Re: A response to Walt

[Bob <mantic@brightok.net>]

Wally wrote:
> 
>...learning new ways of reading texts does not dry up the texts; letting
> our imagination be shut down by orthodoxy dries up our READINGS. Not
> getting a degree in writing or literature because you want to remain
> 'artistically pure' and 'more in touch with emotions' is built on a fear
> that you can't balance two different aspects of the act of reading/writing
> a text. Artistic purity is a stupid concept anyhow -- as any fan of James Joyce,
> Quentin Tarantino, or The Roots can tell you. Emotional purity is to be
> found in the most startling places.
> 
> All great writers are also good readers. Many good writers are held back
> by silly, insular notions of remaining 'unsullied' by other influences;
> this strikes me as being a defensive way of saying 'I have nothing to
> say.'


Uhmm... I don't have any sort of emotional purity. What I have is a
simpler system. Most of my writing is formulaic. That's fine, it sells.
And I haven't read or seen a decent work yet that doesn't either play by
the same rules or INTENTIONALLY break them for effect. Certainly none of
the authors/titles you mentioned ever broke the rules, even for shock
value. Tarantino sticks to the rules like glue -- he just has some funky
situations and dialogue along the way (wish I had that kind of talent
for 
dialogue).


There is a 'template' of sorts. I work with the simplest because it
applies most easily to any concept, although the process does lead to
adherence to other, more elabourate formulae.

As for being shut down by orthodoxy, I suppose I am in a way. Since I
read the structure and writers always let you know where they are going
;) Yes, I'm the guy who has to hold his tongue to avoid spoiling the
mystery movie. But that's alright, it is only sad to be in complicity
when my ally is inevitably discovered.

The system I have come to employ by instinct for writing is just as
active when reading, and offers clear enough insight. Perhaps too clear,
as I mentioned. It seems the only ones who fail to see the obvious are
the students who have to sort out their literary references (the more
typical reader, lacking all this specialized information, one way or the
other, seems to do just fine).

The difference in a writer's system is that it is geared to production.
Not analysis.


						--Bob

Wally wrote:
> 
> > So much so in fact that -- Damon's essay on plot notwithstanding --
> > our teachers and mentors tend to warn us away from analysis.  They
> > discourage us from getting an english lit or creative writing degree,
> > because when the analytical intellect gets too involved in the process
> > at a macroscopic level, it makes things too mechanical and robs
> > stories of their "heart."
> 
> As a fiction writer *and* a serious student of literature, I would like to
> point out that learning new ways of reading texts does not dry up the
> texts; letting our imagination be shut down by orthodoxy dries up our
> READINGS. Not getting a degree in writing or literature because you want
> to remain 'artistically pure' and 'more in touch with emotions' is built
> on a fear that you can't balance two different aspects of the act of
> reading/writing a text. Artistic purity is a stupid concept anyhow -- as
> any fan of James Joyce, Quentin Tarantino, or The Roots can tell you.
> Emotional purity is to be found in the most startling places.
> 
> All great writers are also good readers. Many good writers are held back
> by silly, insular notions of remaining 'unsullied' by other influences;
> this strikes me as being a defensive way of saying 'I have nothing to
> say.'
> 
> Palms upward,
> Wally