"Goofing off"?

[Celia Cyanide]

I just joined a writing group. A woman told me that she had taken a class at a very well respected writing center where I am taking a class now. She said that when the class members were introducing themselves, she told everyone that she did not have a goal of being published. The teacher said, "Okay, you're just goofing off."

I was wondering, does this bother anyone else? I also act. I have no intention of getting an agent and making money that way. I'm perfectly happy acting in small films for little or no money. But I take my acting very seriously, and I want to do it as well as I can and keep improving. This woman paid a few hundred dollars for the class. Even though she doesn't want to be published, I don't see what is wrong with wanting to be the best writer she can be, anyway. I thought it was a rude remark. I would like to know your thoughts.

[DivaNicoletta]

This kind of reminds me of a class I took last semester. We would sit down in class and the teacher would be kind of like " Your writing should show not tell, you know, like in that movie__________" And then everyone would start talking about movies for half the class, I am sorry, but movies really don't have anything to do with writing a novel.

[Birol]

Celia, there is nothing wrong with wanting to improve oneself. No one has the right to say who has the right to pursue what skills or how those skills should be used. We all have different priorities and different goals in life. Since this woman is now in a writing group, I'm assuming the teacher did not succeed in discouraging her from pursuing writing for her own reasons?

[DamaNegra]

Aw, come on, everyone can write for any reason. If you don't want to get published you're not 'goofing off', you're just not writing for commercial reasons. I don't know how good a teacher she was, but that remark wasn't very professional of her/him.

[Mistook]

If the name of the group is something like, "Creative writing with an eye toward publication" or "Creative writing with an eye toward a career in publication" then yeah, the instructor has every right to peg the lady as being a "goof off".

On the other hand, if the purpose of the group is simply to bring writers together and foster a sense of community, the instructor is way off base. Though, in my opinion, a fellow writer who has no goal of being published should be welcomed into any kind of circle without the stigma of "goof off" attached to their work.

That's just $h*tty, if you ask me.

If everybody in the group is all about marketing their stuff, that should't stop them from accepting an outsider into the ranks. I mean, the competition factor is at zero, and there's always the artistic angle to think about, so why not? Why cast this woman as some kind of inferior, just because she persues writing for it's own sake?

I see this tendancy with all circles of art - from music, to illustration/painting, to writing - this need of the ambitious faction to cut down their fellow artists, but I have to say, writers are the worst. Of writers, poets are the most vicious, but prose writers come in a close second. Musicians snipe at one another, but with nothing like the bloodlust of wordsmiths.

I don't know why that is. I guess if you want to write at all, you have to have a very thick skin, and be ready to give as good as you get in any kind of "group" situation.

[reph]

The teacher's reply strikes me as rude. Since tone and body language are missing, I can't judge it with 100% confidence. The only way I can think of in which she might have meant it nicely is as an expression that the student was in an enviable position, not feeling the pressure of wanting to get published.

[sandoz]

Sure it's rude. The woman should have left and demanded a refund. Still it sounds like the right group to join. Art schools offer welding classes for people interested in metalwork. I wouldn't hire one of them to build a bridge.

I've got a stack of home movies that I absolutely love. There's no effort at editing or capturing audience attention -- I'm happy enough if I can hold the camera steady. Good for her if she wants to write for herself. Are your goals the same?

[zornhau]

My experience of a crit group is that good writing thrives on robust language. Also, it's hard to see how you a class can improve your writing unless it has a yardstick, most sensibly, publication.

Perhaps the teacher was quite legitimately worried that your friend would be a timewaster.

[Perks]

You know, I desperately want to be published and I've been working very hard to improve my writing. I don't take most things very seriously and have to battle inertia every day, but I care about being a good writer and ultimately, a published one.

But even with all this gravitas, even with the progress I have made, I get monstrous attacks of what if this is the most monumental waste of time I've ever perpetrated. It's funny, when I get like this, it's not a matter of anyone talking me out of it. I'm not looking for validation; I'm looking for motivation. Sometimes I end up settling for the lamest, thinnest 'reason' imaginable: that I love doing it. Oh, and then the mental and emotional contortions to arrive at the conclusion that it's reason enough.

I think it was very rude of that instructor to belittle that woman. It would be very interesting to hear perspective from someone who writes purely for their own enjoyment. There could be invaluable words of wisdom there to get the wannabes through the dark times. Like it or not, many of us will end up having only written to pass the time and prove our talent to a small group of family and friends.

[AdamH]

I guess I'd take offence to it depending on the timing of the comment. If it was a lighthearted remark meant to be funny that didn't pan out, I wouldn't be bothered but would've thought she should've been more tactful. Maybe chose better words. Otherwise, yeah, it's pretty rude.

There's nothing wrong with writing just for the heck of it. I did it for years before I decided to start sending out my stuff.

[scarletpeaches]

I don't understand why someone who didn't want to get published would join a writing group anyway. Why bother formally trying to improve your work if no-one's going to see it? It's a bit like training at ballet school even though you claim you never want to dance in front of anyone. Why bother? The place could better be used by someone whose aim is professional recognition.

[veinglory]

I can see both sides, I bet the course description did strongly imply publication as a goal. The comparison with acting may be apt. Acting in a small non-profit company makes sense--but why hone your skill to act along in the living room. Publishing embraces any audience including the non-paying from a website, small press, to major publisher. Writing is a from of communication that requires and audience somewhere along the line to have meaning? just my opinion of course.

[Celia Cyanide]

I don't understand why someone who didn't want to get published would join a writing group anyway. Why bother formally trying to improve your work if no-one's going to see it? It's a bit like training at ballet school even though you claim you never want to dance in front of anyone. Why bother? The place could better be used by someone whose aim is professional recognition.

I understand your question Scarlet, but I can answer it by telling you that I actually did train at a ballet school, even though I never wanted to dance on stage. I just wanted to learn about ballet and see what it was like. It was fun, and good exercise. Perhaps there was no reason why I should have done it, but I enjoyed it, so there was no reason why I shouldn't, either. I do things like that all the time. I took voice lessons because I just wanted to learn how to sing better. No other reason.

Thanks to everyone who responded. I agree that the timing and tone of her comment probably makes a difference. But the woman in my writing group doesn't really strike me as being overly sensitive, and she thought the tone sounded a bit disrespectful, and kind of annoyed at her.

I think what Perks has said really expressed how I feel about it. I do worry all the time that what I'm doing could be a waste of time. Just because I want to be published, and try to be published, doesn't mean I will be. It made me happy the other day when a friend emailed me to say how much she loved the draft of my novel that she read. I have to be realistic and accept that things like that may be the only thing I even get out of it. If the only fulfillment I could ever get out of writing is something that might not happen, wouldn't that make it a waste of time if it never did happen?

If something is enjoyable, I think it logically follows that it is more enjoyable when you learn how to do it better. So I can understand completely why someone who writes for fun would want to take a writing class. I don't know what the teacher's motivation was for making a comment like that, but I don't think it would give someone confidence to try and get published.

[Cathy C]

Minor rant: <grabs nearest soapbox and pulls weary body onto it.>

Writers as a whole want one thing: to write. But the REASONS why they write are as varied as the stars in the sky. Mostly, they can be broken down into three categories, ALL OF WHICH HAVE EQUAL MERIT!

1. Those Who Write for Money. The group of writers who write solely for the purpose of putting food on the table are a special breed. For this writer, chasing from publisher to publisher for the highest paycheck is the goal. In order to keep the paychecks rising, they must appeal to the majority of readers in the world. Sales to public = value of author. Lack of remainders = value of author. Advance sales of next book = value of author. If an author gets a $5,000 per book advance this year, then that number had better be $8,000-10,000 next year, and so on. Thus, in order to keep the advances increasing, the author must constantly improve their skill, always look to the market for the next hot trend, work furiously to pump out book after book, lest the public forget their name. If the readers are buying paranormal, the author writes paranormal. If two years later, the readers want historical, then by golly -- historicals will start getting pumped out. EVERY story can be made exceptional. EVERY genre has merit. What the reader wants, the reader gets.

2. Those who write for art. The artist doesn't care if their books get a million readers, or if there are any paychecks. The goal is to move their readers --- to laughter, to tears, to rage and fury. All of these emotions can be had through the skill of the author. There is a warm sensation; a satisfaction in knowing your words created something real and powerful inside a person.

3. Those who write for themselves. Some writers have voices in their head -- powerful voices that cannot be stilled unless they pick up a trembling hand and write words on paper. These writers don't care whether ANYBODY ever reads their work. It can sit in a desk drawer for all of eternity and is just as real and powerful and moving without a single soul ever laying eyes on it. It's a tree in the forest that will exist, whether or not anyone ever admires it. It's quite possible that this writer will NEVER show their work to anyone -- not because it isn't good, but because it doesn't MATTER. This writer needs no validation of their skill, no soothing of their ego. They write because they can't NOT write.

The thing that so many writers forget as they step into a bookstore and see tables upon tables of displayed books is that there's no requisite to be one of them!

Despite what this instructor said, regardless of what the craft books say, no matter what every interview on every writing website and magazine says, there's only one truth in writing:

IT'S OKAY NOT TO WRITE FOR MONEY!


Now, I'm a #1 style writer. I DO write for money. There's nothing wrong with it, and I always presume that when people ask about writing, that they're asking about HOW to write for money. So, that's the response I give.

But even if I was a #2 or #3 writer, I'm a perfectionist. I would still be required, by my own internal drive, to become the best writer I could be. Just as I took the time to take classes in embroidery, and others take classes in pottery, or painting or soccer. There's no "goofing off" in toiling to improve your skills.

No goal of publication required. The instructor was wrong.

[Birol]

Thanks for responding, Cathy. I came back to respond after thinking of all the things I'd done and all the people I've known who have studied or undertaken to learn a new skill just for the sake of it. Some do it for self-improvement, some do it to have something to do, some do it so they might have a better appreciation of something they've always admired. In this regard, writing is no different than painting or woodworking or sewing or martial arts.

The only thing I might add to Cathy's insights is that it is possible to pursue a skill such as writing for a combination of the reasons she lists.

[scribbler1382]

Writers as a whole want one thing: to write.

I think I disagree with this. IMO, writers don't want to write, they want to be read. There's two sides to any writing relationship: the writer and the reader. If you have no intention of putting your writing in front of anyone besides yourself, then I don't understand why you would try to match the metrics expected by anyone besides yourself (i.e. why join a group?) I mean, if you just want to improve your communication skills, read any of the buh-jillion books on the subject, which deal with the creation, not the reception.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything wrong with writing for yourself. But typically groups are designed to help you by forcing you to match the expections of others in the group (or at least to introduce you to the expectations of others). There seems to be an imbalance here. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out a person who joined a group and said "I don't want to be published" actually means they secretly do want to be published but feel it would be foolish to hope for such a thing because of a lack of confidence or a fear that if they stated such a thing, their work would be looked at more closely and they'd be held up to a different set of standards than they're comfortable with. (Sort of the same way someone will illogically say "if there's something wrong with my health, I'd rather not know", which usually really means, "I hope there's nothing wrong with me, but I don't have the guts to find out".

This is probably sounding harsh, but it's just my opinion based on my experience. And I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from writing in any way, shape or form. But I just see this as wanting to play a game and make up your own rules.

Though I do agree that the phrase "goofing off" was a bad way of putting it. If that's how the person running the group worded it exactly, then maybe that's not a group to be associated with whatever the case.

[scarletpeaches]

I agree with the idea of your post, scribbler, but I disagree on your definition of a writer. In my view, a writer writes. An author, on the other hand, has readers. Everything else was straight out of my head, though! :D

[AncientEagle]

I personally subscribe to Dr. Samuel Johnson's statement that, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." On the other hand, people ought to be free to write for whatever reasons they wish or for no reason at all. We spend too much time in this world laying down rules for everybody else so they will be compelled to act in accordance with our wishes, not their own.

[scribbler1382]

I personally subscribe to Dr. Samuel Johnson's statement that, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." On the other hand, people ought to be free to write for whatever reasons they wish or for no reason at all. We spend too much time in this world laying down rules for everybody else so they will be compelled to act in accordance with our wishes, not their own.

I find my base motivation in another of Johnsons' quotes:

"Sir, he who would earn his bread writing books
must have the assurance of a duke, the wit of a courtier,
and the guts of a burglar."

Which probably explains a lot of my feelings on this subject. :)

[Cathy C]

We'll have to agree to disagree, scribbler. I know FAR too many writers who don't care one whit about the reader. They write because they have to get the stories in their head OUT, and putting them on paper is the ONLY way to do so. I embroider for the same reason. I don't care if anyone else sees it, or admires it. It's just for me, but I want it to be GOOD.

But I do like the Johnson quote -- I think I qualify... ;)

[WriterInChains]

I'm with Cathy -- & not just because I'm a #2/3 depending on the day. Sure, it'd be nice to make my living writing fiction, but I just don't have it in me to use my writing for the sole purpose of pleasing others. I write because people pull up chairs inside my head & tell me about their lives, I write because I want to know what happens next. If, someday, readers grow to love those people who live in my head too, that'll be wonderful bonus -- but I don't need it. Just like I didn't need to learn how to play the violin or do Tae Kwon Do forms or bake bread. Learning for its own sake is highly underrated; everyone should try it. Or, at the very least, not judge someone who does it. Even though I've studied very hard for over 10 years to become the best writer I can be (and am far from finished studying), publication isn't my #1 goal -- developing my voice & my style is. If nobody ever thinks it's good, so be it. It'll still be mine.

[veinglory]

On second thoughts there is also the fact that you shouldn't insult people who pay to be taught by you, even when you do disagree with there goals ;)

[Celia Cyanide]

Caren and Cathy, you bring up good points about embroidery and Tae Kwon Do. It does kind of make you wonder if that teacher has ever wanted to learn something just because she thought it might be fun. My dad took a class in how to make sushi. He doesn't want to be a chef, he just likes to eat sushi. Some people might feel that if your writing is only for yourself, why bother to make it better. But isn't that a little like asking my dad why he bothers to make good sushi if he's the only one who's going to eat it?

[Sage]

I don't understand why someone who didn't want to get published would join a writing group anyway. Why bother formally trying to improve your work if no-one's going to see it? It's a bit like training at ballet school even though you claim you never want to dance in front of anyone. Why bother? The place could better be used by someone whose aim is professional recognition.

I took choir & voice lessons for year. I know I'll never make it as a professional singer because I get stage fright, but I loved choir. I love singing. I love hearing myself sing well. Sure, there's some pleasure in doing karaoke (hidden in my friend's apartment, not on the scary stage :scared: ) & knowing that my friends are impressed, but I sing for fun, for me. That didn't make voice lessons a waste of my time.

'Sides, maybe the lady wasn't writing them solely for herself. Maybe she was writing them for her friends or her kids or her husband w/ no intention of anyone other than them seeing her work. But either way, I see no problem in bettering your skills in something you like to do.

[fallenangelwriter]

I will confess i'm not sure why someone would take a writing class if they weren't writing to be read at all. maybe they're not writing for publication, but if they're not going to show their friens or anything i don't why a course would be necessary.

after all, writing training is centered around the concept of the reader. common advice for newbies involves how to make a reader interested in your story, making sure readers understand what's gong on, hownot to bore readers and so on. If your goal is simply to write for your own amusement, just put on a page whatever you're feeling in a journalistic or therapeutic way, I don't think a professional can teach you how to do that better. if you're writing purely for fun, you do what you find fun, and you know what that is, not the teacher.

Regarding the publication issue, my guess is that the teacher anticipated a negative attitude. people oftne get defensive about their writing, and the teacher probably fgeared this person was going to resist advice and improvemenets, saying "I'm not interested in publishing, I'm just writing this for myself, and i can do it the way i want." it may be true, but if you're writing only for yourself, a classroom isn't the right environment.

It was still a rude remark, and It seems like jumping to conclusions, but i can see where the teacher was coming from.

[Sage]

But a writer may want to improve just to know they're doing it "right." And if you're only writing for yourself, it may be for yourself in the future as well. In which case, you can say, "Wow, I can't believe I wrote this masterpiece when I was younger," as opposed to "Wow, I can't believe I wrote this piece of **** when I was younger." Just because the art is being done for the artist's own sake, doesn't mean they don't want it aesthetically pleasing.

[Jamesaritchie]

I don;t think I've met half a dozen writer in my life who didn't want to be published. Those who don't want to be published never submit work, or read books and magazines about getting published, or have their hearts broken when the receive rejections slips, or even quit writing when getting published doesn't happen. Thos ewho don;t want to be published don;t resort to self-publication, POD, etc.

I have no doubt that there really are a handful of writers out there who care only about writing, and for whom getting published just doesn't matter.

I really don't care about the reader, either. I think caring about the reader can lead to seriously comprimising what you writer. I care about the writing, but I also care about being published.

I don't think there's a thing wrong with writing only for yourself, for not caring a whit about being published, though I sincerely doubt I've ever met a writer who really felt this way. Some say they do, but their actions and reactions say otherwise.

Either way, in a group like this, for the purposes of the teacher and the class, I think the teacher was not only right, I think what she said was necessary. If most of the others in the class wanted to get published, and if her aim was to get them published, then I think she must take this approach with anyone in the class who doesn't want to be published. It isn't fair not to.

It isn't about any sort of competition, it's about getting teh class to believe what you say, it's about keeping the focus on writing for publication, and it's about making sure everyone in the class has the same basic goal, and will actually listen to what you have to say. The last thing you want in such a lcass is a student who says, "We'll, since I have no intention of being published, I don't have to listen to that, I don't have to do this or that, and I can argue with everything you say."

I couldn't begin to teach a class where publication wasn't at least part of the goal, and I wouldn't even attempt to teach students who didn't share this goal.

One reason to write is as valid as another, but this isn't about writing, it's about teaching. It's not about an individual, but about a class. I think this makes a big difference.

[britwrit]

It's also possible that the instructor might have been put off by what he saw as disingenuousness. You know - "Everyone else here might be grubby little strivers but - sigh - I just want to explore the wonder that is me."

[Celia Cyanide]

Either way, in a group like this, for the purposes of the teacher and the class, I think the teacher was not only right, I think what she said was necessary. If most of the others in the class wanted to get published, and if her aim was to get them published, then I think she must take this approach with anyone in the class who doesn't want to be published. It isn't fair not to.

Who said most of the others in the class wanted to be published? You may not have met many writers who didn't want to be published, but it's not the main objective of most of the writers I know. I haven't taken a writing class where the purpose of the class was to get published. And even if the others did, how does that hurt them because one person doesn't? If the teacher thought everyone should want to be published, saying, "You're just goofing off" won't do anything to encourage people. It will probably only put them off learning about writing.

[blacbird]

We'll have to agree to disagree, scribbler. I know FAR too many writers who don't care one whit about the reader. They write because they have to get the stories in their head OUT, and putting them on paper is the ONLY way to do so. I embroider for the same reason. I don't care if anyone else sees it, or admires it. It's just for me, but I want it to be GOOD.


True, no doubt. But you don't seek out an embroiderers group under those circumstances, do you?

caw.

[blacbird]

It's also possible that the instructor might have been put off by what he saw as disingenuousness. You know - "Everyone else here might be grubby little strivers but - sigh - I just want to explore the wonder that is me."

Good word, "disingenuousness", to apply to this situation. I strongly suspect that most people who attend writers' groups or forums such as this one make this excuse as a defense mechanism, and I don't really believe it. If you really are just writing for yourself, you keep a diary or journal; you don't go to a writers' group to show it off.

I'm not justifying the teacher's comment. It was rude and uncalled-for, or at least thoughtless.

caw.

[Celia Cyanide]

True, no doubt. But you don't seek out an embroiderers group under those circumstances, do you?

I don't see why not. My mom has a cross-stitching group.

I strongly suspect that most people who attend writers' groups or forums such as this one make this excuse as a defense mechanism, and I don't really believe it. If you really are just writing for yourself, you keep a diary or journal; you don't go to a writers' group to show it off.

Just because you don't want to be published doesn't mean you never want to share it with anyone, ever, at all.

I have a goal of being published, but it is not my main goal.

[Cathy C]

True, no doubt. But you don't seek out an embroiderers group under those circumstances, do you?

caw.

Absolutely I did! That was in my original post. I liked to embroider, but didn't know the names of what I wanted to do; didn't have the skill to pull it off without someone showing me "the ropes." If I wanted to reproduce something I saw in a book, but couldn't tie a french knot, or couldn't properly space satin stitches, then instruction was needed.

To me, this is no different than wanting to know HOW to pull off proper POV, or realistic dialogue, or writing a tight plot. Yes, the majority of aspiring writers want to be published -- want the world to admire their writing, but there's a minority too. You'll never see them, or hear from them, because all of us and our questions about publishing don't MATTER to them. But their work is still just as good as ours. Sometimes better.

It breaks my heart to know that some of this terrific work I've read will never be seen by the world, but when initial encouragements are met with shrugs of disinterest, any further attempts are akin to harrassment, which I won't do. But yes, they're out there.

[zornhau]

Qualifying my earlier remark (now the 'flu has abated somewhat): There are lots of different levels of publication, including fanfic online, and showing stuff to your mates. Not everyone wants - or should be - a pro.

However, I'm with some of the other posters - the teacher probably has bitter experience of faux artsy look-at-me handwringers too precious to sully their work with publication, who look on such classes as a natural arena in which to shine, as in disrupt the real work.

His/her strategy was to launch a preemptive first strike. (I did this once when teaching medieval history nightclasses. Class Marxist: "But what were the epasants doing?" Me: "Running from burning buildings with spears in their backs!")

We don't know how smug or cocky the OP's friend sounded when she declared her non-intentions, nor how affectionate or playful the teacher's tone when delivering the put-down.

Certainly pro writing is contradicated for anybody with a thin skin.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones,
But names* will never hurt me"
*Does not apply if these are True Names.

[britwrit]

Yeah. Context is everything. Is this some adult education course or rather, an expensive professional level workshop? If it's the latter, I'm sure the instructor has seen every last mind game imaginable and really, who could blame them if they got a bit snippy? On the other hand, being rude with someone who just likes to write in their spare time is a bit over the top.

[aruna]

I never even dreamt I could have any of my words in print until I was well into my 40's - that is, fiction. I didnt have access to a writer;s group, but I can imagine attending one just for the joy of it, for improving my writing - and still not dreaming of publication.

Money isn't the only reason to do something to the best of one's ability. I know a woman who has a voice that can send shivers down your spine. I used to have several professional musicians among my frieinds (my first husband was a cellist) and they all said they'd never heard any voice as beautiful as hers. I still haven't. She has an extraordinary gift not only for singing herself, but for teaching singing.
Every year, she used to put on a nativity play for children - up to 50 children in the community. They would start the play one week before Christmas. She'd choose the songs (carols, both English and German - she was American) and the solos for each child. Each child got to sing a solo; and the result was so amazing everyone who watched would be in tears. She turned atheists into believers with the splendour of those plays. Even tiny 3 and 4 year olds sang - and with such feeling!
In her younger days (she's now in her 60's) she turned down several offers to go professional, both as a soloist and as a teacher. I am sure that if she had, she'd have been world famous by now. She just preferred to sing for the sheer joy of it, for her friends and community. As she was well situated in life, she didn't want the life of a professional singer, or the money.

[zeprosnepsid]

I think writing is something that crosses over the hobby/career boundary. There are many things which are careers for some people and hobbies for others -- cooking, gardening, dancing, etc... I used to be on track to be a professional dancer and I wouldn't be offended if someone in my dance class didn't have the same ambitions. I knew someone in film school -- USC film, the best film school in the nation -- who was just there to learn how to make better videos of her kids.

In fact, when I started writing, I never thought about publication. Writing was something I did for me -- to enhance myself, to express myself. I only ever thought about writing professionally when I lost my job and needed money. To be honest, I don't actually want to be a writer with my life. It's just something I enjoy doing and would be happy to be paid for. But I actually have other ambitions. But even if those are things are realized, I'm never going to stop writing.

Writing for your own enjoyment I think is a better and purer motivation than writing solely for money (as some people do).

I don't think it's a prerequisite for any class you take that it be you career goal. I took a couple semester of Chinese, I kid you not, to read Chinese tabloids. Because I really like Hong Kong movie stars. Everyone else in the class was taking it for their East Asian studies major, business major and even some girls who wanted to be missionaries -- all career oriented. But every class you take doesn't have to be directly related to your career.

I don't think the goal of writing is to be read. I subsequently don't think the goal of dancing is to be seen or singing is to be heard. I dance around my house all the time. Since I was a professional, I'm sure the dancing I do around my house is probably still worth watching and I still give my all when I'm all alone, but that doesn't mean I want anyone to see me.

p.s. We don't even know what this woman's career is. Maybe writing will enhance what she does like Marketing or some other business. Creative writing could come in handy in a number of other fields.

[blacbird]

Writing for your own enjoyment I think is a better and purer motivation than writing solely for money (as some people do).


As I've said in another recent thread, dammit, it isn't an either/or of writing for yourself/writing for money. There is a matter of validation. It is of value to know that somebody outside your own self appreciates your writing . . . well, at least it is for me.

Or would be, if anybody did.

caw.

[zeprosnepsid]

you can't write for yourself and for money? I don't follow...

[Celia Cyanide]

As I've said in another recent thread, dammit, it isn't an either/or of writing for yourself/writing for money. There is a matter of validation. It is of value to know that somebody outside your own self appreciates your writing . . . well, at least it is for me.

Or would be, if anybody did.

caw.

Well, I think that's the whole thing with this woman. She doesn't want to get published, but she wants to share her writing with other people in the class, because she wants to see if someone else appreciates it.

In my opinion, getting published requires a completely different kind of energy than writing requires. Unfortunately, not everyone has that kind of energy. I don't know if I do, but I'll just have to see what happens when I finish my WIP.

[scarletpeaches]

Surely the fact she wants to see what other people think of her writing proves it isn't just for her? If it was, all that would matter was the fact she liked it.

[blacbird]

Thank you, Scarlet. You preceded me in expressing exactly this thought. Anybody TRULY writing ONLY for herself would never show her writing to anybody else.

caw.

[Celia Cyanide]

Well, she never said she was writing only for herself. Only that she wasn't writing to published.

[AdamH]

Anybody TRULY writing ONLY for herself would never show her writing to anybody else.

True enough. But that doesn't mean she ever wants to get it published. Those are two entirely different things. I could paint a picture and show it to my peers because I'm proud of it but have no desire to hang it in a museum to sell.

Also, it could just be a confidence thing for this woman. Maybe she said she has no intention on publishing it because she's afraid if she says she does and someone tears apart her story that she's been proud of, it would be harder to handle. It's tougher to think your creation is great then gets knocked down than it is if you didn't believe it to be great in the first place.

Something along those lines.

[Steve 211]

If what that teacher said were the truth, I guess I'd be goofing off every time I have sex 'cause I don't ever plan on doing it for pay.

[Steve 211]

Anybody TRULY writing ONLY for herself would never show her writing to anybody else.



I write songs. I know they're not the greatest, I never want to get on the stage, and I don't want to play them for anyone. They're just therapy, as Clapton said.

But when my nephew's babysitter's boyfriend was over, and I found he could play guitar well, I asked him about chord progressions, how in this one song I couldn't find the chord to begin the bridge, and he asked me to play it, and we worked it out.

Sometimes you show your work simply to learn how to do it better.

Same way you go to the dentist - you wouldn't dream of showing your molars to the world, but you show them to a professional to keep them healthy. "If there's anything that's really rotten in there, tell me where, help me to take it out, and teach me how not to let it happen again." That's probably why this woman took the class and what she's asking of the teacher.

[blacbird]

Look, I'm not knocking the woman whose story prompted this thread, or the notion of "writing for myself". But there's often a hypocrisy involved here, IMO. The quickest defense I've ever run into in writers' groups is "Well, I'm only writing for myself." And I think probably that was what the teacher was reacting to. The reaction was still rude and uncalled for. And smug and arrogant, too, but, hey, we have enough of the latter two qualities around here from time to time to last us all a long while.

If "you show your work simply to learn how to do it better," what's the point? I mean, why learn how to do it better? For whom? For what purpose? I can't see any "do it better" being involved, if you're really only writing for yourself.

caw.

[reph]

If "you show your work simply to learn how to do it better," what's the point? I mean, why learn how to do it better? For whom? For what purpose? I can't see any "do it better" being involved, if you're really only writing for yourself.
I don't understand that viewpoint. When I do something with only myself as the witness, I still want to do it well. If I'm going to do it poorly, why do it at all? It's something like wanting a clean house even if you live alone.

If you're scribbling in a notebook just because you like the activity of filling pages, then I can see not caring about quality. I don't think people set out to write poorly, though.

[aruna]

Writing, for me, has two aspects: one is expression. I'm not good at speaking, and have difficulty expressing myself to others through spoken language. I can do this far better with writing. And I feel the urge to perfect this form of expression. I'm always dissatisfied because words can somehow never live up to the actual experience of what I want to say. Words are somehow inadequate. Even if money, making a living, getting pubisherd wasn't an option, I can still imagine taking a class out of the very urgency of finding the right words. It's like an need in me I can't ignore; that's why I'm always dissatisfied with what I've written, including my published works, because I know they could be better. If I were to attend such a class it would not be goofing off.

The second aspect is commubnication, which is closely related to the first. I am shy and reserved, and I wish I wan't. I have the need to share, to open up, for others to understand. So I do want to be published; for that reason: to be able to communicate

Somehow, the whole notion of being a professional, earning money, being in the business is secondary or tertiary to all that. That is, let's say I was comfortably situated with all the money I needed and no financial pressure to make a living through writing, Would I still write? Yes, absolutely. Mind you, I don't know if the lack of financial pressure would be enough to get me off my butt (I am a very cosy sort of person, not "driven" the way some are!), but I do know I would WANT to write, and that there would be something vital missing in my life if I didn't.

I'm the kind of person who would love to write for the sheer fuilfillment of it, but would be happy if someone came along, said, "Oh, but this is marvellous, you must get it published!", and I said "Go ahead!" and they took care of everything, and I just got on with the writing.

I think "goofing off" is a disrespectful form of address. We come to writing for various reasons, and business isn't the only one worthy of respect.

[fallenangelwriter]

I don't understand that viewpoint. When I do something with only myself as the witness, I still want to do it well. If I'm going to do it poorly, why do it at all? It's something like wanting a clean house even if you live alone.

If you're scribbling in a notebook just because you like the activity of filling pages, then I can see not caring about quality. I don't think people set out to write poorly, though.

maybe so, but it's a different kind of better. it all depends on the intended audience. i'm sure that, writing for yourself, there's still good and bad writing. however, many of the skills taught in writing for publications, are really specific to publication, that is, getting people who don't know you personally to read and enjoy the book.

[Celia Cyanide]

Look, I'm not knocking the woman whose story prompted this thread, or the notion of "writing for myself". But there's often a hypocrisy involved here, IMO. The quickest defense I've ever run into in writers' groups is "Well, I'm only writing for myself." And I think probably that was what the teacher was reacting to. The reaction was still rude and uncalled for. And smug and arrogant, too, but, hey, we have enough of the latter two qualities around here from time to time to last us all a long while.

If "you show your work simply to learn how to do it better," what's the point? I mean, why learn how to do it better? For whom? For what purpose? I can't see any "do it better" being involved, if you're really only writing for yourself.

caw.

I think the issue here is that there is middle ground between writing for yourself and writing for publication. It's not an either/or thing. You can want your writing to be good, and want other people to appreciate it, without wanting it published. That's not hypocritical.

I agree that some people will get defensive in critique, but "I'm only writing this for myself" is one of several things people have said. One I have heard often is, "Oh, yeah? well, I've read best sellers that read like that!" Also, I suppose it's worth pointing out that we critiqued this woman's poetry, and she did not act like that at all. She was very gracious about recieving critiques.

As for why learn to do it better...I would like to be published one day, and I am going to try. But the reason why I try to get better is not to be published. It makes me happy to read something I've written and know that it's good. So, it would logically follow that when my writing gets better, it makes me happier. I know that some people do get defensive and try to say, "You can't knock this, it's just for me." But I sincerely want to get better, much more than I want to get published.

[AngelSound]

It is with people like that group teacher that we are presented with a mirror to our own heart's desire. When we write because we simply love to write...that is a soul response and a passion - one that someone directing their life strictly from the ego does not understand. Remember - some of the best teachers are those we choose to ignore!! It is all in the choosing of response. Stay true to your heart with everything and no one can take anything away from you.

[chartreuse]

This kind of reminds me of a class I took last semester. We would sit down in class and the teacher would be kind of like " Your writing should show not tell, you know, like in that movie__________" And then everyone would start talking about movies for half the class, I am sorry, but movies really don't have anything to do with writing a novel.

I don't want to stray to far from the original topic but I did feel compelled to point out that I've had similar experiences in writing classes, and at least in those cases, the reason people ended using films as examples is because there is a lot more commonality in what movies people have seen than in the books they've read. It just makes it easier to teach if you use examples from works people are familiar with.

Also, one of the best writing classes I've taken talked about applying movie structure to novels - it was one of the most helpful classes I've ever taken.

Regarding the topic at hand, though: Yes, it was a rude comment. And unfortunately it probably means the instructor won't take any of her work seriously. She should ask for her money back.

[Mistook]

Lots of interesting debate since last I was at this thread.

The more I read, the more I'm convinced that society has really lost a whole dimension in the last century or so. Don't get my tone wrong, I'm not saying this to gripe... more to lament, but there was a time when everybody with an 8th grade education was able to play an instrument, draw a decent illustration of a given image, and write not only lucid prose, but poetry, and in highly legible cursive (remember penmanship?).

Not everybody can be a genius at every art form, but every human is very much capable of drawing better than stick figures, playing chopsticks badly on a piano, and writing a badly punctuated paragraph of slang in choppy hand print. The same goes for acting and dance, and the rest.

The idea of teaching children to be capable in the arts wasn't thought of as constructive playtime either. It was meant to put each person fully in touch with their humanity. In fact, they called these subjects "The Humanities" and they were taken just as seriously as math, science, and economics.

Even the posters here who do follow that instinct to explore the humanities on their own time seem to be floundering for any way to defend such efforts, and seem to be largely unaware that what they are doing has great historical precedent.

Why doesn't that suprise me? Once you become sensitive to the issue, you'd be amazed how all pervasive the anti-humaity sentiment is in our age. Almost universally, the practice of anything resembling art is considered a fantastic waste of time unless there is a paycheck attached to it. And it better be a fat paycheck, or forget you.

We're not humans anymore. We're consumers, and frankly, I think it's sad.

[aruna]

Lots of interesting debate since last I was at this thread.

The more I read, the more I'm convinced that society has really lost a whole dimension in the last century or so. Don't get my tone wrong, I'm not saying this to gripe... more to lament, but there was a time when everybody with an 8th grade education was able to play an instrument, draw a decent illustration of a given image, and write not only lucid prose, but poetry, and in highly legible cursive (remember penmanship?).

We're not humans anymore. We're consumers, and frankly, I think it's sad.

That's a very insightful post, Mistook, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. It seems that a price tag is placed on everything, and anything without one is simply not valued. And we are all the losers.
There's education for life, and education for living; the subjects we learn to help us find jobs is education for life; but education for living helps enhance our very experience of life, and includes subjects which, when mastered, are their own reward. Sadly, those are the ones that are being struck from school curriculums - and which we need the most.

[scarletpeaches]

I love you guys.

[aruna]

I love you guys.

we love you too.

[scarletpeaches]

Oh, hold on, if I eat some chocolate I'll be back to normal. I don't know what came over me.

[loquax]

But mistook, that makes us special http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif. I'm glad I learned how to sketch, play guitar, and write in my spare time. It defines who I am. If everyone was taught everything, we would all be clones and would probably end up eating soylent green.

[Celia Cyanide]

Almost universally, the practice of anything resembling art is considered a fantastic waste of time unless there is a paycheck attached to it.

and why isn't it that way with math? Math never did me any good, once I got past the basics, yet they keep pushing it through college, like everyone needs calculus! Art is the first thing eliminated from the curriculum.

[jst5150]

Some things we do in life just add tools to our toolbox. Acting classes for you add the the repetoire of things you are able to do on stage. The writing class this person took might have been something that was a "broadener."

I suppose, too, there discussion about the value of scale. For instance, taking a class broadens, but what if she were to major in writing and become a plumber. It's like going to law school and not doing something in the field of law. The scale of information you absorb in law school almost demands that you become a lawyer. Similarly, if you get a degree from one of the military service academies, good chance you'll be a career military officer.

A writing class could apply to a lot of different disciplines, too. So, there's always the notion that she may have simply wanted to write a better resume. Perhaps she's got a huge project coming up that demands her syntax be tack sharp. There are a myriad reasons we could never see.

Finally, consider it may have just been a lark. Spend 200 bucks on a course, sit around and trade verbs with classmates; see how you fit in. A lark-validation, of sorts.

And yes -- I just coined the term "lark-validation." Feel free to put that in your pocket and use it whenever you like. ;-)