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?
Friday, 25 February 2011
I'm BRITISH, don't you know.
As we talked about in class this week, John Cheever's writing can be seen as "uniquely American". Now I don't know about you, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. In what ways are his writings uniquely American? The predominant 'American-ness' of his writing comes from a very small selection of factors. Location (rather obviously) plays a huge part in this. His characters are Americans and they live typically American lives in their own pursuit of 'The American Dream'. Well, so do a lot of other American writers. And yet it is Cheever who is described as being uniquely American.
Take for instance Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser, published at the turn of the 20th Century. This example of American literature could be described as uniquely American - Dreiser's narrative comments on the social hierarchy of the States in the late 1890's and early 1900's, and the rise and fall of the American Dream. Or Edgar Allen Poe; his dark, mysterious and macabre works could equally be seen as an embodiment of a uniquely American style. The same could be said for F. Scott Fitzgerald, Earnest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Sylvia Plath, Jack Kerouac or Cormac McCarthy. All of these writers adapt and adopt conventions of literature to produce a style of writing that can be described as being uniquely American.
To be unique means to be one of a kind. In my opinion, John Cheever's works are not one of a kind. This is not to say that they are not any good, because they undoubtedly are. I simply resent an inaccurate label.
In the same sense, what factors would deem a piece of literature 'uniquely British'? Of course, all the typical British clichés spring to mind; bad weather, bad teeth, a general tolerance for queuing, a general dislike of the French, a love of tea and scones, and a potty mouth. In this respect, however, we ought to look at the typical clichés of America; fat, lazy, fanatically patriotic, unintelligent and homophobic. So for literature to be seen as holding uniquely British or American concepts, they must embody one or all of these stereotypes.
Let us not forget, however, that these are stereotypes; they are hyperbolic notions of societies which are frequently talked and written about. They are not an honest or reliable depiction of a society. Perhaps, rather than focussing on these well-known stereotypes, we would do better to look deeper into the context of a piece of literature, at the era in which it is written and at the political/social/economic concerns of the time, and how that reflects on the supposed ‘British-ness’ or ‘American-ness’ of the piece.
Take for instance Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser, published at the turn of the 20th Century. This example of American literature could be described as uniquely American - Dreiser's narrative comments on the social hierarchy of the States in the late 1890's and early 1900's, and the rise and fall of the American Dream. Or Edgar Allen Poe; his dark, mysterious and macabre works could equally be seen as an embodiment of a uniquely American style. The same could be said for F. Scott Fitzgerald, Earnest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Sylvia Plath, Jack Kerouac or Cormac McCarthy. All of these writers adapt and adopt conventions of literature to produce a style of writing that can be described as being uniquely American.
To be unique means to be one of a kind. In my opinion, John Cheever's works are not one of a kind. This is not to say that they are not any good, because they undoubtedly are. I simply resent an inaccurate label.
In the same sense, what factors would deem a piece of literature 'uniquely British'? Of course, all the typical British clichés spring to mind; bad weather, bad teeth, a general tolerance for queuing, a general dislike of the French, a love of tea and scones, and a potty mouth. In this respect, however, we ought to look at the typical clichés of America; fat, lazy, fanatically patriotic, unintelligent and homophobic. So for literature to be seen as holding uniquely British or American concepts, they must embody one or all of these stereotypes.
Let us not forget, however, that these are stereotypes; they are hyperbolic notions of societies which are frequently talked and written about. They are not an honest or reliable depiction of a society. Perhaps, rather than focussing on these well-known stereotypes, we would do better to look deeper into the context of a piece of literature, at the era in which it is written and at the political/social/economic concerns of the time, and how that reflects on the supposed ‘British-ness’ or ‘American-ness’ of the piece.
Friday, 18 February 2011
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Fact or Fiction?
"Storytelling is in our blood. We are the storytelling species ... We are recognizing more readily now that there is something of the gods and goddesses inside us, in the stories we tell of our own lives. Life storytelling gives us direction, validates our own experience [and] restores value to living ...." - The Life Story Interview, Robert Atkinson
Is there a contrast between the truth of our lives and the story that we tell of our existence?
I suppose we ought to start at the beginning. As writers, every story we tell has 'us' at its centre. It has come from us, our thoughts and feelings, and therefore, it is inherently linked to us and our life experience. Right? So does this mean that our life experiences seep into our writings, albeit subconsciously or deliberately? Our life experience must have some effect on our writings; they are undeniably linked to us. But how blurry is the line between life experience and the stories we create?
To use myself as an example, the line between my life and the stories I tell is decidedly blurry. I spent the early years of my childhood surrounded by females, with no father figure to speak of - perhaps this serves as an explanation for the underlying feminist stance of some of my writings.
But ...the truth of my life vs. the story I tell of my existence ... these are two very different concepts. The truth of my life is relatively straightforward and simple. Some might say my life is one great big fat cliché. And really, as both a writer and a reader, who would want to read about that? As a writer, it is far more interesting to break down the truth of my life, shape it and contort it, and create a work of fiction based upon the truth of my life - the story I tell of my existence.
So for me, the void between the truth of my life and the story I tell is huge.
Is there a contrast between the truth of our lives and the story that we tell of our existence?
I suppose we ought to start at the beginning. As writers, every story we tell has 'us' at its centre. It has come from us, our thoughts and feelings, and therefore, it is inherently linked to us and our life experience. Right? So does this mean that our life experiences seep into our writings, albeit subconsciously or deliberately? Our life experience must have some effect on our writings; they are undeniably linked to us. But how blurry is the line between life experience and the stories we create?
To use myself as an example, the line between my life and the stories I tell is decidedly blurry. I spent the early years of my childhood surrounded by females, with no father figure to speak of - perhaps this serves as an explanation for the underlying feminist stance of some of my writings.
But ...the truth of my life vs. the story I tell of my existence ... these are two very different concepts. The truth of my life is relatively straightforward and simple. Some might say my life is one great big fat cliché. And really, as both a writer and a reader, who would want to read about that? As a writer, it is far more interesting to break down the truth of my life, shape it and contort it, and create a work of fiction based upon the truth of my life - the story I tell of my existence.
So for me, the void between the truth of my life and the story I tell is huge.
But what I would really like to know is, does that matter?
Monday, 7 February 2011
Why do writers write??
Asking me why I personally write is a difficult question to answer. I'm not even entirely sure that I can answer it at all - I simply don't know. I like writing, I enjoy it; but I don't live for it. I suppose, to some extent, my love for reading is what has stemmed my own venture into creative writing. My obsession with books started from a young age (I blame my grandmother and her extensive collection of Catherine Cookson's). After a while, I found that I too had thoughts and ideas that could be put down onto paper, and so began my attempts at creative writing. As Colin Firth so eloquently put in his latest cinematic triumph, "I have a voice!"
I do have a voice, but for me, creative writing is a very selfish process; I write for myself. I enjoy it, but I'm not consciously proclaiming any deep and meaningful metaphor for life.
I found THIS:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-coker/why-do-writers-write_b_358640.html
This Mark Coker chap has also looked into the reasons why people write, asking his Twitter followers to comment on their reasons for writing. From his compilation, not a single one stands out as a reason I can relate to. I don't write "because it hurts when I don't." I don't write because "it's as much a reflex as breathing, and equally essential."
I write because I can. It's something I've always been able to do. I lack the drive or motivation to write anything really substantial, so short stories and the occasional poem are more my cup of tea. (!!)
I suppose, ultimately, I write to add some order and coherence to my thoughts. I write for me. I love it, and I wouldn't want to not write. But I don't live to write.
I live to drink tea. Lots and lots of tea.
I do have a voice, but for me, creative writing is a very selfish process; I write for myself. I enjoy it, but I'm not consciously proclaiming any deep and meaningful metaphor for life.
I found THIS:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-coker/why-do-writers-write_b_358640.html
This Mark Coker chap has also looked into the reasons why people write, asking his Twitter followers to comment on their reasons for writing. From his compilation, not a single one stands out as a reason I can relate to. I don't write "because it hurts when I don't." I don't write because "it's as much a reflex as breathing, and equally essential."
I write because I can. It's something I've always been able to do. I lack the drive or motivation to write anything really substantial, so short stories and the occasional poem are more my cup of tea. (!!)
I suppose, ultimately, I write to add some order and coherence to my thoughts. I write for me. I love it, and I wouldn't want to not write. But I don't live to write.
I live to drink tea. Lots and lots of tea.
HELLO, YOU.
Firstly, WELCOME TO MY BLOG. Having never 'blogged' before, there is the danger that this could all go horribly wrong. I am not the most internet-savvy of souls, but to quote the infamous catchphrase of a certain Jeremy Clarkson, "How hard can it be?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)