Now that I have your attention, I'll have you know that this thread has nothing to do with sex. But while you're here:
I just discovered an intelligent TV show (who knew?) which was interviewing a novelist about his experiences in writing. Unfortunately I didn't catch the writer's name, because I tuned in half way through the show.
One thing he mentioned was the idea that writers will often start by producing derivative works based on the style and content of authors they admire, but which lack the emotional honesty of the works being imitated; like a fake orgasm. This might be due to inexperience in writing, or due to the fact that the author might not have lived enough yet. For this reason, a lot of what one writes during adolescent may read like a false orgasm.
Would you agree? Disagree? Is second hand poetry insincere?
If you agree, how does an author write about emotions and events which are far outside his/her experience? Is it impossible to write of such things with the same maturity that an author who has experienced them would write about them?
Many great authors only started writing later in life, or wrote on the side. Others have always lived in a world of literature and have read to make up for what they didn't get a chance to live out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For this reason, a lot of what one writes during adolescent may read like a false orgasm.
I guess that explains 'eragon!'
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I actually completely, 100% agree with that sentiment. If you haven't lived it, then it will almost always come across as insincere. "Fake orgasm" is an interesting way of describing it because just as with the false orgasm, some people will be better at faking it than others.
"Eragon" popped into my head when I read that post. Glad I wasn't the only one.
This doesn't mean that people can't write young, That's a good time to start and most writers start out by imitating others (much like my toddler is doing with most everything right now). But sooner or later a writer will need to develop his own style, voice, and heart based on his own experiences.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think you just wanted an excuse to title a thread "fake orgasm".
As to the author's point, I think he's right, but I also think it's important that those people write anyway. I think this interview, and the hundreds like it that I've seen, will encourage kids not to write, which is a shame.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Ack--you beat me to it, Samprimary!
More seriously, though...no, derivative poetry is not insincere, though it may very well be bad. Writers imitate & practice & grow by writing. I think writing is a process of noticing and observing and connecting and imagining. I think writers write about things outside of their experience by observing and then extending. That's why so many writers are given the advice to "write what you know." That's a good starting point for the inexperienced because it helps the emotion to be genuine. It's not necessary for all inexperienced writers, because they're able to take the genuine emotion and apply it to something imagined. Not everyone can do that right away.
I think imitation is a very important stage/ technique for many young writers. It helps them to stretch and try new things.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I also immediately thought "eragon!"
Write what you know: I prefer "know what you write." Few SF writers, for example, have traveled in space and met aliens!
When I was in college, a prof told me I wasn't old enough to write a story that I had turned in. He would have been better to tell me what was missing.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
I think you just wanted an excuse to title a thread "fake orgasm".
Nope, that was a direct quote from the novelist.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I think 90% of life is imitation. Though that doesn't excuse Eragon Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote: Write what you know: I prefer "know what you write." Few SF writers, for example, have traveled in space and met aliens!
True...but many inexperienced (young) writers think that writing SF is easy because you just "make it all up." Good speculative fiction writers base their writing on what they *know*--real emotion, relationship, behavior.
Just to clarify: I don't think that "knowing" necessarily requires experience. Good writing is grounded and centered in something real, which is what helps readers to suspend their disbelief.
("Write what you know" is abused and misunderstood as writing advice...it doesn't mean "write what you've experienced.")
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
In the Phaedrus, Plato blames the written word for degradating language and thought. The theme comes up again in Nietzsche in the Birth of Tragedy and in The Twilight of the Idols. The idea is that writing allows and encourages people to parrot or slap together lego set sentences without inspiration or insight.
They understood that a real artist is struck by a phenomenon, which inspires the words in his breast. The danger with writing is that it gives people the [i]appearance[i/] of thought, and if we get in the habit of uttering words without being initially struck struck by the phenomenon, we are in a bad way. Nietzsche understood it as the difference between people who think, and are struck with a sense of reverence and shame versus that person who is just following some rules of language and grammar. Both Nietzsche and Plato understood that more than language was at stake in this blind following of language rules. They both recognized the danger of rule worship in general, where people follow rules without thinking or it's opposite, where people rebel against rules without thinking. Those are two sides to the same thoughtless coin, and all because we are given to follow the formula or the rules, but we are bereft of the insight or inspiration that gave birth to these rules.
It's one of the reasons both Plato and Nietzsche preached that one should remain in close communion with ones mythic heritage, because myths have the ability to bring someone to the face of these phenomena. Depending on who you speak with, it's also a reason that we should respect poetry(which when done well puts us only one step removed from face of a phenomenon) and avoid translations, especially religious ones.
___
That being said, since we aren't all blessed with the biblical Adam's gift of naming, seeing into the thing's essence and being able to write its name from that insight, a little bit of copying seems appropriate.
[ February 25, 2007, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I don't think that it's like a fake orgasm because of a lack of experience... I think 'fake orgasm' results because of an inability, or undeveloped ability to express this experience to your reader.
I don't think that it is inherent in adolescent writers because of their lack of experience, because if that were so, then the problem could be solved so long as they only wrote with teenage protaganists.
This didn't help Eragon.
BTW, I wonder if Christopher Paolini ever comes on these boards and looks around and sees everybody completely distroying his book. I mean, he reads sci-fi and fantasy, it's possible he would like OSC and come to the site.... Hmmm... I still hate the book, but it's a thought.
I also think that fake orgasm comes from a lack of experience in an author's reading selection. A lot of the problem with emulating writers (Since everybody is going to end up doing it, I believe), is that it can be so localized.
I think of the saying 'Stealing one person's idea is plagurism; stealing many peoples' ideas is research'
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
This is a bit what I feel like. This is why I try to put myself out for emotional experience a lot, so I have something to work from.
I've noticed, though, that truly great literature has an opposite effect. When you read something that's merely good, you get emulative. Great stuff, though, inspires you to go the other way entirely for your own style and voice, your own ideas.
On the other hand, it can be an interesting writing exercise, trying to write in another author's voice. When I get bored with my chem lab reports, I write them as Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Jane Austen for fun.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Your professor doesn't mind?
Posted by Perplexity'sDaughter (Member # 9668) on :
Whew- And I thought I was the only person on the planet who didn't like Eragon. I was beginning to think there was something wrong with me.
That is to say, I give the guy big props for all his success. He has potential.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Well, as follows:
Writing is a highly creative endeavor; and, of course, modeling ones own style on another is a sure way to discourage a complete, and free expression.
The adoption of a framework is, in and of itself, constrictive. Yet, since referencing Nietzsche seems to be popular here, an artist will only achieve complete and full catharsis through working in the boundaries of rule.
Still, there is incredible scope for creative expression in any field, whatsoever. Writing your daily reports for whatever field it is you are working in can be a true artistic expression. To make another extraneous reference, the Greeks thought that any field of work, "craftsmanship" is artistic.
So, yes, of course writing in a derivative form can achieve greatness.
However, I do not think that derivative works are the way for a full achievement of personal aspiration, of the maximum artistic capability of one. Ultimately, one hopes to forge their own path, by welding all influences into their own amalgam.
Further, I don't think any adolescent is capable of creating great art. Why? Because it's a function of experience; wisdom can only be gained over living. Let me finish by saying, though, that I have written a book, which I intend to have published sooner rather than later ^^;;.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Phanto, you've finished? I look forward to reading it! Or is finding a publisher the hard part for an adolescent author?
Edit: Thanks for chiming in by the way everyone.
[ February 18, 2007, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Or is finding a publisher the hard part for an adolescent author?
I doubt you'd need to reveal your age at the decision stage regarding publication.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
"Fake Orgasms" are what you do until you are capable of the real thing; consider it practice for when the glorious day of the real thing comes along.
Let's step back to the ultimate 'fake orgasm' -- Fan Fiction. Many young (and old) writers engage in Fan Fiction as a way of expressing themselves, and some to it exceptionally well. You start out in the Harry Potter universe, then you gradually migrate to your own alternative Harry Potter universe where anything can happen. Then you migrate to using your own characters. Next thing you know you are writing stories that have nothing to do with Harry Potter. It is the process of growing and becoming a writer. Those aren't 'fake orgasms' they are 'practice orgasms'.
Now as to the original comment that started this thread, I assume the author being interviewed was referring to 'published' authors; published 'fake orgasms'. Keep in mind somewhere some agent then some publisher thought this 'fake orgasm' was good enough to be published. That means it has at least pass a minimum standard of quality.
Now we can like the book or not, but even well published authors are not without flaws. I found many technical flaws in the extension of Enders Game. In the later books, OSC is often repetative and long winded, usually both at the same time. Yet, he has such interestingly draw characters and situations, that I simply moved past the long winded repetition because I was eager to find out what happened to the characters. Life isn't perfect.
Yes, I'm sure many great authors look back on their earlier works and see adolesent drivel, but the question is, did some agent feel the book was worthy of passing on to a publisher, and did the publisher feel the book was worthy enough to pass into publication, and finally did anybody read the book?
Not every book is intended or expected to be a blockbuster hit. Some books are niche books. They have a limited audience, and that is known the minute the are accepted for publication. My mother would rather read soup can labels than read science fiction or fantasy. She can barely slog throught the Harry Potter books, and I wouldn't be caught dead reading a 'romance' novel.
I read the first "Alex Rider - Stormbreaker" novel and found it superfical and predictable. Though it was written well enough to hold my attention. Yet, it is a very popular series and has been made into a movie. If you ask me, it is perfect fodder for the movies -- James Bond Junior; Agent Cody Banks with a plot.
Still, it was published. It was popular. It was made into a movie. It made the author a lot of money. A million dollar 'fake orgasm' is better than a 10 cent 'real thing'; at least it is in the publishing world.
As to 'Eragon', I think those people who object to the book, and this is just my opinion, are SNOBS. They don't like the book because it reminds them too much of their favorite 'classic' fantasy, and rather than accept that a book could reach that level, they prefer to cling to the past. Namely, they cling to 'Lord of the boRINGS'.
Characters make books. If I don't care about the characters then why am I reading the book? Paolini may have his flaws, but the book was submitted and accepted for publication. It's popularity spread by word of mouth and a lot of hard work on the part of the author. The book is popular and I DO care about the characters. It is a bit of a slog at points, it has it's technical flaws, Paolini does need to mature as an author, but it is none the less filled with interesting characters, interesting places, and interesting events.
Perhaps it is because I found 'Bored of the Rings' to be so painfully and excruciatingly dull and slow that I am able to enjoy that fast pace and interesting character of 'Eragon'.
It would be interesting to take a poll to find out how many people who had read 'Lord of the boRINGS' hated 'Eragon', and how many people who never read that 'boRING' tale, who in turn like 'Eragon'. I think it might be telling.
For the record, a 'fake orgasm', even a 'practice one', now and then, never hurt anybody.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
About know what you write: I just mean that if I wrote about my life experiences, I'd bore the hell out of everyone. Instead, I do research into an area that interests me, and write about that.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I agree.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Besides, it's not as if authors list their age along with their work... For all we know, we've read books that we like by adolescent authors. Personally, I find it hard to swallow, but it's possible.
I wouldn't want my age listed, regardless of my age. I wouldn't want my picture on the inside flap either (I'm hardly photogenic). I'd want my book to stand alone.
Of course, I hate everything I write, so I'd never feel secure enough to send it to a publisher, and I'd never get published, and I'd never have to worry about my age or my picture.
I mean, I know practice makes perfect, but I like my ideas so much, I want to save them for later, for when I'm actually good... And I'm finding it increasingly hard to find ideas terrible enough to practice on.
Anyway, I think that most adolescent books will suffer from 'fake orgasm', but there are exceptions. I could be surprised.
Also, age doesn't always translate into experience. Beethoven's childhood was a treasure-trove of experience. Some people may live for a lifetime and not have experienced life enough to write about it... I will paraphrase a quote from Diane Setterfield's character, Vida Winters, and say that experience is the compost out of which your story ideas grow. So, the 'common' human experience is nil, since I believe it's very rare for good writing to draw from a specific experience. Rather, we all have our different composts.
PS: Regardless of whether or not Eragon is good or not, just for the record, Paolini's parents published his book. And it was because of it's commercial success, not because of the good/bad quality of his book, that it was bought out by KNOPF. It had great potential for cinematic success after LOTR, and I'm pretty sure that reason had a lot to do with KNOPF re-publishing the book. Regardless of whether or not *I* like the book, it was published because it was Commercial with a capital C.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Nathan,
By 'commercial' do you mean that people bought it, read it, liked it, and recommended it to their friends?
Because no truly crap book ever makes it that far. Some people, like myself, must find some value in it, some entertainment value, some intellectual stimulation, some relatable fantasy. Books don't just become hits based on some 'commerical' formula. I'm not denying that formulas come and go, nor am I denying that they exist. Mystery, fantasy, suspense, romance, period pieces; these are all formulas, but no matter what formula you pick, it doesn't work if you don't have a good story to tell. Paolini has a good story to tell regardless of the technical complaints people may have.
It is the story and the characters that sell a book. I don't particularly think J.K.Rowling is a great writer, but she is a Master Storyteller, and that carries far more weight. She also creates engaging interesting characters that you can and do care about.
Personally, I think Paolini has done the same thing. He has told a captivating tale with engaging interesting characters that go to interesting place and do interesting things.
Maybe it is derivative, but I don't care, it is still a good story. Maybe there are some technical flaws, but as I read, I'm caught up in the story, not analysing the technique. I do that after the fact. Maybe Paolini lacks a certain maturity in his writing, but none the less, he tells a good story about characters that I care about. I see those characters struggle. I see them face moral dilemmas. I see the classic heroes journey, just as I see it in Enders Game, Enders Shadow, and Harry Potter (as well as others).
Not every book is for every person, but I liked his books and am eagerly waiting for the next installment.
Just one man's opinion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Because no truly crap book ever makes it that far. ....It is the story and the characters that sell a book.
I disagree with both these points. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Liz B, I really enjoyed Bridget Jones' Diary, too. I even reread it a few months back. It wasn't deeply moving or intense, but it was light and fun, and I enjoyed the statacco delivery of plot. It was deft.
I never felt the need to defend my enjoyment of it, but I did get the sense sometimes that I ought to defend that. At that point I usually remember that I'm used to having eclectic tastes, so eh? So it goes. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree with Tom.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have a cat.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Storm, the reasons for my not elaborating have to do with the fact that I've already abused Eragon on this forum, in opposition to Blue Wizard, enough not to want to go through it again.
He's welcome to his opinion; I'd prefer not to be called a snob, though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, I don't care in this thread. My dog's not in this hunt. I'm just funning.
And for what it's worth, I realize that not every post needs more than a few words. I just think that there is such a thing as being succint versus being terse verse being a pain in the ass to have a conversation with.
That said, I apologize for singling out Porter when I was speaking to Kate in that last thread about this. He's not the only one that does it, but he is someone whose opinion I enjoy. I think he's a decent person, and I genuinely would like to hear more from him.
Anyways. Sorry for the derail. Carry on.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Storm, the reasons for my not elaborating have to do with the fact that I've already abused Eragon on this forum, in opposition to Blue Wizard, enough not to want to go through it again.
He's welcome to his opinion; I'd prefer not to be called a snob, though.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh! I thought this was a reference to Storm Saxon's cat fetish. (title of thread, etc.) *facepalm
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hey! It's a kitty cat! With a meow meow meow....
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
*laughing
Thanks, CT! I was about to marvel at the fact that I can be a snob in this thread for not liking Eragon, when in another thread I'm defending the honor of Miss Jones. It's hard to do funny well, and Fielding did it..."deft" is the perfect word.
I like lots of books that get no respect. I'm finally becoming confident enough in myself and my tastes to be OK with that. I still get crabby when people dismiss entire genres, but I feel a lot less defensive about enjoying those same genres. My literary friends can't believe I like romance, my romance friends can't believe I like scifi, my scifi friends can't believe I like literary fiction, my adult friends can't believe I like YA fiction. No one can believe I like sports books and poetry. I'm the genre fiction evangelist, always trying to get people to try new stuff. Or maybe the genre fiction pusher. "Psst. Hey kid. Ya wanna try this book?"
All that and I still don't like Eragon.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sorry for the double post-- internet connection oddities.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
The thing is, you don't have to like 'Eragon', but your not liking it doesn't detract from the fact that many millions do. I have no problem with the books simply not captivating you. I mean, either it did or it didn't; it's that simple.
But the implication by some that the book is 'crap' simply because you didn't like it, doesn't wash with me. So, while my 'snob' comment only applies to some of those who didn't enjoy the book, I still stand by it.
As to the implication by TomDavidson as follows -
BlueWizard - "Because no truly crap book ever makes it that far. ....It is the story and the characters that sell a book."
To which Tom replies -
"I disagree with both these points. "
Note: the Smiley Face on the end.
Well, if you take away the story and you take away the characters...don't you just have blank pages???
As to whether 'crap' books make it that far, well I conceed that in your opinion books that are crap make it that far, but millions of readers would disagree. To make it to the Best Sellers list, books have to have some merit to warrent that. Perhaps, they are just light entertainment. Perhaps they are just fodder for bored housepersons. But someone somewhere liked them or they would have never been published. Truly crap books never see the light of day.
I can except a person rejecting book on personal taste. Myself, I find the tried and true Classics of Literature, books that have stood admired for a century or more, to typcially be dull as paste. Now some people, must like this slow paced character/period driven novels, but they don't work for me. But I would never say the were (implied) crap because I don't like them.
So, my point is that if you don't like a particular book, if it simply didn't do it for you, then fine. But when people start trying to justify their dislike for a book, when they start raising criticisms that go against millions of satisfied customers, that's when I start reaching for the 'snob' tag. Note I said 'justify' their dislike, not 'explain'.
There are lots of books I don't like and I can clearly explain why I don't like them, and the briefest summary is that they simply didn't do it for me. I can even find fault with books I DO like, but if they captivated me, if I was carried alone completely wrapped up in a fast paced story, if I fell in love with the characters, then despite anyone's 'literary' criticism, I'm fine.
I found Eragon fast pace, interesting, captivating, and I loved the characters. Yet, even while I like it, I can agree with some of the critizism of it. However, the one criticism that irks me the most is the whiners who complain that he ripped off 'Bored of the Rings'. Personally, I don't care who he 'ripped off', if he created an interesting story doing it. And he must not have 'ripped it off' too completely or he would be in court defending himself now.
You don't have to like the book, that is your priviledge, but when snobs start trying to tell me why I shouldn't have liked it, I get a little irked.
Just one man's overly long and overly wrought opinion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Side note: Now that I have seen the 'Lord of the Rings' movies, and I concede that they don't follow the story completely, now that I have a sense of the characters and places, and the flow of the story, I could probably read and enjoy them. But when I tried to read them years ago, it was a dull, boring, confusing slog.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I didn't like Lord of the Rings either.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I also didn't like Lord of the Rings. And Eragon might have great characters and an interesting plot, but I couldn't slog through the bad writing and bad grammar to find out.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I loved LoTR when I read it as an adult. (That's also when I started enjoying Dickens.) And yes, my love of LotR probably affected how I felt about Eragon. That doesn't make me a snob; it means that my experiences and tastes as a reader affect how I experience and interpret books. When I think about the fantasy I've enjoyed most in the past few years, very little of it is the traditional "high fantasy" quest. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't like it.
I read every blessed word of Eragon. One of my students bought it for me in hardback with his own money as a Christmas gift. I knew within 5 pages that I hated the overwrought writing style...and this was before I started getting annoyed by the elements that struck me as overly derivative & predictable. I probably wouldn't dislike it so much if I hadn't felt obligated to read it.
FWIW, I recommend Eragon frequently, often to kids who want to read LotR but just can't make it through. The Prydain chronicles are another good alternate. And my other suggestion, for those who really want to read LotR and nothing else will do, is for them to read the first chapter, then skip all the way to Weathertop, then skip The Council of Elrond chapter.
People have different tastes in books. I even tell kids it's OK for them to not like Ender's Game, for crying out loud. (But they'll get a better grade if they do. )
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: But the implication by some that the book is 'crap' simply because you didn't like it, doesn't wash with me. [. . .] But I would never say the were (implied) crap because I don't like them.
So, my point is that if you don't like a particular book, if it simply didn't do it for you, then fine[. . . .]
If you ask me--and I will readily admit that no one did--all this would be a lot more convincing if you were capable of typing the name "Lord of the Rings" in connection with the book series without mutilating the title to involve some form of the word "bore". We get the point; you found the books dull. So they didn't work for you; fine. How is typing "Bored of the Rings" and "Lord of the boRINGS" every single time you refer to those books any better than someone simply stating something like, "Eh, I thought Eragon was crap"? How is that not issuing the same kind of value judgment on those books? How does that not make you come off as a snob?
Mind, I'm not defending the "Lord of the Rings" books. I've tried twice to slog through the first one, and it can't hold my interest either. And I'm neither attacking nor defending Eragon the book; I haven't read it. I did see the movie, and thought it was so cliched and haphazardly thrown together that it came off as nothing more than a long, live-action '80s adventure cartoon. In my opinion, the movie was crap--but I can't say anything at all about the merits of the book because I haven't read it. Still, at least I state my opinion of the movie as opinion and don't alter its name in such a way to imply that there is something inherently wrong with the movie and its fans independent of my own opinions.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)