MrJ, write and keep on writing. You're not too young to write, and if you want to offer stuff for publication do so as soon as you feel ready. Don't get upset about rejections, just keep writing. Traditionally, poetry & short stories and articles for magazines were seen as the best way to start getting published, with the unfinished novel in the background (and probably published posthumously.) But regardless of how you do it, just keep writing and offering your work to the public.
Voices mysterious far and near,
Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
Are calling and whispering in my ear,
Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?
Keep reading too.
ay up
yep, will do!
I think reading good literature is very important to forming one´s taste. One has to have references.
As for writing try to observe persons and things around you, and notice their peculiarities. Good literature can be made by registering the common and the excepcional in a new way.
Also try to become familiar with language as much as you can. The Brazilian poet Manoel de Barros, referred to the words as playthings. And playing with words he created his unusual methaphors.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
It's basically been said already, but if your goal is to write a classic, rephrase that in your head to start with. What is a classic? Typically it is either something that was an exceptional creation from a genre, or a unique innovation. Think about what you know, and think of a story to express this knowledge through. You don't need to write the next Brothers Karamazov showing a vast knowledge ot everything. You can write a simple story exploring one or two things and just present this in a fresh, intriguing manner. And don't be fearful of failing and restarting. If things feel slow, or you've gone years without reaching your goal, as long as you are trying the whole time you will have improved and will find yourself more capable of achieving this goal. Good luck!
Not exactly, groundbreaking inovative works are not always classic, in fact, the idea of Classic is more a conservative model of exelence. Take the Eneid, The Classic (in every aspect), not exactly ground breaking or filled with inovation. It was just executed with near perfection and have things (theme, characters, etc) that easily memorable.
But simple as put, nobody writes a classic. He can try, he will fail.
And some works that later are aclaimed as classics get a bad or a suspicious reception from their initial public.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
The Aeneid is a virtuosic poem. That is Virgil's doing. It is also a classic. That's not his doing but a judgement of posterity. Any writer can aspire to virtuosity (whether he or she achieves it is another matter), but classic status can only be received. But note that not all Classics are virtuosic. Woody Guthrie songs like This Land is Your Land or compendiums of folk humor/wisdom like Huckleberry Finn are not technically virtuosic but they are still considered classics
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 10-08-2016 at 11:07 AM.
True, Danik, and even posterity's judgment waxes and wanes. Charlotte Bronte was once considered a better writer than her sister Emily. That assessment was reversed for much of the 20th century; but here in the 21st, Charlotte seems to be gaining again. Authors can't know the contexts that their books will encounter through history. Ask Kipling!
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 10-08-2016 at 11:35 AM.
Kipling still great.
Anyways, that is what i meant. What made Aeneid classic is not that it was inovative or original, but how Virgil perfect an existing model and represented well his theme. And the word classic, was first and foremost a reference to the artistic production from Virgil's time (or a vague and rather big period of time) and Aeneid was the prime model of classic. Often, to be imitated.
No, that's what made it virtuosic. What made it classic was that a consensus of critics later agreed that it was. But I understand we are getting at the same thing.
First, perhaps, though I don't think that's the way the OP was using the word. And it would have been an external judgment in any case (although admittedly Virgil was consciously imitating the style of Homer; and obviously he was imitated by Dante and others).
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 10-08-2016 at 06:40 PM.
Oh. I am well aware of that. Virgil example was a reply to a definition of classic as something inovative or the creation of a genre by Big Dante.
I suggest stop worrying whether your work will be praised through the ages.
Say "I have a theme to discuss or something I want to communicate to the world, and I want to do it well."
I think English isn't your first language? That will help your style seem fresh to English speakers, but your first audience will likely be in your own country.
You won't write a classic thinking that you might be wasting your time. Either you want to tell the story in your head, or you don't. Only time will tell if your story resonates with others to make it universally valued.
I love that you are using your enforced downtime to do something constructive. You say that you are comfortable with continual self editing, so I assume you understand that the finished product won't roll off your pen intact. The book you start now may not be complete to your satisfaction for decades. It may not be the one you are remembered for, but it is starting to write. Good on you.
Do the best you can every time.
"So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
"This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
Feed the Hungry!