The Fountain Pen

I’ve been doing some thinking about writer’s block lately, mostly because I find myself in a situation where I cannot move on any of my fiction writing projects, and I thus consider myself blocked (though in truth there is nothing stopping me from working on my novel; nothing but a lack of interest on my part). I’ve come to a rather interesting take on my form of writer’s block. In my case when I say I have writer’s block I usually mean I am lacking some solution to a problem in my story.

At present I am at a loss for some key plot points in one of my stories. I also only have a vague idea of the characters involved, but they will grow as the story takes shape. Actually, in most of my stories my block has to do with plot (I always struggle with plots). I either don’t know how to get my characters on to the next point in the story, or I don’t know what the next point will be, or worse (but far too often) I don’t know what the end of the story looks like.

Can I call what I have writer’s block? Am I just in search of a story worth telling, or do I really have some kind of block? I consider myself to not be blocked, but to face challenges of getting characters to act within their nature and yet still move along the plot I want to tell. Although I don’t always know what that plot is.

Posted by Seth Croston Barber at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This topic is huge; I still can’t get my head around all the various aspects and angles. I’m not sure what it would take to exhaust the subject, but I’ll do my part and toss in a little something. I will not answer the age old question “How does one get an audience” for I have already asked it once before (under a different context) and I still don’t have an answer. Instead I want to lay out a dilemma I have created.

In the world of fiction I have only encountered a scant few reasons to be an author. The most obvious, and the most failed, is to write as a way to make a living (although I imagine most settle for making money). The next most obvious is to be famous, and again this isn’t all that likely. Another reason to be an author is so you can just tell stories regardless of making money. I fall in that later category.

Now it seems to me there are two basic modes of writing, and it all has to do with intent. You can write with the intent to share the story, or you can write to sooth your inner writer and forever keep your stories to yourself. Of the first kind you have those who intend to share the story via publication, and then … to share without publishing, or rather to share without getting into the business of publishing and selling stories.

If only I were the kind of writer who could content himself with writing stories for myself, or even only sharing them with my wife and any future children we might have. Unfortunately I want an audience, and yet I don’t want to publish my stories in the traditional ways. For me I write stories (or fragments in my current condition) because I want to create written art, and if I am to toil over my stories the way I tend to (perfectionism: learn to love it or hate yourself, it’s your choice) I want to share my masterpieces with the world.

I am fussy about my stories. Like most people I have a hard time taking criticism in regards to those things which I care greatly about. With the exception of my novel I have put much of my heart and soul into my stories, and often they say exactly what I want them to say and in the way I want to as well; any attempt at editing my stories is often met with hostility, which makes me an unpleasant author to work with for sure. It might be different if I cared less about the art and cared more for the craft, but I still haven’t been able to do that just yet.

Bearing this all in mind I have thought long and hard about audiences. If I want to share my stories with people I have to put them in a place where they will read them. Until I build up a name for myself I cannot expect people to find my stories if I just post them on the Internet. Thus it seems I will have to suck up my pride and submit stories for publication and take my licks, working toward that day when I can quit publication and just post my stories on the Internet. Funny isn’t it? I don’t care about the money, I just want the audience, and to me that seems much harder to come by than the money.

Posted by Seth Croston Barber at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sometimes a quote says it best:

“One cannot, except in immature pulp charlatan-fiction, present an account of impossible, improbable, or inconceivable phenomena as a commonplace narrative of objective acts and conventional emotions. Inconceivable events and conditions have a special handicap to over come, and this can be accomplished only through the maintenance of a careful realism in every phase of the story except that touching on the one given marvel.” — H. P. Lovecraft (Notes On Writing Weird Fiction)

I wrote about this once before, this time Lovecraft explains why, and I cannot argue with him. When your monsters are commonplace they lose that special quality which makes the story otherworldly, weird, or supernatural. In some sense we have made the supernatural natural and thus removed the mystery and appeal.

(I’d recommend reading that essay of Lovecraft’s. “Google” it. I’d like to link to it but I don’t want to mess with ambiguous copyright status.)

Posted by Seth Croston Barber at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I’m in a bit of a quandary and I’m a bit discouraged and bummed out. It’s no secret that I enjoy H. P. Lovecraft’s stories; his stories scratch and itch of mine like no other author has. We tend to emulate the people we look up to, those we admire, and in my case I’ve given this some thought. So imagine my dismay when the aspect of his stories I want to emulate were maligned on a Lovecraft mailing list.

In particular the author of the post accused that Lovecraft fell into a stylistic rut of having a lone survivor present his testimony after the fact, and then meet some horrific end. These are exactly the stories that excite me and scratch that aforementioned itch; likewise this is the type of story I want to write. From my perspective these kind of stories make perfect sense, so allow me to defend them.

In my opinion a first person narrative carries more emotion, more immersion, more atmosphere, and more identity than a third person account. A first person account is personal; it’s easier to believe the account was left behind just for you, and no one else, and that alone can add weight to the tale. A first person account is just like sitting down with a friend and having him recount some grizzly tale, and it’s always more frightening when he’s telling his own tale and not someone else’s: it’s easy to distance yourself from and dismiss a story that is in the third person.

I’ve thought about first person narratives and it seems to me the only tense that makes sense is aorist, or perhaps a perfect tense (one year of Greek and already I’m erudite). The events have to have taken place in the past; it would make sense if they were currently happening; if that were the case there would be no story and you would be there in person witnessing it all firsthand. So now it seems the only way to tell a first person story is if you lived through the events long enough to write about them, hence you will be reading the accounts of a survivor (possibly lone). You could mix it up and have a ghost tell the story, but that’s just a gimmick and one I dismiss as weak.

For me these are the kinds of stories that really strike my fancy. They are the only things that have come close to creeping me out. Maybe I’m alone in this, but any writer who does not write for himself is missing out on the joy writing can bring. In the end I’ll probably not feel comfortable widely sharing my stories that emulate this style. Too bad too because I wonder what Lovecraft would have said.

Posted by Seth Croston Barber at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)