Firstly, I have a general question directed towards those of you in the writing world (and yes, blogging counts as part of the writing world): do you consider your audience when you write?
and to break things down further from there: whom do you think is your audience? and when you write, do you think about anyone in particular? people you know are going to read your book, your article or column, or see your blog for instance? do you censor what you write based on what you think your audience demands? or is it more like whatever, I don't care who's reading, or I'm not even thinking about who's reading?
I'm just curious about this, and pass no judgement one way or the other. As far as my poetry and fiction are concerned, there is no audience unless I decide to share my work with others and therefore I am aware that there IS no audience unless I want there to be; hence, I usually don't write with an audience in mind. Usually, my process is that I write down whatever my brain throws up and go back to polish it up at a later time. As far as papers go, well, yes, I am incredibly aware of the audience (hello professor) but not intimidated by said audience. The thing I worry most about is correct verb tense (not in English however), noun-adjective and verb-adverb agreements not to mention all the other little pecularities of a second language (or third) with which I am yet inexpert. When I write in English, I don't need to consciously consider my audience the same way that I do when I write in other languages, mostly because I am so used to communicating in English that it just comes second nature. As far as the blog goes, I am aware of an audience and while I don't write specifically for them per se, I will occasionally think of them as I write and perhaps insert comments that only they will understand. I am also well aware that readership here is not all that high, and I do not publicize the blog, nor do I comment very often on others' blogs (FOR SHAME, JOLIE!!), so I'm pretty safe here to say whatever the hell I want, knowing that I'm a very faint star in the galaxy of the internet, and probably can't even been seen in very well-lit areas, being drowned out by the ambient light and less visible than other, brighter stars. That being said, let me proceed with my post:
In the process of thinking about readership and writership (due in part to my exposure to such greats as Dante, Boccaccio, Ovid, Virgil, Shakespeare, D'Annunzio, Emerson, Eliot, and the list just goes on an on) I have come to understand that sometimes, audience is everything. The intended audience can really play a part in the writing!! Consider: Boccaccio declared in the introduction to the Decameron (I can't believe I'm actually referencing Boccaccio....I apparently really do love him) that he was indebted to the women in his life for many things. He furthered that idea later on in the book when refuting his critics he said that women were absolutely capable (a fact often denied and repudiated by men of the time) of thinking (GASP!)! but beyond thinking, of cleverness, astuteness (damn that sounds so much better in Italian), and ingenuity. His critics had chastised him repeatedly apparently for being to involved with women and concentrating too much on them in his writing. Seven of the ten narrators in the Decameron were women, and many of the characters in the novelle were female and smart, not at all like your traditional victim types.
The Decameron is written in the vulgate floretine language of the time (1349 a.d.) (which later evolves into Standard Italian with a few tweaks here and there) NOT in Latin. However, Boccaccio did write other works in Latin: he wrote a commentary on Dante's Divine Comedy as well as De Genealogiis decorum gentilium which is basically a geanology of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses (already done by Ovid). I'm relatively sure that he wrote something related to the Bible as well, but don't quote me on that. Clearly, he considered his audience as evidenced by his choice of language. He wrote for the learned community in Latin and for everyone in vulgate. His stories (the novelle) are all written in the vulgate floretine while his more "academic" persuits are written in Latin. He was clearly appealing to the aristocracy with his novelle while appealing to the more highly educated sector of society (monks, ecclesiastical sorts, lawyers, doctors, academics, philosophers, etc) with his various treatises on more "serious" subjects.
Take R.W. Emerson and H.D. Thoreau as further examples: Their writing styles are very different and I believe that that is due, in part, to their perceived audiences. It is clear that Emerson appealed to a highly educated, politically involved audience, while Thoreau appealed to a less educated, and less politically involved audience. I think Emerson was trying raise points to those already enmeshed in "higher" pursuits, while Thoreau was trying to encourage people to aspire to high pursuits. Their politics were slightly different as well, and obviously that accounts for some of the differences in writing style (not to mention that they are both individuals with unique brains and unique viewpoints), but overall, I think that the stylistic differences can also be accounted for by each man's perception of his audience.
And then there's Dante Alighieri: Dante wrote the Divina Commedia in vulgate floretine, while he wrote De volgare eloquentia in Latin, completely for the sake of audience and adherence to form. At that time (1301 a.d.) it was common for treatises (both legal and academic) to be written in Latin, while literature was being written in vulgate, predominantly directed towards the common people (most women couldn't read unless they were nuns, even aristocratic women were not very highly educated, though more of them were educated than peasant women) and there are actually numerous examples of educated women (read: doctors) in Italy during this period in history.
So, after all of this, we have finally reached our conclusion: audience and the writers' conscious awareness thereof can have a heavy impact on writing. This extends to all sorts of writing throughout history. Despite the absence of blogs and newspapers (the printing press wasn't even invented until 1451 a.d., but it sure as hell revolutionized the written word!!) or written work that would reach the peasant masses (because they couldn't read it!!) in the Roman Empire, the 1300's or the late 19th early 20th centuries (ok, so we had newspapers by then), it is abundantly clear that since people have been writing, audience has been a consideration. I have always been fascinated with writing, and what it does to the brain. Why is it that when we write something down we tend to remember it better? or in the process of writing, arguments become clearer and further solidified? or when writing poetry, one image bounces off another which results in profound picture and vision into the author? It is easier to make connections between ideas when writing and rereading one's own work.....
I love to write, and I love to read, and even though I don't comment all that often, nor do I participate in forums and other online interactive activites, I am still always curious to see peoples' processes, which in my opinion, are always creative, and always fun to participate in because after all, when you read actively, you are a participant in the process.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento