on writing
whenever i would think about writing in the past and the approach i wished to take, i'd have to think for quite a while, about the plot, about the storyline, about the genre, audience, style, etc. when i sit down to read a book, or after i've read a good book, i always feel like i stepped out of the reality that we perceive and into someone else's, into another land, a comfy little cushion of unreality that becomes believable.
today, i was thinking about reading a really good book (a thich nhat hahn), and it occurred to me that one doesn't have to think about what they are going to write about or worry that the situation is "believable" enough for the audience. a writer just has to write and write it believably. take kafka for instance. he wrote about a man who turned into, basically, a worm. we felt pity for this character, happiness that he died, sorrow for his family and his situation. why did we feel this way about this ridiculously unrelatable character? because kafka set up a situation in which we enjoy this man's prescence and his life. we feel comfortable in his room, his mind, and foreign when we venture out of his room, into his family's life. kafka has successfully set up a comfortable surrounding for his audience with an unrelatable character and a seemingly unbelievable plot. now, i'm not saying that "if kafka can do it, so can i." i'm simply recognizing that in order for a story to be good, the audience has to feel what the character is feeling, whether it's alienation or joy, or fury, or even denial.
i think this has helped me grow in my writing quite a bit. finally, i'm over a hump of non-writing and have killed that pessimistic outlook of "what if it's not good enough?" what if it isn't good enough? the situation just has to be comfortable for the reader and in order for that to happen, the writer has to be comfortable in his story matter and all will become believable. if the writer believes it, the reader will too.
today, i was thinking about reading a really good book (a thich nhat hahn), and it occurred to me that one doesn't have to think about what they are going to write about or worry that the situation is "believable" enough for the audience. a writer just has to write and write it believably. take kafka for instance. he wrote about a man who turned into, basically, a worm. we felt pity for this character, happiness that he died, sorrow for his family and his situation. why did we feel this way about this ridiculously unrelatable character? because kafka set up a situation in which we enjoy this man's prescence and his life. we feel comfortable in his room, his mind, and foreign when we venture out of his room, into his family's life. kafka has successfully set up a comfortable surrounding for his audience with an unrelatable character and a seemingly unbelievable plot. now, i'm not saying that "if kafka can do it, so can i." i'm simply recognizing that in order for a story to be good, the audience has to feel what the character is feeling, whether it's alienation or joy, or fury, or even denial.
i think this has helped me grow in my writing quite a bit. finally, i'm over a hump of non-writing and have killed that pessimistic outlook of "what if it's not good enough?" what if it isn't good enough? the situation just has to be comfortable for the reader and in order for that to happen, the writer has to be comfortable in his story matter and all will become believable. if the writer believes it, the reader will too.