for those who question our artistic "obsessions". I point out the according to William Butler Yeats there are only two subjects worthy of consideration by the serious mind: sex and death. I then tell the person that Tom (my studio mate) and I flipped a coin... and he lost. :lol:
how would you describe someone who writes more on the thriller side as oppose to someone who only write poetry for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
interesting. what would the reason behind such rarity of feelings in poetry. Is the subconscious speaking for us instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
I do not know what to think about Nabokov or Egon but there is a root to everything. It is very difficult not to assume they are when they take it into their stride to write or paint about such things publically. How is one suppose to react do you think? emotions are personal and to expect everyone to feel that it is art and nothing is edging more bets then needed.Quote:
That would depend on the artist and/or the art work, wouldn't it? If you are Nabokov, writing Lolita or Egon Schiele painting erotic images, a great many may assume that you are some sort of sexual deviant if they confuse Art with Autobiography.
To say it is a confusion rather then a prediction or a wish out loud is tricky. Freudian slip comes to mind.
Interesting. I would say the mind is better off without 'serious'. Joviality is what the mind needs. To obsess about sex and death is not serious in my mind. It is something else.Quote:
My studio mate paints mostly dark images rooted in the Holocaust. I paint most colorful nudes. We have a running joke for those who question our artistic "obsessions". I point out the according to William Butler Yeats there are only two subjects worthy of consideration by the serious mind: sex and death. I then tell the person that Tom (my studio mate) and I flipped a coin... and he lost. :lol:
I think many may not so much see the work as autobiographical so much as a way to gauge the mind of the writer. I honestly haven't thought too much about it past this thread. Ignorance is bliss. Perhaps you've all noticed that about me in my work? :lol:
What I write is some form a combination of autobiographical and observational.