"Your real calling tends to be something you don’t need to whip yourself into doing consistently. Instead, it’s something that feels instinctively satisfying to perform on its own terms."
Yeah, that thing! Took me ages to work that one out, but life is much more fun now
"Going to poetry readings (even bad ones), without exaggeration, changed my life." There's so much else good in this essay too but I find this to be an essential truth.
Reading Zhou's piece and the passages here, the implication is that great writers are obsessive geniuses. So if you're not obsessive and you're not a genius, too bad, you will never write anything of merit. No doubt plenty of my favourite writers fit the category of genius/obsessive. However there are certainly writers who I wouldn't categorise as such yet have produced significant works (think Salinger or Ishiguro, hell even Sebald). Great writing comes from some talent, but also discipline and graft and relentless self-criticism. I think the lack of good writing nowadays comes from the fact we no longer write as often and with as much rigour. We aren't serious people. Instead of actually writing the easy option is the MFA, or failing that the bar, the literary event, masturbation, phones, Reddit, Instagram, Hinge / Feeld etc etc. You need to be ridiculously obsessive to escape all of that, hence why we see obsession as an incredibly rare trait.
One of my favourite essays is Crop Rotation by Kierkegaard (an obsessive genius). It is an actually funny read. According to him, "The more a person limits himself, the more resourceful he becomes." So cut distractions, and obsession will naturally arise. He goes on, but that is the gist. We need more good writers, less MFAs. And these writers can't all be obsessive geniuses. Yet unfortunately I think the non-obsessive types are frankly unable to develop currently. Hence why so much writing is crap. Bring back the hard working writer of medium talent and we will see better writing. Thanks.
You ultimately end up somewhere not terribly distant from my own feelings on the subject, but your opening paragraph misrepresents my comments (and Zhou's I think). What I was after in the essay was to take a small hammer to a childish attachment many people (including myself at one time) have to being able to identify themselves as a Writer (or Poet, Novelist, Playwright etc.) despite the preponderance of evidence suggesting that writing does not occupy a very central position in their day-to-day life. There is a sense of security in cleaving to that ID, but it is ultimately immiserating because continuing to do so -when one doesn't actually write very often- eventually makes a person feel like a phony, and can prevent one from seeing other paths that might be more enriching.
In terms of output, Capital 'G' Great writing is scarce in any era, but there is a place for writing that is merely good (readable, functional, enjoyable etc.): journalism, criticism, entertainment/pulp writing, competent literary writing, a personal creative practice etc. Geniuses are few in number, and too busy to adequately cover everything that ought to be written about in detail.
And some truly Great writing, historically, has been produced by dilettantes--those with great talent who dabble in writing, but have another practice that dominates their time; those who have a single burning story to tell etc. etc. But few of these people define themselves primarily as a Writer, because in a real sense they aren't--they're simply someone who writes from time to time.
Quality writing does indeed require self-awareness, discipline, the ability to evaluate criticism, and a host of other qualities. But you do have to *want* to write for these qualities to come into play consistently in your life--and not just want to *have written* but to be desirous of the labour and the play of actually doing it. That's why a hack is more of a Writer than someone who doesn't spend much of their time writing, even though (as I say in the essay) I'd rather read the output of a talented dabbler than a pot-committed hack. I suspect you're right that the material conditions of our times conspire to strangle promising writers in their cribs. And some who could potentially become obsessives about writing never really discover it because literature is a niche pursuit--it's elitist, there's no money in it, and it's been lapped repeatedly by other forms.
"Your real calling tends to be something you don’t need to whip yourself into doing consistently. Instead, it’s something that feels instinctively satisfying to perform on its own terms."
Yeah, that thing! Took me ages to work that one out, but life is much more fun now
What a nice read. I consider myself lucky to have stumbled over one of Eris' takedowns a few weeks ago ::)
"Going to poetry readings (even bad ones), without exaggeration, changed my life." There's so much else good in this essay too but I find this to be an essential truth.
Reading Zhou's piece and the passages here, the implication is that great writers are obsessive geniuses. So if you're not obsessive and you're not a genius, too bad, you will never write anything of merit. No doubt plenty of my favourite writers fit the category of genius/obsessive. However there are certainly writers who I wouldn't categorise as such yet have produced significant works (think Salinger or Ishiguro, hell even Sebald). Great writing comes from some talent, but also discipline and graft and relentless self-criticism. I think the lack of good writing nowadays comes from the fact we no longer write as often and with as much rigour. We aren't serious people. Instead of actually writing the easy option is the MFA, or failing that the bar, the literary event, masturbation, phones, Reddit, Instagram, Hinge / Feeld etc etc. You need to be ridiculously obsessive to escape all of that, hence why we see obsession as an incredibly rare trait.
One of my favourite essays is Crop Rotation by Kierkegaard (an obsessive genius). It is an actually funny read. According to him, "The more a person limits himself, the more resourceful he becomes." So cut distractions, and obsession will naturally arise. He goes on, but that is the gist. We need more good writers, less MFAs. And these writers can't all be obsessive geniuses. Yet unfortunately I think the non-obsessive types are frankly unable to develop currently. Hence why so much writing is crap. Bring back the hard working writer of medium talent and we will see better writing. Thanks.
You ultimately end up somewhere not terribly distant from my own feelings on the subject, but your opening paragraph misrepresents my comments (and Zhou's I think). What I was after in the essay was to take a small hammer to a childish attachment many people (including myself at one time) have to being able to identify themselves as a Writer (or Poet, Novelist, Playwright etc.) despite the preponderance of evidence suggesting that writing does not occupy a very central position in their day-to-day life. There is a sense of security in cleaving to that ID, but it is ultimately immiserating because continuing to do so -when one doesn't actually write very often- eventually makes a person feel like a phony, and can prevent one from seeing other paths that might be more enriching.
In terms of output, Capital 'G' Great writing is scarce in any era, but there is a place for writing that is merely good (readable, functional, enjoyable etc.): journalism, criticism, entertainment/pulp writing, competent literary writing, a personal creative practice etc. Geniuses are few in number, and too busy to adequately cover everything that ought to be written about in detail.
And some truly Great writing, historically, has been produced by dilettantes--those with great talent who dabble in writing, but have another practice that dominates their time; those who have a single burning story to tell etc. etc. But few of these people define themselves primarily as a Writer, because in a real sense they aren't--they're simply someone who writes from time to time.
Quality writing does indeed require self-awareness, discipline, the ability to evaluate criticism, and a host of other qualities. But you do have to *want* to write for these qualities to come into play consistently in your life--and not just want to *have written* but to be desirous of the labour and the play of actually doing it. That's why a hack is more of a Writer than someone who doesn't spend much of their time writing, even though (as I say in the essay) I'd rather read the output of a talented dabbler than a pot-committed hack. I suspect you're right that the material conditions of our times conspire to strangle promising writers in their cribs. And some who could potentially become obsessives about writing never really discover it because literature is a niche pursuit--it's elitist, there's no money in it, and it's been lapped repeatedly by other forms.
Yes, well put.