Someone (from an intro I have lost) said that Balzac damaged his writing skill by essentially being forced by life to write too fast
-TaoPhoenix
How could anyone who was not a contemporary and close personal friend of Balzac possibly know that to be true? Seriously. :huh:
I drives me crazy when biographers or 'intro' writers present their personal opinions or conclusions about about something in an author's life as an established fact. Perhaps it makes for a quotable line or two in a review. But it usually has scant basis in fact.
-40hz
Your thought there reminds me of a forum post I read about six or seven years ago in a forum dedicated to school children learning about and having homework assignments on Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird". The forum was always filled with posts by students asking inane questions like "What does Boo Radley represent?" and "What is the meaning of the dog being shot in relation to the death of a mockingbird?" Apparently teachers tend to ask students to over-analyze the hell out of every aspect of the book. Harper Lee, who would stop in from time to time and directly answer questions from students, posted something on the order of "Why do so many teachers insist on asking students to come up with answers or speculation on such topics? Did you ever consider that I just wrote that because it appealed to me and sounded just right?" She sounded a bit aggravated about reading so many "themes" teachers were tasking their students with. Not surprisingly that post didn't seem to change a thing.
I agree that critics love to fabricate the thoughts and ideas of writers past when they have no real knowledge of their thoughts and reasons.
(Damn! I printed the exchange out back then but I fear that I lost it. :'( )
Jim