Today's my post for the Insecure Writers Support Group.
In a 1996 interview of David Foster Wallace, he talks about how traditional narrative is "a relief from what it feels like to live," whereas a writer who "does his job right" reminds the reader of "what it feels like to live," and his own intelligence, "wak[ing] the reader up to stuff that the reader's been aware of all the time."
So a major point of insecurity is that I don't write like that. I'm pretty trapped in traditional narrative (perhaps defined as a sort of writing that's not conscious of its reader), as that's all I've ever read and all I've ever enjoyed, because I've always read as escapism--as a relief from what it feels like to live.
This shouldn't be a problem, right? Because as writers we're supposed to write the books we want to read, and if we want to read escapist stuff we should write that too. But I think it may be a bit of a problem. I recognize the value of writing as a tool for the evolution of self: each cosmology we create, each internally coherent story, can be a holograph for understanding all of life--but the key to making it a true reflection of life is through its ability to connect with something real in the audience. If it connects to a reader's dreams and fantasies, it seems that no dialogue would be created for increasing consciousness of what's real--and the writing remains an escapist activity, a relief from what it feels like to live real life.
It tends to be that when I stop writing, I feel empty and purposeless, which reinforces the idea that I'm doing it to distract me from life instead of help me live it.
Supposedly it takes 10,000 hours to master something, which would be about three hours a day of writing for ten years. I'm not anywhere near that, but I can already feel a struggle between fantasy and reality as I continue to write.
Colleen, I think that my Eddard's diaries are written in the traditionals style. And I write and play it because its relief from living.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily think that's bad.
I also think tht perhaps writing an escapist piece may not be making meaningful dialogue with the conscious mind. But what, for example, if you are engaging the subconscious in a meaningful dialogue?
That's not so bad, and may even be, in a way, more profound.
That's a great way to think about it. I felt bad because I was passing judgment on everything I've ever enjoyed reading. And then I also realized that David Foster Wallace, although a genius, may not be the best example for his writing helping him live, since he committed suicide.
DeleteWell, your blog isn't escapism, but it's great writing.
ReplyDeleteI think we all need a little bit of all THREE aspects Wallace describes...someone who can adequately describe our experience...someone who can help us escape from it...and someone who can remind us of what we've forgotten.
I like that. I guess we could find that thing we've forgotten in pure fantasy fiction, too, and maybe it just depends on whether we're looking for it or not. So there is no black and white in any reasons for reading and writing, and that's the way it should be.
DeleteYou walked me right up to the place where I knew and felt just what you were saying - and it's just a blog post. You're probably doing better than you think. Those 10,000 hours will be here before we know it. I'm hoping I'm faster than that. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tonja. Yeah, it would be nice to reach mastery before I turn 50...but also it relieves some of the pressure to produce masterpieces now. :)
DeleteI feel like I've hit 10,000 hours in two years. LOL.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Happy new Year!
Thanks, Ciara! Hooray for being prolific. Happy New Year to you too!
Delete