The three books

Since this blog is a dictatorship, not a democracy, I’m going to take some time to opine on some more intellectual topics. I thought about this topic when I was talking about my story with a reader. Through this conversation I came to this conclusion:

For every book written, there are three books.

• The book the author wrote

• The book that was published

• The book the reader read

Now, this might seem like a high-brow idea that only some literature professors would care about, but I’d like to break down my statement a bit to explain my position. When an author seeks to write down a book, the story exists only in their mind; this is the first book, the book the author wrote. Then, as the author transfers their thoughts into words, the story is filtered by prose; this is the book that was published. Finally there is the story that enters the reader’s mind via the written words; this is the third book, the book the reader read.

Each of these books is different. The first book exists only in the author’s mind, and is informed by their perspective and how they form ideas. This book is created from the summation of the author’s life experiences, which of course includes other stories the author has read.

When these ideas take form they have to be marked down with words, and the very structure of prose and language will influence how the second story is created. For example, in Spanish it is said that ‘clocks walk’ where in English ‘clocks run’. This means that the conventions of language and culture will influence the very nature of the story itself. And another example is that in German, the past tense verb is at the end of a sentence, meaning you have to wait until the end of the sentence to have a complete thought for many Germans, which is far different than English.

Finally, the reader can only take in a story through the lens of their own perspective. While a story can introduce new concepts to a reader, they will only be able to understand the new concepts through the combination of things that are familiar to them. If something is written that has no connection to the reader’s experiences, then they will not be able to contextualize what they are reading. In this situation, the story in the reader’s mind will be dominated by confusion (metaphors are important for a reason). Therefore a story will only affect a reader and live in their mind if they can assemble it through the lens of their experience. So, regardless of what is written on the page, the story in the reader’s mind will be unique.

At this point, a question arises: which story is true?

The answer is… all of them.

To each context the story is real and true to them (and only them). While convention and commonplace ideas allow us to come to an agreement on basic concepts—punch someone and it will hurt them, for example—the story will be different to each reader. Simultaneously, the story will be true to each individual without making any other reader’s perspective false.

The tendency will be to say that the physical story, the second book, is the most true story; but I refute this claim. A story cannot exist without a reader or a teller, even if it is written. The second book (the book as published), without a reader, is just words, a mechanism to move the story from one mind to the next. It is not true any more than time is true, that is to say , it is purely relative.

So, what does this concept of three books have to do with reality?

Simply, it means that as the author I cannot answer a question as to what you, the reader, is experiencing. The story in my head is informed by the intention of creation and the filter of prose; it is different from the story you filter through your personal experiences. I can answer questions about my book, the first book, but I cannot answer questions about the third book, your book. That book, the book you read, is purely yours.

Own it.

Also, if you do find some formatting errors or typos in the second book, I can fix those, I guess… >.>