Dear Assmilk,
I am not claiming to be James Frey or JT Leroy here. Fictions is a work of art and, presumably, a work of fiction so the only "whole truth" I am particularly concerned with is the one contained within the text. And trust me, in matters of infidelity, the whole truth is never truly known. People, even in their penance, only give palatable versions of it.
You also bring in the issues of "boundaries", "conscience" and "admission of mistakes" - I presume you agree that those things have as much relevance, or more even, within the context of the commission of the act of infidelity as they do within the artistic representation of it. Making a judgment on such issues without being in possession of the whole text seems a reckless and overly emotive thing to do.
Penultimately, the statement that a good writer is clever enough to disguise his characters from their real models is, frankly, bullshit. The level to which one disguises and obfuscates has more to do with the artistic judgment of the creator than it has to do with his/her "cleverness". And I reserve all such judgments when it comes to my work...it's my work. In the original post, I cited Graham Greene's The End of the Affair in which he made no attempt to disguise its basis on his adulterous affair (they were both married) with Lady Catherine Walston: in fact he dedicated the American edition of the book "To Catherine." What on earth does that have to with his ability as a writer?
Last lap: Regarding your categoric pronouncement on infidelity and human nature: Don't take my excerpts as indicative of any personal position that I may have. All they are are teasers. I have a statement in another infidelity-themed story in the book which basically says the complete opposite. Sue me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment