I really, really enjoy reading novels of pretty much any kind.
I also have a good imagination, and I've considered writing for personal enjoyment.
Is it weird to write novel-style without the intent of ever publishing the work? Are there any benefits to writing for writing's sake?
If anyone has experience doing this I would appreciate if you could explain why, and if you have any thoughts.
[–]nhainesFreelance
Writing, like any art, is a reward unto itself. I rather enjoy painting, and I'm quite proud of it. But I other than showing friends, right now I like painting just for its own sake.
3D reference photo and 2D digital painting
Now, no one cares about Jackson Lake. And I think the foreground ended up being too prominent. But I painted it all on my own and I'm proud. And hey, I'm a slightly better photographer and a slightly better painter on top of that.
If writing makes you feel good, you should do it. Maybe later on you'll want to write something for publication, and you'll be that much better at it. It will also make you better at writing emails and letters, and you'll do that far more often in your personal and professional lives.
So don't be afraid to take up any art as a hobby for personal englightment, whether it's writing, drawing, painting, singing, piano, guitar, or anything else that creates and you enjoy.
[–]minimalisto[S]
I guess it just seems like a waste to write 500 pages for "no reason".
I think I may just need to put the length out of my mind. Instead write whatever length fits my story.
Thanks for the thoughts, it does make me happy, and I enjoy many different kinds of writing.
[–]nhainesFreelance
"For your personal enrichment" isn't "for no reason".
Just write and enjoy it. You'll find the length will take care of itself. :)
[–]StochasticLife 2 points 6 hours ago
No, the act of writing is reason enough, see my stand-alone comment
[–]emkay99
2D digital painting
Is it "painting" if you don't use paint?
[–]nhainesFreelance Writer
Yes, and not just because Art Academy is a natural media art program and I used a stylus.
[–]minimalisto[S] 1 point 2 hours ago
Remember the only thing that makes paint unique is the way you must mix colours.
Good digital painting uses a similar concept, but uses the rules of light.
[–]nhainesFreelance Writer
The application I use actually mimicks real media and simulates subtractive color just like real paint. It even uses actual paint names, which is nice because I could actually jump from digital to traditional media after going through the lessons, if I wanted to.
[–]minimalisto[S]
Sure, but of course it has many limitations a program like Photoshop would not.
It is definitely cool though.
[–]nhainesFreelance Writer
Yes, because it mimicks traditional media.
I've also drawn and edited photos in Photoshop, GIMP, and Inkscape with a Wacom tablet, and except for pressure sensitivity being nice, I'd rather have the software generate impasto paint texture and mix digital paints to get the right colors than have to do either myself in GIMP. :)
Why I don't use Krita on my desktop, I don't know.
[–]minimalisto[S]
Yes, if you are going for a way to imitate paint it is a great solution.
I've embraced digital art and enjoy using all of the different techniques that allows me.
[–]nhainesFreelance Writer
Yes, I would love to paint but don't really want to put the money into it. $40 and maybe another $4 or so on extra lessons was a fantastic investment, even if I am limited to pretty small artwork. The next time my finances allow me a few hundred dollars it might be traditional painting time. :)
Digital art is fantastic. I myself enjoy photo editing the most. But it's all a lot of fun.
[–]TriangleDimes
Eh, I dunno. Painting is different. You can complete a painting and it becomes a part of the scene. It is visual, it can stand on its own. Writing needs an inspector. It is a lot less casual, unless you just wanna have a sweet bookcase. Writing is not a "background" thing like visual art or music. It doesn't work when done at a distance. It demands your full attention and it is usually done in a solitary state.
So unless you're relatively sure that someone will find it and put the work in, it's a lot like "cooking a meal that nobody will eat." A proper meal takes a lot of time and energy and effort and ingredients. It's an intimate experience. It doesn't last long, usually. Stories are not forever and they are very limited in audience (language, especially.)
I think that's why the standards are higher. Writing a novel for nobody is the fucking height of uselessness, in my opinion. A pretty picture can be shot into space. So can music, probably. The best story in the world needs translators and time and place and all sorts of shit.
People tell stories to be heard.
Stories exist because communication is the most important thing for our species. It is a very simple way to transmit information. You can do it with no money and no experience. Every human being in the world is a storyteller.
We already write to ourselves. It's called thinking.
We put it down on paper to share it.
If nobody reads it, what's the fucking point?
[–]nhainesFreelance Writer
I can tell you've never read a child a story.
In any case, I disagree with your premise. I love cooking, but I don't love it less when I'm cooking for myself. And creative effort isn't wasted on the creator. I stick to my advice that if the OP enjoys writing on its own merit, then that's an entirely valid and worthwhile endeavor.
It kills me the Bill Watterson paints Ohio landscapes in the woods and then burns them, because he thinks the first 10,000 paintings are worthless. Any consideration of any of the stunning watercolors from Calvin and Hobbes would put proof to that lie. I wouldn't say his art is worthless just because he doesn't share it. It obviously makes him happy. And he's entitled to that.
[–]TriangleDimes
I can tell you've never read a child a story.
So... Is that your way of agreeing with me that a story that will never be heard is a story that shouldn't be told?
I love cooking, but I don't love it less when I'm cooking for myself.
That is not what I am saying. Listen: stories are meant to be read, like a meal is meant to be eaten. To write and read a book is different than making and preparing a meal (different sensations entirely) so to write a book and not have anyone read it is tantamount to making a meal and throwing it out. It is not like making a meal to eat yourself. The labor is different, and the process is different. Different climaxes.
It kills me the Bill Watterson paints Ohio landscapes in the woods and then burns them, because he thinks the first 10,000 paintings are worthless. Any consideration of any of the stunning watercolors from Calvin and Hobbes would put proof to that lie. I wouldn't say his art is worthless just because he doesn't share it.
It is worthless because they don't share it. It has no value. Every unreleased or burned artwork is a non-entity. Telling a story without intent to share is talking to yourself. Talking to yourself has no value other than therapeutic. If you're doing it for therapy, go ahead, I guess, but you're just talking to yourself and the audience is a MUCH better therapist than your own ego.
[–]nhainesFreelance Writer
So... Is that your way of agreeing with me that a story that will never be heard is a story that shouldn't be told?
It's a counter to the idea that reading stories is solitary. In fact, for thousands of years, storytelling was a group activity.
I'm going to continue to disagree with your premise that art creation has no intrinsic value.
[–]unpublishedthrowaway
I very rarely come to this sub; I can't believe this post was on the front page. I don't know if I'm uniquely qualified to answer this question -- and if I'm not, please let me know, because I would love some friends. But right now, I'm looking the spreadsheet that in some small way justifies in my existence. It's my completed projects list. There are 47; most of those are short stories, but there are two 500+ page novels, several shorter novels, two plays, and a full length movies. All told it represents several million words (my macro is fucked up) and about six years of my life. Not to mention the unfinished novels or the giant binders of old short stories/novellas I wrote as a kid I haven't looked through in years.
None of it has been published. About once a year I submit a story at random to a magazine that doesn't require a cover letter, for the sole purpose of being able to tell my mother that I submit stuff. Because obviously it would be insane to do all that work and not at least put it out there, right?
And maybe I am crazy. But I don't really have an desired to be published. By now even the thought of it makes me a little uncomfortable. Some things have been shown to some people at various points, but 50% has never been seen by another living soul.
Here's some background. I wasn't always this way. In fact, I wanted to be a writer from as early as I can remember. And I spent years getting my stuff workshopped, and going to conferences, and taking writing courses. I have a creative writing degree (undergrad) from a "very exclusive program." And all of that made me loathe writing. All the posturing and nitpicking and self-aggrandizement. I stopped for several years.
When I started writing again, I did it with the soul and express goal of my own enjoyment. I didn't think about how an agent would look at my work. I stopped worrying about whether my work was "too long" or my characters were "unlikeable." Once I stopped thinking of writing and presenting for an audience, it offered a tremendous freedom. It always felt like I was sitting there with a group of people staring over my shoulder while I typed, watching me and offering commentary. Once they were gone, I was finally able to focus on my characters, my story, my use of language – the stuff that's supposed to be important, right? Nothing else about the process is different; a good story is a good story, no matter what any junior lit agent says about word counts and plot guidelines.
And why should you be thinking of publication anyway? Spoiler alert for the fiscal state of publishing industry: if selling copies of your work for money is your goal, then I don't understand why you're writing. Why would you do anything as a hobby that has such a low chance of bringing you joy? If your goal is writing for it's own sake, or bring characters to life, or trying to create that perfect gem of a story, than that is a noble goal in and off itself. That's the beautiful thing about art: it should require no justification in it's creation or it's enjoyment.
Before I start sounding too Henry Darger, let me stop for a second and emphasize that just because you aren't writing with an audience in mind doesn't mean you aren't writing with a reader in mind. An audience is a marketing conceit; a reader is the other half of the words you're putting on the page. Fiction isn't successful unless it can be comprehended; even if you wanted to write symphonies no one would ever heard, you'd still want them to sound good, right?
There is nothing more important, especially for beginners, then having someone else read your work. Find someone you trust to be truthful and gentle. A friend, or better a stranger. Maybe even a significant other. Learn to accept criticism with grace. Join a writers group. Realize they're all idiots and leave in a huff. Post things on the internet and let yourself get torn to shreds. It's the only way you'll learn. But none of this is part of the publishing process. Understanding how others respond to your work is part of the creating process.
Here are more suggestions; they work for me, your results may very. Write every day. Embrace your good ideas and let your bad ones go. Rough drafts are always shit; making them better usually involves cutting away more than you add. Put your first drafts away in a drawer for a few years; come back and read them closely to learn from your mistakes. Always keep backups. Keep backups of backups.
Read a huge variety. Read writers you don't like. Read nonfiction. Read every “Ten Things Writers Must Do List” but don't believe any of them at first. Read the classics so you know just how good you'll never be. Even more importantly, read utter trash, so you can identify what shit looks like; trust me, you'll be seeing a lot more of that.
Teach yourself another artform that you can suck at; by painting awful paintings and fighting through a beginner's piano book, you'll be moving slowly enough to understand how a thousand small decisions come together to form a total whole. Which is all you're doing, just with words. Challenge yourself. Experiment in every genre and in every form. Explore what makes you uncomfortable. Give up at some point. Print out everything you've made and burn it; trust me, it feels great. Then get back to it. Write something better.
Oh, and I've also been lying to you this whole time. Because eventually, if you keep at it and develop your own aesthetic sense, eventually you'll write something you know deep down in your heart is good and could mean something to somebody. And the desire to share that with a wide audience may come. Maybe you'll change your mind about publishing. Maybe you'll be the next J.K. Rowling. Who knows?
Here's what I think: I'd rather publish one thing I'm proud of while I'm on my deathbed than waste the years I could be writing trying to convince some agent or editor my shit is really gold.
So here's my question. What do you want out of this? In my experience, very few people want to write; many, many people want to be “writers”. They think the hard part of writing is filling up a bunch of pages with stuff and then sending it out to be judged. But that's the easy part. What's hard is writing something great and moving. What's hard is rewriting something ten times until it's perfect. What's hard is capturing a moment, pushing a character past themselves, building a world, destroying it, making a reader empathize with someone they hate, showing them a new perspective, finding new perspective yourself.
So write for it's own sake. Your work is not a product; it is a learning exercise. This not about being published, or looking cool, or having flair, or posting in forums, or trashing other people's work, or making money, or being famous, even if there are some people who will tell you what it's about. It's about doing the work. So do the work. Only if you enjoy it. Make it great. Don't worry about anything else for a while.
tl;dr: Do it. /r/shutupandwrite
[–]ordinarygent 3 points 3 hours ago
Thank you. You've changed my perspective on writing.
[–]balunstormhands 2 points 4 hours ago
Epic!
[–]StochasticLife 2 points 4 hours ago
Too bad it's a throw away, or I'd be tempted to Gold this.
[–]minimalisto[S] 2 points 3 hours ago
Thank you for the words of wisdom.
I think my problem is that writing without a reader seems silly, and in my mind the only way you get readers is if you publish.
A good story has to involve the reader at least somewhat, as the author you might add twists and turns specifically to engage the reader -- but if no one will ever read the work, doesn't adding those twists seem pointless?
[–]ionised 4 points 6 hours ago
Is it weird to write novel-style without the intent of ever publishing the work? Are there any benefits to writing for writing's sake?
Fair enough. Go for it. I've never done this myself, but if you want to write, just write. It's for yourself. Let it be your reward.
[–]daltonmc
In my opinion the only reason to write is without the intent to publish. If when you're finished you think it's publishable, then go for it, but if your endgame is recognition and money then you're wrong.
[–]bloopeeriod 2
The reason I think writing is right for me is that I am revealed on the page as I go. I find things coming out of me that surprise me, scare me, make me laugh at myself or impress me a bit, and it seems like I have come out of hiding somehow. A writer I admire was once asked by his niece what she should do to become a writer. He said "write". Writers write, and that is all. And if no one reads or admires my writing, I am still a writer. If I am an unemployed writer, I am still a writer. Nothing can take that away from me so long as I say so, in type, on a page.
[–]DangerousBillPublished
I always assume I'm writing for a reader, but not everything I write is good enough to turn loose on my adoring public.
Sometimes I write things knowing in advance I won't ever show it to anyone. Sometimes I change my mind. That's how I got into writing (and publishing) erotica.
[–]oh_my_god_brunette_a
I've written quite a few books and have no intention of publishing them- and that's just fine! I enjoy writing for the sake of writing, and don't want it to become a career, as that would ruin the fun.
[–]StochasticLife
I actually recommend that aspiring writers burn their first (few) books/novels as part of the process of becoming better. Reference
I am also a Buddhist. I've been told this is very relevant to my advice.
If you want to just write because you like to write, then god damn the haters, write on man - write on.
Edit: I'm fairly certain most of my RES tags at this point are 'Pyromantic Lunatic'
No comments:
Post a Comment