The myth of the tormented, genius writer
I think there is a dangerous myth circulating amongst young writers and filmmakers, student and aspiring writers/filmmakers: Writing is something we hate to do, although we want to be writers or we are burdened by this curse of being a wonderful writer and so we must do it, to share our genius talent and creativity, but we avoid it at all costs. Some sort of self entitled belief that people who are "writers" just have it, and that having to practice somehow means we don't "have it". That real "writers" don't need to study or practice writing too much, that it might ruin their "voice" and unique talent. It can be self sabotaging at best and presumptuous at worst. Until writing becomes something we finally quit procrastinating and make ourselves do, and then are done with that project and put off the next as long as possible until it can be put off no more.
If you want to be a writer you better love to write. You should love to write. Writing should be something that makes you happy, drives you, appeases the demons. I know we all procrastinate and put off and get "writers block" (whatever that is), but a writer should never hate it.
Do you think an old story teller ever said, I really hate telling stories, but I'm so goddamned good at it, I MUST do it! I will put it off as long as I can, but eventually I must because I am a storyteller. Can you imagine your Grandfather saying, oh I dread the holidays because everyone is sitting around and expecting me to tell great stories, but damnit, I am a storyteller, so it must be done. NO!!! Grandpa, Auntie or whoever tells the great stories when your family all comes together does it because they LOVE telling stories. And they got good at telling stories by telling them over and over again for years and years. They messed them up and told the wrong punchline. I remember my Grandfather countless times saying, "wait, no, that's not how that goes" or my Grandma saying, "Freddie, that's not how it happened" and my Grandfather would pick right back up, correct himself and keep going. And as I remember it, every year the stories got better and better, and further and further from the original version(or truth).
And while I am at it can I talk about one more of my favorite little writer's myths. That a good writer or "natural" writer doesn't need to re-write. This may well be all Kerouac's fault, but I don't blame him. I don't even believe him that he really wrote off the top of his head and didn't rewrite anything, although plenty of his critics would say it's obvious he didn't. Most people have accepted the chanting of the mantra of "writing is re-writing" enough by their wise (or not so wise) professors enough that they usually, at least a little bit, begrudgingly accept it might be true. When it comes to their prose writing. But when I hear it most often is when people speak of their poetry. I'm far beyond the capability of remembering the amount of times I have heard that someone cannot change their poem once it comes out because that would ruin its true, raw form. As if, somehow, when writing poetry, our feelings and thoughts and emotions come out in their truest and most honest manifestations. Think about this for a minute. How many times have you said exactly what you were thinking, right when you were thinking it, the best way you could imagine having said it, to best express what you were feeling inside? Or try this one: how many times have you left a situation, ended a conversation or merely changed topics and thought, damn! why didn't I say this, or I wish I'd said that! Most of us have felt the latter way more often than not. And when emotions are running high, and I'd say at their rawest, it is even LESS likely that what comes spewing out is going to be the best representation of those beautiful or dark or ugly emotions that have us strangling in their grip.
And before I completely leave that analogy, I might as well bring up one more thing, relating to us future nobel prize winners. Have you ever said something that made perfect sense when you said it and someone takes it the wrong way? The girl gets feels you don't appreciate her, the classmate or coworker gets offended, the person arguing with you uses what you said to boost their argument and you are left saying, "wait! that's not what I meant. I meant this!" ... ohhh, well, that's quite a different story, isn't it? Well, you should have said that the first time, pal. That is the beauty of writing, you get the chance to say it again, so that the person who reads it will understand what you meant, what your point or feeling was. But how can you possibly know how another person is going to read something unless you let someone read your work and tell you how it made them feel, what they understood you meant? You can't. And yet one of the top complaints in writing classes is having to workshop your writing, because no one ever understands you. Of course, there are people who will never understand you, there are people in class who are just idiots, and sometimes you really won't give a shit if a certain point gets understood (not a wise option). But writers NEED someone else to read their writing, react to it and tell them how they felt. Of course, it should be someone who's opinion you value and gives "good" feedback, but that is a dangerous category, lest you deem everyone who doesn't get your writing immediately as not giving good feedback. And knowing what is good feedback and accruing a group of good workshopping partners is something that we can only hope will grow with time and experience.
So for all the writers who never want to write, want it done the first time around and are immune to criticism, remember we all have that uncle or aunt (its usually an uncle) who tells the most inappropriate jokes or stories at family gatherings, is oblivious or unconcerned by the embarrassment, repulsion or hurt they are causing and keep on doing it every year. They are not the great story tellers of our people, and we don't want to be that guy.
