Sven Birkerts on Writer’s Block

Sven Birkerts has an interesting piece up at the Los Angeles Review of Books on writer’s block—or, as he makes the finer distinction, writer’s expressive frustration. He writes very nicely about the writing process, about what it is there that’s wonderful and validating, and I have no beef with that at all. But I find it a bit curious that someone who writes for a living, as does Birkerts, would set himself up as such a slave to the muse. Granted, “ass in chair” is the lowest common denominator of writing philosophy, but I’ve always thought it was a pretty good one. Not necessary foolproof, and maybe not always directly resulting in a work of art, but certainly a way of producing something serviceable that can be worked with down the line.

I get that Birkerts here is making a case for the way a writer needs to forge that connection with his own style. And I think he has the idea of style just right, but its attainment seems a bit… painful. Though he renounces the idea of the “one path,” the one he walks seems awfully fraught with wrong turns.

Style, I’ll define here, for my selfish purposes, as the verbal/lexical confirmation that I’m in the right relation to my impulses, my so-called material. “The right words in the right order”: style is the outer face of the inner impulse, its realization…. And what an arduous business it is, getting to the “proper,” the “right.”

I’m not saying that writing—writing decently and well, forget about writing beautifully to make the angels sing—is easy. If it were, there’d be a lot more content here, for one thing. But positing it as hit or miss seems to be unfair to oneself as a craftsman of any proficiency. Perhaps it’s that Birkerts sees writing as more analogous to painting—you consider, make your mark, erase, consider, make your mark. Whereas I always think of sculpture, and not the kind you add onto but the kind you take away: stone, wood. You take a big chunk of stuff and get rid of what doesn’t belong. Or maybe clay is the better metaphor, because you can still append, but much of it involving taking away what’s wrong to get to what’s right. Maybe his scenario is really about being a professional writer, as opposed to a grad student/blogger/hobbyist; I may sit down to write pretty much every day, but I don’t do it for eight hours at a shot, five or six days a week. I’ve spent entire days writing, but it’s still not what puts rice and beans on the table, and for that I should probably be grateful.

Writing can’t be planned for or predicted, and when it happens, when the surge begins, it brings a satisfaction like nothing else. There are finer sensualities, sure, and basic emotions that give joy or connection when released, but as far as giving me a sustained sense that this is who I am, this is what I do, a full-fathom immersion in writing is the ultimate verification.

I relate to this completely except for the first phrase. Good writing can’t be planned or predicted, maybe, but it can be marched toward, pushed and pulled and coaxed until it takes shape. And in the course of his essay, he does get around to that, if a bit grudgingly:

I can, if my stars are kind, write myself into my style — recovering a trace of the original inspiration and then my rhythm, my phrasings. I can recover flow, resume my position, retrieve my verbal relation to my subject matter. There is the confidence that the launch of a sentence already contains its destination. I feel myself moving toward something that already exists around the next bend in the road.

And that, to me, is alchemy enough to celebrate, and not to begrudge at all.

(Cartoon is “Writer’s Block III” by the consistently marvelous Tom Gauld.)

Share

4 Comments to Sven Birkerts on Writer’s Block

  1. Tamaz's Gravatar Tamaz
    December 9, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    No problem with this fellow’s view of writing at all, although for his ‘style’ I would substitutute form content and structure; getting that right is the essence of it all, and very many writers in the last twenty years may have been better off being more alive to this requirement.
    It seems to me that this cannot be achieved by sitting in a room with ‘ass in chair'; it is a mixture of a thousand different factors, and luck is one of those factors.
    When Joyce decided to expand what was an originally planned Dubliners short story about a ‘Mr Hunter’ into a day in the life of Dublin, there was a lifetime’s thought behind that decision, but luck also played its part. Once that deceptively simple decision was made, and seen to be the only right decision that could be made, in one sense “Ulysses” thereafter wrote itself, because it provided the ideal vessel for Joyce to say what he wanted to say i.e he found the exact form, content and structure that he needed to find, or, to quote from the above:
    “There is the confidence that the launch of a sentence already contains its destination. I feel myself moving toward something that already exists around the next bend in the road.”
    That is really well said.

  2. October 31, 2016 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    实例解密 让你意想不到的现场光使用技巧何为现场光?现场光有别于环境光,它们的区别在于现场光是现场存在的而并非人工 zhongweixing 为拍摄塑造的光源,而环境光可以是人工为拍摄塑造的光源,也可以是拍摄现场的光源。因此,现场光是环境光中的一种光源。 国内外许多摄影师在寻找光源上有多种策略,优秀的摄影师总是一切从简,zhongweixing,在拍摄时能不用灯就不用。不管拍摄需要用到什么光源,他们都会开动脑筋思考,最后用到的光源往往都是不需任何成本就可以获取的。下面以图为例,和小编一起来见证现场光在拍摄中的妙用吧! 如下图,摄影师Cary Norton在拍摄摇滚歌手前,为了寻找合适的拍摄地点找遍了整个伯明翰,最后选择

  3. October 31, 2016 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    如何分辨手震还是走焦?相片模糊可算是摄影里不能犯的错误,就算是初学者也不应该,因为这是重要的基本功,但可惜这是常见的错误。除了手不够稳定,或按快门 zhongweixing 按得太重,也有可能是相机对焦对错了。到底谁是谁非?现在就教你分辨手震和相机走焦不同的效果,分清楚就不能抵赖相机不够好了。相片的EXIF:F2.8,1/40,ISO320。猜猜相片有什么毛病!如何判定是否失焦不论是手震和相机走焦,两者均导致相片模糊,也就是失去焦点,但「失焦」该如何界定?所谓失焦,就是原来的对焦点,应该要清晰的范围,变得不清晰,失去分明的线条。一般失焦多在相机的荧幕预览就能发现了,尤其有其他清晰的相片时作比较就很易发现,比较谨慎的可以把

  4. November 14, 2016 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    荒木经惟说:一个好的摄影师擅 zhong weixing 于发现连被摄者自己都不知道的另一面。A good photographer is able to find the other side of people who wouldn’t know themseles.said by Nobuyoshi Arakihttps://www.facebook.com/zhongweixing/posts/153845268412996zhong weixing

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe