Beating the Block
I'm starting to think that you just can't listen to reasons why you're not a famous writer. I'm serious about this. There's always like five of them.
My current reasons are:
I'm getting too old: most writers who are famous were famous by the time they were 28.
I've been working on this thing for too long: This is a huge one. At some point in the writing project, if it goes on for a long time, it can feel like you're dragging around a dead horse everywhere you go.
I would feel better if I didn't have this thing nagging at me all the time: This one's totally true. Whenever I have a moment of free time, I have an unfinished novel to make me feel guilty.
No one likes my work: Well...no one's seen my work.
Publishing's hard: Sure is, but people do it all the time.
I have been working on my unfinished novel, "Shock Tea" since the year 2000. It is huge. I'm thinking of cutting out 100 pages of it. That's the kind of editing I'm up against.
The thing is here that when you think of yourself as a writer, it is always based off of what you've written, and by what you've written, I really mean: what you've finished writing. While working on my gigantic novel, I haven't written anything else except for papers and blogs. This means, by my own definition of writer, that I'm now either an academic writer or a blogger. You could say I'm a novelist, but that's not finished, so it's like it doesn't exist as far as personal definition is concerned. I haven't written a short story since I impressed my wife to be with the last one. That means that since I began dating my wife, I haven't written a short story.
Short stories are good. You finish them and you're a writer. You can't publish them for shit though, so if you write short stories, you can not be a "successful" writer, and if you can't be a successful writer (so the little voice in my head tells me), there's no point to writing at all. See how all of this works out to keep you from writing crap?
See, I realized this a long time ago and decided that if I ever wanted to be taken seriously as a writer, I'd better write a novel. Plus, I like novels. Like the novel I'm writing right now...which is killing me.
Here's what I've decided: I need to write that novel. Of course, I also need to write a dissertation and have two articles published by the time I go on the job market in December. Also, I have to watch a 2 year old, sell some stuff on eBay, teach about 3 classes a semester, and read a novel a week (which I have been completely lagging on).
Look, my point is that being a writer is harder than anything else in the universe. True. The reason that all the great writers did it at the age of 22 is because they didn't have fuck all to do at that age except sit down and write about their angst. The rest of us have to write and live a whole big full time life. We kill ourselves for our failures, but really, failure is a huge part of the system. We should expect it. We should relish it as any other piece of what we're doing. When we think of it as something that is an indicator of our incapacity as writers, we are dooming ourselves. Having to fight against odds is really what being a writer is all about.
...and when we start thinking of ourselves as other than writers, there the problems multiply, the failures snowball. We have great ideas, but we lose sight of any reason to write them down. We think up stories, but when we have the time to write them, we choose something else to do instead. We are nudged by the writing process, but when we stop believing ourselves to be writers, we begin to resist that nudge. We pretend that the ideas weren't that good, the story not that entertaining, we believe our insights to be banal, and pretend that other judgments we have made about ourselves in the past were deluded. This is not good.
My current reasons are:
I'm getting too old: most writers who are famous were famous by the time they were 28.
I've been working on this thing for too long: This is a huge one. At some point in the writing project, if it goes on for a long time, it can feel like you're dragging around a dead horse everywhere you go.
I would feel better if I didn't have this thing nagging at me all the time: This one's totally true. Whenever I have a moment of free time, I have an unfinished novel to make me feel guilty.
No one likes my work: Well...no one's seen my work.
Publishing's hard: Sure is, but people do it all the time.
I have been working on my unfinished novel, "Shock Tea" since the year 2000. It is huge. I'm thinking of cutting out 100 pages of it. That's the kind of editing I'm up against.
The thing is here that when you think of yourself as a writer, it is always based off of what you've written, and by what you've written, I really mean: what you've finished writing. While working on my gigantic novel, I haven't written anything else except for papers and blogs. This means, by my own definition of writer, that I'm now either an academic writer or a blogger. You could say I'm a novelist, but that's not finished, so it's like it doesn't exist as far as personal definition is concerned. I haven't written a short story since I impressed my wife to be with the last one. That means that since I began dating my wife, I haven't written a short story.
Short stories are good. You finish them and you're a writer. You can't publish them for shit though, so if you write short stories, you can not be a "successful" writer, and if you can't be a successful writer (so the little voice in my head tells me), there's no point to writing at all. See how all of this works out to keep you from writing crap?
See, I realized this a long time ago and decided that if I ever wanted to be taken seriously as a writer, I'd better write a novel. Plus, I like novels. Like the novel I'm writing right now...which is killing me.
Here's what I've decided: I need to write that novel. Of course, I also need to write a dissertation and have two articles published by the time I go on the job market in December. Also, I have to watch a 2 year old, sell some stuff on eBay, teach about 3 classes a semester, and read a novel a week (which I have been completely lagging on).
Look, my point is that being a writer is harder than anything else in the universe. True. The reason that all the great writers did it at the age of 22 is because they didn't have fuck all to do at that age except sit down and write about their angst. The rest of us have to write and live a whole big full time life. We kill ourselves for our failures, but really, failure is a huge part of the system. We should expect it. We should relish it as any other piece of what we're doing. When we think of it as something that is an indicator of our incapacity as writers, we are dooming ourselves. Having to fight against odds is really what being a writer is all about.
...and when we start thinking of ourselves as other than writers, there the problems multiply, the failures snowball. We have great ideas, but we lose sight of any reason to write them down. We think up stories, but when we have the time to write them, we choose something else to do instead. We are nudged by the writing process, but when we stop believing ourselves to be writers, we begin to resist that nudge. We pretend that the ideas weren't that good, the story not that entertaining, we believe our insights to be banal, and pretend that other judgments we have made about ourselves in the past were deluded. This is not good.
Labels: writing
posted by Monstro D. Whale | 8:09 AM
5 Comments:
I see it as an impossible combination of hard work and ridiculous luck. For most people, anyway. Sure, there will always be those who had it handed to them. And there will be those who worked for it. But there are also those who deserve having it handed to them but didn't -- and those who worked harder than anyone but never achieved it.
How many modern writers do you know (and I'm guessing it's a hell of a lot) who deserve much more recognition than they have received?
I'm down to one last good (scratch that... GREAT) novel idea. I was really onto something a few months back, but then it turned out someone else had the same idea. Is that good or bad? At least I was onto something marketable...
Thing is... If you achieve it -- finishing your novel -- maybe it'll mean more given your circumstances. Is it better if you had to work harder for it? Or does that even matter?
I try not to think of some of the things you wrote here, as it'll drive me nuts -- esp. the part about other writers who had the freedom to write for extended periods. That's probably, more than anything, the reason I didn't finish my MFA. Life got in the way & suddenly I had rent to pay. I couldn't fathom how these people could exist in that D.C. suburb without jobs getting in the way of their writing.
Is that where your novel stands, btw? Done, except for cutting 100 pp? And, is that just a random goal -- making it shorter or more concise? Or is there a specific section or subplot you want to cut?
I remember your telling me how long it was at some point -- and, yeah, I believe that may affect the work's publishability. Unless you finish it and put in in the drawer until you publish 2 or 3 other normal-length novels. Kind of like Stephen King and "The Stand."
I have no ending. That's the problem. I keep writing hoping for an end, and all I get is more middle. Recently, I've been writing and I'm getting beginning. Which is different than middle, but still...
No one has read it? Au contraire! In fact, I'm waiting to see the next few chapters so I can finally shop it around as my own work.
I even wrote a blog post about my failed attempts to deal with the fact that my friend had produced such a mind-boggling work.
Yes, you may want to cut some pages, but sheesh!, at least you have pages to cut! Just think how much better off you are than those mewling masses, myself included, who carry around with them the vague idea that somewhere inside themselves is a great work, a story that others need to hear, a story that will change others' lives and make them sadder and wiser and whatever.
Anyway, I imagine novels are like babies: the period of labor to produce the second is about half that of the first. Assuming, that is, you have a second (and I know you do--I've heard several second novel ideas).
Oh, I'm writing all right. It's called chapter 1.5. How's that!
I think I wrote a lot on this post and didn't make any sense. Here's the most important thing. THE most crucial skill a writer can have is the ability to believe you are a writer against ALL evidence to the contrary. Skill, talent? Secondary. Plenty of writers have neither, but they didn't let even THAT stop them. Writers must be juggernauts.
Re: too much middle...
Ever see Wonder Boys? Chabon wrote that, of course. But, I think a lot of the plot was autobiographical. Here was this old English prof (who taught writing, I think) and couldn't finish his novel. Then some grad student read it and, as a criticism, remarked that the dude hadn't made enough tough choices in the work -- hence the non-ending story. So, per Michael Chabon, maybe you just need to make some tough choices.
Sounds like you're hunting for the perfect ending, though. I salute you for doing that. It'll be better in the end, IMHO -- better than if you just ended it for the sake of ending it. But hey I'm old fashioned that way. I still like books with plots and characters and stuff.
Post a Comment
<< Home