![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkai usually take my new-found need/desire/addiction to an audience, and my wibbling and concern over whether and how much i change my writing to please and entertain others, as a new flaw, a sort of bad habit i'd picked up. most of my life, i've written for myself, and i was so insulated that a large percentage of my stories don't even make -sense- to people. sometimes i think it's because i'm insane, and inherently nonsensical somehow, and my thought processes are just-- wacked-- but it could be something else too, of course. it could be that i've just never felt like i was -communicating- with anyone but myself, in writing, and often enough in real life. this impenetrability i tend to have is common for a certain sort of writer.
i was reading![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
minisinoo's essay about the distinction between storytellers and cathartic writers. it's a scale, of course, but it's a very useful distinction nonetheless. cathartic writers is self-explanatory, and storytellers being performers. storytellers being there -for- the audience, to pass down stories, to communicate, to teach, to entertain, to enlighten.
i remembered that the traditional idea of the communal Storyteller-- usually oral-- the one who keeps the old tales, the history, the heart of the tribe-- is one i consider holy, and one i aspire to. it's not just another mode of writing-- it's the roots, the heart, the soul of what writing is. of what -story- is.
the stories live within us, and they're dying to get out, yes. we need to tell our own stories, to understand ourselves, to go on our vision quests without ever leaving our desks, yes. this is beautiful and right and it keeps a lot of us sane. the stories are always a part of the teller, are always the -heart- of the teller, if they're really True. and it just seems like the story has a journey too, no matter the intents of its telling. i think it -can- touch another, and if/when it does, and if it -means- something to them, then it really -lives-.
i mean, before that, it was just an extension of yourself. it exists alone, just like you do as the writer. it partakes of your essential isolation as a human being. it sounds sad, but i mean-- it's true, to me anyway. but now that it has replanted itself in someone else's mind, it's become-- more. different. it's also -theirs- now. it's like the difference between being alone and part of a community. there are sacrifices and treasures to be found in both states. though if you're -truly- alone, the scope of your existence, the extensiveness of your insight, the breadth of your perception, is inherently limited. you can go deeper and deeper and deeper (inside yourself), but soon enough you're lost. and you're just writing stories like missives to an outside world you're not sure you believe in any longer.
but yes. i've always considered being a Storyteller to be a healing, Holy thing. as much as i seem to be the very picture portrait of a cathartic writer, i've always aspired to reach people, to be a healer, to keep the Story, to continue the thread. my dream of getting an isolated cottage in the middle of nowhere where i can write and paint night and day isn't really my deepest desire, it's just what i retreat to. i'd rather be a minstrel-- i'd rather -say- something to someone, and have it -affect- them. i'd rather -exist- in more than just my own mind. and since my writing -is- me, on many levels, i'd rather my writing existed in more than just my own mind.
so i consider Storytelling as an outgrowth, a further stage of the development of a writer. it's not inherently -better-, but it's just-- more. it's bigger. it contains more-- contains more than yourself. when you are ready to contain more than yourself. when you want to scrape up the world and include it in your own. i definitely know that for most of my conscious life, i've written stories, and yet i've never really felt a great urge to publish. i could always do it -later-. later, when i'm better. later, when i've finished a story i'm proud of. later, when i feel the urge. just later.
i suppose this is easily explained by the fact that i've been a cathartic writer, mostly. an audience was not the (primary) point. i wrote to resolve my issues, and to get the story out of my head, to play with words and to tickle my fancy-- ok, so i wrote porn, too. i didn't edit or revise very often and i didn't want to improve except as a vague idea that it would be good. when i did revise it's because i was just obsessed with the language, as in a poem, which i used to go over and over 30 times, changing one word obsessively. this still goes for my drawing-- i draw for myself only. it's fun. i get better gradually, but mostly i don't because i don't see why i should bother. it's just sort of a nervous tick. a compulsion.
and to think this is off a link from a post about betaed (communal) writing vs. unbetaed (personal) writing, just saying that betas aren't necessarily... well... necessary. for the cathartic writer, they probably aren't, as far as the writer can tell.
i think i'm becoming more of a storyteller-- or realizing more of my storytelling potential, lately, with the whole web publishing thing. i -care- about what my readers think, and that's not a bad thing. i -enjoy- making sense, dammit. and i think it's true that none of us would be publishing, even in our livejournals, if we didn't have the storyteller lurking within. if i was -really- pure and self-enclosed, i wouldn't show things to people if they -asked- me. i know people like that. my ex wouldn't even show me his novel if i -asked-. and let me tell you, there is -nothing- i wouldn't show you if you asked, whoever you are. in fact, you'd probably have to beat me off with a stick, because i'd want you to read -everything-.
i am still a cathartic writer primarily because it is my own need to write that keeps me going. i -adore- feedback, i lap it up, i just can't express how much i love it-- but i sit down and write because i -want- to. the initial push is inside. but y'know, it's fun to know that i'm doing it -for- someone, too. even though as i write, it's still for myself-- i can't keep that carrot in front of my face to get me to keep typing. i have to want to at least a little. weeelll... i -always- want to at least a little. yes, there's a part of me that wants to write the squickiest squick that ever squicked.
yes, i think there's a part of me that wants to write draco/hermione. woe.
~~
and. i think i have a pet peeve.
i seem to notice a trend in (romance) stories, especially if it's a case of opposites attracting. and i suppose i bring it upon myself, reading about that in the first place. there's this strong, dominant, benevolent (or angry) character. he might be kind and gentle, or he may just be innocent yet strong, or he may be weathered and cynical, and strong. paired with a weaker, emotionally unstable character who needs some sort of rescuing from themselves. maybe this character has such low self-esteem that they seem "bad" and do things that the other character doesn't approve of. but it's only because they don't have that character's love and kindness to make them see the alternative.
naturally, then there are stories in reaction to that. they're aware of the co-dependency problem, and often straight out tell you (in the voice of a third character) that these characters need to be separated so that they can be strong alone before they can be strong together.
this rubs me the wrong way because it always seems to come from the outside, and is sort of forced on the relationship by plot or well-meaning friends. so you're telling the same story, except you're making sure the characters get "help". at least they don't tend to actually go to get therapy. that would be a neat trick to solve character problems. "they got therapy." yes, what if draco malfoy got therapy??
the reason i personally like opposites-attract stories is because you get this friction, this challenging of one another, this sense of liveliness and change and growth. hopefully, the couple is evenly matched. and yet so often, something happens, and suddenly, they're not. mostly, it's draco. draco needs harry, you see, to feel worthwhile. harry is the first person who's ever really luuuuurved him. harry is the only person who needs him. harry is his sun-and-stars. and then it could be the other way around. and then instead of challenge and conflict you get clinginess and neediness. and it's like they're completely different people from who they used to be.
it could be argued that this is a result of the inherent unhealthiness of harry & draco, or of heero & duo (another couple i got this with). they just helplessly degenerate and that's all there is to it. either they bicker themselves apart or they cling so fiercely they break each other. or there's separation therapy.
it's all in how you picture it, isn't it. i would agree they need each other and that is probably going to be an inevitable component of any harry/draco pairing. but does need have to make you less than you are? is draco just inherently weaker? ok, maybe he is. but can't being in love make you -stronger- without you becoming -dependent- on that strength-- that is, can't the strength you get come from -you- and not the person you love?
reading the latest bit of `checkmate', i just remember all the things i dislike in romances of this sort. there are bits of this sort of characterization in a -lot- of fics. a -lot-. i enjoy a number of them. but really. someone has to be broken. someone else has to be kind. someone has to have a void for someone else to plug. love doesn't have to be like that. darkness and light may need each other, but when one says they become stronger united, it's not because they are inherently weak. they're just different. how hard can that be to write?
i was reading
minisinoo's essay about the distinction between storytellers and cathartic writers. it's a scale, of course, but it's a very useful distinction nonetheless. cathartic writers is self-explanatory, and storytellers being performers. storytellers being there -for- the audience, to pass down stories, to communicate, to teach, to entertain, to enlighten.i remembered that the traditional idea of the communal Storyteller-- usually oral-- the one who keeps the old tales, the history, the heart of the tribe-- is one i consider holy, and one i aspire to. it's not just another mode of writing-- it's the roots, the heart, the soul of what writing is. of what -story- is.
the stories live within us, and they're dying to get out, yes. we need to tell our own stories, to understand ourselves, to go on our vision quests without ever leaving our desks, yes. this is beautiful and right and it keeps a lot of us sane. the stories are always a part of the teller, are always the -heart- of the teller, if they're really True. and it just seems like the story has a journey too, no matter the intents of its telling. i think it -can- touch another, and if/when it does, and if it -means- something to them, then it really -lives-.
i mean, before that, it was just an extension of yourself. it exists alone, just like you do as the writer. it partakes of your essential isolation as a human being. it sounds sad, but i mean-- it's true, to me anyway. but now that it has replanted itself in someone else's mind, it's become-- more. different. it's also -theirs- now. it's like the difference between being alone and part of a community. there are sacrifices and treasures to be found in both states. though if you're -truly- alone, the scope of your existence, the extensiveness of your insight, the breadth of your perception, is inherently limited. you can go deeper and deeper and deeper (inside yourself), but soon enough you're lost. and you're just writing stories like missives to an outside world you're not sure you believe in any longer.
but yes. i've always considered being a Storyteller to be a healing, Holy thing. as much as i seem to be the very picture portrait of a cathartic writer, i've always aspired to reach people, to be a healer, to keep the Story, to continue the thread. my dream of getting an isolated cottage in the middle of nowhere where i can write and paint night and day isn't really my deepest desire, it's just what i retreat to. i'd rather be a minstrel-- i'd rather -say- something to someone, and have it -affect- them. i'd rather -exist- in more than just my own mind. and since my writing -is- me, on many levels, i'd rather my writing existed in more than just my own mind.
so i consider Storytelling as an outgrowth, a further stage of the development of a writer. it's not inherently -better-, but it's just-- more. it's bigger. it contains more-- contains more than yourself. when you are ready to contain more than yourself. when you want to scrape up the world and include it in your own. i definitely know that for most of my conscious life, i've written stories, and yet i've never really felt a great urge to publish. i could always do it -later-. later, when i'm better. later, when i've finished a story i'm proud of. later, when i feel the urge. just later.
i suppose this is easily explained by the fact that i've been a cathartic writer, mostly. an audience was not the (primary) point. i wrote to resolve my issues, and to get the story out of my head, to play with words and to tickle my fancy-- ok, so i wrote porn, too. i didn't edit or revise very often and i didn't want to improve except as a vague idea that it would be good. when i did revise it's because i was just obsessed with the language, as in a poem, which i used to go over and over 30 times, changing one word obsessively. this still goes for my drawing-- i draw for myself only. it's fun. i get better gradually, but mostly i don't because i don't see why i should bother. it's just sort of a nervous tick. a compulsion.
and to think this is off a link from a post about betaed (communal) writing vs. unbetaed (personal) writing, just saying that betas aren't necessarily... well... necessary. for the cathartic writer, they probably aren't, as far as the writer can tell.
i think i'm becoming more of a storyteller-- or realizing more of my storytelling potential, lately, with the whole web publishing thing. i -care- about what my readers think, and that's not a bad thing. i -enjoy- making sense, dammit. and i think it's true that none of us would be publishing, even in our livejournals, if we didn't have the storyteller lurking within. if i was -really- pure and self-enclosed, i wouldn't show things to people if they -asked- me. i know people like that. my ex wouldn't even show me his novel if i -asked-. and let me tell you, there is -nothing- i wouldn't show you if you asked, whoever you are. in fact, you'd probably have to beat me off with a stick, because i'd want you to read -everything-.
i am still a cathartic writer primarily because it is my own need to write that keeps me going. i -adore- feedback, i lap it up, i just can't express how much i love it-- but i sit down and write because i -want- to. the initial push is inside. but y'know, it's fun to know that i'm doing it -for- someone, too. even though as i write, it's still for myself-- i can't keep that carrot in front of my face to get me to keep typing. i have to want to at least a little. weeelll... i -always- want to at least a little. yes, there's a part of me that wants to write the squickiest squick that ever squicked.
yes, i think there's a part of me that wants to write draco/hermione. woe.
~~
and. i think i have a pet peeve.
i seem to notice a trend in (romance) stories, especially if it's a case of opposites attracting. and i suppose i bring it upon myself, reading about that in the first place. there's this strong, dominant, benevolent (or angry) character. he might be kind and gentle, or he may just be innocent yet strong, or he may be weathered and cynical, and strong. paired with a weaker, emotionally unstable character who needs some sort of rescuing from themselves. maybe this character has such low self-esteem that they seem "bad" and do things that the other character doesn't approve of. but it's only because they don't have that character's love and kindness to make them see the alternative.
naturally, then there are stories in reaction to that. they're aware of the co-dependency problem, and often straight out tell you (in the voice of a third character) that these characters need to be separated so that they can be strong alone before they can be strong together.
this rubs me the wrong way because it always seems to come from the outside, and is sort of forced on the relationship by plot or well-meaning friends. so you're telling the same story, except you're making sure the characters get "help". at least they don't tend to actually go to get therapy. that would be a neat trick to solve character problems. "they got therapy." yes, what if draco malfoy got therapy??
the reason i personally like opposites-attract stories is because you get this friction, this challenging of one another, this sense of liveliness and change and growth. hopefully, the couple is evenly matched. and yet so often, something happens, and suddenly, they're not. mostly, it's draco. draco needs harry, you see, to feel worthwhile. harry is the first person who's ever really luuuuurved him. harry is the only person who needs him. harry is his sun-and-stars. and then it could be the other way around. and then instead of challenge and conflict you get clinginess and neediness. and it's like they're completely different people from who they used to be.
it could be argued that this is a result of the inherent unhealthiness of harry & draco, or of heero & duo (another couple i got this with). they just helplessly degenerate and that's all there is to it. either they bicker themselves apart or they cling so fiercely they break each other. or there's separation therapy.
it's all in how you picture it, isn't it. i would agree they need each other and that is probably going to be an inevitable component of any harry/draco pairing. but does need have to make you less than you are? is draco just inherently weaker? ok, maybe he is. but can't being in love make you -stronger- without you becoming -dependent- on that strength-- that is, can't the strength you get come from -you- and not the person you love?
reading the latest bit of `checkmate', i just remember all the things i dislike in romances of this sort. there are bits of this sort of characterization in a -lot- of fics. a -lot-. i enjoy a number of them. but really. someone has to be broken. someone else has to be kind. someone has to have a void for someone else to plug. love doesn't have to be like that. darkness and light may need each other, but when one says they become stronger united, it's not because they are inherently weak. they're just different. how hard can that be to write?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-05 02:20 am (UTC)I agree. I think that's part of the reason that I'm, like, not liking Harry/Draco as much. Or love stories at all. Stories like that, with weaker characters, tend to be unbearably sappy to me. I suppose some people can pull it off, but most others go over the top with the...neediness.
I stopped reading Checkmate around chapter 5 or 6. Whichever one Draco decides to quit the quidditch team for Harry. Or at least, it was some reason like that. I can't remember too well. Anyhow, I just realized at that point how much I disliked Draco's characterization. He wasn't anything resembling the canon Draco to me. He'd lost all of his Draco-ness, for lack of a better word. It bothers me when they make Draco like that: living only for Harry. It's...gah. He turns all...smoopy and apathetic. I'd rather see a fic where they're more on equal ground.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-05 02:27 pm (UTC)i can't get tired of harry/draco because i'm not dependent on the badfic or goodfic-- they kind of live in my head.
but yes, if i depended on fic to show me why it's a great idea, i'd have gotten reeeeally skeptical by now ><;;
of course, trust fic to make -anything- seem like a bad idea, even love~:)