Without inspiration, writing is meaningless. This week professor Wallace wrote about finding inspiration in everyday activities and routines, so I wanted to do some introspection about where my motivation for writing comes from.
Last week I commented on someone’s blog and wrote that I usually, simply put my “pencil” onto paper and begin jotting down ideas that come to my head. For two years I was a professional copywriter, and had to write in this manor everyday. This skill has proved to be a big help in our grad. school classes, since the majority of our assignments involve writing, but perhaps there’s more to it than “in-the-moment” writing. What I like to do is begin by writing off the top of my head, and later come back and revise. The “later” is a key element to this process, because that’s where inspiration comes into play. The “in-the-moment” writing is important as well, because it serves as a foundation for any writing that I do, but it’s the revision that brings my writing to life. I often will write the majority of a paper in one sitting, put it down, and think about it for a day or two, come back to it, and make it three-dimensional by adding ideas that have come to me over the course of the 24 hours or so. These ideas are sometimes sub-conscious, and other times I am aware of my cognitive thinking. Either way, it is an important aspect of my writing. Sometimes I will completely scrap a piece of writing I’ve done a day later and begin again. I often find that writing about something a second time is much easier.
I can’t say for sure where my inspiration comes from. Music, love, pain, nature… Inspiration comes from anything, even a cat falling into a toilet ;-) The important thing is tapping into that inspiration and making it a part of your writing. If you’re not passionate about what your writing, your readers will not be passionate about reading it either. For me, inspiration comes naturally. This is why you can’t force REAL QUALITY writing. It’s got to come from your heart. Just be open to all the things that make up you and surround you. Take mental notes in your head of what makes your heart tick. Close your eyes and envision for two minutes before you begin writing. These are all methods I use to tap into my inspiration, and it makes writing amazingly painless. Natural is better! Always is, always will be, and writing is no different.
I'm not sure why the font and spacing got messed up, please forgive me!
ReplyDeleteMatt-
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this! I am struggling with this extemporanous writing thing. I may be the only 43 year old female who never really kept a diary, and who never wrote crappy poetry when I was 14.
I will try your process out - perhaps it will help me to stumble on inspiration. We have a new puppy . . . always good for the ridiculous!
becca
This is a good explanation of the writing process as it works for you and it has important advice for any writer. The practice of revising is critical, I would agree. I do disagree with the idea that only writing that comes from the heart or that is passionate is good. Much writing that comes from the heart is simply awful. Look at the very passionate but "crappy" poetry of the 14 year-olds that Becca notes! (Here's a particularly bad one: http://poemsiwrotewheniwas12.blogspot.com/2009/01/introducing-sappy-poems.html) Inspiration may, indeed, come from the heart, but good writing comes only from the brain, as you yourself imply by describing the revision process. The heart cry of the poet alone is not sufficient to be considered good writing. I don't think even eternally sappy post Rod McKuen did not put a good deal of thought into his work.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm, I guess it's a matter of opinion. I still believe that what's from the heart is best. I'm a follower of the "beat" poetry movement and they were all about writing from the heart and not really caring about mechanics. It didn't hinder their message or their ideas. In my opinion poetry can never be bad if it's from the heart, and someone actually put effort into it. Even a 14 yr old's love poem. Who are we to judge?
ReplyDeleteWe are writing teachers. Trite images, mixed metaphors, and generally "bad" writing can weaken a piece and detract from the message the writer is trying to get across. The delicate and dangerous task of the teacher here is to help a student's work become more effective without suffocating the fragile bloom of the sprouting writer. There is such a thing as bad writing. And there is definitely such a thing as bad poetry! I should know - I wrote reams of it when I was a teenager!
ReplyDeleteBTW, I bought my copy of "Howl" in 1962 and "A Coney Island of the Mind" in 1964. I still have both here on my shelf.
Ahh, I jumped into an interesting conversation here! You both bring some good points to this conversation about the quality of writing. There is a difference between the writing process and the writing product. The product of that 12 year old's angst set on paper may be terrible, but Matthew brings up an important point, that if we think of writing as a process of individuals engaging in self examination, how can we ever judge that process as bad? As a writer, I think my best writing comes from passion and my heart. As teachers of writing, we do, of course, need to teach children to produce good writing. However, I think it takes dozens of "crappy" pieces for every gem. If we get scared into believing that every piece of writing must be quality work, we lose out on the fun and joy of the process.
ReplyDeleteWell put Deb!
ReplyDeleteOh, no N NO! I am not saying the process is bad!!! I abso LUTE ly agree that the process of writing is never bad. A person that writes only for him or herself need never be concerned about "good" writing. However, if a person wants to publish and to get a message across, s/he needs to consider how to make the writing as communicative as possible, and that takes practice and thought. Poor writing detracts from the effectiveness of the message. Even in first grade, we tried to teach the kids the difference between a personal piece and a "published" piece (one that was to be displayed on the classroom wall). In the latter case, standards of handwriting, sentence structure and spelling were upheld, whereas for private writing the students' were allowed much more leeway.
ReplyDeleteAs teachers of writing, I also believe that we need to uphold a certain standard of the English language itself. English is a rich and flexible language, which lends itself marvelously to every kind of writing. It can be legalistic, technical, explanatory or entirely freely creative in ways that other languages cannot. (I actually had a Francophone girlfriend once who preferred English to French for this very reason. She wrote scientifically and creatively, and found English preferable in both cases.) There are plenty of debasing influences on the language, so I see it as our job to provide a contrast. This does not mean that I think slang or cant should not be used in writing, just that they should be used effectively and appropriately to the message.
As to writing from the heart, while this may indeed be an appropriate and necessary source for creative writing, it can be very detrimental to scientific, technical or explanatory writing, and can be deadly yo reporters, for instance. I must disagree with both you and Matthew here. I would say that, while good ideas may come from the heart, good writing comes from the head.