When we talk about writing and writers, words like soul often come up. People say that writer has a born talent. Or this writer is a natural. Nothing can be more insulting to a writer.
Writing takes skill that is developed over time. Nobody is a born writer. John Gardner describes it well in The Art of Fiction:
"Through the study of technique—not canoeing or logging or slinging hash—one learns the best, most efficient ways of making characters come alive, learns to know the difference between emotion and sentimentality, learns to discern, in the planning stages, the difference between the better dramatic action and the worse. It is this kind of knowledge—to return to our earlier subject—that leads to mastery."
Writing is an excellence to be achieved, not something to be bestowed upon by some muse. A writer uses his/her heart to pump blood to the brain, that's all. It is the mind that creates. It is the mind that conveys emotion. Metaphors are pretty, but only words. Only the mind leads to actions and therefore art.
An interesting parallel exists between the character of the writer and the character of the story. Only through action can a character exist. Within a story we, of course, refer to plot. And only through plot can the writer's characters exist.
Yet the same misunderstanding of a writer's character is too often applied to fictional characters. Publishers ask for stories that focus on character, so the undisciplined writer makes the assumption that character drives the story as when Anne Lamott describes plot in her book, Bird by Bird:
"Plot is the main story of your book or short story. If you are looking for long, brilliant discussions of plot, E.M. Forster and John Gardner have written books in which they discuss it so lucidly and wisely that they will leave you howling like a wolf. I just want to add a few thoughts here, things that I pass on to my students when they seem especially bitter and confused.
Plot grows out of character. If you focus on who the people in your story are, if you sit and write about two people you know and are getting to know better day by day, something is bound to happen."
Forget, if you can, how ridiculous and asinine the last sentence appears. Let us first address the obvious fact that either Lamott did not actually read Forster or Gardner, or that she could not make any sense of either. For she claims to be adding to them, when, in fact, she contradicts them.
Forster describes plot and story as two distinct concepts in fiction where Lamott eliminates this distinction. Gardner talks about dramatic action as being key to characterization, a notion borrowed from Aristotle's Poetics:
"...tragedy as a whole must have six elements which make it what it is: they are plot-structure, character, style, thought, spectacle, lyric poetry... The most important of these elements is the structure of events, because tragedy is a representation not of people as such but of actions and life... It is not, therefore, the function of the agents' actions to allow the portrayal of their characters; it is, rather, for the sake of their actions that characterization is included. So, the events and the plot-structure are the goal of tragedy, and the goal is what matters most of all."
Lamott's pitch is that same feel-good, it's-not-your-fault, think-positive-and-all-will-be-good bullshit as those who think writing is a born talent. No. Wrong. Writing is work. It is a talent that anyone can develop over time if a commitment is made.
Writing is not about feeling good or writing from your heart. It is about writing from your brain whether you feel great or are suffering the worst hang-over of your life. Mastering writing is about knowing your art so well that people "think" you were born with it.
When someone says "Write from your heart," that's a sign that person never put in the time to develop their skill. When someone says "technical skill results in bland writing," that's a sign that person never mastered something. Mastering an art, mastering a skill, means that your level of technical proficiency has reached such a high that you no longer need to think consciously about it. Your body reacts from habit and self-awareness.
The character of the writer exists in his/her own actions, not in waiting around for magic to happen.
10 comments:
Nicely said Greg,
Though in my experience a VIP who is in touch with your work in some way helps activate me as if it were a muse.
Mark, I agree and would generalize to say that anyone who connects to your work has what some might call a muse-like effect. We can generalize this beyond writers and state that people thrive on acknowledgement. Appreciation is great, but often it is only simple acknowledgement that people need. This feeling that someone else knows you exist. This gives an individual, regardless of field of work or area of interest a feeling of purpose.
Now as far as a VIP, “who you know” is often as important or some might say more important than what you know. Networking often trumps talent, but it's nice to have both. There are lots of mediocre writers who have a successful career based on who they know.
Networking is a skill just like writing, so a writer who wants to sell something, which is important for what is the purpose of writing if not for it to be read and in our world that means selling your work, that writer must learn both the skills of networking and the skills of writing.
Greg,
Could you elaborate. What are good networking skills and could you give me an example.
Mark, yeah, let me think about it a bit and write up a post on it this week on this blog.
Maybe having a good detection device and being friendly and assertive, while being totally conscious of what a valuable resourse people can be.
I seem to have a nack for finding the right sorts of people and some of my relatives are such people whom I should contact more often.
Mark, I haven't forgot about that response. I'm slow, but didn't forget.
You may have wondered about me as a writer. I have been writing along time, but the interesting thing is that I am ambitextrous. This causes me to write and think differently according to what I've read. On top of this being bi-polar and Jewish, there is something going on upstairs that even a ton of alcohol wouldn't demolish too easily, and I've tried. I just assume that there are some difficulties as well as joys with being green.
As for networking, I think being social in high social circles is what it's all about. But don't forget to get their e-mails and stay in touch with them. You know that game people play.
Mark, ok I think this latest post addresses your question.
How you define "high social circles" matters in how I would respond. Talent (developed skill) and exposure will always count more, but I've known plenty of people who have succeeded on "who they know" without much talent.
Talent/skill will generally lead to social connections assuming the writer eventually ventures out of the house. Social connections never lead to talent. Since the social connections appear somewhat random, writers should focus on developing their skill first.
Post a Comment