Them Writers With Their Crazy Lives...
src
As I was writing my series on the Bronte sisters for @adsactly, I came across a really fascinating idea (especially for a writer, like myself) and I thought I’d share it with you, guys.
I was reading an article about the Brontes and why we’re still fascinated with them all these years later and they offered a really interesting quote:
“One of the things I most love about the Brontës is that they give the lie to the notion that to be a great writer you have to have epic life experiences – that whole Ernest Hemingway, Jack London thing, Emily never left her home, but she wrote Wuthering Heights. To be a great writer you just have to be a great observer.”
-Catherine Lowell, author of The Madwoman Upstairs src
Now, this goes directly against the largely held belief that writers must be these wild party animals, that they should live a crazy life and consume an excess of alcohol and drugs in order to write honestly and truthfully about the world around. Indeed, how can someone who’s never gone anywhere but the library write an honest story about an orgy?
I’m exaggerating here, but you get the point.
Well, they can, according to Lowell. Because that orgy-story would, in essence, be a story about people. Not about the actual going-ons in an orgy. Anyway, but let’s delve further into the subject, shall we?
The argument that a writer should amass crazy experiences in order to write about them falls through immediately. I mean, what about people who wrote about Jack the Ripper? What if I wanted to write a book in the perspective of Alexander the Great?
Then, I’d be pretty much lost, wouldn’t I? Because there’s no way I can actually live like Alexander or even know (from experience) what that would be like. It’s the same with Jack the Ripper. I’m not going to go out and start murdering girls, am I? Although that seems to be the only way to gather worthwhile experience and knowledge on the life of a serial killer.
Appealing, isn't it? The life. And besides, just look at those eyes...damn. src
So, from the get-go, there are some areas that are already pretty grey, that rely on something other than personal experience. And the reason that these areas work in books is that most stories are about people, they transcend profession or sexual orientation and many other things.
Most stories are about what it means to be alive, about the fundamental emotions that make us human and connect us all, in the end. That’s how writers manage to put out great stories about serial killers, military leaders, pilots, highwaymen, etc.
Sure, there is this whole genre of books that focus precisely on excess. There are many 20th century writers who focused on drug addiction, alcohol and all that culture. And in their case, you definitely need to have experienced what you’re writing. Think about people like Jack Kerouac or Hunter S. Thompson. It’s obvious from their writing they knew what they were talking about, isn’t it?
So, it’s a to-and-fro sort of thing, there are arguments for both sides. There are the Hemingways, but then, there are the Emily Brontes of the writing world. And they were both good writers, they all constructed these excellent stories with compelling characters.
I love Hemingway. And I admit some of it is because of this public fascination with the guy. Life exciting as fuck, short, concise sentences, and he seemed to be this straight-forward, manly man, you know? He’s exciting and so is his writing. He’s the kind of writer you want to like.
But so is Emily Bronte. Personally, I can’t get over the character of Heathcliff. The insane plot of Wuthering Heights is one of the best I’ve ever read (despite the fact I didn’t really like most of the characters). To build someone so complex, so entertaining and such a deep, human plot. There are a lot of things not said in Wuthering Heights and that’s because they don’t need to be said. So there again, it’s also great writing.
So then, what’s the answer? Is it enough to spend all day every day locked in a room writing? Or do you have to travel the world swigging a bottle of scotch in order to become a phenomenal writer?
And the answer, in my opinion, is neither. Neither of these things will make you a great writer. At least, not on their own. You can ride tigers and do drugs with Escobar, but that doesn’t, in itself, give you the talent (both in constructing a story and in observing others’ behavior) you need in order to be a good writer.
src
I think this largely-accepted misconception that writers need to be wild in order to write well stems from the entertainment industry. And all those crazy kids writing in the 20th century (because that was a pretty wild century and a lot of its central figures are now much admired – look at Kerouac or William S. Burroughs). Look at Charles Bukowski, for Heaven’s sake!
And speaking of Bukowski, look at all these movies and TV shows, such as the very-popular Californication (whose main character is largely based on Bukowski), a show that is notorious for the copious amounts of sex, alcohol, drugs and all sorts of debauchery.
But in all the seven seasons of that show, you don’t really see Hank Moody getting down and actually writing, do you? He spends most of his time indulging in parties, yet writes very little for a writer. I think you can count the scenes where he’s writing on one hand. In seven seasons, that’s not a lot.
And you know why? Because nobody wants to see a show about a guy – hot or not – who sits at his desk for three quarters of the show and writes. Stares. Scratches his balls. Writes. Deletes a bit. Writes something else. Goes off to get more coffee.
Boring, see what I mean?
That’s why we’re all very attracted by this image of the writer as a party animal. Because the reality would be pretty damn boring. Sure, some made it by scribbling in a battered notebook on a cross-country journey fueled by cocaine. But they’re quite a few. Most writers are really rather dull, if you think about it.
src
And it’s okay. Writing doesn’t mean that you went down to the store and bought milk. Writing means that you got caught up in a police chase on your way to the store and met a shady pimp with a golden heart who became your best friend in the end.
Interesting @honeydue this is similar to the 'Hollywood lie' that exists for fine artists/painters as well. The idea of 'media' and 'fame' is the epitome of what modern/post modern artists who are 'good' are meant to live up to.
Of course post modern society sees 'good' as 'fame' and there is the rub.
Very true. I'm sure it's true for most art sectors, really. @nathen007 was just asking how much of this applies to musicians and I think it's true for them as well, as it is for painters and other visual artists also.
Thing is, I think those artists (all of them) were good before they even got exposed to this crazy life, you know?
That's a great point. Interestingly, a lot of great artists saw a lot more fame after their deaths then ever in their lives. So yeah, society is very strange about that. I think they like a good story (whether it is the tortured artist who died in poverty or the crazy writer who drank his way through his stories) most of all. More than good art, certainly.
I really, really enjoyed that from start to finish :-) You're getting even better with age ;-)
Talking of Bukowski...can you apply the same arguments to musicians? Especially from various genres.
Last thought, do you like Tom Waits? often described as the musical Bukowski.
Enjoy your Sunday, take care, be safe and be happy always!
Thank you :) That's a really good question, actually. I was just thinking of that and I don't know, to be honest. I mean, a lot of famous musicians do live pretty crazy lives, but that might also be because of this whole Hollywood culture, you know? I mean, looking at all the musicians I love - they all had/have wild lives, with lots of love affairs, booze, drugs, parties and all that... At the same time, a lot of them have gone sober in recent years (some for many years now) and they still continue to put out great music.
But to tell you the truth, I think the same rule of being a good observer applies, first and foremost. Like with writers, you can like a wildly exciting life, but if you don't know how to put that in writing (either lyrics or music itself), then you're not a musician, are you?
Yeess!! I love Tom Waits. He's the perfect example, he lived a very interesting life (the comparison with Bukowski is spot on, I think), but he has an outstanding talent of observation. And I don't know how much of his fascination for the down-trodden, underground life stems from his highly observatory character, you know?
Hope that makes sense! Thank you, enjoy your Sunday too! :)
It makes perfect sense and I personally think that in his case, actual experience plays a part as well!
Have you seen Barfly ? 1987 Mickey Rourke (pre plastic surgery and a real talent in the 80s) and Faye Dunaway in an autobiographh about Bukowski....great film :-)
Hmm no, though I've been meaning to watch it for years. I think Mickey Rourke is a pretty great actor, I mean, I loved him in everything I saw with him :D I'll check it out, definitely! :) Thanks ;)
I think some people who're led to writing as a profession are more in love with the big lives of authors like Hemingway, Hunter S. Thompson (holy crap...have you ever read this), or Bukowski.
You have to live, yes, but you also have to be an astute observer of life. Real life hands you the gold -- the basis for the plots, the characters, all of it. Almost anything of any substance that I've written is a mosaic of people and events that I've lived through or met personally.
A little bit of red wine will get the creativity flowing for me but anything more than two glasses amounts to pure garbage on the page. Of course everyone's different but for me it's all about balance.
I had not read that, no, but thank you! I'm going to write a post on him for adsactly in a few days, so that certainly was the right way to start that research :)) personally, I've never been a fan, and I was just thinking earlier how I should give his writing another chance....
I agree, a lot of people who try their hand at.it do so because of the "crazy" lives writers must lead. Whereas I do think the truly crazy ones such as the guys you mention are the exception, not the rule.
I think you're right. Balance is key here, as in many other aspects of life. Thank you for your insight, as always 😊
Posted using Partiko Android
Just a thought, perhaps what makes you a good writer (ie: Deep observation and a great deal of empathy for the lives going on around you and the world you are living in.) also leads you to the need to lean on alcohol or drugs. So the writing AND the alcohol are the result of who you are. Not the writing BECAUSE of the alcohol.
I, strongly, feel that if this world dose not drive you to drink you are not paying attention! :D (Yup... currently 3 vodkas in. :O ;) )
P.S. - Tom Waits is AWESOME! ... and one of the main inspirations for Heath Ledger's Joker character in Batman. If you watch Tom Waits interview in Australia 1979 you can see it, for sure. (Heath Ledger is fantastic in that movie!) And yes, Barfly and Mickey Rourke were awesome too. Had to second @nathen007 's suggestions. :)
Shiiit, as soon as he started talking :O My jaw just dropped :O Seeing this, I can't help but think Heath was spot-on (I loved him in that movie, too! He was a really talented actor!). Thank you, I hadn't seen this, though I do love Tom's music. Listening to him right now, as it happens :) (and that was before reading this! :D)
Oh, I do completely agree with what you wrote there.I do think that the same think that pushes you to write also pushes you to drink and other such abuses. I wrote a post on that very subject a couple weeks ago, maybe you saw it? Particularly about writers who lean towards this "unstable" behavior. You might like it :) And I agree, the way this world is going is enough to be pissed 24/7, surely. Nothing wrong with 3 vodkas, man. ;)
I did miss that one. My interests are kind of all over the place, so sometimes I wonder down other paths. :D I just popped back and read it. I'm glad you mentioned it.
Don't panic about your state of mental being. We all have a range of thoughts, good, bad and everywhere between if our minds are allowed to be free. Never be ashamed of your thoughts. I believe the filter between your thoughts and who you chose to be is what makes you who you are. Keep a free mind, but a healthy filter! ;D
(Sorry, this is the current chain but my rambling sort of wound up for the wrong post. Lol)
Haha I know what you meant, so that's all that's important here, no? :D
I'm not panicked or worried. It's interesting to think about the whole thing, but worrying about it won't help much, will it? You are right, the filter is the most important thing and what we make of our own thoughts.
And I think it's good to have varied interests :) I could never understand the sort of user who only reads posts on cryptos or only fiction or whatever....seems limited ;)
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Experience comes in many forms. While Bronte did, in fact, live a reclusive life, you have to take into account her gender and the inclinations that come with it.
Wuthering Heights is the axiomatic yearning of female sexuality, written by a woman that has lived the absence of it, only with slight interruptions that fueled the fantasy.
On the other hand, Hemingway could not experience the world in any other way, besides action (or movement, to be more precise).
Both cases have a horse in the game. Both people stepped into the creative unknown and struggled with their own demons.
But both people write from the hearthstone of their psyche.
And I think this is what matters.
The world needs writers that write only a few hours per day.
(I'm not talking literally)