|
A closet-blonde story-eater's search for the Meaning of Books.
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 5 most recent journal entries recorded in the "story_eater" journal:
|
10:39 pm
[Link] |
Long time no write - well not here, anyway...
Spent the last month doing Nanowrimo - and I DID IT!!!!
For anyone not in the know, check out www.nanowrimo.org
50000 words in one month. Learned so much about writing, just by trying to do it, although i know that much of what i wrote was complete trash and will be jettisoned when i finally summon up the willpower to go editting.
Have to put down the stuff i discovered, and update a few more things, but not now - never want to type anyhting again - at least not for a few days...
Current Mood:  ecstatic
Current Music: Hallelujah chorus...
|
10:29 pm
[Link] |
bet this doesn't work first time
|
|
12:46 am
[Link] |
Literature again
I've been speaking to lots of people, trying to refine my definitions of literature, and 'good writing', and there've been some interesting answers.
1) After a conversation with a random (and I do use the word advisedly here) guy on the bus, on lit in general and Dickens in particular, I came out with an observation that a really good writer, to me, is one who changes the way you look at things for the rest of your life, so that you always see things partially through their eyes forever. I didn't know I thought that, but it was sparked off by something he said, and made a lot of sense to me. When I read a description that really strikes me, or, indeed, a worldview, i will end up quoting it, being reminded of it, being influenced by it forever. Gererally a recipe for frustration, as no one who hasn't read that particular book can ever 'really' understand.
2)A Post-grad student I know, doing an MA in Literary Linguistics, told me the other day that she had a 2 hour seminar discussing 'what is literature', and their conclusions were quite interesting. Their tutor is one who has very little use for the established canon as a canon, and firmly believes that, once a books has left the author's hands, it is the reader's to do as they wish with (a viewpoint i'm not sure i totally agree with, although in many ways i do). They pretty much decided that literature is anything which means stuff to someone, or touches them in some way, and that, if a writer doesn't touch people, the fault must lie with that writer for being too exclusive and not universal. (Bearing in mind that this is a sleepily half-remembered extract from a watered-down version of an animated discussion in a seminar at which i was not present!)
3) Among the 'Classics' section in the library on Saturday, I found Virginia Woolf, Diderot, and Ian Fleming. I'm not entirely sure why, as fun though his storylines can be, I wouldn't necessarily have called him a classic writer, although this may be partly to do with the fact that I object to his rather two-dimensional portrayal of women. I wonder who decided?
Anyone who comes across this, please feel free to comment - I'm rather relying on getting some feedback on this subject one day, in order to gather more viewpoints and maybe even make sense of it eventually...
Current Mood:  curious
|
|
12:45 pm
[Link] |
What is 'Art'?
"At times like this, I can see where so many clichés and theories come from. Looking at gliders above the hills, like giant eagles or aurocs (Joan Aikin), and seeing crows in a field, their stance like miniature dinosaurs, the whole world looks different now, a tapestry of absurd clichés.
I seem, today, to be trying to soliloquise in the style of somebody modern and highbrow like Sebastian Falkes, in which the protagonist will clinically analyse thoughts, feelings, motives and emotions with a degree of attachment usually reserved for the scenery, and generally triggered by it. There is generally, at such times, a feeling of intense clarity, of never having truly known oneself up to this point, and the ability to analyse oneself critically at one step removed...
This is in many ways, i suppose, similar to real life, although the feeling of analysing oneself from the outside is in many ways an illusion, as it is, in fact, oneself who is performing the analysis...This is starting to sound poncy now, and I'm getting towards the soul/mind debate, where I don't want to go.
What is art? Why should it be a 'higher form'? If the most joyous and relaxed times are those spent having fun with people, then where does art come in? Is it just a way of learning about the world? An aid to growth? Is it just for fun or escapism? Is it a means of drawing communities together? Or is it more about the artist's frantic need for expression and communication? And why are the people who write on this subject so hard to understand?
Maybe I need to look at this stuff again, because I feel I may be missing the point somewhat. If there is one. Or maybe I just don't get it. And, of course, there is always the question of whether this is worth the time I plan to spend on it. Is 'real life' not more importnat? Not to mention more real?"
All of that witter was written on the train about a month ago (its October now), and I've only just got round to uploading it. Despite the cringe-factor of including such a weird thing as a second entry, I decided to use it un-editted, mainly because its nearly 1am, and i'm trying to record a chronological progression here, which means that everything is a useful avenue of investigation. I think.
Current Mood:  weird
|
|
01:09 am
[Link] |
What is literature...answers on a postcard, please...
Thought I might as well get to the point at once. I don't understand 'the arts'. Not properly. I like reading, I like music, I like some of the visual arts, but I don't understand what makes a book 'literary', a piece 'proper music', or a painting 'serious art'. I'm going to focus on literature, because that's what interests me most, and because it annoys me intensely that I've studies English literature for years, even survived doing a degree in it, and I still don't understand it. And I understand poetry even less than books.
I know what I enjoy - as a general rule I'm plot-driven. I love stories, I love hearing about people's lives, I love seeing how things pan out. Yet most of the people I respect, and, from what I can see, a lot of the literary canon, is biased towards stylistic/character-driven stuff. Is it possible to move from appreciating plot to move towards enjoying the other styles? And, if so, what's the best route? I know there are authors who write well-respected books which have interesting plot-developments as well, but they're sometimes hard to find and recognise.
I know that, in many ways, it doesn't matter. These days, people aren't generally judged by what they enjoy, and its a free country. However, it has to be said, that, personal choice aside, whatever elite group the canon came from, it still has a fair bit of influence. And, somehow, it still bugs me. I still harbour thoughts of writing something one day, if only as a hobby, but every time I try, I find myself held back by fears that what I write won't be 'good literature'. I have the same problem finding things to read - the sort of books I naturally gravitate towards are often not what many people would call 'well written'. I don't always notice; I'm not even sure what constitutes 'well written'. And then I get confused, and end up reading nothing new, and just reading books I've already read.
I'm still doing some of my own research into this, but I wanted to open the debate up, if people are willing to contribute, and get other people's opinions. I'm not planning to sit here ranting about literature - I want to experiment, play with different writing styles, kick around ideas, and get any feedback people are willing to give. Any serious comments, critiques and answers are appreciated - I can't promise I'll agree, but I will at least consider what's said! One piece of advice authors always seem to give budding writers is to write, and write often. If I can play with writing, and learn about literature at the same time, then I figure I'm getting into the territory of a well known ornithological/petrological proverb. Yes, that was intended to be pretentious.
NB regarding my 'journal' written style, I'm not redrafting, so there will probably be overused punctuation, misuse of words like 'random', and things which are typically considered 'bad form', such as starting a sentence with a conjunction. These are, of course, deliberately included to emphasise my confused state of mind and the verbal nature of the post. Just so you know ;)
Current Mood:  determined
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
story_eater's journal