Why Write? -- No Whine, Just Champagne Writing Discussion #184

I know i've been rotten at attendance since Pat and I goaded you into resuming Champagne, Pat. But I'll try again tomorrow.

John, I appreciate your input when you do get a chance to attend. I hope you realize you are always welcome.

Pat, I have never attended. Hopefully, tomorrow will be a day that brings opportunity for me to drop in.

Rosa, I hope you do stop by. It's always nice to chat with new friends.

The simple answer for me is, because I really love to write.
I haven't really published anything on Gather in a long while because I got far behind on my prompts. But, I am working on a short story now. And, hopefully it will be done soon..
When life and sickness get in the way, it stinks. But, it won't stop me, it will only slow me down

I've asked myself this same question many times, though it never had anything to do with the number of books being published.

As life changes, time takes on new meaning, and other things take over so much of my time - why do I even bother?

Most likely very few, if anyone at all, will read any given story I write. Nobody actually cares if I write. In fact, writing is more of an inconvenience for anyone around me. I'm not spending that time cleaning, cooking, or giving attention to family, after all.

Thirty stolen minutes here, an hour there - it really seems pointless.

Maybe it's the losing yourself in an imaginary world of your own making that can be as wonderful or awful as you make it. Maybe it's the escape from the every day drudgery, the kids fighting, the never-endind mess and chores. Maybe it's the feeling of accomplishment, even if it means nothing to anyone but me.

Then again, maybe it's that rush of feeling when you lose yourself in the story and the words flow as if by magic from your fingers, coming faster than you can type or even think them, drawing you on into something you just don't want to end.

Maybe for some of us writing is something that connects the parts of our lives, though we don't always write. I once quit a job to write, but found I had no intrinsic talent. I was young and didn't have the wisdom to know that there are two types of talent -- the intrinsic kind that's called talent, and the learned kind that is in itself a kind of talent, the kind that that comes from trial and error. Even if I had known about the second kind, I didn't have the patience to write the million words it took to learn how to write, so when life got in the way, I let it. Other things simply were more important. I always read though, and in the reading, I learned story. Years later when I came to a time where life had pretty much come to a standstill because of various misfortunes, I took up writing again. The loss of my mate killed the desire to write (or rather, tell stories since I write blogs and various other articles). Perhaps one day the desire will come back along with a different focus and perhaps a different talent.

Some people believe you have to have a passion for writing, that it has to take precedence over everything else, but writing is not always "life" nor is life always "writing" regardless of what most people think. If one does not live, one has no reason to write.

When I think of writing, I always think of creative writing, storytelling, fiction and that kind of writing sometimes seems foolish to me if you don't have at least the idea of a reader. The wonder of writing fiction is that a story born in one mind grows to full power in another mind.

And yet, when I struggled to deal with the death of my long-time mate, I poured out my heart and my soul and my grief into journal entries, letters to my deceased mate, and blog posts. I don't know if I could have survived without that outlet. A book compiled of some of the best writings of that time has now been published, yet when I wrote (except for the blogs, of course) I had no expectation of my words ever being read. It was for me.

I write because I have something to say, and I want it to be heard.

But what if you aren't heard? With all the millions of the books on the market and with millions more to come, most writers, including most published writers will never be read. If there's never a chance you would be read, would you still write?

That's an overly-simplistic line, of course, there really is more involved, and waaay more motivations, with different priorities taking precedence at different times. I just as easily could've put down:

I write to self-explore my mind.

To self-medicate.

To share my worldview.

One thing for sure, writing can be a very intimate act. Were I to run down the street naked, it would surely be traumatic--for all involved. Still, it would be just skin. With writing, a person shares bits of their soul, their morals, their fears, what they find funny, tragic, poignant--all that ... and way, way more than mere skin.

Because of that involved intimacy (and vulnerability), a writer needs to be brave to face the many hurdles involved. Will anyone care? Are the mechanix correct? Did I missspell anything? Is my story really scary? Is it publishable? Did I capture my pain? Am I helping anyone?

Rob, you've pretty much stated the conundrum writers face now. We still have to have the courage to be vulnerable even if no one reads what we write, and we still have to care about the mechanics because they might. And the mechanics is half of it -- saying what we want to say in such a way that it conveys our truth.

I like your reasons for writing, Rob. I cringe when people say they write to "entertain." If entertaining others is the only reason for writing, then why? The "others" can find a lot more entertaining things to do than to slog through someone's unseasoned prose. But if you're writing to share your worldview, or to explore your mind, then your writing actually has value. Of course, we want people to enjoy what we write, but that can't be the only reason.

Valid question, Pat. More difficult to answer than it might seem. The easy comeback is, of course, yes, I'd still continue to write. I've been bit by the bug, and the prognosis is my case is incurable. But there's reasons behind that, too, other than just "It's now a habit." Writing forces one to organize their thinking. And, even if its illusory, it helps a person to ... to feel a kind of control of things. If not control, then perhaps a kind of lens in which to weigh, measure, contemplate, rail/whine/plead or even scream.

In a private journal, after the demise of my 13-year-marriage, my opening line helped capture my many conflicting feelings:

Adultery only hurts when you love the bitch.

In terms of numbers, though, I'd be a liar if I said I wouldn't prefer millions of readers, but I don't need anything so ... so big. A handful is fine. My son. My daughter. A friend. That's enough.

Same time, I do hope for some numbers. Especially with my fiction.

Readers would be nice, wouldn't it? I've been thinking a lot about this lately. The whole ebook explosion has left me in such a quandary about what it means to be a writer today, what a "book" is, and somehow finding a place for myself in the book world.

I do have readers for things I post online, but that's not quite the same as having someone sit down and spend hours immersed in the worlds of my books.

I think I'm coming to an acceptance of the situation, though, and in the long run it might be freeing. I can explore the worlds and characters I create without having to worry if anyone will get my point or worry if I'm offending anyone or worry if it's salable.

It's irksome when I hear writers--usually poor ones--speak about how proper English or mechanics is not important ... how it's all story. Verily, it's not all story. It's not "all" of anything. Rather it's a number of streams coming together to form a river. English, though, or whatever language a person is writing in, happens to be the delivery system. Words mean things. Word order, word choice, structure, point of view, and all the other components ... perhaps even a bit of magic, work together to produce that incredible result: to reproduce some kind of message in the mind of another.

And like you referenced earlier, it's a kind of partnership, because the reader, one way or another is complicit in the unfolding of a tale, fiction or non. Just as people actually see colors differently, they read stories differently, receive the message(s) differently, view characters differently. Hell, even a writer, on any given day, if doing a reading, will read differently, with slight to major changes in voice inflection, passion, etc.

My motto is "everything in service to the story." The story comes first, which to me means, every word has to be chosen to serve the story, every sentence, every paragraph, every character, every scene. Poor grammar, poor word choice, pov shifts -- none of that serves the story. They only serve the laziness or ignorance of the author.

With events, too, there's multiple stories, multiple messages. And, yes, again, like you mentioned, a writer needs to have an idea of who her audience is, and a goal with what they're trying to impart.

My eldest, when but a little thang, suffered third-degree burns on his face, chest and arm. Eeek. I have more than message/story I tell of the event. One is somber, dealing with the fear I had as a dad, that because I opted to be the one to scrub him raw several times a day (in order for his skin to come back as scar-free as possible), my boy might come to associate me with pain. That he might cringe at the sight of my approach.

A valid fear.

But with an audience/goal/message change, I tell of the same event differently, of how, because Halloween was fast approaching, my son was concerned about what costume he might wear. I might write/speak about how I just happened to bring home a copy of "The Mummy," and set down by the entertainment center a new (and large) collection of gauze from the hospital for my son's bandages. While watching the creepy flick, my son, brilliant as he was, came up with an idea. "Dad?" [Yes?] "I know what I could be for Halloween!" [You do?] "I could be a MUMMY."

And what a fine time we had.

Same event--more or less--different message, different points. All valid.

Wonderful stories. And touching. (How did the two of you ever manage to get through that? Except that we do, somehow, don't we?) And you make good points about how the story changes when the audience changes or when the goal of your story changes. I think that's the reason why it irks me when people say they have no message, they only want to entertain. These vignettes show a very special worldview, something of substance. And today, more than ever, stories need substance. Not a preachy message, but just something of yourself you'd like to share with readers.

I'm grateful for Will Rogers' wise statement: We're all ignorant, just about different things.

Again, a writer must be brave, and even willing to blow it. No writer can afford to have it all together, writing-wise, before tackling the beast that is the blank page. What they can do, however, is perform to the best of whatever skill-set they have.

Somehow, the balance has to be there between being happy where one's at, but never satisfied. Lovecraft is heralded as being one of the great creepy fiction writers (as well as an epistolary icon), yet he's also often cited as being especially poor at characterization.

Jean Aul (sp?) has written God-knows-how-many-words in her series of books ("Mammoth Hunters" is one), and is certainly an author who knows her business. Yet, she's also often used as an example of what it means to use a poorly wrought simile, when she penned two mastodons hitting each other like colliding subway trains.

Bummer to imagine after all that hard work, people might only recall that one ugly gremlin.

We have to brave enough to not only receive our laurels ('cause fear of success is also common), but we have to take ownership of our bugaboos, too.

I think this is where I'm headed: accepting where I am right now in my writing life (and my life, too, come to think of it) and yet not being satisfied. (Or in my case, perhaps, I mean accepting that I'm not satisfied with my status quo, yet being okay with it.) It's a balancing act, and I've never been good at balancing. But it's all about learning.

Maybe that's what makes good writing stand out. It's about learning. Learning the mechanics so we can convey exactly what we mean. Learning our place in life so we can share our world view. Learning about ourselves through the words we write. Learning about life so our books have an impact rather than simple entertainment.

There's so much to being a writer, far more than can be discussed right now, and in a hundred such get-togethers. There's the fears discussed (and others), there's the need to write, too, that many of us are afflicted with (not that writing should be a person's only passion, by any means), and there's more.

Maralys Wills, longtime author and writing instructor has said, that in her decades of teaching, she's found, overall, two common characteristics with writers: a) they've suffered some kind of trauma; and b) they tend to be optimists.

I tend to agree with Wills.

There's also the truth that often, if writers don't have a high I.Q., they certainly--the good ones--have a high E.Q., emotional quotient. They're natural empaths, able to "feel" the pain of others. This is a two-edged sword--especially given that a person's own pain is more-than-enough to deal with--because one doesn't want to hit pain-overload.

The Bible, in Ecclesiastes, says: "... for with much wisdom, comes much sorrow." A writer needs to guard their hear against pain overload.

There's also responsibilities we inherent. Writers are to be guardians of the language. Effective writing means a person has to be prepared to take risks (all writing is risk-taking, anyway), to break rules, but never haphazardly, but with a plan to produce a desired effect. Still, with Facebook, IM'ing, texting, etc., the language is getting battered. Writers are too guard against this.

I make miztakes as much as the next writer, misspellings, the forgotten comma, especially with online first-draft writing, but still, with every e-mail, every post, every chat session, the committed artist should endeavor to write well.

Writers also have the responsibility to recognize that with their "gift," they have the responsibility to use it. Why? Lots of reasons, but one is because writers put down what others can't. (Otherwise we wouldn't need greeting cards.)

In this life, Pat, you'll never know how many, or to what extent, you've touched and helped with your work dealing with grief ... with others who've had their lives and hearts trampled, but who didn't have the words to express themselves. Your work has not only served to be cathartic for you, but by proxy, for your readers. And though, this is kind of a given, it's all too often, underrated, or under-appreciated.

One of the surprises of my life is that I ended up with an ability to talk lyrically about grief. Where that came from, I don't know, but I suppose all the years of writing, trying to show characters' emotions, paid off.

Hmmm. Optimists? Maybe that's why I'm having such a hard time writing fiction. I have no optimism about the future or anyone's future, knowing as I do that life always ends in death and grief. Perhaps as I look more to the future I'll find it easier to write.

It's really been great talking to you tonight. You've helped me see why the whole anyone-can-publish-anything books world disturbs me so much. So many of the books are dashed off and just thrown out there without regard to responsibility. Admittedly, language does change, but a devolution to textspeak seems to belittle us as people. We are our words. Words are how we communicate, perhaps even how we think. Can we ideate without words? I suppose some people can, but I think in words rather than images. If we lose words, we lose ourselves. So yes, we have a responsibility. It bothers me that barely readable books sell by the trillions of bytes. And it bothers me more that people don't seem to care. Maybe it only matters that we do.

I love the quote: Writers are people for whom the act of writing is more difficult than it is for other people.

You have a wonderful night, Lady Bertram. I've enjoyed our chat, your many posts, and what you offer to not only your fans, but to your fellow writers.

Remember, too, I have a television, a huge-ass DVD collection, books by John Irving (a writer who tempts me to never pick up a pen again), and a trillion other distractions available ... but I was here with you.

You're important. As is your message.

Iron sharpeneth iron.

Thanks for adding to my edge.

All my best,

Your Scribbling Sibling,

R.M.M.

I am truly touched, Rob. I am glad you spent the time with me. You taught me much and gave me even more to think about.

What struck me immediately is that most published writers I've met have always acted like they sell tons of books. They don't want to admit it if their books don't sell. So who would participate in this discussion?
I wrote my first because my students were getting **@^$! over by the school system and some of the other teachers and because of their disabilities they couldn't stand up for themselves. I wrote the second one because I read some nonfiction about human trafficking and thought it lent itself to the mystery format. For me, writing is communication and if no one's taking it in, then it's a waste of my time.

I hadn't thought of that, Mickey, but you're right. Participation in this discussion could be thought of as an admission that the participant's books don't sell, though I hadn't intended it as such since the percentage of writer who actually make a living writing is quite minuscule. This discussion was meant to be more rhetorical. With so many books published, shouldn't ours mean something? If they only add to the ocean of words without offering value whether they sell or not, is it still worth writing?

I haven't seen much point in writing for the past three or four years, but I'm getting an inkling I might like to write again someday, but with a focus on communicating with myself. Maybe creating some imaginary companions, though to admit it sounds pathetic. So many writers say that writing their book changed their life. Writing mine didn't change anything, but I'm wondering now if somehow I could write a change into my life? Sort of like John Candy in Delirious.

I heard a quote once (imagine that):

One man's life is worth your time.

Again, numbers is wonderful, but one reader is worth my time. One of the things I've not done nearly enough of, but am starting to do more often, is writing fan letters--even to the biggies.

It's been like Christmas when I've gotten responses back on Facebook from David Morrell, Jonathan Maberry, and other celebrity writers, but also those just starting out who have impressed or otherwise touched me, such as Phil Hickes, a writer nobody's heard of (yet).

And though coming at the end of things (for me), glad to've read your post, Mickey. There certainly is a lot to be angry about with our broken school system. One of my boys in high school a few years back was in a reading class where the students didn't read, and didn't even have a copy of the book being read. Instead, their teacher, with the one and only copy of "the book," read to the class.

This wasn't some alternative school, either (not that such a thing would be any better), but a mainstream, public school.

Absolutely insane.

That's the answer to my quandary, isn't it? One person's life is worth my time. Thank you so very much for talking with me tonight, Rob. It was a joy.

I love to write... and always have. I love the community of other writers and readers... I've had some mild success at it, but I think I'd write even if I didn't.

I write because I want to. I write to give substance to daydreams and nightdreams.

Regardless of the books available, there is going to be someone who is going to find your book, if it has a compelling story.