A Writer should be invisible. Do you agree or disagree?

This has always been a question when it comes down to writing – ‘Should a writer be invisible in his or her own line of work. I myself feel that a writer should not be directly present within his or her own piece of work for if the book is a genuinely good enough read the author should not find the need to be present in order for their writing to have a significant impact upon their reader. This is not to say however, that unlike Cheever you should not create or invent characters that are smaller people or scraps of yourself for I agree with Bert Carson that if the piece is successful than the writer has the right to be acknowledged in all shapes and forms.

Why Might A Writer Choose to Make Their Characters suffer?

As a child do you remember having to often worry about things? For most of you I would expect for this answer to be a no but now that we’re adults I find that this is the only ever thing that we often do. As children we’d only ever find and read books that had a happily ever after ending to it but now that were adults this is the one thing in books that we cannot often find.

Cheever’s writing is a perfectly good example of this. The Swimmer ends in death and the realization of a wasted life and the Reunion reflects a father who can only repeatedly sabotage his meetings with his estranged son ‘leaving both of them lacking the thing they most want, some connection and authentic change’. It’s safe to say that children wouldn't usually tend to come across anything like this; they’d come across a bad guy instead but then this bad guy would get killed and the world would carry on as normal.

The only argument that I can support in favor for this as to why an author might find the need to make their characters suffer is because we are all individuals that are expected to live in the ‘real world’. As humans we progress from childhood, to stages of adolescence and then to adult hood and it is here that we begin to realize that nothing is ever as it seems. Harsh realities and brutal truths set in but from my experience what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

It does not matter whether a writer writes about any recognisable social or political subject as long as the quality exceeds the expectations. Agree or Disagree?

Heraclitus, an infamous pre – Socratic Greek philosopher once said ‘’ If you do not expect the unexpected you will not find it, for it is not reached by search or trail.’’ As a young prolific writer, my vision became obscure – I had a tendency to follow and ‘imitate’ other writers. Now that I am a more mature writer (or I would like to think so) I am inclined to believe that it would be an offense to not write about something that has taken me by surprise, whether it is writing about my life style choices or recent experiences that I have just previously had to face.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether there is an agenda to my writing or not for I believe that our purpose, our purpose as writers is to convey our own ‘silent message’. As I reflect further upon the quotation provided by Heraclitus, I cannot help but feel that every writer should have a sense of entitlement to write about whatever it is that they would like to write about. – But the difference is it should come sub consciously and from the heart. We shouldn't set ourselves the intention to ‘follow’ other writers. Yes, if we review another writer’s piece of work it is not to say that we should not acknowledge their hard work ,impressive creativity and sense of style but instead ‘build upon this’ and set our own boundaries. After all we only learn from our own mistakes. It is our own mistakes which help us to grow and to develop as writers.

My message to you is if you have the opportunity to write about a sensitive socio economic or political issue then please do so – grasp it by the hand. If not then it’s not the end of the world! So don’t worry about it for it will not impact on the quality of your writing only on what you learn instead.

John Cheever wrote many short stories in what was referred to as the 'New Yorker style'. Why might a writer have a style?

It comes as no surprise that, Cheever only wrote about the things that were most important to him. Kuresishi, establishes that Cheever would only ever focus on what he called the ‘bitter mystery of marriage and the way marriage can make passion seem improbable, if not impossible.’ Cheever was by far and large a very confused and an unhappy man as shown by the fact that he was not comfortable in his own skin. He claimed: ‘I don’t work with plots. I work with intuition, apprehension, dreams and concepts. I don’t like to work with plot, plot implies a narrative and a lot of crap.’

His writing style has been described as uniquely authentic, powerful, rich and deep in voice and it is this which effectively allows him to communicate with his intended target audience - to express how unfair that it is for people to judge or to provide a passing comment on the fact that he was ‘different to the rest’. In Cheever’s eyes just because you were different to the rest didn’t mean you were any less of a person and he wanted to emphasise this fact. He did this by providing a voice through the use of highly effective, emotive language and imagery.

A Friend to remember

I am one of many 

small branches attached to a broken tree.

Always looking to the ones above

for guidance, strength and security.

As I look upon the branches that are scattered

to the left and right of me,

I find myself asking who else is it going to be?

Who will fall?

Who will stay?

Who is willing to worry about the price they will 

have to pay?

I now stand alone, ad-mist through the fog and rain

As I see the one branch that I truly loved

scattered about me in pain.

Why did she have to go?

She lived a life of happiness, a life filled with love

And from one little mistake now looks down at us

From up above.

Never to return...