# Do madness and creativity go hand-in-hand? (1 Viewer)



## The Backward OX (May 8, 2008)

On quite a few occasions I’ve read comments here about how “the character spoke to me and told me what to write”, or words to that effect.

Does this mean those writers who make such comments are hearing voices? And does that mean they are a bit off-kilter as far as mental stability is concerned? In other words, do you have to be mad in order be creative?


And of course this all leads inevitably to another question - is it possible to reason with such a writer about what's wrong with their work?


----------



## BOURBON (May 8, 2008)

I think there are two side to every good writer: the first draft writer and the editor.

I can only speak for myself, but the 'first draft writer' me does hear voices, literally - but they don't speak to me, they speak to each other, through me. If I don't write I still hear them and they piss me off. I liken it to mediumship or chanelling. Can't explain it, just happens.  

The Editor is the most important half of the duo. Anyone can churn out stuff they tune into from god knows whatever/where. It's the Editor who shapes it, fine tunes it and makes it something other than the outpourings of the 'first draft writer'. Without the Editor the First Draft Writer is nothing. 

No, you don't have to be mad to be creative, but my definition of sanity is loose. I'd rather think that creative people are a bit more sensitive to what is there for all to see and hear.

Yes is it possible to reason with a sensitive writer about their work, but remember to make an appointment with the Editor. The First draft writer will ignore everything you say and cannibalise you for future writing.

Now we are thirsty and must go get a couple of drinks.

Bourbons


----------



## alanmt (May 8, 2008)

some of the best actors and fine artists I know are slightly unhinged, and I do think there is a link in their individual cases between the two.

Which is not to say that very sane, normal people cannot be successful in creative fields.


----------



## nacreous (May 8, 2008)

Yes.
I'd say there is a very high positive relationship between madness and creativity.  that does not imply that the one causes the other, only that the two seem to go hand in hand.


----------



## A-L (May 8, 2008)

Perhaps, there is a fine line between creativity and sanity, as there is between being ingenius and insane. I mean isn't being creative genius in itself?


----------



## Foxee (May 8, 2008)

Ox, I know what you're referring to and I really can't swear for others but this is what it means if I say it.

In order to effectively write from a character's point of view I have to be able to imagine not just them from the outside but imagine to some extent what it is like to BE them. I have to imagine fairly intensely...so intensely that I can clearly hear what their voice might sound like. I have to be able to 'hear' them in my inner ear.

Now, before you dismiss this, you do it with real people all the time. Think of anyone you know well who you have had many real life conversations with. If you think about them and imagine how they might say something, chances are good that you can 'hear' them in exactly the same way. Not because you're channeling them but because you know them, their personality, their expressions, their vocal style and tone, their foibles well enough to guess how they might react to something or say something.

This is the exact same thing only we make the character up.

If I tell you that I had a conversation with a five-year-old girl who lisped and was excited about seeing a box full of kittens you have a pretty good idea of what she sounded like.

If I tell you that an old grumpy man went on and on about kids messing up his lawn you can guess what sort of voice he had.

If I say that my aunt is forty-six and has a smoker's voice I bet you can sort of hear her when I write that she said, "Could you get me a pack of Virginia Slims while you're out?"

This is simply a part of good communication. I have imagined a character and it's up to me to convey what I'm imagining to you, the reader. In my case I only 'hear' them when I've been writing a lot about them so they're on my mind but it's not like voices telling me what to do. More like my brain is making connections with how I've sketched out their personality and what situation I've dropped them into and the puzzle of the story is coming together.

And I may be a little nuts. I'm ok with that.


----------



## JosephB (May 8, 2008)

> This is the exact same thing only we make the character up.



I just imagined a five-year-old girl who lisped and had a smokers voice going on and on about kids messing up the lawn and then asking for a pack of Virginia Slims.

I think I'm a little nuts too.


----------



## Foxee (May 8, 2008)

JosephB said:


> I think I'm a little nuts too.


I could have told you that.


----------



## JosephB (May 8, 2008)

> I could have told you that.



Uh oh. No smiley. I'm in trouble now.


----------



## seigfried007 (May 8, 2008)

My characters do talk to me--they make odd comments and watch movies with me. It's how I get to know them so that I can write them. Characters with a great force of extroverted personality and lots of opinions are the easiest to get to know for that very reason--I can't get a few to shut up 

"Hearing voices" is generally associated with schizophrenia, but I've never met a writer that hallucinated said voices as coming from outside their own minds (as is the case with schizophrenic hallucinations). Schizophrenics believe the voice really exist whereas writers know better (unless they're also psychotic). Thus, wrters are sane but possibly eccentric people whereas schizophrenics are truly psychotics. 

My characters are more apt to talk to people other than me (very few of them talk to me). My husband is the prime candidate for conversation--but, for the most part and with very few exceptions, he loves talking to them and wishes they could pop right out of my head like Athena and help him out on various manly projects (he's wished more times than I care to count that Tonka could come out--friendly, respectful, family-oriented, kinda 'country' engineer/mechanic/handymen are always welcome ).   

Can someone tell me I'm writing something wrong? Hell yes. They're welcome to. I won't take everything and, most of the time, I won't alter a character. However, it doesn't mean that I get off easy because I still have to make the character make sense to the reader and, often times, it's very difficult and sometimes impossible in the chosen length of the story (for instance, if I have to write a flash, sometimes it's just too damned hard to write the more eccentric characters unless I'm writing for me or other people familiar with that character). Sometimes, I just have to scrap the story for the crime of shoehorning too much into too small a space. I've still learned a lesson and I'll still make that mistake again and again, but the advice is always welcome--even if I come out and tell the critter "umm, that won't work because..." 

It's a matter of being true to the character (and I've botched longfic from not being true to them so I'm not in a hurry to make a habit of forming plot puppets). I'd rather have a cantankerous but 'real' character in a story and have to do extensive rewrites and re-plottings etc than to make one sound false. If one sounds false, it's not because he is (usually) but because I'm just just not writing him right... yet. :-(


----------



## Foxee (May 8, 2008)

JosephB said:


> Uh oh. No smiley. I'm in trouble now.


I went by your rules to write that post. Argh, the urge to add a smiley is strong but I am resisting...

:bomb:

Is there therapy for smiley addiction?


----------



## CodeRed (May 8, 2008)

Foxee said:


> Is there therapy for smiley addiction?


 
Apparently not - which puts all the interventions I've had to sit through a bit on the useless side. :|

Also, I have to second everything that you said in regard to the original question.


----------



## HarryG (May 8, 2008)

Shix of the last sheven American writers who won the Nobel prize for literature were alcoholics.


 To suggest that the composer Beethoven or the painter Van Gogh were sane, would be insane.  (A sane person wouldn't have cut his fucking ear off, would he?)


 The Beatles would never have recorded Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, had they not been tripping on LSD when they wrote the song.


 Without his deadly amphetamine mixture, Elvis would never have made the Las Vegas stage in his later years (and would probably still be alive today).


 When I hear the guitar riffs of Jimi Hendrix, I go to heaven, but he didn't play them without swallowing some serious shit.


 If the Rolling Stones were dried out for a couple of months and then put on the stage, they would be five wrinkled pensioners without an audience.


 “Momma, I've killed a man.”   Yeah, sure, Freddie, if you hadn't shovelled all that shit up your nose, you wouldn't have been able to say the words, never mind sing them on a stage.


 I don't know the answer to the OP's question.


  And what about that Amy Winehouse?  Has she sold all those millions of records because she has a fantastic voice, or because she's a crackhead with a fantastic voice?


----------



## Foxee (May 8, 2008)

Why do you think Beethoven was insane? Deaf, maybe, but insane?

Van Gogh, agreed. Mad as a hatter. Poe as well, in my opinon.

The rest you mention are drug and substance related, not insanity related. Yes, I see what you're saying, that their brains were chemically altered while they were creating. I don't see the benefit to it as a lot of what you referenced is inexplicably popular to the culture but not to me.


----------



## mprosa (May 8, 2008)

Um, to answer your original question, no!
Some creative people were insane, just as some taxi drivers, cooks, hotel managers, husbands, etc. That doesn't make it the rule, it's just a percentage (my humble opinion of course)!


----------



## HarryG (May 8, 2008)

Foxee said:


> Why do you think Beethoven was insane? Deaf, maybe, but insane?
> 
> Van Gogh, agreed. Mad as a hatter. Poe as well, in my opinon.
> 
> The rest you mention are drug and substance related, not insanity related. Yes, I see what you're saying, that their brains were chemically altered while they were creating. I don't see the benefit to it as a lot of what you referenced is inexplicably popular to the culture but not to me.



 	 	 My assertion that Beethoven was 'insane' is based on readings from the past which I'm unable to replicate here, sorry.


 You say that the rest are drug related, yes, they all are, including the Nobel prize winners, if alcohol is a drug.


 You say, 'not to me', and it's not to me either, but I acknowledge that shit happens.


----------



## Ungood (May 8, 2008)

Yah... we are all bat stinking nuts... 

Ungood.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 8, 2008)

I had hoped to obtain some answers _that made sense to me_ without the need to use an actual example from a WF thread.

I didn’t want to point a finger at an individual in case I was accused of saying that person is wacky when the person in question may well consider themselves to be the very essence of sanity.

And I didn’t want to ask the poster in question directly, as it could cause defensiveness and I might not obtain an objective answer.

But I haven’t found the answer I seek, so I’m going to post two extracts from a particular thread and you can give me your spin on it:

_“I was just sitting in my chair one night and Ted... told me to write the story. It was really weird actually. I never ever ever write short stories but this one just came out and concluded itself.”_

_“this story literally wrote itself. I sat down and had a clear visual of the situation and of Susan and Ted. Ted told me how he wanted it to end so I just wrote it.”_


Does that sound like voices inside the writer’s head or not?

And if so, could there perhaps be an explanation that ordinary folk can cope with? Like maybe psychic channelling or something like that? Psychics hear voices, and I don’t think they’re mad.


----------



## JosephB (May 8, 2008)

> Does that sound like voices inside the writer’s head or not?



No, it doesn't. To me it's more of an affectation. A more dramatic, or perhaps even pretentious way of describing how the author was inspired. 

I've seen actors do something similar in interviews, when they talk about a character they've played -- speaking about how a character would do this, or not do that, as though the character was a real person, that somehow lived outside the movie. You can bet when the camera is off, they don't talk like that.



> “I was just sitting in my chair one night and Ted... told me to write the story.



That's just writer-speak. Cut the BS and just say, "I had this idea for a character -- Ted. I was able to relate to the character and the story came easily to me."


----------



## KarmaVictim (May 9, 2008)

For a while I was concerned that madness and creativity went hand in hand. While there are plenty of creative geniuses that were bat-crap crazy, I really don't think it's the madness that allowed them this creative potential. Here is a paragraph that puts it better than I could:

"Although the neuropsychology of creativity is not understood at this point, there appears to be ways to stimulate it. One way appears to be a judicious lowering of inhibitions. A study demonstrated how a mild dose of alcohol could improve the result of a creative design process when taken during the “incubation period” when the test subjects presumably let their subconscious mull over the problem. Some case studies of brain damage also suggest that a lowering of inhibition can unleash creative abilities. It is not implausible that reversible changes of this type could be achieved through drugs or transcranial magnetic stimulation."

This came from an article on cognitive enhancement that can be found at:
Cognitive Enhancement

I think that about covers the above mentioned theories. The drugs and alcohol certainly didn't hurt the Stones or Hendrix, but I'm sure there are other, less damaging or illegal ways to lower your inhibitions and get to some of that elusive creativity.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 9, 2008)

> Does that sound like voices inside the writer’s head or not?


 




JosephB said:


> No, it doesn't. To me it's more of an affectation. A more dramatic, or perhaps even pretentious way of describing how the author was inspired.


So, the remark by the writer "It was really weird actually" is also no more than pretentious crap? There was nothing weird going on at all? It was just a smart sell by the writer?

Bah.


----------



## Mike C (May 9, 2008)

JosephB said:


> To me it's more of an affectation.



Me also. I say those kinds of things, but it's not literal - "The characters spoke to me": I imagined them easily.

"The story just wrote itself": I wrote it quite easily without interruption.

It's all just part of the writer's self-mythologising bullshit shorthand; I think a lot of writers would like to think you have to be a little mad to be creative; by association it makes them a bit more 'mad, bad and dangerous to know' (first written about Byron, another junkie poet).

There are mentally ill and drug/alcohol dependant writers. But there are more that aren't. And there are millions of mentalists and alcoholics out there who aren't creative at all. It's silly trying to attribute some kind of mythos on 'the writer'; they're just people, they're nothing special.


----------



## HarryG (May 9, 2008)

I left out JK Rowling, who received cognitive therapy for suicidal depression, but enough of that.  Mike sensibly pointed out that the vast majority of writers are not mad and that mad people do not write any better than sane people.  Geniuses might need something to release their genius, but they're not like the rest of us anyway.


 I don't think Ox's question is answerable at all.  Stories do write themselves and if anyone says that they never hear voices, they're lying.  Or deaf.


----------



## The Hooded One (May 9, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> On quite a few occasions I’ve read comments here about how “the character spoke to me and told me what to write”, or words to that effect.
> 
> Does this mean those writers who make such comments are hearing voices? And does that mean they are a bit off-kilter as far as mental stability is concerned? In other words, do you have to be mad in order be creative?
> 
> ...



Very good point

However, as mad as it sounds you may be able to learn something from these eccentrics. Now, I dont mean start hearing voices of course =/. However, giving you characters simple questions and answers is a great way to write and branch off into new ideas, that you may have never considered writing down.


----------



## papertears (May 9, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> On quite a few occasions I’ve read comments here about how “the character spoke to me and told me what to write”, or words to that effect.
> 
> Does this mean those writers who make such comments are hearing voices?


  Not according to one of my favorite authors.  When she made a comment like that and I asked for more detail, it didn't fit the medical definition of a hallucination or psychotic type episode.  It was more of a description of a learning experience about the writing process.

However, in college there was quite a bit of LSD.  I was square and never tried it, but in one of my writing classes a student used it to his heighten sensual experiences to create characters when we were given the choice to write a creative piece.  Having seem him and others have good trips and bad trips on LSD, mushrooms and other substances (my roommate was a dealer.) I became convinced that there were too many of them having bad trips to be pulling my leg collectively, especially after Halloween when several people couldn't understand what happened to society.  They would  describe to me creatures and people in our dorm room that I was not able to see, so unless I'm that naive, I'm wiling to believe this is possible.




> And does that mean they are a bit off-kilter as far as mental stability is concerned?


 I don't like that term "mental stability"  because someone with a mental illness isn't necessarily unstable.  The odds are much more in the other favor.  

I think there have been a lot of books, documentaries and such that show that facing any kind of challenge causes some folks to seek out their creativity to survive and thrive.  Any intense experience can put someone off-kilter and give them new a perspective and perhaps even change brain chemistry so that they have endorphins running amock.  Some will go climb a mountain while others might write a book about it.




> In other words, do you have to be mad in order be creative?


  I honestly don't know, Ox.  Its all so very hard to measure: madness and creativity.  I don't think you have to be diagnostically mad, by any means.  




> And of course this all leads inevitably to another question - is it possible to reason with such a writer about what's wrong with their work?


 It depends on the individual trying to reason and be reasoned with.  I supposed it would depend on the amount of reason the person offering feedback used--there would be some relativity amongst the madness!

~paper tears


----------



## papertears (May 9, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> And if so, could there perhaps be an explanation that ordinary folk can cope with? Like maybe psychic channelling or something like that? Psychics hear voices, and I don’t think they’re mad.



Hmmm, I don't know about a movie for writing, Ox.  But have you seen the movie August Rush?  I like it even though the plot makes some reaches.  

Anyway, its about music, not writing.  However, just in the first parts, so I don't give away major spoilers, the cinematography does a fairly good job of showing how an abnormally creative musician senses music with more than just his hearing. 

I use this movie to try to explain to my non musical friends (not that I'm anywhere on the level of the kid's in the movies talent) how music is more than just something I hear and perform.  Feelings, tastes, touches, smells all have music written within them to me and I can hear them even though its a smell or a color.  (Now everyone thinks I'm mad...hahaha)  

Well, that was my best idea.  I haven't seen any movies about writing like that, but I suspect that there is some carry over in a way that is "the same but different."

~pt


----------



## seigfried007 (May 9, 2008)

As Mike and JoeB said, Ox, those examples are just writer-shorthand for, "Gee, that was mind-numbingly easy!".

And like I said before, so long as you know the characters aren't real and you aren't hearing voices coming from OUTSIDE your head, you're fine )at least, relative to this aspect of sanity and writing).


----------



## buyjupiter03 (May 9, 2008)

HarryG said:


> Without his deadly amphetamine mixture, Elvis would never have made the Las Vegas stage in his later years (and would probably still be alive today).


 
That's a scary thought.


----------



## Foxee (May 9, 2008)

> Does that sound like voices inside the writer’s head or not?
> 
> And if so, could there perhaps be an explanation that ordinary folk can cope with? Like maybe psychic channelling or something like that? Psychics hear voices, and I don’t think they’re mad.



The explanation 'ordinary' folk can cope with is that writers use figurative speech. We don't restrict it to our writing but merrily mix similes and metaphors into our everyday language. I do not think we can be trained not to.

The question of whether a writer's (or any creative person's) brain is somehow different has come up a lot. My answer is that of course it is, I just can't give you a scientific workup as to how. I can tell you that DEALING with those differences (in my case a very strong right-brain shift that I can fall into very easily causing 'daydreaming' and wasting large amounts of time) can be difficult.

IF there is some psychic or other supernatural phenomenon (I am a skeptic on this) a writer or artist or musician would probably be the first in line to be sensitive to it. A person with a creative mindset is open to possibilities and impossibilities alike because that is the essence of creating something that didn't exist before.

Okay, as writers we're in the 'what if' business though, right? So let's make room for a what-if:

Words, ideas, images all have power. In my faith humans are seen as creative beings (in the image of a Creator). What if our thoughts of our character, our applying attributes to them, our work to give them a 'voice' makes them some variety of real?

How real is real?


----------



## Non Serviam (May 9, 2008)

I can channel my characters--or at least, my protagonists.  With me, it's a voluntary process.  I sort of clear my mind of distractions and invoke the character.  In my imagination, they appear and speak through me.

I'm always conscious that the process is an imaginative, creative one, and I can dismiss the characters at will (in other words, if I'm writing at 2am and my cat starts vomiting, the characters disappear at once until I've dealt with the problem.  They won't return unless called.)

So the process for me is different from clinical madness.  A schizophrenic or someone having a psychotic episode experiences voices they _can't_ dismiss--voices that comment on them personally, or talk about something relevant to them.


----------



## Foxee (May 9, 2008)

NS, that was a really good explanation.


----------



## Tiamat (May 9, 2008)

Non Serviam said:


> I can channel my characters--or at least, my protagonists.  With me, it's a voluntary process.  I sort of clear my mind of distractions and invoke the character.  In my imagination, they appear and speak through me.
> 
> I'm always conscious that the process is an imaginative, creative one, and I can dismiss the characters at will (in other words, if I'm writing at 2am and my cat starts vomiting, the characters disappear at once until I've dealt with the problem.  They won't return unless called.)
> 
> So the process for me is different from clinical madness.  A schizophrenic or someone having a psychotic episode experiences voices they _can't_ dismiss--voices that comment on them personally, or talk about something relevant to them.


The nail has been hit on the head, ladies and gents.


----------



## seigfried007 (May 9, 2008)

Well, I can't always dismiss mine, but they don't appear in the room either. Usually, my lack of ability to dismiss them is more like when the brain itself refuses to shut up at night. Sometimes, it babbles about nothing; sometimes, it babbles about a character.

The only other time I can't get rid of a character, is when the character is associated with a drive or is feeling particularly obnoxious. Even then, if I get distracted, it will too. 

One thing I have noticed is that the cast of characters in my head--the regulars, if you will--varies depending on what I'm writing, playing around with, etc. If I've toyed around with a character recently, more than likely, it'll come when I need it to. Some characters are more firmly ingrained on my brain because I know them really well or have regularly brought them out, dusted them offand written them over years--it's just a matter of practice.

I've forgotten a lot of characters too, and I'm not under the impression a real spirit would take kindly to that--even less than a charismatic, forceful personality as a character (they get touchy when you dump them after fawning on them for a long time to get them to cooperate with your stories--but, unlike spirits, they won't throw things around your house or scare anyone off-paper).

Some get miffed when they get ignored, but they're still being in-character--just like old friends and relatives when you forget to call and check-up on them. 

I tend to wind up with one obnoxious character, one perverted character and one to embody any sense of sexual frustration I might be feeling. Those are the hardest to dismiss because it's not really that the character's the problem--it's your brain's way of applying a different voice and image to your own thoughts (ones you don't necessarily want to take credit for). I think it also serves as a way to keep me company during the day when I really need to hear a competant adult voice (screaming children drive me crazy), but mostly, it's something I've encouraged and practiced through the years because I think it's funny to hear characters joke around, watch them dance to something on the radio, play pranks on each other, etc.


----------



## JosephB (May 9, 2008)

Hey, sorry, but I think this examination about the difference between madness and how we are inspired, and how we articulate that as it applies to character development, is just more navel gazing.

Do we really need clarification on this?

Call it what you will: channeling, the character speaking to you, becoming the character -- whatever. For the most part, this is what it is:

Hey, I had an idea for this character, and I can_ imagine_ what it would be like to_ be_ this character. I think it works, so I'm _going to write it down. 

_I don't see the need to wrap it in some sort of writer's jargon. Same nail, no sledgehammer required.


----------



## seigfried007 (May 9, 2008)

You're even further ahead than me, Joe--I didn't see a reason to compare it to madness in the first place. Anyone who's done it knows what it's like and how it works for them so I don't see a point to trying to explain it (doesn't mean I didn't try, jsut that I know I'll never do a good enough job to get my point across).

It's like explaining sound to a person who was born Deaf, or color to a person born blind. You can try, but you'll never make them truly understand--they just have to experience it (kinda like we'll never really know what it's like to be deaf or blind until we are). Try explaining holding your newborn for the first time to a person who's never seen one, let alone had kids.


----------



## Foxee (May 9, 2008)

> Hey, I had an idea for this character, and I can_ imagine_ what it would be like to_ be_ this character. I think it works, so I'm _going to write it down.
> 
> _I don't see the need to wrap it in some sort of writer's jargon. Same nail, no sledgehammer required.


Thing is, Joe, I use this 'jargon' without thinking about it. I'm not trying to be pretentious but saying 'the character said' is a lot shorter than saying, 'I had an idea for what this character might say.' It's a sort of writer's shorthand. If I say it to Seig she'll understand what I mean. If I say it to my next-door neighbor who is not a writer I'll probably get a strange look.

In chatting with other writers it is perfectly normal to say, "I had to kill a young mother today." (I have actually said this) If you were to pop out with this in conversation with someone at work (unless you are working with writers and they have the context) they'd be horrified. But it's just simplified figurative speech.


----------



## JosephB (May 9, 2008)

Foxee, you seem to be talking about the casual manner in which many of us talk about writing -- which is just fine.  

"I had to kill a young mother today," does not fall under the category of jargon to me. To me, "channeling," "invoking" and the like, does. 

And "the character speaking to me," and "becoming the character" etc. don't seem like shorthand,  but more like attempts to be dramatic about something that is fairly straightforward.

I think there is a distinction there.

The same thing gets on my nerves when marketing folks talk about "paradigm shifts" and "low hanging fruit." Maybe I'm just overexposed to this sort of thing and more inclined to be annoyed by it.


----------



## smilinghelps (May 9, 2008)

Foxee said:


> Why do you think Beethoven was insane? Deaf, maybe, but insane?
> 
> Van Gogh, agreed. Mad as a hatter. Poe as well, in my opinon.
> 
> The rest you mention are drug and substance related, not insanity related. Yes, I see what you're saying, that their brains were chemically altered while they were creating. I don't see the benefit to it as a lot of what you referenced is inexplicably popular to the culture but not to me.


 
Ok Foxee, I will play devil's advocate a bit here (and I never challenge your posts because you're usually right--I mean, think like me).  But would you agree that most of those who took drugs/drank did so to self medicate? :drunk:

I would bet that if you read interviews from the friends and family of any of those people, even Amy Winehouse or Kurt Cobain, they would say that they were 'off' before they started doing drugs.  They probably _heard voi_ces long before drug use or alcoholism took over.  The drugs and alcohol didn't get rid of the voices, just altered them a bit as well as the rest of their brains.

I think that most people have either a predominately creative mind or an analytical mind.  It's rare to see both, not impossible but in my opinion, rare.  I don't know many super creative people who can wear a suit everday and live in a commune at home.  There are people who straddle the line who are borderline creative/analytical thinkers but usually lean a little more one way than the other.  Like a doctor who writes for a Medical Journal or does oil paintings of houses in the Hamptons (Creative but conservative). Or a musician who works during the day as an electrician (Day job but flexible).  Rarely would you find an accountant who works 9-5 Monday-Friday during the week and lives in a cave with his pottery.  In the same respect, it's equally rare to find a writer who sits up until 5 am creating his character, whose devotion to his work and characters can be interrupted by a 'tradtional'--analytical (forgive me, Square Peg) job.  Not that it doesn't happen--because *we're* mostly made up of struggling writers who have day jobs.  But the ones who can devote the time to their writing don't have time, energy and the ability to do both.

Does that make sense?


----------



## seigfried007 (May 9, 2008)

JosephB said:


> Foxee, you seem to be talking about the casual manner in which many of us talk about writing -- which is just fine.
> 
> "I had to kill a young mother today," does not fall under the category of jargon to me. To me, "channeling," "invoking" and the like, does.
> 
> ...


 
That's so weird, Joe, because I think of it in the exact opposite way.

"Channeling" or "invoking" sound one hell of a lot more dramatic and mystical to me, than "Reno told you to shut up about 'the one-armed man' thing--and he means it. He'll sic Ira on you if you don't stop teasing him, Jeff."

A character talking to you is a straightforward experience--just like anyone else talking to you. Nothing mystical about it--just a matter of practice listening for them and making them 'real' enough to sound real. 

Cardboard characters don't have meaningful dialogue with anyone--let alone get up and 'get minds of their own' enough to tell the author off. It's how you know the character is ready to be written--how you know you're finally, really understanding the entity you made up (and that someone else might find them interesting and 'real' enough to read).


----------



## Non Serviam (May 9, 2008)

JosephB said:


> Hey, sorry, but I think this examination about the difference between madness and how we are inspired, and how we articulate that as it applies to character development, is just more navel gazing.
> 
> Do we really need clarification on this?



Well, I think Ox does--otherwise he wouldn't have asked.  

I find that Ox is a useful person to have on the site because he makes me think about the process of writing.  Introspection can be valuable, at least for me.

I think "channelling" and "invoking" aren't jargon so much as pretentious mysticism.  Which is what I wanted to convey, because I find writing is quite mystical in the way I go about it--I have definite writing rituals that help me summon my muse and commune with her.  And it's quite pretentious because I really do think of writing in those terms--communing with my muse.

A psychologist could probably produce a doctoral thesis on this thread, you know.


----------



## Foxee (May 9, 2008)

Hey, Smiling, I think I understand what you're saying and I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.


> I would bet that if you read interviews from the friends and family of any of those people, even Amy Winehouse or Kurt Cobain, they would say that they were 'off' before they started doing drugs.


I see this as supporting my theory that people who are strong in the creative aspect of their minds sometimes struggle with it. 

Being introspective, sensitive, and imaginative can result in evocative writing, art, or music that resounds with the reader. That has a universal appeal and touches people deeply. It can be genius.

My point was more that the creative mind has its dark aspects, too. Being *severely* introspective, sensitive, and imaginative can just also result in depression, social maladjustment, pessimism, fatalism, phobias and nightmares. And nightmares don't always have to happen while you're asleep.

Sometimes giftedness isn't free at all. Sometimes there is a very high price.

How is that for philosophy? 

Joe, I can't do anything about you not liking figurative writer's shorthand. I know what you mean about jargon in marketing and business...been in that world, been annoyed by it, I agree. But I don't find what we're talking about to be fakey or pretentious. To me it's just saying it like it is. Believe me, it won't go away because you don't like it.


----------



## JosephB (May 9, 2008)

> I find that Ox is a useful person to have on the site because he makes me think about the process of writing. Introspection can be valuable, at least for me.


No you are right. Introspection can be valuable, to a point. 



> On quite a few occasions I’ve read comments here about how “the character spoke to me and told me what to write”, or words to that effect.
> 
> Does this mean those writers who make such comments are hearing voices? And does that mean they are a bit off-kilter as far as mental stability is concerned? In other words, do you have to be mad in order be creative?


OK, that's OX's OP.

I don't think there really is much of a connection between madness and writing. On the contrary, the ability to sort out thoughts, no matter how creative and wonderful they are, and put them on paper in a coherent way, might be considered counter to madness. 

So when people say “the character spoke to me and told me what to write” it has nothing to do with madness. It's more of an attempt to be dramatic. 

So the answer is no. I think most if it comes down to ideas and imagination -- fairly simple.

Foxee, I might not be making myself clear. _"Channeling," "invoking" _etc. are very different from writer's shorthand. But maybe Non said it better, they are more pretentious mysticism as opposed to jargon. Believe _me_, there are plenty of things I don't like, and I don't expect any of them to go away just because I don't. I don't like asparagus, but it's _still _here.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 9, 2008)

seigfried007 said:


> "Channeling" or "invoking" sound one hell of a lot more dramatic and mystical to me, than "Reno told you to shut up about 'the one-armed man' thing--and he means it. He'll sic Ira on you if you don't stop teasing him, Jeff."
> 
> A character talking to you is a straightforward experience--just like anyone else talking to you. Nothing mystical about it--just a matter of practice listening for them and making them 'real' enough to sound real.
> 
> Cardboard characters don't have meaningful dialogue with anyone--let alone get up and 'get minds of their own' enough to tell the author off. It's how you know the character is ready to be written--how you know you're finally, really understanding the entity you made up


 
I could probably find dozens and dozens of examples just like this. This is to me proof positive that in order to be creative you must be at least a little mad. I mean for heaven’s sake who ever heard of 1) an imaginary character telling off a real person, and 2) that real person taking notice of what the character said? The obvious answer is that the real person is at least a little bit mad. No non-mad, thinking person is going to experience nonsense like this.


----------



## Non Serviam (May 9, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> I could probably find dozens and dozens of examples just like this. This is to me proof positive that in order to be creative you must be at least a little mad. I mean for heaven’s sake who ever heard of 1) an imaginary character telling off a real person, and 2) that real person taking notice of what the character said?



Most people on this site, I should imagine.


----------



## seigfried007 (May 9, 2008)

Umm, hate to break it to you, Ox, but I'm a character writer--as in, I write characters for the sake of characters not because they're these neat plot puppets to move about a neat plot or premise or make a statement about something in the world. 

It doesn't make me crazy. But, of course, you're not a character writer, so it's impossible for you to understand this. If you were a character writer, you wouldn't have to ask a seeing person to explain colors to you, so to speak. 

It's not nonsense, but an exercise in keeping in character--something which is vital for character writers because it determines our pay checks. If we don't write believable characters--if anything about them appears false and jars the reader from the piece--we don't get paid (but we do get all kinds of negative critiques and reviews). 

Why wouldn't a real person take notice of what a character said--provided he was familiar with both character and author and liked both? So long as it's good natured teasing, why not take it as such? 

Of course, my male characters sometimes come to the defense of my husband during arguments, so it's just one more way I know I'm writing them right (not as women trapped in men's bodies, but as thinking, breathing men--it's very hard to do without falling into flat archetypes, stereotypes... or just falling flat). I like my characters to have opinions that differ from my own--it's a way of exploring and understanding how other people think (and has drastically altered the way I look at other people--for the better by far).

I can accept being unusual as a writer in this respect, but I think it's due as much to other writers not being gifted with such an understanding support network as what I have in my spouse (LOTS of writers are jealous of that). I think if more writers were encouraged to bring out their characters to movies and let them talk to real people--obviously trusted friends and other writers because strangers can't understand this kind of thing.

BTW, this is also something I've only noticed with very long-term characters and writing. I don't get short-story characters in my head like this but once in a blue moon. The Reno character I mentioned above has been sticking around in long fiction for four years now so it's no wonder (or shouldn't be) that I can call him out well.

I'm not asking anyone to blur the line beteween fantasy and reality (my characters are all very well aware of the fact that they're not real), but when writers stop treating their characters as having inferior motivations, drives, wants and feelings as real people, they're able to understand people and write them better. Yes, their feelings are as 'not real' as the rest of them--they're products of fantasy--but we as writers cannot afford to ahve them drop that illusion of being real.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 9, 2008)

Well, I’m sorry, but that may as well have been a text in Urdu for all the sense I could make of it. I never understood a single word of it.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 9, 2008)

smilinghelps said:


> I think that most people have either a predominately creative mind or an analytical mind. It's rare to see both, not impossible but in my opinion, rare. I don't know many super creative people who can wear a suit everday and live in a commune at home. There are people who straddle the line who are borderline creative/analytical thinkers but usually lean a little more one way than the other. Like a doctor who writes for a Medical Journal or does oil paintings of houses in the Hamptons (Creative but conservative). Or a musician who works during the day as an electrician (Day job but flexible). Rarely would you find an accountant who works 9-5 Monday-Friday during the week and lives in a cave with his pottery. In the same respect, it's equally rare to find a writer who sits up until 5 am creating his character, whose devotion to his work and characters can be interrupted by a 'tradtional'--analytical (forgive me, Square Peg) job.
> Does that make sense?


Smiling, you’re not just a pretty face, you have cut through the crap perfectly.


----------



## papertears (May 9, 2008)

Foxee said:


> NS, that was a really good explanation.




It really was.  Bravo.  It applies to a lot of creative methods I have attempted to explain and have the people just stare back at me.  

May I borrow that, or will I have to pay royalties?


----------



## papertears (May 9, 2008)

seigfried007 said:


> You're even further ahead than me, Joe--I didn't see a reason to compare it to madness in the first place. Anyone who's done it knows what it's like and how it works for them so I don't see a point to trying to explain it (doesn't mean I didn't try, jsut that I know I'll never do a good enough job to get my point across).



I get stares though, when I have a creative burst (be it writing, music, homework, how to fix the software, etc...) during a safety meeting, in the car or the middle of the night and I reach for whatever I can that will serve as paper and pen.  Some of my better ideas have been captured on napkins, the back of memos, or even my arm. Sometimes I've written with highlighter pens, erasable markers or nail polish.  

People do tend to think this behavior is a bit mad--where as I just don't want to lose the train of thought.  Creativity isn't always 8-5 for me, however I still could choose to ignore the bursts of energy, I just don't.


----------



## JosephB (May 9, 2008)

> This is to me proof positive that in order to be creative you must be at least a little mad.


OX, I appreciate your question and the OP. But writers use their imaginations. When my daughter plays with her dolls, she makes up little scenarios. The dolls speak in different voices and have different personalities. 

Is she mad? No. She is using her imagination. The biggest leap you might make is, that in some ways, writers don't grow up. And that's a good thing. 

Picasso said this in regard to painting, "It’s taken me a lifetime to learn how to paint like a child.” 

He's referring to the constraints adults put on their imaginations and creativity. Writers free themselves of these. And use their imaginations to  create and realize their characters. It may appear to be madness to a non-writer, but it isn't.


----------



## Sordello (May 9, 2008)

All I can say is that Shakespeare wasn't mad, Dante wasn't mad, Dickens was mad, Yeats wasn't mad.  You don't have to be mad to be creative.  It's an urban legend.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 9, 2008)

JosephB said:


> OX, I appreciate your question and the OP. But writers use their imaginations. When my daughter plays with her dolls, she makes up little scenarios. The dolls speak in different voices and have different personalities.
> 
> Is she mad? No. She is using her imagination. The biggest leap you might make is, that in some ways, writers don't grow up. And that's a good thing.
> 
> ...


 
Chalk & cheese, Joseph, chalk & cheese.

I was talking about people hearing voices. Regardless of Foxee's rationalisations of others' behaviour, when someone says "_Ted told me to write the story. It was rather weird actually._", I begin to have serious doubts about that person's level-headedness and common sense. I mean, if Foxee was corrrect and it was no more than a figurative way of speaking, the writer in question would not have appended the remark "_It was rather weird actually_".


----------



## ash somers (May 9, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> Chalk & cheese, Joseph, chalk & cheese.
> 
> * I was talking about people hearing voices. Regardless of Foxee's rationalisations of others' behaviour, when someone says "_Ted told me to write the story. It was rather weird actually._", I begin to have serious doubts about that person's level-headedness and common sense.



* why, don't you hear them > ?


----------



## The Backward OX (May 9, 2008)

Did you lift that one from your mobile?




*I'm going to marry her one day*





Joins MBF


----------



## JosephB (May 9, 2008)

> I was talking about people hearing voices.


They don't_ really _hear voices. They just _say_ they do. Whether it's writer's shorthand or if it's done for effect or whatever. It doesn't matter, and it ain't madness. 

Did the writer really hear the voice? I mean _really?_ I don't buy it. Maybe if he or she is schizophrenic. But schizophrenics generally don't capture their inner conversations and incorporate them into coherent stories, or even stream of consciousness or experimental writing.

Not chalk and cheese. Cheese and cheese. Chalk and chalk. Take your pick. See, I'm beginning to think your really get this, but you like seeing folks scramble in an effort to explain it to you.


----------



## Swamp Thing (May 9, 2008)

Ox man, I'll ask you a question - you left the forum recently because it was taking too much time from your writing.

As an easily distracted writer, I'll ask - were you right the first time?

C'mon, dude, get writing!!!!


----------



## The Backward OX (May 9, 2008)

Joseph, they can even do a square dance if they like but nothing will explain -- and here I'll quote myself from an earlier post -- _" . . . 1) an imaginary character telling off a real person, and 2) that real person taking notice of what the character said"_


----------



## The Backward OX (May 9, 2008)

ST, I'll not buy into that one again - not in this thread anyway. Maybe elsewhere.


----------



## JosephB (May 9, 2008)

> and here I'll quote myself from an earlier post


You may want to cite someone else, man. You're not doing yourself any favors. (Insert smiley here.)


----------



## Remedy (May 9, 2008)

Madness is such a tricky word. Do you mind defining exactly what you mean? It's such a vague concept for me. 

I have to say, I think the Ted thing was probably dramatized by the original writer. He (or she) very well could have heard that, but that doesn't indicate that it was uncommon. The author could have all ready had the idea for the character in his head, and it was just his conscious way of deciding to write him. I think a lot of writers probably "talk" to their characters; it's a way of making them more realistic than just making all of the decisions by "yourself". 

I suppose madness and creativity can go hand-in-hand, but so can anything, really. They're not always both present; one can be mad without being creative, and one can be creative without being mad. There are instances of insanity in other professions. One great mathematician honestly and truly believed that the aliens had planted a probe in his mind. Was he good at his career? Hell yeah. Was he sane? Probably not so much. 

I have heard voices before (I feel like the resident crazy around here). The first time I heard one, it scared me. It really didn't inspire me to write; if anything, the more I hear voices, the less I want to write, because they're cluttering my mind.


----------



## Remedy (May 10, 2008)

OX, don't you take notice of what you think? A character "speaking" is no more than your own thoughts.   To add on to my other post (it'll take too long to edit, given my internet's finicky ways today), I am schizophrenic (among other things; I'm not a one-trick mental dx pony). I wrote before the onset of that, and I'm still writing now. I'm better now than I was then, but that doesn't have anything to do with my mental state; I'm older now, I've had a bit of training, and I've had more years writing as a schizophrenic than not. Outside of having to be careful about what I put in (you, after all, probably don't regard a moving box in the frozen section as trying to give a sign, but to me, that's a normal event that I might want to relate (and almost did at a family gathering; bad idea)) to make sure that I don't lose my readers, it hasn't really affected my writing.   Voices of characters sound different from voices of madness.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 10, 2008)

Remedy said:


> Madness is such a tricky word. Do you mind defining exactly what you mean? It's such a vague concept for me.
> 
> I have to say, I think the Ted thing was probably dramatized by the original writer. He (or she) very well could have heard that, but that doesn't indicate that it was uncommon. The author could have all ready had the idea for the character in his head, and it was just his conscious way of deciding to write him. I think a lot of writers probably "talk" to their characters; it's a way of making them more realistic than just making all of the decisions by "yourself".
> 
> ...


You asked me a question so it's rude not to answer; but Joseph says I'm a stirrer, and that puts me in a fix.

Let me put it this way: I don't hear voices.


----------



## JosephB (May 10, 2008)

> You asked me a question so it's rude not to answer; but Joseph says I'm a stirrer, and that puts me in a fix.
> 
> Let me put it this way: I don't hear voices.


As we say in the southeastern US, don't mind me. Or, don't worry about what I think.



> Voices of characters sound different from voices of madness.


This is really interesting, Remedy. So are you saying, you have heard voices, but when you write, characters come from you imagination? You don't literally hear the voices of your characters, right?


----------



## The Backward OX (May 10, 2008)

Sheeeesh!!

Sixty-something posts, with people dancing all over the place endeavouring to placate this little black duck, and now we find there's a diagnosable reason behind it all.



I'm going fishing.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (May 10, 2008)

I won't claim a mental disorder, because none have ever been diagnosed, but I'm afraid of the dark, so I set my characters up as guards against monsters. They're very cranky in the morning when I demand they work the day shift as well as the night shift. I speak in metaphors plenty, but I have "talked" to characters: walkin' down the street, sitting at the computer, yelling becuase my story isn't going well. I can easily just imagine them, but sometimes, when a night shadow has come particularly close to getting me, I've seen some odd things before blinking and running up the stairs to bed. So no judgements, but I can't say for sure I'm not crazy.


----------



## seigfried007 (May 10, 2008)

Joe, I explained the difference between the 'voices' of psychotic patients to those inside writer's heads. Psychotics have a warped reality--the voices are literally just as real as real voices. Just like all other hallucinations, they appear _outside_ in the real world. 

If the voices are from within the head, you're either a writer, having an imaginary argument, or are possibly dissociative. Regardless, you're not psychotic. Occasionally, very depressed people may have hallucinations, but they're just in an advanced stage of depression and not diagnosed as psychotic either. 

Ox, start role-playing extensively and you should start being able to call out characters, hear them, etc. In my experience, it's something that has to be trained and honed like any other talent of imagination. Role-playing is just one more tool at a writer's disposal for getting to know a character, and I've found it works faster than mulling over a character witout the aid of other people.


----------



## JosephB (May 10, 2008)

> Joe, I explained the difference between the 'voices' of psychotic patients to those inside writer's heads. Psychotics have a warped reality--the voices are literally just as real as real voices. Just like all other hallucinations, they appear _outside_ in the real world.



Yeah, I get that. I thought it would be interesting to hear more about it from the perspective of someone who's lived it. Confirmation really, for the purpose definitively answering the OP.


----------



## smilinghelps (May 10, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> Smiling, you’re not just a pretty face, you have cut through the crap perfectly.



Why thank you,  Ox. :razz:  Although I think all I've done is put it in a context which you can relate to.  

You're asking this question to mostly creative-thinkers, yet you yourself are an analytical thinker.  So yes, in a matter of discussion it IS chalk and cheese although the topic itself isn't.  You (Ox) are Chalk having the discussion with us (posters here), Cheese.

Although most of the responders are saying some very similar things to you--they are coming across as swiss and you can only relate to dust.

The whole _idea_ of imagination itself comes across to you as well... insanity.

Joe, yes I do believe Ox enjoys batting it around to see what others are going to say about it.  But I believe it's only in an effort to understand it better.  My father the physicist has no understanding of the concept of emotion.  He's heard they exist and knows that people have them but cannot give them any credence, as he does not--or if he does, doesn't comprehend what they are.  It's almost like trying to explain color to a blind person.  You can put their hand in fire but they'll never "see" the color red.

Does that help?


----------



## The Backward OX (May 10, 2008)

Nots for sale – 10c ea, five for 45c.


----------



## Remedy (May 10, 2008)

JosephB said:


> This is really interesting, Remedy. So are you saying, you have heard voices, but when you write, characters come from you imagination? You don't literally hear the voices of your characters, right?



Yeah. I may have a "conversation" with characters, but it's only in my head as part of my thoughts; it's nothing I actually hear. 

I can only think of one voice that I could potentially put as a character (he would be tickled, I believe). He's the least threatening of them, and he's the most inane as well. He talks about rain showers at six, and he has a slight accent. The rest I wouldn't touch. 

Seigfried - while you may be correct for the majority of the time, there are some rare instances when the voice doesn't exactly come from outside or inside you. Those are the scariest, because you don't know where they're from. I've found that those are almost always the most violent too. They're still real, don't get me wrong, but they're not an outside entity; they're something entirely different.


----------



## smilinghelps (May 10, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> Nots for sale – 10c ea, five for 45c.



I guess not.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 10, 2008)

Don't worry about it. It's just more of my particular brand of madness.


----------



## papertears (May 11, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> I'm going fishing.



[ot] i thought you were all up in arms against cruelty to animals? doesn't having a hook through the mouth hurt the fishy, even if you do catch and release? [/ot]


----------



## The Backward OX (May 11, 2008)

papertears said:


> [ot] i thought you were all up in arms against cruelty to animals? doesn't having a hook through the mouth hurt the fishy, even if you do catch and release? [/ot]


 

[ot]Now come on pt you know it was figurative.[/ot][ot]
Btw, is it just accidental that your avatar bears a striking resemblance to La Giaconda or was it planned that way?[/ot]


----------



## seigfried007 (May 11, 2008)

Remedy said:


> Seigfried - while you may be correct for the majority of the time, there are some rare instances when the voice doesn't exactly come from outside or inside you. Those are the scariest, because you don't know where they're from. I've found that those are almost always the most violent too. They're still real, don't get me wrong, but they're not an outside entity; they're something entirely different.


 

Sounds like possession 

No wonder it scares you


----------



## Ungood (May 11, 2008)

Ungood said:


> Yah... we are all bat stinking nuts...
> 
> Ungood.



This is my story and I am sticking to it.

Ungood.


----------



## Remedy (May 11, 2008)

seigfried007 said:


> Sounds like possession
> 
> No wonder it scares you


 
In a way, it feels like possession. 

Fortunately for me, Revenge (I've named pretty much all of them; perhaps another sign of crazyness or something) rarely comes along, and when he does, he leaves pretty quickly. I don't have too many voices to deal with; my area of expertise of madness lies in hallucinations and delusions far more than voices.


----------



## smilinghelps (May 12, 2008)

The Backward OX said:


> Don't worry about it. It's just more of my particular brand of madness.


 

Is it related to this?






or this?


----------



## The Backward OX (May 12, 2008)

You just don't give up do you? That curiosity will get you into trouble one day.

If you must know, in Post #59 Joseph inadvertently left out the word 'not'  and thereby changed the meaning. (He's noted for rushing things) It sat there for 1hour 35minutes before he realised his mistake. So I added my 'nots for sale notice' just for fun. But he probably never saw it anyway, or . . . never mind.


----------



## JosephB (May 12, 2008)

> If you must know, in Post #59 Joseph inadvertently left out the word 'not' and thereby changed the meaning. (He's noted for rushing things) It sat there for 1hour 35minutes before he realised his mistake. So I added my 'nots for sale notice' just for fun. But he probably never saw it anyway, or . . . never mind.



Ha Ha. I saw it, it just didn't sink in. (Not to unusual.) I noticed my error and edited it -- not soon enough apparently!


----------



## Damien. (May 15, 2008)

I think in general artists are eccentric. Look at Edgar Allen Poe. Yes, I think many writers are slightly insane or a little mentally unstable. Exhibit A: me. Not that I'm a genuis... jk


----------



## JoannaMac (May 15, 2008)

I went to see an excellent art exhibition at the State Museum in Berlin which dealt with this question exactly. There are no words to describe how amazing it was. Probably the best exhibition I've ever seen.

Melancholy-Genius and Madness in Art


----------



## RomanticRose (May 15, 2008)

I know that I'm perfectly sane.  My imaginary friend told me so.  He wouldn't lie to me, would he?


----------



## The Backward OX (May 15, 2008)

JoannaMac said:


> I went to see an excellent art exhibition at the State Museum in Berlin which dealt with this question exactly. There are no words to describe how amazing it was. Probably the best exhibition I've ever seen.
> 
> Melancholy-Genius and Madness in Art


Geez Jo that was brilliant. Always knew the Germans for a miserable bunch. Puts American arrogance into perspective -they're not so bad after all.

Hey here's a thought. I'll make it Aussie-speak so as not to offend our Puritan friends on site: I wonder how much fun it is to have a root with a German? 

Cheers.


----------



## JoannaMac (May 16, 2008)

You know what Ox? I really wouldn't know. Five years in Berlin and I didn't manage to root a German. I couldn't seem to get passed the Eastern block fetish I seem to have.
Actually no wait, I tell a lie. I did have a brief affair with a German man quite a bit older than me. He was a seven foot tall bean bole and meh, he wasn't that great in the sack.

I'm not sure what the overall rating for German men is, but German girls have a reputation for being a bit cold. I think this is a pile of bull though and think they probably just don't put up with as much sexist rubbish that Southern and Eastern  European women do. 

In terms of fashion, Germany is a more casual than countries like Italy or Spain, and girls don't plaster themselves with as much make-up. Basically the look is more cool and casual. I've heard Russians complaining that German girls don't take enough care of themselves, but just because they don't look like five dollar hookers....


There's a chocolate here called 'Ritter Sport'. A 'Ritter' is a knight. Ritter sport is a perfectly square piece of chocolate that comes in a range of different flavours and the slogan is "Quadratisch, Practisch, Gut", which translates as "It's square, it's practical, it's good". The Germans poke fun of themselves (a relatively new development) and have adopted it as a national motto. It's so German, and I wonder if it applies in the bedroom too........ I don't know.........Maybe not.

In any case Ox, German men are not at the bottom of the list as far as the world's worst lover go. I'll give you one guess which ones are though........

I wish I could show you a catalogue of works displayed at that exhibition. It was one of those things that made you feel that humans are a redeemable species and capable of great sympathy and compassion. You know what it feels like when something moves you in a really profound way? There was so much there that made me feel strongly about it, I didn't know what to do with myself by the end. I wasn't the only one. In my own little world until I emerged at the other end, I kind of 'woke up' and took a look at the faces around me. Clearly it had effected them similarly. I queued for an hour to get in to the exhibition and was lucky. Some days apparently there were
lines that went all the way round the block.


----------



## Intel (May 16, 2008)

Well i'm a little mad, but not very creative. So I'd say no.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 16, 2008)

JoannaMac said:


> In any case Ox, German men are not at the bottom of the list as far as the world's worst lover go. I'll give you one guess which ones are though........


Jo
Admittedly this only covers one group of Aussies, but you get the idea. 

(I pinched it from a nurses' site, and to do the right thing I should include the following:

*www.impactednurse.com *[FONT=Arial,Arial]Ian Miller 2007 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License. To view a copy of this license, visit Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Generic )
[/FONT] 
Red Bold emphasis near the end is mine.

*How to get some lovin’. *

It’s been another crazy shift. And now you are home you have a hankering for some serious rumpy pumpy post traumatic stress relief. But alas, you find your partner already in bed reading _The Economist _and wearing some sort of thick green sludgy avocado face mask on his/her face. The signs do not look good. 
Fear not. After mastering a few basic competencies you will be offloading that pent up stress and feeling the love before you can hang your stethoscope on the bedroom doorknob and yell _Geronimo!_
I will start with the competency standards for male nurses because they are a little more complex and far less understood: 

*set the scene. *

Foreplay begins now. Set the scene before you leave for work. It’s those little corn-ball things that you read about in women’s magazines that really do count….like buying him/her some flowers or leaving a little note tucked in the luchbox, or giving them a big hug while they are making breakfast, or writing: _I am dying for a shag, and if I don’t have you every which way in every room of the house including the garden shed by sun-up my private parts are going to explode_, in large black letters on the fridge. 

*take a shower. *

Nothing will pour iced water on those flames of passion like a subtle musky aroma of Melena wafting between you. Or the fragment top notes of a semi-digested Quarter Pounder with Cheese hanging in the air. Make a bee line from the front door to the shower and scrub-a dub dub. 
Once all those nooks and crannies are squeaky clean use a hint of aftershave. Every male nurse should have their own signature scent. It helps us mark out our territories and identify each other when we are covered in full personal protective equipment. My own preference is Cool Water by Davidoff: a blend of Mandarin, Kiwi, Cactus, Clary Sage, Cedar, ElemWhite Musk, Hinokiwood, and Smokey Gaiacwood. Now that should cover the smell of the shift. Careful though, don’t overdo it….just a homoeopathic wafting.

*best behaviour. *

Oh, and whilst you are in the shower, a couple of do nots: Do not fart loudly. Do not sing Act II from Verdi’s _Il Trovatore _at the top of your lungs. Do not blow snot out of your nose one nostril at a time. Do not get out of the shower and wave your willy around like a helicopter making woo woo noises. Working in the ED, you may see these as all perfectly acceptable behaviours. Maybe so, but they are not *romantic* ones. Set some boundaries man. 

*ancient secrets of foreplay. *

I’m now going to give you a ancient secret instruction passed down an unbroken lineage of male nurses since the Celtic sages of King Arthur. A powerful foreplay incantation that will leave your significant other powerless to resist your most kinky desires. It will de-calcify her backbone leaving her but putty in your hands. 

Here it is: _Clean……The……House. _Use it only for good. 

*get re-focused. *

Remember you are not at work any more. Take a few seconds to let the shift drop away before engaging with your partner. In order to set the mood, don’t talk shop when you get home. Rather, ask about your partner’s day. And for the love of Mike, stay focused when lovemaking. *Yelling out STAND CLEAR! at the moment of climax may cause more than a little alarm for your partner*. Or not. Whatever. 

*and for the ladies. *

So. I have covered the complex rituals and preparatory competencies that males should master in order to get some loving. Now it’s time for the ladies. And because male nurses are but simple folk, it's pretty straight forward:
*Step 1: *turn up. 
*Step 2: *undress.


----------



## JoannaMac (May 16, 2008)

Well, the poll rating Australian men as the world's worst lovers also had Saudi women being the most sexually satisified, so tell me how seriously we should take the results.....


----------



## Non Serviam (May 16, 2008)

Englishmen are the world's best lovers. The Japanese make them smaller and cheaper.






kidding


----------



## JoannaMac (May 16, 2008)

Non, do you have Tim Brooke Taylor style undies with the Union Jack on?


----------



## seigfried007 (May 16, 2008)

Well, if Saudi women are raised from infancy up to be happy with daily beatings, I'd think they'd be happy (or at least claim to be).


----------



## Vorrec (Oct 9, 2010)

My characters talk to me. And sometimes I see them. Is that creepy?

I think I'm a little nuts.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 9, 2010)

Vorrec said:


> My characters talk to me. And sometimes I see them. Is that creepy?
> 
> I think I'm a little nuts.



My characters talk to me also. They say, "Get off your ass and finish your novel so we know what happens to us."


----------



## Like a Fox (Oct 9, 2010)

Haha, Joe.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 9, 2010)

How mad is mad? If nobody ever deviated from the norm there would be no advancement. Is the writer who claims to here a characters voice any weirder than the engineer who visualises a damn across a river. Surely some madness is normal and necessary, it is only if it goes too far it becomes undesirable.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 9, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> How mad is mad? If nobody ever deviated from the norm there would be no advancement. Is the writer who claims to here a characters voice any weirder than the engineer who visualises a damn across a river. Surely some madness is normal and necessary, it is only if it goes too far it becomes undesirable.



It's all in the moderation, Olly. Can you moderate your own madness or does your madness moderate you? And are people just mad without reason? Isn't that a spooky thought? I tell you what's more sickening, though: all those reasonable crazy people.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 9, 2010)

They tell me I don't understand but that's because they don't understand either. If only the chemicals in my brain thought about the chemicals in my brain so I didn't have to.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 9, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> It's all in the moderation, Olly. Can you moderate your own madness or does your madness moderate you?



No, I am a moderator, I moderate other people:grin: My madness I cherish as one of my more useful attributes.


----------



## caelum (Oct 9, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> How mad is mad? If nobody ever deviated from the norm there would be no advancement. Is the writer who claims to here a characters voice any weirder than the engineer who visualises a damn across a river. Surely some madness is normal and necessary, it is only if it goes too far it becomes undesirable.


 
That puts it well.  A little mad, but not too mad.  But not too little mad, because who wants to read a book by a normal person.


----------



## SilverMoon (Oct 9, 2010)

I'm just mad about Lewis Carroll...

"Yes, the March Hare, somewhat of a relative to Mctwisp, and, the Hatter, Tarrant. He's gone mad, however."

Chesurr replies. Alice thinks back to when she was a child and she would ask her father if she's gone mad…

"_Do you think I've gone rather mad?"_

"_I'm afraid so. You're mad… Bonkers… Off your head! But I'll tell you a secret… _
_ All the best people are."_

It's almost a requirement that writers be a little mad. Split personalities, in fact. When writing, a writer is the director, protagonist, major character(s), minor characters, extras, set designers, prop person, camera person, clothing designer...

Now, I'm off to give sanity a bad name.


----------

