The power of honest writing Here’s an interesting thought. What would happen if everyone wrote a totally honest blog just once, just keeping it up for the one day? What they honestly thought about their real lives, people they knew, themselves. There’s a social conduct rule about blogs that basically dictates we must write about mundane shit or things we are happy with. They are petty little inoffensive snippets of our ‘lives’. I have never read an interesting or thought provoking Blog from someone I know. What’s the point of wasting good literature if it’s not interesting? Of course you can also use the anonymous internet route. Trouble with those is that there are way too many people, writing not so many interesting things or too many nutters writing things they only wish they were doing! In thinking about this I’ve realized why I write. I can be as offensive or as honest as I like (within the realms of reason) because art doesn’t have to answer to the normal structure of everyday rules. Provided of course, you don’t allow your writing to become so self serving that you are openly referring to anyone who that might piss off. If that happens, you’ve lost the cover of ‘artistic anonymity’. On a few occasions this might be unavoidable, or avoidable but worth it. Though give up this right and be prepared to justify the existence of your piece to not much avail. Artistic anonymity can exist even with the writers name all over a piece. It is basically your God given right as an artist to present your art, regardless of normal social constraints, under the category of entertainment and/or art itself. And as long as people buy into your idea, that’s to say, as long as your idea is worth buying into, this is pretty much unquestionable. That doesn’t mean I can say whatever I like. In fact you have to be more careful when taking something into the public domain. It stops being yours, especially if it’s good. The better it is the further removed it will become from what you actually created in the first place. Some writers, say journalists for a good example, forfeit this process. It is a necessary evil when overloading a piece with personal opinion or speculation to remain at the mercy of the very people you are aiming the piece at, (not a popular profession!) Though arguably on the plus side, they are allowed to demonstrate their freedom of speech to the max, usually without being sued even when they do add a sprinkle of fiction here and there. You could write just for yourself and that way you can write exactly what you want when you want with absolutely no repercussions. But then what would happen if it just happens to be the best thing you’ve ever written and it’s too personal to release to the world? Publicly, I write fiction. There’s a saying that determines that even in fiction there is always a certain degree of fact. What you put across in this percentage of your writing is the truth. The rest is skill. Someone who isn’t a writer will rarely know the difference. If you read over your most prized work, (usually your ‘first’ or you’re ‘baby’) you will see how this works out. Even if your piece is about an intergalactic affair, the reality is ‘the affair’ and you might find you have relayed your personal opinions into that conflict. Someone who’s undecided on the subject they are attempting to broach may use a two character method, each with the opposite opinion. An experienced writer can incorporate this little element of truth into a fictional piece and still deliver personal opinion. Once you are aware of it you can develop it and write both honest and entertaining fiction. It is often much more subtle than the above example. Think back to a piece of fictional writing that has altered your perception or reinforced your opinions. Now, aren’t you wondering just how deliberate the writers intentions might have been? Recently I keep getting asked to read other peoples scripts. Interestingly some of these requests are from people much more academically apt than I am. You don’t need a degree to excel in the ranks of writing, just a damn good idea and the correct format. What I’ve noticed from reading other peoples writing is that I can pick out elements of their beliefs and opinions from the works. You can read peoples secret views, fears and fantasies from what they write. Especially from a fictional piece, simply because within fiction there must be fact and you add the anonymous cover of it being a fictional piece and suddenly the writer does not feel such a need to ‘hold back’ after all, it’s art and he is not accountable, it’s just a story….isn’t it?
Thing about blogs is, they're not for private thoughts. They're about the mundane because people self-censor. But even when we write for ourselves we self-censor; we don't write who we are, we write who we want to be, who we think others want us to be... basically it's a right old mess. Which is actually fine. We have filters for a reason. Honesty seems like a regressive step, if anything.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." (I wish I knew who came up with that. Mark Twain? Norman Mailer? Farley Mowat? Lyndon Johnson?) My piece "Marathon" (on this thread) I labelled 5% fiction, 95% nonfiction because I invented certain conversations in order to present a good story line. On account of that bit of fiction, I labelled the whole piece fiction in the subheading. The major events presented were just as they happened. As for being completely honest for any long stretch of time, say 24 hours, give me a break. I'm a United States citizen, after all.
My project is baced on real life..Real events that really happened.. I dont want a boring documentary but I want the truth.. But there are other people involved.. I dont want to take from the reality of the situations by sensering it to much. Any sujestions?
Yeah, I've got the same dillema: Writing about real people, some of whom tried real hard to hide themselves from those around them. Then again, I keep hitting this problem: Whose honesty is more honest? At some point, all questions of "truth" & "honesty" turn mighty subjective. That doesn't seem like such a problem when you're going with opinion or with fact-based fiction, but when it's straight non-fiction, that subjective line seems to become a lot more important. Cause, after all, your whole reason for writing the thing is to present something close to "truth," in the face of lots of dishonesty, but since truth is inherently subjective, you constantly at risk turning into a hypocrite. Not that this is any reason not to go for "honesty" -- just something I keep turning over in my head.
