myths

[truepenny]

People (namely matociquala and arcaedia) are talking about professionalism and writing and why the two so often part company. In response to matociquala franzeska suggested that the problem lies with a misalignment in the writer's head: namely the confusion between writing as capital-A Art and writing as a job. Which is apparently one of my hobby-horses, because I have Things To Say.

Now, don't get me wrong. Writing is art. I'll man the barricades on that one. But if you want to be published (as most writers do, no matter how ill-equipped they are for it), then writing is also a job and it requires you to treat it as such. Which means you can't get your nose out of joint when editors exercise their inalienable right to reject you, and also means (and slowly but surely we approach my point) that you can't delude yourself about what you're doing.

Which brings us to the Muse, and the terrible, pernicious myth of the Writer as put forth by the Romantics (some of whom at least were not practicing what they preached). I think it's deeply damaging to think of creativity as something that has to be inspired. Sometimes that happens, yes, and it's a fantastic feeling, but as aspects of creativity go, it is profoundly unreliable. The Romantics stuck us with this idea that Real Artists just ooze inspiration, that they can't turn around for the ideas crowding up behind them. But Neil Gaiman shows where that idea leads, in "Calliope," and it's a madman scrawling on the walls with the blood from the remains of his fingers.

And the obverse of this Romantic ideal is the notion that if you have to work at it, you're not a real artist. And its corollary, that working (as in, frex, writing more than one draft) will somehow revoke your membership in the Real Artists Club. Hacks work; artists somehow simply create. This is, of course, complete and utter nonsense. But it's insidious nonsense, and it's hard to get rid of.

Victoria Nelson, in On Writer's Block, makes the incredibly sensible comparison between writers and musicians (pointing out along the way, iirc, that another disservice done writers by the Romantics was to divorce writing from the other arts, as if somehow it was a special kind of creativity, with rules of its own). Musicians, even the geniuses, have to practice--the old joke about how to get to Carnegie Hall. So why, Nelson says, should we expect writers to have a Get Out of Jail Free card? Why should writers not have to practice? And the answer is, no reason, except that we've been culturally conditioned to think that writers don't work that way.

Like I said, insidious nonsense.

The Romantics also gave us the Tortured Artist, curse them, and we're still not free of that, either. It may be that artists of all stripes deserve special treatment (which is what the myth of the tortured artist is all about), but I think we get special treatment. We can create art. If we're good enough at it, we can be paid for what we have created. We aren't entitled to be paid, or praised, or even noticed; we're entitled to create. Everything else, as far as I'm concerned, is lagniappe.

And the fact that it's incredibly hard work?

Well, you know, if it was easy, it wouldn't be fun.

Comments

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Brava! <waves teacup wildly, dodging splashes>

Note that the whole '20s thing of having to get drunk to write flows directly out of this legend -- you can't get inspired unless you're loose and free. I don't hear of composers drinking before they work; perhaps it's that I haven't read enough biographies of composers. Ditto painters; drinking is something you do after the day's work is done.

Something I've been thinking about: do Livejournal postings count as daily writing, or are they a distraction from the hard work? I haven't made up my mind yet. Livejournal is obviously not fiction, but it can (see your comment above) be a form of essay.

[violetisblue.livejournal.com]

Delurking:

Last spring, when I had my first-ever story publication, the editor sent it back to me saying (in slightly more detail): 1. "Love it! Great story!" 2. "Now, completely rewrite the second half because it meanders, your characters wander off-character and that particular plot twist has been done completely to death." And she was right, though I couldn't really see what she meant until I began rewriting it, and maybe I was just high on the new-writer fumes but rewriting to spec didn't feel like an insult but rather like a fun sort of wordplay challenge. There must be something wrong with me. ;-)

I don't believe in the Tortured Artist or Great Inspiration theories, but that might just be a personal preference for seeing writing as a job, my daily mental calisthenics. It makes it a manageable sort of challenge. If I sit around thinking, "My entire soul must be poured into this story," that's a guaranteed writer's block.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

I think of LJ as part of the ensemble that is my creativity. It's not word-count, but it's writing. And one thing I know (which runs directly counter to the idea that you have to wait for inspiration before you can create) is that the more I write, the more I write. The more time I spend stringing words together, the easier it is to find the right words when I want them. When inspiration does hit, I'm ready for it.

And, after all, it's not like anyone gets allotted only so many words per day. I'm not gonna run out. *g*

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

But I do run out of quiet time in which I can think. I need to budget that out.

[desayunoencama.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I always feel like if I spend too much time answering emails (or posting in forums) then I -am- too typed out to write fiction. It's more a physical thing, between RSI and patience to sit before the computer screen.

The telephone does still work, even though it's often more common (and cheaper) to dash off a quick email rather than call someone.

But I do think there is an important aspect of community in participating in places like LJ, which is a vital and useful part to other aspects of writing (or surviving the parts of a writer's life that don't involve the actual writing).

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

I think there are people in the world who do work on the basis of only having so many words per day. It's not how I work, but I do see it.

Myself, I find all sorts of things feed back positively to each other, particularly writing and good relationship energy, happy joy bounce, but I very much can't do serious amounts of RPG stuff an write at the same time, they seem to compete for the same energies.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

And yet, and yet, and yet...

There are writers in the world who do need to be inspired and cannot move an inch otherwise. And among that number are good writers and professional ones.

I do have a personal Muse, and not one who can be relied upon to turn up an appropriately sized shovelful of idea every week; I am glad she tends to provide me more with large-scale stuff, so that I can fill in details constructivley if she doesn't seem to be around at any given time. Or have been able to thus far, anyway.

[pameladean]

I don't know. I used to get my nose out of joint all the time when I had a day job. I certainly would have been throughly put out had I ever been fired.

It's a bad idea to behave badly or to demonstrate a misplaced sense of entitlement, but I don't see a disjointed nose from time to time as anything but natural to human experience of all kinds.

I think there's a lot of room for human variation in this, really. Whenenver I try to think of writing as my day job, I choke up and get horrible corporate flashbacks. I hated having a day job, and all the little tricks I used to make myself continue to do it just make me sick now. Really.

I have to regard writing as a blend of a holy obligation, an obsession, an incurable medical condition, and a small daily necessity like brushing my teeth, or I can't get on with it at all.

Possibly I'm weird.

I do absolutely agree with you about the necessity of hard work, the lack of any kind of Get out of Jail Free card. And I agree that certain kinds of romanticizing the matter are recipes for both the exasperation of one's friends, editors, and colleagues, and possible creative disaster. But -- for me -- it's not a job. I've had those. They have dress codes, regular paychecks, relentlessly regular and disgustingly early hours, and conditions imposed almost entirely from the outside.

Pamela

Pamela

[infinitemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. Yes.

On a side note, when I read of someone's "muse" forcing them to write something, and they are in deadly earnest, I want to take a hammer to their computer and afterwards insist that the little man who lives under my stairs made me want to do it. (But only if they are being po-faced and humourless about it)

Philip Pullman was on Desert Island Discs last year and literally snorked at the idea of writer's block.

Paraphrasing, he said that plumbers don't get plumber's block, they just turn up and work through it, and if it's not their best work, practice will make it better the next time. Writer's block is just a justification for laziness.

I don't have writer's block either. I am genuinely lazy *g*

[oracne.livejournal.com]

But I do think there is an important aspect of community in participating in places like LJ, which is a vital and useful part to other aspects of writing (or surviving the parts of a writer's life that don't involve the actual writing).

I agree totally with that.

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

I find the more fiction I write, the more I have to say in my livejournal, because the more I am learning about writing and the world.

When I'm not writing, I haven't much to say.

[reannon.livejournal.com]

Re: inspiration - it takes practice to be able to recognize inspiration when it comes. Inspiration or the voice of the Muse is just fancy-talk for seeing, for finding the everyday moments that create richness and depth to fiction.

Re: Livejournal as assistant or distraction - it's both. Putting words together is practice, no matter what or why. Plus we writers can be insular creatures, eschewing social contact, which eventually makes the words dry up. Social contact online isn't quite as good as the real thing, but it's a nice substitute.

That said, last night I wandered aimlessly around on LJ for an hour instead of working on the silly tripe I'm supposed to have finished by the end of the month. So a little self-discipline is necessary.

Re: writing as a job. Are you a hobbyist or a writer? That's the real question. People who dabble in writing in their spare time can and do create. But if you're a writer, be a writer and treat it like your job, because that's what it is. Your work will be better, and you'll produce more of it.

I dabbled for a long time. Truly becoming a writer was both a pleasure and a pain. A pleasure because my "real work" is of much higher quality and is much more satisfying to me. A pain because it means occasionally writing stuff I don't really care for (i.e. my current smutvel) in order to make money and develop my name.

It's a conscious choice, and one each person has to make for themselves. But I can say this - with very few exceptions, only writers who treat it like a job, are willing to work hard and act professionally will get published regularly.

Stephen King addresses this quite brilliantly in "On Writing." He writes every single day, including Christmas and his birthday. That's practice. That's hard work. "If you write every day for ten years, you're going to be a good writer - if you've got any talent to begin with," he says. He said he expected to get flack for that from the literary establishment and he didn't care. "I'm no snob," he says. It's an essay worth reading.

King also wrote that he didn't get good writers who put out one book every five or six years. What were they doing all that time? he asks. Seriously, if you have the strength and the desire and the by-God talent to write, why wouldn't you?

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

I very much see your point there.

For me, thinking of writing as a job--the best job in the world--helps me to get off my ass and write even when I don't feel like. When I'm blocked--and I do get blocked--I write anyway. Even if it's awful. Even if it feels like teh worst thing ever written.

Usually when I go back and look, later, it's not so bad.

Ten thousand ways. *g*

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

What were they doing all that time? Polishing.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Well, okay, yes, the RSI is an issue. Although I've never yet managed to spend enough time on LJ to have that bite me. But this is the only online forum I participate in, for precisely the reason that I don't want this kind of writing and interaction, much as I enjoy it, to eat my life. Which is an important caveat to my reply to jonquils.

RSI is a problem on the days when I am inspired and cannot bear to leave the word processor for more than two minutes at a time.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Terminology issue, maybe?

Because I see exactly what you mean with the negative connotations of "job," although those are not connotations I suffer from.

Is "responsibility" a better word? Because I do feel responsible towards my writing, including the issues of self-preservation that were what got me going in the first place.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Neal Stephenson calls RSI "the black lung of the software industry". I love Stephenson a lot.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

To be fair, not all writers work at the same pace. Merely because King can crank out words like a machine (and arguably has been for the last several books--but that's a different post) does not mean that all writers can do so. And I think it's a little disingenuous of King to pretend he doesn't know that.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Well, if one NEVER got inspired, there would be no point. Nothing to say. And I wasn't trying to say that inspiration doesn't exist or should be squelched or anything of the sort. But, at least for me, inspiration will get me started, but around about the middle to three-quarters mark of any given story, I'd better have something else to take up the slack.

I think my point was maybe that inspiration isn't enough.

[oracne.livejournal.com]

Yeah, me too.

I hark back again and again to last year's WisCon panel about "slow" writers.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

I think that writing is a lot more fun if you think of it as craft. So many toys to play with!

[larryhammer]

Thing is, the Romantics knew it was work, and never denied that it was work—that it's never a matter of pure inspiration. Just look at the manuscript drafts of Keats, Shelley, Byron, et al. What they were after was to adjust the relative importance of free feeling and craft, compared to their predessors. Later generations have misread and distorted what they said and what was said of them, just as l.g. did of Victorians and their sexual attitudes.

That said, I generally agree. The reducto ad absurdium of the (pseudo-)Romantic ideal of Inpsiration is the Modernists—who can be quite fruitfully treated as fifth generation Romantics, the same way Tennyson and Flaubert can be treated as third generation Romantics.

Whether you call the necessary bit required for writing (or at least writing well) inspirtation of creativity doesn't matter to me. Nor does whether you personify it as a muse. Personally, I do most of the time, because it's a convenient lable, and because of my heavy amateur classics kick. Regardless, when it's not there—whether tired, tapped out, mixed signals, not recognizing what it wants to do, whatever—what I write is at best so unalive as to be useless and at worst isn't at all. I don't write every day, because I can't. If I manage a work-week's worth of writing every week, I consider myself doing well.

---L.

[reannon.livejournal.com]

I may be misparaphrasing him (is that a word?). He may have been referring to writers like Harper Lee, who wrote one brilliant book and never published anything else, or the mysterious J.D. Salinger and "Catcher in the Rye." I know he mentioned them both. I'll have to look up the chapter.

[franzeska]

I was also thinking specifically of the sort of people who expect that everyone should read (and pay them for) whatever they choose to spew out and particularly those who write novels. (I'm more willing to acknowledge the supremacy of The Idea in microscopically short stories and so on, but a 300 page novel requires more stamina and substance.)

I'm not knocking inspiration, but that produces ideas, not word count. Your butt in your chair in front of your favorite writing equipment for many hours produces actual text.

[desayunoencama.livejournal.com]

I would agree wholeheartedly that inspiration isn't enough, especially given the realities of today's marketplace.

There are plenty of writers out there who are both inspired and talented in terms of craft who do not publish because they can't deal with the rat race of submitting and rejection, the networking, the short shelf life of most adult fiction, etc.

Sometimes people fall prey to the bad publishing decisions in corporate publishing--how many mass market publishers have, alas, put book 1 of a trilogy out of print before book 3 appears?--and lack the tenacity to keep going, under another name or, perhaps, under another type of publishing model.

I am of the opinion that anyone has the right to write whatever they want, however they want. Getting it published is another story completely, whose main byword is: compromise.

But there are many different reasons why people publish, which can vary from author to author or even book to book.