I think of it this way— every “rule” (I prefer to think of guidelines) achieves a particularly result, and that’s the reason for the guideline. Sometimes a guideline keeps you from doing something you want to do, and then you choose. But you should always be conscious of what you gain and lose by following a guideline, formula, etc.
My view is that you need to know why you’re breaking a rule, but also why you’re following a rule. What is that rule supposed to be doing for you? If you don’t know the answer to that, it’s a problem.
I like Kerry too, but one reason he can improvise so well is because he writes very short stories. I’m not sure he could pull that off with longer stories, much less, say novels. But I’m in agreement with what you say about the teaching of writing.
You’re absolutely correct about Keret, his method works for short length stories and in interviews he has talked about this. He’s not interested in writing novels.
There are two novelists I like who are/were improvisational and have written many short novels, Cesar Aira and George Simenon, but they are both highly unusual exceptions to your valid point. Simenon did some revising and polishing after writing a novel in a burst of speed over a week or so, and Aira writes maybe a few pages a day and doesn’t revise much. All three of these writers are mostly improvisational and revise far less than most top drawer writers. The two novelists are writing novellas, mostly. I think it’s fair to say that they are all pretty idiosyncratic and as much as I like all three, i don’t think their methods (each one does it a little differently) would work for most people.
Mostly when I read writers who claim to largely avoid editing, they don’t impress me the way these three do. The avoidance of editing usually leads to subpar work, in my opinion.
I suspect there are a lot of writers who disagree with me on this and I wouldn’t be inclined to argue with them, as I prefer to not slam particular authors publicly. There are improvisational writers who edit very little and have their fans, certainly. But the three I’m talking about here are the ones who do it the best, for me.
On another note, is that the doggie you're always talking about?
The pictures dog is actually a special guest dog— I was at rehearsal at Dr. Matt’s house and that is one of his many dogs.
It's always good to know the rules so you can break them and know you're breaking them and why. (I read that somewhere.)
I think of it this way— every “rule” (I prefer to think of guidelines) achieves a particularly result, and that’s the reason for the guideline. Sometimes a guideline keeps you from doing something you want to do, and then you choose. But you should always be conscious of what you gain and lose by following a guideline, formula, etc.
Yes, Karl, be conscious of the "why".
My view is that you need to know why you’re breaking a rule, but also why you’re following a rule. What is that rule supposed to be doing for you? If you don’t know the answer to that, it’s a problem.
I attended a writing workshop once, and afterwards, the writer who ran the workshop used to email me. It has helped.
If I wanted to write songs, I would make sure I knew music first.
I like Kerry too, but one reason he can improvise so well is because he writes very short stories. I’m not sure he could pull that off with longer stories, much less, say novels. But I’m in agreement with what you say about the teaching of writing.
You’re absolutely correct about Keret, his method works for short length stories and in interviews he has talked about this. He’s not interested in writing novels.
There are two novelists I like who are/were improvisational and have written many short novels, Cesar Aira and George Simenon, but they are both highly unusual exceptions to your valid point. Simenon did some revising and polishing after writing a novel in a burst of speed over a week or so, and Aira writes maybe a few pages a day and doesn’t revise much. All three of these writers are mostly improvisational and revise far less than most top drawer writers. The two novelists are writing novellas, mostly. I think it’s fair to say that they are all pretty idiosyncratic and as much as I like all three, i don’t think their methods (each one does it a little differently) would work for most people.
Mostly when I read writers who claim to largely avoid editing, they don’t impress me the way these three do. The avoidance of editing usually leads to subpar work, in my opinion.
I suspect there are a lot of writers who disagree with me on this and I wouldn’t be inclined to argue with them, as I prefer to not slam particular authors publicly. There are improvisational writers who edit very little and have their fans, certainly. But the three I’m talking about here are the ones who do it the best, for me.