On Writing: Why Do We Write?

Even if you are an author, a wannabe writer, or just a simple human being with no intention of becoming a writer, I am sure you HAVE written something at least once in your life, be it an entry in your personal journal, a blog entry, or a piece of fanfiction (I am guilty here, I tried writing fanfics once)… or even your own story. Do most of us write solely for money or must there be something else that triggers our wish for expressing on paper?

Let’s see.

Money. Yes, there are a lot of people who write for money, especially professional writers, but also a lot of bloggers who can make money with every visitor who lands on his blog and hits the ads on the page. But can you write just for the money? I doubt… Where there is no passion, no intrinsic reason, I don’t think there can be anything to last. Of course you can write in the basic sense of the word, but it is not authentic, and it can’t last. I once thought I enjoyed drawing, because my friends were good at it, but in the end I gave up drawing. It was just a fling.

Writing is a means of expressing our thoughts. I think this is the main reason for which we take up writing. Here, there is no external factor that forces us to write. But often, if we publish what we write, we become influenced by those who comment and watch our works… and so…

Writing becomes a duty to the readers. A duty to our fans. I uploaded my novel on Fictionpress and received some comments. Of course, most of all were positive, consisting of good advice, but if it weren’t for the reviews I’ve received, I would’ve probably never written the last draft of my novel. The worst thing is that, once I get a few followers, I feel obliged to them to update the novel as soon as possible, sooner than I would’ve if it weren’t for the pressure. This is not necessarily a good thing. Once you begin to feel this duty to your readers, you stop writing what your mind thinks, and start writing what they expect you to write. Even if involuntarily, you begin to realise what your readers want, and you become influenced by their comments. Thus the work becomes less personal.

And the last reason that comes to my mind:

Writing is like another reality for you. Have you ever felt that your life is meaningless… or not the way you wanted it to be? That there are a lot of things you wish you’ve had or known, a lot of things you would want to be? You start to daydream, and soon, you wish to put your ideal life on paper. I (partly) write because my dreams come true by writing them. I also noticed this… that when I am very happy with my life, I tend to neglect my writing, and start doing more practical things, like going outside with my friends, going in a club and having fun etc. Writing is like playing a RPG. It’s like an alternate reality. PS: This also includes writing a story in which the people you hate are the victims (hence the picture), or in which your crush becomes your boyfriend (if you are a teenager writing YA).

So, why do you write? Because I am sure you do…

 

On Writing: Theories of Writing (I)

I’ve just had an American Literature exam, and my head is full of Emerson, Poe, Irving, Henry James and so on and so forth. But what I really found interesting is Howell’s and Poe’s theories of writing.

I’ll start with Howells and his “Novel-Writing and Novel-Reading”. I found a good outline of his ideas here: http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/howellsr.htm

• “A true, life-like representation of reality is beautiful and cannot corrupt; the imagination can only work with the stuff of experience. Ugliness, by contrast, is what is false and unreal.” Clearly, he was influenced by the ideas of the Transcendentalist writers. I’d rather see it as “the aesthetics of ugliness”, but surely this is not what Howell thought at all.
• “Like actors who love to take ‘note [of] how the thing is done.  We forget the shop [...] but the shop does not forget us’. Authors are essentially performers and makers of a craft.” This is what Poe thought. too. I completely agree. In writing, unlike in any other form of art, imagination is less important. The writer is less of a creator, and more of a crafter.
• “Women read for the psycho-ethical referent of characters and stories.” Now that’s a a bit of a prejudice, isn’t it? I can’t decide if it applies to me, but since my favourite books have this psycho-ethical referent in them… yeah, I guess that’s right. Though I can’t prove in any way if men read for the same reason, so it remains an open question.
• Fiction presently takes three broad approaches to representation: novel (characters are real, incidents grow out of characters) — what I would call a realist novel, in which every character has a flaw, and that is what triggers the action, romance (characters are types, they represent an ideal, and there are a lot of allegories) — I’d add gothic novels here and maybe even some fantasy novels and fairytales, and romantic novel (characters, who are real types, they don’t represent an ideal, and their behaviour is arbitrary) – this is where I would add my novel and almost all of the historical romances written nowadays, and well, almost all contemporary fiction.

The same website I listed above comes with a set of questions to consider; I’ve only answered a few:

1. What separates a “type” in fiction from a “character”?  How do we ascertain “realistic” motives? A type is less likely to be found in real life. Examples of types are Frankestein, Faust, and they are animated by one idea which is an ideal for them. The action usually takes place under fantasy-like circumstanes, in mythical places and mythical times. Mr. Rochester, for example, is a character, not a type, he is not guided by any ideal, is real, has a variety of facets. Thus, the characters are also more “real”, more “humane”, and have a variety of personality traits and flaws.
2. Should fictional be ethical in its message?  Will it naturally be so? Fiction is ethical without us realising it. It is impossible not to be so, since the author is a real person, with values and principles, with an ethical view of the world. However, I dislike books which try to force you to think in a certain way. In other words, the narrator should not be biased or prejudiced, he should offer a balanced view with different ethical views.
3. What keeps a story interesting to a reader? That’s a hard question… if we knew the precise answer we would have the key to writing! But I’ll try to answer it. I think readers seek to identify themselves with either the characters, the situations, or with the narrative voice (ultimately with the author’s views and ideas). For example, I like Jane Austen for her humour, sometimes so ironical and witty! I enjoyed  “To Kill a Mockingbird” because I am strongly against racism, I loved the character of Atticus because his judgement was always so strong. I also liked “The Lord of the Rings”, but because of my fascination for this type of fantasy novels. Therefore, to all the reasons above, I would also add that some readers want to satisfy their own passions for certain things when reading a book. They might be history addicts, or Science Fiction geeks etc., so obviously, this is why they read historical/SF/etc. books.
4. Do women and men read differently? I wouldn’t know, since I’m not a man, but what I noticed is that men seem to read books with subjects they are interested in (computers, SF). They are more focused on ideas, rather than on the characters. They are also more keen on the plot, the action, rather than on the dialogue. Women, on the other hand, seem to grow fond of the characters, the values which they engross, and focus more on the dialogue. Hence why we love “Jane Eyre”, and men love “Dune”.
   

 

And here I confess my sins as a writer.

I admit that I have:

• neglected my writing in favour of watching a movie, reading a book etc.;
• not kept my promise to finish my novel by the end of the year that has passed;
• copied fragments of my previous works just because I had a supposed writer’s block (of this I’m very ashamed);
• presumed that I have a writer’s block when all I had was a bad disposition (I no longer believe in this fancy word: “writer’s block”);
• “stolen” ideas from my favourite writers, without even realising it (but hey, who doesn’t? “Imitation is the greatest form of admiration.”);
• deleted a scene just because I wanted to finish the chapter earlier (ashamed again…);
• included a scene just because the chapter seemed too short (the eternal quanity over quality thing…);
• attempted at cutting down half of the pages (one character’s POV), just because I wanted to finish the goddamn novel sooner;
• loved and hated my novel and my characters at the same time;
• not documented myself thoroughly about the era I’m writing in (it’s not supposed to be a source of documentation, but a work of fiction, right?).

May the God of writing have mercy on my soul!

Completely unrelated to the topic, some time ago, a reader complained that I made my male character too romantic. Whoo, imagine him a heartless Casanova! Who said women like romantic characters (I assume she was a girl by the name)? I have noticed this… that lately the ‘Mr. Bad Guy’ is more and more often found in historical romances. If you ask me, I think it’s nonsense and completely unfit for the 18th/19th century. But that’s my two cents.

What I’ve learned in time is that there is no such thing as a writer’s block. It is only an excuse, and in my case, a way of saying “I’m done with writing. I’m too bored. Let’s do something funnier!” The bad luck of being a person with many interests, who just happens to write a novel and wants very eagerly to finish it, haha!

 

Sometimes the easiest way is not necessarily the best…

Unfortunately.

I’ve change the form of my story more than I’ve changed the names of my characters. You can’t imagine how many ideas I’ve had for this novel. I once even thought of making it happen in Renaisscence Venice. Or even in Russia… courtesans in Russia? That was a stupid idea. And how many names I’ve tried for the main characters! But this beats all! I am returning to my old, two-points-of-view form. Without Rose’s part of storytelling, my novel is empty, a piece of garbage, you could say.

It was the easiest way, I am sure, but removing so many passages from my writing… urgh, no, I couldn’t do it. I’ve created this character, I’ve grown fond of it.

Alas, I now have to kill my brain again. This is the most time consuming project I’ve ever been involved into.

And still, these past days I’ve rewritten four chapters; that makes 20,000 words in less than one week. I have my inspiration by my side again! Let’s hope it stays where it is now.

 

Movie Review: Emma

My Rating:

Other Similar Movies: Pride and Prejudice, Becoming Jane, Sense and Sensibility, Shakespeare in Love

___________________________________

A good adaptation or not?

My first introduction to Jane Austen’s Emma was the 1996 version movie starring Gwyneth Paltrow. Although I liked her very much in Shakespeare in Love, I disliked her very much in that movie. I didn’t even saw it all. I gave up after an hour or so. This is why I hesitated to read the book also. I thought I could see another movie instead and then I’d see if the book is worth it. Now, I think Romola Garai is one of the fewest actresses who can fit in any historical role. Seeing that she’s the one playing the main role in the BBC mini-series, I decided I wanted to see this movie.

And I was right! I couldn’t imagine any other actress to fit this role better. Michael Gambon is, as always, great in historical contexts, but the surprise was Johnny Lee Miller, who made a great Mr. Knightley! The action is very well designed, the small details which we, historical lovers, are mad about (such as the costumes), are accurate, the colours were beautiful.  Now I can rest assured. I can read the book and I won’t be sorry.

My conclusion?

If you like Jane Austen, you will like this movie. Her style is entirely present in it. One more proof that BBC does an exceptional job on the films inspired by classical authors.

 

On Writing: Finding Your True Literary Self

There are several types of writers, with a lot of writing styles. There is the very personal writer, who is often very subjective and pretty much very philosophical, and the “universal” literary self, the writer who acts like an omnipresent god who knows everything that goes around and everything that happens in his characters’ head.

By now, I am sure that you’ve already figured out what I’m going to write about: the overrated POV issue. There are two great types of POV’s: the first-person narrative and the third-person narrative point of view. I will exclude the second-person narration from the list since it is unusual, rare, and controversial.

We are all familiar with the third-person narration. It is pretty much the most preferred point of view since it allows the writer to be objective (now this is where I have a problem!). The essential thing to keep in mind when writing from this point of view (and the reason why I am never able to write in the third person) is that this kind of narration always (or most of the times) focuses on action. If you don’t have a clear idea of the action, with its conflict and climax, and the succession of events, you will either fail, or revolutionise the whole literature. It is less likely that you will do the latter, though.

This is where I fail so hard! I see writing as a way of expressing one’s beliefs. I would rather perceive literature as a poem, a philosophical essay on a certain matter, even if it’s fiction. Fiction is to me a means of expressing an idea artistically and in a… let’s say, “catchy” and “immediate” manner, a more “straight to the point” way, unlike poetry, which requires a certain knowledge and understanding of literature from the readers.

This is why I’ve always preferred the first-person narration. This kind of POV has many facets. You can write from two POV’s, which I tried, and failed, and I do not recommend you to try unless you have healthy nerves, haha. Why have I failed, I wonder? Is it because I could identify myself with both of my characters? Is it because my literary self was (metaphorically speaking) going through an identity crisis, not knowing what character defines it? Perhaps, but the most bothersome aspect was that I could not settle in the mind of one character. I was beginning a chapter from one character’s POV, then when I finally identified with that character, I had to change, and recollect everything that was typical of the other character. My attention could not stay focused on both of the characters.

Writing from two POV’s is also a bit more objective, since you have to see things from two sides. I guess the “objectiveness” of it did not fit me. So, while I was reading Henryk Sienkiewicz’s “Without Dogma”, a novel which I enjoyed very much, it occured to me that I could write a novel in the form of a journal. I was pretty much scared by the idea. “When will I ever settle for one single, definitive form for my novel?” I asked myself. I decided, though, to give up the idea of two POV’s and give it a try… and it worked! Why?

√ because I do not have to worry about losing the track of my ideas;

√ because I am staying true to only one character, and consequently…

√ I don’t have to worry about having to make my characters’ voices different;

√ because I maintain my subjectivity along the course… and…

√ because I don’t have to worry about the action.

Reducing the narration to only one POV cuts down the action, so I won’t have to worry about unimportant details which I had to mention in the two POV version, because many things did not make any sense if I didn’t explain them from both of the characters’ point of view. Also, if by chance I have a writer block and don’t know what even follows, I introduce something like:

“August the 1st [...]

Nothing important has happened, so I do not feel like writing about how my day was.”

The end, haha.

Not a very lyrical example, but you get the picture.

Seriously, writing in a journal-like form is the most true to the self, the easiest way to put your ideas (more or less philosophical) on paper.

 

Movie Review: Mary Bryant

My Rating:

Other Similar Movies: Amazing Grace, John Adams, Garrow’s Law, Dangerous Beauty

___________________________________

At first sight…

I was browsing the Internet Movie Database for recommendations and came upon this apparently obscure movie which, as I could see, was about an influential woman, about the British Colonies and included some scenes on a ship… enough elements to make me add it to my watchlist. Plus, Romola Garai is an actor I’ve come to adore.

How much of the movie was true?

As far as we know and can learn from the internet, the life of Mary Bryant is very accurately depicted in the movie.

The film tells the story of Mary Bryant, convicted for stealing a bonnet and bread and sentenced to England’s new colony on the other side of the world in Australia. She begins her journey in 1787, on the boat commanded by Captain Clarke. She arrives at the new colony God knows how, with the horrible conditions and having to cope with the birth of a child. There, she marries Will Bryant, another Cornish convict. It is obvious that the conditions are as harsh as on the ship, and she will soon have to go through famine, sicknesses, and a plan of elopement… Mary proposes a plan with her husband to escape from the prison island, by stealing the colony’s cutter boat and sailing 4 thousand miles to Timor with 5 other male convicts. But, as Governor Phillip exclaims: “the burden of carrying a woman, and children, no — even if they survive the sea, they’ll never survive each other”.

In the end, Mary is set free. Her fame, it could be said, helped her become free. Rumour gets around about the famous girl who escaped from Australia. People begin to sympathize with her and eventually protest… and this final scene is very great and emotional indeed.

I liked the movie because it shows the worst of us, the human race, but the best of it also. The acting was good, the story — brilliant and realistic, and Mary Bryant was, if i’m allowed to say so, a “superwoman” — very strong, in control of everything, including her emotions. She knows what she wants (freedom), fights to get it and in the end obtains it.

Nothing to complain about the movie, it was simply what I expected and hoped for it to be.