Enforced Bliss

Okay, so I've been away for a while, some of you may have forgotten me (awwww, shucks). Now that false modesty is out of the way I would very much like to start a serious discussion.

We are all, at least putatively, writers here so there should be no surprise that someone wants to talk wrinting. That being said...surprise.

So let's talk. I'll begin ( it is my thread after all )

Personally I think that all of the rules we learned in school can be safely thrown by the wayside. many "respected" writers have led the way: Miller, Burroughs, Nash, Thompson, cummings, Ginsberg. They have shown us that the language is open to play. Syntax, grammar, diction and all of the other school-marm things we were taught are bullshit!

Read, even better, listen to, HOWL and tell me that the rules apply. Read in Goya's greatest themes and tell me that Chaucer obtains. I don't believe that you can

I know all of my fans are asking themselves, "wherefore this apostasy?", aren't you the great defender of the sanctity of the language?

Yes I am.

Most poetry and prose sucks because hacks are trying to write how they think they should write. Most readers are content withj this because they have been trained to read without venom. Platitudinous prose and meretricious poetry thrive because we, as readers and writers, do not have the balls to defend the language by forcing it to it's extremes. We settle for nutrasweet in place of nutrition.

I say the ONLY criteria should be whether or not it works. If a line, style, format etc WORKS then it should be lauded rather than derided for linguistic eccentricities. Remember, words, in and of themselves, mean S.F.A.

Any thoughts from "serious" writers are welcome - this missive is to be considered a starting point - any dabblers enter at your own risk,

My hope is tha this thread might bring forward some decent discussion on the actual craft and theory of writing - like the Sons of Bwen or Scriblerus Society minus the respective taverns.

Hook up and bring your thoughts, but know that your opinions will be weighed against your work - as I expect mine to be.

We are ostensibly writers, let's talk writing! Bring on ideas for story structures, how to deal with imagery, cool thoughts regarding language and it's use.

Those who claim to "have it in [their] blood" step up to the plate and let's see if we. as a group, can't help us, as a group/

May you never thirst

Elliott

__________________
No one can make you drink, but some people can sure make you thirsty

Enforced Bliss

That should have been, "In Goya's Greatest Scenes"

Elitist, though imperfect, I remain

Bliss

__________________
No one can make you drink, but some people can sure make you thirsty

Gia

I have this amazing writing theory that I really must share . If

you are too flouncy and bouncy and normal , then I don't think

you can be a proper writer . I think that if you have a life experience

that marks you out as different , then you are properly qualified to

be a proper writer . If you are just a " normally " -i.e. you were just

always really normal , then you can't be a proper artist . If there's a life

experience in your past that made you different , that you used to be

really ashamed of , but that you now carry around with you like a badge

of honour , a great war wound that you are very proud of , then you are

real . I hope to God that I am never a normally .

Kitten Courna

Though respectfully wary of your posts, I think you've hit a golden note.

I follow the belief that grammar, no matter how nit-picky and out dated some of it may be, is almost required. It may be shite, but shite makes fertilizer, one could say. Grammar is a construction that assists in making one understood, conveying the ideas an author wishes to convey in the simplest form. The ideas are the important bit, aren't they? Though I will admit, the right author could achieve much through freedom from grammar, not many could do it.

"Most poetry and prose sucks because hacks are trying to write how they think they should write. Most readers are content withj this because they have been trained to read without venom."

Actually, I would disagree with you there. I believe the trend of the day is to write outside the lines *smile*. I have yet to run across anyone who's written 'how they think they should write'. I find that's usually what keeps them from writing at all. Those who write tend to be the ones who, though seeking acceptance, wish to be somewhat creatively separated from others. Unfortunately it's less and less of deterrant as people pick up on the great acceptance of the amateur world. This is why netspeak has crept into acceptibility among writers. I'm not sure why I should bother with someone's work if they haven't gathered enough time to type out the word 'you' instead of just the letter, 'u'.

I've also found that it isn't that readers have been trained to read without venom, (though they have been trained to accept the classic writers as geniuses) but that they haven't been trained at all. Most people couldn't read their way out of a paperback, much less critique it. It isn't necessary that they do so. They are contented with a good story, or at least one that satisfies them, and rightfully so if that is all they desire. I would be less concerned with a lack of trained readers than I would be with a lack of trained writers.

I'm not sure whether we've been looking in different places, but I find that grammar is most often thrown away by the hack writers, or the simply ignorant. Though I believe that syntax and grammar and the like can be thrown out, and it should certainly be experimented with if one intends on being a serious writer, I do not believe that, as you said, they, "can be safely thrown by the wayside." In fact, I'm rather afraid they have been.


And just a light note, I don't think that, even if we tried, we could throw out diction, 'word choice'. We've all got to choose sometime, don't we?*smile*

-Kitten

__________________
Cadmus: Poor child, like a white swan warding its weak old father, why do you clasp those white arms about my neck?
Euripides; 'The Bacchae'

die_daily

Tone. I love it. And I couldn't care less about grammar if there is an interesting voice to the piece, a little flavor to make things go down easier.

Grammar probably is important to other people, but I don't care about it as long the entire thing is somewhat readable. I've had no writer's education past High School english, and don't feel right harping on other people for the same errors I probably make a lot of the time.

I don't particularly care for elitist pricks who hop on the grammar bandwagon and salivate at the opportunity to point out that it's spelled "their" and not "there", for example. Eat a dick.

I feel stupid just reading this. How does a person qualify such a statement without coming across as a pompous know-it-all? Out of the stuff I've read, when I didn't like a piece it was usually because the narrator was very boring, the writing was dry, and it didn't flow. This has nothing to do with writer's believing that they should write a certain way. It has everything to do with skill level and a poor grasp of the tools at a writer's disposal, such as call-back, repetition, sentence structure, and the goddamned importance of creating memorable ways to begin a story. Hooks. Hooks. Hooks.

Penelope

Elliott - due to the compliments you've paid me I feel almost adaquate posting a response here.
In my view, which is an uneducated one, the writers of the classics were touted because they were unique. I probably have a different list of 'classic' authors than the norm anyhow. I'm relieved I wasn't forced to conform or dissect poetry in school. I doubt if anyone could have been successful in altering my mindset anyhow.
I'm not a 'trained' writer and have enough life 'experiences' to draw from which have brought me to a place where I'm comfortable having my own opinions and expressing them. I agree about a hook but there better be some follow through or connection. I dislike people reaching for stuff they don't have a clue about or declaring their ideas or opinions are the only ones that matter.
I apparently do have a writing 'style' and I don't have a clue where it came from but don't question it much either. I think all art forms have a capacity for natural ability which requires honing and diversity. I don't think a writer can be created if there is no base to expand from.
I resent restrictions of 'clichés' and 'free verse' and consider those who criticize a 'cliché' or demand 'free verse' to be narrow minded. Language deserves full exploration rather than sticking to current fashion. Resurrecting words from the bowels of extinction shouldn't be complained about and labeled 'archaic' either.
I respect writers who have basic knowledge of what word applies where but don't condemn a piece if there are improperly used ones. It detracts from the writing which is never a good thing. I reserve my nit picky criticsm for those who've lambasted me for the same .. right Elliott?
Nice to have you back by the way. Happy New Year.

__________________
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Ronald Reagan ~ 1981

Poetry Editor @ Sacred Twilight

Enforced Bliss

Gia - Life experience is required but I doubt very much that it is the sole criterion for deciding whether or not you are a writer.

I have a fair amount of life experience but if I couldn't string a coherent sentence together then I wouldn't be a writer. Just as a painter must have some feel for his medium so must a writer and that is the deciding factor - to my mind. It may be that experience is what makes the difference between a good writer and a bad writer but experience alone will no more make me a writer than a hammer and chisel make me a sculptor.

Kitten - If you haven't come across anyone who "writes the way they think they should" then you haven't been looking very hard. Take a sweep through the poetry section on Lit.org proper and you'll find countless examples of people writing a love poem (or death or what-have-you) the way they think they "ought" to be written (lot's of flowery images, comparisons to the sea, hearts bursting one moment and breaking the next ad nauseum ad infinitum).

You are right in saying that most readers aren't trained at all and I will back-pedal just enough on that one to give you your due

That being said I can't agree with you that most writing is being done outside the lines. Most writing, in my experience, is just a moored in structure and style as it has always been. There have been some who have had both the courage and capacity to step outside of their forms but mostly writing is somewhat stalled. Brion Gysin (I hate to cite the man) opined that writing is invariably 50 years behind music and I am afraid that he is right.

Netspeak - to use an example you brought up - could be used to make an interesting story or poem if the writer could use inherent subtext in it. The substitution of numbers for letters for instance brings to mind a place and time where numerical linearness has replaced human chaos, not to mention the overtones of Orwellian Newspeak and, for the ubiquitous mystics, Caballah.

This post was intended for those who are more serious about their writing and, I hope, who have already gotten a firm enough grasp of the "rules" to safely jettison them - perhaps I should have qualified that.

For too long I have been struggling to speak in my own voice with "their" phrasing and it was a major impediment to me. Now I have leanred to break free of that (started to at least) and I'm finding that it is one of the most usefull things I have done.

So let me rephrase, if you suck - stick to the rules until you suck no longer. If you are good, play around with them. Better Kitten ?

Die Daily - Quote: "Most poetry and prose sucks because hacks are trying to write how they think they should write. Most readers are content withj this because they have been trained to read without venom."

"I feel stupid just reading this. How does a person qualify such a statement without coming across as a pompous know-it-all?" - I don't know that you can qualify it without coming across as a pretentious know-it-all, that's why I didn't qualify it.

Again I say that a lot of the problem with bad writing comes from trying to WRITE the way things ought to be written.

"When I come across a pretentious literary style I know the has not read enough" (I don't recall the citation). I can often tell just from reading someone's work what period the poetry or prose they read most of comes from simply by the content and "techniques" they include. The more overt they are the worse the writer and the greater the sense of they are writing it how they think it is supposed to be written.

It would seem that I am in the minority in holding this view (a state I am accustomed to) so I will not belabour it any longer for dear of growing even more tedious than is my wont.

Pen - Style comes from practise and writing to your taste. You have one and you should be happy for it as it is a pretty fair 'un

Cliche I am ambivalent about. I mean they wouldn't have survived to become cliche if they did not have some lasting resonance, on the other hand they smack of laziness. I think it is important to handle cliche in as fresh a way as possible and to avoid it whenever you can.

Thank you for brining up "archaic" words and the desirability of resurecting them! There are too many great words that have been allowed to mummify in the linguistic bog for too long. Bring them back and give the language back the potency it once had and loses bit by bit day by day.

Glad to be back Pen, happy New Year to you too

__________________
No one can make you drink, but some people can sure make you thirsty

overheadalbatross

Ok, my two cents:

"Howl" is a great poem. Probably second favorite, behind Blake's "Poison Tree." cummings and Ginsberg and plenty of other Modern writers are demonstrating alternative methods of writing by twisting syntax and grammar. And for their context and substance, it definitly works. But their are times when proper form helps, also. Not just in essays and letters and the obvious stuff, but if the subject of your poem is order and regulation, it helps to keep your style reflective of that.

Most Modern works, however, feel very fragmented. Take Yeats's "The Second Coming." It's mostly sentence fragments linked together by semicolons, which really helps the theme of disunion and "things falling apart."

So, there's a time and a place for everything, and it's up to the author to decide when and where they are. But it's defintly taken too long for the literary world to realize this.

Gia - I think that you've got something of an idea, but it's a very, very bad idea. You can be perfectly normal and be a good writer, and not all drama queens are geniuses. The K-Mart Generation of writers is about banal, hum-drum life. It's not quite poverty, but it's close enough to make you uncomfortable. Besides, Orwell is the master of poverty. K-Martism is about normal people, written by normal people, but it exposes the dullness, emptiness, and trite existence in and of their lives.

But where you're right is that good writing can't be about normal situations portrayed normally. Any and every good piece of writing is about some sort of conflict. But we all knew that, right?

__________________
Overhead the albatross hangs motionless upon the air.
And deep beneath the rolling waves, in labyrinths of coral caves..

Penelope

*laughing*
K-Marxism! Why did I read that instead of the other? Formula writing - it's almost like depending on one strain of potatos or wheat. It becomes blighted and boring but having the nerve to take on a writer who is different is just too risky. Gritty prose and poetry is scintillating until it gets threadbare or isn't presented well. One of my favourite recent books is Angela's Ashes but I can't even remember the title of the next one he wrote. Reality is preferrable to the candy floss crap that some authors spew out. And those are best sellers! For the life of me I don't know why. I remember a series that a friend recommended to me which began with "Flowers in the Attic" Great title but the books all sucked .. yet they were snapped up. I think being Canadian offers me wider possibilities than other countries. I hope so anyhow.
When it comes to poetry choosing the right style for the correct subject really can deliver a wonderful combination. After a few years of just writing rhyming couplets poems I branched out late last year. It took an ancient Irish poem to open my eyes to the possibilities of trying something new.
I didn't even know about pantoums and villanelles until I became active on the internet. Bless the net for sure.
In any 'normal' life a lot of conflict falls. Writing a story without including strife would be incredibly difficult.
One thing I have found is not being familiar with a lot of famous poetry is beneficial. You don't know a subjects been done far better (except for love of course) by so and so or whatshisname.

__________________
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Ronald Reagan ~ 1981

Poetry Editor @ Sacred Twilight

overheadalbatross

Yeah, I've gone through a lot of times when I write a poem or story or whatever and then see the same theme by an author who's "respected" or "good." It's just up to each author to distinguish themself by having an original idea and talent.

__________________
Overhead the albatross hangs motionless upon the air.
And deep beneath the rolling waves, in labyrinths of coral caves..

Solaris

Writing is suggestive hypnosis.

Writing is about capturing the perspective of something fascinating. Writing is like being John Malkovich.

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/b...malkovich.html

===================================

It's about trying to find the floor in between floors that people have to adjust to. It's about temporarily wanting to be something you will never be, and the hell of realization. It's about leading people places and hoping they will want to stay and keep you company.

gabriella

I disagree with you there, to an extent. I think you have to know the rules before you break them.

I can be considered normal. I'm like any stereotypical girl. I care about how I look, I love makeup, I love boys, I love going out and having a good time. Nothing has really traumatized me in my life. I have a lot of friends, and shopping is practically a hobby.

But I have a wild imagination, and I need something to tame those daydreams, make them reality in another world. another time."A writer needs three things: experience, observation, and imagination, any two of which, at times, any one of which, can supply the lack of the others. -- William Faulkner.

The point of that quote is that you need one of those three things to be a writer, to be drawn to the art, or any form of art. Though not all will be artists, some will. Artists feel different from everybody else: they feel that they have a story to tell, a picture to paint, a feeling to convey.

It's not so much what you are, but what you feel. Through the eyes of others, I might be considered a loner, a slut, popular, a bully and a bitch.

I am one of those people who instantly feel a moment's awkwardness when I see typos like that. Grammar and syntax can go flying out the window, but spelling is an entirely different category. The difference between there/their/they're changes the meaning entirey. Also, typos are entirely different from a wrong word - typos aren't intentional: Wrong words are. If an author published a book and he didn't even know the difference between they're/there/their, then what other horrible dictations am I going to find?

I agree with you there. Though nost most novels are written with the unique sense that all we readers craze, the good ones are.

__________________
You write by sitting down and writing - Bernard Malamud.

gabriella

I disagree with you there, to an extent. I think you have to know the rules before you break them.

I can be considered normal. I'm like any stereotypical girl. I care about how I look, I love makeup, I love boys, I love going out and having a good time. Nothing has really traumatized me in my life. I have a lot of friends, and shopping is practically a hobby.

But I have a wild imagination, and I need something to tame those daydreams, make them reality in another world. another time."A writer needs three things: experience, observation, and imagination, any two of which, at times, any one of which, can supply the lack of the others. -- William Faulkner.

The point of that quote is that you need one of those three things to be a writer, to be drawn to the art, or any form of art. Though not all will be artists, some will. Artists feel different from everybody else: they feel that they have a story to tell, a picture to paint, a feeling to convey.

It's not so much what you are, but what you feel. Through the eyes of others, I might be considered a loner, a slut, popular, a bully and a bitch.

I am one of those people who instantly feel a moment's awkwardness when I see typos like that. Grammar and syntax can go flying out the window, but spelling is an entirely different category. The difference between there/their/they're changes the meaning entirey. Also, typos are entirely different from a wrong word - typos aren't intentional: Wrong words are. If an author published a book and he didn't even know the difference between they're/there/their, then what other horrible dictations am I going to find?

I agree with you there. Though nost most novels are written with the unique sense that all we readers craze, the good ones are.

__________________
You write by sitting down and writing - Bernard Malamud.

Kimberly Bird

Hi enforcedbliss, nice to see you again. My two sense. I agree with Penelope about the example she used, Angela's Ashes, fanatstic bit of writing and much of it through his mouth. (Tis is the next novel you are thinking about Penelope.)

Regarding writing stories, yes much writing laws can be ignored if done properly. I know in everyone of my long stories, the two novels and the two manuscripts I am currently working on, I have ignored some writing rules. I have used the odd fragment, keeping it in because it needs to stand alone to be effective. I have had run-ons, same reasoning behind it. I have written in a Scottish accent because without it, it reads not legite. However, I do in most parts believe in grammer. It's a matter of finding your style and keeping with it. To be creative in thought one must step over the boundaries with due care in the sense of respect for the written word but also with a reckless abandonment at the same time. Eventually you find your niche and the reader forgives all as they become submerged in your work.

A tall tale for one so short

Kimberly

Kitten Courna

Since some seem to be picking up on it, I'll add an editors note to my comment. And I think I'll start at the head of the board, but note that everyone else's words were heard too.

Enforced Bliss, I may have misrepresented, but I don't recall saying that most writing is done outside the lines. I didn't mean that at all. I meant that imply that rebelliousness, especially in the arts and such, tends to be well accepted these days. It applies to writing as well, I think. Most writing, I would say, is well within the lines, but people realize that difference is usually what makes one noticeable, or, at the very least marketable. So one would strive to find ways to mark out one's work as different, and what is easiest and most striking to change at all once? That would be grammar.

Innovation is being heralded more than skill, and that leads down a particularly bad road, I think.

Also, about writing 'how they ought to write,' I used as a basis people I knew personally and had spoken to. I don't read the poetry on Lit.Org, unless I am sure of the author. So I should probably accede that one to you.

Your restatement, brilliant. I would agree more with that one.

One minor thing though, I'm afraid you implied that I wasn't serious about my writing. That rather hurts. I hope it isn't true.

-Kitten

__________________
Cadmus: Poor child, like a white swan warding its weak old father, why do you clasp those white arms about my neck?
Euripides; 'The Bacchae'