Joan Rivers swears live on Loose Women

[Wookey]

Do you see yourself as a psychoanalyst?

I have not written and published a novel, although I have co authored a non fiction work that is more of a manual than anything. I'm probably responsible for about 100 pages of 'copy' per month, if not more.

I'm not a 'writer' if one associates the term with some sort of initiate into a special guild or priesthood, but I do write for a living. Communication is how I earn a living, as opposed to bricklaying or planting peonies.

Is that a 'writer'?

When I said you weren't a writer, I meant you weren't an artist.

You can clearly put a series of words together in the correct order, but that doesn't make you a 'writer' in the sense we were all talking about.

You could take a paint brush and paint walls for a living, but that's not art, and it only makes you one kind of painter.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

When I said you weren't a writer, I meant you weren't an artist..

When does one become an 'artist'?

I take ideas, and I'm tasked with putting them together in such a way as to make the ideas palatable, convincing, imperative. And not only must the words sell themselves, they must be more convincing than those of another writer, who will take the same facts, and attempt to bring the reader to the opposite conclusion.

Not quite the same as spreading a coat of semi gloss.

Btw, are those who sell non fiction books, Anthony Beevor, for instance, non-writers? He takes facts, and attempts to make them interesting and engaging.

 

[Wookey]

When does one become an 'artist'?

I take ideas, and I'm tasked with putting them together in such a way as to make the ideas palatable, convincing, imperative. And not only must the words sell themselves, they must be more convincing than those of another writer, who will take the same facts, and attempt to bring the reader to the opposite conclusion.

Not quite the same as spreading a coat of semi gloss.

Btw, are those who sell non fiction books, Anthony Beevor, for instance, non-writers? He takes facts, and attempts to make them interesting and engaging.

Are you proclaiming an ignorance of the difference between a fiction writer, and a non-fiction writer?

In the thread you're referring to, we were all talking about fiction - novels, to be precise.

A non-fiction writer is still a writer, just like an non-artist painter is still a painter.

But there is no art in writing manuals. There is no art in writing journalism. One interprets facts, and represents them using language skills. You can do this more, or less, convincingly, depending on your skill. But the one thing you don't do is create things from nothing.

That's not the same as writing a work of fiction; commenting on the human condition, expanding imaginations and creating people and places that have hitherto not existed. Putting something of yourself into the work, telling your audience your unique world view. Manipulating plot, and story arcs, and themes and premises.

I've written both journalism and fiction, and they are two separate modes, using the same medium. They both use words. Just like a house decorator uses paint, and Michelangelo used paint.

To answer your question, you become an artist when you stop asking questions like: 'When does one become an artist?'

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Are you proclaiming an ignorance of the difference between a fiction writer, and a non-fiction writer?

In the thread you're referring to, we were all talking about fiction - novels, to be precise.

A non-fiction writer is still a writer, just like an non-artist painter is still a painter.

But there is no art in writing manuals. There is no art in writing journalism. One interprets facts, and represents them using language skills. You can do this more, or less, convincingly, depending on your skill. But the one thing you don't do is create things from nothing.

That's not the same as writing a work of fiction; commenting on the human condition, expanding imaginations and creating people and places that have hitherto not existed. Putting something of yourself into the work, telling your audience your unique world view. Manipulating plot, and story arcs, and themes and premises.

I've written both journalism and fiction, and they are two separate modes, using the same medium. They both use words. Just like a house decorator uses paint, and Michelangelo used paint.

To answer your question, you become an artist when you stop asking questions like: 'When does one become an artist?'

What is Anthony Beevor? William Shirer?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

To answer your question, you become an artist when you stop asking questions like: 'When does one become an artist?'

Interesting: I thought art was about commission, not omission.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Wookey, this is my amateur psychoanalysis.

Some people want to write [artistic], but don't, or haven't started. One way to procrastinate, is to tell yourself that there is someting special or different about 'writers' and 'writing', from simply sitting down and writing. If you believe you need special tools to write, or that writers are somehow a different breed, then you must put off your own 'writing' until you have those tools, or have joined the breed somehow.

Imo, the applelation 'writer' is applicable after the fact, to someone who has assayed to sit down and do the hard slogging of writing, and someone has taken notice of the product.

Writers are simply people who write.

 

[Wookey]

Wookey, this is my amateur psychoanalysis.

Some people want to write [artistic], but don't, or haven't started. One way to procrastinate, is to tell yourself that there is someting special or different about 'writers' and 'writing', from simply sitting down and writing. If you believe you need special tools to write, or that writers are somehow a different breed, then you must put off your own 'writing' until you have those tools, or have joined the breed somehow.

Imo, the applelation 'writer' is applicable after the fact, to someone who has assayed to sit down and do the hard slogging of writing, and someone has taken notice of the product.

Writers are simply people who write.

There's nothing special about fiction writers, no more special than technical writers. It's a different set of skills, and ones that can be taught and learned. There is no Muse. There is no writer's block. There is no inspiration, only perspiration, and practice, and editing.

That said, there is still a thing called 'art', and that is the difference between a non-fiction writer, and a fiction writer. And it's my opinion that one has to relearn how to see the world and interpret that view artistically on order to create any art. Again, just a skill, not a magic gift.

Incidentally, I've never found writing to be a hard slog. I was quite brilliant at it as soon as I could hold a pen straight.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That said, there is still a thing called 'art', and that is the difference between a non-fiction writer, and a fiction writer.

It's like I'm speaking to thin air.

Anthony Beevor's ability to take a dry subject like the fall of berlin and make it come alive: is that artistic?

 

[Dhimmi]

Loose Women is polished shite compared to the dazzling brilliance of Joan Rivers...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ft4j8BMA3eU

 

[zoooo]

I quite like Coleen! And Carole.
Don't like the rest though.
I loved that woman who used to sit in the boss chair on the left. Scottish...

 

[Wookey]

It's like I'm speaking to thin air.

Anthony Beevor's ability to take a dry subject like the fall of berlin and make it come alive: is that artistic?

I've never read the man, so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Wookey]

I quite like Coleen! And Carole.
Don't like the rest though.
I loved that woman who used to sit in the boss chair on the left. Scottish...

She was the only cool boss, very dry. I don't like the weak bosses.

 

[exosculate]

How could you like that programme, Wookey?

He already explained - its a gay thing. You wouldn't get it.

 

[pk]

The Joan Rivers interview with Gwar is fucking genius.

Highly recommended!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've never read the man, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Ok; think of some nonfiction writer you've read who's taken his or her subject and brought it to life for you.

Any artistry there?

 

[Dhimmi]

The Joan Rivers interview with Gwar is fucking genius.

Highly recommended!

That is very good.

 

[Wookey]

Ok; think of some nonfiction writer you've read who's taken his or her subject and brought it to life for you.

Any artistry there?

No.

Hard work, and talent, yes. Great linguistic skill, yes. But not art.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No.

Hard work, and talent, yes. Great linguistic skill, yes. But not art.

Great linguistic skill, but not art.

Next discussion point: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


p.s. although I assume that your maxim 'any published author a brilliant writer' also applies to nonfiction writers.

 

[Wookey]

Great linguistic skill, but not art.

Next discussion point: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


p.s. although I assume that your maxim 'any published author a brilliant writer' also applies to nonfiction writers.

I didn't say that any published author must be a brilliant writer. That would be an unfair and simplistic reduction of my well-informed argument, wouldn't it?

I said that it would be ridiculous to assume that a writer could choose between writing a commercially successful trash novel, and a literary masterpiece that hardly sold. I went on to say that the more pertinent fact was that to complete a novel is so rare, that to get that finished novel seen and published nowadays is rarer still, and to then have that published novel become a best-seller so almost unheard of, that if any writer managed to achieve this sequence of unbelievably rare events, that your squalid little opinion of the literary worth of their novel would not be actually worth much - unless and until you could repeat the act, which of course you probably couldn't because it's very, very hard.

I think this discussion has come to an end; I made a fantastic point, well argued, well informed and justified, and you just didn't like being told that the original question (which you had answered rather simplistically compared to my far more thought-provoking response) was misinformed and trite.

Let's agree to disagree on this subject, I hate repeating myself, especially when I said it so well the first time.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I went on to say that the more pertinent fact was that to complete a novel is so rare, that to get that finished novel seen and published nowadays is rarer still, and to then have that published novel become a best-seller so almost unheard of, that if any writer managed to achieve this sequence of unbelievably rare events, that your squalid little opinion of the literary worth of their novel would not be actually worth much - unless and until you could repeat the act, which of course you probably couldn't because it's very, very hard.

Juding art by the confines and restrictions of a book publishing system is no good judgement of what is good art and what is bad art.

It was always hard to have a number 1 hit single, to have it recorded, advertised and then sold and bought in the mainstream record outlets - but that doesn't mean 'The Birdy Song' was a better piece of art than 'Paperback Writer'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

your squalid little opinion of the literary worth of their novel would not be actually worth much - unless and until you could repeat the act, which of course you probably couldn't because it's very, very hard.)

So literary criticism is invalid unless the critic has written a novel?

Does that apply to all other areas of human endeavour as well?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I didn't say that any published author must be a brilliant writer. That would be an unfair and simplistic reduction of my well-informed argument, wouldn't it?

I said that it would be ridiculous to assume that a writer could choose between writing a commercially successful trash novel, and a literary masterpiece that hardly sold. I went on to say that the more pertinent fact was that to complete a novel is so rare, that to get that finished novel seen and published nowadays is rarer still, and to then have that published novel become a best-seller so almost unheard of, that if any writer managed to achieve this sequence of unbelievably rare events, that your squalid little opinion of the literary worth of their novel would not be actually worth much - unless and until you could repeat the act, which of course you probably couldn't because it's very, very hard.

I think this discussion has come to an end; I made a fantastic point, well argued, well informed and justified, and you just didn't like being told that the original question (which you had answered rather simplistically compared to my far more thought-provoking response) was misinformed and trite.

Let's agree to disagree on this subject, I hate repeating myself, especially when I said it so well the first time.

So then you still stand by this statement, do you?

I would question the OPs whole definition of 'bad' and 'good' - and what it means.Any book which sells millions is a great book - whether it's about a boy and a tiger in a boat, or about three children locked in an attic.

That is still how you define 'great book'?


This is what got the whole thing rolling.

 

[Wookey]

So then you still stand by this statement, do you?



That is still how you define 'great book'?


This is what got the whole thing rolling.

I refer the honorable gentlemen to the answer I made some moments ago.

This discussion is now in both of our pasts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I refer the honorable gentlemen to the answer I made some moments ago.

This discussion is now in both of our pasts.

Whatever you say, Boss.

 

[Melinda]

come on, we're talking about a woman whose husband took his own life...poor sod, he must have been living a nightmare

 

[dwenfish]

I didn't say that any published author must be a brilliant writer. That would be an unfair and simplistic reduction of my well-informed argument, wouldn't it?

I said that it would be ridiculous to assume that a writer could choose between writing a commercially successful trash novel, and a literary masterpiece that hardly sold. I went on to say that the more pertinent fact was that to complete a novel is so rare, that to get that finished novel seen and published nowadays is rarer still, and to then have that published novel become a best-seller so almost unheard of, that if any writer managed to achieve this sequence of unbelievably rare events, that your squalid little opinion of the literary worth of their novel would not be actually worth much - unless and until you could repeat the act, which of course you probably couldn't because it's very, very hard.

I think this discussion has come to an end; I made a fantastic point, well argued, well informed and justified, and you just didn't like being told that the original question (which you had answered rather simplistically compared to my far more thought-provoking response) was misinformed and trite.

Let's agree to disagree on this subject, I hate repeating myself, especially when I said it so well the first time.

definate contender for most ridiculously pompous post of the year award!

 

[Wookey]

definate contender for most ridiculously pompous post of the year award!

Fuck you a contender, it's by far the winner.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Fuck you a contender, it's by far the winner.

for once i agree with you!