The Author's Corner

[Oe98]

I don't know if I want my novel to be a novel or a stage play... It started as a stage play, and right now, I'm writing it as a novel... but I guess the end result will dictate whether or not it's best as the other?

I wonder what you all think about writing like that: writing in one format, while planning on changing it later.

[umazak]

I have a small problem. I tend to lose interest in what I write after a while. Music and other types of media only take me so far. Any tips on after I pass that point?

[Siren]

Read. Read, read, read.

I've been in a kind of funk lately, and I've found that the more I read books I love, or new books (Palahniuk) the easier it gets.

[Oe98]

Yeah, I find reading to be the most help, and the listening to music and other tricks only supplement it, not the other way around.

[umazak]

Then therein lies the problem. My brain is set up to remember books I have read for a few years and I have no money to get new ones or settle a fee at a library.

[LongLiveLife]

Then therein lies the problem. My brain is set up to remember books I have read for a few years and I have no money to get new ones or settle a fee at a library.

Perhaps you could reread some of your older books. Find a style you like, and do your best to imitate it.

You will also need to make an emotional connection to your work. If you, the writer, find the content of what you are writing boring, what more can you expect your readers to feel?

[tangerine]

I have a small problem. I tend to lose interest in what I write after a while. Music and other types of media only take me so far. Any tips on after I pass that point?

Shorten your texts. There's no reason to drag something on if it isn't interesting. If the author isn't interested in what he or she is writing then the text will suffer.

[Hidden]

Shorten your texts. There's no reason to drag something on if it isn't interesting. If the author isn't interested in what he or she is writing then the text will suffer.

This is excellent and straightforward advice. If the text doesn't work as a long piece (i.e. you lose interest in it after a point), make it a shorter one--and that doesn't mean just cut it off and leave it when you get tired of writing, but actually find a way to make it a complete short story, with all the necessary elements that go into that. There's an art to short work.

Conversely, if you want to write longer pieces, keep writing even after you lose interest; just be ready to delete it all at the end of the day if need be. It's an exercise in endurance, which in writing is often the necessary follow up to inspiration.

Read. Read, read, read.

I've been in a kind of funk lately, and I've found that the more I read books I love, or new books (Palahniuk) the easier it gets.

This is also very good advice--my moments of inspiration often come while or directly after reading an excellent book, even if my own idea has very little traceable connection to that origin.

[MasterAqua]

I don't know what to do, seriously.
I can pretty much come up with a nice project, I can think of all, it is perfectly complete...in my head.
When I try to write down something I end up deleting anything after the first two lines...yet I don't get why.

[Siren]

I question I find interesting to ask:

I always love it when people give their interpretation of something that I've written, particularly when they are as thorough as yours, LongLiveLife. This has got something to do with enjoying any comment, and also something to do with a little bit of bafflement.

I would like to go on record right now with saying that I have never, ever worked to convey a specific idea or maintain a specific thread within my poetry (or, often, within my prose). What you are reading has been edited very, very lightly-mainly just to fix things like flow or poor wording-and I didn't plan out a single scrap of it before I just started typing. All of those lines just come from the words that came into my head.

I'm curious; does this make the work any less interesting to the two (or thirty-five) of you? Does it have to be intentional, or is it okay even independent of my writing method?

Thoughts? Does the writing have to be planned in order to have the same meaning, or do you view the work as separate from the artist?

[LongLiveLife]

In my opinion, no, the writing does not have to be planned for it to have the same meaning.

I am sure most of the writers studied in English classes did not specifically go out with the mindset of "Oh, let me see, uhm, let's have some consonance here to do this, color imagery here to do that, and a great big extended metaphor here to tie it all up." No doubt, some literary devices will be intentional, but I am pretty sure Shakespeare did not intend his plays to be studied under scrutiny for hidden meanings.

Also, I am a firm believer of Freudian psychology -- that everything is a manifestation of the subconscious mind. Therefore, all work produced by a writer is representative of their creative brilliance, whether it was conscious or not.

I appreciate all good works of literature, whether they are intentional or not.

[tangerine]

I don't know what to do, seriously.
I can pretty much come up with a nice project, I can think of all, it is perfectly complete...in my head.
When I try to write down something I end up deleting anything after the first two lines...yet I don't get why.

Having an complete idea doesn't mean that you'll be able to convey it completely. Just like it takes much practice and hard work to be able to draw something adequately, it takes the same things to be able to write adequately. I'm not implying that you can't write! You may just not have the right vocabulary or you may not be experienced enough to cater to your specific ideas just yet. Instead of diving straight into your project (simply because it's not working for you just yet), you should try practicing a bit and reading up on some rules of writing if you can. Work hard and I'm sure you'll be able to do it in time.

Thoughts? Does the writing have to be planned in order to have the same meaning, or do you view the work as separate from the artist?

I get annoyed when someone infers something improperly from my work, especially when there is no meaning at all.

[Oe98]

I don't know what to do, seriously.
I can pretty much come up with a nice project, I can think of all, it is perfectly complete...in my head.
When I try to write down something I end up deleting anything after the first two lines...yet I don't get why.

You say you have the idea, but you can't make it flow onto the page as a story? The plot out the idea and make notes on the idea. That way, you get the idea out of your head, and all that's left of it (for the most part) is the story. Try writing the notes and such, and then sleeping on it, go back to the notes to refresh, and try to write the story.

After that, come back here and tell us if you were able to write more than a few lines or not.

Thoughts? Does the writing have to be planned in order to have the same meaning, or do you view the work as separate from the artist?

I think the end result has the meaning, and the means to getting that result have naught to do with it. I'm not really sure if that's one or the other, but that's just what I'm sure on. People can ask the artist "What did you mean by this?" and she or he can either destroy her or his work or keep it intact depending on what she or he says.

I get annoyed when someone infers something improperly from my work, especially when there is no meaning at all.

Hmm... can there be no meaning in a work?

[Hidden]

I get annoyed when someone infers something improperly from my work, especially when there is no meaning at all.

But is the author necessarily the final judge on the matter?

Going back to the original question posted by Riel, I view art and artist as two things apart. Because once the work of art has been fully realized, that is once it has been communicated to others, it can't just be drawn back into the mind of its creator--art takes on a reality all its own, quite independent of the artist's original intentions. Once a story exists as a more or less 'objective' reality that people can interact with, at this point the author's own intentions are a moot point--I am interested in what Sartre wrote, not what Sartre intended.

I should say, I'm also not satisfied with a totally laissez-faire approach to reading literature--that literature means only what any individual reader wants it to mean. It is a form of communication, and there are communication failures in that sense. But meaning in literature, as in all forms of communication, is not a one-sided determination nor is it as simple as the intention of the author.

Also, I am a firm believer of Freudian psychology -- that everything is a manifestation of the subconscious mind. Therefore, all work produced by a writer is representative of their creative brilliance, whether it was conscious or not.

I'm not sure if I can put it so strongly as to say I'm a firm believer in Freudian psychology, but he has certainly influenced how we read literature, and I think largely in a good way.

[tangerine]

Hmm... can there be no meaning in a work?

"No meaning" meaning no underlying ideal(s) or moral(s). It's easy to write something just for fun.

But is the author necessarily the final judge on the matter?

That's a silly question. Are you implying that if you wrote something with a purpose, you'd be fine with letting that purpose go after the written work is complete? What's the point of writing something with a purpose if it ultimately serves nothing? The author should be the final judge. Just because analysts and most English undergraduates enjoy attempting to search for more meaning to something than there might be doesn't mean it's there, and it certainly doesn't mean that their analysis is bound to be correct.

I know that there will always be the same needless analysts and diverging conclusions, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing or that it should be accepted. If it weren't like that, John Lennon wouldn't have been killed.

Going back to the original question posted by Riel, I view art and artist as two things apart. Because once the work of art has been fully realized, that is once it has been communicated to others, it can't just be drawn back into the mind of its creator--art takes on a reality all its own, quite independent of the artist's original intentions. Once a story exists as a more or less 'objective' reality that people can interact with, at this point the author's own intentions are a moot point--I am interested in what Sartre wrote, not what Sartre intended.

If you were referring to visual art, then that would be fine. However, in literature everything is described. There shouldn't be any discrepancies in something that is literal (despite the amounts of metaphors used).

As an aside: no one is interested in what Sartre intended. Sartre was a crazy and disgusting person. His contributions to literature are undeniable, but merely in the same way that Hitler's contributions to fascism are undeniable; historically and progressively. He is somewhat renown today only for the way he wrote and not because of what he wrote about. His intentions and beliefs are only studied in the same way as the Crusades are. The point here is that your analogy is terrible. You would not have said the same for a book such as Midnight's Children, in which the message and the intention are made perfectly clear, and thus you have no analogy, but merely an opinion of one author. (This isn't a criticism; it's just a point.)

I should say, I'm also not satisfied with a totally laissez-faire approach to reading literature--that literature means only what any individual reader wants it to mean. It is a form of communication, and there are communication failures in that sense. But meaning in literature, as in all forms of communication, is not a one-sided determination nor is it as simple as the intention of the author.

On the contrary, I think a laissez-faire approach would be if the author leaves room for debate on his or her intentions. The reader should comprehend what is meant or else the work of writing is unsuccessful. (That's outside of works that are only meant to entertain.) Frankly, nowadays, you can't get away with being Stanley Kubrick and intentionally being as vague as possible and writing transcendentalism. It's garbage. (I've veered off-course with these last two sentences; I know.)


Freudian Psychology is a completely separate discussion, therefore I won't go into it in detail. However, I will say that the majority of Freud's contributions are considered flawed and obsolete (and rightfully so; just like Sartre, he contributed greatly to his field but Psychology has since then evolved), therefore you would do well to stop being a firm believer in them, LongLiveLife.