Yesterday I posted a reblog about a “few words from Stephen King.” And…I made some comments. Well, as I thought more about what I wrote there, it weighed on my mind some, until a decidedly male voice in my head said “All right!” early this dark morning, as in “enough!” (Yes, it really was a voice I heard–not me speaking, as I lay in bed this morning…).
I am sensitive to people’s plights. About having difficulty in one or another area of one’s life. Of continuing to do your damned best, yet nothing seems to come from it…but what set me off on my comment to the post was the whole “I’m so different nobody understands me” piece. Sob stories. About how writers are so different, so “out in the ozone,” that no one can relate to them so “they” have to be with their own kind. I mean no disservice to Mr. King (and it’s not just Mr. King I’ve heard this particular sentiment from), not one bit. He has his opinions, I have mine, you have yours, and we’re free to agree or disagree. But it was something I clearly wanted to expand upon.
First off, if you’re a writer…and no one understands you…you have no one but yourself to blame. You obviously didn’t do a good enough job getting your point across.
That’s the ugly truth of it.
And as to whether or not a Creative Type can live with a Normal Human–I’m evidence of that. I am frequently asked how I can write what I do, and how I do not seem like what I write. Just because you write crazy, does not give you license to behave crazily in life and in your relationships. You’re Human, and all humans, every one of us, think about the weird and off-center to some degree. Thinking and doing are two different things. We’re all built to do something in the life we live, and writers write. If we can channel these thoughts and out-there ideas into publically acceptable (and sometimes not) coherent prose or poem, that’s what we do. Don’t bother trying to reverse engineer it. Figure us out. It’s like reverse engineering a gardener, a rock, or bird. It’s what that individual is meant to do, and more often than not, they can’t explain it either.
Accept it and move on.
Now, perhaps this plays into Mr. King’s “creative writing can’t be taught” statement, but it seems to me that the point of the mechanics of writing is to get something down. Communicate that something either to yourself or another. If no one is “getting” you (perhaps including oneself?), there’s an obvious disconnect, here.
Similarly, if any creative type is “too out in the ozone,” then how do they communicate with the masses, which is, it seems to me, what Creative Types do. Okay, expression of something, in and of itself, but it seems to me that most feel an overpowering distress to express their creations to others. So, if you don’t adequately communicate, how does anyone appreciate? How do you build a following so that when you do go to “like-minded people,” said Creative Type would find someone to sleep with? Okay, raging hormones, tattoos, and long lonely nights aside, would most people want to [continue to] sleep with someone that alien to them? One they just could not figure out? Continue to sleep with them after the initial fire, passion, and excitement wore off? Stranger things, I guess.
But I’ve run into–and at times felt so myself–“misunderstood” more than once in my life on this planet. It’s okay to feel the pain of what you’re trying to do not hitting its projected mark, but after the initial disappointment, all misunderstood artists need to get back on their feet and take a good, hard look at themself.
Am I a good enough artist? Can I make myself better?
Am I not a writer, but an actor?
Am I more of an activist?
Am I more the quiet, behind-the-scenes helping type?
The misunderstood writer needs to step back and analyze what’s working and what’s not, then get their ass in gear and make things better. Readjust the medium. Not bemoan and mope around the globe decrying how unfortunate and misunderstood they are (<insert tears, here>).
A Word About “too much air and light.”
I would agree…to a degree.
I think sometimes writing (or anything creative, for that matter) can become [overly] sanitized. Sometimes, I feel, perfect grammatical structure and mechanics get in the way of the story. The “rawness”…can be eviscerated from the work. Sure, you have to make your work presentable in your area of creation (novels, screenplays, totems…), but you also have to know when to stop. If you work it over too much, take other people’s recommendations too much, you kill the impact.
Go with your gut.
Don’t worry how incensed or indignant others may be about your work.
If your work is good, truly good, it will stand on it own. Others will get it. They may not like it, but they will get it. But, you just can’t please everyone. There will always be those looking to criticize something you put out there (look at me, now). Thing is, try to be respectful and open. Be willing to apologize when needed, because someone with an issue you wrote about didn’t like your presentation of it and felt you condescending.
Be gracious.
But when it comes to your work…
Be brutal and unflinching.Don’t overwork your efforts. Don’t let too much worry about public rejection or indignation cause you to “smooth out its edges.” Dull the impact. You’re a Creative Type.
Be creative.
Related articles
- A few words from Stephen King (fpdorchak.wordpress.com)
- Stephen King on Writing (theengagingbrand.typepad.com)
Creative work, by its nature, is often disruptive, questioning or challenging to the status quo. Many people won’t (want to) understand it because it may force them to look at issues with a different perspective. So much easier to dismiss or deride the creator.
Excellent point!
Might that also apply to some creators? Maybe, deep down, they, too refuse to acknowledge what they’ve done, so they exhibit some displaced aggression toward themselves?
Thanks for stopping by!
Yes…don’t overwork your efforts (particularly true for first drafts) and let the shadow self hover over the page and have as much influence as the ink.
Oooh, like that, “…let the shadow self hover over the page and have as much influence as the ink.”!
Thanks for comin by! :-]
Nice article F.P. and great research on the band pic. I had to look them up to see if ol’ F.P.D. was one of the members, then I looked at the dates. Way too young dude.
Even I’m too young – didn’t hit the road myself until ’66.
I can live with a normal person, and a normal person (one of the sweetest in the known universe of course) can live with.
In fact, all of the people IN me can live with me. Hell, I can even live with me most of the time.
B^) — long time no chat
R
Thanks, Ron!
When I originally posted this blog I tried to use this picture, but WP kept funking out on me, so ended up using a “frowny faced writer,” until I could get THIS shot in there. Finally muscled it in there!
I–and ALL my personalities–agree with you! :-]
Thanks for stopping by!
First off … I disagree somewhat with Steven King. Not all writers are true creatives. Although helpful, it isn’t absolutely necessary. (Side note – not all true creatives become writers, either.)
That being said … I disagree with just about everything you just wrote.
First off, he wasn’t talking about writers. He was talking about a certain type of deep thinking that spawns a certain type of personality.
About the sex thing … psychologists who work with creative boys and girls have observed that highly, and I mean highly, creative boys and girls are more similar to each-other than to boys and girls of their own gender. Take a moment to wrap your mind around that. How do gay people come out of their shell? By being around gay people. How do highly creative people come out of their shell?
About the misunderstood thing … it isn’t about people criticizing their work. It is about people not believing them and not allowing them to even start their work in the first place. I could rant for hours about this, so I won’t even start. The gist of it is this – how can they express themselves when they are taught to withhold their feelings. It also includes are pretty decent sized rant about the popular notion of creativity, posers, the word creativity itself, and relativism.
On a side note … King’s whole point about teaching is that it forces the creatives to take a “good, hard look at themselves”, which leads to diminished creativity.
Thank you for stopping by, Marc, and for taking the time to express your opinions!
I am open to new information and I do appreciate (and consider) your response. It’s good to experience other points of view (for instance, no, I didn’t know about how gay individuals “come out,” so thanks for that information)! I study people, and all I’m trying to say (maybe not as eloquently as I thought I had…) is that it’s okay to be different, to creative…and just because one is different (and I do understand a “deep thinker,” not just a superficial versioning thereof) doesn’t necessarily mean one cannot relate nor interact with others who are not creative. Just because one is creative does not (necessarily–read on) mean that allows them license to behave badly in their relations with others (i.e., behave disrespectfully to others “just because they don’t understand them”; displaying lack of respect to another is unacceptable, I don’t care how exhibited, IMHO, Big Brain or Big Brawn), or to “act out” in public. Now, I do understand that when someone keeps anything pent up inside them, it builds up an angst or a “reformed kind of energy” that NEEDS to be released, and that can be manifest in ways that are less than ideal to that person or anyone else.
You had a lot of good to say, Marc, and again, I thank you for taking the time to express it and add it to this post…and get me think further on my opinions….
Thanks for the reply!
I highly recommend for yourself, or your readers, a book by Gordon Torr called “Managing Creative People: Lessons in Leadership for the Ideas Economy”. It touches on a lot of things you said in this post.
http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Creative-People-Lessons-Leadership/dp/0470726458
Despite the bland name, it is not a common fluffy management book. In fact, at some points, its downright scathing. It has the most comprehensive review of the state of creativity that I have ever read. (OK, I admit its the only book on creativity I have ever read … but, still.)
P.S. I am in no way affiliated with the author. I really just appreciated the book and think others will too.
Wow! I just posted a link. But I guess a full graphic of the book works too …
Interesting. Thanks, Marc!