A Writer's Notebook, Day Six-Hundred-And-Seventy-Six
I was able to get started on that new story, and it is taking shape for me, already, though I only wrote a page or so at this point. It is very exciting to be working on fiction with this kind of steady pace. I have been writing poetry for a long time, but the effort at fiction has been slower and less successful, for the most part. I have written some fiction in past several years, but since I began sincere work on poetry, I have wanted to get to the point of writing fiction as a part of my daily practice as well, but now is the first time that has worked for me. I feel enthused that I am getting so much done now, and am glad to find that I am finding myself writing fiction with the same kind of consistency as poetry.
While I am also proud of the work I am doing, I do not know if the fiction is all that great, if I am honest. I believe in it, and I think that the kind of work I am interested in exploring, work that attempts to press beyond the assumed limits of fiction, is important. I do not mean to say that my work succeeds in those regards. I am not making that as a claim, but it is an ambition for the work I aim to do, and that goal is one I believe matters. One of the goals of art has to be to do what has not been achieved before, or to attempt to express something that is, in some sense, novel. It is not, of course, the aim of all art, but it is one that I believe is key to the development of culture, even if those who do the initial innovation are ignored or not seen as important, the work they do often exists at a layer beneath more popular and influential pieces that later artists encountered at an early age. I think this is often the case, and it often does happen that such artists become more known after, when that influence is felt and recognized. I am not, as I have said, claiming anything about the work I am achieving, but to provide a bit of an understanding of my goals.
I also think, at times, about this in other terms as well. One thing that I hear a great deal in reference to the development of technology, in particular the growth of neural-networks and other forms of AI is discussions about the development of AI writers and artists. At the moment, the writing of these systems is limited in many ways, but new developments are coming all the time, and it is naive to not consider, at least, the potential that an AI will, at some point that may happen sooner than we would expect, might be capable of writing a good novel. One that does not appear to be created by a machine. And, the machines will continue to improve at that point. So, if that is even possible, I want to explore what I, as a human, can do that is not the same as what is already. I want to do things that I don't think would occur to a computer, want to show that their is still a potential for human innovation.
That last comment, about innovation, builds on a belief that many creative individuals I know have absorbed, one that I tend to find irritating. This is the idea that their is nothing new that can be done, that everything is just a remix. To me, the falsehood of this is obvious from a simple consideration. See, either we believe that this is the result of having used up every possible idea, which cannot be the case, because the world is always changing and their are always new possibilities, new ideas, etc, or the idea that it has never been possible to have a new idea and it has all been remixing forever, and even if I accepted the idea that the first novels were just a remix of people writing other types of work and the notion of made up stories, that all creations are just putting old ideas together, if I take that as the literal way it is, it becomes the genuine process that is creativity. I mean, I do believe synthesis is creative, and I do use synthesis. I also believe that any idea is built on ideas that exist, on knowledge and experience, but that does not mean that their is nothing more in creativity than just putting things together. Even determining what to combine is unique. All writing uses a language that already exists, but it can still be that a piece says things that the language has not ever said before, and it can even alter the language through how it uses it. To me, the key is to push the possibility of the art forward by exploring what can be done, and the idea that their is nothing new falls apart as either silly or too broad.
I know that their is a pretension in seeking to write work that is new and daring and innovative, and I accept that. I do not deny that their is a quality of ego necessary in anyone who wants to write the kind of work I am discussing here, but that is a result of the fact that most people follow the limitations and take that as correct. To think you can do otherwise and not fail, is to believe you are better than the rules, for many, but I am not of the belief that I am able to write things no one else could think of, I just think I ask different questions and notice different things. That may be, in part, because I am dyslexic and see language in ways that are unique to my experiences, though their are other writers with dyslexia. I do think I notice aspects of writing that others don't because of my difficulties with reading, and I think my perspective of language is a part of what impacts my interests.
I have mentioned before that I find it frustrating when I express to a writer the idea that they are following a particular rule, but that other possibilities exist if it is ignored. Their is a tendency to think that the normal way to write is not just the only way, but the correct way, and people often will fight as if saying that other options can be valid and result in writing that is interesting, is often met with deep hostility. I get that it is often easier to create by doing work within those bounds, and it is easier to find success with work that is commercial, but that does not make it the only path. It is a path, and many good books do follow it, but by no means all, and it is often the case that the things we take for granted now began with one person doing something no one had tried before.
While I am also proud of the work I am doing, I do not know if the fiction is all that great, if I am honest. I believe in it, and I think that the kind of work I am interested in exploring, work that attempts to press beyond the assumed limits of fiction, is important. I do not mean to say that my work succeeds in those regards. I am not making that as a claim, but it is an ambition for the work I aim to do, and that goal is one I believe matters. One of the goals of art has to be to do what has not been achieved before, or to attempt to express something that is, in some sense, novel. It is not, of course, the aim of all art, but it is one that I believe is key to the development of culture, even if those who do the initial innovation are ignored or not seen as important, the work they do often exists at a layer beneath more popular and influential pieces that later artists encountered at an early age. I think this is often the case, and it often does happen that such artists become more known after, when that influence is felt and recognized. I am not, as I have said, claiming anything about the work I am achieving, but to provide a bit of an understanding of my goals.
I also think, at times, about this in other terms as well. One thing that I hear a great deal in reference to the development of technology, in particular the growth of neural-networks and other forms of AI is discussions about the development of AI writers and artists. At the moment, the writing of these systems is limited in many ways, but new developments are coming all the time, and it is naive to not consider, at least, the potential that an AI will, at some point that may happen sooner than we would expect, might be capable of writing a good novel. One that does not appear to be created by a machine. And, the machines will continue to improve at that point. So, if that is even possible, I want to explore what I, as a human, can do that is not the same as what is already. I want to do things that I don't think would occur to a computer, want to show that their is still a potential for human innovation.
That last comment, about innovation, builds on a belief that many creative individuals I know have absorbed, one that I tend to find irritating. This is the idea that their is nothing new that can be done, that everything is just a remix. To me, the falsehood of this is obvious from a simple consideration. See, either we believe that this is the result of having used up every possible idea, which cannot be the case, because the world is always changing and their are always new possibilities, new ideas, etc, or the idea that it has never been possible to have a new idea and it has all been remixing forever, and even if I accepted the idea that the first novels were just a remix of people writing other types of work and the notion of made up stories, that all creations are just putting old ideas together, if I take that as the literal way it is, it becomes the genuine process that is creativity. I mean, I do believe synthesis is creative, and I do use synthesis. I also believe that any idea is built on ideas that exist, on knowledge and experience, but that does not mean that their is nothing more in creativity than just putting things together. Even determining what to combine is unique. All writing uses a language that already exists, but it can still be that a piece says things that the language has not ever said before, and it can even alter the language through how it uses it. To me, the key is to push the possibility of the art forward by exploring what can be done, and the idea that their is nothing new falls apart as either silly or too broad.
I know that their is a pretension in seeking to write work that is new and daring and innovative, and I accept that. I do not deny that their is a quality of ego necessary in anyone who wants to write the kind of work I am discussing here, but that is a result of the fact that most people follow the limitations and take that as correct. To think you can do otherwise and not fail, is to believe you are better than the rules, for many, but I am not of the belief that I am able to write things no one else could think of, I just think I ask different questions and notice different things. That may be, in part, because I am dyslexic and see language in ways that are unique to my experiences, though their are other writers with dyslexia. I do think I notice aspects of writing that others don't because of my difficulties with reading, and I think my perspective of language is a part of what impacts my interests.
I have mentioned before that I find it frustrating when I express to a writer the idea that they are following a particular rule, but that other possibilities exist if it is ignored. Their is a tendency to think that the normal way to write is not just the only way, but the correct way, and people often will fight as if saying that other options can be valid and result in writing that is interesting, is often met with deep hostility. I get that it is often easier to create by doing work within those bounds, and it is easier to find success with work that is commercial, but that does not make it the only path. It is a path, and many good books do follow it, but by no means all, and it is often the case that the things we take for granted now began with one person doing something no one had tried before.
Comments
Post a Comment