(no subject)
Jan. 14th, 2007 01:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ann_leckieWoohoo! I've cleared my mind of the latest story, and have a deliberately scheduled period during which I have no writing projects on my mind. I can natter about inconsequential stuff that catches my attention!
So, like, Whatever this morning linked to this article.
Now, I'm going to put my cards on the table, for anyone who isn't already aware of this. I have a very utilitarian view of writing and writing skill. When someone says in my presence that they write "in order to express my way of being in the world" I am liable to sneer uncharitably. So you can see immediately that I am not going to react well to the basic premises of the article.
Scalzi has already made a number of points I agree with. It is most emphatically not my experience that when writers discuss the failings of their work
Though I imagine some of that is the fact that I hang out with genre writers and in those circles the idea of insufficiency of research not being a central problem is....well, come on!
Now, thinking about it, I will cut some slack for the basic idea of character revealing itself in one's writing. Frankly, yes, character is reavealed in your writing. I think writers know this--it's part of why so many writers react so strongly to criticism. But barring something really pathological, I don't think it's worth obsessing over. On the contrary, I think it's counterproductive to spend your whole writing career trying to discover or produce in yourself the requisite greatness of soul--or giving up because you can't achieve it.
I think this largely because, as I said, I have a very utilitarian view of writing skill. A man I admire once said, "Talent is overrated." And I agree with him. "Writing talent" is so many things, and if you're missing one bit you can nearly always make up for it with something else. And practice...practice makes pretty darn good, if you're willing to put in the work, willing to recognize your weak spots as a writer and roll up your sleeves and get down to business. In the end a determined half-literate writer with a tin ear who sets to with a will can do better than a genius who spends his life in a cafe pondering the authenticity of his being in the world. The tortoise and the hare, and all that.
Will the tortoise ever achieve the beauty and elegance of expression that comes effortlessly to the genius? Maybe. Okay, probably not. But the tortoise will have something all her own that will work.
Optimistic. Possibly deluded. But there you go.
Anyway. This is leading somewhere, I swear. Ms Smith tells us:
Oooh! Right, straight into my conception of writing as a set of skills a person can learn, if they're determined enough. Proof that I'm wrong. Because if it's just skills, like cabinet making, then obviously skilled writers ought to produce good novels at the same rate as skilled carpenters produce good cabinets, right?
Well, no. See, this comparison is dishonest.
Notice, she does not say "A skilled woodworker will make good cabinets" or "a skilled leatherworker will mend your shoes." Because that wouldn't be true--among woodworkers, it's only skilled cabinet makers who will do well with cabinets, and among leather workers, only cobblers will have the background to mend shoes easily.
There are a lot of different ways to be a skilled writer, a lot of different things to be skilled in writing. "Skilled writer" is more analogous to "skilled woodworker." "Skilled cabinet maker" is more analogous to "skilled novelist" than "skilled writer."
Of course it's rare for skilled writers to make good novels. It is also rare for skilled woodworkers to build good boats. It's quite common, however, for skilled shipwrights to do so.
And I can guarantee you that it is extraordinarly uncommon for unskilled writers to produce good novels. I would say it's all but impossible, no matter how they are in the world.
(Yes, I'm sneering. I can't help it.)
*******************
I'm going to go take a shower now, and I'm not going to think for even a moment about this. I am on a break from snakes, birds, Indo-European mythology, and anything else even remotely connected.
So, like, Whatever this morning linked to this article.
Now, I'm going to put my cards on the table, for anyone who isn't already aware of this. I have a very utilitarian view of writing and writing skill. When someone says in my presence that they write "in order to express my way of being in the world" I am liable to sneer uncharitably. So you can see immediately that I am not going to react well to the basic premises of the article.
Scalzi has already made a number of points I agree with. It is most emphatically not my experience that when writers discuss the failings of their work
Writers do not say, "My research wasn't sufficiently thorough" or "I thought Casablanca was in Tunisia" or "I seem to reify the idea of femininity" - at least, they don't consider problems like these to be central. They are concerned with the ways in which what they have written reveals or betrays their best or worst selves.
Though I imagine some of that is the fact that I hang out with genre writers and in those circles the idea of insufficiency of research not being a central problem is....well, come on!
Now, thinking about it, I will cut some slack for the basic idea of character revealing itself in one's writing. Frankly, yes, character is reavealed in your writing. I think writers know this--it's part of why so many writers react so strongly to criticism. But barring something really pathological, I don't think it's worth obsessing over. On the contrary, I think it's counterproductive to spend your whole writing career trying to discover or produce in yourself the requisite greatness of soul--or giving up because you can't achieve it.
I think this largely because, as I said, I have a very utilitarian view of writing skill. A man I admire once said, "Talent is overrated." And I agree with him. "Writing talent" is so many things, and if you're missing one bit you can nearly always make up for it with something else. And practice...practice makes pretty darn good, if you're willing to put in the work, willing to recognize your weak spots as a writer and roll up your sleeves and get down to business. In the end a determined half-literate writer with a tin ear who sets to with a will can do better than a genius who spends his life in a cafe pondering the authenticity of his being in the world. The tortoise and the hare, and all that.
Will the tortoise ever achieve the beauty and elegance of expression that comes effortlessly to the genius? Maybe. Okay, probably not. But the tortoise will have something all her own that will work.
Optimistic. Possibly deluded. But there you go.
Anyway. This is leading somewhere, I swear. Ms Smith tells us:
A skilled cabinet-maker will make good cabinets, and a skilled cobbler will mend your shoes, but skilled writers very rarely write good books and almost never write great ones.
Oooh! Right, straight into my conception of writing as a set of skills a person can learn, if they're determined enough. Proof that I'm wrong. Because if it's just skills, like cabinet making, then obviously skilled writers ought to produce good novels at the same rate as skilled carpenters produce good cabinets, right?
Well, no. See, this comparison is dishonest.
Notice, she does not say "A skilled woodworker will make good cabinets" or "a skilled leatherworker will mend your shoes." Because that wouldn't be true--among woodworkers, it's only skilled cabinet makers who will do well with cabinets, and among leather workers, only cobblers will have the background to mend shoes easily.
There are a lot of different ways to be a skilled writer, a lot of different things to be skilled in writing. "Skilled writer" is more analogous to "skilled woodworker." "Skilled cabinet maker" is more analogous to "skilled novelist" than "skilled writer."
Of course it's rare for skilled writers to make good novels. It is also rare for skilled woodworkers to build good boats. It's quite common, however, for skilled shipwrights to do so.
And I can guarantee you that it is extraordinarly uncommon for unskilled writers to produce good novels. I would say it's all but impossible, no matter how they are in the world.
(Yes, I'm sneering. I can't help it.)
*******************
I'm going to go take a shower now, and I'm not going to think for even a moment about this. I am on a break from snakes, birds, Indo-European mythology, and anything else even remotely connected.