TECH: tit for tat

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Original posting: Wed, 19 May 1993 11:10:45 JST

[being a short diversion on a method of inducing ideas and spurring the elusive muse into a more rapid pace... or at least some locomotion.]

(shouldn't that be spelled loco notion? - tink)

Having drunk deep of the valuable wit and wisdom of this group (perhaps "being drunk on" would be more accurate - though I haven't touched a drop of alcohol), please allow me to return the favor with a bit of invaluable advice (invaluable meaning worthless? or beyond price? you judge. hum. 4K - about 80 cents? Alright, I've got 80 cents, do I hear a dollar, who'll give me a dollar...:-)

If you have the chance, take the T.A.T. (Thematic Apperception Test). However, take care. Let me explain.

The T.A.T. is a psychological profiling tool. It is quite simple in administration. The subject (that's you, if you get a chance) sits down and is given paper (blue books, that kind of thing). This may be as part of a group. Then a series of pictures are shown. For each picture, the subject has 15 minutes (30? I'm not sure anymore) to follow the directions. That is where there may be a problem.

The pictures, incidentally, are wonderful. Sometime I intend to track down a set to be framed and installed where I write. For example, one is the back silhouette of a figure with a rope above and below the figure. Is the figure male or female? Adult or child? Clad or unclad? Going up, down, or merely holding onto the rope? Where is the rope? What is happening? The ambiguity of the picture is almost total, allowing the subject to read into it quite a bit, which in turn (theoretically) allows the psychologist to read out quite a bit.

For, you see, the directions are that the subject should write a story about each picture. No further amplification is given of the instructions, and I, at least, presumed they wanted the most marketable, interesting story I could come up with. I suspect this was NOT a particularly good decision, although it kept me awake.

It also resulted in me being the only member of my group that consistently begged for more time with each picture, and that practically got down on the ground entreating the psychologists to give me a copy of my test books. (They refused, although they seemed surprised at the request. Perhaps their testing didn't tell them of my interest in writing?)

Ah, well. There are quite a few pictures in the series, and I thoroughly enjoyed the time dedicated to developing and quickly writing at least a sketch of a story for each one. (I took the test over 15 years ago, and still have fond memories of that short block of time spent dreaming up and writing down stories at a furious pace.)

So, if you have a chance, go take the T.A.T. - or at least bootleg a copy of the pictures and administer it to yourself. (In case you're wondering - at one point in college, I had the opportunity to have a fairly complete psychological profile done for free, and grabbed it. So for one week, in addition to classes and work, I took a battery of tests including the T.A.T. Later I had a reading by one of our modern-day witchdoctors, which was interesting. I've often wondered just whose research project I took part in. Or maybe they use this method to calibrate and double-check the tests against each other?)

If nothing else, pick up a book of photographs or other art, carefully avoid looking at the titles (cut them off if the pictures are from magazines), and then tell yourself a story about that frozen moment. Who are these people? How did they come to this moment, and where are they going next?

Simple enough? Try it! (Does that sound as though I'm prospecting for addicts, hunting another sucker for the gambling game, or otherwise soliciting you to take a chance with your sanity, wealth, or health? I suppose trying to get you writing could be considered in that light... what the heck, <Mae West accent, please!> why don't you come up and try it sometime?)

(yer assignments are due before the end of the world. please use the correct format and be sure to put your names on your papers, as there will be no chance for later revisions and may not be much time to track you down after wars...>:-) [horns, don't you know?]

TECH: Bradbury's Approach to Writing

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

original posting: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 08:18:19 JST

(I split the subject because Tsirbas really isn't talking about my exercises, but about how to write - I think)

Tsirbas wrote

- Exercises cannot, however, replace the act of actually sitting down
- and writing a complete piece from start to finish with the goal of
- meeting the criteria of some outline or idea one has had.

Well, no, but... I have to admit, I've been in too many places where someone said "Just write" (talk, program, paint, ...) without providing some clues to the pieces. my ski instructor didn't take me to the top of the expert slope and say "Now Ski." There were some preliminaries. Why do chess players practice gambits, positions, closings, and so on?

Or maybe a better illustration is over in the artistic painting field - the instructor rarely sits you down, hands you brush, oils, etc. and says "Now Paint!" First you get to practice and study composition, perspective, colors, etc. In many schools, you'll spend quite a while simply copying "old masters" - imitate this. now do it again. okay, here's another one.

I will admit, some teachers may start by saying "do it" - then start giving out studies, exercises, and so forth based on what they see as your weak spots or abilities needing sharpening. That's testing by doing, and is pretty useful...

Let me suggest that writing suffers from this notion that we can do it "naturally." Admittedly, everyone studies some in school - but does the year of shop that I took in school make me a great cabinet maker? Or the several art classes I had - which came very close to convincing me that I hated the stuff and was totally unable to do it?

Let me suggest where I see the exercises fit. (not just mine, there are books and magazines and so forth stuffed with them)

It's just like painting or any other creative pursuit. There are parts of the process which can be separated out and studied - practiced - independently (these are exercises). While it may seem tedious, even boring or pointless, these provide the basic tools that then are used in the final act. If you want to paint, you may get perspective, color studies, endless copying of old masters, and a whole host of other exercises. Some teachers may start by saying "paint" - and then assign exercises based on what they see you missing. Others just start with a set of basics and move everyone through them.

So - yeah, the exercises don't replace the basic WRITE - FINISH - MARKET cycle. But just like any set of exercises, the skills you learn may very well help you when you try the real game...

Exercises, in most fields, are intended to construct, reinforce, and sharpen desirable habits, models, or patterns of thought, which then carry over into practice. In some cases, the exercise may be extended into something useful in itself, but the main point is to condition the process so that it happens "naturally."

I'm kind of intrigued with your description of Ray Bradbury's process - where did you learn this?

Personally, from his Zen in the Art of Writing and the frequently reprinted one with the silly long name ... usually shortened to "The Thing at the Head of the Stairs" ... I have the impression that he started with at least 10 years of imitating the "old masters." At least one thousand words a day, just imitating - that's exercise! Then he sold a story or two - and went back to imitating for another ten years or so. Then he started his list of words and phrases, and started "intuitive" writing.

I think I could almost depend on my "natural" writing after churning out some 8,000,000 words of imitation... that's roughly 50 to 80 novels he wrote in "exercises" to get to the point of writing short stories "naturally."

Further, the one week crank it and drop it in the mail idea is pretty common to the writers from the "Great Pulp" era. It's where Asimov got blamed for saying first drafts only (as he explains it, he "rewrote" heavily beforehand, but to save paper, only typed it once), Heinlein got a similar reputation, Jack Williamson, the list goes on. Mostly, I think it was economics - the big market was short stories, the pay stunk, you couldn't do much else.

Several mystery writers also had similar notions - and some of them were cranking out whole novels (short, perhaps, but penny dreadfuls...) I know I've seen one of them commenting on a period when s/he wrote one complete novel each week.

Even then - read carefully between the lines, and you see some of these writers spending time "behind the curtains" - lists of words, draft notes, brainstorming, and so forth. I think they did tend to focus on one story, and really work on that one "at the top" during the week - but the other stories were perking...

BTW - as I've related before, I've seen Harlan Ellison (I think) in a publicized stunt write a "brand-new" story during a convention. Tapped away at the typewriter, posted the pages as he finished them, and sold the story. BUT he also had a huge ratty lab notebook (engineer style) that he kept sneaking peeks at... I can believe the "final writing" was new at the convention, but I would dearly love to know what kind of "prewriting" was in that notebook.

[in the following, I grow a bit unrestrained in my wording. Please believe, Tsirbas, that I am not attacking you - I am simply reacting to a notion that I think has caused more trouble for me than I ever would have believed. You are getting the backblast from fighting this evil python for over 20 years... sorry!]

- Creative exercises are of no use to a writer unless he or she, upon
- sitting down to write, is able to let go of all restraint, of all
- preconceptions and all possible criticsms. If upon sitting down, and
- having a brilliant, twisted idea you think, "What will my mother's
- reaction be when she sees this in print?" then you have already set
- limitations on your creativity. No amount of exercises will make you a
- better writer unless you are true to your own personal genius.

time out! number one, while I agree that part of the process of creativity consists of lowering, challenging, and otherwise working around restraints, preconceptions, and fear of criticism, guess what - that's almost exactly the point of the exercises I'm posting! That process CAN be exercised and trained - that's a big part of what DeBono (anyone recognize the CoRT exercises?) has spent some 40 years or so showing people. It ain't just "you got it" or "you ain't" - there are clearly defined ways of helping you slip those bounds.

(in fact, if you're interested, there's a theoretical background that explains why these bounds are so tight, and how the lateral thinking techniques work around them - read The Mechanism of Mind.)

I've personally used these techniques in training people, and my experience is that they work. Try them, and judge for yourself.

number two - there's the "natural writer" notion again - somewhere buried under all that gunk, there is a creative genius waiting to be freed. Simply lay aside all the bonds that life has put upon you, and it will emerge and shatter the world. Drugs, drinking, god I gotta live in the village... maybe acid will free the true genius...

Bull! that's saying the little kid playing with paints against the wall is automatically better than the artist who has spent years learning to do the basics, to the point where the technique "vanishes" and the art appears.

Better yet - consider the old Zen adage, that when you know nothing, trees are trees, and mountains are mountains. When you begin to learn, trees are not trees, and mountains are not mountains. And when you reach the essence of Zen - trees are trees again, and mountains mountains.

Translate that into writing - when you know nothing, stories are stories. Then you start to learn, and nothing seems quite right. And when you really get it down - stories are stories again.

I think most of us are in the "nothing seems quite right" phase - and practicing the basics until they are habitual is one way of getting past that...

sorry - I don't buy the "natural genius" model. that's the approach that takes 100 programmers, sits them down, says "program" - then trashes 99 of them, since they aren't "naturals." guess what - I can take 100, and in 98 of them, make them not just humdrum, but magic gurus that companies are happy to steal. I've done it. And I refuse to play the game of saying if you can't do it natural, you can't do it.

(two go off and play with each other - every time! some things take precedence, I suppose...)

this is a critical point to me. please don't trashcan people - we don't have enough to go around, honest. and that's what the "natural" writer method does.

Every "natural" I've studied, met, spent time with (programmers, writers, potters, painters, and others) has spent quite a bit of blood and sweat, time and energy, learning the basics so well that they can do it "naturally." It's almost offensive to call them "natural" - they are so far from "natural" that mistaking their trained abilities for some kind of natural in-born talent belittles the efforts they have taken to get there. Saying it is "unconscious" now simply means they've worked at it a lot!

Okay? I happen to agree - practice, practice, practice. Some people do it copying old masters, some insist on beating their own way in the wilderness, some prefer nicely packaged little "technique" exercises, some want or need a grand theory to tie it all together, but everyone needs to keep working until they reach the point of "natural" writing... which is highly unnatural!

If you mean you have to practice until writing becomes habitual - I'll agree!

Did I misunderstand you completely? I really hate this idea, and I'm afraid I may have read it into what you wrote, in which case I owe you an apology for dumping this on you...

[again, sorry about the harsh words. I just really hate this notion of "natural genius" with all of its implications for those who "don't have it." No one has it!]

tink