This is a debate that I could talk about for hours on end - but you would all probably get bored and stop reading, so I'll try to keep this concise!
First of all, we need to decide what we mean by 'invisible'; are we talking about the author's presence within their own work, i.e. their personal views, agendas and what have you, or their real world influence over the way their work is read?
In terms of the first definition, I personally believe that a writer does not have an obligation to try and communicate their own agendas and beliefs through their writing. If the quality of the narrative is good and it engages the reader, then there is no need for projection of personal views. However, I also would disagree with the statement in cases where a writer did feel it was necessary to communicate an issue that they felt particularly strongly about or that had affected them personally.
In terms of real world influence over the reading of their work, it's important to consider the theory of Roland Barthes' Death of the Author, which explores the idea that as soon as a piece of writing is published and released into the public domain, the author loses any and all influence over the way it is read. In this way, it seems that it is impossible for a writer NOT to be invisible. I wonder if perhaps this is a good thing, though; often, it seems that writers who insist on speaking out about their intentions for the work are met with hostility from fans - perhaps they ought to take a leaf out of Barthes' book and just be invisible.
Your comment about writers being met with hostility from fans, makes me instantly think of JK Rowling and her claim that Ron and Hermione shouldn't have been together. So many fans were angry or just disregarded her comment, but does that make it any less true? Does the author have supreme control over their work even after they've finished writing, or it is like Bartes says, and it's now in the domain of the reader?
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting question, isn't it? As you say, you could easily deliberate over this question for hours. In regards to your point about how writers shouldn't put their personal views on things into their narrative, how would you know if they weren't trying to hide a view by presenting it with the counter-argument at the same time or burying it under nuances and the like? How would we even know if we've then been affected by their views? Is that a scary thought, or what!
ReplyDeleteIt makes me think about the number of authors out there, there is no way we can possibly know about all of them, so they are invisible. Its the authors that become famous that get the chance to choose whether to hide in the shadows or dance in the sun. But even if they choose not be invisible, like Holly said, fans can be presented with a contradictory author to that, that they imagined.
ReplyDelete