Losing My Passion For Literature

[kiki1982]

Do not send your manuscript to another writer. Van Gogh was deemed not good enough a painter by the critics of his day, yet he is now deemed one of the greatest. The same as Monet in the beginning. Zola had a hard time in the beginning too. There are countless writers that don't get published because no-one wants to take the risk. Austen was chucked in the bin by modern publishers during an experiment. A manuscript of P&P was sent to several leading publishers and most of them even did not recognise it... So whether your two novels are published or not... Does it matter? More crap is published everyday and probably more good stuff is chucked in the bin.

You are in need of approval. Have you let anyone read your novels? or any writings whatsoever (blogs f.e.)? Style is style. Even though it is not a novel your style can be annoying/imaginative/fantastical/... or not. That is not to say that everyone will like it or everyone will hate it. That someone hates it, is not a disaster. That everyone really hates it, is a disaster.

If you are worried about your inspiration (writer's block), then you need to live a bit, as people here have said. If one always sits inside, then one is bound to run out of imagination to think up stories.

So, you want to go to Oxford. On this point I agree with Mal4mac: that everyone these days gets A*'s or even better and that Oxford is probably not really impressed with that anymore. Your ability is probably more important to them than your score on your A-level (of course do not slack so much that you'll get a B, because then your chances are absolutely 0). Having a published poet as your literature teacher is not a guarantee for success. It means that he knows how literature works (working for Oxford) and that his poetry was liked too (his published). He will not teach you to write (well) and hand you the magic stick of Harry Potter on how to get published.

You might be able to tell me this more accurately, but I don't believe that a writer writes plots with in mind his general point. So, in the end, it is not really necessary to get taught certain points. If you are talking about courses in creative writing: it is no guarantee that one will be published. The same as acting school is no guarantee for someone to become a great actor. RADA might be a leading school and a lot of actors might have studied there, but there are loads of them that do not get anywhere. Certainly if you think about the fact that agents come to recruit there (students have more chance to get good agents at RADA). Publishers do not recruit in Oxford. Publishers recruit manuscripts.

Post your writings on the writing forum if you want approval, and get out into the world. You canno force yourself to write or to read, it does not work.

[Leannain]

As for the publishing issue: publish your works yourself. One of my country's greatest Poets(well, now that I think of it. Several) began their literary career by publishing their own works. These same novices went on, becoming great Poets.

Now, if you want to be published, commercially.. why don't you write something that sells? Look at the Harry Potter books, the Twilight books?


What do you have in those books? A formula that can be used by anyone willing enough to write that sort of well, "literacy?"

Then, when you are a published writer, you can use your fame and market value to get true works published, I guess.

There was a writer who got his first novel rejected some 600 times. That book won him the Nobel Prize of Literature, if I remember it correctly. Don't ask me the name of the Author: I don't remember it.

Creative writing courses are useful in the sense that you have someone watching you as you progress. That is fine, when you are a novice. But, when you already have the fundamentals, there is no reason to take "creative lessons."

Da Vinci didn't exactly pick up some paint and created the Mona Lisa. First of all, he learned the principles of painting - when he was a kid - then, he developed his craft "ending" with the birth of the Mona Lisa.

Second, usually, a writer doesn't spend that much time worrying about plots. What mesmerizes people is the message. So, you can have a book pertaining a house in the prairie(familiar?) with a basic set up on the plot but enough space to develop a cult following.

Frank Herbet, the father of the Dune saga earned his inspiration for the book/books of Dune, after doing a documentary on dune sands. See?

You can pick up a computer mouse and make elaborate a story that envelopes the mouse as the space ship of a dusty Alien Species.

Endless possibilities; endless rewards for the author in, emotions, accomplishment and success.

You don't necessarily become a force to be reckoned with if you follow the academic path, but it sure helps. I'm interested in studying English Literature and American Literature in College because what more fun can be in the world? But to study the works of Yeats, Brownings and their kin, while getting an education?

"You canno force yourself to write or to read, it does not work. "

Sure it does. Don't you at times prefer to stay inside your warm bed instead of going to work/class? You still force yourself to come out of bed?

Creativity is a muscle. An emotional muscle. There's the logic, critical thinking writing; Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov - there's the Emotional, dramatic(drama is conflict) writing, such as Anne Rice in her "The Vampire Chronicles" or in the "Phantom of The Opera."

Basically, the more you work your abs, the more defined your six- pack becomes. Likewise, the more you write and read, the more your mind(creativity) develops over time, effort and desire.

Some writers are naturally talented(like soccer stars) but most human beings can become great writers. They just need to share something in common with the natural writers: taste for the art.

That taste will lead them into honing their craft until they can enter the hall of fame, join Tolstoy, Joyce, Camões and so forth.

[mal4mac]

Do not send your manuscript to another writer. Van Gogh was deemed not good enough a painter by the critics of his day, yet he is now deemed one of the greatest. The same as Monet in the beginning. Zola had a hard time in the beginning too. There are countless writers that don't get published because no-one wants to take the risk. Austen was chucked in the bin by modern publishers during an experiment. A manuscript of P&P was sent to several leading publishers and most of them even did not recognise it... So whether your two novels are published or not... Does it matter? More crap is published everyday and probably more good stuff is chucked in the bin.

Depends on the writer. Joyce was very lucky with Yeats! Joyce started out by writing 'secular epiphanies', short paragraphs, many of which later appeared in his great works. These were great things to show to potential mentors -- short enough to not waste their time and good enough to make an impact. His choice of Yeats was lucky. Yeats comes across as a very encouraging character in Ellmann's biography of Joyce. He actually later gave Joyce a lot of material help as well as encouragement. But point taken, if you do show work then you might come across a harsh misanthrope rather than someone like Yeats -- so don't get too discouraged at knockbacks.

[glover7]

Basically, the more you work your abs, the more defined your six- pack becomes.

Tangentially related: This isn't true.

[mal4mac]

I can't see publishing your works yourself being much use, you need feedback from the literary world and you can get that by trying to get published properly. Publishing yourself is publishing in a vacuum and risks you again becoming self-satisfied for no reason -- almost as worthless as writing novels and showing them to no one, or writing a blog that no one reads.

I can't see how publishing rubbish commercial works will help you in any way to gain a literary reputation -- quite the opposite! I've never read of anyone substantial taking that route. Read biographies of great authors to see how they actually did it - Ellmann's biography of Joyce shows that Joyce never descended to writing commercial trash, and Joyce was incredibly good at selling himself and his work (even though it was good enough to sell itself...)

[Leannain]

Tangentially related: This isn't true.

Do berpees. It works.

[glover7]

Do berpees. It works.

No, abdominal definition is a function of cardio and diet. As they say, "Abs are made in the kitchen." Simply doing "toning" (god, I hate that word) exercises does not make you more defined.

[kiki1982]

I can't see publishing your works yourself being much use, you need feedback from the literary world and you can get that by trying to get published properly. Publishing yourself is publishing in a vacuum and risks you again becoming self-satisfied for no reason -- almost as worthless as writing novels and showing them to no one, or writing a blog that no one reads.

Agree totally. Beside the huge cost involved, it's a great risk. What serious bookshop will buy your self-published books from you? I see the prospective writer already going past all bookshops with his suitcase full of copies... That's not the way to go. The only thing you can do is keep sending manuscripts to prospective publihers and hope that one actually read it and likes it (because a lotery it is).

I can't see how publishing rubbish commercial works will help you in any way to gain a literary reputation -- quite the opposite! I've never read of anyone substantial taking that route. Read biographies of great authors to see how they actually did it - Ellmann's biography of Joyce shows that Joyce never descended to writing commercial trash, and Joyce was incredibly good at selling himself and his work (even though it was good enough to sell itself...)

That I agree with. You'll only get yourself a nasty reputation with the publi you want (the iterature fans). For Harry Potter there are fans and non-fans among them, but for most authors that is not the case. Either you are the best-selling crap author, or you are the modest selling quality one. Once you've done mediocre stuff, you are rarely redeemed. 1 bad impression takes 10 god impressions to get to the neutral point agin. (That is a scientific fact) Based on that, you better go in with a bang rather than a fart .

I still do not agree about sending stuff to writers. Most writers don't know why they are liked and just do their stuff, so why is one sending them one's manuscripts (be it small or big)? As Mal4mac said in the 'overrated writer'-thread: writers are not necessarily good critics, or one neds to find one that is a critic...

[kelby_lake]

True, but it also provides you with a sense of community. The biggest problem I have is that none of my closest friends really read anything and consider my literary taste as me putting on airs (to a degree). The University, or at least my English professors, provide someone with specific interests (that may or not be life defining) with people who are interested in the same.

I have a different literary taste from most people; I read loads of plays. Lots of my friends are readers, but they don't read plays or really understand why I read them.

[Petrarch's Love]

I'm glad that you posted this thread, because I'm a 21 year old Canadian student going through sort of the same thing and there's been some great advice. When I was in my high school of two hundred people, I was the best writer and top biology student. My success became the only thing that defined me. When I got to the U of A (which has about 40,000 students) I fully expected to be the best again. Unfortunately, the U of A is known as the best scientific research school in the country (naturally attracting some of the best biology students in the world) and I wasn't as special anymore. I lost my identity, and school lost its allure.

Petrarch's Love, your post helped me a lot.

Glad if my post was of some help. As you seem to be discovering, acclaim from others is fickle. It comes and goes and will eventually disappoint if that's all you're motivated by. A quiet and steady love for, enjoyment of and dedication to something (or multiple things) regardless of whether it makes you noticed or not will ensure your own personal satisfaction and may even lead to, not only truly meriting, but receiving acclaim from time to time.

[mal4mac]

I still do not agree about sending stuff to writers. Most writers don't know why they are liked and just do their stuff, so why is one sending them one's manuscripts (be it small or big)?

Again it worked for Joyce! But he was subtle about it. His entry into literary life began with a very positive review of Ibsen in an obscure Irish magazine. Ibsen (somehow!) got to see it and wrote about it to his translator (William Archer) who forwarded his praise of the review to Joyce. This sparked off a correspondence between him and the influential Archer, and Joyce sent him his first play to read, and asked for comments, and he got some very useful ones! He also invited Archer and the magazine editor to lunch (very precocious for a 20 year old unpublished writer! But it worked...)

So I guess, the message is "only connect", and exploit all those connections to the limit!

This going to University and finding you are not that special is a great theme for a writer. Coetzee explores it with great distinction in "Youth". And it didn't stop him becoming recognised as a great writer! Joyce doesn't explore it, because he was still obviously top of the class at University (although, sometimes, his grades didn't show it...)

[Leannain]

This going to University and finding you are not that special is a great theme for a writer. Coetzee explores it with great distinction in "Youth". And it didn't stop him becoming recognised as a great writer! Joyce doesn't explore it, because he was still obviously top of the class at University (although, sometimes, his grades didn't show it...)

Well, after getting my curiosity spiked on that Coetezee fella, I visited Wikipedia. I think, it's a bit hard to use Coetezee as a model of comparison since he has what, 3,4 degrees? he even got a PHD. Impressive. Writers don't tend to be that smart - unless we're talking of Isaac Asimov or Carl Sagan.

[kiki1982]

Again it worked for Joyce! But he was subtle about it. His entry into literary life began with a very positive review of Ibsen in an obscure Irish magazine. Ibsen (somehow!) got to see it and wrote about it to his translator (William Archer) who forwarded his praise of the review to Joyce. This sparked off a correspondence between him and the influential Archer, and Joyce sent him his first play to read, and asked for comments, and he got some very useful ones! He also invited Archer and the magazine editor to lunch (very precocious for a 20 year old unpublished writer! But it worked...)

So I guess, the message is "only connect", and exploit all those connections to the limit!

So he didn't send his play to Ibsen at any rate, and did not get approval, unasked. Possibly Ibsen was flattered and then put his translator on it. That afforded Joyce with a person who was predisposed to consider him as a writer. The reviews of (I guess even translations) of their works were always sent to writers. So someone at the publisher's obviously picked up Joyce's review of Ibsen's work and then forwarded it to Ibsen's translator...

In the same way we could also argue that being a journalist opens the way to become a writer of fiction... Dickens was one, Eliot was one. It is in no way a guarantee.

Some writers are kind to non published writers and are happy to consider their writings with an open mind, others are full of conceit and do not want to do that because they see the unpublished one as a threat to their own fame... Not to mention that they have each their own taste. The comments of Woolf about Joyce should suffice to illustrate that point.

Writers are not superhuman and they are also part of the reading public as much as we are. So what puts their personal opinion above ours?

The time of connections that bring you somewhere has long gone. It is not because one writer tells his publisher that he likes this unknown writer, that the publisher will take notice. Unless he is maybe a Nobel prize winner or equivalent, and then still... it depends on how much mioney the publisher has too much as each new name is a financial risk. The market has severely changed. Before, intellectuals were the writers and the intellectuals were the people who read the greatest amount of books. They were also the ones that published. Essentially, they published and read one another. Beside a few exceptions that were also read by the working classes in periodical form (as Dickens f.e.), the overall amount of books was too expensive for them to buy. If one wanted to be published it sufficed to show one's nose among the elite and one of them would like you and recommend you to a publisher he knew. Suffice to say the market and the mechanisms of that market have severely changed and that life is not as easy as before. More crap is published everyday while unsellable books (regardless of what is their quality) are thrown onto the paper pile. What does one have to do to get published? Write something that appeals to the wider public, but which is also satisfying for oneself, and if one wants to win prizes: that has a deeper level, but still is interesting for the ones that are not intrerested in that deeper level.

[kelby_lake]

Starting at ground zero; what kind of books do you believe I should begin reading? Contemporary yet relevant literature? Or back to the stone cold classics?

Your entire post sounds so arrogant. You really ought to have edited it if you didn't want to come off as 'pseudo-intellectual'. Reading the classics isn't a punishment- people do it because they love it.

All universities require a great deal of reading- for Oxford you have to be positively fanatic.

'Natural and attained ability', hey? So you were born a genius yet you've learnt to become a genius? Right.

My advice to you is to grow up, take a gap year and do something where you have to think about something other than yourself and your fragile literary reputation.

[mal4mac]

So he didn't send his play to Ibsen at any rate, and did not get approval, unasked... The time of connections that bring you somewhere has long gone. It is not because one writer tells his publisher that he likes this unknown writer, that the publisher will take notice...

I'm not sure this is true. Several successful writers have emerged from the University of East Anglia writing school, which uses 'connected' writers to do the teaching. Surely a combination of the right teaching and connections must be helpful? Look at all the writers who sent their work to hundreds of publishers before their prize-winning worth was noticed. Surely it's worthwhile trying more direct routes!

Joyce was pushier than I hinted at. He forced his entrance into Dublin's literary circle by knocking on the door of the most famous man of letters resident in Dublin (George Russell, who did not know him from Adam) at midnight. On gaining entry, he spoke slightingly of all of Dublin's literati and outlined his own plans to change the conscience of the race. When pressed, he read some of his poems to Russell, first stating he didn't care about his opinion of them. Anyway, Russell invited him back for further conversations, and arranged a meeting with Yeats.

I'm not recommending this kind of approach -- it's likely to get you arrested as a stalker, unless you really are a genius.

It's intriguing how Joyce could get instant acceptance from leading figures like this. Maybe he was just obviously a genius, even on first meeting, to those capable of recognising it. Part of his genius was being able to avoid the small minds who might have rejected him and his work.