The Show wasn't exactly what I expected but I did take a few notes. Interestingly they were mostly along the lines of thoughts that popped into my head about what the panelists were saying, rather than what the panelists were actually saying. So it was definitely different than the notes I am usually jotting down.
One thing that was very interesting was a 'question' posed by an audience member [that's never really a question]. The person seemed to be very upset that people that had critiqued the book written by this person weren't seeing the same things in it that were part of this person's experience and what they intended/meant when they wrote it. That they just didn't get it!
One of the panelists said they thought that everyone should be able to get what they need to out of our writing.
So what do you think?
Do we write of our own experiences to only say what needs to be said, or is it more encompassing than that, and that as our lives and experiences are different so will be our reading preferences and experiences, and we interpret accordingly?