"I guess it depends on the purpose of "language", and thereby writing
itself, though not just writing, but art as a whole. I use it as a
container of experience. And therefore all I care is that it's clear
and accurate. To use the visual arts that you cited, you could perhaps
think of it as a snapshot, a photo of some sort. You see a something
that you'd like to document, you take its photo. Except that words
have a facility for describing less tangible thing, like
relationships, thoughts and feelings."
this is a good summation of your motives with writing, thanks for that.
interestingly though, I have to say that this is also the way I view
(my) poetry. a container for experience, or of _the senses_
('sensation'). I've long read/written/studied haiku, & this attitude
of experience of everything that surrounds us is conveyed in that
artform in a degree that makes it very nearly spiritual, but as rooted
to consciousness/personality/reality as is possible in language.
that's the sort of energy I try to use when I write; whether it's
haiku or poems (a differentiation).
the question I asked wasn't about your appoach towards poetry, really,
but about your approach to experience of it, & of the role of poetic
language, poetic integrity & poetic Quality. all of which concern the
desire of a writer to share his or her work, or not share it.
I can certainly comprehend the idea that someone writes only for the
pleasure of writing, of documenting something & then discarding it, as
it were. a friend of mine actually does that literally; he writes
short stories, by hand because he doesn't have a computer, but
recently threw out all of his papers because he moved into a new
apartment & (a) didn't want to haul them over & (b) didn't think they
were as good as they might have been. I asked in bewilderment whether
he'd ever heard of editing, & I've yet to really understand the way he
writes. just because I don't understand the way someone who never
shares their work uses language, doesn't mean I can't respect it. :)
the big qualm I have with 'writing for oneself' is that there is no
'quality control' beyond the writer's own discipline, which can only
be lax as it is only himself that he needs to please. the reason this
is a qualm (I like that word) is that for me writing is sometimes
called "the craft" because I believe in Quality. perhaps it can be
called integrity as mentioned, or skill, or power, or intactness, or
fullness, &c. but without outside response & influence, I can't
imagine a writer being able to both care about & control said Quality.
these are terribly theoretical issues, & it's always hard to grasp
someone else's differing point of view (!) with something like
artistic creation; probably because points of view on these things are
hard to convey as it is!
K S
