![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 15th, 2005 11:48 pmTo post or not to post therein lies the question.
Random thoughts:
Histories tell us more about those writing them and the decade they've been written in than the person or decade or subject they are about.
This more or less a direct quote from my father who got what amounts to a PhD in the subject and is a bit of an expert. Or as much as anyone I'd suppose. Can't say I disagree with him. Especially after wandering around the local bookstores - one had a series of books telling me that plays that were credited to William Shakespeare were allegedly written by someone else. Not a new idea. This controversay resurfaces about every five years. Never quite sure why or for that matter why it matters. The guy is dead at any rate and the plays are in the public domain. But authorial intent does matter on a certain level, I suppose, and it helps if you know who the writer was and their background to determine the intent. A better question might be why people are so concerned with proving that William Shakespear didn't write the plays? Was it because he wasn't "cultured" enough? Didn't have an education? And therefore did not have the "qualifications" that people attribute to a someone who would have written these types of plays? Much easier - if a the Earl of Sussex (or whatever his name is - I read the book jacket and flipped through it in the book store, my memory is not that photographic nor did I carry a little notebook with me), who was an adventurer, traveled, part of Elizabeth's court, and a "true" Renaissance man did it. After all there's a definite pattern there. William Shakespeare on the other hand was just a poor actor and theater guy from Stratford. Reminds me of the arguments that Christopher Marlow actually wrote the plays way back in the 80s. Same rational.
What is it about people and writing? Why do people think that you can only write well or something truly worthwhile if you've read these books (literary canon), studied these topics, and obtained these credientials?
Other interesting histories that caught my eye - one on Piracy that I flirted with, another on 18th Century NY City during the floods and slavery abolition movement. The 18th Century one, I seriously flirted with since there's that first novel hiding in my apartment that requires a bit of more research in the 18th century to be twisted into a nifty ghost story. But veered away, I know me, I hate research. Some people adore research but hate writing, I'm the opposite. Adore writing the paper, hate the research. Oh I like finding out things, what I abhor is the number of sources you need to obtain the information from - instead of one or two sources, there's like fifteen conflicting ones for any given topic. So you need at least three sources backing up every one source you quote. Highly annoying. Plus loads of controversary over which source is correct and which isn't. Non-fiction is thwart with uncertainity - some non-fiction writers are considered valid some not, and some well depends. Example - some people love Joseph Campbell, some despise him. Both groups have valid reasons and there are moments that I half want to throw them all in a ring and let them fight it out. Got a lot of grief over citing Campbell at one point. Honestly, so much of this is subjective. But then arguably everything we write is a direct outcome of or reflection of our personal experiences, those of our close friends/associates, things we've interacted with, core beliefs and philosophies, religious upbringing or lack thereof, schooling or lack thereof, medical condition, etc. If for instance you don't believe people have souls and that there is a god, you might have watched the series BTVS very differently than someone who does. How you related to the characters of Spike and Angel and the soul metaphor are not going to be the same way as someone who does believe in souls.
What the creator believed is important, but beside the point. I know what the creator believed - actually, I retract that, I remain uncertain, the creator had a tendency to contradict himself from one interview to the next. I honestly think he's a bit foggy on the whole topic. Which works, most people are. As I explained to a friend recently - as one gets older things have a funky way of becoming less and less certain as opposed to more so. You think as you get older you'll find all the answers to your questions, but all that happens is you get more questions.
Was reading about Bullet Proof Kinks in two posts on my correspondence list this week. So started pondering, what was mine? Because I certainly have an itch - a story itch/reading/watching itch that needs scratching. I ended up watching selected episodes of BTVS to scratch it. Didn't quite work. But came close. Also enjoyed Season 1, Disc 4, episodes 13 and 14 of The L Word. While I'm not fond of teen soaps, I do like adult ones. Once the people get past high school or junior high, I get interested. Also helps if the soap has enough characters in it so that you don't start noticing how ahem incestuous it's getting. Soap operas amuse me. I blame my mother - who got me hooked on the medium at an early age by doing hilarous recaps. I remember a recap she did of a daytime soap named Texas where two characters were carting around and hiding a mummified corspe that had me in stitches of laughter. I hide my soap fetish from folks because people are weird about it. They seem to get incredibly judgemental for some reason and treat you like an alien. Sort of like telling a Harvard or ivy league Grad that you graduated from CUNY or a state school. Yet, incredibly defensive about their own hidden little quirks and fetishes. But that's not my bullet-proof kink, which is a question I've neatly avoided answering, haven't I?
I think it's many things, and I struggle to find it, so that's why I tell myself stories and write. I'm enamored of screwed up, struggling characters. Underdogs as it were. The irredeemable bad guy who wants to be good who struggles to be good because he's fallen in love with the person he hated or wanted to hate. Tricksters. Characters who had it all but lost it, who appear to be villians at heart who appear to be monsters, yet aren't.
Unrequited love. Or unacknowledged love. You know they care, but they dare not admit it. The character who falls flat on his face but keeps trying regardless. The failed poet. I find struggling failures more interesting than successes. Characters who are trying to overcome their past pains, their past difficulties.
Hard to define this thing. Been struggling to define many things lately and just coming up with blanks. Going to bed now. Late and tired. Finally. 1 pm on a Sunday.
Random thoughts:
Histories tell us more about those writing them and the decade they've been written in than the person or decade or subject they are about.
This more or less a direct quote from my father who got what amounts to a PhD in the subject and is a bit of an expert. Or as much as anyone I'd suppose. Can't say I disagree with him. Especially after wandering around the local bookstores - one had a series of books telling me that plays that were credited to William Shakespeare were allegedly written by someone else. Not a new idea. This controversay resurfaces about every five years. Never quite sure why or for that matter why it matters. The guy is dead at any rate and the plays are in the public domain. But authorial intent does matter on a certain level, I suppose, and it helps if you know who the writer was and their background to determine the intent. A better question might be why people are so concerned with proving that William Shakespear didn't write the plays? Was it because he wasn't "cultured" enough? Didn't have an education? And therefore did not have the "qualifications" that people attribute to a someone who would have written these types of plays? Much easier - if a the Earl of Sussex (or whatever his name is - I read the book jacket and flipped through it in the book store, my memory is not that photographic nor did I carry a little notebook with me), who was an adventurer, traveled, part of Elizabeth's court, and a "true" Renaissance man did it. After all there's a definite pattern there. William Shakespeare on the other hand was just a poor actor and theater guy from Stratford. Reminds me of the arguments that Christopher Marlow actually wrote the plays way back in the 80s. Same rational.
What is it about people and writing? Why do people think that you can only write well or something truly worthwhile if you've read these books (literary canon), studied these topics, and obtained these credientials?
Other interesting histories that caught my eye - one on Piracy that I flirted with, another on 18th Century NY City during the floods and slavery abolition movement. The 18th Century one, I seriously flirted with since there's that first novel hiding in my apartment that requires a bit of more research in the 18th century to be twisted into a nifty ghost story. But veered away, I know me, I hate research. Some people adore research but hate writing, I'm the opposite. Adore writing the paper, hate the research. Oh I like finding out things, what I abhor is the number of sources you need to obtain the information from - instead of one or two sources, there's like fifteen conflicting ones for any given topic. So you need at least three sources backing up every one source you quote. Highly annoying. Plus loads of controversary over which source is correct and which isn't. Non-fiction is thwart with uncertainity - some non-fiction writers are considered valid some not, and some well depends. Example - some people love Joseph Campbell, some despise him. Both groups have valid reasons and there are moments that I half want to throw them all in a ring and let them fight it out. Got a lot of grief over citing Campbell at one point. Honestly, so much of this is subjective. But then arguably everything we write is a direct outcome of or reflection of our personal experiences, those of our close friends/associates, things we've interacted with, core beliefs and philosophies, religious upbringing or lack thereof, schooling or lack thereof, medical condition, etc. If for instance you don't believe people have souls and that there is a god, you might have watched the series BTVS very differently than someone who does. How you related to the characters of Spike and Angel and the soul metaphor are not going to be the same way as someone who does believe in souls.
What the creator believed is important, but beside the point. I know what the creator believed - actually, I retract that, I remain uncertain, the creator had a tendency to contradict himself from one interview to the next. I honestly think he's a bit foggy on the whole topic. Which works, most people are. As I explained to a friend recently - as one gets older things have a funky way of becoming less and less certain as opposed to more so. You think as you get older you'll find all the answers to your questions, but all that happens is you get more questions.
Was reading about Bullet Proof Kinks in two posts on my correspondence list this week. So started pondering, what was mine? Because I certainly have an itch - a story itch/reading/watching itch that needs scratching. I ended up watching selected episodes of BTVS to scratch it. Didn't quite work. But came close. Also enjoyed Season 1, Disc 4, episodes 13 and 14 of The L Word. While I'm not fond of teen soaps, I do like adult ones. Once the people get past high school or junior high, I get interested. Also helps if the soap has enough characters in it so that you don't start noticing how ahem incestuous it's getting. Soap operas amuse me. I blame my mother - who got me hooked on the medium at an early age by doing hilarous recaps. I remember a recap she did of a daytime soap named Texas where two characters were carting around and hiding a mummified corspe that had me in stitches of laughter. I hide my soap fetish from folks because people are weird about it. They seem to get incredibly judgemental for some reason and treat you like an alien. Sort of like telling a Harvard or ivy league Grad that you graduated from CUNY or a state school. Yet, incredibly defensive about their own hidden little quirks and fetishes. But that's not my bullet-proof kink, which is a question I've neatly avoided answering, haven't I?
I think it's many things, and I struggle to find it, so that's why I tell myself stories and write. I'm enamored of screwed up, struggling characters. Underdogs as it were. The irredeemable bad guy who wants to be good who struggles to be good because he's fallen in love with the person he hated or wanted to hate. Tricksters. Characters who had it all but lost it, who appear to be villians at heart who appear to be monsters, yet aren't.
Unrequited love. Or unacknowledged love. You know they care, but they dare not admit it. The character who falls flat on his face but keeps trying regardless. The failed poet. I find struggling failures more interesting than successes. Characters who are trying to overcome their past pains, their past difficulties.
Hard to define this thing. Been struggling to define many things lately and just coming up with blanks. Going to bed now. Late and tired. Finally. 1 pm on a Sunday.