I’ve been thinking about what it takes to become a writer lately, and it seems to me that all it takes, and this is not a small thing, is to write on a regular basis. The practice of writing is principal to the becoming, just as the practise of anything is critical to the person that we become. In a literal sense, the brain is mapped by repeated patterns of thought and behaviour. The technical term for this is neuroplasticity, and what modern brain scanning techniques show is that the more a behaviour or thought is repeated, the more the brain will physically adjust to ensure that the mechanisms for that behaviour, or pattern of thinking, become increasingly efficient.
This has implications for self-belief, because if we disrespect our right to write, or to practise that art form, we weaken the neural pathways that enable us to do that very thing. We are continually in a process of becoming, or un-becoming, something.
Couldn't agree more, Iris. I sometimes feel uncomfortable calling myself a writer, but that's what I do. That and thinking... but I'm not about to describe myself as a 'Thinker'! Love that there's a physiological reason behind it. A kind of reverse cognitive-behavioural therapy -- where the behaviour makes the cognition.
ReplyDeleteWe need more thinkers - I think we should revive the old fantasy (mine, anyway) of sitting under a tree and discussing ideas. To be a writer is also to be a thinker maybe..
DeleteG'day Iris.
ReplyDeleteThere's been a bit of online discussion on this topic recently. You and other visitors to your blog can find them in the comments to this post:
http://annabelsmith.tumblr.com/post/48249083127/writers-ask-writers
Here's a post from Louise on the same subject:
http://louise-allan.com/2013/03/21/coming-out/
For me, I think the difference between calling oneself a writer in private and in public depends on how that's likely to be received by other people i.e. who you're talking to and what you're talking about. Whether or not you've had anything published (and where and how much) and what you do with your time besides writing also have a lot to do with it. It is perfectly reasonable to regard oneself as a 'writer' i.e. 'a person that writes' if that is what one does. But there is also the public title of 'writer' that suggests a degree of exposure and recognition. This is what most non-writers (in either sense) think of when they hear the term. And most members of the former category cannot claim membership to the latter.
Hi Glen, Thanks for leaving such a thoughtful comment. Great to hear from you! My feelings are these (more general reflections)(: I think peer and public recognition that one is 'a writer' is a great thing, although 'coming out' is difficult sometimes because there seems to be a lot of mythology built up around what it takes to be a writer, silly hype really, an nobody likes to big-note themselves. To become a 'professional writer' (i.e. be picked up by a publisher who pays you)I think, as in other professions, it takes a lot of work and respect for the endeavour (which is where reading comes in I think)and quite a bit of luck. The more we work, the more we create our own luck. Like any skill one has to work at it, and some people probably have more aptitude than others, but some people with aptitude don't get picked up and some without a particularly strong aptitude and a strong work ethic do. The more we write (and read), the more authentic we are, and open to changing what doesn't work and strengthening what does, I think the better our writing will become. It doesn't mean everyone will like it, but I think that's ok too.
DeleteI think it's those inequities with regard to which people get published and why that tend to make other people quite circumspect about their own activities and ambitions. As you point out, a lot of truly talented people never get the recognition they deserve, which can make recognition itself seem so chancy that even a worthy recipient may feel obliged to play it down. That said, all of us as writers and readers should acknowledge commitment to the writing process and, ipso facto, to continual improvement, both in ourselves and in other practicioners.
DeleteAnd yes; there will always be those who don't like or don't respond to whatever we churn out. We've all been to that garden party and thought better of it later (remember the song?) :)
Yes, now that song is in my head - or is it an Octopus's garden that I'm thinking of - some sort of hybrid! I think the take-home message is to write what is important to you (me) and to do that the best one can - understanding that that goalpost is always receding into the distance. The external publishing decision is probably partly based on quality and partly on perceived commercial viability - in different percentages depending upon the publisher. I'd guess the latter isn't a small thing, even with external funding. Publishers might be idealists to go into such a chancy enterprise, but they have to survive as businesses in an increasingly uncertain area. That being said, I think would be a mistake for a writer to make perceived commercial viability their prime objective in subject choice. If you are going to live with a book for a few years, you want it to be something that means something to you, and that you would like to read yourself.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, some of the best books were written that way - like Fahrenheit 451 - with an economic imperative to feed the family.
Delete