Many years ago I assembled a book titled "Afterwords: Novelists on Their Novels".
I did it by going to a number of prominent novelists and inviting them to write about the writing of one of their novels. "Describe the campaign of the book -- how it began, what it looked like to you at various stages, what problems came up and what solutions you devised, how explicit were the considerations of craft we think we see -- in other words, what was going on when you worked." For me the greatest impact of the book came from seeing how different the writers were -- in their aims, techniques, and satisfactions, and in their range: Some were cool, deliberate craftsmen delighted to show their character-notes and structure charts, like architects proudly displaying how their blueprints accommodated the anticipatable needs not just of tenants but also of the electricians, plumbers, and even trash-disposal folks. At the other end was the man who responded to the invitation by saying, "I can't do it. For me the writing of a novel is prolonged lunatic binge, and much as I'd like to describe the event, I find it's impossible." In my introduction to the book I wrote, "Reading these complex, disparate pieces calls to mind the old truth that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is discernibly common and peculiar to all writers." And that's what came back to mind as I read the current postings in this thread, "Envisioning". The postings here have displayed a similar disparateness, beginning with why our forum's artists create at all. William's explanation of his motivation is, for me, both informative and incomprehensible: "If the artist does something he or she thinks is good it's a plea for recognition of whole selfness. Then one is enabled to go to pieces and start the frantic, desperate and hopeful quest for wholeness again ad infinitum. Thus I think art commemorates in a social medium what everyone is compelled to do moment to moment in consciousness if they choose authenticity of selfness." Michael rejects this notion: "I am strongly unconvinced that when I or someone else chooses to do any of these things, or other things, they are thinking, "Wow. My ego/id is driving me to a fuller practice of my selfhood." Nah. I don't think this is even a subconscious or protoconscious concept or motive." Each of the men is entitled to his own analysis of his experience. Where perhaps each will find resistance is when he speaks as though he believes his analysis applies to all artists. William cites "THE artist", Michael says, "when I or someone else". Still, I'm very much with Michael when he says he does not paint to "express himself", nor does he write to convey a "message". I'll try to be more specific about this in a subsequent posting as I address Michael's original thread-starting questions: "What is it about the kernel of a story that hooks you? How do you go about envisioning a larger story? What is it that makes you conclude that you want to write the full story (book, play, etc.)? Aside from my intrigue with this question, I think the answers can shed some light on how what we call "aesthetics" is incorporated in the actual making or developing of a work." ************** Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics b check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
