Why Do You Write?
Mat Wilson:        As a historian, I have no control over my writing because I have to acknowledge ALL of the facts.

Those who write fiction however, are free to create whatever they like, but still, there is always truth in fiction, is there not?

One of the most enjoyable works of fiction I have read is Scott Turow's book, Innocent.

I loved the book because the emotional resonance about relationships is very realistic and compelling enough to think that everything that happened in that novel could in fact mirror a real incident in actual life. Scott Turow is also a lawyer, and that has obviously made his work more credible, with respect to "believability", in my opinion.

To answer my question, I evidently write to fill the gap between reality and "official myth". I am not exactly certain what that says about me --if anybody can help out in that regard, I appreciate it.

And so, my question to all the writers is this; Why do you write and what does your work say about you?

Perhaps you might not wish to tackle the second part of the question; especially if you never think about that, but the first part ought to be easy.

Hugh:    Interesting question, Mat, but I find your own answer more interesting.

Quote
I evidently write to fill the gap between reality and "official myth".

This follows your statement that you have no control over your writing because you have to acknowledge ALL of the facts.

Bearing in mind what has already been touched on, that history is not necessary all the facts, but might be described as creative non-fiction, or as you put it, “official myth”, I can’t quite see how you are able to fill that gap.

Where do you get your “facts”, your “reality”?

Most of my writing over the years has been non-fiction, although I’ve always wanted to write fiction, and have studied many books and articles on how to write short stories, and have even had a couple published.

When I started to apply what I’d learnt about fiction to factual articles, my acceptance rate went up dramatically. The basic facts were there, checked and double-checked, but the writing itself read more like a story.

I use dialogue in an article, to make it more readable. Who can remember the exact words of a conversation they had yesterday, let alone years ago? To convey the gist of it, we have to make it up.

Our recollection of something we actually saw can only be subjective. Ask any policeman. Six witnesses to an event will give six different versions of what happened.

To be a seeker of truth is commendable, but it’s rather like searching for that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You can never find it, because as soon as you approach the place it appeared to be a moment ago, it has moved somewhere else, ever further away.

But to try and answer part of your question, I learned many years ago that most people want to talk about their favourite television programmes, their ailments, or the latest gossip. If I started to talk about stuff that interested me, they’d look at me as though I’d come from another planet.

The only way to communicate was by writing about it. If someone happened to have similar interests, and wanted to read it, fine. Thousands of magazines are published every month, covering just about any interest you can imagine, so with a bit of market research, I began to get bits and pieces published.

Once you have seen your byline on a piece of writing in a magazine, that’s it, you’re hooked. You want to experience that feeling again, and again…

I also write because I enjoy it, but unlike some MWC members, I don’t get withdrawal symptoms if I don’t do it for a while. What does that say about me? Either that I’m an idle git, or not a real writer, probably.

Mat Wilson:      Thanks for your comments, they are very enlightening. I just want to explain what I meant when I said I have no control over my writing because I have to acknowledge ALL of the facts.

In many respects, a historian is like a detective/prosecutor.

You are correct, every time you chase the truth it moves, but sometimes, it moves because you chase it. For example, if you are a prosecutor who is trying to convict a murderer and the culprit points a finger to implicate somebody else, you have two choices;

You can allow yourself to be conned, or you can draw a line, hold your ground and expose the murderer. At the same time, the murderer will deny, deny deny.

IF the denial is credible, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to acknowledge it. If, on the other hand, the evidence converges to the point where the magnifying glass sparks a fire, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to explain his absolute conviction.

Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. Sometimes, prosecutors shape the facts to fit their theories and that is why we have innocent people in prison.

That's what I meant when I said "ALL of the facts". Those who exercise the luxury to misrepresent the facts, whether it is inadvertent or deliberate, distort history and make the work of serious researchers more difficult.

I do not manipulate the facts to fit my theories. I study and learn from them, as far as possible, because it is even more important to use them to prove innocence than to allow typical self-deception to implicate an innocent man.

I hope that explains why I think it is important to keep our eye on what I called "all of the facts".

To be sure, it is a poor choice of words on my part, but rest assured, I am not searching for that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I am doing history the way history is rarely done because it is extremely time-consuming.

If I was a more talented writer, my choice of words would be better and you have appropriately identified a serious deficiency that frequently spawns unecessary controversy.

I googled "why do you write" and discovered that it had been asked on the New York Times website in October.

Kind of interesting.

Spindle:     I was interested by the person who said they sounded more intelligent when they write than when they speak. I am quite shy in person and when I am around new people I don't always feel brave enough to say a lot, or get a little tongue tied when I do. My thoughts are more organised when I write and I seem to have more confidence in my opinions- this is especially true when it applies to personal matters. I think I understand what that person was saying- not that they are more intelligent, but that they are more capable of conveying their points.

Gyppo:      I don't doubt that many of us are more coherent and positive when we write. Partly, possibly largely, because there are no distractions. No-one jumping in to refute or repudiate before we've even finished making our point, or slanting meaningful looks at other listeners, or looking bored. Sure, we can hear or see these reactions in our head just as well when we are the keyboard, but we are at liberty to ignore them, or at the very least choose the order in which we 'reply'. We can quietly acknowledge or demolish these differences of opinion without getting too emotional, or being browbeaten by a more accomplished verbal gladiator. We can even assume, up to a point, that people won't read our words unless they want to, in which case they will probably pay attention. But we all know how easy it is to tune out a voice which doesn't interest us, even if the speaker is just the other side of the table.

Millsja:      When I speak,
I'm just smart enough to wish I was a little bit smarter.
When I write, I'm as smart as I'm gonna get.

Gyppo:     re-Quote from millsja; When I write, I'm as smart as I'm gonna get. Sadly we can't rely on this. We all write some utter tosh at times. Occasionally we're even daft enough to think it's brilliant and share it with others.

Mat Wilson:      Words have different meanings to different people; We should not rush to judgment and presume to know what the other person is talking about without further probing.

Why not encourage people to say stupid things, doesn't that provide the opportunity to clarify a thought?

There is a very important distinction between controversy about words and controversy about facts. It is even possible to be in total agreement with a party who thinks you are arguing simply because a particular word is used differently by two different parties.

These are the thoughts that your comments have sparked and the unforgettable, final words of "Some Like it Hot", starring Jack Lemmon and Marilyn Monroe, warrant repeating --Nobody's Perfect.

But I am impressed.

Not a single person said, "I write for the money".

Does that mean that none of us are making any

510bhan:     Could be!

I get paid for my non-fiction writing and I do regard it as a job, even a chore. Sometimes it's fun and informative, but I resent the limitations on my style and voice. It's writing to somebody else's whim and often the client brief involves areas for which I have no interest -- except to complete the task as they desire to deadline.

Mat Wilson: Is that how you began to write?

Was it the opportunity to make money that prompted you to begin?    

510bhan:    Yes/No -- I'm an English teacher by trade so I suppose that was payment for writing and I spent a good while working at an ad agency too.

It's only recently that I've been doing freelance work. My creative writing has always been something I've done. The great French poetry period of my teens was brilliant!

Mat Wilson:     Very nice. My Shakesperean recital skills are quite limited so it's been more difficult to get those lucrative contracts.

I mean, what can you possibly do with this rendition? --let me set the scene for you here;

Juliet, who is in one of her typically romantic moods, is situated on the balcony, her eye roaming, as if guided by the beam of a lighthouse, leans over to say,

"Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo", to which Romeo responds,

"Behind the bushes, hand me the toilet paper."

Gyppo:     But the hurricane force winds, which were moulding Juliette's flimsy dress to her youthful contours in a way which would have further inflamed Romeo's prancing Stallion Of Desire had he not been otherwise entroubled, snatched the fluttering roll from his reach and hurled it, like a fleeing white gull, into the dark-storm-tossed abyss beyond the crumbling cliff edge. Leaving him, trousers still at half mast like the flags of a mourning Kingdom, to cry out thus...

"Bidet or not bidet? That is the question."

510bhan:

You're NOT going to relate this at the family gathering . . . are you Gyppo?



 
 
 
Look who's talking

It's not CNN, it's not CNBC, it's not NBC, it's not Fox...




NEWSWORLD SHOWDOWN
Copyright © 2011


 
 
 

 
 
messages

 
 
Follow matwilson6 on Twitter

 
 

 

 

 
Search for your favorite song, if not on our list and we will add it to our page.
 
 
 
 
 
Greatest Songs