Well I started reading in my usual quick fashion and thought Gandhi. But then I stopped mid sentence, went back and stared at the phrase about Providence calling upon and vouchsafing the writer. Red flag time! Ayotollah immediately came to mind. I continued reading but that remained my decsion about the identity of the writer. Pretty close I'd say.
I agree that projection happens. It seems to help if a reader or listener is aware of what they might be projecting. Anyway, thanks for this. It helps me continue to trust my instincts. ________________________________ From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] What can we tell about a writer from his or her writing? Having written in creative contexts, during which I had to invent characters and then "put myself inside their heads" to make them believable, I've always wondered about those who feel that they can "know" a writer from what they write. For example, I've heard supposedly knowledgeable critics call Stephen King "sick" for writing some of his horror scenes, while completely ignoring some of his more spiritual and uplifting work, such as the noble quests and characters in, say, "The Talisman." Similarly I've seen people describe William Peter Blatty as "obviously possessed by demons and under the influence of Satan" for writing what others consider one of the most Catholic (and thus religious) books ever written, "The Exorcist." Having had this experience of creating characters or plotlines and then immersing myself in them long enough to write about them in a way that sounds realistic, I'm not convinced of people's claims to be able to "know" any writer based on what he or she writes. I think that instead people tend to *project* what they want to see onto a passage of writing, and attribute to the writer emotions, thoughts, or qualities he or she might not have had. Thus someone who already wishes to believe that Maharishi is a Good Guy can read what he writes and see nothing but Good Guyness there, while someone who is already convinced that he is a charlatan can read the same passage and see nothing but charlatanry. I think people do this all the time...bring their preconceptions about a writer into play and allow them to color what they read, and their perceptions of what and who the writer is. For example, the other day I read about a writing workshop in which the students were asked to read the following quote from Gandhi, and comment on what they "saw" of the author's psychological state and overall personality in it. Here...you guys give it a try, too: "I can give vent to my inmost feelings only in the form of humble thanks to Providence which called upon me and vouchsafed it to me...to rise to be the leader of my people, so dear to me. Providence showed me the way to free our people from the depths of its misery without bloodshed and to lead it upward once again. Providence granted that I might fulfill my life's task -- to raise my people out of the depths of defeat and to liberate it from the bonds of the most outrageous dictate of all times... I have regarded myself as called upon by Providence to serve my own people alone and to deliver them from their frightful misery." The students went on and on about the qualities of the noble spiritual leader they saw in this passage, and how perfectly it reflected Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence and dedication to humanity. They compared the style of this paragraph to other famous quotes of Gandhi's, and used both sets of words to back up their perceptions of the writer as a noble and religious man, nigh unto saintly in his dedication to his fellow man. At the end of the exercise the professor revealed to the students that the quote (with a few "spoiler" words removed) is from a 1939 speech delivered to the Reichstag by Adolf Hitler.
