I was just reading a novel by Mary Higgins Clark in which her character states that Emily Dickinson may have been a better writer if she was able to face her emotions instead of being afraid of them. I've been dealing with that very same thought in my own writing lately.
Many bad things happened to me as a child. Although I had a privaledged upbringing, my mother was still abusive. It took me thirty-five years to find my calling as a writer and I credit my horrendous mother and difficult childhood for leading me to writing. But the sentence I read in MHC's book struck a cord with me. I am afraid of my own emotions and I know it's negatively affecting my writing.
If I can't face my own emotions, how can I possibly expect to convey them to the reader?
You'll find this situation a lot in the world of writers. Most successful or memorable writers and poets were successful and memorable because of their tormented minds; Sylvia Plath, Edgar Allan Poe and Ernest Hemingway just to name a few. Where would we be without the products of their tortured psyche?
Everyone's had it rough in their life. I'm certainly not going to sit here and wax superior on my mental issues. Writers are an eclectic bunch, that much is certain. It's because of their torment and obstacles and abuse that their message is so relateable. But I have some work to do. Somehow, I have to stop being afraid of crying and welcome the tears. I have to stop being terrified of terror and write about it. Somehow--and I don't know how--I have to trust the world and people and myself. Somehow I have to close my eyes and allow myself to fall backward, trusting that something will catch me.
Until I can let the trust in, my writing will only be good. It will never be profound.
Am I alone in feeling this way? Are there other writers out there who feel that something is missing from their writing? Would Sylvia have written as well if she were mentally stable? Would Ernest have touched as many hearts without the alcohol? If Edgar hadn't suffered great losses, would his lyrics have been lost in time?
What are your thoughts? Do you consider yourself a tortured artist or does beauty determine your prose?
An excellent resource for all you hopeful authors out there
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Is Unique a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?
Greetings followers and friends!
I have two dilemmas to pose to you today and keep this in mind: I ABSOLUTELY WANT YOUR INPUT ON BOTH.
Ready? Great.
Recently a writer friend took the time to read a short story of mine. She enthusiastically enjoyed it and when I asked her what she thought of my style, she replied, "It was entertaining and easy to read." Now, I'm all for the "entertaining" portion of her response. It was the "easy to read" part that irks me. It's not the first time someone has mentioned that my writing is "easy to read".
Why does it irk me, you ask?
Well, I'm not sure if I should take such a statement as a compliment or an insult. When they say "easy to read", does that mean that my writing flows with no obscure thesaurus words to snag your brain on or does it mean that my writing is elementary level like something my twelve-year old daughter might hastily scribble for English class???
There's a big difference there. I certainly don't want to slather my query letters all over the internet if the response is going to be "What a sweet kid" or "Awww, isn't that cute. She's trying to write."
Dilemma #2 is still in the realm of dilemma #1, but resides somewhere on a side street:
Have you ever noticed all the books that end up on Oprah's nightstand are heart-wrenching, soul-searching, Kleenex-consuming epic tales?
I don't write like that. I write for entertainment purposes. When I sit down to read a book or watch a movie, the last thing I want is a good cry. But these are the best-sellers, folks. These are the reasons we have Pulitzers.
Secondly (and this is directed to the fellow writers out there,) have you noticed how established authors can break every steadfast law of writing once they've built a name for themselves? Gone are the days of adhering to the publishers rules of "good writing". Sure! Use all the adverbs you want. Have a field day with dangling participles and head-hopping POV changes.
For an author looking to be signed to a deal for the first time, such offenses are a death sentence.
I do not write stories to stir long-buried emotions or to tackle the crimes of humanity. I offer my readers a fun, adventurous read. Apparently, I'm the only writer on the planet to do so.
So here's my question to you: Is my unique, non-life-altering writing style going to keep me from getting signed or is it going to set me apart from the herd of conforming sheep??
In the writing world, is "unique" a good thing or a bad thing?
Your input on the subject would be greatly appreciated. If you'd like to see a sample of writing for research purposes or otherwise, please see my website under "Creations".
I have two dilemmas to pose to you today and keep this in mind: I ABSOLUTELY WANT YOUR INPUT ON BOTH.
Ready? Great.
Recently a writer friend took the time to read a short story of mine. She enthusiastically enjoyed it and when I asked her what she thought of my style, she replied, "It was entertaining and easy to read." Now, I'm all for the "entertaining" portion of her response. It was the "easy to read" part that irks me. It's not the first time someone has mentioned that my writing is "easy to read".
Why does it irk me, you ask?
Well, I'm not sure if I should take such a statement as a compliment or an insult. When they say "easy to read", does that mean that my writing flows with no obscure thesaurus words to snag your brain on or does it mean that my writing is elementary level like something my twelve-year old daughter might hastily scribble for English class???
There's a big difference there. I certainly don't want to slather my query letters all over the internet if the response is going to be "What a sweet kid" or "Awww, isn't that cute. She's trying to write."
Dilemma #2 is still in the realm of dilemma #1, but resides somewhere on a side street:
Have you ever noticed all the books that end up on Oprah's nightstand are heart-wrenching, soul-searching, Kleenex-consuming epic tales?
I don't write like that. I write for entertainment purposes. When I sit down to read a book or watch a movie, the last thing I want is a good cry. But these are the best-sellers, folks. These are the reasons we have Pulitzers.
Secondly (and this is directed to the fellow writers out there,) have you noticed how established authors can break every steadfast law of writing once they've built a name for themselves? Gone are the days of adhering to the publishers rules of "good writing". Sure! Use all the adverbs you want. Have a field day with dangling participles and head-hopping POV changes.
For an author looking to be signed to a deal for the first time, such offenses are a death sentence.
I do not write stories to stir long-buried emotions or to tackle the crimes of humanity. I offer my readers a fun, adventurous read. Apparently, I'm the only writer on the planet to do so.
So here's my question to you: Is my unique, non-life-altering writing style going to keep me from getting signed or is it going to set me apart from the herd of conforming sheep??
In the writing world, is "unique" a good thing or a bad thing?
Your input on the subject would be greatly appreciated. If you'd like to see a sample of writing for research purposes or otherwise, please see my website under "Creations".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)