We Live On Fascination

We can see from Emily Dickinson's poetry that she is, arguably, fascinated by death. And why shouldn't she be? Mortality - the inevitability of death - is a constant in our lives. We may not think about it every minute of every day, but it is nevertheless a part of life. Perhaps Dickinson had more close encounters with death than other authors or perhaps it was the fact that she lived a secluded life and she had time to muse and let her mind wander on the topic. 

Cheever had his fascinations, too; alcoholism crops up again and again in his work. His inability to let his characters live happily, always forcing them into self-sabotage somehow is probably a fascination in its own right.

But does that fascination necessarily mean that’s all a person can write about? Are dystopian fiction writers, like Suzanne Collins and Veronica Roth, obsessed with end-of-the-world scenarios where humanity has become irreparably corrupted? Are crime writers – Kathy Reichs, Lee Child, Patricia Cornwell – fixated on the motives and the means by which humans are capable or wronging one another? Who can say, I suppose.

What fascinates you as a writer?

It's a strange, introspective process to think about the underlying content of your own work. I suppose I'm fascinated by the fantastical - finding everyday occurrences in strange, novel situations. Even in a world where magic exists, where young girls slay dragons, where new worlds unfold in front of me, friendships and relationships and family still create conflicts.

And I hate to say goodnight, but this is it.

An Intimate Moment with John Green

I met him in Amsterdam
Under the orange blossoms
On the bridge
Over the canal
And the streets were empty -
Which was strange -
And our voices broke the silence
In every cliche:
My words were a drizzle
And his - a hurricane

If I Was Invisible...

A writer should be 'invisible'. Do you agree or disagree?

This is a debate that I could talk about for hours on end - but you would all probably get bored and stop reading, so I'll try to keep this concise!

First of all, we need to decide what we mean by 'invisible'; are we talking about the author's presence within their own work, i.e. their personal views, agendas and what have you, or their real world influence over the way their work is read? 

In terms of the first definition, I personally believe that a writer does not have an obligation to try and communicate their own agendas and beliefs through their writing. If the quality of the narrative is good and it engages the reader, then there is no need for projection of personal views. However, I also would disagree with the statement in cases where a writer did feel it was necessary to communicate an issue that they felt particularly strongly about or that had affected them personally.

In terms of real world influence over the reading of their work, it's important to consider the theory of Roland Barthes' Death of the Author, which explores the idea that as soon as a piece of writing is published and released into the public domain, the author loses any and all influence over the way it is read. In this way, it seems that it is impossible for a writer NOT to be invisible. I wonder if perhaps this is a good thing, though; often, it seems that writers who insist on speaking out about their intentions for the work are met with hostility from fans - perhaps they ought to take a leaf out of Barthes' book and just be invisible.

The End of the World? A Haiku

It's raining again today
I'm really sorry
I can't promise to look good

Are we thinking too much?

'It does not matter whether (a writer) writes about any recognisable social or political subject as long as the quality of writing exceeds any such expectations.' Agree/disagree?

Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 explores society's decline into enslavement by media, drugs and conformity. Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games looks at the romanticism of violence and war as portrayed by the media. John Green's The Fault in our Stars is about life, death and the people they affect.

The first two examples have plots which, arguably, are centered around socio-political messages. The third's plot centres around the inevitability of death - whether we will be loved, remembered, if we will leave a mark on the world. Does this count as a socio-political message? The novel does not particularly deal with the treatment of those suffering from terminal illnesses, so does that mean that it is lacking? 

I neither agree nor disagree with the statement at the beginning of this post; if a writer feels strongly enough about an issue in society or politics to want to weave its message into their writing, let them do so. If a writer wishes to write a piece simply about a romance between two people, avoiding any kind of socio-political subtext, that's fine too! Is good writing just about ticking the boxes of what people consider to be 'literary' at the time? I personally believe that if a reader connects with the piece of writing, whether it be 'I enjoyed that book, the characters were enamoring' or 'that book made me think deeply about the state of society' then the writer has achieved their goal.

The Style Is The Man Himself

"John Cheever wrote many short stories in what was referred to as the ‘New Yorker style’. Why might a writer have a style? What is your writing style and why?"

Cheever's style was also called 'uniquely American' by writing critics, an abstract idea which seems to single him out as a particularly prolific writer of short stories.The adverb 'uniquely' in particular, to me, sums up why writers strive to establish a certain style in their writing; the very essence of the word implies that there is nothing comparable to it which exists - it is completely recognisable as being itself. For a writer to be identifiable simply by the style in which they write, rather than for their plot or characters, means that they have achieved a consistency in their writing which marks them out from every other writer. 

We know the works of Emily Bronte, J.K. Rowling, Emily Dickinson, Shakespeare, J.R.R. Tolkein, John Green and many other authors just by the tone and the style of their writing, and because of this they become staples of household bookshelves - their style marks them out as being known and respected for the pieces they create.

Being an aspiring writer, I, too, am constantly in search of the style which could be - uniquely - my own. The more I read, the more my style changes, becoming an amalgamation of the styles of those authors whose work I most enjoy. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a writer's style is never particularly set in stone. Rather, the more we read, the more we write, the more out style develops and evolves until it becomes something different from everything else that is out there.

Of course, recognition by style doesn't stop at writing, so here's some musical style that I will always instantly recognise.

This Is My Truth

Is there any place for the truth in writing?

What do we mean when we say 'the truth'? The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'truth' as being "a fact or belief which is accepted as true" - a simple enough concept to grasp, but who is it that needs to accept something before it becomes a truth? Is it just me who needs to accept it? You? An arbitrary panel of judges? What I mean to say is that 'truth' seems to be somewhat of a subjective construct. Take, for example, someone's opinion on a piece of art: they think it's beautiful, it holds profound meaning to them. But to another person, the piece lacks depth or emotion. Which is true? Which is the fact? Each of them has accepted their believe - so it must be true, mustn't it? Perhaps each of us hold our own truths.

Truth within writing is a tricky subject when we think of 'truth' in this way. The quote "write what you know" (often attributed to Mark Twain, although apparently first stated by Howard Nemerov) seems to embody the idea that truth is an integral part of our writing - or at least that it should be - although this doesn't necessarily mean that we should only write about things that we have experienced first hand. I have never been oppressed for the colour of my skin, for example, but I know that oppression exists and I see it in the world which allows me to tell the truth in my writing: that, more often than not, minority groups are oppressed for prejudices held by the majority.

To me, truth within my writing is natural. It's something that I see as being present in every genre; even when writing about entirely fictional worlds, species, races, etc., it is possible to find the truth in writing. Werewolves are commonly known to be as an analogy for racism in fantasy books (unless we're talking about Harry Potter, in which case they are representative of the prejudices held against sufferers of AIDs) - werewolves do not exist, they are not a truth, but racism and prejudice exists and is a true reflection of the world we know.

This post is titled for a quote from Aneurin Bevan, which is also the title of a Manic Street Preachers album: This Is My Truth, Tell Me Yours, so here's some of their truths for you to enjoy.

The Stone and the Waterlilies

I thought I loved the water -
That the current pushed me on
Until an anchor was upon me
And it weighed me down.
So now I am sinking
In the water's murky depths -
A stone among the lilies
Who shimmer in the air.

Where did you come from?

How did I become a writer?

Possibly one of life's biggest questions (well, my life at least), not to mention one of the hardest to answer.

Like so many others, I spent much of my childhood scrawling stories in messy, crayon handwriting over folded sheets of paper which I deemed 'my books'. More often than not, they were left unfinished; with the attention span that I had (and still have, to some degree) this was completely understandable. I could barely focus on one activity for more than a half hour without needing to move on to something new, except for one aspect of my life: reading. I would read for hours when other children my age would refuse vehemently to sit down with a book for even ten minutes.

I was proud that I could stick at my reading. I loved books. I love them still. And I can vaguely remember, somewhere in the back of my mind, that question that sparked everything: could I make the stories that people read before they go to sleep?

So, I wrote. And I write. For who? For me, for books I loved, for books I will love, for anyone who cares to look at the words I put on the page.

It's hard to say without coming across as pretentious, but I think that writing has always been within me - it's not something I became, it's more like something I always have been.

And on that note, please enjoy this arrangement of notes that I love very much.