Reader's Block

Is a character shaped by the writer's imagination or the reader's? A friend asked me this question. A tough one, right? It certainly wouldn't be easy, I believe, even for Freud to answer this question with certitude. And such questions are always exciting for a mind that is willing to discover the answer.

Fundamentally, our mental makeup is a result of our culture, environment and accumulated knowledge. Our thought functions only within that circle. The mind has the habit of building associations and images for any word, event or person that we come across. So, when you and I read, for example Macbeth, the scenario which you imagine would be different from what I imagine it to be. And it's not hard to test this. All we have to do is to put your Macbeth and my Macbeth in the same situation. Our Macbeths will feel differently and react differently. And our Macbeths could be different from the Macbeth Shakespeare had envisioned. Because the personality which you and I associate Macbeth with is dependent partly on our own personality, which is a result of the culture and environment in which we have been brought up.

So, I believe a character is in the imagination of both the writer and the reader, but they are mutually exclusive. Meaning, the character imagined by the writer could be entirely different from the one imagined by the reader, yet they do not try to force it upon the other. (I, however, write this sentence with hesitation).

Well, considering the basics, the writer is one and the readers are many. And each reader is a different individual, each has his own psyche. Compiling a work is definitely the result of imagination, so the writer must be the one who knows the characters most intimately. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the writer could have 'lived' the characters he had created. Indisputably, they are his 'creations', so they move as he wills, they behave as he wants them to, he scripts the denouement of their lives. Some writers say that at some point of time a separation surfaces between them and their characters and then they let the characters suggest where they want to go. That doesn't sound quite convincing to me though.

And now the reader -- the reader begins to develop an image of the character as he reads, just like he does with people he meets in real life. And what the character turns out for him is entirely dependent upon his psyche. And also, to some extent, the state of his psyche too. For example, if I read the story of Buddha, I'd have a certain image of him (which depends on my views about life, my experiences, etc) and if I read the same story, say, after I'm put behind bars, or after the tragic death of someone dear, I might have an entirely different image of Buddha, and not surprisingly, even quite contrary to the one I had before.

What is fascinating is, if one person can have different images of the character depending upon the state of his psyche, there'd be little place for argument in supposing that two different persons would have two different images about the same character. And these, in turn, could be entirely different from what the writer must've imagined. Also, I guess it could be some other way too -- once the writer completes compiling the character, it 'acquires' a personality and exists on its own. The writer might become less familiar with the character as time moves on. As in life, two persons could have two images -- similar or in contrast -- of a particular person. The same thing would work for characters in stories too.

As I lay my arguments down, I still haven't come to any conclusion. The character 'Krishna' means so many things to so many people. 'Apu' in Ray's trilogy might have meant something to the writer, something different or similar to Ray, and something else altogether to each one in the audience. Even in cases where the character reaches striking levels of similarity in two person's imaginations, I'm sure the characters will not be 'exactly similar'. And I strongly maintain this.

Another interesting point -- each person has in his imagination an 'ideal' individual. And the like or dislike for a particular person, or character in this case, depends on how near or far he places him from his 'ideal' personality.

So, yes, a 'character' undeniably is in the imagination of the writer, and also is in the imagination of the reader and neither affects the other. The writer, in most cases, might not be able to 'force' his readers to imagine the character the way he would like them to. This might look inconclusive, but a character cannot be 'partly the imagination of the writer and partly the imagination of the reader'. A character assumes a personality in the writer's and the reader's mind depending on the individual's psyche.

So, it's not just writers but readers have 'blocks' too. The imagination of the reader can go only so far as his 'block' allows him. It does a great deal of good for any upcoming writer to realize this fact, because the reader's block is so powerful it might just decide the road of his career as a writer. Sometimes, it might lead to a cul-de-sac. Especially if the reader happens to be the reviewer.

- Vj

[ If you like to say something, please mail me. ]

- [ BACK ]