I am inspired by everything and I am inspired by absolutely nothing. This is not true, but I felt a good, deep, meaningful opening to this question was the best way to start.
So what inspires me? What influences me? Well - other writers. As a child, I was inspired by the works of Enid Blyton, Roald Dahl, Hans Christian Anderson and of course, Walt Disney. They made my childhood, and I am often inspired to do the same for other boys and girls across the land when I grow up.
As I get older, the focus of my inspiration and influence shifts - JK Rowling, Stephen King, Audrey Niffenegger, and even to some extent, Dan Brown. (Also, whilst it pains me to admit it, I am even a teensy little bit inspired by some of the books in my older sister's chick-lit collection, although I would like to point out that this is generally because I feel I could do it better.) Absorb everything, think about it, twist it, change it, contort it and churn out your own version.
Despite all this, there is actually one person who inspires me and influences me everyday. No, not you, Nick Trussler - but Emma Thompson. Yes, that woman from Sense and Sensibility and Nanny McPhee. I know it's a bit of an odd example, since she is, I suppose, first and foremost, an actress. But she is also a very talented screenwriter and children's author. If I could have an ounce of her writing ability, I would die happy. I especially love her for this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8031757/Emma-Thompsons-attack-on-slang-the-pedants-battle-may-be-lost.html
So, due to my limited word count, this about sums up this post. But before I go, I feel I am obliged to mention JK Rowling once more, because she gave us Harry Potter. But I want to be her more than I am influenced by her. And this is mainly because of her bank balance.
Monday 21 March 2011
Cakes have layers.
"A writer should be invisible."
YES. As a reader, if I choose to know more about the writer after I've read their work, then I know where to look. Google. Knowing more about the writer will undeniably affect how you read what they've written. Knowing that John Cheever was a sexually confused alcoholic has a huge bearing on how I read his work. The same can be said for Emily Dickinson, and knowing that she was a social recluse who hated having her work edited. I see so many more layers to their writings, and I can't help but see parts of them reflected there too. I like to maintain an air of ignorance about the writer, because it changes how I read their work. Having said this, I think this only applies if you're given their life stories before you've read their piece. Had I not known about Cheever's alcoholism before reading 'The Swimmer', I would have read it differently. However - and this is a big however - as I mentioned in a previous blog post, knowing that the writer has experienced what the character has experienced does add a depth and credibility to the work.
So now that I've contradicted everything I've said before, I'm going to stop writing.
YES. As a reader, if I choose to know more about the writer after I've read their work, then I know where to look. Google. Knowing more about the writer will undeniably affect how you read what they've written. Knowing that John Cheever was a sexually confused alcoholic has a huge bearing on how I read his work. The same can be said for Emily Dickinson, and knowing that she was a social recluse who hated having her work edited. I see so many more layers to their writings, and I can't help but see parts of them reflected there too. I like to maintain an air of ignorance about the writer, because it changes how I read their work. Having said this, I think this only applies if you're given their life stories before you've read their piece. Had I not known about Cheever's alcoholism before reading 'The Swimmer', I would have read it differently. However - and this is a big however - as I mentioned in a previous blog post, knowing that the writer has experienced what the character has experienced does add a depth and credibility to the work.
So now that I've contradicted everything I've said before, I'm going to stop writing.
Monday 14 March 2011
Better late than never.
Righto. "A protagonist that embodies the flaws and weaknesses of the writer distracts the reader from the narrative itself." My initial reaction to this statement was, "I couldn't disagree more." Of course it wouldn't distract the reader from the narrative - a protagonist without flaws and weaknesses would be impossible to relate to, and quite frankly, exceedingly dull. What use is a protagonist if the reader/audience cannot identify with them? So surely it wouldn't distract the reader from the narrative, it would complete the narrative.
But then I read the statement again.
"A protagonist that embodies the flaws and weaknesses of the writer distracts the reader from the narrative itself."
Well, now. This is an entirely different statement altogether. What we're looking at here is, as a writer, how far is your protagonist based on yourself? I think there will always be some aspect or personality trait of the writer in the main character, whether it's done consciously or not. Is this a good thing? It can be. 'David Copperfield' is one of Dickens' most popular and well loved novels, and is widely regarded as being semi-autobiographical. Or 'The Great Gatsby' by F.Scott Fitzgerald; his own opinions on women of the time were pretty clear cut, and this undeniably seeps through into his writing. Ultimately, however, what we've got to consider is this - does it distract the reader from the narrative? To put it quite simply, it shouldn't. But in my opinion, it can. Not always - but it can. To use the example of Cheever, there are some quite blatant parallels between him as person and the characters he creates. 'The Swimmer', for instance, depicts a man struggling with alcoholism, an addiction we know Cheever battled with for most of his adult life. Does this affect our reading of the narrative? Well, yes. Knowing that the writer has experienced (to some extent) what the protagonist is experiencing adds a certain depth and credibility to the writing.
So should we only ever write about what we know?
But then I read the statement again.
"A protagonist that embodies the flaws and weaknesses of the writer distracts the reader from the narrative itself."
Well, now. This is an entirely different statement altogether. What we're looking at here is, as a writer, how far is your protagonist based on yourself? I think there will always be some aspect or personality trait of the writer in the main character, whether it's done consciously or not. Is this a good thing? It can be. 'David Copperfield' is one of Dickens' most popular and well loved novels, and is widely regarded as being semi-autobiographical. Or 'The Great Gatsby' by F.Scott Fitzgerald; his own opinions on women of the time were pretty clear cut, and this undeniably seeps through into his writing. Ultimately, however, what we've got to consider is this - does it distract the reader from the narrative? To put it quite simply, it shouldn't. But in my opinion, it can. Not always - but it can. To use the example of Cheever, there are some quite blatant parallels between him as person and the characters he creates. 'The Swimmer', for instance, depicts a man struggling with alcoholism, an addiction we know Cheever battled with for most of his adult life. Does this affect our reading of the narrative? Well, yes. Knowing that the writer has experienced (to some extent) what the protagonist is experiencing adds a certain depth and credibility to the writing.
So should we only ever write about what we know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)