‘Anyone literate can take an implement in hand and make marks on
a flat surface,’ Atwood argues and this in itself is an undeniable fact. So
what separates the hand behind the scribbles of shopping lists and ‘To Do’
notes written everyday, by each of us, from the hands of a true writer?
I believe writers, myself included, distinguish themselves by
using language to develop something captivating; to allow us to immerse
ourselves into someone else’s life for a few hours; to be spies, to observe the
sorrow of a middle age woman who no longer loves her husband, to experience the
enduring love of a mother for her teenage daughter. Cheever made his living
providing us with striking short stories, conveying such naked emotion, that I couldn't help but feel genuine sorrow for many of his characters, particularly
for Jack Lorey in Torch Song.
A writer has the unique ability to take mundane, everyday
life (words we write, objects we see, phrases we speak) and, just an artist
does when creating a painting, craft something so original and enchanting that
people should want to read them and allow themselves to be influenced by what
they read.
Atwood captures the essence of being a writer rather perfectly, 'The point is the voice (of a writer) is unlike any other voice you have heard
and it is speaking directly to you, communing with you in private, right in
your ear, in its own distinctive way.’ How can a person’s ability to achieve an
accomplishment such as this, not make them special?
I like your argument; it's direct and logical, and backed up with examples and quotes. It's good how you use Ernst's painting as an example, instead of just relying on writers. Just one thing, though: your quote from Atwood has two quotation marks before it and just one afterwards.
ReplyDeleteThis is a strong argument. You have got your points across and have successfully backed it with lots of evidence.
ReplyDeleteVery erudite response, especially the point about language as the vehicle for escapism. If you've ever read Lolita, it's a good example on how language can manipulate emotional response; the narrator, Humbert Humbert (yes, that's really his name...I think, he's a bit unreliable), uses all this clever witty wordplay and amused detachment to charm the reader, despite being a paedophile obsessed with one particular girl.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good argument and you support it well. I liked the way you used visual arts to cement the notion of the writer being an artist and his work being art.
ReplyDeleteThe ghostly path between eye and ear - Wooo
ReplyDelete