Double B's

It's funny; the first thing I thought of when reading Boothe's essay was John Wilkes Booth. So I pictured a guy with a pistol in a movie theater. Weird...

Anyway, I have to say that there was one thing that stuck out to me in Boothe's article. Although seemingly pointless, it got me to thinking. Is our responsibility to the author to buy their book? I was really wrestling with this idea. It kind of bothered me, because although I get the point, I still hate the idea that we HAVE to buy a book. If my friend has a copy, I'll borrow it. Saves money, you know? But then there's that counter argument that says writers won't continue writing if you don't meet their financial needs. I say: if they love doing what they do, they'll find some way to keep publishing their books. I'm not entirely convinced on this 'responsibility.'

I like to read for entertainment. That's pretty much the only time I'll pick up a book. And I think that's because the reading process doesn't follow the behaviour of what Boothe talks about. When I read Jurassic Park, I don't think the author's thoughts become my own. I believe that throughout my reading, I am an outside entity that views the events and the characters separately. I view it as a spectator and follow the story.

On the other hand, when I start reading essays and journals and articles, I can see Boothe's point a little more clearly. There is a subconscious submission that happens where the thoughts on the page become your own -- even if for the slightest second. I've felt that before, because sometimes when I read, I almost hear MYSELF saying the words. Then I catch my self and I say wait a minute; I don't agree with this. There is that moment where you lose yourself and that is what has to happen I think. I agree with that. It's the same concept with food. Little kids always say they don't like something before they even try it. And there are times when writing becomes spinach -- we say we don't like it before immersing ourselves in it.

I was bothered by Barthes. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that no one's writing is original because the words they use or 'stock' words and phrases that have been boundlessly used. All the writers do is put them in different orders. And at this point, the words act on their own; the writer disappears. Now, if I'm wrong, then ignore this paragraph. If I'm right, then what scares me is that I think he's kind of right. I've always felt this lingering sensation that what I write is nothing new. It's just a bunch of phrases overly used -- like mad libs where I fill in the blanks. That kind of bothers me because it makes me want to achieve something original, and I know I can't. It's very frustrating.

Although Barthes suggests eliminating the author and Boothe suggests acknowledging him/her, I feel that Boothe is closer to the truth. The level of acknowledgment is somewhere in between, but I think one should show responsibility to the author more than they stay disconnected form him/her. So take that Barthes!