I spent a long time on Friday trying to digest Elizabeth Bear's comments on authorial constructs, and I don't think I really understand what she's talking about.
Over the weekend, I had an interaction with some people who happened to be readers of my work, and that made me understand her comments even less. I tried to talk about it here on my livejournal, but as I said in my comment to Kelly's post on Friday. I think I'm laboring under a misunderstanding about what this thing is -- authorial construct, because if I have one, I've never properly used it.
I mean, I understand that one ought to be professional-looking/acting at a con. I also understand that, to some extent, my life on "the Internets" is a kind of a lie. I, in point of fact, HAVE a pseudonym. But, I don't really understand how any of this is something that is going to confuse a reader of mine when I meet them in person. Perhaps this has to do with my position in the strata of famousness. I get squeed at, sure. But, I think my writing is pretty awesome too. So my experience tends to be a mutual squee. Then we talk about LotRs or Battlestar Galactica or Latin clubs and life goes on....
But I will admit to bouncing off her post initially. I'm absolutely certain there's some key component I'm not getting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just so everyone knows, I do understand what Bear is talking about in terms of this construct being something someone else creates.... I just still don't GET it.
Naomi pointed out that Scalzi is talking about this too, but I don't truly *get* what he's saying either...
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/01/30/being-fictional/
This is so much out of my realm of experience it's not even funny.
I just wrote a long response, then realized it was actually a post, so I posted it to the blog. But it is in response to your notes here, and I attributed it thus.
this is the first time i've ever heard of such a thing. i'll continue reading. :)
Post a Comment