Writing what?

[blazeofglory]

We are too much tradition bound. We are very purists and critical of new thinngs and have narrowmindedness when it comes to a piece of writing. If we see a good work of art we try to uncover some of the minor things like grammar, style and the like. We stand by particualr theories or styles or conventions. This is bunk.

Let us learn to welcome good pieces of literature from across wider sections of people. For today English has been a global language and with its global status more and more people are speaking it. Indeed this is a good thing and people must be able to express their ideas across larger sections or srata of people.

For example I am from Nepal. I speak Nepali and in my childhood I learned Sanskrit as a second language, not English. When I got into adulthood I felt I had to learn English or else I would get confined within a small society and could not be part of a larger global society.

My subject is now writing what.

There are not specfic subjects I write on. I am not tradtion bound, rules bound and grammar bound. To hell with all these stuffs. I want to come across large numbers of people and indeed this fourum got me as chance and if I can communicate all I want to my purpose is served. I do not care if anyone points to the grammar stuff.

I do not choose to write on a particular subject and decosntruct the very idea of following a style or tradtion or convention. When I compose a poem I break with al the dos and donots and all sets of rules.

I am opposed to literary theories. All are nonsense and indeed they need to be abandoned. Let us express the way we like and share with one another not running after particular critics or their critical gibberish.

Let us be open to ideas and choose any subject as our subject matters and use any style and the only standard is we must put our ideas across and if this purpose is served nothing remains undone.

[Aiculík]

We are too much tradition bound. We are very purists and critical of new thinngs and have narrowmindedness when it comes to a piece of writing.
We are? I mean, I didn't know that one about me. Until now, I thout I was quite opposite! ;)


If we see a good work of art we try to uncover some of the minor things like grammar, style and the like. We stand by particualr theories or styles or conventions. This is bunk.
Style is not a minor thing. Style is very major thing. The work may have interesting plot and great characters, but if the style is poor, the whole work will be poor, too. Take loves stories, for example. Based on the same basic plot, you can write a masterpiece such as Lady's Chaterley Lover, or you can write one of those pathetic romantic stories (in Slovakia we call it "red library", I don't know the English term, could someone please tell me?)


Let us learn to welcome good pieces of literature from across wider sections of people. For today English has been a global language and with its global status more and more people are speaking it. Indeed this is a good thing and people must be able to express their ideas across larger sections or srata of people.

For example I am from Nepal. I speak Nepali and in my childhood I learned Sanskrit as a second language, not English. When I got into adulthood I felt I had to learn English or else I would get confined within a small society and could not be part of a larger global society.

My subject is now writing what.

There are not specfic subjects I write on. I am not tradtion bound, rules bound and grammar bound. To hell with all these stuffs. I want to come across large numbers of people and indeed this fourum got me as chance and if I can communicate all I want to my purpose is served. I do not care if anyone points to the grammar stuff.
That's ok when you're writing an article in discussion forum. I also learned English as my third language and altough I'm learning it almost whole my life, I still make many mistakes in spelling, punctuation and even in syntax, and I probably always will. :blush: *sigh*
But it wouldn't be enough if you were writing a piece of art. My favourite definition of literature is that it's "creative use of language". But if someone wants to use language creatively, he should learn correct standard use first. If someone decides to write literary work in any language, I don't really care if it's his first, second or tenth language, but I automatically suppose and expect correct and fluent use of language. Of course, literary work can contain bad spelling and bad grammar - but intentionally, with clear purpose, and that's something quite different.


I do not choose to write on a particular subject and decosntruct the very idea of following a style or tradtion or convention. When I compose a poem I break with al the dos and donots and all sets of rules.
Well, that's ok in the poem, if it's done intentionally, with some reason for it. But experimenting and errors are two very very different things, and usually a reader can immediately see which one is the case in the given poem. (On the other hand, personally I don't like breaking rules just for breaking rules's sake. If it doesn't go well with the poem, if it's seems to me that it's just a pretence, I won't like it and probably won't choose another work by the author. Not because I'm traditionalist, but because I don't like pretence.)


I am opposed to literary theories. All are nonsense and indeed they need to be abandoned. Let us express the way we like and share with one another not running after particular critics or their critical gibberish.
But what you present here is also a kind of literary theory, you know. Even the idea "Let's break rules and write in our own way" is not your discovery, I'm afraid. And not just that - if you haven't noticed, you are criticizing other theories, that are different than your own, so you are the critic, too. :)


Let us be open to ideas and choose any subject as our subject matters and use any style and the only standard is we must put our ideas across and if this purpose is served nothing remains undone.
Again, I agree if you're talking about common, not artistic communication. But as I don't think that the main purpose of Art is to "put our ideas across", I don't think in Art that the content is the only thing that matters. I'd say that in Art both content and style are equally important. I don't read "red library" and I never will, no matter how much would someone ensure me that the content is really great. Because its style disgusts me - so much, that I'm not in slightest interested in any ideas author might have expressed in them. :D

[AuntShecky]

It has oft been said that there are only a finite number of plots. All that prevents artists and writers from rehashing the same damn thing over and over again are differences in FORM-- "style," if you will.
In other words, when we write about "Love" the "HOW" we write about it is the only thing that distinguishes a new piece from the millions of words already written on the subject through the ages.

[blazeofglory]

All i want to say here is I am more readers centric; Indeed my purposes get served once I get across people and I do not give a hoot if I get across people. I do not bother about crtics and purists. Style? Everyone has a style of his own and as long ad he can be intersting or can use an effective style it will work. If you have a good thing to say and have it said it is done, and nothing remains of it.

I really detest theorists and abhor detractors and they simply can not express ideas and they use a tool of criticism.

English is my second languge and I am convinced of the fact that I fail to catch up the vigor of a native speaker and I can not plumb the depth or render the intensity of the one I write about the way a native writer does, I still do not care about it and continue my journey.

I do not bother about languge. I am basically a Nepali writers and now switiched to English, a foreign languge to me. I did it on purpse indeed, particualry to tap larger reader sections and to globally go forward so that I do not have to shrink myslef like a frog in the ditich.

Today I enjoy reading wonderful things in English. I am not a nationalist, and indeed unsentimental about languge and nation. I do not choose to be hypocrytical. Given a chance I may deliberately choose to change my nationality too. Afterall I believe in anarchism, a kind of borderless and rulerless system where without anybody to govern us we are in perfect order and harmony.
And in creative art too I believe in anarchism. To hell with style, theory and the rest of stuff that cocoons you in a small cell. You must break it and see the world for yourself.

With regard to theory if i subscribe is a bit to deconstruction, not wholly but partly and they are partly correct.

No theory or no idelogy can be fully and comprehensively correct. We have to carve out our own way. That is what I standby.

[blazeofglory]

It has oft been said that there are only a finite number of plots. All that prevents artists and writers from rehashing the same damn thing over and over again are differences in FORM-- "style," if you will.
In other words, when we write about "Love" the "HOW" we write about it is the only thing that distinguishes a new piece from the millions of words already written on the subject through the ages.

Why plot? Can not we write without plotting the story. James Joyce's Ulysses, for example is a magnum opus, and of course a new dimension. He is often deemed the best without sicking to the tradition. Why the hell do we stick to it?

The objective is put across ideas and if you can do the purpose is served. You care about the reader who is your customer and you customize your creative faculties to his test and if you suceed in that why to care about the rest?

[FacialFracture]

Why plot? Can not we write without plotting the story. James Joyce's Ulysses, for example is a magnum opus, and of course a new dimension. He is often deemed the best without sicking to the tradition. Why the hell do we stick to it?

But James Joyce was, perhaps above all other things, a stylist--and one (mostly) beloved of critics and academics. Moreover, works like Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake were more likely written for the author himself than for some audience with whom he hoped to connect; they are nothing if not deliberately obfuscating and challenging to their readers.

Joyce's ability to break down recognized forms was predicated on an uncanny understanding of those very forms. You can't collapse a structure if you refuse to acknowledge it in the first place; any author who resists recognized form/style is, in part, doing so as a reaction to those forms. If you write a book excluding the letter "e", you are reacting to the existence of the letter "e"; if you write a book with no punctuation, you are doing so in reaction to the existence and persistence of punctuation in most writing.

It's great that you're passionate about doing your own thing as far as writing is concerned, but to write without a defined form or style--if you are not doing so within your own defined rules, (rules that are predicated in some way upon recognized structure)--it is unlikely that you will find a willing readership.

[Auriga]

To say that you outright disregard the usefullness of rules or "theories" is, in my opinion, a cop out position when you don't want to make the effort to learn them.

A musician who simply strums a bunch of random notes on a guitar and calls it music, is not a musician. Similarly, a musician who sits at his piano for a pre-determined amount of time, is not a musician. These are idealists. They use the concept of music as a way to get across an idea about the nature of creativity or nature itself. I use John Cage as an example because he was, in fact, a musician in the sense that he was trained in the styles and structures of traditional music. It was after that he decided to use his knowledge as a stepping stone to get across a new and potentially more important idea. The idea that music exists in nature, and that through the act of consciously listening, we can hear nature.

However, if you take the example of the guitar player who strums incoherent notes on an un-tuned guitar, you cannot, in good conscious, concider it to be music. He is showing a complete dis-respect for the art of guitar playing and for the art of song writing as a whole. He is implying that music can be broken down to doing whatever you wish on an instrument, with no regard to natural theories of harmony (which music is based on, by the way).

You need to begin with understanding how the different styles, forms and theories work in order to create a reactionary theory. To simply jump towards the reactionary theory is ignorant and completely un-rational.

Also, I have to admit, I am completely against your views of anarchy. I believe if we lived in a world of anarchy, ideas and concepts will cease to be distributed. The only way ideas get across to wider populations is through a regimented class system in which employment roles of publication and distribution are noted and regulated. If everybody lived for themselves, then the world would be a very lonely and dangerous place.

[Granny5]

Blaze, I'm not sure I understand your point. I guess I'm thinking that you feel that there is no need for form, style, plot, spelling, etc in any writing? If one is writing for their self, then I can see that. But if one is trying to communicate with others, then there has to be some form or rule followed so the reader can understand what the writer is trying to say. I mean, otherwise, isn't it just a bunch of letters strung together? I have read your posts and know that you have a good grasp on the English language. Why would you be so opposed to others understanding what you are trying to say?

[PeterL]

There are not specfic subjects I write on. I am not tradtion bound, rules bound and grammar bound. To hell with all these stuffs. I want to come across large numbers of people and indeed this fourum got me as chance and if I can communicate all I want to my purpose is served. I do not care if anyone points to the grammar stuff.

Grammar, syntax, punctuation are parts of the logical system that makes up, or underlies, language. If you don't present words in a way that other people can understand, then you just have marks on paper.


I do not choose to write on a particular subject and decosntruct the very idea of following a style or tradtion or convention. When I compose a poem I break with al the dos and donots and all sets of rules.

The subjects that you select to write on tell what you think, what interests you. Whether you critize the works of others is up to you; but we all comment on what has come before us, whether we intend to do that, or not. Poetry is another matter, but if no one can undrstand what you mean, then why do you bother to write. If you are writing for yourself, then why bother writing; you can simply think the ideas.



I am opposed to literary theories. All are nonsense and indeed they need to be abandoned. Let us express the way we like and share with one another not running after particular critics or their critical gibberish.

Good for you.


Let us be open to ideas and choose any subject as our subject matters and use any style and the only standard is we must put our ideas across and if this purpose is served nothing remains undone.

Let us.

[PeterL]

Why plot? Can not we write without plotting the story. James Joyce's Ulysses, for example is a magnum opus, and of course a new dimension. He is often deemed the best without sicking to the tradition. Why the hell do we stick to it?

Ulysses was one of the most carefully plotted novels ever written. The point of view and the detail of internal dialogue were the items that make it different, but it follows all of the rules of novel writing in other matters.


The objective is put across ideas and if you can do the purpose is served. You care about the reader who is your customer and you customize your creative faculties to his test and if you suceed in that why to care about the rest?

If the reader understands, then that's fine, but the rules describe what people understand; they are not arbitrary rules, unrooted in human understanding.

[NickAdams]

Why plot? Can not we write without plotting the story. James Joyce's Ulysses, for example is a magnum opus, and of course a new dimension. He is often deemed the best without sicking to the tradition. Why the hell do we stick to it?


I think you have a misconception of what plot is. Plot is more than a succesion of events. It's a frame. Story can progress through more than action. It can progress through ideas and images. There are more plots than the ones Aristotle pointed out.

Joyce knew the importance of plot. In Ulysses he balances the absence of it, by alluding to and creating a parallel with the Odyssey.

[wingwizard]

is there a distinction between being unable to act in accordance with rules and being in opposition to those rules?

is that distinction a product of intention?

is that intention a product of ego?

is that ego a delusion of self?

does that help or hinder the creative process?

to answer this question, must we first answer the question: what is our creative purpose?

self preservation?

or artistic merit?

have you seen picasso's early work?

<visions of the dead disco dancer beneath the wheels of the cripples vigilante movement>

[NickAdams]

In addition:

Avoiding rules is laziness.
If there are rules. There are techniques and an artist manipulates them to make an effective story. What seems to be rules, are techniques exploited by bad writers, because the are safe. In that case, avoid slick fiction and explore other techniques. If a writer feels certain techniques fall short than he should modify or add new ones, but avoiding rules out of frustration is giving up.

Droping aspects of writing must be justified. If you want to comment on the failings of the traditional novel, write meta-fiction. Beckett does this quite well, eventually doing away with character, plot, setting etc. But it is to comment on them and also lifts the meaning of his work as a whole.

Artist manipulates and comments on rules, to avoid them fully would make a timid writer.

[PeterL]

In addition:

Avoiding rules is laziness.
If there are rules. There are techniques and an artist manipulates them to make an effective story. What seems to be rules, are techniques exploited by bad writers, because the are safe. In that case, avoid slick fiction and explore other techniques. If a writer feels certain techniques fall short than he should modify or add new ones, but avoiding rules out of frustration is giving up.

Droping aspects of writing must be justified. If you want to comment on the failings of the traditional novel, write meta-fiction. Beckett does this quite well, eventually doing away with character, plot, setting etc. But it is to comment on them and also lifts the meaning of his work as a whole.

Artist manipulates and comments on rules, to avoid them fully would make a timid writer.

Amen, I heartily agree. Rules are made to be broken, but there are rules as to how one can break rules; and there are rules that can't be broken, because they are part of the substrate upon which concepts of rules and breaking rules are both based.

[NickAdams]

Amen, I heartily agree. Rules are made to be broken, but there are rules as to how one can break rules; and there are rules that can't be broken, because they are part of the substrate upon which concepts of rules and breaking rules are both based.

Tell me if this was the same for you, but when I was 18 I decided that I wanted to be a serious writer. Based off what I read, I tried to achieve the same effect as the writers I enjoyed. But my work was imitative and superficial, because I was focus on the result and not the work put in to it. I studied fiction more, and learned the techniques. It was overwhelming, so instead of facing the beast, I said it was to restrictive and wanted to do away with rules. With more experience, I learned that it takes a certain amount of courage on the writers part. I think every beginning writer wants to do away with rules, but it's because they overwhelm him.

I see why authors described writing in terms of war and battle. It takes strategy and determination for the modern writer. Hemingway said a writer should read so he knows what to beat. This is true in terms of boxing. If Hemingway threw a left, I will not through a left. I might give him a jab. If Hemingway writes in short tense prose, the modern writer and creative writer uses an alternative, unless he wants a broken nose.

Being original now is more of a challenge, becuase so much has already been done. The amateur wants to be original by working without a system. The artist takes this challenge and finds fresh ground on a familiar land.

Serious writing is a thinking man's craft.

[wingwizard]

in all art forms there is form and form exists because it works in conjunction with its audience-human beings
just as creating music requires sound which is received by ear-people

that doesnt mean we have to know rules or obey them

it means that we probably will unwittingly if we are any good and have a feel for our craft

there should be no struggle
neither to fit within guidelines or ignore them for a perfect writer
however, most of us are not perfect and rules help us to transpose creativity into a certain medium-they enable freedom rather than restricting it
once you have a bicycle you can ride it where you like

the perfection sought so childishly comes in the embrace of imperfection

[Auriga]

I disagree to a certain degree. I don't think you can say that you don't need to know the rules or obey them, becauseif you're good, you'll follow them anyway. That's like saying a musician who just hits notes and says "Hey, look, they sound good, don't they?" is a real musician. He is fumbling his way through his art. He may chance his way in to a situation where these few strings of randomly selected chords (words) sound good together, but there's no thought behind it. I don't respect that in a musician, or a writer.

They need to understand what forms of harmonies (words, sentences, structures) fit well together in order to decide to not put the traditionally accepted forms in their traditionally accepted order. Only then can one truly call themselves an artist; when they have mastered the techniques they refuse to use.

[NickAdams]

He is fumbling his way through his art.

:idea: I couldn't have said it better myself.

Writers are usually introduced to literature by a traditional author. We read and we enjoy. We are inspired to write. Only to damn the authors methods later.

We are ungrateful guest.

[PeterL]

Tell me if this was the same for you, but when I was 18 I decided that I wanted to be a serious writer. Based off what I read, I tried to achieve the same effect as the writers I enjoyed. But my work was imitative and superficial, because I was focus on the result and not the work put in to it. I studied fiction more, and learned the techniques. It was overwhelming, so instead of facing the beast, I said it was to restrictive and wanted to do away with rules. With more experience, I learned that it takes a certain amount of courage on the writers part. I think every beginning writer wants to do away with rules, but it's because they overwhelm him.

I never really tried to write fiction until I had learned the rules and had a style. I never wanted to ignore the rules, because I understood why they existed; I can't remember when I didn't know that, but reading writing are always learning experiences. A few years ago, I learned how to be more or less imitative and how to write in the styles of others, when I wanted to. Before that I didn't try to imitate authors, because I didn't realize how they wrote.



I see why authors described writing in terms of war and battle. It takes strategy and determination for the modern writer. Hemingway said a writer should read so he knows what to beat. This is true in terms of boxing. If Hemingway threw a left, I will not through a left. I might give him a jab. If Hemingway writes in short tense prose, the modern writer and creative writer uses an alternative, unless he wants a broken nose.

Hemingway didn't really use terse prose; although he sometimes did, and much of the dialogue he wrote was for characters who spoke in short sentences. Look carefully at his narrative, and you will find a significant portion is in long, multi-clause sentences. Regardless of what one is writing, varied sentence length and structure are better. Good writers create the illusion of fast action with short sentences.


Being original now is more of a challenge, because so much has already been done. The amateur wants to be original by working without a system. The artist takes this challenge and finds fresh ground on a familiar land.

Serious writing is a thinking man's craft.

Being original is almost completely impossible, because everything that we write is based on what came before. Putting the same old stuff together in a slightly different way is the trick.

[blazeofglory]

I disagree to a certain degree. I don't think you can say that you don't need to know the rules or obey them, becauseif you're good, you'll follow them anyway. That's like saying a musician who just hits notes and says "Hey, look, they sound good, don't they?" is a real musician. He is fumbling his way through his art. He may chance his way in to a situation where these few strings of randomly selected chords (words) sound good together, but there's no thought behind it. I don't respect that in a musician, or a writer.

They need to understand what forms of harmonies (words, sentences, structures) fit well together in order to decide to not put the traditionally accepted forms in their traditionally accepted order. Only then can one truly call themselves an artist; when they have mastered the techniques they refuse to use.

In point of fact, all we do is we just make our ideas communicable and once we can put ideas spontaneously in a manner readers like the way you put ideas across the purpose is served. Then why should you follow tens of thousands of rules and set formulas, and once the it is done nothing remains undone. The basic thing is to go across your readers, and what you need more than as a writer. Today readers-centric things are written, and it is indeed nota vocation of self -amusement.

[Auriga]

But you missed my point, completely. What I said is that in order to decide to go against the rules, you need to first understand the use and importance of the existing rules. To simply disregard them as un-important without first examining them just means that the person is too lazy to make efforts to make themselves knowledgable about previous forms of art and their "rules". An artist needs to understand the meaning of techniques, forms, structures in order to say that they will choose to do something different and reactionary.

[blazeofglory]

But you missed my point, completely. What I said is that in order to decide to go against the rules, you need to first understand the use and importance of the existing rules. To simply disregard them as un-important without first examining them just means that the person is too lazy to make efforts to make themselves knowledgable about previous forms of art and their "rules". An artist needs to understand the meaning of techniques, forms, structures in order to say that they will choose to do something different and reactionary.

If you run after rules there are tens of thousands of rules, from Aristotle to modern ones. How many rules do you wan to follow? The rule traditionally heaped one after another and indeed.
If a creative writer follows rules or theories and want them to dictate his or her writings, he gets lost and confused of course.

Indeed creative works precede rules and criticisms. Indeed rules come after creative deeds, and of course.

[PeterL]

If you run after rules there are tens of thousands of rules, from Aristotle to modern ones. How many rules do you wan to follow? The rule traditionally heaped one after another and indeed.
If a creative writer follows rules or theories and want them to dictate his or her writings, he gets lost and confused of course.

Indeed creative works precede rules and criticisms. Indeed rules come after creative deeds, and of course.

I think that you misunderstood Auriga. Auriga was referring to rules of the structure and form of writing, of which there are not thousands. I think that the "tens of thousands of rules" that you are thinking of are claims made by critics as to what good writing should be. There are about 20 rules of good writing, and failure to follow those will result in bad writing.
You can read the rules at
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172.txt