An editor friend of mine says the world is divided into two groups: writers and people who write. His theory about this is kind of complicated, but I think: for some people, writing is their way of being in the world, and it's not entirely private, any more than just *being* is entirely private. Writing is a reaching out---they want to be writing *to* someone, not just talking to themselves. I think that's what's behind the impulse to publish (especially once you're disabused of the notion that you're going to get rich and famous that way). It is about some kind of human give-and-take of experience. This isn't necessarily my friend's demarcation line between being a writer vs. being a person who writes, but it is mine---this is my way of being in the world, and I don't want to be in the world, my full whole imaginative self, alone.
And yeah, also, being published is a validation that what you do is real. Artists want people to see their art, because that's what it's *for.* Writing is meant to be read. The very act of writing presumes a reader, and beyond a certain extent, it's not satisfying if the reader is always just yourself. And yes, I think that you reach that point where either it's totally satisfying just to do your private writing, or it's not satisfying. And I think the reasons for it to be not wholly satisfying are valid --- if this is your way of being in the world, then you want it to be in the world, not just in the drawer of your nightstand.
I think there were people who were undoubtedly poets like Dickinson and Hopkins whose greatest works were never sent for publication in their lifetimes. They stayed primarily private poets, and I think there is validity to that. (I should tell you about my opera singing days. I will have to expand on that analogy in a separate post.) But in the end for a number of people I know the idea of not being published is heartbreaking. They see friends getting into journals while their own work has been sent with no luck. Are they lesser poets for not being published than someone like me who only started even liking poetry several year ago? This post was more geared for some of the discouraged people I have met recently. I believe an unpublished poet is still a poet.
To be a nurse, doctor or other professional you need an education and to pass exams. That’s not the case with the arts. Should publication be the universal certification for people if they want to call themselves writers or poets?
Another interesting question: Is it enough to write poetry to God? Is He enough of an audience? Or should poetry connect to a human being? If writing is communication, then writing to God is prayer. And prayer is always valid and worthwhile--not just being in the world but reaching beyond it.
Yet as humans most of us want validation from other humans. It’s just so often I feel like people hang our hearts on this a bit too much on this external validation.
An editor friend of mine says the world is divided into two groups: writers and people who write. His theory about this is kind of complicated, but I think: for some people, writing is their way of being in the world, and it's not entirely private, any more than just *being* is entirely private. Writing is a reaching out---they want to be writing *to* someone, not just talking to themselves. I think that's what's behind the impulse to publish (especially once you're disabused of the notion that you're going to get rich and famous that way). It is about some kind of human give-and-take of experience. This isn't necessarily my friend's demarcation line between being a writer vs. being a person who writes, but it is mine---this is my way of being in the world, and I don't want to be in the world, my full whole imaginative self, alone.
And yeah, also, being published is a validation that what you do is real. Artists want people to see their art, because that's what it's *for.* Writing is meant to be read. The very act of writing presumes a reader, and beyond a certain extent, it's not satisfying if the reader is always just yourself. And yes, I think that you reach that point where either it's totally satisfying just to do your private writing, or it's not satisfying. And I think the reasons for it to be not wholly satisfying are valid --- if this is your way of being in the world, then you want it to be in the world, not just in the drawer of your nightstand.
I think there were people who were undoubtedly poets like Dickinson and Hopkins whose greatest works were never sent for publication in their lifetimes. They stayed primarily private poets, and I think there is validity to that. (I should tell you about my opera singing days. I will have to expand on that analogy in a separate post.) But in the end for a number of people I know the idea of not being published is heartbreaking. They see friends getting into journals while their own work has been sent with no luck. Are they lesser poets for not being published than someone like me who only started even liking poetry several year ago? This post was more geared for some of the discouraged people I have met recently. I believe an unpublished poet is still a poet.
To be a nurse, doctor or other professional you need an education and to pass exams. That’s not the case with the arts. Should publication be the universal certification for people if they want to call themselves writers or poets?
Another interesting question: Is it enough to write poetry to God? Is He enough of an audience? Or should poetry connect to a human being? If writing is communication, then writing to God is prayer. And prayer is always valid and worthwhile--not just being in the world but reaching beyond it.
Yet as humans most of us want validation from other humans. It’s just so often I feel like people hang our hearts on this a bit too much on this external validation.