On Thoroughness And Intent: A Disclaimer
In looking back over the posts that I have been writing, both in response to Le Guin's Steering The Craft, and in terms of VanderMeer's Wonderbook, I noted that their are many places where my descriptions of the works in question are far from accurate. Indeed, I would imagine that I am sometimes talking about ideas out of order, conflating them, or otherwise misrepresenting the content. Likewise, I may, at times, make assumptions about the ideas the author is expressing, or otherwise misinterpret, misremember, or otherwise misrepresent things.
This is all, to be honest, perfectly fine by me. I am not writing this to be a thorough analysis or report on the materials in these books. Rather, I am using those works as a point of departure. My goal here is not, in reality, all that connected to the actual texts I reference. They are, to be certain, an essential thing for this process, but that does not make them the focus of the process, but rather a starting point.
To whit, my writings here are occasioned by these other texts, but that does not mean they are about those texts. My work here is intended to be about thinking through the process of writing, as well as to practice and explore the skills and tactics that my thoughts lead me towards. My focus is upon those aspects, and as such, I am not worrying about being accurate to the source material. I am not attempting in any way to replace reading the texts, or to give any impression that the writings here would be a substitute, though I would be glad to know if anyone found them a helpful addition.
It is quite difficult, at times, to think about how to organize the ideas of a writer. For one thing, writing is a thing that takes so many different skills, and where one must be able to consider multiple questions and problems at the same time. One cannot talk about voice and not be discussing character, setting, or even structure to an extent. These all are impacted by one another, especially in terms of sophisticated literary works. Their is no way one can separate these elements, and so it can be difficult to know where to begin when talking about these things. For example, I might wish to speak specifically about the use of an unreliable narrator, and to talk about how it is that the author can get information to the reader that the speaker does not intend to share. That issue, of course, is far larger than just the unreliable narrator. As well, the unreliable narrator is not something that works for every story, so we must look at plot and structure. Of course, the dialogue of such a speaker is important to consider, as well, and is influenced by the characterization that is inside that voice, as well. To make it work, one needs to consider so many aspects and consider these questions all at once, not as separate.
My goal is, then, to explore those ideas, and to allow myself the freedom to make these connections. In essence, I am rambling, going whatever way the ideas take me. But, you can ramble on a path, and let that path be the thing that guides you. For me, that path is the works that I am referencing. They provide me with a context to keep things from wandering to far. Thus, when I talk about the questions of, say, writer's block as addressed by Michael Cheney, I am not going to discuss each point, even things I find interesting like Gertrude Stein's somewhat absurd advice to writers, but if those ideas are not relevant when I am writing, I won't push myself to go there merely so I can cover the entire thing.
Rather, the pieces here are meant to be free thought pieces, inspired and responding to outside works, but not beholden to them. I mention this primarily because I think it is important for anyone reading these pieces to understand that these aren't book reports, reviews, study notes, or anything of that sort. My intent is to do something that is separate from those works, that does not require any connection to those original pieces on the readers part. Most of the ideas I present here have been in my mind already a long time, they are not necessarily things that come from these books or from my direct response to them. Instead, they are my genuine reactions, built over the course of my life. That I am writing them in this context, as responses to the teachings of other writers, is only a result of my own desire to have a format that I can stick with.
Really, what I am acknowledging here is ultimately about my own laziness, in a sense, in that, if I were more on my game, I could probably eschew the writing guides altogether and just put my ideas on here without an outside element to provide a path for me. In the end, I suspect that I will do more along those lines, but, right now, as I begin to develop this blog, and make certain that I maintain the commitment to it, I am making it easier on myself. This is not to make anyone think the books I am referencing are not valuable and insightful. They certainly are that, and I will admit that I am also using these books here for the personal motivation to thoroughly engage with them to this degree. I might not, if I weren't making it a part of my commitment here, do each exercise, for example. But, I am committed to this process, and that requires me to take those actions. To that extent, I am gaining a great deal from this aspect of the work, and I am not denying that I am learning and being greatly influenced, but I am not attempting to truly document that. It may be that I do so, even if only incidentally, but I am not committing to that.
No, really, it is a far simpler thing: I am just reading the books and responding to them extemporaneously, and I am not interested in reflecting the books all that accurately, but instead to reflect the ideas that come into my mind, the ways that I consider these problems. Sometimes that will mean diverging greatly from what I read, and I apologize in advance for not being interested in keeping track of that. If you want to read the books I am referencing, go for it, and I hope I do spark some interest, and perhaps even provide some useful supplementary ideas for those familiar with these texts, but please keep in mind that those are all secondary and incidental, and I am not going out of my way to be accurate or even aware of when I am not.
This is all, to be honest, perfectly fine by me. I am not writing this to be a thorough analysis or report on the materials in these books. Rather, I am using those works as a point of departure. My goal here is not, in reality, all that connected to the actual texts I reference. They are, to be certain, an essential thing for this process, but that does not make them the focus of the process, but rather a starting point.
To whit, my writings here are occasioned by these other texts, but that does not mean they are about those texts. My work here is intended to be about thinking through the process of writing, as well as to practice and explore the skills and tactics that my thoughts lead me towards. My focus is upon those aspects, and as such, I am not worrying about being accurate to the source material. I am not attempting in any way to replace reading the texts, or to give any impression that the writings here would be a substitute, though I would be glad to know if anyone found them a helpful addition.
It is quite difficult, at times, to think about how to organize the ideas of a writer. For one thing, writing is a thing that takes so many different skills, and where one must be able to consider multiple questions and problems at the same time. One cannot talk about voice and not be discussing character, setting, or even structure to an extent. These all are impacted by one another, especially in terms of sophisticated literary works. Their is no way one can separate these elements, and so it can be difficult to know where to begin when talking about these things. For example, I might wish to speak specifically about the use of an unreliable narrator, and to talk about how it is that the author can get information to the reader that the speaker does not intend to share. That issue, of course, is far larger than just the unreliable narrator. As well, the unreliable narrator is not something that works for every story, so we must look at plot and structure. Of course, the dialogue of such a speaker is important to consider, as well, and is influenced by the characterization that is inside that voice, as well. To make it work, one needs to consider so many aspects and consider these questions all at once, not as separate.
My goal is, then, to explore those ideas, and to allow myself the freedom to make these connections. In essence, I am rambling, going whatever way the ideas take me. But, you can ramble on a path, and let that path be the thing that guides you. For me, that path is the works that I am referencing. They provide me with a context to keep things from wandering to far. Thus, when I talk about the questions of, say, writer's block as addressed by Michael Cheney, I am not going to discuss each point, even things I find interesting like Gertrude Stein's somewhat absurd advice to writers, but if those ideas are not relevant when I am writing, I won't push myself to go there merely so I can cover the entire thing.
Rather, the pieces here are meant to be free thought pieces, inspired and responding to outside works, but not beholden to them. I mention this primarily because I think it is important for anyone reading these pieces to understand that these aren't book reports, reviews, study notes, or anything of that sort. My intent is to do something that is separate from those works, that does not require any connection to those original pieces on the readers part. Most of the ideas I present here have been in my mind already a long time, they are not necessarily things that come from these books or from my direct response to them. Instead, they are my genuine reactions, built over the course of my life. That I am writing them in this context, as responses to the teachings of other writers, is only a result of my own desire to have a format that I can stick with.
Really, what I am acknowledging here is ultimately about my own laziness, in a sense, in that, if I were more on my game, I could probably eschew the writing guides altogether and just put my ideas on here without an outside element to provide a path for me. In the end, I suspect that I will do more along those lines, but, right now, as I begin to develop this blog, and make certain that I maintain the commitment to it, I am making it easier on myself. This is not to make anyone think the books I am referencing are not valuable and insightful. They certainly are that, and I will admit that I am also using these books here for the personal motivation to thoroughly engage with them to this degree. I might not, if I weren't making it a part of my commitment here, do each exercise, for example. But, I am committed to this process, and that requires me to take those actions. To that extent, I am gaining a great deal from this aspect of the work, and I am not denying that I am learning and being greatly influenced, but I am not attempting to truly document that. It may be that I do so, even if only incidentally, but I am not committing to that.
No, really, it is a far simpler thing: I am just reading the books and responding to them extemporaneously, and I am not interested in reflecting the books all that accurately, but instead to reflect the ideas that come into my mind, the ways that I consider these problems. Sometimes that will mean diverging greatly from what I read, and I apologize in advance for not being interested in keeping track of that. If you want to read the books I am referencing, go for it, and I hope I do spark some interest, and perhaps even provide some useful supplementary ideas for those familiar with these texts, but please keep in mind that those are all secondary and incidental, and I am not going out of my way to be accurate or even aware of when I am not.
Comments
Post a Comment