I can't get it out on paper....Help, please.
Mindspring
courses when it comes to my writing. I don't know or understand all the
jargon associated with structure, even the basics such as adverbs,
adjectives, etc. Some of you will find it hard to believe that I could make
it through college and not know these things, but I have. When I wrote my
college papers, I would sit down with a dictionary, thesaurus, and several
books that I would reference for grammar, punctuation, usage, etc. It would
take extraordinary time and effort for me to write my papers, the results
were quite often worth it. However, as I did not start college right out of
high school, I think my professors may have given me more leeway concerning
structure. The last course I took, Argument and Persuasion, the professor
made it clear that he wanted me to WRITE. So I put the books down, and I
wrote! The results were outstanding and I began to FEEL like a writer.
What I am interested in knowing is this, should I let my insecurities
concerning my lack of education in my early years get in the way of my
writing? I know there are some writers who have never finished high school,
much less college, and have done fine, but me? I want so badly to write a
book, for the first time I have a subject about which I feel a need to
write, but...how? A book is very different than anything I have ever
written before and seems to me to be very complex. Any advise about how I
should approach an undertaking such as this would be greatly appreciated.
Perhaps I should find a ghost writer. But how do I find one? How do I
protect myself and the integrity of my subject? Help
Matt
Old Bill
Mindspring <put...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:857l9h$ueo$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
<snip>
So I put the books down, and I
> wrote! The results were outstanding and I began to FEEL like a writer.
> What I am interested in knowing is this, should I let my insecurities
> concerning my lack of education in my early years get in the way of my
> writing?
> Matt
>
Matt, I think you know the answer to your question - you just want to hear
someone else say it! Well ok, I'll say it - No! I doubt if anyone will reply
saying that yes, you should allow your insecurities to overwhelm you, but
you never know - there are some odd people around.
There's something a little paradoxical about your attitude. Much of your
message indicates a chronic lack of self-confidence, but then you say that
the results of your writing were 'outstanding'. Just write for heaven's
sake - it's not like trying to decide whether to send your children for
adoption and emigrate to the South Pole. You can write AND have a fairly
normal life - it takes only half an hour a day if that's all the spare time
you have. Try it and see. Perhaps do a little reading first to gather a bit
of basic information, then have a go. Once you've done something, you can
send it to an agent or a magazine or whatever (depending on what form you're
considering).
You don't have to know what the 8 parts of speech are in order to talk and
to write. (Though seriously, if you're a little hung up about that, why not
simply get hold of a book on usage and/or grammar, and learn a bit as you go
along? But only if you want to. It isn't vital.)
Best of luck.
Mindspring
someone else to give me the gumption to get over my "insecurities". What
I'd like to undertake isn't an article, an essay, or anything like that.
I'd like to jump right into a book. But that's a LOT of work and I'm not
sure if I'm ready for it. Well, ok, I'd like to think I am. What's
scariest is wondering if I have what it takes to complete such an
undertaking. What kind of problems should I expect to overcome and the
scariest of all, how the hell do I get started? How should I structure the
book? Most of my experience in writing has been technical. How do I begin
writing such a large piece of "technical" literature? I am stuck at the
beginning and not even sure how I want to start. I've tried doing some
research on the subject but there is just so much information out there I
don't know where to start. I guess I'm just looking for a little push to
get me started writing. I am just overwhelmed and intimidated by the size
of the project I'm considering. Any advice, or direction, on that?
Old Bill
Well, I'm happy to help if I can - though I must tell you that I've not yet
published a book myself, having only just completed my first draft of my
first novel. I can't offer an open-ended commitment, but let's take it a
step at a time.
What sort of project do you have in mind?
Does it really have to be so big? A 'book' can be anything from a thick
pamphlet to a tome the size of a doorstep.
Do you have a clear idea of what you are trying to get across?
Joyleen E. Seymour
Mindspring wrote:
> Of course your right, Bill. I just seem to sometimes need hearing it from
> someone else to give me the gumption to get over my "insecurities". What
> I'd like to undertake isn't an article, an essay, or anything like that.
> I'd like to jump right into a book. But that's a LOT of work and I'm not
> sure if I'm ready for it. Well, ok, I'd like to think I am. What's
> scariest is wondering if I have what it takes to complete such an
> undertaking. What kind of problems should I expect to overcome and the
> scariest of all, how the hell do I get started?
Couple of ideas here. Get yourself a book on how to write fiction. One of my
favorites, though rather old and somewhat dated, is "Writing Popular Fiction"
by Dean Kootnz. An alternative, or in addition to, is taking a course. A
local community college around here offers a weekend course on getting started
with your writing projects. Inexpensive, but very helpful.
> How should I structure the
> book? Most of my experience in writing has been technical. How do I begin
> writing such a large piece of "technical" literature?
The above mentioned book should help. There are lots of others like it.
Here's some links that might help too.
http://www.scalar.com/mw/index.html
http://www.silcom.com/~jonlemon/B&Wwritingmystery.htm
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~tjp4773/litagent.html
The last link is a page about agents, but if you look at the links on the right
hand side you'll find a link to Todd's Fiction Writers Home Page and other
helpful links.
> I am stuck at the
> beginning and not even sure how I want to start. I've tried doing some
> research on the subject but there is just so much information out there I
> don't know where to start. I guess I'm just looking for a little push to
> get me started writing. I am just overwhelmed and intimidated by the size
> of the project I'm considering. Any advice, or direction, on that?
Don't look at the whole thing at once. I've written two novels by writing
scenes. I don't think I could have written them all at once. I think in terms
of scenes, I write small scenes, then I go back and weave them together.
joy
Joyleen E. Seymour
"Joyleen E. Seymour" wrote:
> Couple of ideas here. Get yourself a book on how to write fiction. One of my
> favorites, though rather old and somewhat dated, is "Writing Popular Fiction"
> by Dean Kootnz.
I think that should be Koontz. Sorry.
>
joy
Malcolm McLean
-
Mindspring wrote in message <8581nj$73p$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
What
>I'd like to undertake isn't an article, an essay, or anything like that.
>I'd like to jump right into a book. But that's a LOT of work and I'm not
>sure if I'm ready for it
I'm no writer- never even submitted anything, so take this for what it's
worth, but I don't understand why so many people want to start off with a
book. Seems like setting yourself up for failure. If you decided to take
up jogging, would you start with a marathon?
I'd say, write a lot of little stuff. Fool around with sentences,
rearranging them and dipping into Roget's. Describe stuff that's happened to
you, and make up stuff that hasn't. Soon, stories will come along, and you
might even finish one someday.
Also, from what I've read here, getting a first novel published is a
hair-pulling crap-shoot. Probably, having a list of stories and articles
published in magazines will grease the ways for you.
Lose the urgency and fool around with it. That's my thinking.
Malcolm
Animeg3282
>While structure is not my strong point, I have done well in my college
>courses when it comes to my writing. I don't know or understand all the
>jargon associated with structure, even the basics such as adverbs,
>adjectives, etc. Some of you will find it hard to believe that I could make
>it through college and not know these things, but I have. When I wrote my
>college papers, I would sit down with a dictionary, thesaurus, and several
>books that I would reference for grammar, punctuation, usage, etc. It would
>take extraordinary time and effort for me to write my papers, the results
>were quite often worth it. However, as I did not start college right out of
>high school, I think my professors may have given me more leeway concerning
>structure. The last course I took, Argument and Persuasion, the professor
>made it clear that he wanted me to WRITE. So I put the books down, and I
>wrote! The results were outstanding and I began to FEEL like a writer.
>What I am interested in knowing is this, should I let my insecurities
>concerning my lack of education in my early years get in the way of my
>writing? I know there are some writers who have never finished high school,
>much less college, and have done fine, but me? I want so badly to write a
>book, for the first time I have a subject about which I feel a need to
>write, but...how? A book is very different than anything I have ever
>written before and seems to me to be very complex. Any advise about how I
>should approach an undertaking such as this would be greatly appreciated.
>Perhaps I should find a ghost writer. But how do I find one? How do I
>protect myself and the integrity of my subject? Help
Maybe you should just write and then correct all your mistakes afterwards? It's
not like everyone's first drafts aren't filled with mistakes, and such. Anyway,
lots of people just sit around whining about how they would do this and that if
only they were so and so, and they never get anywhere. Maybe some of us aren't
very talented or maybe we forget where to place our commas, but at least we are
doing something instead of sitting on our behinds. Uh..I'm sure that was very
rude, but you get the point.
Hana no Kaitou
Pledged to the Way of the Wimp
Cause of the month: Pastel Yumi
http://members.aol.com/Animeg3282/index.html ,
http://members.aol.com/animeg3282/page5/index.htm<--Please visit both my main
home page, and Fancy Lala fanclub.
PButler111
>worth, but I don't understand why so many people want to start off with a
>book. Seems like setting yourself up for failure. If you decided to take
>up jogging, would you start with a marathon?
>I'd say, write a lot of little stuff. Fool around with sentences,
>rearranging them and dipping into Roget's. Describe stuff that's happened to
>you, and make up stuff that hasn't. Soon, stories will come along, and you
>might even finish one someday.
>Also, from what I've read here, getting a first novel published is a
>hair-pulling crap-shoot. Probably, having a list of stories and articles
>published in magazines will grease the ways for you.
>Lose the urgency and fool around with it. That's my thinking.
>
>Malcolm
I once had a really bad flight on American Airlines. It was really badly
handled by the airline and, as a result, I missed my ride and had to spend $40
to take a cab to my final destination. I suppose I could have taken up the
matter with the ticket clerk at the airport, or called one of American's ticket
offices when I got home, but what do you think that would have gotten me?
Probably a rehearsed apology and a dial tone. Instead, I got the name and
address of the president of American Airlines and wrote to him directly.
Within a couple of weeks I received a long letter of apology back from him,
along with a check to reimburse me for my cab ride, and my American mileage
account was credited 10,000 miles.
In similar fashion, I started my writing career with a book that has garnered
international attention. In retrospect, I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Sure, I could have first done some piddly things in hopes of making myself
"worthy" of having a book published, but why waste the time? Your failure rate
may be much higher when you try to start at the top, but your successes are
that much sweeter and more satisfying.
Malcolm McLean
-
PButler111 wrote in message
<20000109150543...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>
>I once had a really bad flight on American Airlines. It was really badly
>handled by the airline and, as a result, I missed my ride and had to spend
$40
>to take a cab to my final destination. I suppose I could have taken up the
>matter with the ticket clerk at the airport, or called one of American's
ticket
>offices when I got home, but what do you think that would have gotten me?
>Probably a rehearsed apology and a dial tone. Instead, I got the name and
>address of the president of American Airlines and wrote to him directly.
>Within a couple of weeks I received a long letter of apology back from him,
>along with a check to reimburse me for my cab ride, and my American mileage
>account was credited 10,000 miles.
>
>In similar fashion, I started my writing career with a book that has
garnered
>international attention. In retrospect, I wouldn't have had it any other
way.
>Sure, I could have first done some piddly things in hopes of making myself
>"worthy" of having a book published, but why waste the time? Your failure
rate
>may be much higher when you try to start at the top, but your successes
are
>that much sweeter and more satisfying.
>
>http://www.AngelsDance-AngelsDie.com
Well, that's been your experience. You must have developed the skills
somewhere; in university, or at work. If not, you gotta admit that yours is
a nearly unique story. Judging by the number of people I'm seen here
talking about having 2 or 3 or more unpublished novels, and whining about
how the system is loaded against them, I'm guessing that a lot of people are
starting above their heads.
I liken it to learning a trade, because that's my background. I wouldn't
start an oil painting before I learned to draw and mix colour, I wouldn't
compose a song before I learned to play and write notation, and I wouldn't
start a novel hoping to learn to write along the way. Not if I hoped to
produce something people would pay for.
There's probably lots of writers who's careers started with a successful
book. Maybe even as many as one in five hundred.
Malcolm
Prince Richard Kaminski
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> I liken it to learning a trade, because that's my background. I wouldn't
> start an oil painting before I learned to draw and mix colour, I wouldn't
> compose a song before I learned to play and write notation
Some of the most successful pop musicians in the world couldn't read or write
notation. Notably some of the Beatles, I believe.
> , and I wouldn't
> start a novel hoping to learn to write along the way. Not if I hoped to
> produce something people would pay for.
If you want to write poems, the best way to learn is to write poems. Even if you
throw all the early ones away, it should be a useful learning experience.
Similarly, writing poems or short stories won't help you become a novelist.
Writing novels will, even if you bin the first three. Apart from the technical
exercise in characterisation and plot, it will also prove to yourself and others
that you are able to finish a lengthy work. That in itself is no mean
achievement, as the vast majority of first time writers who start a novel will
never finish it.
> There's probably lots of writers who's careers
That would be "there *are* lots of writers *whose* careers ...."
> started with a successful
> book. Maybe even as many as one in five hundred.
Whether the first book is successful or not, there is an immeasurable amount to
be learned from writing it. You don't take that view because you haven't done
it. But take it from those who have. I don't expect you to accept my opinion,
but ask Joy, and I'm sure she'll tell you the same. It's not only the people
like PB who are lucky enough to have their first work published.(Although it's
quite likely that Joy's *will* be published, as she has already succeeded in
finding an agent). But even if her first novel was never published, I'm sure she
will agree she learnt a lot from it. Apart from anything else, there's the
invaluable experience of dealing with agents and publishers, and learning more
about what they want.
Mindspring
relationships as assumed by the majority. I almost lost my marriage about
6 months ago and decided to not only to save my marriage, but to recreate
it. I have talked to some people who have suggested that it would make an
excellent book and they believe I have the skill to do it. I'm just not
sure were to start, how large it will end up, or what kinds of twists and
turns it may take.
As I have, in the past, come here for inspiration, I am hoping that someone
here may offer me some suggestions to overcome the initial fear I have of
starting a project such as this. Perhaps I just should've said so to begin
with. But you folks have "inspired" me once again to finally put to pen
what is really on my mind.
:)
Matt
Old Bill
Are you thinking about a novel, or a sort of how-to manual?
If a novel, you can, if you wish, just plunge straight in. The novel I've
just written (first draft) began with only one character, and the idea for
the first 5 words. But once I'd written those, the rest started to come very
quickly, and with them the story.
If you're planning on a novel, you'd be well-advised to read a "How to write
a novel" book, or check out one of the many useful websites. But if you feel
really driven, you might not want to spend too much time there. Writing a
novel can be a formulaic, highly-structured exercise; but equally, you can
just jump in the deep end, and see how you survive.
The thing to remember is, it's not all-or-nothing. If you start writing,
then decide, after 1000 words, or 30,000 words, that it's no good, well OK,
you can start again, or rehash it. The important thing is to get in the
habit of writing, even if it's only an hour a day. Look forward to your
hour, plan for it, then write like crazy. And resist the temptation to
constantly go back and revise. Do that once you've got a first draft.
Malcolm McLean
-
Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message <38790270...@lineone.net>...
>
>
>Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> I liken it to learning a trade, because that's my background. I wouldn't
>> start an oil painting before I learned to draw and mix colour, I wouldn't
>> compose a song before I learned to play and write notation
>
>Some of the most successful pop musicians in the world couldn't read or
write
>notation. Notably some of the Beatles, I believe.
Maybe that's a bad example. Generalizations aren't disproved by exceptions,
though.
>> , and I wouldn't
>> start a novel hoping to learn to write along the way. Not if I hoped to
>> produce something people would pay for.
>
>If you want to write poems, the best way to learn is to write poems. Even
if you
>throw all the early ones away, it should be a useful learning experience.
>Similarly, writing poems or short stories won't help you become a novelist.
You sure about that? Things like description, dialogue, characterization,
plot and subplot, pace and weight, those things are just picked up by trying
to write a novel?
>Writing novels will, even if you bin the first three. Apart from the
technical
>exercise in characterisation and plot, it will also prove to yourself and
others
>that you are able to finish a lengthy work. That in itself is no mean
>achievement, as the vast majority of first time writers who start a novel
will
>never finish it.
Lost me here. If the vast majority never finish that first novel, how can
that be a good way to learn to write novels?
>> There's probably lots of writers who's careers
>
>That would be "there *are* lots of writers *whose* careers ...."
Yeah, right, whatever.
>> started with a successful
>> book. Maybe even as many as one in five hundred.
>
>Whether the first book is successful or not, there is an immeasurable
amount to
>be learned from writing it. You don't take that view because you haven't
done
>it.
Sure there's a lot to learn. There's better ways to learn it, though. If I
can't write a decent short story, just imagine how crappy a novel I'd write.
Better I learn to write a story, or a sentence, than churn out a crappy
novel.
But take it from those who have. I don't expect you to accept my opinion,
>but ask Joy, and I'm sure she'll tell you the same. It's not only the
people
>like PB who are lucky enough to have their first work published.(Although
it's
>quite likely that Joy's *will* be published, as she has already succeeded
in
>finding an agent).
We're not talking about getting a first novel published, we're talking about
a beginner starting out by writing a novel. Why drag Joy into it; she's not
a beginner and she does just those things I suggested. She writes little
blurbs, playing around with writing and trying things.
But even if her first novel was never published, I'm sure she
>will agree she learnt a lot from it. Apart from anything else, there's the
>invaluable experience of dealing with agents and publishers, and learning
more
>about what they want.
Tell you what, you come up with some names of writers who started out, as
beginners, writing novels, and I'll list some who started out writing
stories or articles or journalism. Bet mine's bigger than yours, and better
quality, too.
Malcolm
Prince Richard Kaminski
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> -
> Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message <38790270...@lineone.net>...
>
>
> >If you want to write poems, the best way to learn is to write poems. Even
> if you
> >throw all the early ones away, it should be a useful learning experience.
> >Similarly, writing poems or short stories won't help you become a novelist.
>
> You sure about that? Things like description, dialogue, characterization,
> plot and subplot, pace and weight, those things are just picked up by trying
> to write a novel?
They can be picked up in many ways. The best, in my opinion is by extensive
reading. Other methods may be to read "how to" books on novel writing. But to do
all this without trying to write a novel oneself, is like reading a lot of books
about swimming, but never climbing into the pool. The only way you're going to
learn to swim, sail, ride horses, play a musical instrument, or write a novel,
is by doing those things.
>
> >Writing novels will, even if you bin the first three. Apart from the
> technical
> >exercise in characterisation and plot, it will also prove to yourself and
> others
> >that you are able to finish a lengthy work. That in itself is no mean
> >achievement, as the vast majority of first time writers who start a novel
> will
> >never finish it.
>
> Lost me here. If the vast majority never finish that first novel, how can
> that be a good way to learn to write novels?
*Finishing* a first novel is an excellent way to learn to write novels. You can
write 50 short stories, but it won't necessarily make you a novelist. It's a
different form. A novel is not a long short story, and a short story is not a
short novel. Different things.
> Sure there's a lot to learn. There's better ways to learn it, though. If I
> can't write a decent short story, just imagine how crappy a novel I'd write.
> Better I learn to write a story, or a sentence, than churn out a crappy
> novel.
You can churn out as many perfect journalistic sentences as you like, but it
won't make you a better novelist. If you *want* to write novels, as opposed to
any other kind of writing, you should practice writing novels. If you want to
paint oil paintings, put down that box of pastels and get out the oils.
> Tell you what, you come up with some names of writers who started out, as
> beginners, writing novels, and I'll list some who started out writing
> stories or articles or journalism.
It depends what you mean by beginner. Many people who decide to write a novel
already have experience in other forms of writing. Others don't, but even for
them, it would be a tremendous achievement to actually complete a full length
novel, regardless of its quality. It would instil in them the discipline of
writing regularly, and maintaining structure and coherence over a long work,
together with countless other things. Just as someone who wants to become a
competent swimmer will learn far more by actually swimming, then they will by
splashing around in the bathtub to "get used to the water".
Mindspring
own experiences and insights. While it may not be a "Women are from Venus,
Men are from Mars" I'm sure it will open up much debate and raise a few
eyebrows. The book will appeal to Baby Boomer's as well as Generation
X'ers. While I'm sure that editor's/reviewers from the "old school" may
not like it, I think it will hit mainstream and pop culture like a brick.
That is if I can get it onto paper of course.
I have no idea about the length or how to get started and everytime I do
"research" about getting started, I lose interest in starting. The volume
of information for writers is more overwhelming than the project itself, in
my opinion. I have taken college courses to improve my writing ability and
found that they rarely offered anything more than a subject to write about
and a professor that would actually read it.
Ok, now I feel like I'm starting to sound more like a writer :) Thanx.
Maybe I SHOULD just dive in....
Mindspring
>beginners, writing novels, and I'll list some who started out writing
better
>quality, too.
>
>Malcolm
>
Ok, my intent was not to begin a debate as to who is right or wrong about
their advice. I appreciate all views. But I'm not looking to be a
professional writer the rest of my life, a flash in the pan would suffice,
lol.
Old Bill
Don't be so hung on the length - size isn't everything! Seriously, if it's a
non-fiction book, size is irrelevant. If what you have to say takes just 100
pages, then it will be a short book, if 1000 pages, a long book.
If you have a burning desire to write the book, you should have some kind of
'vision' about how it will look, or how you would like it to look.
Malcolm McLean
-
Mindspring wrote in message <85b5pj$u4$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>Ok, my intent was not to begin a debate as to who is right or wrong about
>their advice. I appreciate all views. But I'm not looking to be a
>professional writer the rest of my life, a flash in the pan would suffice,
>lol.
>
Too bad, bucko, we left you behind.
Flash in the pan is easy, if you don't care about the size of the pan.
And who are you calling lol?
Malcolm
Mindspring
Malcolm McLean wrote in message
<9z9e4.8218$2x3.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
Hope you're kidding, but lol, "laugh out loud"
Joyleen E. Seymour
Mindspring wrote:
> What I have in mind is a book about questioning the ideas and "rules" of
> relationships as assumed by the majority. I almost lost my marriage about
> 6 months ago and decided to not only to save my marriage, but to recreate
> it. I have talked to some people who have suggested that it would make an
> excellent book and they believe I have the skill to do it. I'm just not
> sure were to start, how large it will end up, or what kinds of twists and
> turns it may take.
>
> As I have, in the past, come here for inspiration, I am hoping that someone
> here may offer me some suggestions to overcome the initial fear I have of
> starting a project such as this. Perhaps I just should've said so to begin
> with. But you folks have "inspired" me once again to finally put to pen
> what is really on my mind.
>
> :)
>
> Matt
Okay Matt, relationships it is. Put two of your characters together,
preferably two who are having a relationship. Stick them in bed together,
stick them in the car together, let them go for a walk together. Let them
talk. Think about who they are and what they would say. Then write it down.
Doesn't matter if it's the beginning or the end or the middle or something that
ends up on the cutting room floor. After they've talked for a while they'll
have to do something. I think Jervis wrote something recently about adding
action to straight dialogue. You'll want to add little bits to the dialogue,
but then they do have to go out and actually do something. Maybe they have a
fight and one of them leaves. The woman throws the guy's clothes out the
window. You see? You probably already have all of this, you just need to
start working the scenes. Don't worry about the order, just write it. I
changed the order of the opening scenes in my second novel four times before I
was happy with it. Don't worry about doing everything in chronological order.
Don't worry about having to write it in order either.
joy
Joyleen E. Seymour
Mindspring wrote:
> I'm planning on a non-fiction discussion of relationships using some of my
> own experiences and insights. While it may not be a "Women are from Venus,
> Men are from Mars" I'm sure it will open up much debate and raise a few
> eyebrows. The book will appeal to Baby Boomer's as well as Generation
> X'ers. While I'm sure that editor's/reviewers from the "old school" may
> not like it, I think it will hit mainstream and pop culture like a brick.
> That is if I can get it onto paper of course.
>
> I have no idea about the length or how to get started and everytime I do
> "research" about getting started, I lose interest in starting. The volume
> of information for writers is more overwhelming than the project itself, in
> my opinion. I have taken college courses to improve my writing ability and
> found that they rarely offered anything more than a subject to write about
> and a professor that would actually read it.
>
> Ok, now I feel like I'm starting to sound more like a writer :) Thanx.
> Maybe I SHOULD just dive in....
Non fiction, okay, ignore all my advice. See Patricia Butler.
joy
Malcolm McLean
-
Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message <3879178C...@lineone.net>...
>
>
>Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> -
>> Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message
<38790270...@lineone.net>...
>>
>
characterization,
>> plot and subplot, pace and weight, those things are just picked up by
trying
>> to write a novel?
>
>They can be picked up in many ways. The best, in my opinion is by extensive
>reading. Other methods may be to read "how to" books on novel writing. But
to do
>all this without trying to write a novel oneself, is like reading a lot of
books
>about swimming, but never climbing into the pool. The only way you're going
to
>learn to swim, sail, ride horses, play a musical instrument, or write a
novel,
>is by doing those things.
A mixed bag of bad analogies. If you push someone off the end of the dock,
they may possibly thrash their way to shallow water, but that's not
swimming. Better they wade in and learn the strokes. At the end of the day
they'll be alive, and better swimmers than that frantic surviver.
>>
>> Lost me here. If the vast majority never finish that first novel, how
can
>> that be a good way to learn to write novels?
>
>*Finishing* a first novel is an excellent way to learn to write novels. You
can
>write 50 short stories, but it won't necessarily make you a novelist.
It'll make me a better writer, and make my novel better when I do write it.
It's a
>different form. A novel is not a long short story, and a short story is not
a
>short novel. Different things.
Thank you.
>> Sure there's a lot to learn. There's better ways to learn it, though.
If I
>> can't write a decent short story, just imagine how crappy a novel I'd
write.
>> Better I learn to write a story, or a sentence, than churn out a crappy
>> novel.
>
>You can churn out as many perfect journalistic sentences as you like, but
it
>won't make you a better novelist. If you *want* to write novels, as opposed
to
>any other kind of writing, you should practice writing novels.
I suspect we're thinking of different things when we say 'novel'.
If you want to
>paint oil paintings, put down that box of pastels and get out the oils.
>
>> Tell you what, you come up with some names of writers who started out, as
>> beginners, writing novels, and I'll list some who started out writing
>> stories or articles or journalism.
>
>It depends what you mean by beginner.
I mean someone who's just beginning to write.
Many people who decide to write a novel
>already have experience in other forms of writing. Others don't, but even
for
>them, it would be a tremendous achievement to actually complete a full
length
>novel, regardless of its quality.
And you would advocate that a beginner try for a tremendous achievement,
first time out of the blocks?
It would instil in them the discipline of
>writing regularly, and maintaining structure and coherence over a long
work,
>together with countless other things. Just as someone who wants to become a
>competent swimmer will learn far more by actually swimming, then they will
by
>splashing around in the bathtub to "get used to the water".
>
Alright, here's my take on it.
Writing is a craft that can be used to produce art. A novel is the highest
form of that art. You may be willing to fumble around making shitty art and
hoping someone, someday, will buy it, but I'd rather learn the craft in
stages, and do the best I can at each stage. I'm willing to screw up a
sentence or garble a paragraph, or even write an inept story, but I'll be
fucked by three goats before I write shit, call it a novel, and spend the
next years spamming the publishing industry with it.
Of course, it's a different thing if all you want is to have published a
novel. To be able to drop references to it in conversation. To have your
foot in the door, even if it's wearing a worn canvass sneaker. If that's
the case, grind away. Seek out the obscure, back-water publishers and
home-business literary agents. The bookstores are bulging with bad novels,
but there's always room for another.
Malcolm
Malcolm McLean
-
Glen Wall wrote in message <38792...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
>
>
>
>Do you know Jack London's autobiographical novel, "Martin Eden" Malcolm? I
>haven't read it in 15 years, but from what I remember, there are some
>inspiring and memorable accounts of the struggle to get into print whilst
>doing exhausting manual jobs to make ends meet.
>
>I expect it's somewhat dated, but I think you might take some encouragement
>from it.
>
>Glen.
>
Don't know the book, but I'm willing to bet Jack London didn't start writing
by writing novels.
I'm beginning to feel like I'm defending a position more emphatically than
it's worth, but I believe writing should be learned from the bottom up.
Learn to make sentences, and make them into paragraphs, and then start a
story. When you can write a story well, do it again, and again, and after
awhile you'll be ready to start a first novel.
I don't know why so many people feel such an urgency to have published a
book. Simple impatience, I guess, and unwillingness to defer gratification.
Personally, I'd rather have written a good story than an incompetent novel.
Malcolm
Malcolm McLean
-
galaine wrote in message ...
>
>I believe the position worthy of defense. Learning should come first. My
>efforts are attempts to improve ability by practice with smaller pieces,
>instead of wallowing ineffectively in the depths of a novel. I work toward
>every word having purpose and advancing the story. To accomplish that
takes
>concentrated efforts to learn the craft. The gratification is in the
>quality.
>
>I suspect there are good ideas behind many first novels, that are lost to
>impatience. There are exceptions, but I prefer to give my first novel the
>substance of learning.
>
>galaine
>
Hear, hear! I've read so much beginner's stuff posted on websites that
sounds like they're showing off their vocabulary that for awhile the sight
of an adjective or adverb made my shy like a startled deer. I've nearly got
it under control, but it's left me convinced that if you can't write a story
you've got no business writing a novel. Learn, practice, don't be satisfied
with dross when a little more effort will make you a sound writer.
Malcolm
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Glen Wall
Malcolm McLean <gotmy_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l15e4.8029$2x3.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>
>
> -
> Mindspring wrote in message <8581nj$73p$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
> What
> >I'd like to undertake isn't an article, an essay, or anything like that.
> >I'd like to jump right into a book. But that's a LOT of work and I'm not
> >sure if I'm ready for it
>
> worth, but I don't understand why so many people want to start off with a
> book. Seems like setting yourself up for failure. If you decided to take
> up jogging, would you start with a marathon?
> I'd say, write a lot of little stuff. Fool around with sentences,
> rearranging them and dipping into Roget's. Describe stuff that's happened
to
> you, and make up stuff that hasn't. Soon, stories will come along, and
you
> might even finish one someday.
> Also, from what I've read here, getting a first novel published is a
> hair-pulling crap-shoot. Probably, having a list of stories and articles
> published in magazines will grease the ways for you.
> Lose the urgency and fool around with it. That's my thinking.
>
> Malcolm
Tom Head
<snip>
> I don't know why so many people feel such an urgency to have published a
> book. Simple impatience, I guess, and unwillingness to defer
> gratification. Personally, I'd rather have written a good story than an
> incompetent novel.
I don't know -- I agree with you on the surface, but most people write the
sort of things that they like to read. It's hard to imagine someone who hates
poetry wanting to write a large amount of it, for instance; scholars tend to
write scholarly books, fans of art-rock wouldn't produce anything else, and so
forth. Take this into account, and I think you'll agree that there's a very
natural, and not particularly shameful, reason why novels are a more common
goal than short stories: they're more commonly read.
Now I, personally, don't see why people who want to write a novel
couldn't very well take a good number of short stories with a common theme,
link them up, and make a novel out of same. Toni Morrison, Yukio Mishima,
Milan Kundera, Jorge Luis Borges, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Naguib Mahfouz,
V.S. Naipaul, and Yasunari Kawabata have all (ostensibly) done it, and it
seems to me to be the most logical way to write a first novel (if, of course,
you're really keen on writing a novel). I'm not sure that many of us are born
with the emotional holism that one needs to write a really good single
novel-length story; I know that I don't have it (at least not yet), and I'm
not altogether sure on whether or not I even want it.
Peace,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Thomas Carwile Head "Being properly distracted for a moment
M.A. Candidate (Nonresident) is child's play. Being rightly
Humanities External Degree distracted for a lifetime is an art."
California State University,
Dominguez Hills -- Douglas Adams
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E-Mail t...@netdoor.com / http://www2.netdoor.com/~tlh / ICQ 20364804
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
galaine
Malcolm McLean wrote
<snip>
> I'm beginning to feel like I'm defending a position more emphatically than
> it's worth, but I believe writing should be learned from the bottom up.
> Learn to make sentences, and make them into paragraphs, and then start a
> story. When you can write a story well, do it again, and again, and after
> awhile you'll be ready to start a first novel.
> I don't know why so many people feel such an urgency to have published a
> book. Simple impatience, I guess, and unwillingness to defer
gratification.
> Personally, I'd rather have written a good story than an incompetent
novel.
>
> Malcolm
Glen Wall
I
> >haven't read it in 15 years, but from what I remember, there are some
> >inspiring and memorable accounts of the struggle to get into print whilst
> >doing exhausting manual jobs to make ends meet.
> >
> >I expect it's somewhat dated, but I think you might take some
encouragement
> >from it.
> >
> >Glen.
> >
writing
> by writing novels.
> it's worth, but I believe writing should be learned from the bottom up.
Well, it wasn't my intention to take sides on this issue, because in a sense
both points of view are equally correct. I just thought you might enjoy the
book.
It's true that London cut his teeth on the short story form, like most
writers of his generation, both high and lowbrow. This had been the way of
things in both England and America, since the days of the Strand, and
Cornhill magazine. The 19th century was the Golden Age of the short story
and even established authors such as George Eliot, Conan Doyle, Hardy and
Dickens would initially publish their novels as part-works in the great
journals and periodicals of the day. These were household names in that
pre-radio and television age. How many people today, stopped at random in
the street, could name even one important contemporary author?
The novel and the short story were much more closely related in the 19th
century. Dickin's "Pickwick Papers", for example, was assembled by a London
publisher from a series of short sketches on London life written to
accompany the drawings of Cruikshank in 1835. The book made Dicken's
reputation overnight, yet it had not been initially conceived as a novel at
all.
65 years later, in 1900, the year of Oscar Wilde's death, Jack London's
first book saw the light of day. "The Son of the Wolf" was a collection of
short stories, and his mastery of that form gave him the confidence to essay
that half-way house between the short story and the novel proper, the
novella. "The Call of the Wild" was published in 1903. The novella was a
particularly useful form for young writers starting out. Less intimidating
than the novel, it nonetheless required a development of plot and character
that went beyond anything called for in a short story.
The early years of this century saw a second flowering of the short story
format, on both sides of the Atlantic, with the rise of the popular "men's
adventure magazines" that were to provide such an essential source of income
for London and his contemporaries. At the higher end of the scale, the
"literary" short story also flourished and great magazines like the Paris
Review, Criterion and the Atlantic Monthly began to appear in the 20's and
30's.
Even when I was growing up in England in the late 1970's, this tradition
lingered on. I must be the only man in Great Britain who actually DID buy
Playboy for the short stories (well alright, I may have sneaked a peek at
the centerfold). I can remember seeing new short stories by Bellow, Nabokov,
Mailer, Updike and many other top names. I also remember with excitement the
month that Robert Graves, who had published nothing for 20 years, chose to
preview his new collection of poems in Playboy.
But where is the market for short stories today? What contemporary publisher
will look at a novella from an unknown writer? I suppose Ian McKuen and
Peter Carey must be the last major writers to have founded their reputations
on a collection of short stories - and that was 20 years ago. The fact is
that anyone who wants to make a splash today, has little choice other than
to go for the big one - the novel. And whilst I would agree with you that
the short story is an excellent teacher of literary technique, I would also
agree with the Prince who points out that the technique in question is not
necessarily suited to a novel. But I think that Richard's most important
observation is that the format you write in trains you to write in that
format and nothing else. This is something every athlete knows. You can run
a half-marathon on the flat every day of the week. It won't train you for
hill-running or cross-country events. It will help your stamina, but that's
about all. Quite simply, he's right - the only way to learn about novels is
to get on and write one.
If you're saying that you don't feel ready to write a novel, that's fine as
well. I can see the wisdom of wanting to master one form before moving on to
a more ambitious one. It was Graham Greene, I think, who said that "Everyone
has at least one book in them", and Somerset Maughan who commented - "Yes -
but not necessarily a good one". Most of us have to write several bad novels
before we can expect to create something worthwhile in its own right, rather
than just as a useful excercise.
This can be a painful process as most writers tend to be perfectionists by
nature. Nonetheless, it's an essential part of one's literary
apprenticeship.
> Learn to make sentences, and make them into paragraphs, and then start a
> story. When you can write a story well, do it again, and again, and after
> awhile you'll be ready to start a first novel.
> I don't know why so many people feel such an urgency to have published a
> book. Simple impatience, I guess, and unwillingness to defer
gratification.
I think that's perhaps a little harsh Malcolm. The fact is that you don't
KNOW you're any good as a writer until you see the dreams that you've
created staring back out at you from an elegantly designed little volume in
a bookshop window. And I don't care HOW great a writer you are. Who can
forget F. Scott Fitzgerald's account of walking down Fifth Avenue after
learning that his first book had been accepted for publication, and wanting
to run up to complete strangers, hug them and tell them the news? It's a
triumph - a vindication of all those lonely hours spent struggling to give
form and substance to ghosts and shadows. Every writer, every artist indeed,
needs to feel that his work communicates and is valued. Even those great
souls who were so far ahead of their time that they were ignorantly rejected
by their own age, bitterly wished that it were otherwise. The lack of
recognition has destroyed more than one great writer.
> Personally, I'd rather have written a good story than an incompetent
novel.
Once again, we're in perfect agreement. But why not write both? Then,
perhaps the next novel will be be less incompetent. The one after that might
even be good.
Glen.
WriteBeth
complete such an undertaking. What kind of problems should I expect to
structure the book?<<
There aren't any magic formulas and each writer ends up developing their own
way of going about the task. You'll have to find out what works for you. And
the best way to do that is to jump in with both feet and start writing. Use
your technical background to formulate an outline that provides a reasonable
flow of events and ideas, with the realization that once you begin actually
writing and get into the project more, you will likely make some changes to
that outline. Keep writing and playing with your outline long enough and you'll
probably get to the point where your focus will become clear and more specific.
If you become thoroughly muddled, just pick one area of focus and start writing
on it.
Learning to write is kind of like building a fitness program. You keep trying
various exercises until you find the combination that works best for you in
terms of tolerability and results.
Beth
Alan Hope
Tom Head <t...@netdoor.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.21.00010...@lance.netdoor.com>...
> Now I, personally, don't see why people who want to write a
novel
> couldn't very well take a good number of short stories with a
common theme,
> link them up, and make a novel out of same. Toni Morrison, Yukio
Mishima,
> Milan Kundera, Jorge Luis Borges, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury,
Naguib Mahfouz,
> V.S. Naipaul, and Yasunari Kawabata have all (ostensibly) done
it, and it
> seems to me to be the most logical way to write a first novel
(if, of course,
> you're really keen on writing a novel).
I thought I knew all of Borges' work. Enlighten me as to this novel
he wrote out of short stories. I wasn't aware he'd written any sort
of novel at all.
AH
Mindspring
Malcolm McLean wrote in message ...
>I'm beginning to feel like I'm defending a position more emphatically than
>it's worth, but I believe writing should be learned from the bottom up.
>Learn to make sentences, and make them into paragraphs, and then start a
>story. When you can write a story well, do it again, and again, and after
>awhile you'll be ready to start a first novel.
>I don't know why so many people feel such an urgency to have published a
>book. Simple impatience, I guess, and unwillingness to defer gratification.
>Personally, I'd rather have written a good story than an incompetent novel.
>
>Malcolm
>
Please don't take me wrong, I am only asking what I believe to be a well
qualified question. How long have YOU been writing? And, have you
published anything?
Mindspring
I'm not going to repeat your post, Beth, but only because I wish to be
brief.
THANKYOU!
Now that sounds like good advice. It started getting my mind working on an
outline almost immediately! With only a few words of encouragement, and the
fact that at least YOU seemed to pay attention to the fact that I mentioned
my technical background (which happens to be technical, procedural,
managerial type manuals for the military) and that I'm not writing a STORY.
THANKYOU! You seemed to be listening to what I was asking and offered some
short thoughtful advice that inspired me to think.
THANKYOU!
Mindspring
Joyleen E. Seymour wrote in message <38792EBD...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Non fiction, okay, ignore all my advice. See Patricia Butler.
>
>joy
:)
Malcolm McLean
--
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Mindspring wrote in message <85e0r9$srv$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>
>Please don't take me wrong, I am only asking what I believe to be a well
>qualified question. How long have YOU been writing? And, have you
>published anything?
>
I wasn't addressing you. You only started this thread; the discussion
branched off into a different direction. Get used to it, that's the way
usenet works.
If you want to check my bona-fides, just scroll back to my first post in
this thread, where I said I was not writer, and had never submitted
anything. Doesn't stop me shooting my mouth off, though. That, too, is how
usenet works.
Malcolm
Mindspring
Malcolm McLean wrote in message ...
>branched off into a different direction. Get used to it, that's the way
>usenet works.
>If you want to check my bona-fides, just scroll back to my first post in
>this thread, where I said I was not writer, and had never submitted
>anything. Doesn't stop me shooting my mouth off, though. That, too, is
how
>usenet works.
>
>Malcolm
>
Oh, no problem, that's why I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trying to
sound like a smart-alec.
And, yes, I do understand how Usenet works. Actually, I used to lurk here a
long time ago and even contributed from time to time. However, I got very
tired of all the flames and stopped using Usenet. Only when I feel a need
for a more personal/immediate response to an issue do I use it, thus I get a
little rusty with the ettiquette. Sorry if I sounded like I was getting
"pissey". No foul on your part.
....and feel free to "shoot" your mouth off to your hearts content. :)
Malcolm McLean
--
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Glen Wall wrote in message <3879b...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
>
> >all snipped, see above<
I don't have a scholastic background, but I see it this way ...
Poetry aside, creative writing begins with the short story and ends with the
novel. Careers have been built on the short story, and some of the best
things I've read have been in that form, but it's like a string quartette
beside a symphony orchestra.
I've run dry in this discussion and I'm starting to repeat myself, but I
believe that if you can't write a good story, you shouldn't write a novel.
If you can't write lean, strong prose in the short story form, you're going
to write a verbose, tiresome novel. You might sell it; God knows I've read
enough crappy novels to know that cover graphics sell books, but that seems
like a low target to shoot for. Why not polish your skills in the lower
form before putting your name on a large canvass? It may be overblown
pride, but I know the titles of lots of novels I wouldn't want my name on.
I don't care how much money they earned for the author.
Why spend three years writing bad novels, when you can spend them writing
stories, and then write a good novel?
Malcolm
Malcolm McLean
I thought the first post got lost in the shuffle, so I posted the second.
Sorry about that.
Malcolm McLean
--
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Glen Wall wrote in message <3879b...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
>
big snip
>Even when I was growing up in England in the late 1970's, this tradition
>lingered on. I must be the only man in Great Britain who actually DID buy
>Playboy for the short stories (well alright, I may have sneaked a peek at
>the centerfold). I can remember seeing new short stories by Bellow,
Nabokov,
>Mailer, Updike and many other top names. I also remember with excitement
the
>month that Robert Graves, who had published nothing for 20 years, chose to
>preview his new collection of poems in Playboy.
I did that, too. Remember Norman Mailer's three-part thing about the fight
between Ali and Foreman in Zaire? I remember Victor Nabakov and Saul Bellow
in Playboy, too, but it was so long ago, I can't remember the stories.
>But where is the market for short stories today? What contemporary
publisher
>will look at a novella from an unknown writer? I suppose Ian McKuen and
>Peter Carey must be the last major writers to have founded their
reputations
>on a collection of short stories - and that was 20 years ago. The fact is
>that anyone who wants to make a splash today, has little choice other than
>to go for the big one - the novel.
We're talking about beginners here, remember?
And whilst I would agree with you that
>the short story is an excellent teacher of literary technique, I would also
>agree with the Prince who points out that the technique in question is not
>necessarily suited to a novel. But I think that Richard's most important
>observation is that the format you write in trains you to write in that
>format and nothing else.
Balderdash.
A beginning writer is writing about a guy rowing a boat across a bay. Is
the beginner better served by just writing a blurb about the guy rowing the
boat, or working it into a short story, or making it a scene in a novel? I
say the writer should write about the guy in the boat, and then write about
waking up hung-over in a strange room, and then about being an old, confused
woman in a doctor's waiting room. After writing all that, start a story.
Write three more, and finish the third. Write a lot more, then start a
novel.
This is something every athlete knows. You can run
>a half-marathon on the flat every day of the week. It won't train you for
>hill-running or cross-country events. It will help your stamina, but that's
>about all. Quite simply, he's right - the only way to learn about novels is
>to get on and write one.
I'll buy that, but that's not the best way to learn to write. Why concern
yourself with a novel, when you're trying to write a sentence? When you're
trying to write a sentence, why concern yourself with a novel? Why, when
you're trying to write a sentence, concern yourself with a novel?
>If you're saying that you don't feel ready to write a novel, that's fine as
>well. I can see the wisdom of wanting to master one form before moving on
to
>a more ambitious one. It was Graham Greene, I think, who said that
"Everyone
>has at least one book in them", and Somerset Maughan who commented - "Yes -
>but not necessarily a good one". Most of us have to write several bad
novels
>before we can expect to create something worthwhile in its own right,
rather
>than just as a useful excercise.
Well, maybe, but they'll be less bad if the basic mechanics are learned
first.
>This can be a painful process as most writers tend to be perfectionists by
>nature. Nonetheless, it's an essential part of one's literary
>apprenticeship.
But we're not helpless pawns of a necessity. We can be sure of our ground
by getting the early sums right.
>> Learn to make sentences, and make them into paragraphs, and then start a
>> story. When you can write a story well, do it again, and again, and
after
>> awhile you'll be ready to start a first novel.
>> I don't know why so many people feel such an urgency to have published a
>> book. Simple impatience, I guess, and unwillingness to defer
>gratification.
>
>
>I think that's perhaps a little harsh Malcolm. The fact is that you don't
>KNOW you're any good as a writer until you see the dreams that you've
>created staring back out at you from an elegantly designed little volume in
>a bookshop window.
That may be true, if that little volume is the only thing I've written.
Maybe this is about self-judgement and self-esteem. All beginners have
specific doubts about their writing, but I have no delusions about my
ability or capability. Likewise, if I ever become a good writer, I'll have
no delusions about it then, either.
And I don't care HOW great a writer you are. Who can
>forget F. Scott Fitzgerald's account of walking down Fifth Avenue after
>learning that his first book had been accepted for publication, and wanting
>to run up to complete strangers, hug them and tell them the news? It's a
>triumph - a vindication of all those lonely hours spent struggling to give
>form and substance to ghosts and shadows. Every writer, every artist
indeed,
>needs to feel that his work communicates and is valued. Even those great
>souls who were so far ahead of their time that they were ignorantly
rejected
>by their own age, bitterly wished that it were otherwise. The lack of
>recognition has destroyed more than one great writer.
>
>
>> Personally, I'd rather have written a good story than an incompetent
>novel.
>
>
>Once again, we're in perfect agreement. But why not write both? Then,
>perhaps the next novel will be be less incompetent. The one after that
might
>even be good.
Why not write until three stories in a row are good, and then write a novel?
It may not be good, but it won't be incompetent.
>Glen.
>
Malcolm
Malcolm McLean
--
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message <387AB550...@lineone.net>...
>
>
>Mindspring wrote:
>>
>> Please don't take me wrong, I am only asking what I believe to be a well
>> qualified question. How long have YOU been writing? And, have you
>> published anything?
>
>I agree with the thought implicit behind this question.
Really? Are you agreeing with your own opinion, or with Mindspring's
implication? Did you read his reply or are your fingers running ahead of
your mind again?
Malcolm
Prince Richard Kaminski
Alan Hope wrote:
> I thought I knew all of Borges' work.
You know *almost* all his work. You know the time he worked in
McDonald's, you know about his job as a teacher.
But you know little of his literature, sir.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Mindspring wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote in message ...
>
> >I'm beginning to feel like I'm defending a position more emphatically than
> >it's worth, but I believe writing should be learned from the bottom up.
> >Learn to make sentences, and make them into paragraphs, and then start a
> >story. When you can write a story well, do it again, and again, and after
> >awhile you'll be ready to start a first novel.
> >I don't know why so many people feel such an urgency to have published a
> >book. Simple impatience, I guess, and unwillingness to defer gratification.
> >Personally, I'd rather have written a good story than an incompetent novel.
> >
> >Malcolm
Prince Richard Kaminski
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> I'll buy that, but that's not the best way to learn to write. Why concern
> yourself with a novel, when you're trying to write a sentence? When you're
> trying to write a sentence, why concern yourself with a novel?
I don't know, Malcolm, but you seem to be too wrapped up in the technicalities,
in examining the trees, rather than considering the overall character of the
wood. A novel is not made up of sentences, except in the literal sense. You seem
to be saying (and you may not be saying that, but that's the way it comes
across) that one has to learn to write a perfect sentence before one attempts to
write a paragraph, and a perfect paragraph before one attempts to write a page,
and so on.
But ...
A novel is not like that. It's not a collection of paragraphs, or sentences.
It's a unit in its own right. It's an idea, a value, a "whole" thing. You can
change a lot of the constituent parts, like words, sentences, etc (and obviously
that's what inevitably occurs in translations) but the work remains the same. It
isn't something cobbled together from individual sentences (and I don't say that
that you claim it is) and in my opinion, learning to write the perfect sentence,
paragraph, short story, won't help a person to write a good novel.
> Why, when
> you're trying to write a sentence, concern yourself with a novel?
If someone can't write a sentence, they shouldn't attempt to write a novel. This
I agree with. However, I don't think many of the people we are talking about
here (ie aspirant writers) are not actually capable of writing a sentence, or
indeed of doing it well. People who have no talent in a particular area tend to
be aware of that fact (with a few exceptions).
Glen Wall wrote:
> >If you're saying that you don't feel ready to write a novel, that's fine as
> >well. I can see the wisdom of wanting to master one form before moving on
> to
> >a more ambitious one. It was Graham Greene, I think, who said that
> "Everyone
> >has at least one book in them", and Somerset Maughan who commented - "Yes -
> >but not necessarily a good one". Most of us have to write several bad
> novels
> >before we can expect to create something worthwhile in its own right,
> rather
> >than just as a useful excercise.
>
> Well, maybe, but they'll be less bad if the basic mechanics are learned
> first.
But ... but ...
I don't know, but it seems to me that you are missing a basic element in all of
this. It's like saying that if you want to write an epic ballad, you should
first learn to write haiku, and then limericks, and so on.
> Glen:
> >This can be a painful process as most writers tend to be perfectionists by
> >nature. Nonetheless, it's an essential part of one's literary
> >apprenticeship.
>
> But we're not helpless pawns of a necessity. We can be sure of our ground
> by getting the early sums right.
It's not the same as a bricklayer learning how to build a wall (sorry, Glen)
before he builds a house. Learning how to write the perfect sentence, or even
short story, is not necessary to write a good novel. What is most important is
the idea, the spirit behind the thing.
> Why not write until three stories in a row are good, and then write a novel?
> It may not be good, but it won't be incompetent.
Why not write three novels in a row, and then write another one? It doesn't take
as long as you might think, and it also may not be good, but it also won't be
incompetent, and you will have been practicing what you actually intend to do.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> --
> To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
> -Somerset Maugham-
> Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message <387AB550...@lineone.net>...
> >
> >
> >Mindspring wrote:
> >>
> >> Please don't take me wrong, I am only asking what I believe to be a well
> >> qualified question. How long have YOU been writing? And, have you
> >> published anything?
> >
> >I agree with the thought implicit behind this question.
>
> Really? Are you agreeing with your own opinion, or with Mindspring's
> implication? Did you read his reply or are your fingers running ahead of
> your mind again?
If you didn't understand what I was getting at, I will state it for you in
clear terms. You tend to pontificate on things that you don't necessarily know
too much about. That's just my opinion, and you're just as entitled to your
contrary one.
And I'm not claiming that "mindspring" or anyone else agrees with me. I just
picked up on that comment he made.
Old Bill
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:387ACBA0...@lineone.net...
>
>
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
> > I'll buy that, but that's not the best way to learn to write. Why
concern
> > yourself with a novel, when you're trying to write a sentence? When
you're
> > trying to write a sentence, why concern yourself with a novel?
>
As often happens in long threads, I think people here (well OK, Malcolm...)
is being pushed into defending a position more stoutly than perhaps he
wanted to, by the disproportionate disputatiousness of some of the
respondents.
His advice is fundamentally sound, and was aimed at encouraging someone who
lacked the self-confidence to tackle a major work. At the time, we assumed -
wrongly - that it was a work of fiction, but that doesn't matter now. His
point was simply that for someone who feels apprehensive about the scale of
the undertaking, and who admitted to having written virtually nothing up
till that point, a good step would be to start small, and learn some of the
building-block skills necessary for any work of fiction. At least learn to
get comfortable with introducing new characters, and dialogue, and narrative
passages, and describing how people look, and so on. It's probably better to
'practise' in the short story form simply because there's a much greater
chance of actually finishing the thing, which helps the writer to judge
whether or not he succeeded in painting a convincing picture for the reader,
which in turn allows him to measure progress, and to experiment in order to
compare the relative effectiveness of different approaches. Having small
'finished' pieces, the writer is also able to begin to understand the bigger
questions of what it is that makes one piece of writing work, and another
fail.
It's good advice for the novice writer who stands daunted before the sheer
face of the novel. Writing short stories, and picking up some technical
skills, allows him to focus effort on the real challenges of the novel,
which of course he should be learning about at the same time, by doing some
reading and consulting others, perhaps. Whether or not the novel is the
short story 'writ large' is irrelevant (it is and it isn't, depending on how
literal you want to be.)
The relationship between the two is a bit like the relationship between
5-a-side football (soccer) and 11-a-side. The bigger game will always be
11-a-side, but the smaller one is a great place to keep fit, learn a few
little tricks, and can be arranged much more quickly, with fewer resources.
If you love playing that much, you'll be happy to do either, knowing that
many of the skills are transferable, even though the strategy for victory
will need modifying when moving from one to the other.
Glen Wall
>
>
> --
> To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
> -Somerset Maugham-
> Glen Wall wrote in message <3879b...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
> >
>
> big snip
>
> >Even when I was growing up in England in the late 1970's, this tradition
> >lingered on. I must be the only man in Great Britain who actually DID buy
> >Playboy for the short stories (well alright, I may have sneaked a peek at
> >the centerfold). I can remember seeing new short stories by Bellow,
> Nabokov,
> >Mailer, Updike and many other top names. I also remember with excitement
> the
> >month that Robert Graves, who had published nothing for 20 years, chose
to
> >preview his new collection of poems in Playboy.
>
>
> I did that, too. Remember Norman Mailer's three-part thing about the fight
> between Ali and Foreman in Zaire?
I do indeed - a fine, vivid piece of writing!
>I remember Victor Nabakov and Saul Bellow
> in Playboy, too, but it was so long ago, I can't remember the stories.
Well, perhaps you can help me with something here. The memory of one of
those stories has stayed with me all these years, and I never have been able
to track it down. I thought it was by Nabokov, but I know all his published
short stories and this one certainly isn't among them. In fact I hesitate to
relate what I remember of it - even now I can hear Alan Hope accusing me of
wasting people's time with old jokes - it has that ring about it. But it was
a short story, not a joke, and it was published in Playboy sometime in the
70's, so here goes.
The story centered around the deathbed of an immensely eminent and
internationally famous gynaecologist. Without warning, this elderly
physician suddenly fell into a coma, and after a few weeks his doctors
announced that death was imminent. Friends, family and colleagues came from
around the world to pay their last respects to the great man. They clustered
about his bedside, but the gynaecologist lay catatonic and unblinking,
completely unaware of their presence. The life-support system showed such a
reduction of all metabolic functions that death could be no more than hours
away. The assembled company prepared themselves for the inevitable.
Then, suddenly, there was a huge blip on the electro-encephalagram, and the
gynaecologist opened his eyes wide and sat bolt-upright in his bed, staring
at the opposite wall. Everyone in the room froze in utter astonishment and
drew in their breath sharply. A grin of lascivious delight illuminated the
gynaecologist's face. He yelled out loud, "CUNT!", and then fell backward
stone dead. The silence in the room deepened and furtive, embarrassed
glances passed between the mourners. No-one spoke.
And there you have it - or at least, as much of it as I remember. Any ideas
Malcolm? I thought it was very funny - I still do.
> >But where is the market for short stories today? What contemporary
> publisher
> >will look at a novella from an unknown writer? I suppose Ian McKuen and
> >Peter Carey must be the last major writers to have founded their
> reputations
> >on a collection of short stories - and that was 20 years ago. The fact is
> >that anyone who wants to make a splash today, has little choice other
than
> >to go for the big one - the novel.
>
> We're talking about beginners here, remember?
Beginners, pro's - the markets are still the same if you expect to get paid
for your work.
> And whilst I would agree with you that
> >the short story is an excellent teacher of literary technique, I would
also
> >agree with the Prince who points out that the technique in question is
not
> >necessarily suited to a novel. But I think that Richard's most important
> >observation is that the format you write in trains you to write in that
> >format and nothing else.
>
> Balderdash.
> A beginning writer is writing about a guy rowing a boat across a bay. Is
> the beginner better served by just writing a blurb about the guy rowing
the
> boat, or working it into a short story, or making it a scene in a novel?
I
> say the writer should write about the guy in the boat, and then write
about
> waking up hung-over in a strange room, and then about being an old,
confused
> woman in a doctor's waiting room. After writing all that, start a story.
> Write three more, and finish the third. Write a lot more, then start a
> novel.
I'm not sure I follow your exact meaning here. I would just point out that
the key to novel writing is narrative technique, and short stories only
develop this to a very limited extent because they're generally more
concerned with creating a mood or a feeling, rather than with presenting the
actions of a series of characters within a specific time-frame. There are
many fine writers - Gore Vidal springs to mind - whose novels falter on
narrative technique. His essays are first-rate, his short stories excellent,
but his novels are virtually unreadable. (They may be bestsellers, but of
the coffee-table variety - few read them, I suspect). For some reason he's
simply unable to move his characters through space and time in a convincing
manner. On the other hand, many inferior writers - James Michener, Herman
Wouk, Studs Lonigan - the Pulitzer merchants - have an enviable mastery of
narrative that makes it easy to overlook their stylistic shortcomings.
Unless you plan to write "literary" novels, which regard anything as mundane
as a sequential narrative with high disdain, organisation is the key to
flowing, accessible writing. This business of time-lines and overview has,
as Richard says, very little to do with the quality of individual sentences.
Rather, it signifies an organic approach to a piece of work - a God's
eye-view, if you will. This outlook is qualitively different to that of a
writer who confines himself to short stories. Paradoxically however, it can
inform and enrich the short story form once it's been assimilated. One need
only look at the difference between the early short stories of Nabokov,
Cheever, Doestoevsky etc. and their greatly superior later work, written
after they had achieved a real mastery of the novel form. The contrast is
remarkable.
That's about the best argument I can come up with for writing a novel,
bearing in mind what you've already said on the subject. I think you'd find
it a very enriching experience.
But please don't think I would presume to try and tell you what you should
or shouldn't write. I'm just interested in discussing these questions from a
theoretical point of view. As a matter of fact, I think that the extract you
posted from your murder-mystery is a most vivid, atmospheric piece of
writing - easily the most accomplished work of yours that I've seen so far.
Reading it was exactly like watching a film - which is just what that genre
should aim to achieve. If you can produce a stylish and well-paced piece
like that, I really don't think you'd have too many problems with a novel.
But you know best!
Glen.
TrinityApp
-- (snip funny Playboy story)
> Then, suddenly, there was a huge blip on the electro-encephalagram, and
the
> gynaecologist opened his eyes wide and sat bolt-upright in his bed,
staring
> at the opposite wall. Everyone in the room froze in utter astonishment and
> drew in their breath sharply. A grin of lascivious delight illuminated the
> gynaecologist's face. He yelled out loud, "CUNT!", and then fell backward
> stone dead. The silence in the room deepened and furtive, embarrassed
> glances passed between the mourners. No-one spoke.
>
I don't know who the writer was, but the doctor evidently knew my ex-mother
in law.
> I'm not sure I follow your exact meaning here. I would just point out that
> the key to novel writing is narrative technique, and short stories only
> develop this to a very limited extent because they're generally more
> concerned with creating a mood or a feeling, rather than with presenting
the
> actions of a series of characters within a specific time-frame
This can be a useful practice for the beginner though. A few short stories
in different genres can tell you where your strengths and weaknesses lie. I
prefer fantasy to real world, simply because I can then control all aspects
and don't have to research as much. But I can also write a creepy mystery
type story, however, I personally dislike doing so because they linger or
feel too real.
. There are
> many fine writers - Gore Vidal springs to mind - whose novels falter on
> narrative technique. His essays are first-rate, his short stories
excellent,
> but his novels are virtually unreadable. (They may be bestsellers, but of
> the coffee-table variety - few read them, I suspect).
I'm with you here.
For some reason he's
> simply unable to move his characters through space and time in a
convincing
> manner. On the other hand, many inferior writers - James Michener, Herman
> Wouk, Studs Lonigan - the Pulitzer merchants - have an enviable mastery of
> narrative that makes it easy to overlook their stylistic shortcomings.
>
This would be where Stephen King and numerous other modern writers fall.
They have extreme readability. Not all the time, but generally you can shoot
through one of their novels and get the entire gist without having to search
for symbolism and subtle meanings. ( Note: I like to read King, but he does
have some crappers)
This business of time-lines and overview has,
> as Richard says, very little to do with the quality of individual
sentences.
> Rather, it signifies an organic approach to a piece of work - a God's
> eye-view, if you will.
But, for a first time novelist, a timeline can help. Especially if you write
chapters out of order. However, you must be willing to leave the line
completely if the muse decides to take another path.
Tracy Meisenbach, who has followed the muse to some pretty odd places
Fighting for peace is like screwing
for virginity. Anon
Ultraviolet
>I've run dry in this discussion and I'm starting to repeat myself, but I
>believe that if you can't write a good story, you shouldn't write a novel.
What's a "good" story though? Something published only? I have (IMO) good short
stories written, but they haven't been published. Perhaps after my novel's a
smashing success (yeahrightsure), then everyone will be clamoring to publish my
old short fiction.
>Why spend three years writing bad novels, when you can spend them writing
>stories, and then write a good novel?
Oh, I'm okay then, since I've spent 15 years writing stories.
Paula
P.S. I agree with others on this thread who've stated that the criteria for
judging a short story are different from those used for a novel, just as the
criteria for judging a poem are different from those used for a short story.
WriteBeth
>>THANKYOU! You seemed to be listening to what I was asking and offered some
short thoughtful advice that inspired me to think.<<
Happy to help, but don't disregard what others said. There was some good advice
offered here and even advice geared toward novel writing can be applicable in
many ways.
Beth
Alan Hope
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in
article <387AB504...@lineone.net>...
> Alan Hope wrote:
> > I thought I knew all of Borges' work.
> You know *almost* all his work. You know the time he worked in
> McDonald's, you know about his job as a teacher.
What on earth are you prattling on about? McDonald's. How
hilarious.
> But you know little of his literature, sir.
Oh, yeah? Tell me the name of Borges' novel, then. Fill me in,
genius.
AH
Prince Richard Kaminski
Old Bill wrote:
> As often happens in long threads, I think people here (well OK, Malcolm...)
> is being pushed into defending a position more stoutly than perhaps he
> wanted to, by the disproportionate disputatiousness of some of the
> respondents.
I'm sorry, Old Bill, but your post has been disallowed by the ruling overlords
of aw and mw due to the sheer outrageousness of "disproportionate
disputatiousness". Thanks for contributing anyway, and better luck next
Prince Richard Kaminski
Prince Richard Kaminski wrote:
time!
Prince Richard Kaminski
Alan Hope wrote:
> Fill me in,
> genius.
By Odin, I've been shocked by some of your homoerotic overtures
before, but this one takes the biscuit.
For God's sake, at least control yourself in public.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Glen Wall wrote:
> Then, suddenly, there was a huge blip on the electro-encephalagram, and the
> gynaecologist opened his eyes wide and sat bolt-upright in his bed, staring
> at the opposite wall. Everyone in the room froze in utter astonishment and
> drew in their breath sharply. A grin of lascivious delight illuminated the
> gynaecologist's face. He yelled out loud, "CUNT!", and then fell backward
> stone dead. The silence in the room deepened and furtive, embarrassed
> glances passed between the mourners. No-one spoke.
So Robert Maugham is no longer with us? That saddens me, although I was no great
friend of his.
I didn't know he was a gynaecologist either.
Take care down there, RJM. We will remember you.
Mindspring
>> qualified question. How long have YOU been writing? And, have you
>> published anything?
>
>I agree with the thought implicit behind this question.
>
My only thought behind the question, to use another colorful metaphor..., is
that if I want to know how to bake a cake, I ask a baker.
Malcolm McLean
--
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Glen Wall wrote in message <387b0...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
>
>Malcolm McLean <gotmy_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bEze4.11883$2x3.2...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>
Doesn't ring a bell, but it sounds like that guy may be the only man who
ever died wishing he'd worked more.
>> >But where is the market for short stories today? What contemporary
>> publisher
>> >will look at a novella from an unknown writer? I suppose Ian McKuen and
>> >Peter Carey must be the last major writers to have founded their
>> reputations
>> >on a collection of short stories - and that was 20 years ago. The fact
is
>> >that anyone who wants to make a splash today, has little choice other
>than
>> >to go for the big one - the novel.
>>
>> We're talking about beginners here, remember?
>
>
>Beginners, pro's - the markets are still the same if you expect to get paid
>for your work.
>
I should have said 'rank beginners'. Like me. It's been, what, just less
than a year since I decided to 'take up writing', and showed up in here.
I think we've been talking about just slightly different things. No matter;
I'm less sure than I was that no beginner should attempt to write a novel.
I'm still convinced that a novel is not the best way to start, though.
Any moment now, I'm gonna say "Well, I guess each individual is different.",
and then I'll have to swat myself. But I've learned a lot of new skills in
my trade, and I've found I learn best step-by-step, and feeling confident
before moving to the next.
>Unless you plan to write "literary" novels, which regard anything as
mundane
>as a sequential narrative with high disdain, organisation is the key to
>flowing, accessible writing. This business of time-lines and overview has,
>as Richard says, very little to do with the quality of individual
sentences.
>Rather, it signifies an organic approach to a piece of work - a God's
>eye-view, if you will. This outlook is qualitively different to that of a
>writer who confines himself to short stories. Paradoxically however, it can
>inform and enrich the short story form once it's been assimilated. One need
>only look at the difference between the early short stories of Nabokov,
>Cheever, Doestoevsky etc. and their greatly superior later work, written
>after they had achieved a real mastery of the novel form. The contrast is
>remarkable.
Good stuff.
>That's about the best argument I can come up with for writing a novel,
>bearing in mind what you've already said on the subject. I think you'd find
>it a very enriching experience.
>
>But please don't think I would presume to try and tell you what you should
>or shouldn't write. I'm just interested in discussing these questions from
a
>theoretical point of view. As a matter of fact, I think that the extract
you
>posted from your murder-mystery is a most vivid, atmospheric piece of
>writing - easily the most accomplished work of yours that I've seen so far.
>Reading it was exactly like watching a film - which is just what that genre
>should aim to achieve. If you can produce a stylish and well-paced piece
>like that, I really don't think you'd have too many problems with a novel.
>But you know best!
>
>Glen.
>
Thanks much, Glen.
I appreciate your input throughout this line.
Malcolm
Malcolm McLean
--
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message <387ACCA5...@lineone.net>...
>
>
>Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> --
>> To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
>> -Somerset Maugham-
>> Prince Richard Kaminski wrote in message
<387AB550...@lineone.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Mindspring wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Please don't take me wrong, I am only asking what I believe to be a
well
>> >> qualified question. How long have YOU been writing? And, have you
>> >> published anything?
>> >
>> >I agree with the thought implicit behind this question.
>>
>> Really? Are you agreeing with your own opinion, or with Mindspring's
>> implication? Did you read his reply or are your fingers running ahead of
>> your mind again?
>
>If you didn't understand what I was getting at, I will state it for you in
>clear terms. You tend to pontificate on things
Yeah, I've got an opinion on most subjects. I've got a loud voice, and when
the discussion gets rolling I'm apt to stand and wave my arms when I speak.
So what? Did I startle your cat?
I work, and sometimes live, with loud, aggressive men. That's how things
get thrashed out.
Besides, look what it got me. About 20k of insight, from writers and other
beginners, about how one should prepare for a first novel. That ain't
chicken-feed. If I'd sat down and shut up three posts ago, those words
wouldn't exist.
that you don't necessarily know
>too much about. That's just my opinion, and you're just as entitled to your
>contrary one.
Alright, who does know much about this subject? Go poll ten authors, asking
how to prepare for a first novel. How many answers do you think you'll get?
Malcolm
Elizabeth Massie
Glen Wall <glen...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:387be...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TrinityApp <trini...@lynchburg.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.writing
> Sent: 11 January 2000 13:29
> Subject: Re: I can't get it out on paper....Help, please.
>
>
> > Glen wrote:
> >
> > -- (snip funny Playboy story)
> >
and
> > the
> > > gynaecologist opened his eyes wide and sat bolt-upright in his bed,
> > staring
> > > at the opposite wall. Everyone in the room froze in utter astonishment
> and
> > > drew in their breath sharply. A grin of lascivious delight illuminated
> the
> > > gynaecologist's face. He yelled out loud, "CUNT!", and then fell
> backward
> > > stone dead. The silence in the room deepened and furtive, embarrassed
> > > glances passed between the mourners. No-one spoke.
> > >
> >
> >
> ex-mother
> > in law.
>
>
>
> are you a divorcee, re-married with a new mother-in-law? Are you planning
to
> take her out as well? I have a telephone number if you need it.
>
>
>
> > > I'm not sure I follow your exact meaning here. I would just point out
> that
> > > the key to novel writing is narrative technique, and short stories
only
> > > develop this to a very limited extent because they're generally more
> > > concerned with creating a mood or a feeling, rather than with
presenting
> > the
> >
> >
> > This can be a useful practice for the beginner though. A few short
stories
> > in different genres can tell you where your strengths and weaknesses
lie.
> I
> > prefer fantasy to real world, simply because I can then control all
> aspects
> > and don't have to research as much.
>
>
>
>
>
> But I can also write a creepy mystery
> > type story, however, I personally dislike doing so because they linger
or
> > feel too real.
>
>
> are living, autonomous entities. They don't simply disappear when our
> attention turns elsewhere. And the more vividly the thought is imagined
and
> brooded over, the more energy and power it contains. That's why torture
and
> trauma victims experience nightmares and flashbacks for many years after
the
> initial events. The thoughts were originally energised by such a high
level
> of emotional energy that they have the power to virtually take over the
> victims life and feed off their fear or anger like the parasitical
entities
> that they are. The intense stimulus of pleasure invests thoughts with a
> similar charge in cocaine use and intense sex. These thoughts are then
> responsible for the ensuing cycle of addiction (the clinical, bio-chemical
> factor is a secondary consideration).
>
> Small wonder that Stephen King has spent his life abusing drugs and
alcohol,
> or that the horror writer Whitley Streiber believes he's regularly
abducted
> by aliens. "As a man thinks, so shall he become"
>
> Lao Tzu
>
Just had to jump in a bit here. How many horror writers do you actually
know? How much horror (classic or contemporary) have you actually read? Your
sweeping comments about the psychological problems horror writers face
because of their choice of topic seem to come from some self-imposed, lofty
detachment, but not, I would guess, from much actual experience or
knowledge. I'm not defending all horror; very little in life is an "all or
nothing" situation, and Lord knows there is some big-time trash. And perhaps
*some* horror writers are all tied up and screwed up because of those images
that play over and over in their minds like some creepy melody. But I know a
good number of horror writers (yes, published horror writers who make a
living at it), and they are some of the nicest, most centered, caring, and
creative folks around. Guess what? Some actually write horror not because
they become addicted to the energy these scary thoughts create but because
they have a story to tell about the darker side of the human condition.
I would doubt very seriously that Stephen King's substance abuse came from
writing horror and becoming obsessed with the images. Possibly it had
something to do with his father deserting his family when he was young,
maybe the increasing pressures to write more and more and more, perhaps he
just inherited elements of an addictive personality, or all or none? Maybe
it happened because of one of many other reasons people of all walks of life
(even ministers, teachers, and doctors) end up with such problems?
I am somewhat familiar with the effects of torture on people. I've been an
active member of Amnesty International since 1984, and read quite a bit
about man's inhumanity to man. Such people would have flashbacks and could
easily suffer some of the things you mention. But don't go throwing your
"therapist's" net out so far. It's a big-time stretch. Oh, and below you say
"We must take our Muse by the hand and follow wherever she leads. We may not
always employ all of her insights in the finished narrative, but we must
nonetheless see exactly what she has to show us." Some muses are not as
pleasant and cheery as others, and some lead the way down the dark, shadowy
path of horror.
>
> > . There are
> > > many fine writers - Gore Vidal springs to mind - whose novels falter
on
> > > narrative technique. His essays are first-rate, his short stories
> > excellent,
> > > but his novels are virtually unreadable. (They may be bestsellers, but
> of
> > > the coffee-table variety - few read them, I suspect).
> >
> > I'm with you here.
> >
> > For some reason he's
> > > simply unable to move his characters through space and time in a
> > convincing
> > > manner. On the other hand, many inferior writers - James Michener,
> Herman
> > > Wouk, Studs Lonigan - the Pulitzer merchants - have an enviable
mastery
> of
> > > narrative that makes it easy to overlook their stylistic shortcomings.
> > >
> >
> > This would be where Stephen King and numerous other modern writers fall.
> > They have extreme readability. Not all the time, but generally you can
> shoot
> > through one of their novels and get the entire gist without having to
> search
> > for symbolism and subtle meanings. ( Note: I like to read King, but he
> does
> > have some crappers)
>
> I once tried to read "The Shining", but I got no further than page 10.
Never
> in my life have I read such appalling, illiterate rubbish. I could
scarcely
> believe that prose as bad as that had found its way into print. Surely, I
> thought, some editor could have come to his aid? I almost experienced
> physical pain reading it, like poor, brave Starfish wading through
> Rhiannon's drivel. I was shocked.
>
> This is not literary snobbery by the way - I've read Heinlen and Asimov
and
> many other science fiction writers whose prose-style is not much better.
> I've even enjoyed some of them. But for me, Stephen King will always stand
> as the premier literary exemplar of P. T. Barnum's assertion that "No-one
> ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public".
Sadly,
> his popularity is not confined to America either. It makes me despair of
> civilisation to think that millions of people are so inwardly dead that
the
> beauty of a poem by Yeats, or a Bach cello suite leaves them unmoved, and
> only the literary equivalent of a video nasty can penetrate their numbed
> sensibilities and give them the illusion of being alive.
>
> What YOU were doing reading that trash I really can't imagine Tracy - I
> expect better of you!
>
>
>
>
> > This business of time-lines and overview has,
> > > as Richard says, very little to do with the quality of individual
> > sentences.
> > > Rather, it signifies an organic approach to a piece of work - a God's
> > > eye-view, if you will.
> >
> > But, for a first time novelist, a timeline can help. Especially if you
> write
> > chapters out of order. However, you must be willing to leave the line
> > completely if the muse decides to take another path.
>
>
>
> Absolutely. We must take our Muse by the hand and follow wherever she
leads.
> We may not always employ all of her insights in the finished narrative,
but
> we must nonetheless see exactly what she has to show us
>
>
>
> > Tracy Meisenbach, who has followed the muse to some pretty odd places
>
>
> Tell me about it!
>
>
> > Fighting for peace is like screwing
> > for virginity. Anon
>
> Or drinking a toast to temperance.
>
> Glen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Glen Wall
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:387B8C37...@lineone.net...
>
>
> Glen Wall wrote:
>
> > Then, suddenly, there was a huge blip on the electro-encephalagram, and
the
> > gynaecologist opened his eyes wide and sat bolt-upright in his bed,
staring
> > at the opposite wall. Everyone in the room froze in utter astonishment
and
> > drew in their breath sharply. A grin of lascivious delight illuminated
the
> > gynaecologist's face. He yelled out loud, "CUNT!", and then fell
backward
> > stone dead. The silence in the room deepened and furtive, embarrassed
> > glances passed between the mourners. No-one spoke.
>
great
> friend of his.
>
> I didn't know he was a gynaecologist either.
>
> Take care down there, RJM. We will remember you.
A blessing in disguise, dear Richard. His last years were marked by a
shameful descent into bizarre, degenerate practices involving the abuse of
seafood and the employment of corn on the cob and sesame bagels to obtain
sexual gratification.
But there - one must not speak ill of the dead.
Glen.
Glen Wall
From: TrinityApp <trini...@lynchburg.net>
Newsgroups: alt.writing
Sent: 11 January 2000 13:29
Subject: Re: I can't get it out on paper....Help, please.
> Glen wrote:
>
> -- (snip funny Playboy story)
>
> > Then, suddenly, there was a huge blip on the electro-encephalagram, and
> the
> > gynaecologist opened his eyes wide and sat bolt-upright in his bed,
> staring
> > at the opposite wall. Everyone in the room froze in utter astonishment
and
> > drew in their breath sharply. A grin of lascivious delight illuminated
the
> > gynaecologist's face. He yelled out loud, "CUNT!", and then fell
backward
> > stone dead. The silence in the room deepened and furtive, embarrassed
> > glances passed between the mourners. No-one spoke.
> >
>
>
> I don't know who the writer was, but the doctor evidently knew my
ex-mother
> in law.
"EX" mother-in-law? As in ex-parrot? Did you put out a contract on her? Or
are you a divorcee, re-married with a new mother-in-law? Are you planning to
take her out as well? I have a telephone number if you need it.
> > I'm not sure I follow your exact meaning here. I would just point out
that
> > the key to novel writing is narrative technique, and short stories only
> > develop this to a very limited extent because they're generally more
> > concerned with creating a mood or a feeling, rather than with presenting
> the
Lao Tzu
> . There are
> > many fine writers - Gore Vidal springs to mind - whose novels falter on
> > narrative technique. His essays are first-rate, his short stories
> excellent,
> > but his novels are virtually unreadable. (They may be bestsellers, but
of
> > the coffee-table variety - few read them, I suspect).
>
> I'm with you here.
>
> For some reason he's
> > simply unable to move his characters through space and time in a
> convincing
> > manner. On the other hand, many inferior writers - James Michener,
Herman
> > Wouk, Studs Lonigan - the Pulitzer merchants - have an enviable mastery
of
> > narrative that makes it easy to overlook their stylistic shortcomings.
> >
>
> This business of time-lines and overview has,
> > as Richard says, very little to do with the quality of individual
> sentences.
> > Rather, it signifies an organic approach to a piece of work - a God's
> > eye-view, if you will.
>
Keith Snyder
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> Go poll ten authors, asking
> how to prepare for a first novel.
We're supposed to prepare?
Keith
--
TrinityApp
--
> "EX" mother-in-law? As in ex-parrot? Did you put out a contract on her? Or
> are you a divorcee, re-married with a new mother-in-law? Are you planning
to
> take her out as well? I have a telephone number if you need it.
Ex-mother in law that went with that ex- boring-as-shit-non-horse-liking
bozo I married the first time. My current mother in law is a gem, wouldn't
trade her for anything.
> A lazy control freak, just like me! ;-)
Of course. Nothing like getting pissed at the supermarket and coming home
and writing about the space mine slaves toiling under you to cheer up your
day.
> This is a very real danger to those who work in the horror genre. Thoughts
> are living, autonomous entities. They don't simply disappear when our
> attention turns elsewhere
That's it. I wrote a short, The Watching, I think it was before you started
posting here, with the tone of a pervert watching a child. Hit too close to
home and I had to change the ending. I just couldn't get through the actual
snatching of a kid. Gave myself the creeps.
> What YOU were doing reading that trash I really can't imagine Tracy - I
> expect better of you!
>
I was using yellow highlighter and outlining all the fuck scenes. What else
would I be doing?
> Absolutely. We must take our Muse by the hand and follow wherever she
leads.
> We may not always employ all of her insights in the finished narrative,
but
> we must nonetheless see exactly what she has to show us
And sometimes the moody bitch drags in a character you never had any idea of
using and have no idea where it's going to go and she makes you make it
work. Amazes me, also pisses me off.
Tracy Meisenbach
Glen Wall
Elizabeth Massie <iri...@intelos.net> wrote in message
news:85h11e$10ilc$1...@homer.cfw.com...
I have two acquantainces who publish horror fiction. I wouldn't care to
become intimate with either of them.
>How much horror (classic or contemporary) have you actually read?
That depends on how you define "horror". The category didn't exist until the
mid 20th century, but much fiction from Victorian times and indeed earlier,
has now been retrospectively added to this genre. Of these, I would say that
only Poe truly merits the label. The great Gothic masterpieces have so
little in common with the gratuitous nastiness that passes for "horror"
fiction today, that I wouldn't taint them by association.
To me, Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", for example, is a profound allegory of
the dangers of creating life without love. It has never been more relevant
than it is in our own time, when the human genome is about to be cracked and
all manner of Faustian manipulations will become a real possibility to our
secular scientists. But I wouldn't call it a work of horror.
I suppose the first writer to revel in horror for its own sake must be the
heroically morbid Edgar Allen Poe, whose fantasies of necrophilia and
premature burial still have the power to affect us today. No sensible person
would deny that Poe was, or could on occasion be a writer of genius. He was
an uneven writer, and often descended into preposterous melodrama (even
today, and I haven't read him for many years, the unitentionally hilarious
dialogue from his story "William Walton" still rings in my ears : " Fiend!
Unspeakable wretch! You shall not - YOU SHALL NOT dog me unto death!"). But
on the plus side, he single-handedly created the modern detective story in
"The Murders in the Rue Morgue" and, unlike today's illiterate purveyors of
horror, he could actually write hypnotic, reasonant sentences. Unfortunately
for you however, he was addicted to drugs and alcohol and therefore adds
more support to my thesis.
The next literary landmark in the retrospective horror map must surely be
Bram Stoker's "Dracula" (if we except the popular Victorian spine-chiller
"Varney the Vampire"). This seems to me more a splendid work of unbridled
eroticism - a reaction in fact, to Victorian sexual repression - than a work
of horror per se. You will find an excellent analysis of how the theme of
menstruation runs (if you'll excuse the expression) through the work, in
Peter Redgrove and Penelope Shuttle's book, "The Wise Wound". But again, I
wouldn't call it primarily a work of horror, as its insights owe more to
Freud than to Bettleheim.
Moving forward to our own time, it strikes me as an extraordinary
coincidence that during the 1950's, the decade that arguably gave birth to
the modern horror genre, criminologists began to observe a new pattern of
offending, which they referred to as "victimless crimes". These were vicious
murders in which the victim was neither robbed, nor sexually assaulted.
Before the 1950's, such crimes were so rare in peacetime Europe as to be
virtually non-existent. They were perhaps the first truly existential
crimes, committed without any discernible reason or purpose. I believe that
they were a symptom of the same psychological malaise that has produced
horror writers like Stephen King. Two World Wars had left the zeitgeist
stained with unimaginable horrors that writers like King made it their
business to articulate.
Of course, writers from Sophocles and Aeschylus onwards have always
articulated the concerns of their age, but they always sought to address
wider themes and introduce an element of catharsis and redemption. In the
50's, literary nihilism arrived with a vengance and the horror writers of
today continue, for the most part, to work within that tradition. The
problem here is that very few contemporary writers of horror fiction are
intellectually equipped to address their themes in a manner that could
possibly result in any new insights into the nature of evil. Now, I know
that the readers of this formulaic trash are more interested in insanity
than insights (witness the extraordinary success of Thomas Harris's
"Hannibal" novels), and it may be argued that they should be permitted to
indulge their morbid tastes to the full. I certainly don't believe in any
form of censorship, I just find it a matter of great saddness that a culture
with such a rich literary tradition should find that illiterate, gratuitous
nastiness outsells all else in the first years of the new millennium. It's
not a very auspicious start in my opinion.
Your
> sweeping comments about the psychological problems horror writers face
> because of their choice of topic seem to come from some self-imposed,
lofty
> detachment, but not, I would guess, from much actual experience or
> knowledge.
On the contrary, I've met and worked with many victims of unimaginable
horror, which is perhaps why I find it difficult to treat the subject as
entertainment. Evil is not entertainment. Asa Arendt famously said, "Evil is
banal".
I'm not defending all horror; very little in life is an "all or
> nothing" situation, and Lord knows there is some big-time trash. And
perhaps
> *some* horror writers are all tied up and screwed up because of those
images
> that play over and over in their minds like some creepy melody. But I know
a
> good number of horror writers (yes, published horror writers who make a
> living at it), and they are some of the nicest, most centered, caring, and
> creative folks around.
You know Elizabeth, that's just what Fred West's neighbours said about him
when the police came to arrest him as Britain's worst ever serial killer.
You may think that your horror writer friends are "centered, caring folks",
but take my advice and keep your nose out of their freezers. ;-)
Guess what? Some actually write horror not because
> they become addicted to the energy these scary thoughts create but because
> they have a story to tell about the darker side of the human condition.
If you examine my previous post with more care, you will find I have never
suggested that horror writers are addicted to "scary thoughts". And
wallowing around in the murky depths of one's own subconcious mind is not
necessarily the same thing as telling a story which has some universal
applicability to the human condition. I've read only one of Stephen King's
short stories, but I would be most interested to hear your analysis of
precisely what it has to teach us about the human condition. It concerns a
doctor who's shipwrecked on a small island with no prospect of rescue. He
has with him his medical bag containing ampoules of anaethstetic. As
starvation begins to take its toll, one-by-one, he injects his limbs with
heroin, amputates them with a scalpel, and eats them. The narrative dwells
mainly on his deliberations over which limb to have for lunch.
Now, I take this to be an unconcious allegory of the process of writing
horror fiction. Possessing no real powers of creativity, the horror writer
engages in a sort of auto-cannibalism - a psychic self-consumption that
leaves him burnt-out and eventually wasted. If you have a better
interpretation, I'm all ears.
> I would doubt very seriously that Stephen King's substance abuse came from
> writing horror and becoming obsessed with the images. Possibly it had
> something to do with his father deserting his family when he was young,
> maybe the increasing pressures to write more and more and more, perhaps he
> just inherited elements of an addictive personality, or all or none? Maybe
> it happened because of one of many other reasons people of all walks of
life
> (even ministers, teachers, and doctors) end up with such problems?
We shall never know. What can be said with certainty is that his morbid
preoccupations cannot have helped his condition. I would also remind you
that King himself has said that his books are "the products of a sick
mind" - what does that say about those who are entertained by his work?
> I am somewhat familiar with the effects of torture on people. I've been an
> active member of Amnesty International since 1984, and read quite a bit
> about man's inhumanity to man. Such people would have flashbacks and could
> easily suffer some of the things you mention. But don't go throwing your
> "therapist's" net out so far. It's a big-time stretch.
Well congratulations on your work with Amnesty. No charity is more deserving
of support. However, I spoke not as a "therapist", but rather as one who has
made the nature of human conciousness the study of a lifetime. I have spent
many years directly observing the nature of thoughts in deep meditation.
Like all else in nature, they obey certain discoverable laws. And whilst I
discerned these laws for myself, they have been chronicled by similarly
inclined men and woman in all times and places.
Oh, and below you say
> "We must take our Muse by the hand and follow wherever she leads. We may
not
> always employ all of her insights in the finished narrative, but we must
> nonetheless see exactly what she has to show us." Some muses are not as
> pleasant and cheery as others, and some lead the way down the dark,
shadowy
> path of horror.
That may be true, but any Muse worth her salt will only attend a writer of
talent. I don't believe that the illiterate contemporary purveyors of horror
fiction have muses at all. I've looked at the work of Clive Barker, Stephen
King et. al. and the only one with any discernable talent is Iain Banks.
Now, "The Wasp Factory" is a very sick book indeed, no doubt about that, but
Banks prose-style is so assured and intricate that it lifts his work head
and shoulders above that of his contemporaries in the genre. He can observe
meticulously and create original, if somewhat bizarre characters that are as
different from the one-dimensional cardboard-cutouts of Stephen King as can
possibly be imagined.
But I happen to know that he indulges rather freely in certain substances!
QED,
Glen.
Glen Wall
> Moving forward to our own time, it strikes me as an extraordinary
> coincidence that during the 1950's, the decade that arguably gave birth to
> the modern horror genre, criminologists began to observe a new pattern of
> offending, which they referred to as "victimless crimes".
I meant, "motiveless crimes!" of course!
.> Evil is not entertainment. Asa Arendt famously said, "Evil is
> banal".
This should read, "As Hana Arendt famously said, "Evil is banal".
Glen.
Elizabeth Massie
snippysnip>
Right. Even publishers have a hard time with that "genre." Supernatural -
hmmm, would that be science fiction, fantasy, or horror? Psychological -
hmmmm, would that be mainstream, thriller/suspense, or horror? Maybe people
"know it when they see it," but the varying definitions make it hard to
generalize. Check out bookstores; they often place books of the same title
in different locations. I believe you are defining horror as something with
"gratuitous nastiness." And again, I believe you've not read widely in the
contemporary field as there are good works that are quite nasty but not
gratutious. Unless you find anything graphic to be gratuitous.
Evil is not entertainment. However, humans dealing with evil - struggling
with the dark side - can be a damn good story and can give the reader
something to ponder. (Yes, much like those earlier works you mention, but
I'm thinking you think there are no such animals today?)
> I'm not defending all horror; very little in life is an "all or
> > nothing" situation, and Lord knows there is some big-time trash. And
> perhaps
> > *some* horror writers are all tied up and screwed up because of those
> images
> > that play over and over in their minds like some creepy melody. But I
know
> a
> > good number of horror writers (yes, published horror writers who make a
> > living at it), and they are some of the nicest, most centered, caring,
and
> > creative folks around.
>
>
> You know Elizabeth, that's just what Fred West's neighbours said about him
> when the police came to arrest him as Britain's worst ever serial killer.
> You may think that your horror writer friends are "centered, caring
folks",
> but take my advice and keep your nose out of their freezers. ;-)
>
Oh, this part did make me chuckle a bit. Not only do I have a good number of
horror writer friends who are wonderful folks, but I am one as well. And the
only thing in my freezer would be some cans of limeade, some frozen
waffles, and other normal bought-at-the-store items. Was Fred West a horror
writer? But then, John Wayne Gacy was a clown.
>
> Guess what? Some actually write horror not because
> > they become addicted to the energy these scary thoughts create but
because
> > they have a story to tell about the darker side of the human condition.
>
>
> If you examine my previous post with more care, you will find I have never
> suggested that horror writers are addicted to "scary thoughts". And
> wallowing around in the murky depths of one's own subconcious mind is not
> necessarily the same thing as telling a story which has some universal
> applicability to the human condition.
Not necessarily. But again, you've not read much contemporary horror. This
"wallowing" can indeed create stories which give voice to the human
condition.
Again, big generalization.
I've looked at the work of Clive Barker, Stephen
> King et. al. and the only one with any discernable talent is Iain Banks.
Well, at least you found one to challenge your theory. Maybe you'll find
others you appreciate as well if you keep looking.
> Now, "The Wasp Factory" is a very sick book indeed, no doubt about that,
but
> Banks prose-style is so assured and intricate that it lifts his work head
> and shoulders above that of his contemporaries in the genre. He can
observe
> meticulously and create original, if somewhat bizarre characters that are
as
> different from the one-dimensional cardboard-cutouts of Stephen King as
can
> possibly be imagined.
> But I happen to know that he indulges rather freely in certain substances!
>
> QED,
>
> Glen.
>
>
>
>
>
Whew! Bet you were up all night with that (or day, wherever you live.) It is
clear from your massive missive that you've given this a lot of thought and
time and will stick by your ideas regardless. That's great. We all do have
our tastes and our opinions. But still I contend that you are making
sweeping generalizations about people you do not really know and about a
"genre" you don't really care to know. I write horror because I am so
disturbed by what I see that I want to make a statement - be it racism,
sexism, homophobia, blind anger, untreated insanity - and to do it within a
startling, horrifying story. Wish I could take more time to reply but I've
got to get back to work. Have a new horror novel due to the publisher in
May. It's about a road trip with a teacher, a kindergardner, and a crazed
teenaged girl who believes, because of her upbringing, that females are
basically evil. This book is full of horror and addresses the
ever-increasing problem that mothering/parenting is a skill that is falling
by the wayside, and that we as a society is reaping the "benefits" of
children raised by adults who are still trying to fill their own "holes,"
their own "gaps." Thanks for your time!
Glen Wall
TrinityApp <trini...@lynchburg.net> wrote in message
news:4GTe4.12926$Ce.3...@monger.newsread.com...
> Glen wrote:
>
> --
> > "EX" mother-in-law? As in ex-parrot? Did you put out a contract on her?
Or
> > are you a divorcee, re-married with a new mother-in-law? Are you
planning
> to
> > take her out as well? I have a telephone number if you need it.
>
> bozo I married the first time. My current mother in law is a gem, wouldn't
> trade her for anything.
Does she happen to read alt.writing by any chance? :-)
> And sometimes the moody bitch drags in a character you never had any idea
of
> using and have no idea where it's going to go and she makes you make it
> work. Amazes me, also pisses me off.
A pre-menstrual muse! Try spoon-feeding her primrose oil, it can achieve
wonders!
Glen.
> Tracy Meisenbach
>
>
>
Elizabeth Massie
'benefits'..."
Another issue I address a great deal in my horror short and long fiction is
alienation. If there was ever a problem in society today it's our
alienatation amid the crowds. 'Nuff said! Happy day to all!
Beth Amos
> Right. Even publishers have a hard time with that "genre." Supernatural -
> hmmm, would that be science fiction, fantasy, or horror? Psychological -
> hmmmm, would that be mainstream, thriller/suspense, or horror? Maybe
people
> "know it when they see it," but the varying definitions make it hard to
> generalize. Check out bookstores; they often place books of the same title
> in different locations.
Elizabeth,
It's more than just the publishers who define and influence genre placement.
My first book ended up on the horror shelves in most bookstores even though
it is hardly horror by the current day definition. But Ingram's includes any
books with a paranormal element in the horror category and that's how many
of the booksellers then labeled me. My subsequent books were even less
horror-oriented than the first, but in some stores all three are in horror
simply because that's where the first one went. I don't know which is worse,
having them shelved in the wrong genre or having them spread out and not
together. Having the horror connection hasn't hurt me any that I can see. In
fact, some of my biggest propmotional pushes had their genesis in the horror
community.
Oh, and don't we know each other from P* days? I used to live in the land of
Patricia Cornwell but moved this summer. (Couldn't stand the competition.)
Beth
Beth Amos
and
> many other science fiction writers whose prose-style is not much better.
> I've even enjoyed some of them. But for me, Stephen King will always stand
> as the premier literary exemplar of P. T. Barnum's assertion that "No-one
> ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public".
Sadly,
> his popularity is not confined to America either. It makes me despair of
> civilisation to think that millions of people are so inwardly dead that
the
> beauty of a poem by Yeats, or a Bach cello suite leaves them unmoved, and
> only the literary equivalent of a video nasty can penetrate their numbed
> sensibilities and give them the illusion of being alive.
Glen,
Dont' assume that because someone likes Stephen King's work that they can't
also be moved over a poem by Yeats or a Bach cello suite. They aren't
mutually exclusive tastes.
Beth
Glen Wall
Beth Amos <bawr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aL2f4.8764$o62.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> and
> > many other science fiction writers whose prose-style is not much better.
> > I've even enjoyed some of them. But for me, Stephen King will always
stand
> > as the premier literary exemplar of P. T. Barnum's assertion that
"No-one
> > ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public".
> Sadly,
> > his popularity is not confined to America either. It makes me despair of
> > civilisation to think that millions of people are so inwardly dead that
> the
> > beauty of a poem by Yeats, or a Bach cello suite leaves them unmoved,
and
> > only the literary equivalent of a video nasty can penetrate their numbed
> > sensibilities and give them the illusion of being alive.
>
>
> Dont' assume that because someone likes Stephen King's work that they
can't
> also be moved over a poem by Yeats or a Bach cello suite. They aren't
> mutually exclusive tastes.
>
> Beth
If you read the passage you've quoted with a little more care you'll find
that I made no such assertion. The observation that millions of King's
readers will never open a volume of Yeat's poems or voluntarily listen to a
Bach cello suite, is in no way refuted or invalidated by the fact that there
may be a few who will do both.
Glen.
TrinityApp
-- > That depends on how you define "horror". The category didn't exist
until the
> mid 20th century, but much fiction from Victorian times and indeed
earlier,
> has now been retrospectively added to this genre.
Pre-Victorian times the worst *horror* stories were either biblical in
origin or the published leaflets the clergy sent out to warn against witches
and fallen women. In all not an exciting read.
Of these, I would say that
> only Poe truly merits the label. The great Gothic masterpieces have so
> little in common with the gratuitous nastiness that passes for "horror"
> fiction today, that I wouldn't taint them by association.
Poe fascinates me. He was suspenseful and creepy without being overly gory.
Stevenson came close with Jekyll and Hyde but didn't quite hit the mark. He
fell briefly into gratuitous descriptions and ruined the tone.
> To me, Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", for example, is a profound allegory
of
> the dangers of creating life without love. It has never been more relevant
> than it is in our own time, when the human genome is about to be cracked
and
> all manner of Faustian manipulations will become a real possibility to our
> secular scientists. But I wouldn't call it a work of horror.
>
I agree. I've never felt horror or creepy while reading it. I feel pity. I
sympathize for the man would create life and fails and pity for the monster
who would have more, but can not.
> I suppose the first writer to revel in horror for its own sake must be the
> heroically morbid Edgar Allen Poe, whose fantasies of necrophilia and
> premature burial still have the power to affect us today. No sensible
person
> would deny that Poe was, or could on occasion be a writer of genius
A Poe book, a wine cooler and a hot bath and paradise is mine.
"William Walton" still rings in my ears : " Fiend!
> Unspeakable wretch! You shall not - YOU SHALL NOT dog me unto death!").
Typical of the era. Dickens has some phrases that crack me up, simply
because the usage in this day and age render a different meaning.
But
> on the plus side, he single-handedly created the modern detective story in
> "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" and, unlike today's illiterate purveyors
of
> horror, he could actually write hypnotic, reasonant sentences.
Unfortunately
> for you however, he was addicted to drugs and alcohol and therefore adds
> more support to my thesis.
Did you know he wrote for Godey's Lady Book? Can you imagine this morbid
drug addicted loner writing stories for such a delicate and august
publication? He was finally fired a few months before his death.
You will find an excellent analysis of how the theme of
> menstruation runs (if you'll excuse the expression) through the work, in
> Peter Redgrove and Penelope Shuttle's book, "The Wise Wound". But again, I
> wouldn't call it primarily a work of horror, as its insights owe more to
> Freud than to Bettleheim.
This brings to mind the question: How much have the revelations of Freud
changed our perceptions of horror stories? Long ago rape was perceived as
the crime of a lust driven pervert, now we know rape is about power, not
sex. Monsters were depicted as gruesome hairy beasts with supernatural
powers, but now we know the human is the greatest most destructive monster
of all. Society and media have changed our perceptions of what is truly
horrifying and what is merely gross.
> Moving forward to our own time, it strikes me as an extraordinary
> coincidence that during the 1950's, the decade that arguably gave birth to
> the modern horror genre, criminologists began to observe a new pattern of
> offending, which they referred to as "victimless crimes".
Don't forget our little German friend Peter Kurten. Quite the walking
compendium of crime. Bestiality, pedophilia, murder, rape, decapitation,
necrophilia. And he was a small, quiet man, quite unobtrusive and harmless
looking.
. I believe that
> they were a symptom of the same psychological malaise that has produced
> horror writers like Stephen King. Two World Wars had left the zeitgeist
> stained with unimaginable horrors that writers like King made it their
> business to articulate.
I agree. Prior to the big wars people were pretty much stationary and their
imaginations ran to what they learned in school and old oral traditions. The
wars changed the social makeup and created it's own set of horrors and
monsters.
> On the contrary, I've met and worked with many victims of unimaginable
> horror, which is perhaps why I find it difficult to treat the subject as
> entertainment. Evil is not entertainment. Asa Arendt famously said, "Evil
is
> banal".
This is why I despise scare flicks. A bunch of half naked teen agers getting
chased by some nut case isn't scarey, it's laughable. Hitchcock knew tone
and mood and he made movies that made your skin crawl just by showing a
dimly lit room or a quiet, just a little bit odd young man.
> You know Elizabeth, that's just what Fred West's neighbours said about him
> when the police came to arrest him as Britain's worst ever serial killer.
> You may think that your horror writer friends are "centered, caring
folks",
> but take my advice and keep your nose out of their freezers. ;-)
Ted Bundy was a nice personable young man who worked on election committees
when he was dismembering young women.
> Now, I take this to be an unconcious allegory of the process of writing
> horror fiction. Possessing no real powers of creativity, the horror writer
> engages in a sort of auto-cannibalism - a psychic self-consumption that
> leaves him burnt-out and eventually wasted. If you have a better
> interpretation, I'm all ears.
I hate that story. The only one worse is Peter Straubs ( who in my opinion
should never be allowed anything that writes) story about the man with the
baby bottle fetish. I my life had never encountered this trashy story I
would be much happier. However I was in the hospital and at the mercy of the
people bringing me reading material.
Tracy Meisenbach
Fighting for peace is like screwing
for virginity. Anon
.
TrinityApp
--
> .> Evil is not entertainment. Asa Arendt famously said, "Evil is
> > banal".
>
>
> This should read, "As Hana Arendt famously said, "Evil is banal".
>
You know on a real fast read through this looked like : Elvis is banal.
I had to back track, but I agree with both statements.
Tracy Meisenbach
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
http://www.trinityapp.com
Updated 12-21-99
http://www.divineequines.com
Horse Diary latest entry 1-11-00
OCUSGSL.
Glen Wall
> > That depends on how you define "horror".
>
> Right. Even publishers have a hard time with that "genre." Supernatural -
> hmmm, would that be science fiction, fantasy, or horror? Psychological -
> hmmmm, would that be mainstream, thriller/suspense, or horror? Maybe
people
> "know it when they see it," but the varying definitions make it hard to
> generalize. Check out bookstores; they often place books of the same title
> in different locations. I believe you are defining horror as something
with
> "gratuitous nastiness." And again, I believe you've not read widely in the
> contemporary field as there are good works that are quite nasty but not
> gratutious. Unless you find anything graphic to be gratuitous.
Not at all. It just seems to me that the contemporary horror writers I have
read appear to be competing with one another to see who can write the
nastiest, most unpleasant scenes. But it's true that I'm not widely read in
the genre, and I would welcome any suggestions you may have as to which
authors are worth reading. I can't get along with Ann Rice's pseudo-gothic
offerings, and although Tanith Lee used to write like an angel, she's sold
out and now produces formulaic blockbusters.
Graphic stuff is usually, though not always, the sign of an impoverished
imagination. The brilliantly understated opening paragraph of Henry James
"The Turn of the Screw" is truly horrific, yet the horror resides in the
emotional and metaphysical aspects of the situation, and James has no need
to resort to crude effects or splatter techniques.
> > Now, "The Wasp Factory" is a very sick book indeed, no doubt about that,
> but
> > Banks prose-style is so assured and intricate that it lifts his work
head
> > and shoulders above that of his contemporaries in the genre. He can
> observe
> > meticulously and create original, if somewhat bizarre characters that
are
> as
> > different from the one-dimensional cardboard-cutouts of Stephen King as
> can
> > possibly be imagined.
>
>
> > But I happen to know that he indulges rather freely in certain
substances!
> >
> > QED,
> >
> > Glen.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Whew! Bet you were up all night with that (or day, wherever you live.)
It took less than an hour. I type at truly demonic speed.
It is
> clear from your massive missive that you've given this a lot of thought
and
> time and will stick by your ideas regardless.
Not "regardless". I have no fixed ideas about anything at all. All my
beliefs are simply part of a modus vivendi that leaves space for constant
revision when new data and insights come along. Hence my request for your
recommendations in the genre.
That's great. We all do have
> our tastes and our opinions. But still I contend that you are making
> sweeping generalizations about people you do not really know and about a
> "genre" you don't really care to know. I write horror because I am so
> disturbed by what I see that I want to make a statement - be it racism,
> sexism, homophobia, blind anger, untreated insanity - and to do it within
a
> startling, horrifying story. Wish I could take more time to reply but I've
> got to get back to work. Have a new horror novel due to the publisher in
> May. It's about a road trip with a teacher, a kindergardner,
A gardener who grows children?
and a crazed
> teenaged girl who believes, because of her upbringing, that females are
> basically evil. This book is full of horror and addresses the
> ever-increasing problem that mothering/parenting is a skill that is
falling
> by the wayside, and that we as a society is reaping the "benefits" of
> children raised by adults who are still trying to fill their own "holes,"
> their own "gaps." Thanks for your time!
Thanks for yours. I'll certainly read your book when it hits the shelves - I
hope you'll post an announcement when it appears.
Glen.
TrinityApp
-- > Does she happen to read alt.writing by any chance? :-)
>
Are you kidding? She's a true southern belle and wouldn't be caught dead
near a computer unless it matched her hat and gloves.
> A pre-menstrual muse! Try spoon-feeding her primrose oil, it can achieve
> wonders!
Plying it with essence of grape and a warm hot bath seems to do wonders.
Tracy Meisenbach
Malcolm McLean
--
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Glen Wall wrote in message <387be...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
It makes me despair of
>civilisation to think that millions of people are so inwardly dead that the
>beauty of a poem by Yeats, or a Bach cello suite leaves them unmoved, and
>only the literary equivalent of a video nasty can penetrate their numbed
>sensibilities and give them the illusion of being alive.
>
>Glen.
>
A lot of that is just a matter of accessibility. Steven King is in your
face daily, while Yeats and Bach have to be sought. It's the same with art;
it's tucked away in places where you have to make an effort to find it.
Your first exposure to these things is usually hearing them discussed, in
language most people don't understand. It's almost a conspiracy of
exclusion.
A lot of 'highbrow' art was created by the artist with common people in
mind, but it's been taken away from them. I blame marketing people. They
pander to the lowest common denominator because they don't want to risk
leaving anyone, or his money, behind.
Malcolm
Beth Amos
>>>If you read the passage you've quoted with a little more care you'll find
that I made no such assertion. The observation that millions of King's
readers will never open a volume of Yeat's poems or voluntarily listen to a
Bach cello suite, is in no way refuted or invalidated by the fact that there
may be a few who will do both.<<<
Let me start by saying I have the flu and I'm housebound, feverish, and
cranky. That said.
>>>It makes me despair of civilisation to think that millions of people are
so inwardly dead that the beauty of a poem by Yeats, or a Bach cello suite
leaves them unmoved, and only the literary equivalent of a video nasty can
penetrate their numbed sensibilities and give them the illusion of being
alive.<<<
What grabbed me about your post was your glaring generalities and implied
snobbishness. Where did you get your information regarding these "millions
of people?" What study or source are you referencing?
You imply that a) enjoying the literary equivalent of a "video nasty" is
evidence of a lack of sophistication or intellect, and that b) reading Yeats
or enjoying Bach go hand in hand with some sort of intellect or
sophistication. Both buy into harmful and incorrect stereotypes with no
basis in fact. Many people are quite capable of enjoying both. And do. Such
tastes are not necessarily reflective of sophistication, intelligence, or
class.
As for King, I tend to agree with your take that some of his work is the
literary equivalent of a "video nasty." But I still enjoy it from time to
time. It can be a nice change of pace. And I'm betting you haven't read some
of King's more literary works like Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank
Redemption.
I like a lot of variety in my art, literature, and music, and my collections
of each reflect that. I tend to think most people are the same way. And I
guess that's what made me jump on your statement.
Beth
Elizabeth Massie
> > Right. Even publishers have a hard time with that "genre."
Supernatural -
> > hmmm, would that be science fiction, fantasy, or horror? Psychological -
> > hmmmm, would that be mainstream, thriller/suspense, or horror? Maybe
> people
> > "know it when they see it," but the varying definitions make it hard to
> > generalize. Check out bookstores; they often place books of the same
title
> > in different locations.
>
>
> It's more than just the publishers who define and influence genre
placement.
> My first book ended up on the horror shelves in most bookstores even
though
> it is hardly horror by the current day definition. But Ingram's includes
any
> books with a paranormal element in the horror category and that's how many
> of the booksellers then labeled me. My subsequent books were even less
> horror-oriented than the first, but in some stores all three are in horror
> simply because that's where the first one went. I don't know which is
worse,
> having them shelved in the wrong genre or having them spread out and not
> together. Having the horror connection hasn't hurt me any that I can see.
In
> fact, some of my biggest propmotional pushes had their genesis in the
horror
> community.
>
> Oh, and don't we know each other from P* days? I used to live in the land
of
> Patricia Cornwell but moved this summer. (Couldn't stand the competition.)
>
> Beth
>
haven't read your books, but looked you up on Amazon.com and found some
which look quite interesting. I'll have to check them out. I admire the
craft of mystery writing a great deal. I don't have that talent; if we
removed the title "horror" mine would likely end up in the suspense
category. I don't think we've met, but I'm from Virginia so maybe so? Have
you done the Va Festival of the Book? Patricia surely has got her roots and
fans firmly in place and she does have a big draw. (I wouldn't really want
to be a mystery writer within the shadows of Richmond.) Were you a Virginia
native? Take care!
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Massie
From: Glen Wall <glen...@freenet.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.writing
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: I can't get it out on paper....Help, please.
>
> Elizabeth Massie <iri...@intelos.net> wrote in message
> news:85huj1$10rod$1...@homer.cfw.com...
> >
> > Glen Wall <glen...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:387c7...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net...
>
> > > That depends on how you define "horror".
> >
> > Right. Even publishers have a hard time with that "genre."
Supernatural -
> > hmmm, would that be science fiction, fantasy, or horror? Psychological -
> > hmmmm, would that be mainstream, thriller/suspense, or horror? Maybe
> people
> > "know it when they see it," but the varying definitions make it hard to
> > generalize. Check out bookstores; they often place books of the same
title
> > in different locations. I believe you are defining horror as something
> with
> > "gratuitous nastiness." And again, I believe you've not read widely in
the
> > contemporary field as there are good works that are quite nasty but not
> > gratutious. Unless you find anything graphic to be gratuitous.
>
>
> Not at all. It just seems to me that the contemporary horror writers I
have
> read appear to be competing with one another to see who can write the
> nastiest, most unpleasant scenes. But it's true that I'm not widely read
in
> the genre, and I would welcome any suggestions you may have as to which
> authors are worth reading. I can't get along with Ann Rice's pseudo-gothic
> offerings, and although Tanith Lee used to write like an angel, she's sold
> out and now produces formulaic blockbusters.
Some of my favorites include SWAN SONG by Robert R. McCammon, BOY'S LIFE by
Robert R. McCammon, Richard Matheson's I AM LEGEND, Chet Williamson's ASH
WEDNESDAY, CARRIE and THE STAND by your friend and mine Stephen King, DEATH
GRIP by Brian Hodge, THE OTHER by Thomas Tryon. That's a start. These books
had elements that moved me in the midst of the terror and because of it. I
rooted for the characters as they faced the horror. They may not grab you
but they did me; stories are a personal experience. One of my favorite
novels (which I classify as horror because of the dread circumstances and
violence throughout) is JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN by Dalton Trumbo. Again,
classification is a funny thing.
> Graphic stuff is usually, though not always, the sign of an impoverished
> imagination. The brilliantly understated opening paragraph of Henry James
> "The Turn of the Screw" is truly horrific, yet the horror resides in the
> emotional and metaphysical aspects of the situation, and James has no need
> to resort to crude effects or splatter techniques.
>
>
>
> > > Now, "The Wasp Factory" is a very sick book indeed, no doubt about
that,
> > but
> > > Banks prose-style is so assured and intricate that it lifts his work
> head
> > > and shoulders above that of his contemporaries in the genre. He can
> > observe
> > > meticulously and create original, if somewhat bizarre characters that
> are
> > as
> > > different from the one-dimensional cardboard-cutouts of Stephen King
as
> > can
> > > possibly be imagined.
> >
> >
> > > But I happen to know that he indulges rather freely in certain
> substances!
> > >
> > > QED,
> > >
> > > Glen.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Whew! Bet you were up all night with that (or day, wherever you live.)
>
>
> It took less than an hour. I type at truly demonic speed.
>
>
> It is
> > clear from your massive missive that you've given this a lot of thought
> and
> > time and will stick by your ideas regardless.
>
>
> Not "regardless". I have no fixed ideas about anything at all. All my
> beliefs are simply part of a modus vivendi that leaves space for constant
> revision when new data and insights come along. Hence my request for your
> recommendations in the genre.
>
>
>
> That's great. We all do have
> > our tastes and our opinions. But still I contend that you are making
> > sweeping generalizations about people you do not really know and about a
> > "genre" you don't really care to know. I write horror because I am so
> > disturbed by what I see that I want to make a statement - be it racism,
> > sexism, homophobia, blind anger, untreated insanity - and to do it
within
> a
> > startling, horrifying story. Wish I could take more time to reply but
I've
> > got to get back to work. Have a new horror novel due to the publisher in
> > May. It's about a road trip with a teacher, a kindergardner,
>
>
> A gardener who grows children?
>
Good catch! According to Clive Barker, things such as fingers have their own
minds....!
> and a crazed
> > teenaged girl who believes, because of her upbringing, that females are
> > basically evil. This book is full of horror and addresses the
> > ever-increasing problem that mothering/parenting is a skill that is
> falling
> > by the wayside, and that we as a society is reaping the "benefits" of
> > children raised by adults who are still trying to fill their own
"holes,"
> > their own "gaps." Thanks for your time!
>
>
> Thanks for yours. I'll certainly read your book when it hits the shelves -
I
> hope you'll post an announcement when it appears.
>
Oh, you gave me an opening for a little promo....! I have had 14 books
published so far (I've been writing and publishing since 1983) - 4 adult
horror, 1 young adult horror (a media-tie in based on Buffy the Vampire
Slayer), 4 young adult historical novels, 5 book for little guys (no, not
horror, these are books about cheetahs, a deciduous forest, a pioneer boy,
magic shoes, and a town that liked everything quiet.) - published by
HarperPrism, Pocket, Tor, Leisure, Pan, Steck-Vaughn, etc. I've got 5 new
books scheduled for release this year - 4 more young adult historicals and a
collection of adult horror shorts. The newest adult novel which is due in
May (title WIRE MESH MOTHERS) is scheduled for an early 2001 release. I've
also had over 100 horror short stories/novelettes published in a variety of
anthologies put out by Avon, Random House, Morrow, etc. and magazines. Don't
mean to ramble on, but I saw the chance and ran with it. Take care!
> Glen.
>
Elizabeth
Glen Wall
> Glen wrote:
>
> -- > That depends on how you define "horror". The category didn't exist
> until the
> > mid 20th century, but much fiction from Victorian times and indeed
> earlier,
> > has now been retrospectively added to this genre.
>
> Pre-Victorian times the worst *horror* stories were either biblical in
> origin or the published leaflets the clergy sent out to warn against
witches
> and fallen women. In all not an exciting read.
I was thinking of the Gothic stuff - "Monk" Lewis and the Castle of Otranto
etc. that the Shelleys' friend Thomas Love Peacock parodied so mercilessly.
But you're right - the Old Testament is far worse!
> Of these, I would say that
> > only Poe truly merits the label. The great Gothic masterpieces have so
> > little in common with the gratuitous nastiness that passes for "horror"
> > fiction today, that I wouldn't taint them by association.
>
> Poe fascinates me. He was suspenseful and creepy without being overly
gory.
> Stevenson came close with Jekyll and Hyde but didn't quite hit the mark.
He
> fell briefly into gratuitous descriptions and ruined the tone.
You know that he dreamed that book? He just woke up one morning and wrote
the outline from what he remembered of the dream.
> > To me, Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", for example, is a profound
allegory
> of
> > the dangers of creating life without love. It has never been more
relevant
> > than it is in our own time, when the human genome is about to be cracked
> and
> > all manner of Faustian manipulations will become a real possibility to
our
> > secular scientists. But I wouldn't call it a work of horror.
> >
>
>
> I agree. I've never felt horror or creepy while reading it. I feel pity. I
> sympathize for the man would create life and fails and pity for the
monster
> who would have more, but can not.
I think the Baron was a victim of hubris. We all may be in the not too
distant future.
> > I suppose the first writer to revel in horror for its own sake must be
the
> > heroically morbid Edgar Allen Poe, whose fantasies of necrophilia and
> > premature burial still have the power to affect us today. No sensible
> person
> > would deny that Poe was, or could on occasion be a writer of genius
>
> A Poe book, a wine cooler and a hot bath and paradise is mine.
If you need your back scrubbed...............
> "William Walton" still rings in my ears : " Fiend!
> > Unspeakable wretch! You shall not - YOU SHALL NOT dog me unto death!").
>
> Typical of the era. Dickens has some phrases that crack me up, simply
> because the usage in this day and age render a different meaning.
>
> But
> > on the plus side, he single-handedly created the modern detective story
in
> > "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" and, unlike today's illiterate purveyors
> of
> > horror, he could actually write hypnotic, reasonant sentences.
> Unfortunately
> > for you however, he was addicted to drugs and alcohol and therefore adds
> > more support to my thesis.
>
>
> Did you know he wrote for Godey's Lady Book? Can you imagine this morbid
> drug addicted loner writing stories for such a delicate and august
> publication? He was finally fired a few months before his death.
Cash was a perennial problem for most artists and writers. Whilst Poe was
hacking out stuff for Godey's, on the other side of the Atlantic,
Modigliani's picture dealer would lock the recalcitrant artist in his
Monmartre studio with a bottle of brandy, and refuse to let him out until
he'd completed at least one picture.
> You will find an excellent analysis of how the theme of
> > menstruation runs (if you'll excuse the expression) through the work, in
> > Peter Redgrove and Penelope Shuttle's book, "The Wise Wound". But again,
I
> > wouldn't call it primarily a work of horror, as its insights owe more to
> > Freud than to Bettleheim.
>
>
> This brings to mind the question: How much have the revelations of Freud
> changed our perceptions of horror stories? Long ago rape was perceived as
> the crime of a lust driven pervert, now we know rape is about power, not
> sex.
I think it's about both - I doubt whether the two can be seperated.
Monsters were depicted as gruesome hairy beasts with supernatural
> powers, but now we know the human is the greatest most destructive monster
> of all. Society and media have changed our perceptions of what is truly
> horrifying and what is merely gross.
It's certainly interesting, and quite in keeping with the Freudian
weltanschauung, that the most succesful horror film of our own time -
Alien - depicts a monster that emerges from within the human victim, rather
than threatening him extraneously. The early science fiction film "The
Forbidden Planet" also treated this theme with great insight and
intelligence, borrowing heavily from Shakespeare's play, "TheTempest".
> > Moving forward to our own time, it strikes me as an extraordinary
> > coincidence that during the 1950's, the decade that arguably gave birth
to
> > the modern horror genre, criminologists began to observe a new pattern
of
> > offending, which they referred to as "victimless crimes".
>
> Don't forget our little German friend Peter Kurten. Quite the walking
> compendium of crime. Bestiality, pedophilia, murder, rape, decapitation,
> necrophilia.
You forgot cannibalism! When the police burst into his flat he was just
boiling up one of his victim's hands for lunch. He gave no indication that
he considered this as anything more than mildly eccentric.
>And he was a small, quiet man, quite unobtrusive and harmless
> looking.
Yes, but "The Beast of Dusseldorf" had a sexual motivation for his
atrocities, so they weren't really "motiveless crimes".
> . I believe that
> > they were a symptom of the same psychological malaise that has produced
> > horror writers like Stephen King. Two World Wars had left the zeitgeist
> > stained with unimaginable horrors that writers like King made it their
> > business to articulate.
>
>
> I agree. Prior to the big wars people were pretty much stationary and
their
> imaginations ran to what they learned in school and old oral traditions.
The
> wars changed the social makeup and created it's own set of horrors and
> monsters.
>
> > On the contrary, I've met and worked with many victims of unimaginable
> > horror, which is perhaps why I find it difficult to treat the subject as
> > entertainment. Evil is not entertainment. Asa Arendt famously said,
"Evil
> is
> > banal".
>
>
> This is why I despise scare flicks. A bunch of half naked teen agers
getting
> chased by some nut case isn't scarey, it's laughable.
Most men are sexually aroused by seeing women in a frightened state of mind
(flushed, wide-eyed, panting for breath), which is why you can't watch
television for more than 20 minutes without seeing a woman being stalked,
shot at, threatened or beaten. Sex and power again. It's one reason we don't
have a television.
Hitchcock knew tone
> and mood and he made movies that made your skin crawl just by showing a
> dimly lit room or a quiet, just a little bit odd young man.
Yes, he was a master. Who will ever forget "Psycho?".
> > You know Elizabeth, that's just what Fred West's neighbours said about
him
> > when the police came to arrest him as Britain's worst ever serial
killer.
> > You may think that your horror writer friends are "centered, caring
> folks",
> > but take my advice and keep your nose out of their freezers. ;-)
>
>
> Ted Bundy was a nice personable young man who worked on election
committees
> when he was dismembering young women.
>
> > Now, I take this to be an unconcious allegory of the process of writing
> > horror fiction. Possessing no real powers of creativity, the horror
writer
> > engages in a sort of auto-cannibalism - a psychic self-consumption that
> > leaves him burnt-out and eventually wasted. If you have a better
> > interpretation, I'm all ears.
>
> I hate that story. The only one worse is Peter Straubs ( who in my opinion
> should never be allowed anything that writes) story about the man with the
> baby bottle fetish. I my life had never encountered this trashy story I
> would be much happier. However I was in the hospital and at the mercy of
the
> people bringing me reading material.
I would have brought you "The Oxford Book of Medical Blunders and Mishaps",
had I been visiting. :-)
Glen.
Glen Wall
> You imply that a) enjoying the literary equivalent of a "video nasty" is
> evidence of a lack of sophistication or intellect, and that b) reading
Yeats
> or enjoying Bach go hand in hand with some sort of intellect or
> sophistication.
Perhaps you live in a more egalitarian society Beth, but in England the
enjoyment of Bach and Yeats is mostly restricted to the educated middle
classes, although the radio station Classic FM has done much to break down
musical barriers of taste in recent years. If you visit an art gallery you
will seldom hear a working class voice. You will not encounter
"unsophisticated" people at Garsington or Glyndebourne during the opera
season. These are simply the social realities of life in England whether or
not you and I approve.
I would certainly consider anyone who enjoys watching video nasties to be a
complete and utter moron. Your remarks smack of a particularly stupid form
of cultural relativism that considers a Batman comic and a Shakespeare
sonnet to be of equal artistic value. I know from experience that it is
useless to argue with such people, as anyone who is capable of formulating
an intelligent hypothesis would not entertain such a prepostrous idea in the
first place.
> I like a lot of variety in my art, literature, and music, and my
collections
> of each reflect that. I tend to think most people are the same way. And I
> guess that's what made me jump on your statement.
> Beth
Well, no-one that I know who loves art, music and literature would waste
their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But perhaps
Americans are less discriminating?
Glen.
JAS Carter
<glen...@freenet.co.uk> spake thus:
>Well, no-one that I know who loves art, music and literature would waste
>their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But perhaps
>Americans are less discriminating?
My, you are a snide one, aren't you?
I don't read King, but I'm sure I read other things you would consider
imbecilic or illiterate.
And while I read it, I put my feet up on my bookshelves filled with
Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Spenser and soothe my spirit with Verdi,
Dvorak, and Brahms in a room with Picasso prints.
Julie Carter
--
ICQ: 1265510
Beth Amos
Elizabeth Massie <iri...@intelos.net> wrote in message
>I admire the
> craft of mystery writing a great deal. I don't have that talent; if we
> removed the title "horror" mine would likely end up in the suspense
> category.
I think my books are more suspense than anything. There is a mystery
involved in each but they don't fit the mystery mold--if there is such a
thing.
>I don't think we've met, but I'm from Virginia so maybe so? Have
> you done the Va Festival of the Book?
I meant that we had met in cyberspace before on the Prodigy Books and
Writing board. Weren't you there? Or am I thinking of someone else?
>Patricia surely has got her roots and
> fans firmly in place and she does have a big draw. (I wouldn't really want
> to be a mystery writer within the shadows of Richmond.) >
Tell me about it. If I heard one more person ask me, "Are you going to be
the next Patricia Cornwell?" I was going to have to kill them. That's why I
moved. (Kidding, of course.)
Beth
Glen Wall
Malcolm McLean <mmac...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:rd4f4.15827$2x3.2...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>
>
> --
> To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
> -Somerset Maugham-
> Glen Wall wrote in message <387be...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
> >civilisation to think that millions of people are so inwardly dead that
the
> >beauty of a poem by Yeats, or a Bach cello suite leaves them unmoved, and
> >only the literary equivalent of a video nasty can penetrate their numbed
> >sensibilities and give them the illusion of being alive.
> >
>
> >
> A lot of that is just a matter of accessibility. Steven King is in your
> face daily, while Yeats and Bach have to be sought.
Well, do you think that the middle classes have Bach CD's and Yeats
paperbacks delivered with the milk? Of course not - they seek out these
things because of an innate affinity with them. Anyone with similar
predispositions who's born into a poor or uneducated family, will also seek
out the cultural nourishment he or she requires. There's nothing
"inaccessible" about high culture. One simply has to retune the radio from
BBC Radio 1, to BBC Radio 3, and poems and sonatas will wash over the room.
Yet, the fact remains that tens of millions choose to listen to Radio 1,
whilst a small handful of listeners make up Radio 4's regular audience. The
only aristocracy that I recognise is an aristocracy of taste. High art is,
and always has been the pursuit of an elite minority, if only because its
allusiveness requires serious study and preparation to be fully apprehended.
>It's the same with art;
> it's tucked away in places where you have to make an effort to find it.
The same could be said of illegal drugs, but the average screenager is well
able to locate them when its time to score. Why? Because that where his
appetite directs him.
> Your first exposure to these things is usually hearing them discussed, in
> language most people don't understand. It's almost a conspiracy of
> exclusion.
I think thats patronising. Read the autobiographies of working class writers
and academics - Ralph Glasser, AL Rowse, Matthew Hoggart - their youth was
spent in public libraries and lecture theatres in an orgy of cultural
absorption. Why? Bacause that was where THEIR appetites directed THEM.
> A lot of 'highbrow' art was created by the artist with common people in
> mind, but it's been taken away from them.
This is a persistent cultural myth without any basis in reality whatsoever.
With the partial exception of Shakespeare's plays, all post-renaissance art
was created by the educated classes, for the consumption of the educated
classes.
I blame marketing people. They
> pander to the lowest common denominator because they don't want to risk
> leaving anyone, or his money, behind.
Yes, but look at the terrible price that must be paid when they turn their
attention to high art. Since the advent of Classic FM in England, virtually
all the music I love most, from Delibes "Flower Duet" to Satie's
"Gymnopedies", has featured in television advertisements. Scantily-clad
Japanese sirens adorn the covers of Romantic violin concerto CD's. Vivaldi
plays in elevators. Workmen on building sites whistle Mozart arias.
There's a lot to be said for cultural elitism.
Glen.
Old Bill
JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:389fe078....@news.ohiohills.com...
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:12:52 -0000, in alt.writing "Glen Wall"
> <glen...@freenet.co.uk> spake thus:
>
> >Well, no-one that I know who loves art, music and literature would waste
> >their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But
perhaps
> >Americans are less discriminating?
>
> My, you are a snide one, aren't you?
>
Sigh. Why bother rising to such flimsy trollery?
I actually quite like him because he's good at it (give him his due); but
really, it's all a bit obvious isn't it?
"Glen Wall" indeed!!
JAS Carter
<old...@btinternet.com> spake thus:
>> >Well, no-one that I know who loves art, music and literature would waste
>> >their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But
>perhaps
>> >Americans are less discriminating?
>>
>> My, you are a snide one, aren't you?
>>
>
>Sigh. Why bother rising to such flimsy trollery?
Because I'm a silly ass!
>I actually quite like him because he's good at it (give him his due); but
>really, it's all a bit obvious isn't it?
I'm one of those really naive take people at face value people.
I shall endeavor in future to be more wary. :|
Prince Richard Kaminski
JAS Carter wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:12:52 -0000, in alt.writing "Glen Wall"
> <glen...@freenet.co.uk> spake thus:
>
> >Well, no-one that I know who loves art, music and literature would waste
> >their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But perhaps
> >Americans are less discriminating?
>
> My, you are a snide one, aren't you?
>
> I don't read King, but I'm sure I read other things you would consider
> imbecilic or illiterate.
You read my posts, Julie? Thanks!
Beth Amos
Glen Wall <glen...@freenet.co.uk> wrote
> Perhaps you live in a more egalitarian society Beth, but in England the
> enjoyment of Bach and Yeats is mostly restricted to the educated middle
> classes, although the radio station Classic FM has done much to break down
> musical barriers of taste in recent years. If you visit an art gallery you
> will seldom hear a working class voice. You will not encounter
> "unsophisticated" people at Garsington or Glyndebourne during the opera
> season. These are simply the social realities of life in England whether
or
> not you and I approve.
Ah, I didn't realize you lived in England and since I've never been there,
much less lived there, I can't speak to how things are there with regard to
the availability of the arts. So I'll take your word for it and grant you
that point. However, I'm more interested in why you think liking certain
forms of art or certain artists equates to being a lower life form.
> I would certainly consider anyone who enjoys watching video nasties to be
a
> complete and utter moron. Your remarks smack of a particularly stupid form
> of cultural relativism that considers a Batman comic and a Shakespeare
> sonnet to be of equal artistic value.
No, no, no, Glen. I never said they were of equal artistic value, though I
suppose an argument can be made that the definition of "artistic value" is
individually determined. (Actually, I think artistic value occurs on two
levels--cultural and individual.) I said that the ability to enjoy what
*you* consider lower forms of entertainment doesn't mean one can't also
enjoy what *you* consider higher forms of entertainment. And that enjoying
either shouldn't lead to assumptions about one's level of intelligence,
sophistication, or class.
Some people are well-rounded and have many different facets to their
personalities. They evaluate art on a piece-by-piece basis and let whatever
form or piece fits for the moment feed those different aspects. Others are
solely interested in social acceptance or appearance and simply pretend to
like whatever is considered popular or "high brow" by the masses--their
personal tastes, needs, or enjoyment be damned. Those are the stereotypes
you play into when you declare that "millions" are dumbing down society
because they read someone you don't like. (And FWIW, your extreme dislike of
Stephen, which obviously goes against popular opinion, shows you to be one
of those well-rounded people. But you cannot be the arbiter of good taste or
good art for everyone else. And if you haven't read some of his more
literary works, your assumptions about his work in general are both
uninformed and unfair.)
> I know from experience that it is
> useless to argue with such people, as anyone who is capable of formulating
> an intelligent hypothesis would not entertain such a prepostrous idea in
the
> first place.
Hey, I'm trying to have a civil discourse with you here despite feeling like
I've been run over by a truck. I engage in such discussions to learn and
exercise my brain muscle. For instance, you educated me with your
revelations about the availability of some art in England. But if you're
more interested in making disparaging and condescending remarks, just say so
and I'll move on.
> Well, no-one that I know who loves art, music and literature would waste
> their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But
perhaps
> Americans are less discriminating?
Ah, condescending again. Frankly, I know plenty of people whose tastes in
art are eclectic enough to include an enjoyment of Stephen along with what
you probably think of as more high-brow stuff. But I'm curious, what do you
think the above (loves art, music, and literature but wouldn't waste time on
King) says about a person?
Beth
JAS Carter
Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> spake thus:
>> >Well, no-one that I know who loves art, music and literature would waste
>> >their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But perhaps
>> >Americans are less discriminating?
>>
>> My, you are a snide one, aren't you?
>>
>> I don't read King, but I'm sure I read other things you would consider
>> imbecilic or illiterate.
>
>You read my posts, Julie? Thanks!
LOL You weren't quite who I had in mind.
Old Bill
> > their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But
> perhaps
> > Americans are less discriminating?
>
> art are eclectic enough to include an enjoyment of Stephen along with what
> you probably think of as more high-brow stuff. But I'm curious, what do
you
> think the above (loves art, music, and literature but wouldn't waste time
on
> King) says about a person?
>
> Beth
>
>
Beth! Beth!! You certainly hook-line and sinkered on old Glen 'Trollstoy'
Wall. Still I did too, first time around.
Despite it having been introduced rather artificially, can I just say, on
the subject of Stephen King, that there are important lessons for people to
learn from his work. I read my first ever King novel over Christmas - the
Green Mile. I deliberately wanted to know what he was doing right that made
millions of people want to read his books. What he does right (if this one
book is representative) is that he is a damn good storyteller. It's true
that his work isn't full of classical allusions or high-flown Ideas. That's
why I liked it so much. When all is said and done, people who like to read
novels like to read a jolly good story, well told. The ability to do that
is, in itself, a precious talent.
Stephen King, had I a hat, I would take it off to you at this moment.
TrinityApp
-- > I was thinking of the Gothic stuff - "Monk" Lewis and the Castle of
Otranto
> etc. that the Shelleys' friend Thomas Love Peacock parodied so
mercilessly.
> But you're right - the Old Testament is far worse!
And don't forget the little tidbits published by St. Germaine and various
other *black artists*. Nothing like a session of baby sacrifice and black
candles to get you in a literary mood.
> You know that he dreamed that book? He just woke up one morning and wrote
> the outline from what he remembered of the dream.
Makes you wonder if he'd had a mess of bad prawns.
> If you need your back scrubbed...............
I'll be sure to let you know.
> Modigliani's picture dealer would lock the recalcitrant artist in his
> Monmartre studio with a bottle of brandy, and refuse to let him out until
> he'd completed at least one picture.
Seeing as how Modigliani painted several nudes, one can surmise from life, I
can't see being locked in a room with a naked woman as a problem for him.
> I think it's about both - I doubt whether the two can be separated.
>
(in regards to rape being sex or power)
It would have to be separate. The simple fact that Bundy was able to carry
on a seemingly normal relationship while out hacking up college girls shows
that he had in effect separated sex/power/love. A brilliant study on this
done by one of the men who tracked him down can give the reader cold chills.
> It's certainly interesting, and quite in keeping with the Freudian
> weltanschauung, that the most successful horror film of our own time -
> Alien - depicts a monster that emerges from within the human victim,
rather
> than threatening him extraneously.
True. And I wonder if it banked on the fear that all of us wonder about the
monster we possibly have inside. What keeps it in and what lets it out.
> You forgot cannibalism! When the police burst into his flat he was just
> boiling up one of his victim's hands for lunch. He gave no indication that
> he considered this as anything more than mildly eccentric.
Eating your neighbors may be eccentric, decapitating waterfowl and getting
off with the carcass is just plain sick.
> Yes, but "The Beast of Dusseldorf" had a sexual motivation for his
> atrocities, so they weren't really "motiveless crimes".
True. But he was really the first media image that was directly
contradictory to society's views of what a murderer should look like. He
wasn't a huge hulking uneducated brute, or a gold digging slut or any of the
people typically associated with committing crimes of such a magnitude. He
was horrifying in that he appeared so normal. And that I believe is what
scares people the most. Normal and what it hides.
> Most men are sexually aroused by seeing women in a frightened state of
mind
> (flushed, wide-eyed, panting for breath), which is why you can't watch
> television for more than 20 minutes without seeing a woman being stalked,
> shot at, threatened or beaten. Sex and power again. It's one reason we
don't
> have a television.
True. However most men will gladly flip off the set if you walk by in a
black teddy trailing a silk sheet.
> Yes, he was a master. Who will ever forget "Psycho?".
>
I had a student who stayed with us for awhile who watched all those stupid
Freddy movies. She swore nothing could scare her and I had tried to explain
the suspense and creepiness of Psycho. She scoffed at me so I rented it and
all alone she watched it late one night. The next morning I found her
drinking coffee in the kitchen. She had been unable to go to sleep after
watching it and had a royal case of the flash back creeps.
> I would have brought you "The Oxford Book of Medical Blunders and
Mishaps",
> had I been visiting. :-)
>
RFLMAO. I bet you would have!
Prince Richard Kaminski
TrinityApp wrote:
> It would have to be separate. The simple fact that Bundy was able to carry
> on a seemingly normal relationship while out hacking up college girls shows
> that he had in effect separated sex/power/love.
Isn't this just a facet of any relationship? That one partner doesn't know what
the other is really like when they're not with them? I don't think it's only
serial killers that this applies to. Think of the dutiful wife waiting at home
while the husband goes out with his mates and does his best to have sex with
whatever he can lay his hands on. Think of the dutiful husband waiting at home
... etc etc.
OK, going out and chopping people up and then coming home for your evening meal
might seem to be in a different league, but it's the same principle. How many
couples actually know and share *everything* about each others' lives?
Elizabeth Massie
>
> Elizabeth Massie <iri...@intelos.net> wrote in message
>
> >I admire the
> > craft of mystery writing a great deal. I don't have that talent; if we
> > removed the title "horror" mine would likely end up in the suspense
> > category.
>
> I think my books are more suspense than anything. There is a mystery
> involved in each but they don't fit the mystery mold--if there is such a
> thing.
>
> >I don't think we've met, but I'm from Virginia so maybe so? Have
> > you done the Va Festival of the Book?
>
> I meant that we had met in cyberspace before on the Prodigy Books and
> Writing board. Weren't you there? Or am I thinking of someone else?
It was someone else.
> >Patricia surely has got her roots and
> > fans firmly in place and she does have a big draw. (I wouldn't really
want
> > to be a mystery writer within the shadows of Richmond.) >
>
> Tell me about it. If I heard one more person ask me, "Are you going to be
> the next Patricia Cornwell?" I was going to have to kill them. That's why
I
> moved. (Kidding, of course.)
>
> Beth
Yeah, and don't you love the "When are they making your book into a movie?"
question. Like it is a natural progression. I'd love it to happen, of
course, but it's a hoot when folks think it's the norm. Or maybe it's sad
because they don't think the written word is quite "there" yet; it needs to
be filmed to have arrived. I dunno.
JAS Carter
<iri...@intelos.net> spake thus:
WriteBeth said:
>> Tell me about it. If I heard one more person ask me, "Are you going to be
>> the next Patricia Cornwell?" I was going to have to kill them. That's why
>I
>> moved. (Kidding, of course.)
Sorry for the piggyback, but I'm going to make you very very happy.
Who's Patricia Cornwell?
Elizabeth Massie
Well said, Beth. Although I'm certainly culturally influenced, I am very
much into art as an individual experience. I don't jump on bandwagons. Class
distinctions are wasted on me. I don't turn my nose up or down on things
because it is expected. I was raised in a family of journalists and visual
artists who were free spirits of the truest sense, and I am comfortable with
many, many styles - intricate, delicate, crude, terrifying, hilarious, loud,
quiet, bold, sensitive. I'm not embarrassed to like King or South Park; I'm
not embarrassed to like Vivaldi or Shakespeare. My life is too short to
worry about keeping up appearances. As a writer, I like horror and the
vehicle it gives me to tell stories I want and need to tell.
Malcolm McLean
--
To write simply is as difficult as to be good.
-Somerset Maugham-
Glen Wall wrote in message <387ce...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
>
>Malcolm McLean <mmac...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
>news:rd4f4.15827$2x3.2...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>>
>> Glen Wall wrote in message <387be...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net>...
>> It makes me despair of
>> >civilisation to think that millions of people are so inwardly dead that
>the
>> >beauty of a poem by Yeats, or a Bach cello suite leaves them unmoved,
and
>> >only the literary equivalent of a video nasty can penetrate their numbed
>> >sensibilities and give them the illusion of being alive.
>> >
>>
>> >Glen.
>> >
>> A lot of that is just a matter of accessibility. Steven King is in your
>> face daily, while Yeats and Bach have to be sought.
>
>Well, do you think that the middle classes have Bach CD's and Yeats
>paperbacks delivered with the milk? Of course not - they seek out these
>things because of an innate affinity with them. Anyone with similar
>predispositions who's born into a poor or uneducated family, will also seek
>out the cultural nourishment he or she requires. There's nothing
>"inaccessible" about high culture. One simply has to retune the radio from
>BBC Radio 1, to BBC Radio 3, and poems and sonatas will wash over the room.
>Yet, the fact remains that tens of millions choose to listen to Radio 1,
>whilst a small handful of listeners make up Radio 4's regular audience. The
>only aristocracy that I recognise is an aristocracy of taste. High art is,
>and always has been the pursuit of an elite minority, if only because its
>allusiveness requires serious study and preparation to be fully
apprehended.
>
Yeah, but it doesn't have to be fully apprehended to be enjoyed. When my
son was born, I read that orchestral music was soothing and helped babies
sleep, and also might have a deeper effect on budding intelligence, so I
bought a couple tapes of J.S. Bach. Concertos, they were, though you
couldn't prove it by me. I kind of liked it, so I found a four-record set
and liked them all. I was talking about it to a musician friend, and she
went off on a long spiel that crossed into mathematics more than once.
Apparently Bach sometimes repeated himself, only backwards. Or something; I
don't understand it. But I still like the music.
>
>>It's the same with art;
>> it's tucked away in places where you have to make an effort to find it.
>
>
>The same could be said of illegal drugs, but the average screenager is well
>able to locate them when its time to score. Why? Because that where his
>appetite directs him.
In a lot of places, you don't have to look far for drugs. Certainly not as
far as down-town, to the art gallery. The people selling the drugs make an
effort to be accessible.
>> Your first exposure to these things is usually hearing them discussed,
in
>> language most people don't understand. It's almost a conspiracy of
>> exclusion.
>
>I think thats patronising. Read the autobiographies of working class
writers
>and academics - Ralph Glasser, AL Rowse, Matthew Hoggart - their youth was
>spent in public libraries and lecture theatres in an orgy of cultural
>absorption. Why? Bacause that was where THEIR appetites directed THEM.
Well, it's probably a good thing I bought those Bach tapes before I heard
Jennifer expound on the subject. Acadamese sounds pretty intimidating to
the uneducated ear.
Damn near anything can be explained in simple terms. I once read a book
called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", by Gary Zukov. It's about physics;
quantum mechanics and the general and special theories of relativity. It's
so well done that, while I was reading it, I *understood* what Einstein was
getting at, and how it could be proven. Gone now, of course, but the point
is that the author wanted to be clear to people who didn't speak the jargon.
Language is not just how we communicate; we also identify other's of our
tribe by the language they use. If I was explaining a problem that came up
in the erection of a bridge, I'd use different language speaking to you than
I'd use speaking to another ironworker.
>> A lot of 'highbrow' art was created by the artist with common people in
>> mind, but it's been taken away from them.
>
>
>This is a persistent cultural myth without any basis in reality whatsoever.
>With the partial exception of Shakespeare's plays, all post-renaissance art
>was created by the educated classes, for the consumption of the educated
>classes.
This one scares me, because I can smell that old "define 'art'" monster
around the corner. But here goes...
Vincent Van Gogh
Charles Dickens
Robert Burns
Thomas Hardy
Ernest Hemingway
G.B. Shaw
Tennessee Williams
I think Richard Wagner was writing for the masses, and also those Russian
authors I have trouble reading. I'm sure there's lots more, but I'm too
lazy to look for them.
>I blame marketing people. They
>> pander to the lowest common denominator because they don't want to risk
>> leaving anyone, or his money, behind.
>
>Yes, but look at the terrible price that must be paid when they turn their
>attention to high art. Since the advent of Classic FM in England, virtually
>all the music I love most, from Delibes "Flower Duet" to Satie's
>"Gymnopedies", has featured in television advertisements. Scantily-clad
>Japanese sirens adorn the covers of Romantic violin concerto CD's. Vivaldi
>plays in elevators. Workmen on building sites whistle Mozart arias.
Yeah, but remember what Bo Derek did for Ravel's "Bolero"?
>There's a lot to be said for cultural elitism.
Not when it's artificial.
>Glen.
>
Malcolm
Glen Wall
> *you* consider lower forms of entertainment doesn't mean one can't also
> enjoy what *you* consider higher forms of entertainment. And that enjoying
> either shouldn't lead to assumptions about one's level of intelligence,
> sophistication, or class.
Then how ARE you to quantify this list of abstract nouns? As one of your
senators said (on the subject of Communists) - "I say if it walks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, feeds like a duck and hangs out with other ducks,
then sure as hell its a duck!".
By that I mean that you can tell an awful lot about a person from the
sources of cultural nourishment that they choose. Just as a gourmet who's
developed a refined palette won't be found pigging out in McDonalds, I don't
for a moment believe that anyone who can truly enter into the spirit of a
late quartet or a poem by Yeats will find anything in Stephen King's books
to engage their attention.
Really, it all comes down to affinities. To attune oneself to a Hadyn sonata
involves a certain raising of conciousness. That, after all, is the object
of the excercise. To lose oneself in a video nasty or a Stephen King novel
involves a lowering of conciousness. But wait! you will cry, How can you
attach value judgements like "raising" and "lowering" to what are, after
all, neutral acts of perception? It's generally accepted that an artist who
is creating a great painting is in a higher state of conciousness than a
mugger who's beating up and robbing his victim. And an advanced meditator is
on a more elevated plane of being than a heroin addict. Therefore, we do
recognise heirarchical states of consciousness.
Look at a landscape by Claude Lorrain and feel your spirit soaring with the
power and eloquence of his vision. Then read a chapter of Stephen King and
feel the undercurrent dragging you down into the maelstrom. Why would anyone
who can live on the Olympian plateau of Lorrain and Debussy wish to descend
into the foothills frequented by cutthroats, bandits, voracious wild
animals, and brain dead morons with complete sets of the works of Stephen
King.
Incidentally, Coleridge has some interesting observations on the subject of
the relationship between personality and choice of reading matter in his
"Biographia Literaria".
> Some people are well-rounded and have many different facets to their
> personalities. They evaluate art on a piece-by-piece basis and let
whatever
> form or piece fits for the moment feed those different aspects. Others are
> solely interested in social acceptance or appearance and simply pretend to
> like whatever is considered popular or "high brow" by the masses--their
> personal tastes, needs, or enjoyment be damned.
Art is a vice, and as the Duc de la Rouchefoucald wisely observed, "No man
is a hypocrite in his vices". It's not a question of "pretending" to like
anything. It is simply a matter of taste and sensibility. Just as high art
recognises major and minor poets, so popular art and culture has its Robert
Services as well as its Emily Dickinsons and Robert Frosts. There are many
excellent popular novels - Ken Follet's "Pillars of the Earth", for example.
I've never disparaged popular culture - only bad art, and it doesn't come
any worse than Stephen King.
Those are the stereotypes
> you play into when you declare that "millions" are dumbing down society
> because they read someone you don't like.
My complaint was not that they are "dumbing down" society - that would be
virtually impossible. I simply lamented the fact that they do nothing to
elevate it.
(And FWIW, your extreme dislike of
> Stephen, which obviously goes against popular opinion, shows you to be one
> of those well-rounded people. But you cannot be the arbiter of good taste
or
> good art for everyone else. And if you haven't read some of his more
> literary works, your assumptions about his work in general are both
> uninformed and unfair.)
"Some of his more literary works!?!?" Some of his his more heavily edited
works don't you mean? The idea that an illiterate oaf like Stephen King
whose ignorance of language and style dog every sentence of his inept
scribblings can just up and write a "literary" novel whenever he feels like
it is simply too ridiculous to discuss. And if "popular opinion" is your
benchmark of good taste, then I presume you listen to Britney Spears, read
the National Enquirer and enjoy a candlelit dinner at McDonalds whenever the
opportunity presents itself!
> > I know from experience that it is
> > useless to argue with such people, as anyone who is capable of
formulating
> > an intelligent hypothesis would not entertain such a prepostrous idea in
> the
> > first place.
>
> Hey, I'm trying to have a civil discourse with you here despite feeling
like
> I've been run over by a truck. I engage in such discussions to learn and
> exercise my brain muscle. For instance, you educated me with your
> revelations about the availability of some art in England. But if you're
> more interested in making disparaging and condescending remarks, just say
so
> and I'll move on.
Forgive me Beth. It wasn't my intention to insult you. The truth is I'm a
trifle oversensitive to anything I suspect to be motivated by cultural
relativism. I've seen this ideology destroying English culture and education
for a decade or more, and it does rather upset me.
> > Well, no-one that I know who loves art, music and literature would waste
> > their time reading Stephen King's imbecilic, illiterate rubbish. But
> perhaps
> > Americans are less discriminating?
>
> Ah, condescending again.
Just having a little fun with you Beth. I have many American friends whose
judgement in cultural matters I respect greatly.
Frankly, I know plenty of people whose tastes in
> art are eclectic enough to include an enjoyment of Stephen along with what
> you probably think of as more high-brow stuff. But I'm curious, what do
you
> think the above (loves art, music, and literature but wouldn't waste time
on
> King) says about a person?
1) That they are consistent.
2) That their love of art, music and literature is genuine and not mere
affectation.
3) That they see the function of art as being to reconnect them with the
sources of beauty and inspiration, and not to drag them down into the
gratuitously nasty adolescent fantasies of a man whose mind is "sick", by
his own admission.
4) That they realise a lifetime is not long enough to acquaint themselves
with all the truly great art of the world, without wasting time on Stephen
King's puerile drivel.
5) That their literary sensibilities are sufficiently highly developed to
experience distress when confronted with such excrutiatingly bad writing.
6) That they have enough respect for their conciousness to wish to clarify
and refine it through art, and if they feel the occasional pang of nostalgie
de la boue, they'll snort some coke and go to an orgy, not sully themselves
with Stephen King's execrably written waking nightmares.
Glen.
TrinityApp
-- > OK, going out and chopping people up and then coming home for your
evening meal
> might seem to be in a different league, but it's the same principle. How
many
> couples actually know and share *everything* about each others' lives?
>
A BIG difference. The fact is that someone who could carry off such a
charade is a consummate liar and con man. I couldn't. I could probably lie
my way out of a traffic ticket but if I had a body in the trunk I have no
doubt I'd be busted quick. It's a given snakey people get away with more
than us brutally honest ones do. But then the honest ones don't often end up
sitting in old sparky wearing a metal hat.
Beth Amos
JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote >
> Sorry for the piggyback, but I'm going to make you very very happy.
>
> Who's Patricia Cornwell?
Ah, you sure made me smile, Julie. And I needed that today. Thanks.
Beth
Lori Dee Crews
>Stephen King, had I a hat, I would take it off to you at this moment.
I love Stephen King. And he seems like a good, down to earth type person, too.
I was so sad when he had his accident. I hear he's having a difficult rehab.
Lori Crews
http://members.aol.com/larycrews/advice/index.htm
All you need is love.
Lori Dee Crews
>couples actually know and share *everything* about each others' lives?
Not many. That's why I feel so blessed. After 25 years in a bad marriage, I am
in a good one where my husband and I share everything.