« Productive? Or shirking? | Main | Now for some fiction »
October 27, 2007
Bittersweet and brooding writers
Molly Backes and Sarah Aswell, two urbanites I vaguely and indirectly know, today on their blogs kicked off a conversation about what it means to be a writer, and how they each approach their writing lives.
Both write fiction and non-fiction, and both infuse their non-fiction with their subjective experiences. As a newspaper reporter, whose job - at least theoretically - is to engage an audience, defend democracy and renounce subjectivity - I enjoyed their different takes on the scribbler's life.
Says Molly, on her blog Bittersweet:
Of course, as any writer knows, the second you commit something to the page, it becomes a sort of fiction, regardless of how hard you try to stay true to what really happened. You have personal bias, discrepancies in memory and perception, and as a story teller you’re always making choices about what to include or not include, what to emphasize and what to ignore. As a fiction writer, I think I’m more guilty of this than most, because I tend to believe that sometimes fiction tells the truth in a way that non-fiction can’t.
I struggle with some of the issues Molly raises in my different writerly guises.
The minute I cease to believe in objectivity and truth at work I deserve to be locked out of the office. My mission as a newspaper reporter is to present fair, truthful and unbiased information that gives readers tools to better understand and navigate the world around them.
Can objectivity and subjectivity co-exist, or is that an inherent oxymoron? Because any halfway-decent writer, newspaper or otherwise, will judge what information to include, how to present it, how to have the most impact. Yet there are obviously subjective decisions involved in pulling together any decent article, regardless of the story's objective voice.
So I have my differences with Molly and Sarah, although I agree with much of what they say. I like Sarah's take on writerly compulsions, described on her blog Brood:
There won’t be a day when everyone wakes up a writer. Just like there won’t be a day when we all wake up painters or politicians or Martians. I write all day and it isn’t fun, but it’s all I know to do. We don’t go to literary events and we don’t smoke cigarettes and we don’t talk about the novel we’re working on (after work, at lunch, during work) because we’re embarrassed by this problem we have: writing.
The question I'd pose to Sarah and Molly: How much do you write for yourself? How much do you write for an audience? What is your relationship with that audience, what are your responsibilities to your readers and what do you expect from them in turn?
Posted by Courtney_Sherwood at October 27, 2007 04:03 PM
Comments
Courtney, thank you for joining the conversation! I think that you're absolutely right, that your job as a newspaper reporter is "to present fair, truthful and unbiased information that gives readers tools to better understand and navigate the world around them." I'd like to think that every reporter has the same mission, though unfortunately it's not always the case. I have a great deal of respect for you as a writer and reporter, and I think you do a great job of presenting issues in a truthful and unbiased way.
However, I do believe that it's impossible to be absolutely free of bias in any writing, simply because the act of writing involves making choices and using filters, both personal and cultural. Word choice can reflect a great deal of bias, as most words carry connotation and shades of meaning. Furthermore, the language itself can affect the meaning of the work; some languages have words for concepts that simply do not translate into other languages, and without words, such concepts have little or no meaning. Sapir-Whorf posited that the language you speak affects the way you construct thought, and that your thoughts are bound by your language.
Of course, this is all rather abstract and theoretical. I used to teach bias analysis, so I've thought about it a lot. I think that on a less abstract level, it's possible and *neccessary* to achieve a high level of objectivity in good reporting.
I'm still thinking about your other questions, but I'll answer them soon. Thanks!
Posted by: Molly at October 28, 2007 03:06 PM