Suffering: Necessary to be a great writer?

Uh...


Do you mean a "masterpiece of Literature" as in: A) A stuffy, boring, impossible to read tome of dull characters pontificating on the meaning of life that they make people read in Literature class

or

B) An exciting, well written novel that people read because they want to, not because a teacher is telling them too.

If it's A, I think it is, because a lot of "Literature" that I've read can be summed up as "Share my Crummy Childhood". If it's B, then no. Cause I like to think that I write good, and my life has been uniformly pleasant, with the exception of four run-ins with a psychopathic doll. But he can't possible come back again. No chance of that...none at all.

I'm not sure. Suffering is a key element to conflict, so I guess it could be of great help to a writer's mindset when putting those emotions to paper.

I'd say no, but it probably doesn't hurt.

By that I mean, I've been in workshops with young MFAs who are great writers, but they can't tell a story because it seems like they don't have a lot to write about––they seem to be lacking in life experience to draw upon.

I think people, writers included, confuse suffering with just having a diverse, experiential life.

Depends on the author. We me it's a big no. I write much better the better I feel.

I think you've posed an excellent question. Suffering is inherent in the human condition, whether it's obvious, blatant suffering or more subtle forms. For a writer to look deeply between the lines, I do think there's an element of suffering that needs to be experienced first-hand, if only from the standpoint of comprehension.

I'd say not. Good empathy skills and an imagination go a long way...

I agree with Johnzakour, (although, maybe we're not, or never will be, great), I too write better the better I feel, and I'd like to add that writing better makes me feel better. So who knows, maybe one day I'll feel so good that the writing will be great...

I'm starting to feel pretty good now!!!

JoNightshade said:

Here's the topic: Is the experience of suffering in the author's life a necessary component of the creation of a masterpiece of literature?

Click to expand...

Great topic...quick answer...no. Suffering is not necessary, per se.

On the other hand, creating a masterpiece, creating a truly great work almost certainly implies great suffering, because greatness is so incredibly difficult to achieve. But again, it's not necessary.

If you're Orson Welles, then you crap greatness...take a look at one frame of Orson acting in Macbeth (which he also directed).

If you're Picasso, you blink and greatness falls from your hands. Look at at the totality of his work...it's unbelievable.

If you're Stephen King, then your laundry list has the voice of greatness.

If you're not...get in line bucko...because if a masterpiece is on your 'to do list'....if you have the ambition and desire for greatness flowing through your veins, then...YOU...WILL...SUFFER.

I don't think so.

If you're talking about emotional suffering, then a good many writers don't deal with that theme in their novels at all, so it would seem that they've either (a) not faced it in their lives or they (b) aren't interested in it as a trope. Either way, suffering would seem to not be "necessary" for these writers.

And if you're talking about financial suffering, I don't think that is "necessary" for a writer, either. A good example would be authors who deal with upper class themes, such as the new novel by Dana Vachon called Mergers and Acquisitions. Vachon went to Duke; growing up he lived, by his own admission, a pretty quaint lifestyle. And it is exactly those kinds of things that show up in this novel, so you could make the argument that a lack of "suffering" -- at least in a financial sense -- helped him become the writer he is.

JamieFord said:

By that I mean, I've been in workshops with young MFAs who are great writers, but they can't tell a story because it seems like they don't have a lot to write about––they seem to be lacking in life experience to draw upon.

Click to expand...

I dissagree...I'm a young writer, 17, and I have a lot of stories to tell. But then again, I read a lot, do a lot and generally think a lot.

But but then then again again, how can life expirence help you when writing about a giant space ship that eats planets.

If I was Galactus, it might help...

I wrote well before a tramatic happening in my life, but it seems to me, I write it better now because of going through the phases of grief and anguish of my loss and the way it happened. It's like traveling in the USA then traveling in Europe. Major difference and one that matures you, which adds credence to your writing.

This question is allied to the great myth that only through suffering and pain can great art arise. There are certainly many artists who have fallen into that category, but I think if you study their lives, you’ll find that their creative output was not a result of their suffering as much as it was their way of dealing with it, their attempt to keep themselves sane in the face of mental anguish.

Many jazz musicians ruined their lives trying to emulate Charlie Parker, who happened to be a junkie. So they started shooting up, to “suffer” as he did, hoping to catch some of his passion and brilliance. It didn’t help their music any--they just became second rate players with a habit.

Creativity can come just as easily from balance and connection to the universe. Only if you are balanced can you let it flow through you. It’s certainly easier on your psyche. Art that comes out of suffering can be powerful and raw, but art that comes from balance is subtle and deep in a way that defies description. The whole art as suffering thing is a very Western concept, just as art as balance is very Eastern.

I have to admit I was in the “artists suffer” camp when I was younger. I write music, and I could only create when I was at my most desperate and depressed. Nowadays, unhappiness is a nothing but a bar to my creativity. My music is stronger, more centered, and more real--and a lot more fun. Is it better? I think so, but of course that’s for others to judge.

Art through suffering is one way, but not the only way, and how much talent you have doesn’t depend on your state of mind. And talent plus work is what produces art.

(None of this applies to creative geniuses-- Mozart, Picasso, etc. because nothing applies to them. That’s what makes them geniuses.)

I'm in the 'no' camp. That's mostly because of personal experience though. I was an acting major in college and boy - you want to see a group of people who try to out-suffer one another, that's the place to go. Basically, I got tired of the "I've had such a hard life and I'm going to be SUCH a dramatic actor because of it and, by the way, I'm doing drugs because of it too!" Ugh. Get over it. I purposely tried to never talk about anything bad that ever happened in my life because I didn't want to be like that. I was possibly the only cheerful person in my class.

That said, I think sometimes when you're down and out and the only way is up, you will start working to get there. That could be the beginnings of a good book.

All my books tend to be about the MC watching someone suffer, and being unable to relate.

So...no, in my case. I've just got to be able to recognize it.

ETA: Ironic that this is post 666?

Pain is a fact of life, but suffering is always optional.

That being said, I think a certain degree of dissatisfaction with life is necessary for a writer. After all, if we didn't think we could improve the world any, why would we try to contribute something to it? I mean, isn't there at least a subconscious belief that the world will be a better place if our stories are in it? I would also say that the keen powers of observation that are necessary to the novelists profession can often lead to unhappiness. There's a lot of misery in the world and that misery is often the germ for great literature.

But whether the artist suffers for his art is always up to the artist himself. It's certainly possible to be a happy writer. We just don't get to hear about those people all that much.

Oo! Oo! I'm happy and I'm a writer! You can hear about me! I woke up this morning, was content, had breakfast, went to see a movie with freinds, met my ex-girlfreind, had a cordial talk with her, came home, had dinner, wrote a lot about a psychopathic robot that likes "Silence of the Lambs" and then started blathering here...

And yes, the world would be better with more laughter in it. That's what I am here for, I am here to make people happy. There are enough sadsacks in the world for me to make a tear jerker, right. My duty, my sworn duty, is to make as many people smile as possible.

So far, my lowest has been two people in one day. I've tried to never get that low again.

What an interesting thread!

I am surprised to see all the positive-inspired writers ....... What do I know.?

My best writing has always been done when I'm down and suffering. I've always been more inspired by my lows than my highs.

This would all make a very interesting psych-study --- don't you think?

I guess I'm going to go out on a limb here and say yes, which is ironic because when I read the topic I thought it would be overflowing with responses in the yes camp.

First, let's look at it objectively. I googled 'list of the greatest novels' (hows that for impartial research?) and clicked on the first one I found. Just in the top 10, I found works by Joyce (family struggled with poverty at times, he also had a tendency to alcoholism) Fitzgerald (also, an alcoholic) Nabokov(had to deal with political unrest, synesthesia, problems in his family) Huxley ( I won't pass judgment on his drug use, but you get the idea) Faulkner (adulterer, alcholic) ... the list goes on.

Obviously, correlation does not imply causation, and increased scrutiny of these individuals may reveal seeming causes of personal distress, while their subjective measure of well being may have been unaffected. But when you think about all the greatest artists, they almost always have some degree of personal suffering associated with him (happy artists, after all, don't cut off their ears or meet their demise staring down a shotgun.)

Think about it another way; the Brady Bunch might be a great show (I mean, somebody might think it's a great show...) but is it a masterpiece of film? The number one movie on imdb's top 250 is the godfather, and is in the company of schindler's list and one flew over the cuckoo's nest. Cheery tales, all. Strangely, happy feet isn't on the list, and Shrek doesn't appear until #211. People, in general, tend to view a work of art that features suffering, as superior, as it's an emotion to which we can all very easily relate, and the artist's ability to recreate emotion is an often used measure of a work of art's effectiveness. (And if we can't relate to suffering readily, we have bigger problems than being unable to appreciate art.)

Does that mean that the author has to suffer in order to be able to create a true masterpiece? No, not strictly. But they do say 'write what you know.' And no matter how good of an imagination you have, it's no substitute for the real experience.

Maybe if people were less obsessed with misery and sadness, then the world would be a better place. And add to that, warfare, guns and violence.

rugcat said:

This question is allied to the great myth that only through suffering and pain can great art arise. There are certainly many artists who have fallen into that category, but I think if you study their lives, you’ll find that their creative output was not a result of their suffering as much as it was their way of dealing with it, their attempt to keep themselves sane in the face of mental anguish.

Click to expand...

Excellent response to an excellent question. Yes, the bolded bit is the answer.
I'm in the "yes" camp, but only if the writer has learned about him/herself and grown through sufferening, and come out the other side. Somebody who spends their life in anguish - mental, physical, or any other kind - and doesn't know how to deal with it, in fact is swamped by it, cannot produce great, fully rounded characters, likewise someone who knows only blue skies and flowers cannot fully plumb the depths of the human condition. I believe that in the latter case the writing will remain shallow, and in the former it will just be a depressive wallow through a swamp - NOT great.

Zoombie said:

But but then then again again, how can life expirence help you when writing about a giant space ship that eats planets.

Click to expand...

You migfht be able to imagine a great space story, but it's the characters that make great literature- how do they feel? Can you make them three dimensional, if you have not known first hand the heights and depths of what it means to be alive?

When I wrote my first book, it was during one of the hardest periods of my life. I was struggling to keep myself from drowning in my misery. Everything was going wrong, and I was freezing to death in a house without heating - and I HATE the cold, having grown up inthe tropics. I wrote in full winter gear, including gloves! Writing kept me warm and sane; I put all I had into it, and in fact the periods when I was writing during that time were the only happiness I had - it was like an escape to another world, and the book that came out of it is anything else BUT depressive. When it went out into the world it found an agent and publisher like snap; everyone seemed to love it and were uplifted by it. It was my breakthrough novel.

OK, it's not a masterpiece, but I do know that it was produced through suffering, and that if I had not suffered and tried to save myself I would not have written it.

I don't want to be confrontational, Zoombie, but that would suggest that if people were less obsessed with disease and health care the world would be a healthier place.
The way to treat a problem is to get to it's very root and understand it, and solve it from the inside out, not to ignore it.

aruna said:

You migfht be able to imagine a great space story, but it's the characters that make great literature- how do they feel? Can you make them three dimensional, if you have not known first hand the heights and depths of what it means to be alive?

Click to expand...

I like to think so.

I don't want to be confrontational, Zoombie, but that would suggest that if people were less obsessed with disease and health care the world would be a healthier place.
The way to treat a problem is to get to it's very root and understand it, and solve it from the inside out, not to ignore it.

Click to expand...

Oh no, no, no...I'm not offended at all. Hmm...didn't think of that. In case no one else notices, I often come to a conclusion really fast and forget to think through annoying little details like that. But recently, I've started listening to people who wiser than I. That is a very good point...I'll have to ruminate.

Thank you the counterpoint to my argument, and what I think you're trying to get at, would be the corresponding analogy that 'if you pick at a wound, it's less likely to heal and more likely to get infected.'

So, I think I'll settle with a more balanced position: art that addresses suffering like medicine addresses a disease is good; it helps you work through your own suffering and heal yourself. Art that just wantonly recreates suffering for suffering's sake is at best, unhelpful, and at worst, destructive, like picking at a wound.