[gmw]

My explanations are empirical because I don't have a formal education in this area (as is probably obvious). I read, and for some years now I have obsessed over writing, mostly my own, but also paying more attention to what I read of others. The occasional thread here on MR is about the only place I get to discuss the thoughts that have arisen as a result of that obsession. So I have found our discussion interesting and enjoyable.

I recently read Dickens' American Notes - so I know what you mean by preachy, but don't mind it. I found American Notes to be an interesting way to view America (pre the civil war). I'd have loved to read his wife's account of the same journey, so much of the time in his writing it's as though she isn't even there. (Which perhaps says something in itself.)

I have never tried to read The Ticket That Exploded, and generally avoid most works based on these sorts of techniques. Nor am I a fan of haiku and similarly constrained forms of poetry. I was something of a maths nerd as a kid, learning tricks with numbers and even building various models based on mathematical properties, so I can understand the interest in such games, but to me they are still just games.

There is a lot to learn from playing games: they teach about the nature of the thing you are playing with, they teach you to recognise patterns, sometimes they show forms that offer interesting possibilities, and sometimes they even lead to something new. But individually each game is just an experiment, a trial, a test. They're things you share with your fellow nerds and maybe your Mum and Dad, who will smile and nod, even when they have no idea what you're talking about. But a work of art? That's where I have trouble. I rarely find watching other people's games entertaining (I don't even watch sports). The output may be clever, and sometimes even pretty, just as a Mandelbrot display is a clever and pretty representation of a simple maths formula, but I have trouble seeing it as an art form in itself.

(Okay, so the correlation is not perfect. Creating the game in the first place in arguably a very impressive art form. And some games do take a lot of work and talent, and even self-expression, but I think the above explains why I tend to shy away from such forms of writing, those are not games that interest me very much.)

I've not read any John Hawkes - and while our conversation here makes me curious, the link you provided, and some other research, means I am not sure I'm in a hurry to. One of the things I am curious about is how someone can use violence (in the way they say that Hawkes does) to expose the way violence is used in other fiction. It seems counter-intuitive. And I also wonder about the objective (assuming there is one beyond, "what happens if I do this").

Regarding the distinction of commericial vs non-commercial, I'm not sure that's quite the right one, though it is obviously part of it. Many non-commercial writers are happy to tell reasonably conventional stories. Writers (that wish to share their work) need to be aware of their audience, so I wonder if the distinction, when it comes to more experimental forms of fiction, is the target audience, maybe: public vs word nerds. (I'm hoping that, since I have self-identified as a maths nerd, the description won't come over as a pejorative - substitute "enthusasts" if necessary.)

I read this over and see that it may sound dismissive of such forms of writing, and I don't really mean it that way. Games are important an form of learning, and some games can be very advanced, only to be played by the most skilled. But they are limiting, often (usually?) intentionally so, and one of the things they limit is the audience.


Criticism of your work is one of those things a writer must learn to cope with, but some sources are have more impact that others. I paid for a critique on one of my works and the result wasn't pretty. Essentially I was told to give up on the piece - in almost those words. There were certain alleviating phrases around it, but the upshot was that the piece wasn't worth trying to fix. I expected picky, that's what I was paying for, but the strength of the dismissal was a big surprise to me. They were not only condemning the piece, they were condemning my ability to assess the worth of my own writing. I sent it (and paid the money) because I honestly thought it had potential, and I read widely enough that I had some confidence in my opinion. How could I be that far out? And, if I couldn't trust my own assessment, how was I going to write anything? With the help of my wife I've gotten past that, but at the time it hit very hard.