Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
I already defined inspiration, so I'll describe it's impact on me.
I come from the Craftsman's school of writing: I write because I can, I enjoy it, and I've honed my work until I'm pretty good at it.
I don't need "inspiration" in order to write. I just need to want to write, and to have something to write about. I don't need "inspiration" to give me a story to write. I just need to sit down, think of an idea or two, spend some time researching and developing the idea, and outline what I intend to do with it.
There are any number of writers who are familiar with this school, especially those who are called on to write periodical content on a regular basis, and quite a number who write novel-length works for a living. I'm sure some would say that, without "inspiration," their works are lacking, they are not art; I draw no such distinction.
Writing can exist without inspiration; it can be driven, instead, by "assignment," as in, "I want to write about this," or, "they told me to write that." A Craftsman should be able to do their best work on any assignment that is within their capabilities to handle. And that work can still be art, if their work is good enough to be considered by that special and nebulous moniker.
|
I've been reading down this thread, got to here and I don't think I need to go on.
A lot of old school pulp was written, absent inspiration, by authors who were so steeped in the background to their genre that they could construct endless deviations on a theme. And their readers were perfectly happy with that.
As an exercise it would be interesting to see how good a novel could be created using only stock situations and generic dialogue.
Hmm. That may even be the future of novels, when the machines take over.
Anyway, peace out. SLJ /thread