Do you sometimes feel like a liar/fake?

I think a lot of "fly-by-the-seat" writers feel that way. I never intended for A LOT of what is in my book to be there.
YOU were the one who told me why it was a good idea for Oliver not to want to touch the books. Other betas found things I didn't realize. I didn't know some of it was there. I didn't realize how much a couple of my readers found in the Gretchen scene with Eric fighting with the furniture, or how Eric sinking into the shadow was such a physical representation of his internal struggle. I just tried to write a good story.
Also, I don't think you have to know all the fancy words for what makes up a good story to be a good storyteller, you don't have to understand all of the themes of your work when you write it the first time. They appear in the dig and if you're lucky, you brush them off and they are the artifacts other people will cherish that you never knew were anything special way back when you buried them in your story. Some people come by that uncovering and dusting off naturally. You don't know you are doing it because it is so a part of your nature. But you read it in others, I know you do - in published and unpublished work - you do it. It's easier to see in someone else's work - they probably think they didn't mean for it to be there too.
We all feel like fakes. I think we will continue to feel that way for as long as we write.

I'm going to find that Dean Koontz link again, I think you'll like what he has to say. Here

Take heart, not knowing you put it there doesn't negate the skill and talent it takes to put it there.

KTC said:

My once-a-month critique group just ended. It was my month to be critiqued. I sat listening as the rest of the group discussed my story. They speak of under currents and plots and threads and characters having arcs and stuff I just don't get. They speak of all these things I didn't know I was doing. I feel I should feel good about it...that I get these things between my lines and that they all seemed to pull the same stuff out of it...but I feel more like a big fake than anything else. I don't know how I could do all these things without setting out to do them and I don't know if I should argue with them and say, "wasn't me". I was sitting there in awe of what they were telling me...but then I just started to feel unattached to my own work. How could I have missed everything? They speak of nuance and other things and I become puzzled. Do you ever get the feeling that your readers are reading something other than the piece you wrote? How do you deal with that? Do you try to convince them that it was all accidental...do you try to say that you didn't intend what they got out of it, but that you intended this and that instead? I guess it's up to the reader to take out of a story what they will...but how could I be so blind to all this under current stuff...it just sounded so pretentious...

Do you ever feel completely lost like you have no goddamned idea what you're doing? When you do, do you just go along for the ride? How can I own what I write when it's not what they're reading?



KTC's meltdown #275

Click to expand...

I'm not clever enough to write undercurrents, etc. My stories are pretty much linear and on the surface. If the undercurrent's so great why don't they make it the main story instead? Pretentiousness? Yep, I see alot of that crap. Buit you see that in any profession. I'd just thank them for the assessments and move on.

Heck, I feel like a phony typing a story.

I like what Tom Robbins said in his NaNoWriMo pep talk.

you simply pack your imagination, your sense of humor, a character or two, and your personal world view into a little canoe, push it out onto the vast dark river, and see where the currents take you. And should you ever think you hear the sound of dangerous rapids around the next bend, hey, hang on, tighten your focus, and keep paddling---because now you're really writing, baby!

Click to expand...

I think if you've done that much, the rest falls into place. Your critique group is noticing character arcs and whatnot because that's what they're looking for. And if they're finding it, that's a good thing, whether you did it deliberately or not.

God, I love Tom Robbins. I always have, but that quote makes me love him more.
s
Kevin, just jump. And when you hit the ground, do a flip then land on your feet, just stand there and smile. Smile like you meant to do that.

Do I feel like a liar/fake? No. Because I don’t consider myself a writer, an expert in the writerly rules and I know my weaknesses. If I write something and others interpret it as something else, then I didn’t communicate it properly.

Now, do I feel completely lost? Hell yeah! Knowing my weaknesses and trying to fix them creates turmoil from head to pen.

Writing and reading are different things, with different tool kits; literary analysis, which is a subset of reading, has a very specialized tool kit all its own.

People can write intuitively, and that's totally valid. However, there really isn't a way to critique intuitively--so people who are critiquing are going to drag out the tool kits of literary analysis, and those include concepts like "undercurrents" and "foreshadowing".

But that's all post-hoc analysis. If someone's an intuitive writer, they may well have undercurrents and foreshadowing and mimetic re-representation and all of that other stuff in their work, but have done it all by ear rather than consciously.

That doesn't make you a fake, or them pretentious. It just reflects different processes and approaches in action.

Did it feel like the critiques were wrong, or off base? Or were you just put off by the language people were using? A "character arc," for instance, is a specific name for something that most people understand intuitively--the shape of a character's emotional/psychological journey. Obviously, you meant your characters to have emotional and psychological journeys and development, even if you didn't use the words "character arc" when thinking about it.

Personally, I believe a writer is writer, is a writer. It's in you to write.

You are not a one dimensional being. You have aspects of your own self that are a part of who you are at all times that you are not even aware of your own self. If that weren't true, there would be absolutely no need for psychoanalysis or introspection and such.

Sometimes, it takes a best friend or a close family member to bring to our attention characteristics about ourself that we stumble past everyday.

It those great moments of trials and tribulations that are always extremely revealing of who we are and what we're made of.

I think it's all those buried thoughts/feelings/characteristics of who we are that leak out into our stories and part of the thrill, for me, is being suprised at discovering things about oneself.

kid

The only time I ever feel that way, is when I write a good story. That's because my good stories didn't have outlines; they just happened.

And I most certainly have had critiques where people said I implied this or that, where I had no such intention. I'm sure you could take any written work out there, and find something -- heck, a lot of somethings! -- that the author never dreamed of.

So yeah, I feel like a flake sometimes, especially when I have to hand over the controls to my characters and let them tell the story. It's not fun at first, but it's a lot more satisfying to me when I do go along for the ride.


--Sean

*raises hand* Yes.

I agree with what a lot of people have said here. If you read a lot and also write, the techniques work themselves into your head whether you're consciously thinking about it or not.

Liar and fake? Nah. Fabulously lucky scam artist? Yup.

One of my writing profs once described the best writers as idiot/savants. People who didn't even have a clue what they were doing. It was why he mocked the idea that you could learn anything about a writer's work by listening to them talk about it. "What do they know about what they've written?" he said.

Feeling like that today actually!

"Ever feel like you're blind reaching for fire?"

What a fantastic line! Did you mean to do that?

The most difficult thing for me is when people get all writerly on me. They pull things apart and analyze things that I didn't intend. I just try to tell my story as best I can and hope for the best.

I don't sit and think, "hmmm..where should my story arch? what nuance shall i give this scene." I just write.

If it helps, I love your poetry. I don't analyze it. I just love it. It brings me places and that's all that matters to me.

Yes! At the Inprint Series book reading I went to last night, though, something wonderful happened.

After an author named Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie sat down for a question/answer period, a member of the audience stood up and asked, "Were the sisters in your novel a metaphor for [yada, yada, yada]?"


She smiled and said, "No. They were just part of the story."


And then everyone laughed. She went on to note that she is constantly amazed at the amount of things people glean from her novels that weren't put there intentionally.

KTC said:

Do you ever get the feeling that your readers are reading something other than the piece you wrote? How do you deal with that?

Click to expand...

Yeah, quite often. I just smile and go with the ride. I think true literature is done subconsciously. And I appreciate people read things between the lines which I didn't consciously put in there, but who am I to argue? Granted, I think sometimes people do put too much into something -- what? the color red means NOTHING! Don't put words in my mouth -- and make the work seem deeper and more complex than it actually is. But again, who am I to argue with them? And if they think I'm deeper than I really am, so be it. I don't mind.

But yeah, I feel like a fake/fraud all the time. Enjoy it. It means you're an artist!

KTC said:

Well, I certainly feel like an idiot. Savant? Not so much. Thanks all for your feedback. Red...you really hit on something there that I hope is true. "What do they know about what they've written?" That's how I felt tonight as they discussed my excerpt. How does your work grow once it leaves you? It's just a bizarre concept to me. Maybe the others have the same experience and they're just not nutty enough to say it out loud when it freaks them out. Thanks for the links Trish and Dev...it's good to see stuff like that...really. I always feel like 'they' have some omnipotent power and know how to do everything just the right way. It seems 'they' are just as stumbling. I just feel completely in the dark when people tell me stuff about my writing. I felt myself being hauled in... but then I felt compelled to say, "Stop right there. I'm not that savy. I did not do that on purpose. I didn't even mean for that to happen." Then you don't want them to think that you're just floating around like a I don't know what not knowing what you're doing but just hoping the words land on the page in the right order. It's disconcerting. Yes, Icecream...maybe I can get behind that different process thing. Sounds less like I just don't know what I'm doing. I'm such a flake. I just feel the need to understand the process. Ever feel like you're blind reaching for fire?

Click to expand...

Your stories appear on your page. You feel like they do it without much input from you. This happens to a lot of writers including some really famous ones. It is a gift. Take comfort, Dean Koontz never intended for clowns. You never intended for bloodbirds. I never intended for Ernest Hemingway.
You pluck a character from your head and pray you were the right person to pull the story from the space between us all. You hope you are the right story teller. Just trust it and go. You're not a flake.

You no more a nutter than I am.

Oh, wait...that wasn't very comforting was it?

kdnxdr said:

"Ever feel like you're blind reaching for fire?"

What a fantastic line! Did you mean to do that?

Click to expand...

I like the character arc and the underrcurrent of emotion. It's clear the author is alluding to a higher metaphysical/sandwich making plane than you or I mere mortals have ever attained.

Cognitive scientists often say that only 1% of our cognition is conscious. (It's a made-up number, but it's in the right ballpark).

So why would we want to write with only our conscious minds? We can probably do way better if our unconscious processes are affecting the story too So I'd call this a good thing.

Shweta said:

Cognitive scientists often say that only 1% of our cognition is conscious. (It's a made-up number, but it's in the right ballpark).

Click to expand...

Well, my game got rained out!

I read that feeling like a fraud or fake is common among people with Asperger's. Now, I know it to be common among highly creative people in general. So, one might infer, the more you have this feeling, the more creative you may be.

People can write intuitively, and that's totally valid. However, there really isn't a way to critique intuitively--so people who are critiquing are going to drag out the tool kits of literary analysis, and those include concepts like "undercurrents" and "foreshadowing".


I think that's right and for many people any attempt to apply the external apparatus of literary crit to work which they see from the inside is incredibly unhelpful.

But that's all post-hoc analysis. If someone's an intuitive writer, they may well have undercurrents and foreshadowing and mimetic re-representation and all of that other stuff in their work, but have done it all by ear rather than consciously.

I agree. I had a big online argument years ago when some established writer claimed that any writer worth his salt had a subtext or some thematic element going on in his work. I remember being quite cross and claiming categorically that there was nothing of the sort going on in my then, just published novel.
There was, but I couldn't see it for a good many years. Sometimes that stuff is simply a reflection of your particular world view and it is only evident to someone who doesn't entirely share it or your approach to writing.
These days I am much more aware of those kind of things, but only after I've writen them, never before.

My crit group read more than I intended into my work all the time. When I hear their lofty interepretation, I just prefer to think, "Wow, I'm smarter than I thought!"

If you write convincing characters in a realistic setting, I think all of that stuff will come out on its own. It's only natural, and you should be proud of doing so, even if it wasn't deliberate. When you release your work into the world, it belongs as much to the reader as it does to you. It's really a beautiful thing when you think about it -- one story can have so many different meanings depending on whose hands it falls into.

Nicole