And Another Thing . . .
I realized yesterday that there was something about my post that seemed to imply it was all worth it because my daughter is going off to be a music major and is playing the Kennedy Center. And yes, I am a very proud mom. But if she was still a squeaky player who decided to become an accountant, it would still be worth it because she would still have the gift of music (although, given that she hates math, I think the accountant thing is far-fetched . . .).
Which brings me to my post. When people garden, they don't ever think they're not a "real" gardener until they create a perfect rose hybrid. When they knit (like me), they don't think knitting is a failure unless they start making sweaters that they can sell in some chic boutique. (Which for me will NEVER, and I mean NEVER happen--but I still like knitting.) If they sew, they may aspire to make clothes, but chances are they're not looking to start a fashion label (unless they are my 10-year-old Baby Girl, who indeed aspires to that). But it seems like ALL writers aspire to one goal and one goal only--to be published.
Now, don't get me wrong . . . am I MORE excited that the tens and tens of thousands of dollars that I have spent over the years (and I am not kidding, the total has GOT to be upwards of $60,000) for violin lessons culminated in Tuesday? Probably. There is a sense that she was moving toward something, a goal. But when we discuss a post-college career, my own sense is "just be happy." If that's songwriting (something we have newly discovered she has a knack for), then that's great. If it's violin performance, fine. If it's managing a rock band with her music degree? Fine. I'd love it if she managed him. I don't have a sense of any path being a failure.
But writers? They can be thrown into the depths of despair by not being published. Or being published but not achieving a certain level of success. Or . . . you fill in the angst.
And I am not quite sure why. What is it that makes writing as an art form different? That we measure it differently from other pursuits?
I suppose for one thing, writing is meant to be shared. So without an audience, it somehow loses something. But let's say you're a writer who is in a group that gives public readings. You're sharing. It's still not enough. A guitar hobbyist who plays in a local coffeeshop is probably thrilled to do so. Not a writer.
It's self-torture.
So discuss. Why is this so?
Which brings me to my post. When people garden, they don't ever think they're not a "real" gardener until they create a perfect rose hybrid. When they knit (like me), they don't think knitting is a failure unless they start making sweaters that they can sell in some chic boutique. (Which for me will NEVER, and I mean NEVER happen--but I still like knitting.) If they sew, they may aspire to make clothes, but chances are they're not looking to start a fashion label (unless they are my 10-year-old Baby Girl, who indeed aspires to that). But it seems like ALL writers aspire to one goal and one goal only--to be published.
Now, don't get me wrong . . . am I MORE excited that the tens and tens of thousands of dollars that I have spent over the years (and I am not kidding, the total has GOT to be upwards of $60,000) for violin lessons culminated in Tuesday? Probably. There is a sense that she was moving toward something, a goal. But when we discuss a post-college career, my own sense is "just be happy." If that's songwriting (something we have newly discovered she has a knack for), then that's great. If it's violin performance, fine. If it's managing a rock band with her music degree? Fine. I'd love it if she managed him. I don't have a sense of any path being a failure.
But writers? They can be thrown into the depths of despair by not being published. Or being published but not achieving a certain level of success. Or . . . you fill in the angst.
And I am not quite sure why. What is it that makes writing as an art form different? That we measure it differently from other pursuits?
I suppose for one thing, writing is meant to be shared. So without an audience, it somehow loses something. But let's say you're a writer who is in a group that gives public readings. You're sharing. It's still not enough. A guitar hobbyist who plays in a local coffeeshop is probably thrilled to do so. Not a writer.
It's self-torture.
So discuss. Why is this so?
Labels: writing goals
posted by Erica Orloff at 8:29 AM
31 Comments:
Blogger doesn't like me today. I'll try again, though I don't know the answer to your question. Publication is my goal, although I know writers who don't send out. But most of my writer friends are either published and working hard on promotion, or trying to get published.
Hi Edie:
I think goals are great. I wouldn't be where I am today in ANY aspect of my life without goals. I just wonder . . . you know?
E
Actually, I have come across some great writers than do not asopire to be published. oh they say they want to be publsihed but then never and I repeat NEVER query or submit even though they are quite good.
If the fear of failure keeps you from even trying to attain success then I have to wonder, why these individuals bother.
I guess their mind works opposite from mine, or they have delusions of granduer that an agent or editor is going to bust down their door, crawls on their hands and knees and eagerly dig all that material out from under their bed.
Great question, and it's wierd that way, I agree. I was thrilled when I wrote my first novel in a spiral notebook. I knew I'd accomplished something, and it meant a great deal to me because I love writing.
The publishing arena is so huge and competitive to break into. Maybe that stirs the angst some. For me, I don't want to lose the joy of writing. And I'll do whatever's needed to protect that.
When you knit a sweater, you have a sweater, even if you don't have a sweater factory. Same with performing the guitar; the difference between 20 people in the audience and 20,000 is just scale. But when you write a book you don't have a book until it's published.
As I like to say, my favorite books are the ones that are printed and bound.
Travis:
I actually have a few friends like that--but to me, at least a couple of them seem to really mean it. They are content to write for themselves. But most writers aren't wired that way.
E
Hi Ladonna:
Yeah . . . sometimes the whole publishing arena takes that fun away.
E
stephen:
I feel really dumb now, because that's an obvious answer and I guess I understand it from that perspective.
E
You dumb? You who compose 300+ posts a year that make me think, Damn, how can I add anything substantial to that?
Stephen:
You're just being kind.
Buddhism must be rubbing off on you. ;-)
E
Stephen:
P.S. You are always MORE than kind. But you're no slouch in the blog post arena.
I think at least some of this self-consiousness in writers is born from external pressure.
Tell the writer that you, too, are a writer and they, regardless of how far along in their own career they are, will almost always beam and ask what your genre is, who your favorite authors are... they'll exchange opinions on various facets of writing, whose writing speaks to them and why, they'll support your writing by treating you, well, as a writer.
Tell joe average anybody that you write - and you can phrase this in any fashion, from, "I'm a writer", to "I like to write"... they almost always ask what you've published. If you say you haven't yet, their response is terse or uncomfortable, usually in the form of an "oh," with or without the eye-roll before they change the subject to something more important.
If you have published, they'll ask why they haven't heard of you. If you write business writing or ghost writing, they'll ask if you make 'real' money at that...
People are weird. They view writing in a different way than they view other professions, which makes aspiring writers reticent to call themselves writers, which in turn makes their own ego take a hit with every rejection... because somewhere in your mind you have an ideal of the the level of success that you have to attain before you can claim to be a writer, regardless of who you're speaking to. Maybe it's a magazine article, maybe it's a novel... somewhere in your head there's a goal that, at least in some small aspect, is not only the thing that will make you realize your worth as a writer, but make everybody else see it, too.
Hey, you're stealing one of my blog themes. :)
I don't know. Probably the answer is we're all nuts.
I play guitar (and previously piano and sax) and I have little or no notion of doing it for money, although in my late-teens I did indeed make money playing and teaching piano.
It may be that with most arts there's an inherent need for communication with an audience. Actors don't, presumably, do all their acting in their back room by themselves. Musicians, well, there's quite a bit of satisfaction in hearing the music and I suppose at least your family and friends (and neighbors, whether they want to or not) can hear you. And the same probably goes with painting and sculpture and photography and knitting, etc. You can give those things away and someone can and probably will get satisfaction from them, ie., you have communicated.
If you type up your manuscript and hand it to someone, for whatever reason, most people will view it not as a gift, but as a chore. It requires some active participation on the part of the audience, which may be part of the issue. Publication (and it's increasing commercial aspects) and writing, to be considered an actual "success" requires an audience and the audience isn't passive. (At least, that's the typical writer's perception).
Or...
I'm wrong. And we're back to: we're all nuts.
Merry makes a good point. Tell your friends you're a musician without a record contract and they'll accept it. Tell them you're a writer without a publishing contract and they'll hesitate a second too long before changing the subject.
Mark's right too, about being nuts.
Merry:
There is definitely some of that with nonwriters for sure. But also, I have to say, there is a healthy dose of "pecking order" amongst writers sometimes.
E
Mark:
As a regular reader of your blog and a big fan . . . I would say I didn't steal your blog topic. You, my friend, are on a whole existential tangent on your blog on this topic. ;-)
E
stephen:
Also a very good point.
E
P.S. And yes, we're nuts.
No, it's Mark that's nuts. Just Mark.
Seriously (not really, but humor me), there's a reason universities have creative writing departments: because it's cheaper to employ the instructors than institutionalize them.
Hi Erica,
I've been traveling - literally - for work not pleasure (12-14 hour work days are not pleasurable) so I missed your 'journey' post the other day. I'll have to catch up soon.
But I have long thought about the journey of writing and the end goal of being published. So many writers never achieve that goal. Are they happy with the journey?
It is a subjective business and most of us would love to hold an actual physical book in hand with our name as the author. Why is that?
It's not like I want fame. I don't like being center of attention. But I do put my heart and soul into my words and I send them out into the world in the hopes that someone will like them and respond positively.
So we learn to write better and we learn to toughen up our thin skin and we write and write and write. What a life. Yep. Easier and cheaper to make us teachers than to lock us up on the funny farm.
No, it's Mark that's nuts. Just Mark.
Well, yeah, but...
I wrote for a long time (most of my life) without a thought to be published. I just liked writing stories. When I met a woman who brought up the subject I mentioned what I was working on. Told the story and she looked at me in amazement and asked if I was going to try to publish it? To which I replied with a blank stare.
But since she planted that seed I've worked toward publication.
Now my life is writing, rejection and waiting for that "call".
:)
Most days that feels good but sometimes it gets to me. Frustration thy name is writer.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
--Teddy Roosevelt
I can only speak for myself. I enjoy writing, but it's not what I would call "fun." I wouldn't choose it for a hobby. Writing a novel, to me, is hard work. I can't, however, think of anything more rewarding once it's completed. Anyway, I want to develop my craft and be considered good enough at what I do
to play in the big leagues. If that doesn't happen, if I ultimately crash and burn, at least I can say I gave it my best shot.
Hi Sarah:
I don't know how I feel about the whole audience issue. It's this added element that I don't think about much . . . until I meet readers or hear from them. Then, I am usually pleased/happy. But I don't know--as you can see, my whole blog is figuring out why I write and what I write.
aimless:
Welcome to the club. :-)
E
Hi Jude:
I don't feel that way at all . . . but I do love the quote--I have seen it before and I think I use it more in parenting and living life than writing.
E
Erica:
What would be the point of writing novels (especially genre fiction) if not with an eye toward publication and mass distribution? I can see writing poetry or songs or maybe even a blog or something for self-fullfillment. But novels? What would be the point?
Maybe there are some closet novelists out there, writing strictly for their own amusement. I guess we'll never know, though, because, well, they're in the closet. :)
Jude:
I write stories for me. I don't really think about audience, which may seem odd, but the stories are my little world. I make MONEY at it, but I was content for some time to just write--I've written screenplays that are still on my computer, aren't bad at all . . . but just don't plan on doing anything with them right now. I have a rich fantasy life, I think . . . so I just purge it onto paper. I don't know. It's not that I'm unmotivated to sell. I do sell. But my motivations have more to do with having four mouths to feed, a skill (writing) and the fact that I really am not well-suited to office work.
E
Why write?
Because the words, the feelings, the worlds are bursting out of my head and putting them on paper helps bleed off all that wild imagination.
Hugh Prather said something like this - choosing to be one thing in life would kill off large parts of me.
I write to explore those parts of me that want to do other things, be other people, experience other places, explore other emotions.
The movie Pollack was amazing for one simple fact. I thought they captured the hum of creative energy perfectly when they filmed him painting through the glass. The guy filming got his shot and was done, but Pollack was still caught up in his creativity and stopping was very difficult.
That's why I write.
What Stephen said, but.
When I have the opportunity to read my prize manuscript, the first one I ever wrote (and rewrote and rewrote) to a group of first graders, and they not only laugh but they guffaw and poke each other to make sure everyone gets the joke,
Well, then I'm as satisfied as that guitar player.
It's bliss.
But still, what Stephen said.
Hi Sarah:
Yes, I liked that mvoie very much for how it was just bursting from him.
Chris;
Visiting schoolkids is one of my most favorite things about being a writer, too.
E
Post a Comment
<< Home