# Is It Possible...



## Darkkin (Dec 27, 2015)

Is it possible to have a style, so rarefied and specific that it can't be quantified by modern, accepted standards of writing?  In point of fact, people have gone to the trouble of telling you that your entire thought process is incorrect.  Writers don't think like that, can't think like that, and shouldn't think like that.  

Namely, a high fantasy world that ran headlong into formatted verse, rather than standard prose.  I have my prose pieces, but this particular project is so much bigger than just a narrative poem.  It is a collection of numerous pieces done in villanelle, tercet, quatrain, and occasionally five line stanzas.  All are schemed and thematic, and while many of the pieces can stand alone, the impact of work is much more concise when viewed as part of a whole.  It is an epic of nothing but narratives of nonsense, but the storyline is viable.  Each piece has linked neatly into place forming part of the tangential arc.

Is it possible to be considered a writer when people tell you that you don't know how to think like a writer should think?  Essentially, it boils down to the point of being told that I was too stupid to be writing what I was writing...Yet I still write in my wrong way that for whatever the reason feels right.  Is it possible for my wrong way to be a right way?

This was a live writers' critique group and it was inferred by an individual that critique will only be given on viable material, not material submitted by writers, whose thought capacities are seemingly, inherently and fatally flawed.  I've been with this group a while and actively contribute.  My style, both prose and poetic, and processes are known.  I know critique is about the work, not the writer, but when you hear things like this it calls everything into question...Damn you, doubt!

- D. the T. of P.B.


----------



## escorial (Dec 27, 2015)

so many of the now considered greats were often told they lacked everything in what they did...van gogh..the beatles


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2015)

Fly the nets, and do not look back.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 27, 2015)

> Is it possible to be considered a writer when people tell you that you don't know how to think like a writer should think?



As long as you wrote your work, instead of sculpting, drawing or singing it, yes.

Anyone who thinks they know 'how a writer should think' is bullshitting you. Write stuff, communicate meaning and emotion, and you're doing everything a writer has to do right. 

Most people will say you're 'going about it wrong' only because your approach strikes them as dangerous to their stupid iron prejudices on what should and shouldn't be written. Imagine trying to teach everyone that 'all characters must be round' and someone presents an incredible 'flat' character - do you want to concede and re-think how you teach the craft, or tell the person they've messed up from the first hurdle, intending the character to be flat when it has to be round, round goddammit! 

There is too much shit advice being shared among writers nowadays.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2015)

Cadence said:


> There is too much shit advice being shared among writers *nowadays*.



That's always been the case. There will always be prescriptivists.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 27, 2015)

The reason this has me a little concerned is because it's the second time within the last two months that I've heard a similar reaction to my work.  The first time was a bumbled and kindly meant critique, which I have to admit, made me laugh.  This time it was in person, to my face, in front of a group of my peers, whose opinions I respect.  

Etiquette dictated that they would and should be allowed to have their say, but there was nothing diplomatic about this.  I was informed that by wiping my hard drive I would be doing the world a favour.  I've been around the block a time or two, but this was the first time I've encountered someone with an almost tangible hatred of my work.  It was a simple villanelle sequence, nothing more...


----------



## midnightpoet (Dec 27, 2015)

Darrkin, your poetry (especially your nonsense themes) has always puzzled me, I don't know what to make of it - probably because my poetry either has some deeper meaning or it's a story I can understand.  However, that does not mean you are not writing art, or that you are wrong in your thinking. You should know by now that you can't please everyone, and doing things different from the norm always invites criticism.  Write what you feel.  You are a very lyrical poet, and can do some forms I won't even try.  Don't let others put you down, and keep writing.

Tony


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2015)

Darkkin said:


> The reason this has me a little concerned is because it's the second time within the last two months that I've heard a similar reaction to my work.  The first time was a bumbled and kindly meant critique, which I have to admit, made me laugh.  This time it was in person, to my face, in front of a group of my peers, whose opinions I respect.
> 
> Etiquette dictated that they would and should be allowed to have their say, but there was nothing diplomatic about this.  I was informed that by wiping my hard drive I would be doing the world a favour.  I've been around the block a time or two, but this was the first time I've encountered someone with an almost tangible hatred of my work.  It was a simple villanelle sequence, nothing more...



It means you're doing something right; there's an excellence in difficulty many don't appreciate. I am confident, having read some of your work, you're not writing to confound people. Your dream-like writing is going to be misunderstood, because most writers are strictly writers of the day, as in the 12 hours of sunlight. To put this in perspective for you, James Joyce wrote Finnegans Wake to be a novel of the night, concerning itself with nothing more than the connections our consciousness makes, felt most vividly when asleep. It has been perceived as a practical joke by many, but it cost Joyce 17 years of his life, and he considered it more important than Ulysses (his book of the day), and the completion of the 24-hour cycle in which Ulysses and Finnegans Wake take place. 

Those books, particularly Finnegans Wake, were designed to wash over you, forming subtle connections in the subconscious which only become more clear with repeat readings and extra study. This is a world apart from my approach to the novel and my ideas of what literature should do, but those are just my assumptions, just as Joyce's assumptions were just _his _own assumptions, and yours are _your _own. Who are we to say that Joyce shouldn't have written in such an extreme and subversive manner to all our presuppositions of what the novel is supposed to do?

Master your craft, and though many people may simply hate it, you will get recognition from those who are open minded enough to entertain your playful imagination. At the end of the day, the only person who loses out by being so closed minded as to what literature should and shouldn't set out to do is the person who is so inclined.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 27, 2015)

One major problem I've run into is being a dangerously literal thinker; I don't understand metaphors, can't write them to save my life.  Poetry is so often about metaphors, both extended and non, but in my writing, there aren't any.  Readers seem to find them and then want an explanation for something that is merely nonsense, essentially story for the sake of story.  

Oddly enough, it is children who seem to understand these pieces best.  They take the story in stride, allowing wonder simply to be wonder without requiring some deeper meaning, just so long as it is a solid story.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 27, 2015)

Darkkin said:


> One major problem I've run into is being a dangerously linear thinker; I don't understand metaphors, can't write them to save my life.  Poetry is so often about metaphors, both extended and non, but in my writing, there aren't any.  Readers seem to find them and then want an explanation for something that is merely nonsense, essentially story for the sake of story.
> 
> Oddly enough, it is children who seem to understand these pieces best.  They take the story in stride, allowing wonder simply to be wonder without requiring some deeper meaning, just so long as it is a solid story.



Perhaps children are your audience, then... and some intelligent adults, of course.


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 27, 2015)

What you describe is definitely atypical, Dar, so I understand why small minds may not get it. Heck, it may be something that will never find an audience. I'm quite sure that it's not *wrong*​, however.


----------



## midnightpoet (Dec 27, 2015)

"you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself..."

Rick Nelson
"Garden Party"


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 27, 2015)

There are a few kids I know who are fond of Star Socks Fox, Violet Bright, and their cohorts.  Some of this, I've done for them, but some of it I've done simply for the sheer wonder of seeing these worlds and words come to life.  To have someone look at you, the thing you've created, as if it was a blasphemy--Well, it has a way of shaking the foundations of even the most confident writer.  Oh, well earthquakes are there to test the strength of the foundations and I'm determined that mine will flex with the tremors.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Dec 28, 2015)

Hello Darkkin

Kimon Nicolaides said: 'All Art begins and ends with integrity. Without integrity there can be no Art.' He was talking about the plastic arts: drawing, painting and sculpture, but I believe this is fully relevant to our writing.

If your 'unique style' is the result of laziness, stupidity or ignorance then shame on you. But if you go about your art with total integrity - and a modicum of talent - then get on with it and the rest of the world be damned.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Phil Istine (Dec 28, 2015)

Darkkin said:


> I was informed that by wiping my hard drive I would be doing the world a favour.



Don't you dare wipe your hard drive or I'll be on your case.
Why do some people have to be able to give something a name in order to validate it?  My god, they even do it with diseases too.  OK, if you must, call it Darkkinesque.  Is that better?  .

This may seem unrelated until you think a little deeper, but I'm currently reading a non-fiction, science book about what was done to some early pioneers in astronomy.
In 300 years, they will be raving about the great Darkkin, studying her works on webcams (no school buildings in the future) and telling each other that The Thistle was about the people rising up against authority in The Great Rebellion of 2036.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Dec 28, 2015)

Darkkin, I agree with Patrick that your niche is essentially as a children's writer. Children tend to have more imagination and are more apt to embrace the world of Turtle and Star Fox. You shouldn't fret about whether your writing is going to be a hit with adults. Hans Christian Andersen, Lewis Carroll (especially Lewis Carroll in my book), and more recently, JK Rowling have found great success writing for children and sometimes the adults like them as well which makes it sort of a bonus.

So, keep using your imagination, Darkkin. It will get you very far.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 28, 2015)

> wiping my hard drive I would be doing the world a favour.


They said that? That is really way over the line... ridiculous.


----------



## Schrody (Dec 28, 2015)

midnightpoet said:


> "you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself..."
> 
> Rick Nelson
> "Garden Party"



Not in front of the children, midnight :lol:

Don't listen to bullshitters, Darkkin. That group seems like pretentious-wanna be writers.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 28, 2015)

This guy was new to the group, which is usually pretty decent.  Civility gave him the potshot crack about my hard drive.  I have to give props for honesty even if he is a horse's rearend.  And life doesn't dish out more than one can handle, so I intend to go back.  Head up, words in hand...That and a request for a list of quantifiable requirements that define viable writing mediums as protected by the first amendment...I think it's a reasonable request considering.  If one is told to delete one's hard drive they have a right to know why, as the why is the driving force behind most writing.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 28, 2015)

Writers are supposed to _think_ in specific ways, now?

As far as I'm concerned the only questions writers should _have_ to ask themselves is "what if?"  I think you do that just fine.  Ignore that asshole and be yourself, Darkkin.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 28, 2015)

There are two reasons to write: The first is for yourself. To tell the stories and poems that are rattling around inside your head. In that sort of writing there is no 'right' and 'wrong'. There are only the words you use to express those emotions and thoughts. The second reason to write is to communicate your thoughts and feelings to others. If you want to share what's inside you, if you want to make others see and feel as you do, then you have to be able to communicate. If your style prevents that communication, then you fall short of that goal. That doesn't mean _everyone_ has to be able to divine your meaning, but, if no one does, you might want to reconsider the presentation. 

What is the purpose of your writing? Understand that and you will be well on your way to accepting whatever reaction others have to it.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 28, 2015)

Write how you want to write. 

Just bear in mind, no one understands _Finnegan's Wake_, and those that claim that they get _Infinite Jest_ are liars as well. While you should write for yourself and yourself alone, just keep in mind that if you want to have a wide audience, those types of works don't strike much of a chord. Do what you want to no matter what--but know the consequences of that.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 28, 2015)

The pieces I do are just bits of whimsy, tales of highwaymen, selkies, foxes, roaring hedgehogs, a chimaera, one of the last unicorns, three sisters made of glass, and the turtle who carries the moon.  It is their job to collect and protect the dreams of mortal children, keeping nightmares at bay.  There is nothing profound or speaking about these pieces, just stylised bedtime stories.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 28, 2015)

And there is nothing wrong with that, Darkkin.  Writing about dreams and fantasy are important.


----------



## RobinAlexis (Dec 28, 2015)

Darkkin,
I'm sorry this happened to you. Some writers can be exceptionally pretentious, and believe me I've been around the bush once or twice.
I'm not familiar with your writing, but it sounds like pure art. Some people don't and won't get it.
I can commiserate, ten years I was pure newbie, and decided to go to my first critique group. I was absolutely savaged about my grammar to the point, two members of the group took me aside to console me. One of them told me for a newbie my first draft was the best she'd ever seen, and I really was very talented. The other had been trying to guide the group away from focusing on my grammar, and onto my plot. He thought it was really well thought out. The rest of the group took pot shots about the heavy romantic elements, and informed me I was writing romance, not fantasy. (I write epic romantasy, LOL)
I didn't go back to the group, and put my pen down officially for about five years.
New WIP, new group, and I was getting good feed back, so I felt brave enough to join a group again. This time I got kicked out for writing porn!To frame the ridiculousness, I had posted 17 chapters, and my MC's had only just had sex once, and that had been sign posted from chapter one, and I had warned them that chapter eighteen had another sex scene. At that point, no-one had read it. Out come the accusations, and the witch hunting.
I'm writing an epic fantasy between a couple, along the lines of Isolde and Tristan, Tolkien's Luthien and Beren. It's hardly ground breaking,though it has some controversial themes, and I get some insane responses. You're working on some thing that sound truly unique. For some weird reason, some people don't like it if you do some thing even slightly different.
So Feels for you (that writer was extremely rude) some people are utter douches. Just remember, when it comes time for his work to be reviewed, he is likely to be the one screaming how misunderstood he is. Hold your head high, and act with dignity. Sounds like this dude may not last long.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 28, 2015)

Bishop said:


> Write how you want to write.
> 
> Just bear in mind, no one understands _Finnegan's Wake_, and those that claim that they get _Infinite Jest_ are liars as well. While you should write for yourself and yourself alone, just keep in mind that if you want to have a wide audience, those types of works don't strike much of a chord. Do what you want to no matter what--but know the consequences of that.



I shouldn't have formed a tenuous link between Darkkin's poetry and Joyce's Wake; it is only in the sense that Darkkin writes pieces which have a dream-like quality which doesn't conform to modern convention. 

What do you mean that nobody understands Finnegans Wake? You can see that people with lots of time to study it (years, not days) in fact do understand many things about it. It doesn't have the progression of a linear narrative. It's in fact a cyclical novel. More than that, Joyce was obsessed with layers and the idea of a part in the whole being a whole itself. You end up with a dizzying circle-within-a-circle-within-a-circle effect, and in each one Joyce shows the whole via repeated conscious links (there are key elements that keep reoccurring with different names and in different circumstances), which is close to how our consciousness works in the lucid stages of sleep. They also understand that Joyce was just as interested in the sounds of words, and those also forming their own conscious links. Reading the opening sentences of the book, you think it's gibberish, but you can pull an awful lot out of those sentences alone if you have the time to research each of the references.


----------



## LeeC (Dec 28, 2015)

I really enjoy your wordsmithing Darkkin. It's like music, I don't always get the whole story, but that's ok because the experience was pleasurable ;-)


----------



## Bishop (Dec 28, 2015)

Patrick said:


> What do you mean that nobody understands Finnegans Wake? You can see that people with lots of time to study it (years, not days) in fact do understand many things about it. It doesn't have the progression of a linear narrative. It's in fact a cyclical novel. More than that, Joyce was obsessed with layers and the idea of a part in the whole being a whole itself. You end up with a dizzying circle-within-a-circle-within-a-circle effect, and in each one Joyce shows the whole via repeated conscious links (there are key elements that keep reoccurring with different names and in different circumstances), which is close to how our consciousness works in the lucid stages of sleep. They also understand that Joyce was just as interested in the sounds of words, and those also forming their own conscious links. Reading the opening sentences of the book, you think it's gibberish, but you can pull an awful lot out of those sentences alone _if you have the time to research each of the references._



While it's not a concrete source, Wikipedia on this is pretty well cited, so I'm just going to quote it:

"Despite the obstacles, readers and commentators have reached a broad consensus about the book's central cast of characters and, to a lesser degree, its plot. However, a number of key details remain elusive."

When the best thing about the book's importance can be said is that we've reached a "broad consensus" about its characters and to a *lesser degree, it's plot*, then no one gets it. That is literally saying, "We think we know the characters and we have kind of sort of an idea of its plot." Then it goes on to say that key details remain elusive. AKA: We are missing major, important elements. 

You cannot convince me that anyone--not even Joyce--has any idea what that book means. It is intentionally dense, obscure, and impossible to decode.

That all being said, if anyone had written it other than an already established author, it would be at the very bottoms of a thousand slush piles, never seeing publication. But because Joyce, in his addled, insane state on his deathbed, scribbled it out someone thought that they could make a buck off of it, and in the process sent literary scholars with no other time on their hands into a frenzied goose chase.

If the OP wants to be published, he should not start with a Finnegan's Wake. Period.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 28, 2015)

It's tough to see the whole picture when the story is still incomplete, but there is a frame work of rhymes, images, and places that recur throughout the pieces, the Bright rhyme scheme in particular.  As Scheherazade did with her tales of the Arabian Nights, these stories are layers within layers, but all are detailed and explained from the creation of the Star Socks Fox to the legend of how the Echo of the 'Ways came to be.  Some pieces are a bit obscure without their context, but that is something I've been working to keep available.  The continuous, running chronology of these folk and their world.  Some pieces faded back in time to explain how a particular character came to be in a current time or place.  Nothing is haphazard with this project despite the nonsense.  Everything is connected


----------



## Patrick (Dec 28, 2015)

Bishop said:


> While it's not a concrete source, Wikipedia on this is pretty well cited, so I'm just going to quote it:
> 
> "Despite the obstacles, readers and commentators have reached a broad consensus about the book's central cast of characters and, to a lesser degree, its plot. However, a number of key details remain elusive."
> 
> ...



What I can't understand is why people use the slush pile as the determining factor in an author's credibility. You do realise literary agents' tastes are as arbitrary as yours and mine? Why is this never countervailed with the point that for every high-minded book that wouldn't tickle an agent's fancy there are a dozen books like 50 Shades of Grey that do? The slush pile can't be used as anything more than a measure of an individual's tastes/available time.

Taking your view of Joyce from wikipedia is a very bad idea. If you don't want to engage with his material, that's a decision you're free to make, but if you have enough interest to read the wikipedia page on the Wake, you may as well start listening to some literary discussions on Joyce. I'd avoid a reverse snobbery that paints those who like/love Joyce as pretentious (I am very ambivalent towards him, admiring his skill and intelligence while not being sure he didn't experiment his way to a dead end, and you'll find there are lots of authors who have the same struggles with Joyce). A work which took him 17 years is hardly fairly categorised as deathbed scribbling, is it?


----------



## LeeC (Dec 28, 2015)

Darkkin said:


> It's tough to see the whole picture when the story is still incomplete, but there is a frame work of rhymes, images, and places that recur throughout the pieces, the Bright rhyme scheme in particular.  As Scheherazade did with her tales of the Arabian Nights, these stories are layers within layers, but all are detailed and explained from the creation of the Star Socks Fox to the legend of how the Echo of the 'Ways came to be.  Some pieces are a bit obscure without their context, but that is something I've been working to keep available.  The continuous, running chronology of these folk and their world.  Some pieces faded back in time to explain how a particular character came to be in a current time or place.  Nothing is haphazard with this project despite the nonsense.  Everything is connected


I'd enjoy seeing it all together in a story/collection so I could grasp the aspect you note


----------



## Kevin (Dec 28, 2015)

Almost like music, it's about mood and theme. Each character is like an instrument. Always there's a struggle, often just to be.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 28, 2015)

Patrick said:


> What I can't understand is why people use the slush pile as the determining factor in an author's credibility. You do realise literary agents' tastes are as arbitrary as yours and mine? Why is this never countervailed with the point that for every high-minded book that wouldn't tickle an agent's fancy there are a dozen books like 50 Shades of Grey that do? The slush pile can't be used as anything more than a measure of an individual's tastes/available time.
> 
> Taking your view of Joyce from wikipedia is a very bad idea. If you don't want to engage with his material, that's a decision you're free to make, but if you have enough interest to read the wikipedia page on the Wake, you may as well start listening to some literary discussions on Joyce. I'd avoid a reverse snobbery that paints those who like/love Joyce as pretentious (I am very ambivalent towards him, admiring his skill and intelligence while not being sure he didn't experiment his way to a dead end, and you'll find there are lots of authors who have the same struggles with Joyce). A work which took him 17 years is hardly fairly categorised as deathbed scribbling, is it?



My personal knowledge from Joyce came from my English degree with a specialty in UK writers, where I studied Irish literature for two semesters. Joyce was obviously a major part of that. I engaged his literature for long enough to make the solid analysis that the man was certifiable. That isn't to say he's a poor writer. Those that love him are free to do so, not relegated to "snobbery" in the least. I maintain that "Araby" is one of the best short stories ever written, and have even written a short story of my own in a mirroring style as a practice exercise. But every critic, every professor, and every student I read about or talked to about Finnegan's Wake is in agreement: its literary value is that of a curiosity, nothing more. It's a mind-rape by Joyce, critically panned across the board, and widely considered nearly unreadable. Any work that requires years of study just to get a fragment of the plot in your mind is akin to gibberish. It's the equivalent of making up your own language and getting angry when people can't understand it.

My problem are the people who claim to understand Finnegan's Wake, which I believe to be an impossibility even in a small degree; but this is not the place to discuss it. I'm dealing with the OP in relation to it.

Slush piles, agent opinions, and publishing aren't something that I care about, but those that do need to be aware of one thing: Agents don't care about anything except what will sell. That's a fact. Finnegan's Wake, and other "experimental" pieces do not move onto publication without the author first being experienced and published elsewhere. Because without a name to backup the insanity, things like that don't sell. 50 Shades sells. Is it good? No, not by a long shot. But it does something that Finnegan's Wake doesnt: appeals to people.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 28, 2015)

Double post...Ignore.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 28, 2015)

Bishop said:


> My personal knowledge from Joyce came from my English degree with a specialty in UK writers, where I studied Irish literature for two semesters. Joyce was obviously a major part of that. I engaged his literature for long enough to make the solid analysis that the man was certifiable. That isn't to say he's a poor writer. Those that love him are free to do so, not relegated to "snobbery" in the least. I maintain that "Araby" is one of the best short stories ever written, and have even written a short story of my own in a mirroring style as a practice exercise. But every critic, every professor, and every student I read about or talked to about Finnegan's Wake is in agreement: its literary value is that of a curiosity, nothing more. It's a mind-rape by Joyce, critically panned across the board, and widely considered nearly unreadable. Any work that requires years of study just to get a fragment of the plot in your mind is akin to gibberish. It's the equivalent of making up your own language and getting angry when people can't understand it.
> 
> My problem are the people who claim to understand Finnegan's Wake, which I believe to be an impossibility even in a small degree; but this is not the place to discuss it. I'm dealing with the OP in relation to it.
> 
> Slush piles, agent opinions, and publishing aren't something that I care about, but those that do need to be aware of one thing: Agents don't care about anything except what will sell. That's a fact. Finnegan's Wake, and other "experimental" pieces do not move onto publication without the author first being experienced and published elsewhere. Because without a name to backup the insanity, things like that don't sell. 50 Shades sells. Is it good? No, not by a long shot. But it does something that Finnegan's Wake doesnt: appeals to people.



But that is a much more balanced point of view than the one you offered before. I don't disagree with any of that. Finnegans Wake is not an enjoyable text because it's incumbent on you as the reader to digest and research all the conscious links. However, I can understand why some people do get a sense of satisfaction from discovering these things in Joyce's novel.

Darkkin is in no danger of producing a Finnegans Wake, and the point of the tenuous link I initially made was only to demonstrate how unconventional art is often sneered at (Ulysses is another good example) by those who aren't open minded enough to give it any real consideration. A writer's concerns aren't reducible to the marketplace, unless they have absolutely no merit as a writer/thinker/artist, and so it is important for Darkkin, and all those struggling with a similar crisis of confidence, to continue working in the style that is uniquely theirs.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 28, 2015)

Never having read Finnegan's Wake, I honestly can't comment, but of my  own work this much is at least known.  Children like the poems.  Violet  Bright, in particular, was a commissioned piece that was well received.   Star Socks Fox is another who has garnered a following.  The only thing  experimental about this project is the fact that it is done in a series  of structured, rhyming poems, rather than a free verse format so  prevalent in published poetry today.




Kevin said:


> Almost like music, it's about mood and theme. Each character is like an instrument. Always there's a struggle, often just to be.




Precisely.  Mozart was a genius, a prodigy of his time.  He understood complexities and connections in music still not fully comprehended today.  Everything worked together, but so to, held a counterpoint contrast, highlighting the wonder of his compositions.  He didn't question why or how he was able to create such wonders, he simply composed.

Beethoven composed deaf, Tchaikovsky hated his Nutcracker Suite, and during the entirety of his lifetime Van Gogh sold only one painting.  I think what truly matters is that they didn't give up.  Art and music were created, leaving a legacy that is still respected to this day.

Will there come a day when the Star Socks Fox is as well known as Paddington or Curious George.  Umm...no, but it can't be denied that he does exist.  Even if it is a legacy of just a few who find the Strangeways.  The only true failure is the failure to try.


----------



## ppsage (Dec 28, 2015)

> While it's not a concrete source, Wikipedia on this is pretty well cited, so I'm just going to quote it:
> 
> "Despite the obstacles, readers and commentators have reached a broad consensus about the book's central cast of characters and, to a lesser degree, its plot. However, a number of key details remain elusive."
> 
> ...


Wikipedia is an especially poor source, for people who only read 50 words of a 2.5k article. Joyce worked on Wake for 15 or 16 years and researched thousands of topics. Beyond a barely tolerable dipsomania and exceedingly offensive temperament, he was never actually insane, and I'm certain the book made sense to him, even if that's not readily apparent to the rest of us. -------------- I'm not getting a very clear impression of the op's work or the objections to it. There are plenty of poetry collections; I don't see what's so controversial about that.


----------



## J Anfinson (Dec 29, 2015)

A narrow-minded idiot like that will never amount to anything. Let it roll off, Darkkin. I'm willing to bet everyone else in the group will grow to dislike him soon enough, if they haven't already. Nobody likes a snob.


----------



## aj47 (Dec 29, 2015)

I write because I have Ideas that I want to share--as in, "Have you ever thought ...?"  

I'm not expecting to change the world, or anyone's mind or anything like that, but I've been told some of my work has been life-changing for people. I have mixed feelings about this--I think it's the randomness of the universe that put my work right there, right then, to make a difference. I know it wasn't an outcome of intent. I don't feel responsible for that, so much as blessed that I could contribute.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 30, 2015)

> My problem are the people who claim to *understand *Finnegan's Wake, which I believe to be an impossibility even in a small degree



That assumes there's a shared agreement on what 'to understand' means, which has never existed. Hence the focus of a lot of Joyce's work.

For Finnegan's Wake, I think not understanding the prose is paramount for understanding the narrative.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 30, 2015)

Cadence said:


> That assumes there's a shared agreement on what 'to understand' means, which has never existed. Hence the focus of a lot of Joyce's work.
> 
> For Finnegan's Wake, I think not understanding the prose is paramount for understanding the narrative.



Hence why I said "claim to understand". I wouldn't classify Finnegan's Wake as some literary Schrodinger's cat where you can understand it and not understand it at the same time. I think Joyce was building an impenetrable "magnum opus" to force a legacy far beyond his years--hence my statement that it was a deathbed work despite it being 17 years in the making. He wanted people pining over it, confused about it, trying to decode it for eternity. It's his ensuring a legacy, even if that legacy is us shaking our fist at him.


----------



## midnightpoet (Dec 30, 2015)

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  There's a lot of poetry on this site I don't understand, but like anyway.  I've found, as I grow older, there is a lot of things I don't understand, a lot of jokes I don't find funny - even on this site.  Part of that is a generation gap, I'm sure.  Each writer approaches his/her craft with their own voice, ways of thinking (or at least  they should).  I don't think independent thought should be discouraged, whether we agree with it or not - and I believe the writers on this site feel the same way.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 30, 2015)

Each writer's voice is unique and it is one thing I look for when I critique.  Occasionally, I've come across pieces, that while well written, have been a little generic.  There is nothing wrong with the piece, it provided a pleasant read, with proper grammar and spelling, but there wasn't any part of it that distinctly delineated the voice of the writer.  

The lack of voice and identity in writing, I find bothersome.  Almost as if the writer didn't care enough about the work to leave their traces upon it.  It's like comparing J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter to James Patterson.  Rowling's attention to detail is incredible, bringing every last inch of her world to life.  Patterson farms out to how many ghost and co-writers...Has a new book out every three to four weeks, but look at the content.  There is no subtly, no identity.  Does he make money.  Yes.  But the beauty of the words is lost.

As far as understanding goes, I translate on a literal level.  If I don't understand something I say something, and I explain why I don't understand it.  I read for context, but because of the way my brain is wired I never get the metaphors.  Having to explain a metaphor that doesn't exist, well, it's never boring.  And for whatever the reason, some people find it hard to understand that _you_ don't understand metaphors.  The word is what it is, you can break it into its most basic parts and you know the five other obscure definitions, but that word isn't going to become something else...It remains unadulterated.

That Harry Potter was an extended metaphor for a boy's denial of mental illness...That was an insightful article.  I'm still a believer in the concept of story for the sake of story.  If it provides moral lessons and other bits of wisdom along the way so much the better, but stories, for the sheer glory of stories _that_ is why and how I write.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 30, 2015)

Bishop said:


> Hence why I said "claim to understand". I wouldn't classify Finnegan's Wake as some literary Schrodinger's cat where you can understand it and not understand it at the same time. I think Joyce was building an impenetrable "magnum opus" to force a legacy far beyond his years--hence my statement that it was a deathbed work despite it being 17 years in the making. He wanted people pining over it, confused about it, trying to decode it for eternity. It's his ensuring a legacy, even if that legacy is us shaking our fist at him.



Na. Joyce was just a very clever man, and Finnegans Wake was, as I explained earlier, the result of his growth as a writer. He intended to write another book after Finnegans Wake. You can see the development of his ideas from Dubliners through to the Wake. Reading Dubliners is fantastic just for the clarity of the language. He was way ahead of his time.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 30, 2015)

Usually the reason people don't recognize genius is because it doesn't exist.  If you're the only one who thinks your writing is spectacular, you're probably wrong.


----------



## Darkkin (Dec 30, 2015)

Never said my writing was spectacular or anything more than ordinary, but it isn't so bad that it warranted a recommendation of total deletion.  That is one thing to be said for critique, if it is that awful, the sooner one finds out the sooner it can be rectified.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 30, 2015)

Patrick said:


> Na. Joyce was just a very clever man, and Finnegans Wake was, as I explained earlier, the result of his growth as a writer. He intended to write another book after Finnegans Wake. You can see the development of his ideas from Dubliners through to the Wake. Reading Dubliners is fantastic just for the clarity of the language. He was way ahead of his time.



In that case, he's ahead of our time too. Perhaps ahead of the entirety of literature. Maybe an alien civilization can figure it out.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 30, 2015)

Bishop said:


> In that case, he's ahead of our time too. Perhaps ahead of the entirety of literature. Maybe an alien civilization can figure it out.



I am not sure why you're so derogatory towards him on the basis of Finnegans Wake alone. It's not really disputed that Joyce was ahead of his time, and that his oeuvre was seminal in 20th-century literature. Of course, one can still dislike him and his books, for whatever reason. I think it's wrong and equally arrogant to think Joyce spent 17 years writing a book just to frustrate you and other students, however. I think he was more concerned with developing his ideas of what the novel _could _do, and as I've said before, I think he probably experimented his way to a dead end with the Wake.

You can still learn a lot from authors you don't enjoy, and they can often challenge you to think more deeply about your craft. That's a win-win to any intellectually-curious writer, because they might just enjoy Joyce too.


----------

