A not unusually vitriolic article was published over at The Economist on the topic of NaNoWriMo. It gripes about the 'American' idea that everyone has a story that, if only they could release, would make them a household name. To me, this seems like a gross misrepresentation of what NaNoWriMo is all about, but then again what would I know? I'm just another one of those frothing amatuers.
But here's what gets my goat. Chris Baty is criticised by suggesting that novel writing involves grunt work. You get a bunch of your friends together and talk and write and don't get up until you've written a whole bunch of words. AC from London is quick to indicate that most serious authors (not him personally, by any stretch! Just dedicated authors, you must understand.) would not agree.
Not to be a stick in the mud, but there are two pieces of writing insight on offer here. Chris Baty says that there's no way around sitting down and churning out the words, so you might as well do it. The Much More Credible* New York Columnist says, in so many words, 'Writing is Pain and Hyperbole'.
There is simply nothing of value in hearing someone use flowery, only loosely-based-in-reality terms to describe the art of writing. What does 'Sit at a typewriter, open your veins and bleed' mean to somebody who is trying to further their writing skills? To be blunt about it, it doesn't mean anything. It's as useless as a musician saying that all music is made of love, or a chef saying her primary ingredient is sweat. Perfectly fine as sweeping, pithy commentary on their own work. Completely useless for anyone that want to know the first thing about the craft.
Why do we insist on doing this to writing? And music, for that matter? And anything that involves a speck of creativity? What is so boring and lifeless about the wonderously complex, immersive and fulfilling task of writing a fantastic, saleable and engrossing novel that people feel the need to dress it up in mythical and nonsensical bullshit?
Writing is not blood and pain. Writing is having an idea, using your fingers to write it, modifying your idea over and over again, taking advice on how to modify that idea further, and finally letting a bunch of people read your idea. That's it. Don't talk to me about characters so perfect they write themselves. Don't talk about inspiration that came on a bolt from the blue. Don't tell me about what a conduit you are for the stroy that was already written by the shared experiences of the denizens of this curse called humanity. That doesn't mean anything. That's authors appealing to their own ego, and the ego of others foolish enough to buy in to such rubbish.
Chris Baty knows that. Anyone who's tried to write a novel with realistic expectations ought to know that, too.
As I am constantly reminded when I put these kinds of opinions out there, it's horses for courses. One person's experience is just as valid as the next. So, really, it's up to you. You can sit down with friends, bash out your words and get something done. Or you can sit down at the keyboard and try and figure out what it means to open your veins and bleed, and how that applies to whether or not you need to split this chapter in half or cut a paragraph or two of extraneous prose.
Best of luck to those who choose the second option.
But here's what gets my goat. Chris Baty is criticised by suggesting that novel writing involves grunt work. You get a bunch of your friends together and talk and write and don't get up until you've written a whole bunch of words. AC from London is quick to indicate that most serious authors (not him personally, by any stretch! Just dedicated authors, you must understand.) would not agree.
Most writers who are dedicated to the craft would beg to disagree. The more apt metaphor is that used by a New York columnist in the 1940s: “It’s easy: you simply sit down at the typewriter, open your veins, and bleed.”
Not to be a stick in the mud, but there are two pieces of writing insight on offer here. Chris Baty says that there's no way around sitting down and churning out the words, so you might as well do it. The Much More Credible* New York Columnist says, in so many words, 'Writing is Pain and Hyperbole'.
There is simply nothing of value in hearing someone use flowery, only loosely-based-in-reality terms to describe the art of writing. What does 'Sit at a typewriter, open your veins and bleed' mean to somebody who is trying to further their writing skills? To be blunt about it, it doesn't mean anything. It's as useless as a musician saying that all music is made of love, or a chef saying her primary ingredient is sweat. Perfectly fine as sweeping, pithy commentary on their own work. Completely useless for anyone that want to know the first thing about the craft.
Why do we insist on doing this to writing? And music, for that matter? And anything that involves a speck of creativity? What is so boring and lifeless about the wonderously complex, immersive and fulfilling task of writing a fantastic, saleable and engrossing novel that people feel the need to dress it up in mythical and nonsensical bullshit?
Writing is not blood and pain. Writing is having an idea, using your fingers to write it, modifying your idea over and over again, taking advice on how to modify that idea further, and finally letting a bunch of people read your idea. That's it. Don't talk to me about characters so perfect they write themselves. Don't talk about inspiration that came on a bolt from the blue. Don't tell me about what a conduit you are for the stroy that was already written by the shared experiences of the denizens of this curse called humanity. That doesn't mean anything. That's authors appealing to their own ego, and the ego of others foolish enough to buy in to such rubbish.
Chris Baty knows that. Anyone who's tried to write a novel with realistic expectations ought to know that, too.
As I am constantly reminded when I put these kinds of opinions out there, it's horses for courses. One person's experience is just as valid as the next. So, really, it's up to you. You can sit down with friends, bash out your words and get something done. Or you can sit down at the keyboard and try and figure out what it means to open your veins and bleed, and how that applies to whether or not you need to split this chapter in half or cut a paragraph or two of extraneous prose.
Best of luck to those who choose the second option.
Very interesting! I agree with you that the article totally misses the point. The way I look at it might be more akin to the Burning Man or SXSW events. A passionate group starts the movement which is soon commercialized and rolled out onto the general public. Still, I don't think NaNoWriMo is being plugged to non-writers, and for that the article is way off. NaNoWriMo is more like the "Spring Training" of writing where writers (not idealists) convene to get their juices going, while energizing themselves. The fact that so few finish the 50,000 words seems enough to counter The Economist's argument that everyone thinks they can bang out a book.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Kevin! Try as I might, I just can't find a reason to discourage creativity. Most of the arguments seem to boil down to 'these people shouldn't try because the result might not be awesome'. I'm sure we don't need to point out what's wrong with that--it's just a poor way of thinking about creativity.
ReplyDelete