Thoughts on writing.

[wolven7]

Over in her journal, greygirlbeast made a note about wrriting, and music: 'I'll find a particular song that, for whatever reason, seems to perfectly express the tone of the story I happen to be writing and how I then proceed to listen to it over and over and over and over until the story is finished.' To which I replied:

'I need to find the songs that fit together, for this, and work from there, because I only ever find songs that perfectly fit my characters. That gets a little difficult, when they meet, or interact, or something slithers through the background, tying them together...

'I guess each of those would probably have a song, then, too... hm... Thanks.'

But that's not where my head is, unfortunately. I still have a nowherre-nearr-finished novel to write, to the tune of a lot of Dresden Dolls, and ambient industrial, most likely. But that's not where my head is.

My head is in thesis mode, and I haven't found the music that takes me there. That clicks it all into place, and lets me power through the rougher spots, even when they look like they're going to drive me ragged. Scrape me raw. MDFMK works, sometimes, but not always, and sometimes it's Debussy, or Mozart, or NIN, or... any number of things. Hm. But every time I break my musical stride, every time I stop to switch a disc, there is this slight hiccup in my mental processing. And I recover, don't doubt that, but it's not... fluid. I can see the breaks in thought, the gaps in progression.

This is why i tend too try to write everything I write, all at once. Because then it's a unified thought. Then it's one long work of tying the dispirate together, and dragging the blocks into position. It's a concerted whole, rather than a time-collage... I was never very good at time-collage...

And I know that it's the same actions, on a larger, wider, more distal scale, but, at this stage, it seems to matter.

Bah. I need to get to work...

Comments

Thought inspired by our conversation yesterday.

[lupusfeuer.livejournal.com]

Not knowing the exact tack of your thesis, after the literature review, what are your primary sources for research? Are you interviewing practitioners of magic, conventionally sanctioned clergy & skeptics? Reading non scholarly periodicals on the subject?

You made a comment earlier about defenders of Magic vs. skeptics. Most practitioners that I know would argue that it's pointless from both a Magical and scientific perspective and that the two, as we currently understand and manipulate them, are not prepared to address the same questions. I was thus wondering how much of your research has uncovered this point of view.

And I Left a Word out of that

[lupusfeuer.livejournal.com]

Should Have Read:
Most practitioners that I know would argue that it's a pointless comparison from both a Magical and scientific perspective.

Re: And I Left a Word out of that

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah, from context I understood the message.

Re: Thought inspired by our conversation yesterday.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I am actually find a lot from people talking about magic and sicen as two different views ont he same field, or as a continuum of description.

Ariel Glucklich, one of my primaries, is talking about the meaninglessness of the idea of the "supernatural," in Indian magic, stating that it's all a continuum of natural and scientifically investigatible things, with practitioners of the scientific method simply not having figured out how to do it, as yet.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

This is why i tend too try to write everything I write, all at once. Because then it's a unified thought. Then it's one long work of tying the dispirate together, and dragging the blocks into position. It's a concerted whole, rather than a time-collage... I was never very good at time-collage...

So...why not write in those chunks, yes, and then smooth it all out with the space of one cd/sound? Go back and find those disparate pieces and fuse them? I know you don't like doing drafts, but I sometimes think that dislike hurts your writing.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Because it feels too forced, too often. Maybe it's something I need to get over, but I don't see it as beneficial, when/if I can make something wonderful, the first time through.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

But you can't always write perfectly the first time. No one does. I have a feeling it will help you better recognize potential mistakes while you are working, if you spend long enough picking them out of already-written stuff.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

True. But I like to Think I can. And therein may be the problem.

Damned cancer...

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

Of course, I often feel similarly. Why not get it right the first time? ... and then I never edit...

silence

[karishi.livejournal.com]

I turned it off, recently. The music has its own thoughts, and I won't follow, so I work in long periods of silence, with breaks to do other things and listen to music.
As for the time, the transitions can be made smooth by reading the entire work up to the point you need to write. If the writing is evocative, it gets you into the flow, and gives a sense of where it must move, particularly if you're the writer.

Re: silence

[wolven.livejournal.com]

True, and I try to do that, but it doesn't always feel right.

Re: silence

[karishi.livejournal.com]

The other thought, though I'm not sure how well it can work for someone who doesn't base everything around the writing, is to put the breaks to use. When I feel a scene shifting to somewhere I wasn't interested in taking it, I switch which piece I'm writing, so that the mood applies to the story that called for that mood in that scene.
Granted, this means I'm writing...let's see...about 35 things simultaneously, right now. It means I have to stop what I'm doing when the mood strikes and return to writing. But it gets the right me in front of the computer when that me needs to be there.