Ye'r clever, aren't ye?
On Terminology
- Thread starter Stuart Dren
- Start date
Ye'r clever, aren't ye?
I react to it as bright and straightforward. I generally prefer minor keys, which are more peaceful and relaxing, not all that often sad. Think muted, "Williamsburg" colors for minor, versus primaries for major.
Sooo...
It's ok to talk about the Muse or the Mysticism or the Magic so long as there's product at the end and the witer doesn't cite any of those things as implicated in their lack of success. It's the writers who cite these things within a complaint for their lack of success that causes such reprobation. It's the complaining that's at issue, really. Same as it would be if the writer argued they couldn't write because they're so busy with 8 hours of doomscrolling every day, or the computer is wonky, or the nib on their pen snapped.
That wasn't entirely clear from the discussion.
With respect to other pursuits/interests, I know there are aficianados of bull riding, wave riding, garden tending, and whatever else who speak of the spiritual enrichment of their chosen activity. Should we get them to shut up about it too?
It's ok to talk about the Muse or the Mysticism or the Magic so long as there's product at the end and the witer doesn't cite any of those things as implicated in their lack of success. It's the writers who cite these things within a complaint for their lack of success that causes such reprobation. It's the complaining that's at issue, really. Same as it would be if the writer argued they couldn't write because they're so busy with 8 hours of doomscrolling every day, or the computer is wonky, or the nib on their pen snapped.
That wasn't entirely clear from the discussion.
With respect to other pursuits/interests, I know there are aficianados of bull riding, wave riding, garden tending, and whatever else who speak of the spiritual enrichment of their chosen activity. Should we get them to shut up about it too?
Last edited:
I have yet to hear of anyone extolling the spiritual enrichment of bull riding. Especially not bulls.
Hmm. I think it is a tendency for most perhaps to glorify their own approach, whether that be believing in "mystical bull" or elbow grease and sound logic. It's why I like to refer to MBTI as a loose example. Aside from "sitting in chair and banging on the keys until one reaches THE END" the entire process around that is up to the individual.
Additionally, it seems to be a way not to appear arrogant to emphasize the non-mystical side, and yet I find that kind of sentiment leaks out anyway if you talk to them enough about other stuff.
Well. I haven't finished reading The Sun Also Rises.
I recall hearing a former Irish hooker speaking genuinely about the "art" of playing front row rugby. I don't necessarily agree that it's an art form, but not enough to castigate his opinion.
More people express their true selves through kicking a football than writing verse. Talk to anyone about the thing they feel passionate about and it quickly becomes a spiritual topic.
Including bull riders.
More people express their true selves through kicking a football than writing verse. Talk to anyone about the thing they feel passionate about and it quickly becomes a spiritual topic.
Including bull riders.
You might want to clarify that a bit for American readers.
The biggest issue I have with attributing it to a "muse", or something mystical, or when someone says "the characters don't do what I tell them", is that it is abandoning authorial control of - and responsibility for - their own work. The moment you start thinking something else is responsible, then you stop thinking you can fix any problems with the work. You stop looking for solutions.
If a "muse" was responsible, or the characters were, you'd never write yourself into a dead-end, or have any issues with writers' block. The stories would spring, fully formed into your head. The only person responsible for any problems in the story is YOU, the author, and, unless you're prepared to give it up and hand the manuscript over to someone else, you're the one who's going to have to fix it.
If a "muse" was responsible, or the characters were, you'd never write yourself into a dead-end, or have any issues with writers' block. The stories would spring, fully formed into your head. The only person responsible for any problems in the story is YOU, the author, and, unless you're prepared to give it up and hand the manuscript over to someone else, you're the one who's going to have to fix it.
I will, as soon as they clarify that bull riding should not be confused with sheep shagging.
I have an interview from Youtube going on as I write this, J.B. Mauney retired bull rider. Never heard of him until 5 minutes ago. He hasn't mentioned zen, but everything he's saying is pretty zen.
I still argue the reference to a "muse" is trying to conceptualise a process that's hard to describe in conventional terms, something that occurs within the process that's as close to magic as makes no difference. The author still has agency but is trying to tap into something that doesn't fit the purely functional notion of "type the words."
Louanne Learning
Role Play Moderator
Winner : February Poetry
Winner: 4th Contest Feb
Winner: 4th Contest August
Winner: June Flash Fiction
I don't think anyone has said this? It's certainly not what I implied. No, engaging in making art is not superhuman, but very human indeed.
All humans are storytellers. In the proper circumstances, maybe with some training and some encouragement, we are able to use the written word - symbols - and create coherent narrative arcs with breadth and meaning that may touch another human mind and heart. Wow.
Not mystical. Not magical. Though it sometimes feels as though it is. But all the capacities associated with storytelling are firmly grounded in our humanness. And that mystical, magical feeling becomes accessible when the creative impulse - which all have - is acted upon.
And John Lennon said that "Across the Universe" was "a gift from Jah," so there's that, too. (And he was speaking of "Jah" in the Rastafarian sense, not the Hebrew one.)
Stuart Dren
Active Member
Great discussion. I have learned that mysticism in this context is quite a loaded word. Completely understandable.
It may be that I am responsible for placing 'magic' (or spirit-adjacent holistic language) as the opposition to functional terminology. I didn't intend that, though this discussion seems to imply that it is the only substitute for someone who resists common terminology. Not saying I disagree.
It may be that I am responsible for placing 'magic' (or spirit-adjacent holistic language) as the opposition to functional terminology. I didn't intend that, though this discussion seems to imply that it is the only substitute for someone who resists common terminology. Not saying I disagree.
I think that was me who sprouted the mystical tangent, I think.
To return it to terminology, I don't think labeling or categorizing things lessens whatever an established affect might have been, if that was what you were asking. I, uh, can't tell with you sometimes. Haha.
I wasn't disputing this line of thought and apologize for the misunderstanding. My objection is specifically to those who expound on the mysticism and agony of writing without bothering to do the practical work needed to become proficient. That kind of grandstanding makes me plotz, which I've thoroughly demonstrated in the course of this discussion.
Claiming one is spiritually enriched by one's pursuits is something quite different from claiming mystical sources of inspiration.
Muse as metaphor is fair. Essentially the same as unexpectedly digging up something wonderful in the compost heap, only sexier.
I wish you could see the elite bucking bulls who consistently make victory laps after tossing their would-be riders into the dirt. While I don't know if bucking some guy in chinks halfway to the clouds is spiritually enriching, some bulls do seem to relish their victories.So much for a simple statement being taken at face value. For the record: my family includes a retired bull rider, a leatherworker, a choreographer, and a carpenter; the rocket scientist is just a friend.
Great discussion, tangents, misunderstandings, and all.
Pyroglyphian
Member
I share the general sentiments here. Theory follows practice. It rationalises observations of practice and can serve as a useful pointer. Inevitably, growth leads the practitioner to do something unprecedented, at which point theory becomes restrictive.
On the mystical side, I sympathise with the mystics, as I used to be one. Time has since shown me that creativity is no more mystical than putting bacon with eggs and calling it breakfast.
Having said this, creativity and its related faculties, whilst inherent to all people, can fall into disuse – some may argue that they are ‘repressed’ by modern forms of economic labour, for which individuality is disruptive. Therefore, I can see how connecting with one’s creativity could be a profound experience.
On the mystical side, I sympathise with the mystics, as I used to be one. Time has since shown me that creativity is no more mystical than putting bacon with eggs and calling it breakfast.
Having said this, creativity and its related faculties, whilst inherent to all people, can fall into disuse – some may argue that they are ‘repressed’ by modern forms of economic labour, for which individuality is disruptive. Therefore, I can see how connecting with one’s creativity could be a profound experience.
Similar threads
