callainlove: (love is... [lf])
callainlove ([personal profile] callainlove) wrote in [community profile] writerslounge2011-10-20 01:32 pm

A Short Writing Meme

Hi there, everyone! I'm new here. I just recently came across this community whilst searching for discussion groups about writing. I really adore the idea of opening up a dialogue with other writers. Though I don't have any original fiction posted online at the moment, I DO use my DW journal to talk about the different ideas/concepts behind the things that I write.

I recently posted a writing meme there and, if it's alright with you all (don't know if this is allowed), I'd be really interested to read some other writer's answers to it (and post mine as well).

It's an uber short one, just five questions, and it goes:



1) Why Do You Write?
Being that I constantly psychoanalysis myself, I've come to the conclusion that I write because I am the TEXTBOOK archetype of the forgotten middle child. I am a full-on, Jan Brady, no-one-ever-listens-to-a-word-I-say, oh-woe-is-me middle child! I started writing, as a kid, because I had this utter certainty (and TOTALLY probably still do) that even if I were to scream at the top of my lungs, no one would ever hear me. And if they DID hear me, they wouldn't understand what I was saying. When I write things down, if feels like getting to say exactly WHAT I want to say, exactly HOW I want to say it, without anything about me (my ridiculous awkwardness, my constant distractedness, what I perceive as my COMPLETE inability to come off even REMOTELY normal even in casual conversation) obscuring the fundamental point of the idea I'm attempting to transmit.

2) What Sort Of Things Inspire You?
EVERYTHING! Feelings, images, sounds, MUSIC(!!), smells, TV, books, philosophy, films, history, fan works, art, travelling to new places, learning about other cultures, meeting new people, nature (I am SUCH a transcendentalist!), fashion, current events, witnessing someone ELSE be inspired, work, school, politics, etc. Life, basically.

3) When/Where Do You Write Best?
I don't know why, but 4-5 AM is the magic hour. My mind is clear and focused. Possibly it's because it's the ONLY time there's EVER complete silence in my house. No one making noise anywhere. Silence is a precious gift to my ability to concentrate.

4) What Concepts Are You Constantly Trying To Communicate?
I can't get the idea of "beyond" out of my head. When I say/think/conceptualize "beyond", I'm talking about looking beyond everything you think you know about the world/the cosmos/existence. I'm referring to an understanding that society, culture, language, religion, and even history are all concepts created by humanity so that we'd have a workable framework for our existence/our shared mortality/our understanding of where we fit in the grand scheme of things, so that we'd be less afraid of the great big unknown that surrounds us all. And "beyond" is breaking yourself out of these structured ways of thinking, and seeing beyond them to the bigger truth in all things. I'm not even sure that makes any sense, but there it is. :D

5) Do You Find There Are Any Recurring Thematic Elements In Your Work?
I find I'm basically obsessed with the potential of youth, so almost everything I write stars child/young adult characters just on the brink of discovering who they're meant to be. Also, recurring in my works are themes of lineage. The overreaching influence of who a character's parents are/were and how the choices those parents make/made affect that character's life and choices and identity. I guess you could say I'm always trying to answer the unanswerable nature vs. nuture question.

Sort of in the same vein as all of that (and you might even say the crux of both), is my complete obsession with the idea of fate/destiny/kismet/serendipity/karma, and, on the flip side of that, how the smallest infinitesimal choices that every person makes every day affects their fate and ALSO the fates of others. It's like this: If you stop and really THINK about all of the things that had to come to together, all of the choices that had to intersect to even create, say, J.K. Rowlings. Then, think about everything in her life that lead to her sitting on a train one day, dreaming up a story about a boy who lived. And finally, REALLY take in the epic BILLIONS of lives that were affected, in ways both big and small, by the single choice she made to write that story down. I mean, really FATHOM that and what it says about fate.

-m
intothewood: (Default)

[personal profile] intothewood 2011-10-20 07:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Welcome! And I love this meme, especially your take on the concept of "beyond" - makes perfect sense to me!
intothewood: (Finn has a big gun)

[personal profile] intothewood 2011-10-20 10:40 pm (UTC)(link)
You very beautifully described it, and that's the element. When something is fully understood, it's... nothing. The understanding pretty much eliminates the question, eh? So I'm all for not understanding!
scarylady: (Default)

[personal profile] scarylady 2011-10-20 08:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Welcome!

I did my degree in Philosophy, so your concept of 'beyond' is of interest to me. It annoys me that scientists are so snippy about theories concerning anything that they don't yet fully grasp. The original theories put forward by Greek philosophers, a couple of thousand years ago, were largely nonsense based purely on observation. However, without those arguments to dissect and either prove or refute, we would have no 'hard' sciences at all.

*gets off her soapbox* Sorry 'bout that. Glad to have you here!
scarylady: (Default)

[personal profile] scarylady 2011-10-20 10:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Philosophy (real philosophy, not the watery theosophy that sometimes passes for it) is the forerunner of science. Any new area - physics in Aristotle's time, or psychology in Freud's - begins with people compiling a body of evidence based on their senses and experiments, and constructing theories based on logic and sense. Only once the body of evidence is great enough and stable enough does the subject begin to attract the label of 'science'.

In Aristotle's time the immaterial - the metaphysical - included the elements. In Freud's it was mind and personality. Now it's more likely to be the possibility of non-physical being and survival of death and that's where the scientists get twitchy, I think. They need to bear their own roots in mind and let it pan out; it'll either turn out to be like physics and flourish, or like alchemy and die. Either is fine, provided it is properly observed and tested along the way.

scarylady: (Default)

[personal profile] scarylady 2011-10-20 11:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm always happy to have more friends :)

I'm glad you didn't buckle under the weight of my pontificating - for a moment after I posted I thought 'omg, what on earth am I doing to this poor person?'.

I straddle the fence you see: I have a background in both philosophy and mediumship, so your concept touched the core of my views.
(deleted comment)
intothewood: (Andrej)

[personal profile] intothewood 2011-10-20 09:01 pm (UTC)(link)
This is great, especially your inspirations - poetic in itself!

If I could suggest copy pasting this into a separate post, I think others might like to see your answers and I'm not sure everyone will in a reply to calla's post.

[personal profile] whatawaytoburn 2011-10-20 09:03 pm (UTC)(link)
I actually already did* laughs* I saw your post and went ahead and did it.