Why Writers Write
Posted: Saturday, June 19, 2010
by Randy Vaughan
Long before I ever wrote anything for anyone else (excluding the obvious homework assignments and love letters), Ive often wondered what the core of a writer really is. Why does anyone think anything he/she has to say is worthy of anyone elses time and attention? As far as fiction is concerned, most plots can be reduced to just a handful of well-worn themes: Boy gets girl, man versus environment, drama, comedy, etc. Change the characters, settings, time period, and environment but when all is said and done, its repetition of something thats been done over and over.
And as far as the continuing legacy of anything with a celebrity’s name on it, fiction or otherwise, automatically being accepted by both the publishing world and the reading public? I’m left with no other reaction than to wave my hands frantically in the air and shout “What the hell is going on around here?” (The only thing more reprehensible than these so-called celebrities are people who make a living writing books and columns about for insatiable fans who clearly have no lives of their own.)
So me, I get to thinking (never a good thing): If I was a publisher, editor, what would I say, how would I handle so many folks all convinced that what theyve written is worthy of publication? Truth is that part of me would, for the reasons already given, probably refuse to publish anything at all. " Oh, great, another book about the individual versus the collective: Didn’t Ayn Rand do that to death? Oh, please, dear God, not another love story. How many times are we going to re-tell Romeo and Juliet? "
Besides, its a challenge to one-up the stories in the Bible. Hell, even if the whole thing is a work of fiction and myth, you must admit that it contains great stories of all genres--pure drama and poetry and love and sex and adultery and murder and incest, demons and mob violence, action and adventure...got it all right there.
In short, writers compete against not only other contemporary writers but all that have gone before us. So what is the one great common motivating factor that compels anyone to believe that his words are worthy of being read by others?
Im wondering if its no more complicated than the obvious, that when all is said and done, weve all observed the same thing in life. There are among us the exhibitionists, the voyeurs, and well, everyone else. The " everyone elses " hardly matter in this, or just about any other discussion, since they seem content, after all, to go through life utterly oblivious to just about everything. " Living secondhand " is how I think Ayn Rand said it. This isn’t stated as a pejorative, by the way. I envy these people. They are what I am not: Content.
But it’s evident that the preponderance of people are indeed voyeurs, choosing (if by default only) to live their lives vicariously. In that sense, of course, “living their lives” is a contradiction in terms. It’s very much like the sports fanatics, men and women who, having never played the game once in their life, speak with great authority about these things, who get morbidly personal about it by talking about how “our” team won and preaching to any listening ears what this player did right or that one did wrong. Okay, most are “arm-chair quarterbacks,” to use a common term.
Critics of books and movies who’ve never participated in either activity speak with great authority on both. Who do these people think they are? Would I dare criticize a woman for screaming too loudly during childbirth?
But if I’m correct in agreeing with the admonition that there really is “nothing new under the sun,” and that unlike those consumed with apathy as well as the vampires who exist vicariously through the experiences of others, we’re left with the painful observation that men and women who presume to write--with the intention of having others read their words—are “different” in some fundamental way. Are we guilty of just “feeling” things more deeply, more passionately? Do we see ourselves “superior” in some way, that we genuinely believe that “we,” unlike everyone else, having something so profound, so witty, so moving to say that we “deserve” the attention of others?
I might agree with the “feel more deeply” part, but that’s about as far as I would go.
After that, I’m afraid the one common element among writers is that we’re all pretty much nothing more than a bunch of exhibitionists. Part of us, an inner part that perhaps no one else can ever touch or share, craves and needs the attention of others.
Yes, we believe in our stories, our poetry, our convictions, and do so with the determination to fight against all odds in the hopes of seeing our words published. But knowing that we’re not saying anything particularly new or original, why really bother?
Face it: Lady Godiva could’ve written her protests. She chose instead to ride naked through town.
I think that’s pretty much what writers do. We try to do it with words, that’s all.
And now I wonder: Would sales increase if I ride through town naked?
This Article has been viewed 202 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)I don't write because I have profound thoughts to share. I don't write because I'm somewhat of an exhibitionist. I write because I can't afford a therapist. It works for me! Oh, and of course your sales would increase if you rode through town naked, that's a no brainer Randy. But don't bother trying writing naked, it doesn't do a thing.
Howdy, Brianna...Indeed I, too, write mostly from the compulsion, the need, to get that stuff out of my head. It really hasn't helped that much, however. New ideas immediately take the place of the old or the old hang around and haunt me with something I should've added, how and why this or that needed to be changed, said in a different way.And "publicity stunts," eh? You're right of course. Gimmicks like that are tried and proven. But then I'd have to wrestle with a fierce inner demon, the one who poses the rhetorical question: "Listen, Dude, do you want your book to sell because you perform some silly-assed little stunt to get those fifteen moments of fame or because your words have value and merit?" And as I said, since it's rhetorical I don't bother answering this chap 'cause he knows the answer as well as do I.As for actually writing naked? No, I'm a guy and God knows we're too easily distracted by our own anatomy...I laughed so hard at that last line Randy, I almost fell off this chair!! LOL LOL LOL- It would seem you're aptly named-I made you laugh? Go me! Four things immediately come to mind:1. You are one of the few people I've ever met who is familiar with 'randy' in "that sense" of the word.2. I used that in my book as an example of difficult communication can be, i.e., the need for agreement on defintion of terms. Unless one knows I'm talking about capital-R "Randy," they might conclude what you did.3. In the early 80's, a then very well-known "adult film" star came to town and my pal and I went to see her. She signed photos at the end of her talk (and I no longer have that photo, dammit) and when she asked my name and I told her, she said, "Oh, I am, too." She was one of the most articulate people I've ever seen, keen intellect and insight, positively a brilliant woman....4. Freud was a moron. It is the male of the species, not female, that suffers from penis envy...5. oops...one more: You said "hard" while talking about the "male anatomy"...hehehehe
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.