Being trendy is uncool...
Cool is not being in vogue and anti-cool.
The last thing anyone would call me is trendy but some do call me "cool." Even my twenty something nephews think I'm cool in whatever the vernacular of their generation is. It is an enigma to me how I obtain that assignation, especially since I write phrases like that...
All I can think is that I am called that by some people because I am, I suppose, a classic kind of guy. That is, in several ways, at least. I tend to stick to things that are timeless and "classic" while still always being open to new things. They often become classic. I adopt things a lot of my boomer generation doesn't, such as I'm pretty decent at computer stuff, smartphones, video editing and creating a website blog content. I suppose classic could also mean I'm pretty old for hip stuff even though I don't listen to Classic Rock. It was good then and occasionally good to hear it again but not all the time especially as a radio format. To me that means being stuck in time and I have never liked that, preferring to develop and grow, moving on down the road to the next stop.
Even still, I don't chase trends, know a lot of new music and follow current TV show and movies. I'm not very wired in that way. Mostly I don't seek it out but I do discover new music (to me), for instance Mumford and Sons or The Avett Brothers, through some happy connection. My basic wardrobe hasn't changed much, just updated to suit the times. Also TV has always bored me, my attention span doesn't care for most popular movies and I don't hang out at popular venues to find out what the latest and greatest stuff is. Neither do most of my friends, they must be uncool too.
My conclusion is that although I know my age, I view it as a marker on how far I've come and grown, it doesn't define what I should and shouldn't do. Trendiness though really is for young people and the pretentious in New York City and Los Angeles that like vaporization. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try new things if it suits you. I am open to always learning and trying new stuff if it's interesting and makes sense to me. Maybe being cool is not following the latest new thing and tossing it aside for the next thing that comes along, but adopting what is new that is classic and worth keeping, building upon it and ignoring the rest. Uncool then becomes pursuing up-to-the-minute latest and greatest rage and cool is really being anti-cool.
Showing posts with label dare to be different. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dare to be different. Show all posts
4/4/11
3/5/11
Writing: Fact and Fiction
On writing fiction and non-headaches...
Part Two: A Response to a Response
When I wrote yesterday my thoughts on writing fiction, it evoked a great blog response from Mike in his blog rock and confusion titled "Headache vs Non-Headache." He writes that he thinks there is some truth to my feeling "there is a line between writing fiction and non-fiction." He continues on to state that the line does get a little "fuzzy" and he points out a few things that put a new and different perspective on that line for me.
I went into writing fiction thinking there was a distinct line between the two but it was a bit of a false assumption on my part; especially since I also went into it with the underlying premise that "real life is like fiction and vice versa." How's that for a duality of simultaneous thought? I have more clarity now on those ideas because as Mike points out, five people can observe a train crash and write five different accounts of it, since each writers point of view will be from another angle. It's a factual nonfictional event, but are the five separate versions of what happened fiction? No, because they are based on fact, as each observer interprets and recalls them through the vision of their lens.
He also points out that good fiction is "as clear and honest as the best non-fiction." He's correct that most of us don't read a good piece of fiction and think the writer "made that up really well!!" A very artful observation.
I do think that how the fiction writer operates and originates their work is a result of how they operate out of that creative space in their mind. Some writers approach fiction as storytelling that has an element of truth in it or based loosely on some real events or facts they've strung together in their own way to make a story. Others operate out of a pure fantasyland in their mind that is capable of conjuring up wonderful stories that you believe. It's a vision in their head of what they would like to see happen and transport the reader to. Believability is an important factor for me, which is why science fiction has never appealed to me. Some fiction is pure fantasy and not possible but delightful to the reader nonetheless.
So to turn this whole topic on it's head, I would also add it is not only what the writer is trying to convey but also what the reader is willing to go along with in believing the writer.
Personally my nature is very grounded in fact and what could really happen. That doesn't mean it's the only way to write or read, merely where my head wants to go. I say "read and let read" whatever suits your fancy. I now know more what mine is from this experience.
Probably the most telling observation I received from my fiction in workshop is that the readers "learned a lot." That was their way of saying they didn't feel they were reading a story but a recounting of place, people and events. I need to write one more short story for this class and workshop but this time I think I'm going to go the way of a spare, minimalist style with a simple story line with two characters and their dialogue. That is because I know very little, unlike most participants in this class and writing workshop, about how to develop characters, story lines, plot, themes and so on. It's not the talent I've nurtured and developed over the years. The story I write will be what it is.
What I do know how to do is recount in vivid detail and good prose actual places, people and events. Written as nonfiction, my version is what I think happened or is happening, it may differ from the way four other people might interpret the same things. A writer writes, I write, whatever it is called is irrelevant.
Part Two: A Response to a Response
When I wrote yesterday my thoughts on writing fiction, it evoked a great blog response from Mike in his blog rock and confusion titled "Headache vs Non-Headache." He writes that he thinks there is some truth to my feeling "there is a line between writing fiction and non-fiction." He continues on to state that the line does get a little "fuzzy" and he points out a few things that put a new and different perspective on that line for me.
I went into writing fiction thinking there was a distinct line between the two but it was a bit of a false assumption on my part; especially since I also went into it with the underlying premise that "real life is like fiction and vice versa." How's that for a duality of simultaneous thought? I have more clarity now on those ideas because as Mike points out, five people can observe a train crash and write five different accounts of it, since each writers point of view will be from another angle. It's a factual nonfictional event, but are the five separate versions of what happened fiction? No, because they are based on fact, as each observer interprets and recalls them through the vision of their lens.
He also points out that good fiction is "as clear and honest as the best non-fiction." He's correct that most of us don't read a good piece of fiction and think the writer "made that up really well!!" A very artful observation.
I do think that how the fiction writer operates and originates their work is a result of how they operate out of that creative space in their mind. Some writers approach fiction as storytelling that has an element of truth in it or based loosely on some real events or facts they've strung together in their own way to make a story. Others operate out of a pure fantasyland in their mind that is capable of conjuring up wonderful stories that you believe. It's a vision in their head of what they would like to see happen and transport the reader to. Believability is an important factor for me, which is why science fiction has never appealed to me. Some fiction is pure fantasy and not possible but delightful to the reader nonetheless.
So to turn this whole topic on it's head, I would also add it is not only what the writer is trying to convey but also what the reader is willing to go along with in believing the writer.
Personally my nature is very grounded in fact and what could really happen. That doesn't mean it's the only way to write or read, merely where my head wants to go. I say "read and let read" whatever suits your fancy. I now know more what mine is from this experience.
Probably the most telling observation I received from my fiction in workshop is that the readers "learned a lot." That was their way of saying they didn't feel they were reading a story but a recounting of place, people and events. I need to write one more short story for this class and workshop but this time I think I'm going to go the way of a spare, minimalist style with a simple story line with two characters and their dialogue. That is because I know very little, unlike most participants in this class and writing workshop, about how to develop characters, story lines, plot, themes and so on. It's not the talent I've nurtured and developed over the years. The story I write will be what it is.
What I do know how to do is recount in vivid detail and good prose actual places, people and events. Written as nonfiction, my version is what I think happened or is happening, it may differ from the way four other people might interpret the same things. A writer writes, I write, whatever it is called is irrelevant.
3/4/11
Writing: Fact and Fiction
Stick with what your good at...
but still stick your neck out and try new things.
Fact: I'm not very good at writing fiction. I know this because I wrote a short story that went nowhere and my friends and writing workshop were at least somewhat kind about saying it. I also knew it as I was writing it.
Not Fiction: I'm a pretty good nonfiction writer and the next writing class I take and workshop I go to are going to be developing that skill. My ability to tell a true story is a lot better than making one up.
Writing fiction requires a rich fantasy life and enjoying escapism I think. That's not a criticism of people who are that way, but an observation from being around fiction and screen writers. Movie lovers are like this also. Perhaps they're trying to make sense of the real world by creating a world of make believe. Maybe I'm over-analyzing it or thinking too much about it, a fact that is probably why I'm better at writing nonfiction.
Too me it's much more interesting observing the real world, studying history, looking at factual information and making sense of it and commenting on it. That's just my preference. Thankfully there are people who can write fiction, screen plays, make movies and offer something to escape into for awhile. Real life can often need escaping, occasionally I enjoy doing that. The "a ha" moment in my recent revelation about my lack of fiction writing skills, came when I realized that the fiction I do read are historical novels. Especially ones well researched and grounded in fact.
In order to keep life from being boring, to stretch personal boundaries, requires a creative person to take risks. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. At least I can say I took up a challenge and did it, faced the results, learned from it. Who knows? I may end up writing a historical short story or novel someday.
but still stick your neck out and try new things.
Fact: I'm not very good at writing fiction. I know this because I wrote a short story that went nowhere and my friends and writing workshop were at least somewhat kind about saying it. I also knew it as I was writing it.
Not Fiction: I'm a pretty good nonfiction writer and the next writing class I take and workshop I go to are going to be developing that skill. My ability to tell a true story is a lot better than making one up.
Writing fiction requires a rich fantasy life and enjoying escapism I think. That's not a criticism of people who are that way, but an observation from being around fiction and screen writers. Movie lovers are like this also. Perhaps they're trying to make sense of the real world by creating a world of make believe. Maybe I'm over-analyzing it or thinking too much about it, a fact that is probably why I'm better at writing nonfiction.
Too me it's much more interesting observing the real world, studying history, looking at factual information and making sense of it and commenting on it. That's just my preference. Thankfully there are people who can write fiction, screen plays, make movies and offer something to escape into for awhile. Real life can often need escaping, occasionally I enjoy doing that. The "a ha" moment in my recent revelation about my lack of fiction writing skills, came when I realized that the fiction I do read are historical novels. Especially ones well researched and grounded in fact.
In order to keep life from being boring, to stretch personal boundaries, requires a creative person to take risks. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. At least I can say I took up a challenge and did it, faced the results, learned from it. Who knows? I may end up writing a historical short story or novel someday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)