z

Young Writers Society


Controversial opinions about writing



User avatar
3821 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Female
Points: 3891
Reviews: 3821
Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:01 am
View Likes
Snoink says...



@StellaThomas, you're in good company! Ray Bradbury said this:

About two years ago, a letter arrived from a solemn young Vassar lady telling me how much she enjoyed my experiment in space mythology, The Martian Chronicles.

But, she added, wouldn't it be a good idea, this late in time, to rewrite the book inserting more women's characters and roles?

A few years before that I got a certain amount of mail concerning the same Martian book complaining that the blacks in the book were Uncle Toms and why didn't I "do them over"?

Along about then came a note from a Southern white suggesting that I was prejudiced in favor of the blacks and the entire story should be dropped.

Two weeks ago my mountain of mail delivered forth a pipsqueak mouse of a letter from a well-known publishing house that wanted to reprint my story "The Fog Horn" in a high school reader.

In my story, I had described a lighthouse as having, late at night, an illumination coming from it that was a "God light." Looking up at it from the viewpoint of any sea-creature one would have felt that one was in "the Presence."

The editors had deleted "God-Light" and "in the Presence."

Some five years back, the editors of yet another anthology for school readers put together a volume with some 400 (count 'em) short stories in it. How do you cram 400 short stories by Twain, Irving, Poe, Maupassant and Bierce into one book?

Simplicity itself. Skin, debone, demarrow, scarify, melt, render down and destroy. Every adjective that counted, every verb that moved, every metaphor that weighed more than a mosquito - out! Every simile that would have made a sub-moron's mouth twitch - gone! Any aside that explained the two-bit philosophy of a first-rate writer - lost!

Every story, slenderized, starved, bluepenciled, leeched and bled white, resembled every other story. Twain read like Poe read like Shakespeare read like Dostoevsky read like - in the finale - Edgar Guest. Every word of more than three syllables had been razored. Every image that demanded so much as one instant's attention - shot dead.

Do you begin to get the damned and incredible picture?

How did I react to all of the above?

By "firing" the whole lot.

By sending them rejection slips to each and every one.

By ticketing the assembly of idiots to the far reaches of hell.

The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh-day Adventist, Women's Lib/Republican, Mattachine/FourSquareGospel feel it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.

Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by the minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from the book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the library closed forever.

"Shut the door, they're coming through the window, shut the window, they're coming through the door," are the words to an old song. They fit my lifestyle with newly arriving butcher/censors every month. Only six months ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with the censorship and book-burning in the future, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony. Judy-Lynn Del Rey, one of the new Ballantine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place.

A final test for old Job II here: I sent a play, Leviathan 99, off to a university theater a month ago. My play is based on the "Moby Dick" mythology, dedicated to Melville, and concerns a rocket crew and a blind space captain who venture forth to encounter a Great White Comet and destroy the destroyer. My drama premiers as an opera in Paris this autumn. But, for now, the university wrote back that they hardly dared to my play - it had no women in it! And the ERA ladies on campus would descend with baseball bats if the drama department even tried!

Grinding my bicuspids into powder, I suggested that would mean, from now on, no more productions of Boys in the Band (no women), or The Women (no men), Or, counting heads, make and female, a good lot of Shakespeare that would never be seen again, especially if you count line and find that all the good stuff went to the males!

I wrote back maybe they should do my play one week, and The Women the next. They probably thought I was joking, and I'm not sure that I wasn't.

For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mormons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent typewriters. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmild teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intellectuals wish to re-cut my "Wonderful Ice Cream Suit" so it shapes "Zoot," may the belt unravel and the pants fall.

For, let's face it, digression is the soul of wit. Take the philosophic asides away from Dante, Milton or Hamlet's father's ghost and what stays is dry bones. Laurence Sterne said it once: Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page. Restore them to the writer - he steps forth like a bridegroom, bids them all-hail, brings in variety and forbids the appetite to fail.

In sum, do not insult me with the beheadings, finger-choppings or the lung-deflations you plan for my works. I need my head to shake or nod, my hand to wave or make into a fist, my lungs to shout or whisper with. I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book.

All you umpire, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It's my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I've won or lost. At sunrise, I'm out again, giving it the old try.

And no one can help me. Not even you.
Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est.

"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly." ~ Richard Bach

Moth and Myth <- My comic! :D
  





User avatar
1220 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 72525
Reviews: 1220
Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:04 pm
View Likes
Kale says...



beans wrote:Not to mention, if you've ever taken a college level writing class, a la screenwriting, outlining is in fact a must. Whether you agree with the practice or not, you still have to do it anyway. Hence where I got my method from, I suppose.

If there's anything that you take from this post, know that both methods of writing have their place, but you need a proper balance. Too much of one over the other means nothing gets done. Know when to plan. Know when to go with the flow. But for God's sake, if you're trying to finish something, plan it.

I've always been one of those people where, if it isn't nonfiction, I'll write the first draft on the fly and then make an outline later. And since my first drafts tend to be pretty solid (at least with shorter works), I usually made up fake first and second drafts before polishing my actual first draft (submitted as a third draft) into a final draft.

None of the teachers or professors ever suspected that I didn't follow the prescribed process. ;P

I'll also say that you're contradicting yourself at the end. You say to know when to plan or to go with the flow, but then you claim that finishing something absolutely requires planning. Some people (like me) finish things best without planning, so in our case, not planning is more appropriate and conducive to finishing things. Other people (such as you) need plans to finish things, and so it's more appropriate for them to plan accordingly.

Planning does not work for everyone.
Secretly a Kyllorac, sometimes a Murtle.
There are no chickens in Hyrule.
Princessence: A LMS Project
WRFF | KotGR
  





Random avatar


Gender: None specified
Points: 926
Reviews: 3
Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:14 pm
jcyws says...



@AttackOfTheFlash- Sounds like you are talking about nonfiction in general, and autobiography more specifically. I believe it is still considered autobiography even if you change names, etc. Anyway, I still disagree with r4p17, but I do not think either one of us intended our comments to apply to the genre of autobiography.

pretzelsing wrote:@AttackOfTheFlash- I think that it's totally OK to model a character after yourself ... I also usually when I model a character after myself, I write her different than me just a little bit to experiment, you know? ...


My opinion was meant to be about fiction, but what you say about altering the character of course applies. I don't mean to use your conception of a real-life person as a straight jacket for a character's behavior by any means. In fact, I do not think it is even practical or really possible to do so in the genre of fiction. Because, you end up putting words and deeds in someone else's mouth, and you just cannot do that completely accurately, as you are not that person.

Also, you can take a real person with some very glaring distinction. For example, you can ask what if my Dad was a 16th century pirate? Just by putting the person in an entirely different scenario and possibly one he would never put himself in, you've changed him a lot already.

I don't think this is the only approach to take toward inventing characters though, I just think it is one that can work well.

I think artists of nearly all types have the issue of needing thick skin... Precisely, because they actually do put themselves into their work. Anyway, allowing that a piece of yourself is really stupid or evil or dumb or flawed in any such way, does not mean that you are..

@r4p17's- Your concern about thin skin reminds me of that movie 'Tropic Thunder' where one of the actor's advises the other 'Never go full retard'. :) I can actually totally relate to the concern, but I suspect ideas like this actually get in our way more than they help.
  





Random avatar


Gender: None specified
Points: 926
Reviews: 3
Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:40 pm
jcyws says...



StellaThomas wrote:... no matter how diverse your novel, there are always going to be people who believe that you don't represent characters properly, or that you stereotype, or that you misrepresent them.


Agreed, also, I'll add on top of that, that there will be some body who is annoyed by "too many gay characters" etc, and even if they agree with liberal politics, in general, they might not be on board with the whole project of political correctness, and find fault with you simply for paying it so much heed.

It's like that song...


But it's all right now, I've learned my lesson well
You see, you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself

  





User avatar
5 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 933
Reviews: 5
Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:15 pm
FaulknerCannes says...



Should new writers refer to a dictionary while writing? I mean, should we just use words we know in our limited vocabulary, or look up the dictionary for big words that we aren't familiar with and use them for the sake of sounding clever?

I know there's an agreed consensus that the usage of thesaurus for new writers is bad, because that tends to lead to prose, but is the same applied for dictionaries? Or should you just use simple English to tell your story? After all, your story is the most important part of the story, not the prose, not the complex, intellectual words you are seeking to use, right?
  





User avatar
107 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 333
Reviews: 107
Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:25 am
ChiravianSkies says...



@FaulknerCannes

I believe so. To (Paraphrase) Mark Twain, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug."

This isn't saying, "If you wanna sound clever, look in the dictionary." It's saying, "If you don't want to sound like an idiot, use the right words."

I don't know about everyone else, but I only refer to the dictionary to see if I'm using the word correctly. Typically, I'm not. And if someone goes through an entire story using the word wrong, it can get a bit aggravating. I did it once with the word coward. (Grade four stories are scary to read. Just so you know.)

For my controversial opinion, and I don't know if it's been said before, but I don't like happy endings. Nothing truly ends happy. You can never end where you started. Even if your characters go blind or something, life would still resume like it had in the beginning. Go for a pyrrhic ending (The good guys make it out in the end, but they're hurt badly.) or a sad ending, because if things happened in that story, then the effects have to be shown. (Sorry if you couldn't understand this. Written in a rush.)
  








There are those who say that life is like a book, with chapters for each event in your life and a limited number of pages on which you can spend your time. But I prefer to think that a book is like a life, particularly a good one, which is well to worth staying up all night to finish.
— Lemony Snicket