I still can't tell if this is real & I desperately want to know despite the banality, I guess that's the intention??? I have to push back though as WCW mentioned: I admire the writing to entertain method, it's a way of caring for the audience & it's pretty humble - but haven't you experienced and been fascinated by the profoundness of reality? Is that not the same as a beautiful gem? I don't understand the hostility to writing about acute experiences by which we are moved. Every time I'm moved by something, though it's rare, it's really essential to me. I don't write for any other reason than to capture it. I don't understand how someone can claim to have the experience, and not acknowledge it as central to the craft. Are you moved by your own work? Thanks for taking the time.
Honored to be mentioned. It’s always a pleasure to read a new entry in this ongoing debate, and as always, I come away enriched after reading one of your essays. On a side note, you’ve shilled Daniel’s work, I wouldn’t have checked it out otherwise, if not to better understand your arguments.
I feel weird being dropped into this debate. I love Frater's work, I admire a writer willing to pick fights. I am honoured that my work is listed here between other authors. I shall ruminate on this argument, see where it goes. Always nice to see a bit of friction between authors, that's what makes characters, I hope this debate goes further and further, a good debate is medicine for the mind
I think Damon Knight summed up the "lived experience" aspect well when he said:
"Write what you know, by all means, when you can, but fill in the spaces by FINDING OUT what you need to know. If you take 'write what you know' literally, that would make all historical fiction, all SF, and all fantasy impossible. Where would Homer, Milton, Dante, or Shakespeare be?"
Make out already geez
I still can't tell if this is real & I desperately want to know despite the banality, I guess that's the intention??? I have to push back though as WCW mentioned: I admire the writing to entertain method, it's a way of caring for the audience & it's pretty humble - but haven't you experienced and been fascinated by the profoundness of reality? Is that not the same as a beautiful gem? I don't understand the hostility to writing about acute experiences by which we are moved. Every time I'm moved by something, though it's rare, it's really essential to me. I don't write for any other reason than to capture it. I don't understand how someone can claim to have the experience, and not acknowledge it as central to the craft. Are you moved by your own work? Thanks for taking the time.
likes are not answers, gentlemen 😀
Honored to be mentioned. It’s always a pleasure to read a new entry in this ongoing debate, and as always, I come away enriched after reading one of your essays. On a side note, you’ve shilled Daniel’s work, I wouldn’t have checked it out otherwise, if not to better understand your arguments.
I feel weird being dropped into this debate. I love Frater's work, I admire a writer willing to pick fights. I am honoured that my work is listed here between other authors. I shall ruminate on this argument, see where it goes. Always nice to see a bit of friction between authors, that's what makes characters, I hope this debate goes further and further, a good debate is medicine for the mind
I think Damon Knight summed up the "lived experience" aspect well when he said:
"Write what you know, by all means, when you can, but fill in the spaces by FINDING OUT what you need to know. If you take 'write what you know' literally, that would make all historical fiction, all SF, and all fantasy impossible. Where would Homer, Milton, Dante, or Shakespeare be?"
Lived experience is second to imagination.
Gene Wolfe and Tolkien are "literary" if that tern is to have any worth at all