So I know that Joyce Carol Oates is all legit and shit because she's written about as many novels and short stories as George Clooney's switched lovers, and I also know that as English major - especially one emphasizing in creative writing who's been writing short fiction since she was six years old and plans to pursue it like a war criminal - I'm supposed to have read a good chunk of her stuff and have some really interesting critiques to make about her work, but in all honesty, I just don't understand what the big deal is about her.
I read "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" and it was
fantastic {Arnold Friend is the creepiest of creeps - and I bet he was a damn fun character to write}, but the other stories I've been fed by her just didn't do it for me. So I stopped looking into it. I love and appreciate the cannon and all, but I'm pretty free-spirited when it comes to my reading choices, and I figure that if I'm going to seriously spend my time on a book or a story in an attempt to learn from it, it might as well be something I thoroughly enjoy {like
Aimee Bender or
Robin Romm - my particular favorites}.
Anyway, I'm bringing her up because I hear she's got this
insane writing regiment where she writes every morning for, like, 16 hours or something {and I am probably completely exaggerating because writing for 16 hours in the morning would make it not morning by the time one was done writing, unless one wakes up at, like, midnight to write - and not that I know Joyce, but that doesn't really seem like something she would do [or maybe it just doesn't seem like something
I would do...hmmm...]} and has these set word counts she has to meet. Completely on her own volition. And it's not like I have anything against this - it definitely shows a hell of a lot of discipline and dedication, and above everything else it makes you prolific as hell. And because of those things, I can see it being a good approach to writing. If it works.
But that's the problem. I think it's very rare that it does.Nothing against dear old Joyce, but I'm sort of convinced that this little boot-camp-style routine she has going on is probably why I haven't enjoyed a majority of what I've read from her. Of course they're all publishable {after all, they were published}, and of course they were well-crafted, well-written, and displayed a strong grasp of the necessary mechanics, but they were missing that x-factor, that
umph that gives a story staying power in the minds of those who read it. Not to mention, a routine like that is bound to force at least writers like me into the frame of mind that I have to write
something or else I haven't done my job, that I have be constantly producing new work, and who cares if it's interesting or up to par or a good representation of the kinds of things I want to write and be credited for writing, as long as it's got my name on it and a paycheck attached, right?
One thing I know for sure about myself as a writer, is the fact that I think of writing as more of a calling than a profession. I've always done it, and, more importantly, I've always loved doing it. It sounds totally cliche, but it's so natural, so instinctual, so intrinsic that I don't even have to think about it, really. It's like that line Whoopi Goldberg was quoting from
Letters to a Young Poet in
Sister Act 2 when she was telling a young Lauren Hill {whatever happened to Lauren Hill, anyway? She was a pretty awesome chick!} that if she wakes up in the morning and she can't think about anything but singing first, "then you're supposed to a singer, girl." When I wake up in the morning {and I'm pretty sure this is what that line in
Letters to a Young Poet actually is}, the first thing I think about is what stories lie in wait for me today, what pieces of overheard conversations I can weave into the perfect scene for the perfect effect, what else {because there are so, so many things} I want to say;
the first thing I think about is writing. It's an obvious answer to a daunting, "Why?" question, and for that I've always felt like I shouldn't have to bother explaining it. I've always seen it as something that happened
to me first, and now I'm just actively striving to reach the zenith of its potential.
And just like you can't teach someone to write like Nabokov or, hell, Shakespeare, you can't force good writing to happen. It just does.I guess I'm just more of the "inspiration" school of writing. My story ideas come to me when I'm lying around in bed ignoring my alarm for the zillionth time, or when I'm in line at the grocery store pretending that I'm not listening to the fighting couple in front of me even though I totally am, or when I'm snooping around in my kitchen cabinets and I find an entire box full of matches in vintage matchboxes because apparently my dad's stepfather collected matches from his travels all over the world and I never knew that and now they're just chilling on the top shelf of a cabinet and I'm thinking, Hey, that could make a really cool image or scene or metaphor or
something. All the times I've made it a point to sit down in front of my computer and write something, nothing good has ever come out. It's a day spent hitting backspace, a day spent second-guessing - and so
why don't I just calm down and wait for it to happen to me? Because in the past, it always has. And I've always been happy with what's come out.
So, I'm not sure if any of that made sense, and I'm pretty sure this is one of the most structurally disorganized posts I've ever written, but if I say it was stream of consciousness that makes it more legit so, yeah, let's call it that. And you know what, I'm sure plenty of writers benefit from set deadlines and the like; I'm sure there are many cases in which the process works. So let me open up the floor to you all and
your writing process. I'm waiting, and I'm all ears!
...
