Recently, thundara posted an article by Timothy Krieder titled The Quiet Ones that ran in the New York Times. It spurred some good discussion and I wrote Mr. Krieder to invite him to take part in the discussion. Below is his response back to me:
Thanks so much and absolutely not. I am a twentieth-century guy and believe that the author's job is over once something's been published. That piece got cut way down from its original length and so there are, of course, all sorts of things I wish I could add to it--little insights and tangents and qualifications and the one anecdote that made me sound like a heroic defender of decency--but I don't get to so too bad for me. It's the readers' turn to have their say now, uninterrupted by my defensive explanation. So although I am gratified that the piece has provoked so much discussion on your site, I think I will abide by Quiet Car rules and say nothing.
Tim Kreider
I enjoyed the response and thought it brought up some interesting questions. Now that every online magazine and aggregator has a comment section, we see an interaction between author and consumer that was never present in the past. Is this a good thing? Is there value in just leaving it all on the page?
Incidentally, Mr. Krieder and I corresponded once again and he was very kind and intends to stop by Hubski and perhaps partake in discussions that don't revolve around his own work and he granted me permission to post this correspondence. Nice guy.
Shout-out to those that took part in the discussion on the original post: kleinbl00, cgod, b_b, lil, mk, sounds_sound, steve, JTHipster, cloud_ctrl
Tim's response is great - very thoughtful. My answer: It depends. Is the author's "job" to write and publish? Is the commenting consumer's "job" done once they post their comment? Anyone thinking about this question probably defines their "job" and their participation idiosyncratically. This leads me to another question, but more on this later. I have to pack as I'm leaving on a jet plane, shortly. -- by the way New Green - the story about my mother in the book I sent you, has some comments on the crass sexism of the song Leaving on a Jet Plane, p. 121.Is an author's job done once their piece has been published?
Precisely - the author's obligation to the work depends entirely on the author's purpose with the work. If one were writing an ecological manifesto designed to alter the behavior of a vast swath of humanity, simply writing it and walking away would be irresponsible. If, however, one wishes to spill a trifle into the Sunday Times that was intended as a small, modest, thought-provoking piece, the best move is to leave it be. I often quote Jeron Lanier in discussions such as this, who covers total anonymity, operational anonymity and pseudonymity in "You are not a Gadget." As a named author with a reputation and a body of work, hashing it out with the pseudonymous is a losing venture. There is no upside. You are effectively on trial against and endless sea of people in masks who want only to get their licks in. The most effective thing is to let the work find its own champions - after all, if your point didn't get across in what you wrote, that means you failed as a writer... and attempting to triangulate public opinion back to what you "meant" from what you "said" is always a losing proposition.
That's an insight that defines the catalyst of a number of social media debacles. Not only is it a blindspot for those haplessly trying to defend themselves, but it remains a problem that much of the general public view the internet as a place where someone ought to have the ability to properly defend themselves in a manner that reflects the non-anonymous world. Seeing that Krieder is the author of some pretty scathing comic satire, I would guess that he is hip to all this.As a named author with a reputation and a body of work, hashing it out with the pseudonymous is a losing venture.
It is the A #1 problem with Reddit. 1) Person writes something insightful or funny under total anonymity because there are 2 million usernames and who the hell cares 2) 2 million usernames note the insight 3) Person's random string of numbers and letters goes from total anonymity to pseudonymity as people note the consistency of insight/humor 4) Dichotomy between anonymity and pseudonymity becomes obvious as pseudonymity requires maintaining a reputation and anonymity does not 5) Pseudonymous contributor can no longer participate anonymously under pseudonym and either vanishes back into the noise or becomes a hated object by anonymous commenters who were hating you before you were cool Reddit kills its rock stars on a monthly basis. Any social setup like theirs would do the same. When you emphasize the ease of account creation and degrade the responsibility one user has to another, you will end up with "[first post] (finally found some facebook gold) (crossposted from /r/aww) HIVEMIND UPVOTE ME FOR POINTS"
Props for reaching the author to expand the discussion. I missed the original post, but it's an interesting point on the role the author plays. It's going to vary a ton depending on the type of work: journalistic work absolutely needs to be corrected if inaccurate at publication. Opinion pieces? Depends on if you think the discussion is up to the audience or not. Creative work? It's a little unclear (can anyone keep George Lucas' grimy hands off Star Wars?)
I can agree with that view on opinion pieces like this. It just serves to get the ball rolling, the discussion that follows is way more valuable. Besides, for professional authors like him, unless they have a specific agenda, I would imagine they'd want to prioritize looking for the next thing to write about.
It's a great response. Like the others here, I feel it depends on the piece, and the motivations for writing it. In this case, I can perfectly understand Krieder's position. It was an effective piece, and it stands as a work that reflects a perspective coming from a specific time and place.
I think it's brilliant that you reached out to him. I enjoyed his response except for the first line. I know I shouldn't read emotions in text, but "absolutely not" seems so abrupt and prickish. If it wasn't for the rest of his remarks and your qualifications of him as a "Nice guy" I would have thought he was a bit big for his britches.
I can see where you are coming from regarding the absolutely not, but because it was preceded by Thanks so much and followed by his stated gratification that it has provoked thought here, I found the response well balanced and reasoned. Also, his second email was quite nice. I'd also point out that only about 1/2 of those I reach out to respond back and they're generally enthusiastic about participating. This is only the second person that has responded but didn't wish to partake. The other was Steve Pavlina who basically said, "no I wrote that 6 years ago and I'm not interested in talking about it". Here is the post. He then sent me another article of his and said "people may find this of interest though". So, he said "no" but then wanted me to post more of his work for him. If you read the comments in the post I link to, you'll likely not blame him for not engaging.
1. It was interesting and illuminating to read that Krieder's piece "got cut way down from its original length." I'm wondering how many people reading that sentence assumed that "got cut" meant not by him. Note though, the wording doesn't necessarily mean it was cut by someone else. After originally submitting it, they might have said "Lose 1500 words" - and he went about ruthlessly editing his own piece. I think that's why he is letting the piece stand on his own. 2. I did not take the "absolutely not" to be hostile or arrogant. Sometimes we know where we stand and we want to make that clear. 3. Steven, I think it's great the way you reach out to writers. Writers often work in something of a vacuum. It can be wonderful to hear from someone about one's work. Asking someone to participate in a discussion requires a little extra research and thought. It's amazing that 1/2 respond back and are willing to engage. If I read a very moving letter in the newspaper (which we still get), or find a fabulous but mostly unknown poem by a still-living author, I often locate the author and send a quick email of thx or agreement. Most of the time, they write me back by noon saying something appreciative. We've connected and shared some humanity. It's not hard to see why all the networking technology has been so compelling and so addictive to so many people. A kind of "connection" is possible without the dizzying demands of the agora.
Yah - like I said - after reading the rest of his reply it became much more clear - but at first it just seemed so jarring. You know - if you had asked me the same, my answer would have been "Thanks very much for the invitation, but no." But I tend to err on the side of polite.