[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
original posting: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:32:01 JST

Chatter, divergent discussions, flames, and other topics are endemic to this list, and often result in harsh exhortations to focus on writing or flurries of gentle reminders (depending on who notices that we've wandered afield again and how they respond to such wandering). However, on consideration, I think both the harsh "writing, the whole writing, and nothing but the writing" and the gentler urges are mistaken.

First, almost a non sequitur, the chatter and lively reactions on this list can provide any good writer with indications of interests that may be found among larger segments of the writer's prospective audience. For example, knowing that this group responds positively to nostalgic recollections of comics, certain older movies, or other bits and pieces provides the writer with cheap "audience testing" that such responses are likely to be found in the larger audience.

However, let us ignore that, since there are other sources of such information, including the general FAQs and such from netnews. Still, there is an important role for the back-and-forth "small talk" often seen in this group. That role lies in exciting and refining the reactions of the writer, who will find that the emotional involvement practiced here will pay off when constructing fiction. And this is the problem with those who try to "douse" the flames before they have reached a conclusion, because whether we feel comfortable or not (I don't enjoy conflict) there is a certain sense in which we can only become "powerful" writers if we are moved to our depths about the issues we are writing about, and that is much more likely to happen if those depths have been opened up, irritated, and aggravated as much as possible in "friendly" fighting here on the list.

I.e., the depth of apathy lies in the lack of reaction, and in that apathy there is no oil for the writer's lamp. Writers strike paydirt when they look inside at precisely those points which cause emotional, hot reactions - and must learn to see more than one side to those grounds, to realize that the protagonist and antagonist are struggling within their very soul. I don't know a better way to find these points or to develop them than through exactly the kind of chatter and diversions that are frequently castigated on this list as being "off-subject."

Perhaps it is my own confusion, but the lists of hints, the critiquing and other activities can be found elsewhere, in purer form. The rumbling flow of point and counterpoint is rarer, and harder to replace.

Again, let me suggest that while the chatter and reactions of the list provides you with some suggestions as to interests of your audience, its most important function is in driving your reactions, in provoking, teasing, angering, even boring you. For in those reactions you can begin to measure yourself, to calibrate the instrument you play within all of your writing, to tune yourself to the current jazz and jive, in short, to come alive.

Your writing will benefit.
[identity profile] 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
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Original posting: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:41:35 EDT

FILLER: ESSAY: The Anti's (a piece from the past)

[a little piece from when I spent too much time with USENET...it seems appropriate to resurrect this now. I've also included a little sketch of the edge of the information highway, with punctuation weeds discarded by poets everywhere...tink]

:) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 18:35:02 JST
:) From: Mike Barker
:) Subject: ESSAY: The Anti's

deviled eggs...ham...and a soda...beside the jalopy...
ah, green grass for a picnic site!

[from the American Rubiyat by Omor Satire]

probably upsetting... punish, at least...

tink

The Anti's

[who cares?]

One of the problems in the virtual picniclands along the information highway is the anti's.

They are everywhere.

You may have noticed them around the networks. The somewhat noisy small life buzzing around and wasting bandwidth? The denizens of killfiles and other wastelands?

Occasionally annoying and irritating in minor ways, they are likely to appear at any of the virtual picnics, begging for crumbs. Sometimes it seems as if they are trying to be swatted as they crawl around, waving their legs and trying to spoil the feast.

Anti's are fairly easy to recognize. They like to sneer about how successful they are at insulting, provoking, threatening, challenging, offending, and undermining (among other attacks and tantrums). The goal may not be worth the effort, and is more often missed than attained, but they do claim it, apparently never having considered what success at brutalizing other humans means...

Anti's often seem to delight in attempted personal attacks, namecalling, smearing, and other pitiful pleas for attention. All too often poorly written, without much understanding of the tactics and forms of the verbal violence they are trying to use, their ill-considered chattering is usually easy to identify.

I know, ignore them and in time they do go away. Swatting them isn't worth wasting bandwidth, and often encourages more childish outbursts from them.

But I have a question for the anti's. Not that I expect them to answer, as it requires thought, but...
Why?
Are anti's really so insecure in self, so undecided and fearful of their own thoughts, that the only way to reassure themself that they are alive is to be a noisy nuisance, trying to strike out at others without thinking of their hurt? Is tearing down others the only way they have ever learned to make themself look fractionally larger?

I've heard anti's make claims of being offensive. True offense requires depth, so the claim is prima facie implausible.

I can believe that they are lacking in self-assurance, without the confidence and pride in self needed to try to explain and help, and too impatient to try to understand another person--leaping to conclusions is so much easier and the intuitive results, while disastrously wrong, can be rationalized quite easily.

But while the anti's are undermining whatever poor sense of self they have left in pursuit of the faint feeling of relief incurred when someone strikes back, the slight sense of self that such agony may temporarily imbue them with, doesn't it hurt?

I wonder if they have ever thought about what their writing reveals about themself--their fears, their insecurities, their personal agonies?

I know that building is hard--but it is the only worthwhile challenge.

Working with people, helping them to understand and grow, increasing the possibilities and alternatives for human success, oiling the machinery of human and small group interaction, making friends and influencing strangers...no matter what terms you cast it in, doing something positive is much more difficult than tearing things down, but also much more satisfying. Dare to excel, little anti's, and learn your own strength.

Are the anti's up to facing that challenge? Or would they prefer to continue at their present level of minor irritant, buzzing and fussing without effect?

So, anti's, let me ask it simply--did you ever think about turning pro?

[oh. I do.]
          *                         .            @ ! @       ~
     *  @ v %         %  * @ v      v  *  @ % &   \^/ @  * @ v
"=V=/=`=|=v==\="='=V=/=`=|=v==\='="=V=/=`=|=v==\='=V=/=`=|=v==\="='=
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Original Posting: Sun, 10 May 1998 23:57:55 EDT

Susannah asked:
:) Will someone please define the difference between flame and argument?
:) What's wrong with a good argument?

Okay, I'll take a crack at breaking this egg...not that this is necessarily the definitive version, but...

I think the main difference lies in how we treat the others in the exchange.

In a "good argument," there is room for the other person to make a few points, to win some points. And when there is a conclusion, it is possible for all concerned to shake hands and "make up."

Flame attacks, on the other hand, require that the other person be obliterated, that they be personally destroyed. Frankly, winning isn't necessary in a flame battle, merely overshouting, vilifying, destroying, and otherwise grinding the other into silence... when there is a conclusion to a flame battle, there are very few people left to do anything, let alone talking to each other.

I guess I would say that in argument, one assumes that the other person is "honorable" in some senses. In flamage, one simply intends to destroy.

[There's a tickle in the skull somewhere that suggests there may be a difference in the role of the audience, also, but I'll let someone else develop that nuance--or nuisance?]

I should probably avoid speculating about the personal security and insecurities behind each approach, although it may be obvious that I consider "good argument" as useful, even beneficial...

Profile

The Place For My Writers Notes

February 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2 345 6 7 8
910 11121314 15
161718192021 22
232425262728 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 31st, 2025 03:52 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios