1. How do you decide if someones literature is good or not? Is worthy? Allen is continually discussing how nervous writers get about producing work that people will want to read, that they like. Literature in a way is like art. In one persons' eyes a painting might be an absolute master piece. While to another this piece of art might be nothing out of the ordinary, even boring. How do we decide what is good, who gets to decide. Just because I think a work of literature is very well written and grabs my attention, doesn't mean others will think the same. Personally, I don't like Edgar Allen Poe's work. But he is a very famous author. So is it all in the eye of the beholder when it comes to deciding whether literature is good?
2. Do authors write for the audience or do they write to write and express themselves? I don't think Dr. Phil has any true writing abilities, but he still has books published. But there are other authors out there, who I really believe write because it's how they express themselves and they feel a need, an urge to write. Why do I ask this? I think authors like Dr. Phil have no real talent and write just for the money and the attention per say.
3. From what I'm understanding Allen is describing the inspired author as one who doesn't have fears or worries about what the audience will think of his/her work, never has writers block and everything they write is perfect, per say? The real writer is actually admits and knows that all they're work isn't perfect, they're going to struggle sometimes, they're going to have writers block but it's okay because it happens to the best of them?
No comments:
Post a Comment