Recent searches
Search options
2. The old cliche is that writers produce better art when they suffer. Writers today say that it’s the opposite, that we do better work when we’re happy. What do you think? #Writephant
Stress makes me shut down. And then I resent the people who cause the stress. So being an American, I am angry at a lot of people and it is affecting my writing. #Writephant
@Priyajsridhar I don't know about quality, but I know for us, the *quantity* of work we produce goes like:
In agony: lots
Not doing so great: none/very little
Doing great: lots
I definitely prefer the "happy" version of producing lots of work. It also gives a greater range of options for genre and tone. When we're suffering, we mostly produce stuff where the characters are also suffering.
- Gentian
@meadowphillips it sounds like an introspective take! I hadn’t considered having characters suffer as an outlet. #Writephant
@Priyajsridhar It works SO WELL.
- Gentian
@Priyajsridhar A2. I think that suffering produces good art is just an excuse to let people suffer.
I can't produce art when I'm at my worst healthwise, so I don't think that suffering is required for good art.
I know the art I produce when I'm happy is different than when I have other pressures and still produce art. But generally, burn out is a thing suffering leads to and there's just no art then.
@adriabailton @Priyajsridhar A good answer!
- Gentian
Good point. It's just like "starving artist" is somewhat of a cliche or accepted situation. Do we really have to starve? 
A lot of art that has survived through the centuries was produced by people who had patrons that basically paid them to live (and not starve) so they could produce art. The idea of starving artists is a newer concept. Obviously we shouldn't need to starve!
(This is an agreement post.)
This is true. For much of my life having to make a living kept me from writing.
@Priyajsridhar I'm so sorry. I feel that.
- Gentian
@meadowphillips Thanks. I thought I was better at blocking it out but no. #Writephant
A2. The old cliche is that writers produce better art when they suffer. Writers today say that it’s the opposite, that we do better work when we’re happy. What do you think? #Writephant
I'll take that as emotional / spiritual / empathic / secular pain. In a sense, to write I have to experience something that drives me to that extreme that I can overcome my inner censor to cry out and yell. As a feminist writer, today more so than usual. I'm not only talking about the topic I'm about to write a chapter on and am procrastinating by writing this reply, but also the world we are living in. I don't think I'd be writing so fervently on my #RSMarsNeededWomen web-novel were feminism and tolerance, and the people who benefit, NOT under unmitigated attack. In a sense, I'm suffering, and that's driving me onward.
> I'm not only talking about the topic I'm about to write a chapter on and am procrastinating by writing this reply,
What a mood. Wishing you luck!
- Gentian
It can definitely serve as fuel. And, you know, it's nice to think that even the worst of experiences can be put to good purpose and produce something lovely. It's empowering.
@Priyajsridhar
The old cliche is writers produce better art when they suffer.
Writers today say the opposite--we do better when we’re happy.
What do I think?
When 45 began his presidency, I watched all my friends post about their drop in productivity. I was having a tough time writing, then . . .
I went to Odyssey, where no politics were discussed. I still had a rough time writing. And I watched the news in my apartment.
Stress is bad for creating.
@Priyajsridhar My personal opinion is that old saw came about before mental health care was a thing, and writers suffered untreated depression, anxiety, etc and wrote *despite* these things - or as a form of self-treatment, then attributed success to their misery.