Imitation and Intimidation -how to escape the two evils

[Niku]

I have been wanting to write for the best part of my life but the older I get, the more pessimisitic I get about it- I read the likes of Marquez, Kundera and Kunzri and am simply in awe of their powers. I know I cannot match their literary gifts but I think I would end up trying, resulting in a pale imitation of their masterpieces. How do you break free from these negative impulses borne out of the very works that inspire you?

[BlueTexas]

I know I cannot match their literary gifts but I think I would end up trying, resulting in a pale imitation of their masterpieces.

You won't know if you will or not until you try. Just start writing; don't worry about comparing your work yet--you have to have something on the page first.

[azbikergirl]

You'll find your own voice and style, but it takes time and lots of writing. Just write -- the real, unique you will emerge.

[Roger J Carlson]

I never worry about imitation. By now EVERY story has already been told. There are no new stories. There is just retelling and EVERY author imitates some other author.

Sir Isaac Newton once said: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." He was talking about science, but the same applies to writing. We learn to write by reading other writer's works. If you read only one author's works, you will probably be guilty of imitation. But if you read widely enough, your "voice" will be a blending of all the voices you've read.

Publishers even expect it. They like you to boil your novel down to a single line like: "A cross between Anne of Green Gables and the Wild, Wild West." What is that if not imitation?

As for intimidation, I struggle with that all the time. When I read someone else's work (say, in the AW Idol contest *plug*), I often say to myself: "Oh, I could never in a million years write that!" I simply have to remind myself that no one else in a million years could write what I do!

Whether their's is better than mine is a value judgement that is better left to posterity. My job right now is to write what I can write.

[BlueTexas]

As for intimidation, I struggle with that all the time. When I read someone else's work (say, in the AW Idol contest *plug*), I often say to myself: "Oh, I could never in a million years write that!" I simply have to remind myself that no one else in a million years could write what I do!



I know that feeling well. Every week when I read what William has posted, I just sit back and sigh, knowing I could never in a million years have done that.

If you compare yourself to others, it becomes self-defeating in a hurry. Let other people worry about that--just write what you have to write.

All you can do is your best, and Roger's right--the rest is best left to posterity.

[Niku]

Thanks guys- great advice, particularly your's Roger.

[Niku]

If you compare yourself to others, it becomes self-defeating in a hurry. Let other people worry about that--just write what you have to write.

You're absolutely right, Blue Texas. I think it is the fear of failure that manifests itself in the intimidation. I think I just need to start writing again and see where it takes me.

The compulsion is there, it is only the confidence which is lacking.

[BlueTexas]

The compulsion is there, it is only the confidence which is lacking.

As Uncle Jim would say, "Give yourself permission to write crap."

Honestly, those are powerful words. Don't let a a hunk of plastic, be it a pen or a keyboard, intimidate you. You can always burn the paper or hit delete and no one will ever know.

[Marcusthefish]

I have been wanting to write for the best part of my life but the older I get, the more pessimisitic I get about it- I read the likes of Marquez, Kundera and Kunzri and am simply in awe of their powers. I know I cannot match their literary gifts but I think I would end up trying, resulting in a pale imitation of their masterpieces. How do you break free from these negative impulses borne out of the very works that inspire you?

How do you know that you can't match the masters, if you've never tried?

If you want to write, go ahead. Take ten or fifteen years to learn the craft (I'm sure the masters did). You might be great.

MTF

[Nateskate]

How do you know that you can't match the masters, if you've never tried?

If you want to write, go ahead. Take ten or fifteen years to learn the craft (I'm sure the masters did). You might be great.

MTF

If you could duplicate the masters, you'd be a mimic rather than an author. But to be honest, good mimics are really hard to find. I think we want to be authentic, which means like everyone says, we find our own way of telling things. That doesn't mean every thought or phrase has to be entirely unique to be our own.

Most art is inspired by the works of others. John Lennon, of the Beatles felt inferior his entire life, because he couldn't reproduce the blues (his inspiration) He created something unique, but never appreciated his voice, or his writing, because they weren't what he wished he could imitate. So, he felt he lacked legitamacy. He was gifted and creative in everyone's eyes but his own.

But if you looked at Led Zeplin, the Rolling Stones, and the Beatles, all three bands had pretty much the same inspirations from a musical standpoint, yet they branched off in three unique directions.

[Jamesaritchie]

I have been wanting to write for the best part of my life but the older I get, the more pessimisitic I get about it- I read the likes of Marquez, Kundera and Kunzri and am simply in awe of their powers. I know I cannot match their literary gifts but I think I would end up trying, resulting in a pale imitation of their masterpieces. How do you break free from these negative impulses borne out of the very works that inspire you?

Imitation isn't evil. it's a blessing. Imitation is how we all learn to do pretty much anything and everything. Whether it's playing basketball or playing the piano, painting a house or painting a portrait, the quickest, easiest way to learn is by imitation.

Originality is a good thing, but there's no point in reinventing the wheel everytime you sit down to write.

First we imitate, and then we add our own style and voice, add ourselves to the imitation.

[Vomaxx]

Brahms didn't dare write a symphony until he was 40, because of the reputation of Beethoven (who was dead). But when he did, it came out pretty well--all 4 of his symphonies did.

When Marquez, Kundera, and Kunzri were young, I imagine they were impressed and awed by famous writers, too--but they overcame this.*


Now get out your pen and Write!
-------

* At the risk of revealing my vast ignorance, I confess that I myself have never been inhibited by Marquez, Kundera, and Kunzri, because I have never heard of them. :cry: (Well, I have heard the name Marquez.)

[Jonny Ryan Mac]

quote - I read the likes of Marquez, Kundera and Kunzri and am simply in awe of their powers. I know I cannot match their literary gifts



The thing that really gets it going in your mind is your attitude, that desire to burn your image into reality. I know you like them as writers, i love Dumas and Peretti, but I'm different. They were my inspiration, but not my building blocks. Does that make them superior? Does being published somehow make you a better writer? It makes you known, but does it class you into somekind of system that the book referre's have. Writing isnt sofball, we have no stats, no real errors, the olny error you have in the craft is not stayin true to what you as writer have chosen. Hold your head high and let your voice be heard. You have to do it, what matters first is the desire, the willingness to see it to the end. Then you can say, i wrote a book too. May not be published, but that isnt what most people talk about here. I dont see a lot of requests for how do i get a publisher to take me serious, i see, how to write. Were here to inspire others, thats what this whole thing is.
I am intimidated on a dailt basis by the elloqent styles of the old authors, the ones that did this job with a quill pen. But that dosent make me inferior, i have plenty of years to get to that level, but i have to WANT it. So do you, if you want it, it will only be obtianed by hard work. Those that oppose you serve as blocks or trampelines. You have to pick.

You know what does it for me, when im down, i watch a rocky movie. Sly always makes me belive in myself, as Rocky, that is. Find your voice, and shout my man.

[Ace]

By now EVERY story has already been told.

I humbly agree with most of what has been said in this thread, except for what I quoted, above. There are always new things to write about.

[Anaparenna]

I read the likes of Marquez, Kundera and Kunzri and am simply in awe of their powers.

I read a Marquez book and am left raw and desolate. Truly. I don't read Marquez while I'm in my "writing state." But when I'm not in my writing state I do, and I practice elements that he brought to the fore. Polysydenton (http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm#Polysyndeton), for one. It's the learning of the art that's important, and they are good teachers.

I have been wanting to write for the best part of my life but the older I get, the more pessimisitic I get about it

I started when I was twelve, sent off my first manuscript at 14, and didn't get published for the first time until 17 years later (short stories only so far). (Read Gabo for the first time at 15.) Pessimism? Yeah, I get that. "Pale imitations"? Yeah, I've done that. It's all part of the learning process.

You either write through it, or you give up and stop. If you stop, you're no less better off. If you write through it you learn, you grow, and sometimes you never, ever get published. But, dammit, in the end you'll know where the commas go. And sometimes, someone buys something you wrote.

[Jamesaritchie]

Am I the only one who is more inspired to write by the really great novels, rather than by the mediocre ones? I can think of many writers who are better than I am by a wide margin, but I can't think of one I find intimidating.

Darned few of the great writers started off writing as well as they wrote later on.

[Jamesaritchie]

Does being published somehow make you a better writer?

My short answer to this would be yes. My longer answer would be that's it's at least a very good indication that youre writing better than most.

Not directly because of the publishing aspect, but because writing great novels does mean you're a better writer, and great novels get published.

I do think most here ask how to write better, but I find it's usually because they want their novels published, and writing better is how you make this happen.

[Liam Jackson]

Am I the only one who is more inspired to write by the really great novels, rather than by the mediocre ones? I can think of many writers who are better than I am by a wide margin, but I can't think of one I find intimidating.

Darned few of the great writers started off writing as well as they wrote later on.

James, I don't know if you're the only one, but I'm willing to bet you're in the minority. Just an opinion, but I think most people are self-limited by comparisons to acknowledged masters of the craft. I'm sure many people are inspired by reading Hemingway, Faulkner, Twain, or even a Dashiell Hammett. I'm equally sure that many people look at the end product of these writers, thinking such work came effortlessly, a monument to raw talent and nothing else. There's the hitch.

When most aspiring writers compare their current skill level to that of a highly polished professional, a master of the craft, it's only natural to feel a little intimidated. Especially if we don't stop and consider that the classic we're reading is the result of a combination of factors. Natural talent, acquired skill, years of writing, experimentation, polish and re-polish. (Yes, yes, there are exceptions. However, it's the infrequency that makes them exceptions)

I never met Mr. Hemingway or Mr. Dickens, but I'm willing to bet both gentlemen agonized over a paragraph or two in their time. I have to remind myself of that on occasion.

[pepperlandgirl]

Am I the only one who is more inspired to write by the really great novels, rather than by the mediocre ones? I can think of many writers who are better than I am by a wide margin, but I can't think of one I find intimidating.

Darned few of the great writers started off writing as well as they wrote later on.

I'm the same way. Instead of getting discouraged, I think, "Wow, that's so beautiful. I want something that beautiful with my name attached. Time to get to work!" Nothing more inspiring than a truly great piece of literature, AFAIC.

[oswann]

It's better to aim high, IMO, than low. It's a question of avoiding the Crap+1 theory. Although you are making potential comparisons to scary monsters of the business, and as daunting as it may seem, it's still better than reading mediocre books because you think - hey I can write at least as well as this rubbish.

Thinking this brings your target down to a level of writing just a little better than the worst crap you can find on the shelves.

Continue to read the best examples of the books you want to write, then write the best book you can.


Os.

[Liam Jackson]

Agreed, Os. It's all a matter of perspective, anyway. Do I want to merely rise above the mediocre, or do I have a loftier ambition? People have a funny way of working down to meet lowered expectations. May as well set 'em high in the beginning.

[Birol]

I have high expectations for myself, but I still find myself staring at my work sometimes and thinking, "Just who are you fooling?" It passes. It always does. After all, this is my story. Although I am the first to say it's not original, no one can tell it quite like I am. It probably just needs a little more tweaking to get it right.

[stranger]

If someone told me that 100% I'd never be published then I don't think I'd continue to write. No one can tell me that. But by reading other books I can decide how possible it is. So if I read a published book that I felt was medicore, that gives me hope. But I don't set out to read medicore books to make me feel better about my writing. (Though I can learn from what they did badly) And I wouldn't try to get my book published if I believed it was crap but just good enough to be published (though I guess every mother has a beautiful baby).
But when I visualize my finished book, I visualize it to be as good as my favourites. That is my goal. But it won't be. At least not my first one.

[Roger J Carlson]

I humbly agree with most of what has been said in this thread, except for what I quoted, above. There are always new things to write about.I didn't say there aren't new things to write about. I said there are no new stories. Though in a way I did mis-speak. I meant that for every story you write, you can find an analog or an archetype.

Methods of defining these have varied. Kurt Vonnegut said there were 3 basic plots: Horatio Alger ("Rags to Riches"), Snow White ("Rebirth"), and Kafka's Metamorphosis. Robert Heinlein said they were: Boy Meets Girl; The Little Tailor (a regular person caught up in big events); and The Man Who Learned Better.

There are a lot more, and you can find many here:
http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/plotFARQ.html

The point is that any story that you can conceivably write has been done before in some way. Our jobs as writers is to find a new way to tell an old story.

[Niku]

You know what does it for me, when im down, i watch a rocky movie. Sly always makes me belive in myself, as Rocky, that is. Find your voice, and shout my man.[/QUOTE]

Hi Jonny - the image of someone getting inspiration from Rocky movies made me giggle so I just want to thank you for brightening upa dreary Tuesday!

ps Am a girl!

[aruna]

"I never worry about imitation. By now EVERY story has already been told. There are no new stories. There is just retelling and EVERY author imitates some other author."


I don't agree with this at all. One of the reasons I started writing at all was because I couldn't find my own stories anywhere in literature. I was frustrated - I knew there were other stories, they were clamouring inside me; nobody had lived my life before, nobody had my point of view; it was entirley unique, and my stories are unique.
So are yours.
I was never insecure about the stories I had to tell. What I did feel insecure was my ability to write them down, to do justice to them. to actually finish a novel. I will never tire of recommending Dorothe Brande's Becoming a Writer : that is the book that told me that I could, and got those juices flowing.

You are unique. Tell your stories, don't worry about what others have done, and don't be intimidated. Yes, your craft has to be developed and that takes time; but I'm sure the literary greats also took time to master their craft. What we all need is faith.

[Niku]

Aruna - always interested to read your comments. You are clearly a passionate person. Care to divulge what you've written? I would love to have a read.

[aruna]

Aruna - always interested to read your comments. You are clearly a passionate person. Care to divulge what you've written? I would love to have a read.
Hi Niku, yes, sometimes I am a bit too passionate - about writing that is - I am not much good socially because that's all I want to talk about!
I am rather shy about what I have written but here goes; the one that is on amazon.com is

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0006514952/qid=1118850128/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-8136198-0205550?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

No more available there as it was never published in the US. Still on sale in the Uk though.

[Nateskate]

I have been wanting to write for the best part of my life but the older I get, the more pessimisitic I get about it- I read the likes of Marquez, Kundera and Kunzri and am simply in awe of their powers. I know I cannot match their literary gifts but I think I would end up trying, resulting in a pale imitation of their masterpieces. How do you break free from these negative impulses borne out of the very works that inspire you?

If I draw upon the same sources that other great writers have drawn upon, I'm not stealing, I'm doing what writers do. If I include them (these great writers) as the sources I've drawn upon, I've only done the same thing they've done.

Honestly, most fantasies are rehashed stories. When you find ones that are totally unique, they are either a masterpiece, or they are so out of the mainstream that few people will get them.

"By the way, good questions!"

[aruna]

I didn't say there aren't new things to write about. I said there are no new stories. Though in a way I did mis-speak. I meant that for every story you write, you can find an analog or an archetype.

Methods of defining these have varied. Kurt Vonnegut said there were 3 basic plots: Horatio Alger ("Rags to Riches"), Snow White ("Rebirth"), and Kafka's Metamorphosis. Robert Heinlein said they were: Boy Meets Girl; The Little Tailor (a regular person caught up in big events); and The Man Who Learned Better.

There are a lot more, and you can find many here:
http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/plotFARQ.html

The point is that any story that you can conceivably write has been done before in some way. Our jobs as writers is to find a new way to tell an old story.

Yes, I've heard the "only seven basic stories" theory; I just don't believe it! I don't like categorizing; if it comes to that there is only one basic story: we are born, we live and we die. Between being born and dying the variations are infinite, as many as there are people, whether real or fictional. Perhaps we can boil the themes, the goals, by which people live down to a few basic ones; but then again, I think there is only one: we all want happiness/love, every one of us; even the evildoer.

I think putting stories into cubbyholes is merely an intellectual game; it doesn't work for me. The moment I'd start thinking, OK, which of the seven basic stories am I writing? I am putting myself into a blueprint. And if I do it with the stories I have already written, and find that they don't fit into any of the archetypes, or on the other hand that they fit all, I just feel, Hogwash! And I don't care which great mind thought that one up! Just my 2c!

[reph]

People in this thread seem to be addressing two questions as if they were the same question. Writing in a unique voice (i.e., yours) is different from writing a unique story.

[aruna]

People in this thread seem to be addressing two questions as if they were the same question. Writing in a unique voice (i.e., yours) is different from writing a unique story.

I don't know if you are referring to me; but I am really speaking only of unique STORIES, not of author's voices. I do believe there are an infinite number of stories; every single one of us is living a different story, and our characters are no different from ourselves. I look at those lists of "seven basic whatevers" and I find them far too limiting. Neither my own story, nor any story I have createsd, fits into those neat categories.

[Roger J Carlson]

I don't know if you are referring to me; but I am really speaking only of unique STORIES, not of author's voices. I do believe there are an infinite number of stories; every single one of us is living a different story, and our characters are no different from ourselves. I look at those lists of "seven basic whatevers" and I find them far too limiting. Neither my own story, nor any story I have createsd, fits into those neat categories.Well, I suppose at some level everything is unique. Take two new pencils from the same package and put them under an electron microscope. Each will be unique. However at a higher level, the are identical.

Still, I don't insist you accept anyone's definition of unique, least of all mine. My only point is was to point out that imitation is not necessarily bad. Even though your story might be similar to one that has been published before, as long as you add something new -- a new perspective, a new idea, a new twist, whatever -- then the work is not just an "imitation".

[aruna]

[QUOTE=Roger J Carlson]Well, I suppose at some level everything is unique. Take two new pencils from the same package and put them under an electron microscope. Each will be unique. However at a higher level, the are identical.

QUOTE]

I see it the other way around.... at the highest level, the spiritual, we are identical. On the lower level, the level of our stories, we are as different and multiple as - well, as snowflakes! Unlike pencils....

[reph]

I don't know if you are referring to me; but I am really speaking only of unique STORIES, not of author's voices.
I was referring to all the posters as a group. The thread-starter-person (is there a handy word for that?) used the word "imitation." To me, imitating a well-known writer would mean adopting that writer's style. If you took Hemingway as a model, you'd use short sentences and few modifiers. You wouldn't necessarily write about bullfighting or make some kind of heroism your theme every time. But some people in the thread interpreted "imitation" as having to do with story skeletons.

[aruna]

I was referring to all the posters as a group. The thread-starter-person (is there a handy word for that?) used the word "imitation." To me, imitating a well-known writer would mean adopting that writer's style. If you took Hemingway as a model, you'd use short sentences and few modifiers. You wouldn't necessarily write about bullfighting or make some kind of heroism your theme every time. But some people in the thread interpreted "imitation" as having to do with story skeletons.


OK, get it. The thread kind of drifted in that direction - with a little help from yours truly!
When it comes to styly, I too am permanently insecure, but that may be a good thing. It's as if I can never find the perfect words for what I have to say.