Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
Thanks for this Judy, couldn't agree with you more. I tend to give Stefen King a pass for his more recent offerings, as I'm sure you know, he was involved in that terrible car accident and I think he is close to legally blind. I keep buying his books in hopes he'll revert to his previous quality and besides that a lot of his 50+ Million personal fortune goes to very good causes. He and his wife Tabitha are exceptional human beings. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 8:08:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > In my opinion, PUBLISHED modern novels are a collaborative > effort more like film than painting. We do not hesitate to > credit Walter Murch - Coppola's and Manghella's editor on > much of their best work, as a creative collaborator. > Although literary editors are not credited this way, that > does not mean that they are not collaborating creatively > and indeed writing. Yes and no. Depends very much on the novel and the novelist. The sad truth of publishing today is that a novelist who has had one or more blockbuster bestsellers may have their subsequent novels rushed into print with minimal editing, because folks will buy them regardless. It's simply not cost-effective for an editor to spend any time on the ms. Stephen King is a prime example. I'm a huge fan of his earlier work, but two of his more recent novels that I've read, "Under the Dome" and "Duma Key," were in desperate need of a good, strong editor. Both became bestsellers nonetheless. (It isn't clear to me whether the early novels had the benefit of such an editor, or whether King wasn't as self-indulgent toward the beginning of his career as he's become and was able to see the need for and implement the editorial function largely on his own, as some writers are. It would be an interesting study to link each of his works with his various publishers' editors to see whether there's a correlation in terms of quality.) At any rate, it happens less often these days, but the relationship between an author and an editor can indeed be an intensely creative collaboration. It isn't just a matter of the editor doing some pruning; it's shaping and deepening and highlighting and expanding and heavily revising, developing characters, refining the author's "voice," even changing the plot. And in some instances, a poor writer may have a great idea but be unable to put it into words properly, in which case the editor may also do a great deal of the actual writing. That said, there are certainly writers who can produce a good novel without the heavy involvement of an editor, so it can't be said that *every* published novel is a collaborative effort. It's important to remember that the publisher's editor may not have been the only editor who has worked on the novel. Some writers hire their own editors to help them develop their ideas before the ms. is ever submitted to a publisher. In any case, for a writer to claim the editor's contribution is never creative is just his ego talking. Or maybe he hasn't had the experience of working with an editor to develop a novel because he's never gotten that far, so he really has no idea what's involved. And then of course there are nonfiction books and shorter pieces where an editor may play a major role. One of my clients is a prolific writer of nonfiction; all the books he's had published since he began working with me have had hunks of my writing in them. In the case of several shorter pieces he's published, he's insisted on splitting his fees with me 50-50-- over and above my hourly charge--because so much of them was my work. Bottom line, there's too much variation in author- editor relationships to call them all creatively collaborative, but it's equally invalid to say none of them are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > ONE PERSON sits down on the Throne Of Creativity and proceeds > > to grunt, groan, push, shove, and occasionally scream until the > > great turd of a novel is out. It may at this point in fact be > > too large a turd to sell in the turd marketplace, and a good > > editor can help it to slim down. > > seventhray1 > I think we can agree that this is a good (and funny) piece > of writing. > > The wife just drove by with this. "As much as I think Turq > has a solid Zen practise, can't speak > to his turds, he may need to consider more than sitting when > discussing collaborative toilet training. > For example, what about men who miss the hole, > no matter how big it is and someone else comes > after and cleans the mess up. Is that not > collaborative? With all due respect to the wife, I can see this point of view with regard to #1 experiences. I am, after all, a guy, and thus I've seen the signs in men's rooms throughout the world, "We aim to please...won't you aim, please?" But if "missing the hole" is an issue with #2 experiences, I think the guy in question may have bigger issues than poor ability to collaborate. Just sayin'... :-) > And what about this male talent for leaving a couple of > squares on the roll so they don't have to change it? > Not sure how creative anyone is being in your exchange > but in my marketplace those are collaborative functions." The wife will be pleased to know that not only do I never do this, I have been properly...uh...toilet trained such that I never leave the seat up. Please don't tell any of my guy friends.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > ONE PERSON sits down on the Throne Of Creativity and proceeds > to grunt, groan, push, shove, and occasionally scream until the great > turd of a novel is out. It may at this point in fact be too large a turd > to sell in the turd marketplace, and a good editor can help it to slim > down. seventhray1 I think we can agree that this is a good (and funny) piece of writing. The wife just drove by with this. "As much as I think Turq has a solid Zen practise, can't speak to his turds, he may need to consider more than sitting when discussing collaborative toilet training. For example, what about men who miss the hole, no matter how big it is and someone else comes after and cleans the mess up. Is that not collaborative? And what about this male talent for leaving a couple of squares on the roll so they don't have to change it? Not sure how creative anyone is being in your exchange but in my marketplace those are collaborative functions."
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > In my opinion, PUBLISHED modern novels are a collaborative > effort more like film than painting. We do not hesitate to > credit Walter Murch - Coppola's and Manghella's editor on > much of their best work, as a creative collaborator. > Although literary editors are not credited this way, that > does not mean that they are not collaborating creatively > and indeed writing. Yes and no. Depends very much on the novel and the novelist. The sad truth of publishing today is that a novelist who has had one or more blockbuster bestsellers may have their subsequent novels rushed into print with minimal editing, because folks will buy them regardless. It's simply not cost-effective for an editor to spend any time on the ms. Stephen King is a prime example. I'm a huge fan of his earlier work, but two of his more recent novels that I've read, "Under the Dome" and "Duma Key," were in desperate need of a good, strong editor. Both became bestsellers nonetheless. (It isn't clear to me whether the early novels had the benefit of such an editor, or whether King wasn't as self-indulgent toward the beginning of his career as he's become and was able to see the need for and implement the editorial function largely on his own, as some writers are. It would be an interesting study to link each of his works with his various publishers' editors to see whether there's a correlation in terms of quality.) At any rate, it happens less often these days, but the relationship between an author and an editor can indeed be an intensely creative collaboration. It isn't just a matter of the editor doing some pruning; it's shaping and deepening and highlighting and expanding and heavily revising, developing characters, refining the author's "voice," even changing the plot. And in some instances, a poor writer may have a great idea but be unable to put it into words properly, in which case the editor may also do a great deal of the actual writing. That said, there are certainly writers who can produce a good novel without the heavy involvement of an editor, so it can't be said that *every* published novel is a collaborative effort. It's important to remember that the publisher's editor may not have been the only editor who has worked on the novel. Some writers hire their own editors to help them develop their ideas before the ms. is ever submitted to a publisher. In any case, for a writer to claim the editor's contribution is never creative is just his ego talking. Or maybe he hasn't had the experience of working with an editor to develop a novel because he's never gotten that far, so he really has no idea what's involved. And then of course there are nonfiction books and shorter pieces where an editor may play a major role. One of my clients is a prolific writer of nonfiction; all the books he's had published since he began working with me have had hunks of my writing in them. In the case of several shorter pieces he's published, he's insisted on splitting his fees with me 50-50-- over and above my hourly charge--because so much of them was my work. Bottom line, there's too much variation in author- editor relationships to call them all creatively collaborative, but it's equally invalid to say none of them are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hearing Voices, cont. - inclusive vs. exclusive voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > Maybe the difference is as simple as Curtis being an enter- > tainer and MZ not. Curtis doesn't get paid unless he can > find a way to invite people into his world in such a way > that they actually want to come in. > I would have to disagree. I could not bite off the first lengthy post he had yesterday, but I thorougly enjoyed his reply to at_man_at_brahman. Maybe his first post would have been as good. I have not read a lot of books by religious thinkers such as Thomas Mertin, or books by German philosophers, but his writings remind me of something along those lines. He seems knowledgeable about his subject matter, and seems (to me at least) to be a deep thinker. And I do enjoy his phrasing, his subtle humor, the respect he shows those to whom he is responding, especially when he is in disagreement. That's my take.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > ONE PERSON sits down on the Throne Of Creativity and proceeds > to grunt, groan, push, shove, and occasionally scream until the great > turd of a novel is out. It may at this point in fact be too large a turd > to sell in the turd marketplace, and a good editor can help it to slim > down. I think we can agree that this is a good (and funny) piece of writing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
Bob, if you don't mind I'm going to dispense with the interspersed comments, because this thread is already starting to look like a Dagwood sandwich. I'll put all my comments at the top and leave yours below, in case you have to reference them to remember what you only a few hours ago. :-) I get now what you were implying about Carver and Conroy. Some editor made their stuff shorter, to make it more readable. OK, I get that this is sometimes a useful function. Having once struggled through a 1000-word MZ post to discover that the only real ideas in it could be rendered in a single sentence, I would sooner gnaw my own leg off that attempt to read another of his posts again. An editor willing to throw themselves on the grenade, read his posts, and then render them down to the one or two sentences they could really be expressed in would be a boon to humanity. But the *creator* of those posts the editor would never be. Before I get to why, I also disagree with your attempt to present film editors as a parallel to literary editors. Bzzt. Apples and oranges. No cigar. Films are by their nature a team effort. Writing a novel or a short story, with rare exceptions, is not. ONE PERSON sits down on the Throne Of Creativity and proceeds to grunt, groan, push, shove, and occasionally scream until the great turd of a novel is out. It may at this point in fact be too large a turd to sell in the turd marketplace, and a good editor can help it to slim down. But the editor at no point deserves any credit as "co-creator." That's BS. The writer pushed the turd out. All that the editor -- even the best editor in the world -- can ever do is play in someone else's shit. We can agree to disagree on this if you want. Given your definition of "goodness" in a literary effort -- did it publish and find an audience -- you may be correct that many of the novels we see in bookstores are there because some editor played in someone else's shit enough to make it more attractive shit. But it's still someone else's shit. The day an editor sits down on the porcelain throne and grunts out his or her OWN original idea, on that day they can be considered a writer. Until then they're just playing with someone else's shit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@ wrote: > > > > ...I disagree with any poster that says that editors can't > > write. Any poster spreading such scurrilous rumours should > > study more about how Raymond Carver and Pat Conroy arrived > > at their brilliance. > turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com > > I'm not quite sure about your reference here. According to > Wikipedia, Carver spent only three years as a paid editor, > and was fired for "for his inappropriate writing style." I > presume that means that he had ideas of his own. I find no > reference that Conroy worked as a paid editor; he was mainly > a teacher, although he shares the distinction with Carver of > having been fired. Please fill me in if you know more; I don't > know either of them as writers. > > I don't think I've ever suggested that editors can't write > *English*. It's just that in my experience very few of them > can write anything that they haven't been given a draft of > that was written by someone else first. Y'know...the way > Maharishi "wrote" his commentaries on the BhagavadGita > after Vernon Katz had written them first. > > To clarify my earlier post, I > meant Carver and Conroy > owe a lot of their brilliance to their editors. > > Carver's break through collection of short stories: > "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", was cut over > 40% by his editor. Conroy's first three novels were given > to his editor in long hand, on yellow legal pads, in first > draft form, barely narratives and not finished novels. His > editor finished the novels. > I have no doubt that these two talented editors wrote > creatively to help finish these excellent works of fiction. > > But I suspect you are making another broader point: - that > editors are not doing anything original and therefore not > creating anything, that the writer has not already created. > In other words, you seem to imply that editors are not > creative collaborators. If this is what you and Ellison > are saying, I disagree particularly with these two authors. > The editors in these two cases, I believe there are more, > were essential for the authors to find their voices and > finish the novels that found their audiences. > > In my opinion, PUBLISHED modern novels are a collaborative > effort more like film than painting. We do not hesitate to > credit Walter Murch - Coppola's and Manghella's > editor on much of their best work, as a creative > collaborator. Although literary editors are not credited > this way, that does not mean that they are not collaborating > creatively and indeed writing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > ...I disagree with any poster that says that editors can't write. > Any poster spreading such scurrilous rumours should study more > about how Raymond Carver and Pat Conroy arrived at their brilliance. turquoiseb I'm not quite sure about your reference here. According to Wikipedia, Carver spent only three years as a paid editor, and was fired for "for his inappropriate writing style." I presume that means that he had ideas of his own. I find no reference that Conroy worked as a paid editor; he was mainly a teacher, although he shares the distinction with Carver of having been fired. Please fill me in if you know more; I don't know either of them as writers. I don't think I've ever suggested that editors can't write *English*. It's just that in my experience very few of them can write anything that they haven't been given a draft of that was written by someone else first. Y'know...the way Maharishi "wrote" his commentaries on the BhagavadGita after Vernon Katz had written them first.To clarify my earlier post, I meant Carver and Conroy owe a lot of their brilliance to their editors. Carver's break through collection of short stories: "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", was cut over 40% by his editor. Conroy's first three novels were given to his editor in long hand, on yellow legal pads, in first draft form, barely narratives and not finished novels. His editor finished the novels. I have no doubt that these two talented editors wrote creatively to help finish these excellent works of fiction. But I suspect you are making another broader point: - that editors are not doing anything original and therefore not creating anything, that the writer has not already created. In other words, you seem to imply that editors are not creative collaborators. If this is what you and Ellison are saying, I disagree particularly with these two authors. The editors in these two cases, I believe there are more, were essential for the authors to find their voices and finish the novels that found their audiences. In my opinion, PUBLISHED modern novels are a collaborative effort more like film than painting. We do not hesitate to credit Walter Murch - Coppola's and Manghella's editor on much of their best work, as a creative collaborator. Although literary editors are not credited this way, that does not mean that they are not collaborating creatively and indeed writing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > I think the best fictional voice on FFLis that of "the wife," > > as Bob refers to her, who reminds me of "She Who Must Be > > Obeyed" in John Mortimer's Rumpoleseries. Definitely a > > formidable off-stage character. > > The wife thanks you for this distinction and says she accepts > it on behalf of, she assumes, the long suffering partners of > FFLposters. She also suggests, on behalf of said partners, > that if a few FFLposters picked up a dish once in a while > that might also be considered a sort of acknowledgement. She > also said (she's on a roll this morning) if such an unlikely > action were to occur, please don't call loading the dishwasher, > 'washing dishes'. Please convey to She Who Must Be Obeyed that at least one male participant on FFL doth not consider loading the dishwasher to be "washing dishes." It's just not the same thing at all, Zen-wise. I do them by hand, often, in the same sense that Alan Watts peeled potatoes. "Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes."
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
I think the best fictional voice on FFLis that of "the wife," as Bob refers to her, who reminds me of "She Who Must Be Obeyed" in John Mortimer's Rumpoleseries. Definitely a formidable off-stage character. The wife thanks you for this distinction and says she accepts it on behalf of, she assumes, the long suffering partners of FFLposters. She also suggests, on behalf of said partners, that if a few FFLposters picked up a dish once in a while that might also be considered a sort of acknowledgement. She also said (she's on a roll this morning) if such an unlikely action were to occur, please don't call loading the dishwasher, 'washing dishes'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > ...I disagree with any poster that says that editors can't write. > Any poster spreading such scurrilous rumours should study more > about how Raymond Carver and Pat Conroy arrived at their brilliance. I'm not quite sure about your reference here. According to Wikipedia, Carver spent only three years as a paid editor, and was fired for "for his inappropriate writing style." I presume that means that he had ideas of his own. I find no reference that Conroy worked as a paid editor; he was mainly a teacher, although he shares the distinction with Carver of having been fired. Please fill me in if you know more; I don't know either of them as writers. I don't think I've ever suggested that editors can't write *English*. It's just that in my experience very few of them can write anything that they haven't been given a draft of that was written by someone else first. Y'know...the way Maharishi "wrote" his commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita after Vernon Katz had written them first.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
Me.who DOESN'T ? How could you live without hearing from God and leaves and trees and the wind? Not living at all if you ask me,but heyIMHO -M
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > > I think the best fictional voice on FFL is that of "the wife," as Bob refers > to her, who reminds me of "She Who Must Be Obeyed" in John Mortimer's Rumpole > series. Definitely a formidable off-stage character. > * ** Good point, feste. A time-honored device! Reminds me of Norm's wife Vera on Cheers, or Nile's Maris on Frazier...
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
I think the best fictional voice on FFL is that of "the wife," as Bob refers to her, who reminds me of "She Who Must Be Obeyed" in John Mortimer's Rumpole series. Definitely a formidable off-stage character. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > I'm pleased a couple of posters recently shared some of their fiction > efforts with us. I also began posting on FFL to work on my writing voice. > The reason I picked FFL was I figured what better place to develop > my writing voice than a place where people seem to be hearing voices. > > I'm sending this post to share some thoughts on writing rather than share > any actual writing. But what the hell, the following paragraph is my effort > to expand on the life of the hermaphrodite shape shifter > and after that I'll share some lizards advocate stuff > I'm hoping to get off my propellers. > > "The shape shifter Bukwas never wavered from his mission. > He had been sent to the lonely planet > to move "the apes who spoke in many tongues" > toward the next level of their evolution. The > catalysing myth he planned to use for his mission > was to spread the teaching that, > 'Things are what they seem and God is in the details' > The mantra he used in his TM like meditation, > to remind him of his mission, was > > "you can say that again'. > > From - "Shape shifting on a lonely planet' > > The lizards advocate stuff: > > I'm sure many FFL posters know that great fiction writers are rarely, > if ever, anything like the voices they use for their stories. > For example, James Joyce was a terrible stammerer and > Dickens hated children. > > With this in mind, I'd like to share some insights I've had about a couple > of FFL posters who seem to know a lot about developing effective authorial > > voices. > Specifically, I want to share a little about the voices I'm hearing > as I read Judy and Turq's posts. > > I think Turq sometimes shares a writing voice that absolutely nails > the emotional palette of a 8 year old. Not just any 8 year old, > but a 8 year old who can write brilliantly. At times, this voice includes > a sense of wonder > for "ideas" that for some of us can completely suspend any perception of the > mundane > one might have for old french cars driven mostly by Egyptian taxi drivers. > > Judy's writing voice, on the other hand, no less masterful than Turq's, > seems at times to be that of a reform school mail censor, > who knows Turq and believes he will eventually be an inmate in the > institution > where she works. Her devotion to research and detail are a marvel > for any one who believes voice is everything in fiction. Not to mention her > sly > habit of posting after he's gone to bed.If a great hero needs a compelling > nemesis > we might be forgiven for thinking both of these voices were created by the > same > author. > > "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at most by > three, > and that by course; > and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence > in > the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." > > 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
I used lower case, in case anyone had different ones. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Xenophaneros Anartaxius Who here is hearing instructions directly from god? > My wife prefers big G. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > >> Who here is hearing instructions directly from god? > > > > Who isn't? :-D > Couldn't agree more. > I've always thought my thinking was "hearing voices". > The wife said > "the problem with that insight is that you seem to think that so much of what > you're hearing deserves to be repeated verbally". > * * Ha! Your wife sounds a lot like mine :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: >> Who here is hearing instructions directly from god? > Who isn't? :-D Couldn't agree more. I've always thought my thinking was "hearing voices". The wife said "the problem with that insight is that you seem to think that so much of what you're hearing deserves to be repeated verbally".
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
>Xenophaneros Anartaxius
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > I'm sure many FFL posters know that great fiction writers > are rarely, if ever, anything like the voices they use for > their stories. For example, James Joyce was a terrible > stammerer and Dickens hated children. > I wonder if you share my taste for those great works of romantic fiction "Arrows of Desire", "This Side of Heaven" and "Passionate Times"? Sadly the writer is no longer with us. But only now I find out that, instead of being a refined lady of good manners and developed sensibility, "Emma Blair" was a "a burly 6ft 3in Glaswegian with a 60-a-day habit and a fondness for a good pint". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14061327 I have not had the pleasure of reading this author although after your post I plan to rectify that. My favourite contemporary (there's a reason Dickens is buried in Westminster Abbey) British writers are John Le Carre and Salman Rushdie, with Ian McEwan a close third. Although I have to admit to disappointment that they did not continue their correspondence covered in the following link. http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-lecarre.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > I'm pleased a couple of posters recently shared some of > their fiction efforts with us. I also began posting on > FFL to work on my writing voice. The reason I picked > FFL was I figured what better place to develop my > writing voice than a place where people seem to be > hearing voices. (turquoiseb...) I'm replying to say that I liked your last line above. Any reply is more than appreciated (turquoiseb...) But as for your characterizations of two of the writers here, I think you may be off the mark. For the first, I'm surprised after your mention of Joyce and Dickens that you assume that the "age level" employed by a writer reflects his own. My experience is that many writers "write to" the emotional age of their readers. Like most narcissists I tend to write for myself, most days I feel about 13. (turquoiseb...) As for the other writer you characterized as a reform school mail censor, I think that's unfair and demean- ing; reform schools have much higher standards than that for their personnel. Easy for you to say, you're still not an inmate.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > Not to mention her sly habit of posting after he's gone > to bed. Well, you *did* say this was fiction, right? My mother used to say "fiction is as fiction does", or something like that. I mean, otherwise, to be fair, you'd have mentioned Barry's sly habit of posting while those of us living in the U.S. are still asleep. Am I censoring you? Absolutely not. And I disagree with any poster that says that editors can't write. Any poster spreading such scurrilous rumours should study more about how Raymond Carver and Pat Conroy arrived at their brilliance.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: >> Who here is hearing instructions directly from god? > Who isn't? :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: >Not to mention her sly habit of posting after he's gone to bed.If a great hero >needs a compelling nemesis we might be forgiven for thinking both of these >voices were created by the same author. Six hours separate authfriend and turquoiseb if we assume the Eastern United States area for the former and the Netherlands for the latter. I have trouble connecting with friends on the West Coast of the United States from the East Coast, and that is just three hours difference. If we assume a typical schedule, turquoiseb can start posting before authfriend wakes up, and vice versa. Regarding the phrase 'hearing voices', some 40 plus years ago the psychologist Julian Janes came up with a theory that at one time the human brain thinking process was metaphorically divided into two parts, called the bicameral mind, and that this mind (i.e., brain processing) evolutionarily not as integrated as our current state, at least when the person experienced novel situations, resulted in people hearing more unconscious mental processes as voices - auditory hallucinations - which commanded them to action. This division has since disappeared by modern times. The disappearance is called the breakdown of the bicameral mind and is marked by the development of introspective thinking and our ideas of consciousness. I am equivocating here, you were talking about a 'writer's voice'. But this group here is pretty weird. Some of us still have Neanderthal genetic material passed down to us. Maybe the bicameral mind (if it were actually real) is still with us to some degree. Who here is hearing instructions directly from god?
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > I'm sure many FFL posters know that great fiction writers > are rarely, if ever, anything like the voices they use for > their stories. For example, James Joyce was a terrible > stammerer and Dickens hated children. > I wonder if you share my taste for those great works of romantic fiction "Arrows of Desire", "This Side of Heaven" and "Passionate Times"? Sadly the writer is no longer with us. But only now I find out that, instead of being a refined lady of good manners and developed sensibility, "Emma Blair" was a "a burly 6ft 3in Glaswegian with a 60-a-day habit and a fondness for a good pint". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14061327
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > I'm pleased a couple of posters recently shared some of > their fiction efforts with us. I also began posting on > FFL to work on my writing voice. The reason I picked > FFL was I figured what better place to develop my > writing voice than a place where people seem to be > hearing voices. I'm replying to say that I liked your last line above. But as for your characterizations of two of the writers here, I think you may be off the mark. For the first, I'm surprised after your mention of Joyce and Dickens that you assume that the "age level" employed by a writer reflects his own. My experience is that many writers "write to" the emotional age of their readers. As for the other writer you characterized as a reform school mail censor, I think that's unfair and demean- ing; reform schools have much higher standards than that for their personnel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: hearing voices
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > Not to mention her sly habit of posting after he's gone > to bed. Well, you *did* say this was fiction, right? I mean, otherwise, to be fair, you'd have mentioned Barry's sly habit of posting while those of us living in the U.S. are still asleep. Am I censoring you?
