"Never, ever, get yourself into a situation where you have nothing to do but write and read." That sentence surprised me because as a writer, a lot of times that's exactly what I wish I could do. But I think Dillard has a point. If I had no other responsibilities and had the freedom to only write and read, I would read, definitely, but I would probably wouldn't write. And if I did, I'd get too involved and caught up in what I feel and think about the piece rather than what the story needs. For me, I need the outside world, as Dillard says, in order to keep it in my mind so that I don't get too caught up with my own opinions. Though I did love her line: "Follow your own weirdness." It lets young writers know that even though she is telling us to separate our feelings from our writing, that doesn't mean we our writing will be mechanical or systematic. Each writer is unique and can describe the world in their own "weird" way.
Another thing that surprised me was her remark about novels based on true stories. She says: "Publishers won't touch these," but I feel as if I see lots of these at the book store all the time (I even recently saw one based on a woman who survived the Titanic, whether this woman really existed or not, I have no idea). I understand when she says "The novel based on fact is a muddy hybrid; readers can't tell what's true," (as in the case I just mentioned) but I don't think readers go into a book loosely based on the story of someone who survived the Titanic and expect every event in it to be completely accurate. I have a friend who reads a series of books based on the lives of various monarchy that have lived and died centuries ago in England and France. I read one and it was really just a slew of adultery, illegitimate children, jealousy, rivalry, and so on and so forth. My friend said she read them because they were exciting, even though she knew they were just the author's ideas of what happened between these people. So I'm not sure what to make of Dillard's advice here. I think it's a good point to keep in mind, but there seems to be at least some kind of market for these kinds of historic fiction/drama novels.
The rest of her advice, though, was solid and I found myself taking mental notes every few lines or so. This is definitely a list of things I will put into practice.
-Justyne Marin
I agree with the two points you brought up--I, too, always wish that my future work life consisted of reading and writing. It's kind of what this quarter is like for me, and I love it! But I would never ONLY write and read--I'd travel, too, and participate as much as possible in the outside world. I was surprised as well when Dillard said the thing about turning real peoples' stories into historical fiction. I love historical fiction, and find it more intriguing than non-fiction (though that grows more interesting as I get older). I found it strange that Dillard thinks that non-fiction is more successful than fiction (or that it has a larger readership, or whatever she said).
ReplyDeleteLaura Strawn Ojeda
I loved what you said in your first paragraph because I felt the same way. Sometimes, all I want to do is sit and read. Doing nothing else seems like the perfect situation, so I was also surprised when she said that. You bring up good rationale as to why she states this in her article. Also, I do appreciate that Dillard acknowledges that every writer has a weirdness to them. That weirdness should be embraced because it shows uniqueness. That's what makes writing so interesting and reading so fun! Because, we as readers are able to learn about another person and we learn in by their unique personality and way of relaying their stories or ideas.
ReplyDelete- Angela