Explanations in the "Afterwords"

Good evening!

Well, it's been a couple of days since I posted on this blog and I thought that today might be a good time to let people know that I was still alive.

Ah! The title of the post. I read recently that some authors consider an explanation after the story has wrapped up to be 'bad art'. I agree that an afterword isn't an idea that I can get behind, but I take exception to the reference to art. I'm not an artist. I write. Maybe poorly, maybe okay. I can't exactly be objective regarding my own work, so I only have an idea that I write well. But it isn't art. I don't think that my work sends anyone into rapturous admiration of the way my phrases turn and trip lightly off the tongue. Nor do I believe that my work makes people sit and think about the enormity of any inferences I may have made in my work. I write stories for people to read and, hopefully, enjoy.

Why do I think an afterword is a bad idea? Because if you have to explain what you have just spent 75,000 to 100,000 words laying out for them, then you didn't get your idea across. If you want to write an afterword to explain why you wrote what you wrote, then you are only craving attention and the writing isn't filling some need that you have. Maybe some writers dislike the anonymity of sitting at a pc and cranking out word after word with no cheerleaders to spur them on. I don't know. I write, I proofread, I edit, I copyright, I publish, I get paid for my work. Sometimes. What more is there? Oh, I admit that awards and recognition would be nice, but if I write well enough, then the recognition will come in time. I might be dead by that time, but who really cares? I have met my need to write and that is what really matters to me. I've never had cheerleaders, so I don't miss them.

These are my thoughts on the matter and they don't really matter to anyone but me. Take from them what you will.

Thank you,
Derek A. Murphy
Author of Gulf of the Plains, Congruencies and others.
Available on Kindle