Sex and the Writer

This is a great discussion on writing about sex! Also, you'll love Teresa's blog. #c7253975647723245103

Writing Without Reading? Young Authors Say They Can...

In an article posted by The New Yorker  Macy Halford       passes on her recent revelations of a discussion between an author and 'Granta' publication news reporter:

August 18, 2011

Writing Without Reading is Like______.

Posted by Macy Halford

Last night, I went to hear William Giraldi read from his very funny, very inventive début novel, “Busy Monsters,” which is narrated by a man, Mr. Homar, whose bride ditches him at the altar to go hunt giant squid. The book is like a literary cartoon (or cartoon literature?)—which I mean as a compliment—with Sasquatch and aliens and bodybuilders running around, and Mr. Homar coping with them “in an effort to prove his mettle as an American male,” as the press materials put it.

Giraldi, who isn’t uncartoonlike, gave a sensational performance, and just as I was beginning to suspect that he was made not of flesh and blood and intellect but of some kind of intelligent rubber, he sat down for a chat with Granta editor Patrick Ryan and began talking in a very lucid way about his profession. “I don’t enjoy writing,” he said. “I enjoy reading.” He teaches writing at Boston University, and has been amazed at how many of the kids possess a passionate urge to write without also possessing an urge to read. This strikes him as crazy. “There’s an analogy there that I haven’t been able to complete,” he said:

Wanting to write without wanting to read is like wanting to ____ without wanting to ____.

He’d come up with a couple, unsatisfying answers, one involving race cars, one involving sex (he wouldn’t tell us what they were). But he threw it out to the audience to ponder, and now I’m throwing it out to you. What is wanting to write without wanting to read like? It’s imperative that we figure it out, because Giraldi’s right: it’s both crazy and prevalent among budding writers. I’d also welcome theories on why it’s prevalent—is writing a more natural activity than reading? Does watching stories unfold on TV or in film give kids the same creative urge that reading does? Is it just that it’s easier to see your ego in words you wrote yourself?

Keywords

• Busy Monsters;
• PowerHouse Arena;
• William Giraldi;
• novels

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2011/08/writing-reading-william-giraldi.html#ixzz1YnRHhj3O 

The Dame's Take:

Well, you know the Dame has a "take" on this one!  On first thought, I think it's absolutely absurd to think that one can write without reading. Then, again, I take that back.  A three year old can write without reading, but do we want to read it as literature?  Do they really have anything to say of significance in the long-run? Well, they do have the creative urge to write without reading, don't they?  So, the creative urge to write can come higher or greater than the desire to read.

I'm thinking about this question in depth...and I do believe that one can also write without reading if they understand how to write a length of words that are understandable as an idea or concept.  And, I would guess they could write, as well, if they sat at the feet of a rabbi or teacher of wisdom who expounded on subjects giving them a wide perspective of history and learning through the ages.  And, I suppose they could also draw upon their life experiences and those of their family and friends.  They could also use the experiences they witness on television and movies; as well as those they hear through music and talk radio.

Having said all of that, then, I suppose it is possible to get away with writing without reading in this new world of communications via heresay, higher education and modern inventions.  If musicians who were deaf and blind could produce works of genius...I suppose...   If artists without use of arms and eyes can paint masterpieces; perhaps.  Maybe it isn't such a stretch to think one could write without reading.

All this being said, it so goes against my every fiber that it's been difficult to accept and admit.  Would I want to read something written by such an author?  My first inclination is rebellion...my second is curiosity.

What do you think?  And, how would you fill in those blanks:  Wanting to write without reading is like wanting to ____ without wanting to ______.  ??

Deborah/TheBookishDame

The Oftimes Difficult Task of Reviewing Books

It's a sometimes treacherous walk we take when we offer ourselves as book reviewers.  It actually puts us in a place of having to become certain critics, certain experts or certain knowledge ables about books.  There's a serious responsibility to reviewing books.  It's not a thing to become cavalier about.  Nothing to toss around lightly.

In this time of technological genius and fast-moving words and blurbs, we may tend to forget that reviewing a book is quite a responsibility, actually.  With a false word, a flippant slip, a dismiss of something important or a misunderstanding of text, a reviewer can set in motion a small wave that could cause a book to be remembered as; "I heard something strange about that book, but I can't remember where..I don't think it got good reviews."  The slip that sank a ship.

Just as we're required to read and structure our reviews in an honest and just manner to the best of our abilities, I truly believe that also means we cannot always give 5 stars to books and authors.  To do that would diminish the standard we use to evaluate books altogether.

To me, 5 stars means I want to keep the book in my library forever. I love it so much and found so much literary merit in it. I want to see it again. 
4 stars means it was so fabulous I want everyone else to get one, too!  I recommend it to everyone.
3 stars means it was a good read, I liked it, but I probably won't keep a copy. You'll have to choose to read it for yourself after evaluating my review.
2 stars means; good try but I couldn't finish it and can't recommend it.
1 star is something I can't even give a book!!

I take my role as a review writer so seriously that I study the art of writing.  I have taken time to learn grammar and spelling.  I read other reviewers' work so that I can learn from the best of them.  My searches include finding books, new and classical that continue to educate my mind and, hopefully, keep me from becoming intellectually stagnant.  I consider myself well-red, well-educated, a good writer and a conscientious person who takes my book reviewing role seriously.  Books are very important to me.  I'm interested in being a part of the big wheel that keeps them alive and well in our world.

Sometimes we won't please an author with our review.  We won't mesh with them, or we won't understand what they've tried to convey, or we won't appreciate their craft in the manner they've employed it.  I hope my readers know that in such cases I look very hard to pull out the gold from books and that I don't knowingly mislead anyone.  I see my role as a scout--going ahead to let my readers know what to expect.  Some will want to follow...some will not.  Some writers will want to hear the response to their writing, some really will not unless it fits their own perceptions. 

It seems to me, as well, that the role of a reviewer is also to convey something to the author about how their book may be perceived.  I recall a professor once saying that when Faulkner (or some such great author) was asked if he meant to say thus and so symbolically in his story...he answered, "If you say so.  I never know what I meant to say until you tell me."   It's this idea that once that word is written down in the way it is, once it leaves the pen of the writer and becomes a page in a book that's sent out to readers...it becomes the property of the readers to define and to evaluate.  No matter how the book was conceived of and birthed onto the page from the mind of the author; ultimately, it will evolve into the product of the minds of its readers.  Of course there's room for debate here, but Faulkner isn't here anymore to debate that issue, and, yet we still find and dismiss all sorts of things in his novels!

All in all, what I'm going on about here can be summed up this way:
We have a responsibility to authors, publishers, readers and the book world on a whole to be the best we can be at our craft.
We have a responsibility to be honest in the delivery of our reviews regardless of how the writer may like or dislike the message.
We have a responsibility to our readers to actually read and think and take time to give a review that will lead them to make an intelligent decision about the purchase of a book.
Books are important.  We have a responsibility to keep them around.

All this being said, I'd like to most gratefully acknowledge the wonderful publishers who make my book reviewing possible:
Hachette Publishing Group: Little, Brown & Co., LBYA, Mulholland Books, Grand Central, and others; Simon & Schuster, St. Martin's Press, Bloomsbury, Random House, Overlook Press, Penguin, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Books, Poison Pen Publishing, Crown, Harper Collins and others.

Thank you so much, my very special publicity friends who make things happen for me, kind and caring authors, faithful readers and visitors.  You make it all work together for good for me.  I'm so appreciative. 

Deborah/TheBookishDame

Jonathan Franzen on Writing

                               

The link below will take you to a fascinating interview with author Jonathan Franzen.  I've been following his talks all over the place regarding his new book, "Freedom."

Once you get through the first, primary interview, you will see a list of others you can watch.  Click on the one regarding his ideas about writing.

The interesting thing to me about this particular interview is that Franzen doesn't have his own notes or pre-written text to use, and he's in a foreign country.  The combination of not being able to look at the words of what he thinks, and not being sure how his words are being translated to the mind of the interviewer and to his audience through an interpreter, seems to make him more pensive and more introspective.  Therefore, I believe we are seeing a simpler, more clarified version of him.  This seems to be Jonathan Franzen "distilled."

It's a remarkable study of  him and of his ideas about writing. Writers are amazing creative geniuses.  Like artists who are painters, I want to study them and their works as if under a microscope.  Something in the make up of an art historian and a bibliophile/researcher such as I am, makes me this way.  I could spend hours...  Is this the same curiosity that draws me to forensics???  Oh, no!

Go to:

http://nwpbookgroups.ning.com/video/video/show?id=2415006%3AVideo%3A19860


Please let me know what you think once you've seen the video.  I'm so curious, and look forward to having some dialog with some of you, which I will post on my blog.

Thanks,

Deborah/TheBookishDame