So you Wanna be a WriterSo, you want to be a writer?
by Charles Bukowski (read by Tom O'Bedlam).
The Bukowski exposes the myth of "tortured genius" of creativity
What makes authors - great authors - writing? Featuring a "unless the insides hin / burning your darms", die an Ray Bradbury erinnern, und "unless it comes out of / your mind like a rocket", die an Anaïs Ninnern, "so you want to be a writer", aus dem insgesamt fantastischen Band Softing Through the Madness for the Word, the Line, the Way :
Rejoice in this wonderful read by Tom O'Bedlam, who has also given us Dorianne Laux's exalted "antilamentation": despite everything, don't do it. and your belly, don't do it. look for words, don't do it. Glory, don't do it.
when it never roars out of you, do something else. or your folks or anyone at all, you're not willing. don't be like so many authors, folks who call themselves authors, loves. don't put it in your way. don't do it. your souls like a missile, kill or kill, don't do it. burn your stomach, don't do it. if it's really fucking goddamn good timing, and if you're picked till you Die or it died in you. there's no other way. and there never was one.
Subtitles: So You Wanna Be a Writer Part 5 by Adam Rocke | Uncommon Books
The most important but often ignored aspect of any literature careers is what happens immediately after signing a contract - how you handle your new publishers, who are often exactly the same person. Except that all of your literature comes from self-published contents, making you the only "judge, juror and executioner" of your letter, eventually you will have to come to an arrangement with one or more artistic units (as you hope!) who will probably rule over your presented materials like a dam chick who keeps an eye on her valuable testimonial.
I would commit the highest degree of false oath now if I proposed that all my earlier relations between author and writer or author and publishers were nothing but bows and unicorns. 2. Unfortunately, many authors in the early days of their career are following the same dull mindset you really do, just to face the same problems with the rulers who are in charge of (and get to pay for) criticizing and working on your self-described masters.
Put in a nutshell, you can never have too many views and too many views on your work. All of these delicacies are those of the writer, and those of the writer alone. Oh, you may think you did it, but considering you're so near the footage (probably a little too close), there's a good shot that you might have failed the target (by a little or a lot) without even noticing it.
This does not mean that you have transferred your literacy abilities, or that you have become rotten and sent it in, or any other unfavorable reasons for not connecting the points you initially imagined. Often, even if you work with an outlines that have been optimized and tested to the point of weariness, authors - the imaginative creatures we are - will have better or more interesting thoughts as you type, and the way we initially implanted it tightly with both our legs will lose its shine, even if only a tiny part.
In their right minds, who would ever criticize a writer for doing what they thought was needed to provide the most amusing history possible? "Irrespective of the purpose, the whole idea of creatively evoking a narrative and the real purpose of bringing it onto hard copy (or electronical bits) are two very different, very flowing szenarios.
Now, my literature lovers, this is where your editors and/or publishers will intervene. Do you recall what I said, that there are never too many views or views on your work? To be a good writer, you have to be a writer. Secondly, for a writer to be a success, you have to be open to the idea that not everything you type is perfec.
Everybody's got one and they all smell. However, the earlier you clean up your gray matter of misconception that all authors and publishing houses are only failing authors who want to shape your work, the more you can see these creatives as what they really are: very necessary, often priceless "tools" (in the good sense) that help you to enhance your work and do the best possible work.
How much harm can it do to hear your thoughts and views on your work? Does not mean that you must accept everything that is said, and I certainly do not suggest that you change the stuff you have produced about galons of your own bloody, perspiration and lacrimal fluid just because another imaginative and bossy individual tells you to do so.
Nothing at all. I am a Russian-Italian New York Jew with gun know-how and a few small literature achievements under my belts - if I get feedbacks that don't immediately match my own opinion, I don't just see scarlet, I see an oceans of bloody water on which my contents are soaring.
Shut my mouths. That''special sauce'' for working with an editorial or publishing company - or anyone who'hangs' on your work before it is printed (or on the monitor, or...????). Everything in a nutshell..... Regardless of what your preprogrammed "pride of authorship" may think of reptilian brains, journalists and publishing houses are on the same page as the authors they work with.