Wannabe WriterWhenabe Writer
Differences between "real" authors and "Wannabe" authors
Numerous authors and performers have described how their creativity works in the form of articles, novels, essays, booklets and in-depth discussions. Allow me to cite two authors who represent the individual school and describe their own creativity process. And Charles Bukowski from his poetry "so you want to be a writer? It believes that the fight against this resistance is the most difficult part of writing.
Bukowski, on the other side, tells us that we should not make the effort to become writers unless our desire to compose comes out of us. and our own nature. It is what I call "natural self", what we are created with, and it is made up of real qualities like colour and size of our skins and immaterial qualities like our personalities and talents.
While Pressfield identified himself with his own self, Bukowski identified himself with his own one. I had an impulse to compose, and I couldn't stop myself even if I wanted to. I don't know how to put myself in front of a computer to work.
I was a really poor writer, in a word, and many folks around me let me know. I' ve been studying art at college and am very good at doing most things visually, but I don't have the same urge to do painting or drawing. The irony is that I have an irresistible urge to do what I'm no good at, which is writing.
At the end my self was not equal to my constraint; I was reluctant to acknowledge the fact that my own nature is a writer. This means I am not a "would-be author", but I am one. This fantasy and extremity are masteries that our self has evolved, and that causes us to lose contact with our own self.
We fight and negate our own nature until we lose sight of who we really are and have to compel ourselves to take a seat and do something. Mostly we have to do things that are not respectable from a cultural point of view. I have a tendency to analyse everything in detail and to find contradictions in the argument of others.
I am, in other words, a born " critic". In contrast to the term "writer", which is of cultural nobility and respect, "critic" has many adverse connotations. What does this mean? It is this constraint that makes me a good "computer programmer". I' m also a natural'lawyer', because I like to fight and gain, and my egos also hate this one.
I was reading a textbook in which the writer identified the term "talent" as this inherent constraint that I am writing about here. The majority of humans have inherent constraints, but they are blindfolded towards them. It takes some individuals years or even years to find profitable sales opportunities for their constraints. The majority of human beings have spent their whole life refusing and neglecting their constraints.
Lots of folks like to watch TV, but never think about becoming a TV reviewer or even starting a TV-blogs. You are constantly denying who you are because many things for which we have constraints are distorted in cultural terms. For example, just because I am a naturally "lawyer" does not mean that I would be a success solicitor.
I wouldn't be a success with that in mind. I' m not a great writer either. So if you want to find your own nature, don't be deceived by your expertise or inability. but you could be a foot high. It' about being at ease with yourself, being yourself who you are.
He had such a great urge to make philosphy that his egos were no match for him. He was driven to it by his own nature. It' the very opposite of what Pressfield described. He was ever forced to sat down and wrote. It tries to withstand what its egos wants from it (anything but "philosopher") and lets its own nature be who it is.
Pressfield, on the other side, resists what his own nature wants to do and lets his own self push forward what it wants from him ("writer"). If your egot wants to be something, you are quite the" would-be". By my own definition, you could be a world-famous writer and still a "would-be writer".
I would say from the description of his inner battles that Steven Pressfield is a "would-be author", although he is quite succesful. The other would-be author that comes to my head is Truman Capote. His love of being the focus of people' s interest, and he used his writing talents to get the kind of interest he wanted.
He later got bogged down in his career because he didn't have enough energy to start writing, but his desire for attentiveness remained. In desperation he wanted to be one, although his own nature was not. In the end, it doesn't matter to your own nature whether you are a success or not.
When you sense a "resistance" Pressfield is describing, it is a good indication that you are not loyal to yourself. It' probably because your nature self doesn't really want to do what your egos want you to do. If your own nature wants to do something (like sex), you would know it.
As Bukowski says, when you do something naturally, it should come out of you like a missile. Because you have a need to do something doesn't mean it's simple for you. When you want to be a true pawnbroker, your unmanageable urge to gamble is taken for granted. Just as a pawnbroker, it is a true pawnbroker.
That kind of uncontrolled coercion is a stereotype characteristic of great "artists. That is why some folks rationalise it as a legend so that they don't have to feeling sick if they don't have such constraints. This is probably because your own self does not like the associated culture tag.
Perhaps you are a real tinsmith, a real clerk, a real accountant, a real homeowner, a real waitress or a real critics like me.