Reaction to A Bitter Complaint of the Ungentle Reader

The writer talks about the unnecessary expectations placed on readings.
The writer is especially critical of readers who squabble for philosophizing and debating the meaning of what the writer intended. And even more dangerous are readers who try to induce interpretations that are not intended by the writer. Reading to the writer is a natural aesthetic form like eating is, almost like second nature to those who read, it is done out of enjoyment. Not out of the sense of purpose or feeling that they should be reading more.

The writer is critical of readers as institution or body of    consumers. It is not the writer’s right to make the writing so that the readers get the most out of it. The writer’s first right is to himself and to the proclivity he has for writing. Although the eating analogy the writers cite does have its limitation and should not be overstretched, readers do have the option to pick what they want to read and  what proportion, and even how they read.

Aloud, fast or slow. What the readers should get from reading should be personal and fulfilling to them. Reading is not a public vocation. What the ungentle readers have failed to grasp is reading from the fun of it, out of appreciation and association, rather than to apprehended and interrogate everything that is written. Reading should not be forced.

For many times mat readers by-pass the straightforward statement and instead place their own bearing on the work. The writer, I believe, writes for the individual audience and not usually for public discourse.. The writer gets pleasure for creating his work and then sharing it. He is using his gift of writing and words. The readers read for enjoyment, not from any agenda of disseminating the writer’s intention. For the ungentle reader who wants to know the meaning of every line and how to make the most of it, it is probably advisable that they pick out what they find applicable to them. Benefits at time can be very personal, what benefits you may not benefit another.


Although I agree that the writer does not need premature dissenters and self gratiating zealots masquerading as readers but whose main focus is to re-interpret the writer’s work some relationship between writers and readers are necessary. Although the writer should not be judged and his work dismissed for lack of understanding, the writer must be true to his gift and himself. The writer should not lie. Writers should not create pseudo work of art that underestimates the intelligence of the readers. But instead the writer must be true to himself and similarly the readers must be interested in reading and not do it because of some obligation or it will be just as effective as force feeding; it is repulsive.

Mythical_Poet
Summer 2010