I should really be sleeping. Or working. Or probably anything else rather than writing this, which is more of an indulgence in quantifying what I class as writerly or not. But it is late and I am making poor decisions.
Recently, I read about curing writer's block. Writer's block is something that I've found that I have to deal with less and less as I go on. Writing is, in many senses, an indulgence itself, a pastime I delve into when everything else is finished (or at least not screaming to be finished) and so when I go into it I have a lot of ideas or emotions that I want to explore that I've been pushing back or cataloging for future use. It's not to say that I always have words at the tip of my tongue--hardly-- but it's more that, when I'm busiest I find that it's least hardest to be inspired.
I think a part of it is that the brain goes into full-battle mode during busy or amazingly stressful times. Everything is running on all cylinders. I take breaks by imagining things: plots, characters, odd stuff about the guys I'm working next to, or the lighting. When I'm at home and relaxing, or just zoning out because I need to be brain dead for a while, it's harder for me to find inspiration, or rather, when I do feel inspired, I know that I have to act on it more quickly.
This is all leading up to how I feel about writers. There are some people who really try to write (and either do or don't) and others who don't really try (and either could or can't). Tons of other people have lambasted those who don't try and can't and have praised those who try and can, so it's really the remaining two groups that interest me: the ones that try really hard but don't come up with anything, and ones that don't really try but maybe could.
It's always difficult to generalize anything. Mathematically, if you do it well enough you get your name on a theorem or an amazingly handy law. Usually, though, if you take stabs at it you look incredibly silly or people poke holes in your argument right away. So, in the interests of making sure I'm talking about the distinct subsets I want to, I'll acknowledge that there are a lot of different kinds of writers, specifically, many varieties that try and fail and many that don't try and are passable.
Even more specifically, I want to talk about writerly snobbery. Some of it I think is a little bit justified, especially when a less honed writer wants to strut their stuff and either does this poorly or also refuses help afterward. Writing poorly is something a lot of people do, myself included. It just happens, usually especially when you're trying hard not to. What sets poor writers apart, though, is their willingness to revise to accept critique. I class as a writer as being worse off (in their own progress and ability to self-edit) if they don't at least acknowledge what their critics are trying to say or recognize certain, perhaps subconscious stylistic things in their work. The kid that starts off using cliches and trite phrases but, on being told that he's doing that, tries new things, is better off in my book than the guy that's convinced that he's writing gold each page and thinks his critics are all jealous lessers.
On the other end of the spectrum, being good at writing doesn't allow being snobbish to people who are still trying (legitimately) to improve or people at the same level. For me, writing is something I respect people for doing: the end product is always going to be indicative of skill and dedication, but the sheer fact that a person is willing to try and put themselves through revising is enough for them to earn my respect in that regard. What I don't like is when good writers put down or refuse to consort with people who either don't write in their style or who don't write as well as they do. Writing is a process for everybody and you close yourself off to a lot of interesting and possibly-waiting-for-the-right-instruction-or-epiphany friends if you discount them for their mediocrity right off the bat. I am constantly being surprised at people's ability to change.
I, however, do not seem to change very much and am often not all that interesting. I like people whose names start with the letter "c": Crane, Callahan, Crawford-Gull, though I also like the letter "s" a lot, too. "B" I can't abide. It just makes everything sound blubbery and misshapen, all out of whack. Too many of them make a bad impression. Ironically enough, more or less all of the people I'm really close to don't have b's in their names. Odd coincidence or second-alphabet-sense? I wonder...
In other news, have been contemplating not doing Callahan and doing Argent instead for NaNo. I do want to get it written and done, and maybe Callahan could benefit from slow and steady revision rather than my throw-it-on the page style. But is NaNo how I want to tell Argent?
Still noveling in November, again having no idea what. But I think that's how I did Crane and that worked out alright.
No comments:
Post a Comment