Writing: Playing with Definitions

[sartorias]

One of the things recently discussed: it’s even more difficult to define what is, and is not, good literature when our fundamental definition of the purpose of literature is radically different from another’s.

That’s not to say that I believe there is a single definition. I do not. I will only go so far as to posit that my own definition works

Comments

[merriehaskell]

Something that's troubled me about the study of history is that it seems that you can't get really good historical analysis without increasing resolution (perspective, as it were). It seems that any history of the last twenty years (at any given point in time) is always lacking in real perspective. You can, at best, perhaps put down an ethnography, or a "faithful" rendering of events, but the best diagnosis of trends, the comparisons and the deeper meaning of events seem to come later on. It's hard to pick out the details, and see what will be meaningful for the history that comes after

[sartorias]

Worry not. This is a rumination and extrapolation permitted zone!

[green_knight]

I had a really wonderful conversation last night with aireon, with whom I share many tastes and writing processes. Far too rare, this kind of talk; if only such people were not at such long distance!

May I recommend that you and interested parties wander off towards rec.arts.sf.composition, where such discussions are pretty common (along with cats, food, and various other distractions )?

Writing is not just something you do in isolation. I know that's the common perception, and yes, there will be times when it's just you and the people inside your head - but there is so much to learn that it's fairly impossible to discover it all yourself, and not enough time in a lifetime to make every mistake yourself and learn from it.

Discovering the process with friends is so much more productive. And so much more fun.