He was a great story-teller, creating stunning poetry of otherwise dreary real events that figured prominently in our history. Secondly, the English language he wrote in was substantially enhanced by him via his prodigious skills as a wordsmith, creating over a thousand new words which have been zealously added to the lexicon. With his contributions he truly enriched the language in very significant ways.
One could then delve into the frame of mind he wrote his immortal pieces. Did he write for his own satisfaction and appreciation, or pride, displaying phenomenal skills not enjoyed by many? In other words, did he write to express and pursue his deep passions for writing to enable him to see how far and how deeply he could develop such skills? And in the process also revel in having produced notable pieces of art. The utter joys of the beaming artisan in front of his own creation!
We are quite conversant with the intimate connections of literature with mysticism, embodying in both the author’s grand vision and ambitions, his consuming restlessness and dissatisfaction with life as lived. Though he also finds joys and delight at the creative discoveries of his own handiwork.
Or did he write pursuing commercial ends? Did he live an opulent style producing those beautiful poetic works? This is highly doubtful, as well as I suppose for most noted writers of the past eras.
Or did he write essentially so other people would be able to read them and understand for the reasons he wrote them? His many poetic works are truly beautiful uses of the written word. But can we be certain that our own interpretation of each of them jibes with the author’s? How can we tell with certainty? Or maybe just possibly?
One likes to believe that one other plausible reason he may have written his works in the ways he did was because he also wanted to find how people would comprehend him writing in the very unique and novel style that he had developed. Like a riddle, he wanted to find out if indeed they could understand them for the same reasons he wrote them, writing in his own most personal and unusual style. A style so unique and different from others, one could say he was peerless and thus stood alone in that one particular sphere. And for this matter then, maybe every other poet of note and consequence also wrote with this one thing in mind, in a style so personal and unique there is no other like it.
In the realm of oral language, we talk about professionals who engage in the exposition and interpretation of body language, analyzing speech in the context of or in relation to their body movements. Couldn’t one also use that to analyze the written works of poets and writers and derive some sense of why and how they wrote their works? In other words, did their words as written convey any sense of purpose why they wrote them, or even whether their words reveal their mental state? Many say that Edgar Allan Poe’s dark life somehow spilled over to his body of works. Dark and dreary as we are inclined to feel in his notable works.
Or it could be as cut and dried as we are told that the reason El Greco painted the way he did was because he may have had problems of his vision making him see real images in odd symmetry.
The point to convey is that we cannot discount the fact that certain people may write for the purpose of trying to find out if their intended readers could comprehend their writings the way they were intended to.
It is also possible that people write in such a way that they can hide their true purposes for their work, as an exercise of shielding their own privacy with regard to certain things. Thus, those people write stuff though available to the public but intended secretively only for their own personal purposes.
Thus, for those of us who write on a regular basis, and more than just weaving together several sentences at a time, but at least writing regularly essay length treatises, we can ask ourselves that question. How and for what reason do we write?
I once wrote a very mundane piece on the local traffic and had primarily wanted to eschew actual conditions in unrealistic ways to depict how bad and frustrating traffic was to me personally. So a piece written with so much irony and tongue-in-check. Or maybe even oozing a bit with sarcasm.
One perceptive anonymous commenter expressed that my attempt showed I was trying too hard so much so that the piece had instead totally failed as a serious commentary of a real-life situation. In honesty, I took the critique graciously for truly I believe I can learn even more listening to those who read my pieces. It was the anonymity that did not sit well with me, because it implied I could not take any criticism and would thus be irked. But this was not the case.
Anyway, this is one clear instance when the reason one writes a piece is at cross-purposes with those who read it. And I as the author could definitely say that the reader missed the point. This illustrates the case I am trying to hypothesize regarding intended reasons why a piece is written. And could only be known by the author. Thus, possibly in an obtuse way, the author may be hiding the real purposes why he wrote.
I do at times write to test how or how deeply the reader would understand what I can trying to convey. Thus, while it may not be too easily discernible upon first blush, the wished-for hope is that a serious rereading of the piece could expose the deeper intent embedded in the piece.
A piece written very straightforwardly or too declaratively may appear too blunt, or too rude, for those targeted. The circumspection could help soften the at times caustic message.
