You Are What You Write

After the very successful first Picture Fiction Challenge, I thought I'd reflect a little on the experience of it. A big Thank You goes out to all of you who decided to participate - and I know it was hard for some of you. It goes to show how powerful the medium of the written word really is. Another Thank You goes to all of you who went around to read and comment on each one of our stories. Feedback is invaluable for the wanna-be writer.

One of those who commented, really set my mind wandering. I wish I had a better nickname/handle/identification on this person, who prefers to stay "Anonymous". Thought provoking and interesting comments have been left for me by this person, however, and I can't help but look forward to reading them.

I will start this little reflection by responding to "Anonymous". Here's what he/she said in a comment on my "The Cold Room" story:

Anonymous wrote:
You gave people pictures instead of ink blots but the words "rorschach test" come to mind.

People always say "you write what you know." It's interesting to see what people know about cockroaches, drug addiction, loss, pain, death, beatings, violence, sadness and long-shot happy endings.

If I read your story correctly you've been beaten down and isolated.
Your inherent goodness has been overlooked by women.
You feel compelled to rescue women.
You're worn out from being the hero. Now you want a woman to rescue you...

Did I read that correctly? Or am I interpreting your ink blot the wrong way?

I figure this story must have a pretty deep meaning to you. After all 4228 words is one hell of a big ink blot. It takes balls to put yourself out there like that. That's probably why people liked your story so much...

It's hard for anyone to write a true work of fiction.
"We write what we know."

Anon. I didn't respond to anything of which you said in the comments section, but now I will. Let me dissect this and see what we'll find. Lets start at the beginning, shall we?

"You gave people pictures instead of ink blots but the words "rorschach test" come to mind."

The rorschach reference is an interesting one. While I believe there is an element of truth to what you are suggesting, I take that with as much reliability as I take the actual ink blot test. Many people would doubt its authenticity and how correctly it describes the mental frameset of the test subject.

The question here is, is it the individual doing the assessment - or is the assessment done by the picture itself - projecting it's own emotion onto the viewer? If you take a picture that provokes darkness, or evil - each individual looking at that picture will see bad things, right? You don't put a picture out there of a beautiful loving couple, embracing and kissing one another on the beach with the sun setting in the background, and inspire thoughts of murder and dismemberment, right? Such a picture would induce serenity and calmness, and feelings of love - no matter who is looking at the picture.

If we look at the what happened on this first challenge it becomes quite apparent that there was one picture in particular which inspired the writings we got to read. That picture was the "Setting" picture. The run down building caused us all to think of darkness, loneliness, despair and other emotions along the same lines. That one "ink blot" influenced how we interpreted the rest of the pictures we were presented with.

Had we used the same pictures, but changed the "Setting" to an image of a large 18th century mansion, with a beautiful flower garden, and a limo parked out front... we would've seen very different stories indeed.

"People always say "you write what you know." It's interesting to see what people know about cockroaches, drug addiction, loss, pain, death, beatings, violence, sadness and long-shot happy endings."

That's a two-faced statement, the way I see it. I can either read it as if you are suggesting that we write about cockroaches because we know about cockroaches. In which case I disagree. As a writer of fiction, you reach out and find territories and things to write about that are alien to your own experiences. If you take a look at my own story, it is full of violence and death. I have lived a very secluded life, and never really had any violent episodes in the vein of what I write about here.

I have, however, witnessed domestic violence (although, of course, nowhere near as brutal as what I wrote here), so to a certain extent even that angle of your statement rings true.

But, do we want to look at this from a more "factual" angle? I take it from your comment that you took the time to read the stories by other people too, derived mostly from your mention of drug addiction. There was only one story presented in this PFC that dealt with drug addiction, and Emmeline, who wrote that story, does NOT know about drug addiction (as she said herself in comments on her own blog).

Now, don't get me wrong, Emmeline, but I will use your writing as an example in what I'm trying to say here. This is not to put you down or anything - the story you wrote was good, and I truly enjoyed reading it (I don't want you to think otherwise), but I will admit that I thought it was apparent that your knowledge of drug addiction was limited. Of course, if one wants to write a story about drug addiction, and wanting to really convince the reader (including those who have gone through that hell themselves, or witnessed it up close) research is key to a successful story. No one would expect anyone to do extensive research for a "fun little game" like this is supposed to be. What was important about your story is that you fleshed out your characters, and evoked emotion as we were reading. Limited knowledge about drugs, really didn't matter in this case.

What I'm trying to say here, is that when writing "serious" fiction Anon's statement needs to change to "you should write what you know". If we look at how Emmeline's story "Pieces of Autumn" described the drugs, and what the sister was using, this is how it went down:

"She ticked off a laundry list of street names for all kinds of addictive drugs - some of them I'd never heard before."

While it works very well. We understand that she uses a lot of different forms of drugs. But, a similar description written by someone who really knows drugs came to mind as I was thinking about this. That is this excerpt from William S. Burroughs, who was a drug addict, more or less, for almost 60 years, and this is how he ticks off his laundry list:

"When I say addict I mean an addict to junk (generic term for opium and/or derivatives including all synthetics from demerol to palfium). I have used junk in many forms: morphine, heroin, dilaudid, eukodal, pantopon, diocodid, diosane, opium, demerol, dolophine, palfium. I have smoked junk, eaten it, sniffed it, injected it in vein-skin-muscle, inserted it in rectal suppositories. The needle is not important. Whether you sniff it smoke it eat it or shove it up your ass the result is the same: addiction."

That was taken from the introduction to his own novel "Naked Lunch". See how that short paragraph immediately draws us in, and makes us understand the hell that is drugs?

So, while we do write what we know, from the knowledge and experience we have gathered in our lives, it does not mean that we choose to write what we know.

"If I read your story correctly you've been beaten down and isolated.
Your inherent goodness has been overlooked by women.
You feel compelled to rescue women.
You're worn out from being the hero. Now you want a woman to rescue you...

Did I read that correctly? Or am I interpreting your ink blot the wrong way?"

Now this is the part of your comment that really caught my attention.

Not for a second. Not in a million years would I have thought I put that much of my soul into this short piece of fiction. Whether you just hit the lucky numbers and won the Jackpot with your analysis, or you are simply that good at analyzing a person from his writing will remain a mystery... are you a shrink by any chance? LOL!

Lets further dissect this part:

"...beaten down and isolated."

Well, for anyone who read the Introduction to the Rubicon Heart story, you will know that I was pretty much "beaten down and isolated" growing up. I wasn't physically beaten down (except for on a couple of rare occasions), but mentally I really was. I was also very much isolated - closing the door to my room, where I created my own world to live in. That is where I started writing fiction - from the age eight on I have enjoyed putting pieces of my mind into (what I hope to be) entertaining stories.

I will also say that most of the short stories I have ever written, have an element of loneliness and longing. That's where my own label of "Mystery Horror" derived from... one of my favorite stories I've ever written was called "Rest In Peace, My Dear", and told the tale of an old woman who got in a taxi and asked the driver to just drive. She told him a story of love and longing, of loss of her husband, and all the while she was thumping that walking cane she had against the floor of the taxi. There was something eerie about her, something almost scary, and in the end - the cab driver had taken her to a graveyard. She asks him to stop, gets out of the cab, thanking him and then telling him she will now join her husband. Curiously he followed her, and witnessed as she lay down by her husbands grave, and died...

I think I may re-write that story some day. I have often thought of turning it into a movie script, with that short segment being the introduction, where the cab driver would become my main character, and this event having a significant impact on his life. I've thought of merging it with the suicide story "Red Roses On A White Satin Bed"...

"Your inherent goodness has been overlooked by women."

Haha! Yes, I do feel that way, I must admit. Sometimes I am (honestly) outraged by the fact that women choose the guys that will treat them like crap, and not really care about them - whereas I am there for them and will fight to the death to keep them happy. It is a cliché that the bad guys get the good girls, but from my experience it is also the truth in most cases.

Wanna analyze that part further?

Like I said - I was not consciously thinking about any of this while writing the story... but notice how the girl chose the bad guy first? How she only ended up with "good guy" Brian, after she had been beaten up badly by her first choice man, Jake? Is that something I unconsciously put in there as well? And, did I kill Jake as a "fictional" revenge on all the Jake's I've despised in real life? Because I'm a good guy in real life, I would not resort to violence on such people in reality - but brutally slaying them in a work of fiction may be satisfactory to me...

Funny, isn't it?

"You feel compelled to rescue women."

Ok... not so much, actually. But, looking back at it, I find that I have often gotten in a relationship with a woman because I "feel sorry" for her. So, in a way that may be true also.

I am very protective, I would say. So, rather than being put in a situation where they need rescuing, I am adamant they stay away from potential danger (physically or mentally).

"You're worn out from being the hero. Now you want a woman to rescue you..."

Oh, wouldn't that be nice for a change! Hehe... Well, I can't really claim to be a hero, but like I said, I will fight to the death for the one I love - but I will expect something in return as well. When I am the one needing to be rescued, I would expect the woman to be there for me.

The part in my story about her showing up with the gun is where this comes from right? It is, however, a classic "Hollywood" climax. When all other options are depleted - we bring back a character we'd almost forgotten was there to solve the situation (rescue the hero).

"Did I read that correctly? Or am I interpreting your ink blot the wrong way?"

You read that very correctly. I am impressed. But, let me retort... how much of this is true to you? How did this "ink blot" bring these assumptions to your mind?

"I figure this story must have a pretty deep meaning to you. After all 4228 words is one hell of a big ink blot. It takes balls to put yourself out there like that. That's probably why people liked your story so much..."

To be honest... this story doesn't mean much to me at all. While I always put my heart and soul into what I write, this would go down as one of my lesser efforts ever. 4.000 plus words isn't really a lot for me. Like I said, I've been writing fiction since I was a little kid, basically - over this time it has become a natural process for me. Words just flow out, and I become immersed in my writing to the point that the outside world fades away, and I am part of the story I write. I watch as it unfolds.

I think the part about me letting go of reality. The part about me becoming one with the story is what makes people like what I write (at least that's what I'm hoping). I do not sit down and think "I am going to write this and that". What I do is sit down, start writing, and then as I get into the "zone" as I call it, the story presents itself to me - rather than me forcing it out of my imagination.

This is the wrong way to go about writing fiction. But, it is the method I use mostly when writing a short story. I have absolutely no idea where it is headed when I start writing. That is why it is imperative that I return to what I have written, read it through, taking notes and then go back to re-writing, so that I can eradicate any obvious mistakes. Like never addressing a situation I present at some point, which later escapes my memory and is left unsolved for the reader... or as in the case of this story - introducing a gun at a critical point of the story that has not been planted into the events earlier... making the reader think "how convenient she has a gun all of a sudden", instead of the much preferred "Thank God, she saw the gun he left on the table earlier". Of course, I should've added a situation which let the reader know that Jake actually carried a gun... something I pictured in my head all the time I wrote, but never mentioned.

Thinking back on it now, perhaps I should've had her use the knife the other brute was carrying. She could've walked into the room, noticed the knife on the floor next to the body, picked it up and stabbed Jake in the back of the head with it... I could've made the whole ending much more dramatic, but in all honesty I was rushed to finish the thing off.

Further more. I can write a lot, without realizing how much I've written. I just took a look at what I'm writing right now, and realize this is turning into a very long post... I didn't think it would drag on this long.

(Hope I'm not boring you all)

"It's hard for anyone to write a true work of fiction. "We write what we know.""

I'm with you there. The best fiction will always contain elements of our own lives. It is the only way to truly be able to captivate the reader.

It's not only hard - but it is impossible! What comes out of our imagination, and onto a piece of paper is brought out from within ourselves. We cannot reach for something that we do not have inside of us, which is why it is so often said that you put your soul into your writing - because that is true.

That is not to say that any work of fiction is a true reflection of who we are. Often will we write about things we want to experience, or dread it will ever happen to us. But, there is only one way we can approach those things... and that is through what we know, and what we have experienced, whether that be through our own lives, reading books, watching television or studying behavioural patterns of strangers we meet.

If we don't have it in us... we can't bring it out of ourselves.

.....

Now, initially I had intended to reflect some more on the PFC itself - but this post ended up long enough anyway... I'll leave that for (maybe) another post. Let me just summarize this rather long analysis, and response to a thought provoking comment by "Anonymous" with these words;

You write what you know, because you are what you write.