Rafael Chirbes, one of the greatest living writers of Spain, quotes with approval the words of the literary critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki:
Most writers understand literature to the same extent as birds understand ornitology.
Chirbes agrees with the critic.
I have long observed that a writer’s analysis of his or her own work is often a lot more pedestrian and drab than what my sophomores can come up with as readers.
Well Nietzsche said that the author should shut up once they have written what they’ve had to say, because basically they are driven by spirits that they cannot hope to understand (a shamanic analysis of the writing process in a way).
As for me, I spy a deeper problem, which is that every writer has a sphere of influence or (to put it differently) range of cultural communication. This range, unfortunately (or fortunately) cannot be forced. It may be very limited, as in my case, it seems, because I write mostly about the unravelling of minds due to regime change and civil war. (You will see this cursory statement is by not means an explanation, but a delimitation of sorts.) A writer cannot manage to extend his or her sphere of communication by speaking plainly about their range. They can only acknowledge the likely delimitations. It is mental confusion to think you can build bridges of communication with explanations.
LikeLike
Well, I was taught that this was the case — I mean, virtually every professor says it — but actually find many writers to be quite interesting on writing, sometimes including their own.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment