[-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology: Authorship

[Yunzi Li]

Dear Cris,
I am very interested in the Isaac Beshevis Singers books about his
relatinship with his translators that mentioned in your letter, could you
tell me the name? Thanks.
Melody

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:27 AM, christopher sullivan <csulli at saic.edu>wrote:

>
> Hi Scott This is all a lot of energy to argue against something that is so
> obviously true, singular authors write books... influences, editors, advise
> along the way, is not collaboration. it is very necessary and helpful, but
> the
> author is the main voice. why is authorship so threatening? perhaps it
> implies
> valuative intellectual skills, and that makes people nervous. Not me I like
> to
> be put in my place as an active reader, by a great writer, but I am not
> their
> collaborator.
>
> There is an interesting forward in one of Isaac Beshevis Singers books
> about his
> relatinship with his translators, that supports your argument. It is a fine
> piece of writing.
>
> Writing is social in it's moment of reception, but not conception. and that
> is
> fine. Chris.
>
>
> Quoting Scott Rettberg <scott at retts.net>:
>
> > Hello again,
> >
> > In the next few days I want to pick up more on some of Johannes'
> > questions and Simon's thoughts and some of the interesting ways in
> > which the idea of authorship is challenged and reformulated. I also
> > think there are some things to consider about the economics of
> > electronic literature (to the extent that there are any). Finally, I
> > want to say a few words about why I think there hasn't yet been a
> > great deal of activity in creative writing programs towards developing
> > curricula for digital writing.
> >
> > As I wrote earlier, I think that the conception of authorship as a
> > solitary activity conducted by the creatively inspired individual has
> > always been more mythological than real. True, writing is very much a
> > reflective / recursive process, in which the individual wrestles with
> > his or her own ideas and then frames them as textual expression. It is
> > an intensely personal activity. Few print novels or poems are actually
> > *written* collaboratively.
> >
> > But the process of writing involves more than that work, more than
> > those moments of framing thought. Stories emerge most often from the
> > examples and archetypes or other works of literature that the author
> > has read. Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books or JK Rowling's Harry
> > Potter would not have been possible in the same way without Bram
> > Stoker's Dracula or Le Guin's Earthsea novels, which might not have in
> > turn been possible without JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Works of
> > literature have always been produced in conversation with other
> > writing. Most of those writers, in turn, work in conversation with and
> > in close proximity to other writers. When Tolkien was writing Lord of
> > the Rings, for instance, he was bringing drafts of it to the Eagle and
> > Child Pub in Oxford and reading them aloud to his writer's group, the
> > inklings, which included CS Lewis, whose Narnia books Tolkien
> > disapproved of at the time. Those readings, and the discussions about
> > the books the inklings were writing at the time, are undoubtedly a
> > significant part of the process of authoring those books, regardless
> > of whose name ended up on the volume.
> >
> > The writing process is most often social. The contemporary writing
> > workshop at American universities is social writing practiced on an
> > industrial scale. And once the book is accepted by a publisher, this
> > process continues, with editors, marketers, designers, typesetters and
> > so forth contributing to the processing of producing, distributing,
> > spinning the cultural artifact. And today's capital A Authors, those
> > lucky few who actually live off of the proceeds of their work,
> > collaborate with Oprah's book club, Charlie Rose, film-makers and
> > video game producers. The author is not alone.
> >
> > I would argue that the reason the name is on the book is in such bold
> > type is not even really because the author is much more important than
> > any other part of the process. The name of the author is on the book
> > because it provides the publishers with an entity to contract, and to
> > purchase the rights from, and to own the proceeds of, and to sell
> > again. The author is a signature on a contract as much or more than it
> > is a human being.
> >
> > Another authorship story:
> >
> > The writer of digital literature suddenly finds the tools of design at
> > hand, a global distribution network at a click, and a small but
> > responsive international audience in the inbox. This is a different
> > sort of authorship, liberating but unromantic. This sort of author
> > understands the whole process in a different way, in part because she
> > is seeing the whole process in a different way, in part because her
> > audience is seeing the whole process in a different way, and in part
> > because she is operating in an entirely different sort of environment
> > and system than she might have been tutored in during her years in
> > writer's workshop.
> >
> > She will never get rich doing this. She will never sell the film
> > rights. She will never do many things that capital A authors do. She
> > will likely live a more or less normal life and you will not recognize
> > her on the street. She will be like many famous poets in this way. She
> > will on the other hand have the opportunity to work outside of the
> > system inherited from centuries past, or participate in the building
> > of a new one.
> >
> > She will realize the complex layers of authorship involved in writing
> > using platforms that are themselves authored.  In doing so, she will
> > become unauthor as she authors. She will lend, borrow from, steal, and
> > give in the process of writing and building literary artifacts. She
> > will be conscious of these acts. She will build with samples and feeds
> > and the inputs of an unimaginably large choir. She will play in a huge
> > sandbox with many toys, and quite likely few observers would
> > understand what she is doing or why. And then, of a sudden, maybe . . .
> >
> > This, I think, will be fun.
> >
> > Watching these scientists at work, systematically experimenting with
> > hybrid creatures born of the word and some friends (images, moving
> > pictures, sound, code), and some other things that just wandered into
> > the party unnoticed, it will be fun.
> >
> > It will be a regenerative period for authorship. It already is.
> >
> > All the Best,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
>
> Christopher Sullivan
> Dept. of Film/Video/New Media
> School of the Art Institute of Chicago
> 112 so michigan
> Chicago Ill 60603
> csulli at saic.edu
> 312-345-3802
>  _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20100729/dbd7a772/attachment.html>