So You Want To Be A Writer

[AtomicCafe1]

I wasn't sure if this should go in this section or the poetry section

Anyways, it's a poem by Charles Bukowski (I hope I haven't overlooked a posts already talking about it..) that gives some thoughts on this writing deal.

What do you all think of his opinions? Agree? Disagree?



So You Want To Be A Writer

if it doesn't come bursting out of you
in spite of everything,
don't do it.
unless it comes unasked out of your
heart and your mind and your mouth
and your gut,
don't do it.
if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it.
if you're doing it for money or
fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don't do it.
if you have to sit there and
rewrite it again and again,
don't do it.
if it's hard work just thinking about doing it,
don't do it.

....

[Logos]

Yes you got the right forum

I've snipped the poem, please see:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=17515

The poem can be read in its entirety here:
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16549

--

[mono]

Cited from (in conjunction with MLA formatting):
Poets.org: from the Academy of American Poets. Date of posting: unknown. HarperCollins Publishing. Accessed 2 April 2009. http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16549.

so you want to be a writer?
by Charles Bukowski

if it doesn't come bursting out of you
in spite of everything,
don't do it.
unless it comes unasked out of your
heart and your mind and your mouth
and your gut,
don't do it.
if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it.
if you're doing it for money or
fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don't do it.
if you have to sit there and
rewrite it again and again,
don't do it.
....

Thanks for alluding to this poem, AtomicCafe1. Who could not love Charles Bukowski? To answer my own question, I have met a few individuals, actually, who dislike his raw style, at times raw to the point of perversion.
Upon analysis of this poem, its meaning seems clear - that a self-proclaimed writer sometimes has ulterior motives, particularly those of impressing or pleasing others, such as family, significant others, or even one's self. After writing a poem, a poet cannot help but feel successful, proud, and own an endowed feeling of self-worth; from time to time, we even come to impress ourselves - I have no doubt that even Lord Alfred Tennyson astounded himself when gaining the title of Poet Laureate in his time (luckily this did not seem to go to his head).
What Bukowski may infer, however, goes a bit deeper than a superficial level, how many readers tend to read the born-German poet (even though the cited site advertises him as American). Everyone can write, but writing well takes a unique talent. Can anyone learn that unique talent? Bukowksi seems to answer with a firm "no." He gives the impression that a writers' talent seems entirely innate and not learned, and he writes this in a passive tense in one of the final stanzas: "when it is truly time, / and if you have been chosen / it will do it by / itself and it will keep on doing it / until you die or it dies in you" (Poets.org, "so you want to be a writer?" by Charles Bukowski). Does he give the impression that a talent in writing seems a gift, something unlearned, but possibe to corrupt within one's self? Indeed, and he seems strong in this statement. How can something, however, inherent inside someone die? Hair color does the same throughout life; an individual born with blonde hair may eventually end up with brown hair. Equally so, learned behavior from birth to childhood may take an entirely different turn into adulthood and into elderly years from self-nourishment, or lack thereof.

[mono]

. . . I hoped this would generate some discussion. Does anyone have any thoughts? Can simply anyone write poetry? Do most 'poets' seem to write with ulterior motives (publication, fame, wealth, impressing others, etc.)? Does a poet's sense of creativity seem innate or formed, both?

[Silas Thorne]

I think that no poet, and no writer, exists in a vacuum. Of course there will be, and have been, some great writers and poets that want the fame, they want the girl, they want the power and the glory, or just human recognition, the title of 'poet'.
I also think it's good to get access to poetry early and have the words mulling through you (I don't think this is due to any innate capacity) - however that doesn't stop someone starting late and being a wonderful poet.
I agree with Bukowski in several respects: If making money is your purpose, then don't be a poet, at least a full-time one, as it's really hard to make money on this alone, which is why most poets have a day job, teaching or writing something more lucrative. You might admire other people's poetry, but you must develop your own voice. And if you only show your poetry to close relatives and friends who will smile and say how good it is, you will only deceive yourself. And poetry alone won't get the girl, though maybe it could help. Playing guitar might be cooler though!
Just some ideas. Please feel free to trash them. I might disagree with them later anyway.

[Mark F.]

. . . I hoped this would generate some discussion. Does anyone have any thoughts? Can simply anyone write poetry? Do most 'poets' seem to write with ulterior motives (publication, fame, wealth, impressing others, etc.)? Does a poet's sense of creativity seem innate or formed, both?

I think that one of the interesting things about this poem is that it highlights the evolution of poetry. I agree with what Bukowski's getting at but it only really applies to modern poetry. I've been reading an anthology of 11th to 18th century french poetry and at some points in history poetry was more of a social practice than a form of art. In the "salons littéraires" it was a means of showing one's wit. Earlier, with court poetry, the poet was simply doing his job, a sort of ancestor of the modern publicist. Maybe from the 19th century onwards those trends disappeared since the place of poetry in society became less important.

[blazeofglory]

I am wordless. This is really moving.

Writing is a job not that easy. It is hardship but more than that it comes out of inspiration and a little out of perspiration.

Until you have a passion, a very deep-seated passion, and an undeterred will you can not be a writer.

Writing of course asks of us dedication, devotion, concentration, focus, and more than that writing necessitates a great amount of passion. You need to have instincts and without it you can be a writer but a superficial writer.

People takes to writing not out of choice, not out of passions for it but out of fashion more often than not.

I for one write as if I am born for writing. Of course I am now far from being perfect. First I need to educate myself, hone my style, incise its art. I must write massively. If I write during my leisures I cannot be a great writer.

Tolstoy, Bernard Shaw and the rest of other writers were not just popular and had attained easily, and there must have been a great amount of dedication, and sacrifice, and they might have lived through countless nights without sleep, and of course they might have perspired and were drenched with sweat and of course it was not that easy to be so great.

Tolstoy' war and peace is a book, indeed a great book that is without a doubt a matchless and indeed an incomparably beautiful book philosophically, stylistically, artistically and of course from all points of view.

It was not that easy to complete a book of this measure, and there is everything in this book, philosophy, art, literature, style and this is really epically grand.

Indeed a writer, a great writer of measure does not come out of the blues.

A writer definitely must have something and something grand, something
immeasurably great.

A writer must give something new, something unexpectedly noble, and the reader must feel he is given something really new.

[mono]

I think that one of the interesting things about this poem is that it highlights the evolution of poetry. I agree with what Bukowski's getting at but it only really applies to modern poetry. I've been reading an anthology of 11th to 18th century french poetry and at some points in history poetry was more of a social practice than a form of art. In the "salons littéraires" it was a means of showing one's wit. Earlier, with court poetry, the poet was simply doing his job, a sort of ancestor of the modern publicist. Maybe from the 19th century onwards those trends disappeared since the place of poetry in society became less important.

Agreed, and a lot of Bukowski's works almost only reference modern topics, except when writing of classical music, which seems rare, at least in what I have read of his poetry. I think it safe to say that almost every modern writer, whether s/he wants to admit it or not (I will, *raises hand), has at least one or two ulterior motives in terms of impressing others; this seems the only way to get published - we have to impress the publishers and editors to get approved and printed. I, myself, even admit writing many a sonnet for a few women to . . . well, you know.
In Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, within the last few pages, Kant applied his moral philosophy to seemingly everyday scenarios, and one that I recall addressed a writer deciding whether to share his works with the rest of the world, or to hide them in a Dickinson-like manner. He stated that one purpose of art, in order to gain exposure, appeared to almost flaunt itself - why else would words make their way on to paper, rather than remain kept inside one's head; why would paint get splattered on canvas, instead of stay stagnant in an artist's imagination? At the time, this did not make me attempt publication, but it got me thinking. In order to share, we must impress, or make some sort of impact.

[Mark F.]

I don't totally agree with you there, nor with Kant for that matter. I've had this argument with a friend who's training to become a classical music concert pianist, so he obviously believes that the whole point of art is to share it with others. I believe the artist can create something for his own pleasure, the whole point is getting it out of your system. I know that's how it works for me.

[blazeofglory]

In fact I have a passion for writing and primarily I may have a motive for earning a little pelf and a little name in point of fact. But whatever the motive I had something intertwined with it. I have a great passion for writing. As a result I have been a dreamer, and chose to be a writer.

I can not take rest without jotting down a few words. I write everyday but it is unsystematic. I keep on writing whatever occurs to me.

Sometimes I write out of inspiration, and of course feel there is some power, a mystic power and when I start writing I get possessed by a power and at other times I feel I write just painstakingly and there is no tinge of inspiration.

Of course whether out of inspiration or perspiration I keep on writing, and this grips me fully.

[mono]

I don't totally agree with you there, nor with Kant for that matter. I've had this argument with a friend who's training to become a classical music concert pianist, so he obviously believes that the whole point of art is to share it with others. I believe the artist can create something for his own pleasure, the whole point is getting it out of your system. I know that's how it works for me.

Indeed, well said. I did not mean to imply that I fully agree with Kant, nor that I believe every art, whether literature or music, an artist should create with the intention of sharing, as the majority of my own poetry and even one of the plays I have written, composed over several months, have never seen the light of day. From what I have encountered, an artist who attempts to flaunt his/her works, especially in an immodest way, tends to end up a bit obsolete; I hate to mention him so rudely, but look at Jean-Michel Basquiat, for example.

[teashi]

Think I disagree with most of the poem. I don't see why a person shouldn't write if they don't spill everything of themselves on the page, or if they tend to rewrite a lot, or think long about using the right words.. that sounds like something many writers do.

[JacobF]

If you have to rewrite it again and again, you shouldn't be a writer? What? All published writers go through various drafts and rewrites until they get something that they're satisfied with. Some more than others maybe, and some could probably tweak their published work even more, but re-writing is a part of writing.

"if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it."

Same thing, many good writers go through writers block. It can happen for a couple of hours, a couple of days, a couple of years. If by "don't do it" he meant "take a break and become inspired" I would agree, but to say that you should refrain from writing altogether because you're having trouble putting the words onto the page is pretty arrogant, because I think all writers experience that at a certain point.

As for the rest of the poem, I guess I agree with it. There are writers who get published just by pandering to a certain audience, and their books are invariably bad, and there are writers who are amazingly talented but their books collect dust in the darkest corners of the bookstore. I don't really like Bukowski, though, so naturally I'm not too fond of the poem itself.

If you
can't write
prose in the
style of
verse,
don't do it.

[Mark F.]

If you
can't write
prose in the
style of
verse,
don't do it.

But he can. Anyhow, he's expressing his own idea of what writing should be and the fact that if you think about it too much it loses its charm. Of course, he's being a bit extreme about it but I understand what he's getting at.

[MissScarlett]

if you're doing it for money or
fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don't do it.
if you're trying to write like somebody
else,
forget about it.

This is the only part I agree with. Writing is terribly hard work. Once in a while, something will come naturally, but mostly, writing is rewriting, it's searching for the right word, changing things all the time, almost getting sick over the work, working, working, working. Every writer I know feels the same way. If Flaubert had been like Bukowski advises we never would have had Madame Bovary, perhaps a perfect book.

I do agree, don't write for money or fame because that comes to very, very few. And in general, women aren't all that attracted to writers. LOL People who write should write for the love of it. Writing should be its own reward. I gave up writing because I really don't enjoy it all that much.

I don't like Bukowski, either, so naturally, I don't like the poem very much, either.