One topic I plan for this blog to address is philanthropy. Writing, like philanthropy, is something that is frequently becomes an "I'll do it later" task. However, I don't want to talk about procrastination now, but rather giving without reciprocity.
Since I'm interested in both writing and philanthropy, I was really impressed by this article from Glimmer Train which discusses the indirect benefits gained from participating in a writers group (critiquing the work of others making us better writers), as opposed to the direct benefits (getting concrete pointers on what is/is not working in our writing). It's a great example of how contributing to something makes us better and how the philanthropic spirit can be incorporated into different parts of our life. Practically speaking, it's also a good reason not to get as frustrated with the other members of your writers group.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Hearing Voices
It's become cliched to say that good writers are also voracious readers. It's also true. But a side-effect of reading a lot of one writer's work is you may start hearing that writer's voice off of the page. I always find it interesting when another writer has a distinct enough voice that my writing, or thoughts, take on that writer's voice. I've been reading Jane Espenson's blog - which is fantastic if you're interested in screenwriting or just writing tips in general. She's not updating it any more but if you, like me, are coming late to her party the archives make for good reading.
Anyhow, on a friend's recommendation I've been reading Jane's blog. Jane has a clear, comedic voice and always ends her entries with a report on what she had for lunch. Yesterday, making my own lunch I found myself thinking "Lunch: Udon soup and hummus with tomatoes. Cross cultural goodness." And then thinking, "That's clearly Jane Espenson in my head!" Not just the lunch report, but the style of the commentary was Jane's.
Is this a bad thing? Not unless Jane wakes up and finds she is no longer in her head and is permanently in mine. One of the best writing teachers I had explained it well. I had been reading a whole bunch of Marguerite Duras plays and then found that the scenes I was writing for playwrighting class all had a Duras-style disembodied voices. Clearly derivative! Clearly not my voice! (Hey, there's Jane again in those short exclamations.) But the prof suggested going with it, and for me to explore how by using the convention I either would or would not make it my own.
So those voices in your head, they can be a good thing.
Lunch: BBQ chicken and homemade cole slaw with red wine vinegar and without mayo. I dislike mayo. (Thanks to Ms. Espenson.)
Anyhow, on a friend's recommendation I've been reading Jane's blog. Jane has a clear, comedic voice and always ends her entries with a report on what she had for lunch. Yesterday, making my own lunch I found myself thinking "Lunch: Udon soup and hummus with tomatoes. Cross cultural goodness." And then thinking, "That's clearly Jane Espenson in my head!" Not just the lunch report, but the style of the commentary was Jane's.
Is this a bad thing? Not unless Jane wakes up and finds she is no longer in her head and is permanently in mine. One of the best writing teachers I had explained it well. I had been reading a whole bunch of Marguerite Duras plays and then found that the scenes I was writing for playwrighting class all had a Duras-style disembodied voices. Clearly derivative! Clearly not my voice! (Hey, there's Jane again in those short exclamations.) But the prof suggested going with it, and for me to explore how by using the convention I either would or would not make it my own.
So those voices in your head, they can be a good thing.
Lunch: BBQ chicken and homemade cole slaw with red wine vinegar and without mayo. I dislike mayo. (Thanks to Ms. Espenson.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
