"Goofing off"?

This kind of reminds me of a class I took last semester. We would sit down in class and the teacher would be kind of like " Your writing should show not tell, you know, like in that movie__________" And then everyone would start talking about movies for half the class, I am sorry, but movies really don't have anything to do with writing a novel.

Celia, there is nothing wrong with wanting to improve oneself. No one has the right to say who has the right to pursue what skills or how those skills should be used. We all have different priorities and different goals in life. Since this woman is now in a writing group, I'm assuming the teacher did not succeed in discouraging her from pursuing writing for her own reasons?

Aw, come on, everyone can write for any reason. If you don't want to get published you're not 'goofing off', you're just not writing for commercial reasons. I don't know how good a teacher she was, but that remark wasn't very professional of her/him.

If the name of the group is something like, "Creative writing with an eye toward publication" or "Creative writing with an eye toward a career in publication" then yeah, the instructor has every right to peg the lady as being a "goof off".

On the other hand, if the purpose of the group is simply to bring writers together and foster a sense of community, the instructor is way off base. Though, in my opinion, a fellow writer who has no goal of being published should be welcomed into any kind of circle without the stigma of "goof off" attached to their work.

That's just $h*tty, if you ask me.

If everybody in the group is all about marketing their stuff, that should't stop them from accepting an outsider into the ranks. I mean, the competition factor is at zero, and there's always the artistic angle to think about, so why not? Why cast this woman as some kind of inferior, just because she persues writing for it's own sake?

I see this tendancy with all circles of art - from music, to illustration/painting, to writing - this need of the ambitious faction to cut down their fellow artists, but I have to say, writers are the worst. Of writers, poets are the most vicious, but prose writers come in a close second. Musicians snipe at one another, but with nothing like the bloodlust of wordsmiths.

I don't know why that is. I guess if you want to write at all, you have to have a very thick skin, and be ready to give as good as you get in any kind of "group" situation.

The teacher's reply strikes me as rude. Since tone and body language are missing, I can't judge it with 100% confidence. The only way I can think of in which she might have meant it nicely is as an expression that the student was in an enviable position, not feeling the pressure of wanting to get published.

Sure it's rude. The woman should have left and demanded a refund. Still it sounds like the right group to join. Art schools offer welding classes for people interested in metalwork. I wouldn't hire one of them to build a bridge.

I've got a stack of home movies that I absolutely love. There's no effort at editing or capturing audience attention -- I'm happy enough if I can hold the camera steady. Good for her if she wants to write for herself. Are your goals the same?

My experience of a crit group is that good writing thrives on robust language. Also, it's hard to see how you a class can improve your writing unless it has a yardstick, most sensibly, publication.

Perhaps the teacher was quite legitimately worried that your friend would be a timewaster.

You know, I desperately want to be published and I've been working very hard to improve my writing. I don't take most things very seriously and have to battle inertia every day, but I care about being a good writer and ultimately, a published one.

But even with all this gravitas, even with the progress I have made, I get monstrous attacks of what if this is the most monumental waste of time I've ever perpetrated. It's funny, when I get like this, it's not a matter of anyone talking me out of it. I'm not looking for validation; I'm looking for motivation. Sometimes I end up settling for the lamest, thinnest 'reason' imaginable: that I love doing it. Oh, and then the mental and emotional contortions to arrive at the conclusion that it's reason enough.

I think it was very rude of that instructor to belittle that woman. It would be very interesting to hear perspective from someone who writes purely for their own enjoyment. There could be invaluable words of wisdom there to get the wannabes through the dark times. Like it or not, many of us will end up having only written to pass the time and prove our talent to a small group of family and friends.

I guess I'd take offence to it depending on the timing of the comment. If it was a lighthearted remark meant to be funny that didn't pan out, I wouldn't be bothered but would've thought she should've been more tactful. Maybe chose better words. Otherwise, yeah, it's pretty rude.

There's nothing wrong with writing just for the heck of it. I did it for years before I decided to start sending out my stuff.

I don't understand why someone who didn't want to get published would join a writing group anyway. Why bother formally trying to improve your work if no-one's going to see it? It's a bit like training at ballet school even though you claim you never want to dance in front of anyone. Why bother? The place could better be used by someone whose aim is professional recognition.

I can see both sides, I bet the course description did strongly imply publication as a goal. The comparison with acting may be apt. Acting in a small non-profit company makes sense--but why hone your skill to act along in the living room. Publishing embraces any audience including the non-paying from a website, small press, to major publisher. Writing is a from of communication that requires and audience somewhere along the line to have meaning? just my opinion of course.

Minor rant: <grabs nearest soapbox and pulls weary body onto it.>

Writers as a whole want one thing: to write. But the REASONS why they write are as varied as the stars in the sky. Mostly, they can be broken down into three categories, ALL OF WHICH HAVE EQUAL MERIT!

1. Those Who Write for Money. The group of writers who write solely for the purpose of putting food on the table are a special breed. For this writer, chasing from publisher to publisher for the highest paycheck is the goal. In order to keep the paychecks rising, they must appeal to the majority of readers in the world. Sales to public = value of author. Lack of remainders = value of author. Advance sales of next book = value of author. If an author gets a $5,000 per book advance this year, then that number had better be $8,000-10,000 next year, and so on. Thus, in order to keep the advances increasing, the author must constantly improve their skill, always look to the market for the next hot trend, work furiously to pump out book after book, lest the public forget their name. If the readers are buying paranormal, the author writes paranormal. If two years later, the readers want historical, then by golly -- historicals will start getting pumped out. EVERY story can be made exceptional. EVERY genre has merit. What the reader wants, the reader gets.

2. Those who write for art. The artist doesn't care if their books get a million readers, or if there are any paychecks. The goal is to move their readers --- to laughter, to tears, to rage and fury. All of these emotions can be had through the skill of the author. There is a warm sensation; a satisfaction in knowing your words created something real and powerful inside a person.

3. Those who write for themselves. Some writers have voices in their head -- powerful voices that cannot be stilled unless they pick up a trembling hand and write words on paper. These writers don't care whether ANYBODY ever reads their work. It can sit in a desk drawer for all of eternity and is just as real and powerful and moving without a single soul ever laying eyes on it. It's a tree in the forest that will exist, whether or not anyone ever admires it. It's quite possible that this writer will NEVER show their work to anyone -- not because it isn't good, but because it doesn't MATTER. This writer needs no validation of their skill, no soothing of their ego. They write because they can't NOT write.

The thing that so many writers forget as they step into a bookstore and see tables upon tables of displayed books is that there's no requisite to be one of them!

Despite what this instructor said, regardless of what the craft books say, no matter what every interview on every writing website and magazine says, there's only one truth in writing:

IT'S OKAY NOT TO WRITE FOR MONEY!


Now, I'm a #1 style writer. I DO write for money. There's nothing wrong with it, and I always presume that when people ask about writing, that they're asking about HOW to write for money. So, that's the response I give.

But even if I was a #2 or #3 writer, I'm a perfectionist. I would still be required, by my own internal drive, to become the best writer I could be. Just as I took the time to take classes in embroidery, and others take classes in pottery, or painting or soccer. There's no "goofing off" in toiling to improve your skills.

No goal of publication required. The instructor was wrong.

Thanks for responding, Cathy. I came back to respond after thinking of all the things I'd done and all the people I've known who have studied or undertaken to learn a new skill just for the sake of it. Some do it for self-improvement, some do it to have something to do, some do it so they might have a better appreciation of something they've always admired. In this regard, writing is no different than painting or woodworking or sewing or martial arts.

The only thing I might add to Cathy's insights is that it is possible to pursue a skill such as writing for a combination of the reasons she lists.

Cathy C said:

Writers as a whole want one thing: to write.

Click to expand...

I think I disagree with this. IMO, writers don't want to write, they want to be read. There's two sides to any writing relationship: the writer and the reader. If you have no intention of putting your writing in front of anyone besides yourself, then I don't understand why you would try to match the metrics expected by anyone besides yourself (i.e. why join a group?) I mean, if you just want to improve your communication skills, read any of the buh-jillion books on the subject, which deal with the creation, not the reception.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything wrong with writing for yourself. But typically groups are designed to help you by forcing you to match the expections of others in the group (or at least to introduce you to the expectations of others). There seems to be an imbalance here. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out a person who joined a group and said "I don't want to be published" actually means they secretly do want to be published but feel it would be foolish to hope for such a thing because of a lack of confidence or a fear that if they stated such a thing, their work would be looked at more closely and they'd be held up to a different set of standards than they're comfortable with. (Sort of the same way someone will illogically say "if there's something wrong with my health, I'd rather not know", which usually really means, "I hope there's nothing wrong with me, but I don't have the guts to find out".

This is probably sounding harsh, but it's just my opinion based on my experience. And I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from writing in any way, shape or form. But I just see this as wanting to play a game and make up your own rules.

Though I do agree that the phrase "goofing off" was a bad way of putting it. If that's how the person running the group worded it exactly, then maybe that's not a group to be associated with whatever the case.

I agree with the idea of your post, scribbler, but I disagree on your definition of a writer. In my view, a writer writes. An author, on the other hand, has readers. Everything else was straight out of my head, though!

I personally subscribe to Dr. Samuel Johnson's statement that, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." On the other hand, people ought to be free to write for whatever reasons they wish or for no reason at all. We spend too much time in this world laying down rules for everybody else so they will be compelled to act in accordance with our wishes, not their own.

AncientEagle said:

I personally subscribe to Dr. Samuel Johnson's statement that, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." On the other hand, people ought to be free to write for whatever reasons they wish or for no reason at all. We spend too much time in this world laying down rules for everybody else so they will be compelled to act in accordance with our wishes, not their own.

Click to expand...

I find my base motivation in another of Johnsons' quotes:

"Sir, he who would earn his bread writing books
must have the assurance of a duke, the wit of a courtier,
and the guts of a burglar."

Which probably explains a lot of my feelings on this subject.

We'll have to agree to disagree, scribbler. I know FAR too many writers who don't care one whit about the reader. They write because they have to get the stories in their head OUT, and putting them on paper is the ONLY way to do so. I embroider for the same reason. I don't care if anyone else sees it, or admires it. It's just for me, but I want it to be GOOD.

But I do like the Johnson quote -- I think I qualify...

My $0.02

I'm with Cathy -- & not just because I'm a #2/3 depending on the day. Sure, it'd be nice to make my living writing fiction, but I just don't have it in me to use my writing for the sole purpose of pleasing others. I write because people pull up chairs inside my head & tell me about their lives, I write because I want to know what happens next. If, someday, readers grow to love those people who live in my head too, that'll be wonderful bonus -- but I don't need it. Just like I didn't need to learn how to play the violin or do Tae Kwon Do forms or bake bread. Learning for its own sake is highly underrated; everyone should try it. Or, at the very least, not judge someone who does it. Even though I've studied very hard for over 10 years to become the best writer I can be (and am far from finished studying), publication isn't my #1 goal -- developing my voice & my style is. If nobody ever thinks it's good, so be it. It'll still be mine.

On second thoughts there is also the fact that you shouldn't insult people who pay to be taught by you, even when you do disagree with there goals

I will confess i'm not sure why someone would take a writing class if they weren't writing to be read at all. maybe they're not writing for publication, but if they're not going to show their friens or anything i don't why a course would be necessary.

after all, writing training is centered around the concept of the reader. common advice for newbies involves how to make a reader interested in your story, making sure readers understand what's gong on, hownot to bore readers and so on. If your goal is simply to write for your own amusement, just put on a page whatever you're feeling in a journalistic or therapeutic way, I don't think a professional can teach you how to do that better. if you're writing purely for fun, you do what you find fun, and you know what that is, not the teacher.

Regarding the publication issue, my guess is that the teacher anticipated a negative attitude. people oftne get defensive about their writing, and the teacher probably fgeared this person was going to resist advice and improvemenets, saying "I'm not interested in publishing, I'm just writing this for myself, and i can do it the way i want." it may be true, but if you're writing only for yourself, a classroom isn't the right environment.

It was still a rude remark, and It seems like jumping to conclusions, but i can see where the teacher was coming from.