This morning I arrived at a site, previously unknown to me, in the ‘journal’ tradition; it wove, with tight accent, vocabulary and grammar, a sad lacerating tale of love lost, infidelity, the painful ordeal of the withdrawal of the loved-being, of soul-destroying oblivion, of astonishment, of suspicion, of dedication, of demons, of clouds, of night—the lover’s discourse—nothing new for the journal you might say, and the subject of many (I can dig up several irksome examples of my own work, and no less tender). In the biographic blurb, I fished out the author’s phrase: “Everything I write here is true.” I didn't understand, true for whom? Is this to be understood as implying a privileged access to the mind of the writer, and how does this affect what she has written? The one truth that we can be sure of is: “Everything I write here I write”, and that should be good enough. The truth never resides in the writing; it is during the moment of our reading that we create it.
I noticed one of the posted comments, following a particular fragment of this fatigue: “I haven't been commenting much recently because I haven’t wanted to intrude on what are obviously very personal posts”. Yet again we see the reader Creating (in this case, the blank fatality of silence). The personal nature of these posts is unveiled not in their content, nor their admission, nor their self-doubt, but in the knowledge that they were posted for us, posted for readers (incidentally, the lover’s discourse is precisely that, it’s not a monologue) and in this sense, can never be personal, can never represent anything other than the self that created the work, not the self of daily life. We read alone, and it is this reading that is personal. The writer will always remain a kind of theoretical fiction, not the subject of a pseudo-psychological language of interpretation.
Our writing becomes truly personal, edgy, at the moment we press the pause button, just prior to clicking ‘publish’.