You know...I really don't want to categorize myself...I would say, when I am in the writing groove and it's flowing...I am a decent writer. But, it's getting into that groove that I struggle with. I used to write for three hours every morning, and four hours every night...That hasn't happened in a long time.
I don't mean to be trite, but I think you have just proven my point about our species-wide predilection. Am I as guilty as any other? Of course I am, for I too am human! Is the line I draw between what I will allow as a label and what I won't allow, arbitrary? Of course it is; all labels are arbitrary! Do I use the word Writer as a definition of self? Of course I do! That label falls on the good side of labels I will allow. Do I categorize myself further down? No I don't. That level of categorization and limitation falls on the other side of the line, belonging to the labels I do not allow. Do I find this dichotomy of thought problematic? Nope! Arbitrariness is the stuff of life. Edit~ Upon rereading my prior post, I believe you have misunderstood my wording. I do not find issue with labeling oneself as a Writer. What I meant was, "As a writer, once you label yourself as this or that, you have chosen to discontinue the growth process." My wording may have been confusing, and for this I apologize.
I believe he wrote the initial draft at 19 and then revised it when he had a bit more experience and success. Still, I'm sure the first draft wasn't that far off.
As much as I hate to categorize myself and admit that it's utterly hopeless for me to improve, according to King, who am I to argue with him? The guy obviously has more success than I do. Perhaps there's some truth to his words. But who knows? Maybe I can rise above competency one day.
His success is as much a matter of business as writing. You don't have to agree with someone simply because they have achieved financial success. If you like King's writing style, then you can learn a lot by studying his writing. He may even have some useful advice for you, providing he follows his own counsel when he writes. But he certainly is no expert on where your limits lie. You are only restricted by the limits you accept. Have you read your own signature lately? Argue with authority. Maybe authority can prove its case, but it isn't infallible simply because it managed to convince you to slap down some green for the privilege of reading the Testament of Saint Stephen. Limit should be challenged, again and again, until they burst asunder.
Since most of the feedback I receive is more positive than negative I would like to say I'm a competent writer than just needs to iron out a few flaws
writing could be described or is in the same bracket as the environment we desire to live in. For example the way we decorate our houses/flats is a reflection of our taste. some of us are minimalist, and some modernists, others are traditionalist and so on... so 1) Are you a traditionalist or a futuristic for example? and 2) What do your stories/ the way you write say about you? I would say I am a mix between modern and traditional because there is always a fine between a past and a present. I write with ideas in mind. I would write a particular story because I want it to have a particular meaning. For example I write with the idea of challenging the everyday routines/myths/cliches and stereotypes. I also write with ''easy'' options as a element to give my stories better credibilities.
i don't fit into any label/s as a writer... i write anything and almost everything, not even considering what it might be called... and i've never just written 'stories'...
On another forum, we were having a discussion on whether individual writers consider themselves to be craftsmen or artists. Most, myself included, fell into the craftsman camp. (Surprisingly, there seemed to be some hostility toward writers who called themselves artists.)
"Writer", "Author", "Artist", "Craftsman", "Traditionalist", "Modernist" - my gosh, are all writers so preoccupied/obsessed with labels? I write. Period. Call me whatever you want, because I probably am or have been at some point.
I have no idea what any of those labels mean, but as for me, the biggest reason I write is to play with ideas. I'm especially interested in exploring different experiences - what would it be like to be a kid who was killed by abusive parents and came back as a ghost? I also sometimes write to show others what kind of stories I'd like to see - I really hope I not only get published, but end up inspiring others to do some of the stuff I've done with their own spin on it. Occasionally I write to send a real-life message. For example, 'helping people against their will has a high potential to hurt them instead'. I have to be careful, though, not to let the opposing side turn out to be a strawman. Some stories I want to write I haven't because I can't get into the opposing side's head.
Hi, Well my home is decorated in the style of the previous owners and I haven't changed anything - so I guess that makes me a low on cash, easily satisfied and too lazy to change anything writer? On the other hand it was somewhat messy, so I'm also a messy writer? Cheers.
No of course not. You must have personal touches to your house. You know they say the devil is in the details?!! It is not about the layout it is about the little touches.
In argumentation, it means that your opponent is not actually addressing the point you actually made; he's addressing a point he THINKS you made or ASSUMES you made. It's as if, instead of drawing his sword and attacking you, he's built a man made of straw who he pretends is you, and is attacking HIM. In another thread, I said I didn't like calling myself an atheist, because some people put more meaning into that word than I mean. I've said that I'm an atheist to some people, and they assume I mean I'm a socialist. (For some people in the United States, they seem to be the same.) (And I'm not really a socialist, though I am a liberal, as I understand the term.) But this is a good example of a straw man argument. I say that I'm an atheist, and my opponent starts arguing against what he perceives as my socialism. He has set up a straw man - a socialist - and proceeds to take down the socialist straw man. But I never said I was a socialist. He's attacking the wrong guy, so to speak! He is arguing with points I didn't make! That's what a "strawman" means, in argumentation.
1. I don't know and I don't want to know. If I apply a label to myself about the "type of writer" I am then I am putting myself into a box. I don't want limitations. 2. One who doesn't give a damn what people think of her stories. I don't write to please anyone and my characters are not mouthpieces for my views. For one, my MC's opinion that classic literature is "porn without the pictures" is not an opinion of mine! But I'm not changing it just to make people happy despite the response a close friend gave me when she first read it.
I think I write in a modern style, because I try to immerse the reader in the story and make the author "invisible". I try to paint a picture in the reader's mind, so they can watch that picture like they're watching a movie - the words on the page are only a means to create that picture. There are also a lot of tongue-in-cheek self-references and pop culture references in some of my stories, which would make them a bit post-modern. At the same time, my stories tend to have strong emotional undertones and a lot happens between the lines and between the characters.
Hmm...This is a great question. I would say I write in a traditional style, or at least I try to. I like the idea of writing in a way that wouldn't pin my story down in a specific time. Like say, if fifty years from now a person would pick up one of my books and begin reading it, I'd want it to be identifiable with their time. Like the goals and motivations would still be acceptable to them. However, I gotta say I love the idea of writing in a voice that would sound like a diary entry. I guess I'm a traditional and a futuristic kind of writer, which is good. It means I can be flexible
Good attitude to take, at least to yourself. I've always thought writers who describe themselves as 'craftsmen' or 'artists' are on the pretentious side. Let others think about what you are, you just sit down and put words on paper.
Hi, To add to what Minstrel said. A strawman is an inaccurate position put up in place of what someone claimed, against which you can then argue. In religious arguments its used by people quite often on all sides. For example one person may state ' I'm a Christian' and base his argument for say his moral position on that. His opponent may then instead of attacking the position he has taken, choose another slightly different position, such as a fundamentalist Christian, and attack that instead because it's easier. So moderate Christians might accept homosexuality as a part of life, while some fundamentalists might consider it a sin and thus come out with a completely different moral position on the issue. The term was used a lot in military training, where people were taught to attack straw dummies of their enemies, because lets face it, their enemies weren't so happy to just stand there and be attacked! Cheers.
Oh right. For some reason the strawman reminded of the strawman a farmer puts up to scare off birds and also what do you the figure people burn when they are protesting? I can't remember it.
Knowing who you are through your writing is not labeling yourself. I am asking wether you understand why you write the way you write. what would you say about the writer after you havre read one of your own stories? There is definetely an element of truth that the stories and the way they are written speak volume of the person behind it all.
