Why use lot word when few word do trick

@Steve68686

4 ай бұрын

Avoid confusion. eg: "few word do trick" = not many work? or ...less is more?

@fireball43

4 ай бұрын

@@Steve68686 it’s a The Office reference

@Steve68686

4 ай бұрын

:::zoom!:::: right over my head! That's what I get for not keeping up with a cool show! 😞

@fireball43

4 ай бұрын

@@Steve68686 You should watch the scene. It’s pretty funny. Out of all the reasons to talk like that for, he did it to save time to “see world”.

@Steve68686

4 ай бұрын

Now...when you say "see world," in quotes, does that mean he was referring to, like, the Orlando theme park "SeaWorld?" ...or that he needed time to "see the world?" (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Have you put together an overview of maximalism as compared to minimalism? I tried to find one and all the search results had to do with interior design lol

Raymond Carver didnt write minimalist, but his editor did.

It’s crazy man. I needed to watch this video, and hear this today. great video man!

@WriteConscious

2 ай бұрын

Thanks!

I've recently started writing again, thanks partially to inspiration from you and your channel. I'm not an author, but I am a musician and have always appreciated good lyrics. And, like you, I love nature poetry in songs, so I've been trying to write more conscious, nature based songs. It's been good.

This was so rich with ideas. Thank you.

You should make a video Borges and the traditon of Magical Realism and Cervantes

@soultrane126

Ай бұрын

Yes please!!

@KenzoDNogueraGomez

12 күн бұрын

If he does, I really wish he takes time to understand Cervantes in its context. The english-speaking interpretations of the Quijote always talk about being dreamy and "chasing your dreams" which is diametrically opposed to what Cervantes was trying to say

I'm a well-wisher. I am. You are selflessly sharing oodles of info. Please take this in the right spirit: DUDE, slow down. Your insights are worthy of breath and expansion. It's like you're trying to squeeze them through a tight fit. Let them settle, in your viewers' minds. Give us a moment.

@exili

3 ай бұрын

agree with the feedback here; I’m on my second watch. For once I can thank the algo-gods for recommending this channel; hopefully @write conscious has a blog to binge on!

Do you have any favorite indie mags or presses?

Always Maximalist vs Minimalist Why not Yeahthat’saboutrightalism

@WriteConscious

3 ай бұрын

lol

in the beginning, there was the word.. there's a case to made that *the word* is more powerful than life, in that the unexamined life is not worth living.. someone said that.. how do we know our experiences without words.. to change subjects: thoughts on Bukowski, poetry and novels, wrestling literature from academia back to the streets, and his boys: John Fante, Dan Fante.. thx.

@MhmmostlyHarmless

4 ай бұрын

I always regret going into the comments on David Foster Wallace post/videos.

Very valid. I don’t classify myself as a minimalist- but I fall into that category I think. Against my will. I used to be a much more wordy writer but it wasn’t until I started orating that I started making my sentences more concise. It came naturally for me. It’s more of a clarity thing for me. I write a lot, then edit even more. I don’t really care for “minimalists”. I don’t know any others aside from Hemingway. It’s an art form for sure, but Hemingway was unique because he understood the essence of his material. Most “minimalists” don’t. They don’t know how it feels to live life and that’s what makes their work shit. DFW, long and drawn out as he may be, put his soul into his words which I think is what makes his stuff worthwhile. Thanks Ian. Your videos have pushed me to grow. Damn Ian. Thank you.

@Cholata123

4 ай бұрын

Sorry, I just don't get your argument "They didn't knew how to feel life and that's why their work is shit", like, could you explain at least?

@TheGoodMD

4 ай бұрын

@@Cholata123 what I said was: they don’t know how it feels to live life and that’s what makes their work shit. There’s a lot to be said, but I summarized it when I said Hemingway understood the essence of his material, most minimalists don’t. I don’t actively seek novels described as “minimalist”, or written by self-proclaimed minimalists. I do, however, read plenty of minimalist essays & short stories because that’s what MFA’s have been producing since the 80s. Most “minimalist” literature I’ve read lacks emotional depth. It lacks impact. Part of what made Hemingway so fucking good was his understanding of emotion, experience, and how to articulate just enough to gesture you toward a particular direction and letting your mind do the rest. Living life requires you to be fully present. If you aren’t capable of articulating what it means to be present, you probably aren’t going to be a very good writer. Life exists beyond the walls of pretentious academia. Alcoholism isn’t simply a quirk. There’s more to life than what is described in books. That is what I meant.

@Cholata123

4 ай бұрын

@@TheGoodMD Thanks for the explanation. If I understood you correctly, you refer to the ability of a writer to make you feel inside the novel and capture the feelings and impact in a realistic way. You can correct me if I was confused. I think most of the minimalists you read weren't looking to be emotional, but rather concise, which is why they don't have much depth or emotional impact. I don't agree that it's because they don't know how to describe how life feels, but rather a matter of style. There are writers who worry about those small details, others who focus on other things; those who are very emotional and those who are not. I agree that it makes them better writers, although only as an aspect and not as a whole. Hemingway really has a crazy biography and a lot of what he wrote captures the sentiment well because he lived something similar. (He also used a trick he confessed to, in which he would reveal just enough information to make you believe he knew more than he actually did.)

Worshiping Bukoski set my writing back 10 yrs

@EzeICE

4 ай бұрын

Why though? I'm interested .

@ftc397

Ай бұрын

@@EzeICE not to speak for the guy but alot of writers write terrible shit trying to imitate bukowski. Alot of the people who wrote minimally or had a similar style really are one of a kind and genuinely original writers. Its hard to replicate and comes off super hacky one poorly imitated.

@EzeICE

Ай бұрын

@ftc397 yeah CB was just himself. He gave no shits and wrote about topics, ideas, and concepts that others weren't really writing about or were afraid to. He had his own voice. It will be quite futile to try and replicate his style. Thanks for the insightful reply. I definitely agree.

@Coltrane360

Ай бұрын

@@EzeICE The prose style really wasn't the issue as I am a better writer but his world view and philosophy wasn't the best of choices

@EzeICE

Ай бұрын

@Coltrane360 That's exactly what I'm saying. His ideas and concepts and how he saw the world and his life are rather unique

Where's the information on the e-book?????

Is Ezra Pound a maximalist in the Cantos?

@WriteConscious

3 ай бұрын

In terms of the projects ambition, yes. But, no in terms of how he writes most of the time in it.

I was interested in Minimalist writing. Being French, it's hard to find book to study except Hemingway. It's not because it is short doesn't mean it is easy. It's effort. Less is more is the philosophy. But it doesn't mean a fork planted to the ground. It's one direction. And the focus on present-moment and actions/dialogues remind me of comic books. It taught me you need few words to express the idea effectively. I get that minimalist is not the "panacea" style as fictions are mean to follow the character's psychology evolution and emotion. They tends to twist the surrounding.

Sure, it's like Heat Miser vs Snow Miser. DFW was Heat, EH was Snow.

“She waited for days then weeks then months. And over time she began to wait more passively. In grocery aisles and cafes and on the drive home from work with the radio on really quiet. Some nights she couldn't sleep so she walked the roads of the back country in the chill air and watched the cows sleep. Her mom said she should talk to someone, but she stopped caring about any of that. Instead she smoked and drank and played her music loudly into the night. Eventually her friends stopped checking in and the bills became overdue. When asked how she was doing, she told mostly everyone it was nothin'. Then one night she got in her truck after one too many and drove real fast on a dirt road through the farmland. She parked on a outstretch of dirt and got out; the dust just catching up with her. She pulled a cigarette out and lit it. She leaned on the hood and smoked while the stars hung low in the sky and the corn rustled in the wind. After a bit, she flicked the cigarette on the ground and stepped on it. "Ain't that a bitch", she said. Then she got back in her truck and drove home with the windows down. The next morning, she payed the bills. She called a few friends and scheduled dinner. She never thought of him again.”

@richhasnip5374

Ай бұрын

Love it. Forgive my ignorance, is this yours?

@ThatBigGuyAl

Ай бұрын

@@richhasnip5374 thank you. Yes, it is.

@richhasnip5374

Ай бұрын

@@ThatBigGuyAl It's really good. I assume you're a writer, if not, maybe you should be? In any case - well done.

I’ve tried reading some Alice Munro. Im a little stunned that she won a Nobel prize. How many really good American authors deserved that recognition? Maybe im being too harsh

@lordbunbury

3 ай бұрын

She’s a instant rich characters everywhere ninja

8:00 inexplicable, rather. Academia for awhile said it was divine inspiration. The biography and the writings of the 154+ poems and 36+ plays don’t match. Good luck explaining any of the Shakespeare stuff with the Shakspur bio, every sentence (like a lot of English renaissance writing) is layered references much like a Pynchon wiki rabbit hole sentence.

At his heart, Carver was a very sentimental, even downright pathetic writer. As in, small, petty, middle-class, soap-opera way. Then he got gordonlished. Basically, saved from himself. Have you read L. Davis?

Would you be willing to make a video on Heraclitus’s Philosophy? Or is there a writer who really drew from his philosophy that I could look into? His concept of fire is fascinating

@fireball43

3 ай бұрын

Just read Heraclitus, he didn’t write much.

Cormac McCarthy is a minimalist now?

An old teacher put it quite succinctly: Chaucer inspires writers. Shakespeare inspires everyone else.

There are a lot of words. Use words liberally like there are none extra.

👍🏼👍🏼

Is metafiction like when porky pig says that’s all folks! to the audience at the end of looney toons?

@lordbunbury

3 ай бұрын

That’s an example of the work of fiction being aware of itself as a work of fiction. So yes!

RIP David Foster Wallace, you would’ve loved Proust

@lordbunbury

3 ай бұрын

You think he didn’t read Proust? I’m not a 100% sure that he did, but I would be surprised if he didn’t at least dabbled in some Proust. Can’t remember him mentioning Proust though.

What is your spirtuality?

@WriteConscious

3 ай бұрын

Been practicing yoga for 16 years and have had a daily asana, pranayama, and meditation practice for around nine years. I've studied and am fluent in a ton of occult traditions, studied modern religions deeply, and a bunch of other stuff. But, I like to categorize myself as a spiritual ecologist most of the time now or a mystical naturalist.

A lot of the minimalism and narration ideas from academia seem to be making a problem where there ain't one. Every story has a story teller, so tell your story! Just don't do it in first person!

@sweetviolents29

4 ай бұрын

What’s wrong with first person?

@watcherofthewest8597

4 ай бұрын

@@sweetviolents29 nothing. I don't care for most of it and I think it's an easier form that writers use, often because it is easier. Just my opinion.

@TheZalor

4 ай бұрын

@@watcherofthewest8597 Like with any style, it can be lazily used. I don't feel it's fair to condemn an entire mode of telling a story just because there are many lazy and bad examples. When done well, first person narration can really get you into the mind of a character and experience the world through their subjective orientation. Effectively used, it can show a character's inner psychology in a way that you couldn't in third person

@mattheww797

4 ай бұрын

I dont think it’s about trying to be minimalist. It’s about finding the right word to describe what your trying to say. Shakespeare revised in this way making his writing more accurate.

@watcherofthewest8597

4 ай бұрын

@@TheZalor very true. I guess I should say I rarely like first person and I think it's over used. I get very trollish when talking about modern publishing!

There is no way, only ways.

Writing is an art form using words… therefore use them, be creative with them, create long sentences with beautiful prose and use a unique style if you so please, and use variety. Modern day readers lack of comprehension has ruined writing. Too many stupid ‘readers’ who can’t read nor understand subtext and appreciate stylistic choices. They want: “The dog was brown and barked. He barked because he was a k-9. A k-9 likes to bark. He is a dog and is brown.” Then you have ‘literary critiques’ scream and yell: “MINIMALISM AT ITS BEST. HE DOESN’T USE WORDS IN THE MEDIUM THAT USES WORDS. THERE’S SO MUCH BENEATH THE SURFACE. THIS WILL BE AN INTERNATIONAL BEST SELLER!!!” Writing is the only art-form medium that ‘Art is subjective’ doesn’t apply to. Publishing houses have pressed for bad writing, and hopefully a literary renaissance kicks in. The only minimalism that should be used is in quotation marks when someone speaks. The best example I can think of is William Faulkner’s: “My mom is a fish.” A child, who doesn’t understand the concept of death, sees a fish die, and then connects the dead fish with his mother’s death, breaking into a new level of consciousness.

@Cholata123

4 ай бұрын

I disagree in part. You don't need an extensive vocabulary or long phrases to have a unique style, it's more than that. If this were the case, many minimalist writers would not differentiate themselves so firmly. And while I agree that using word variety is good, I don't think that defines good writing. Nowadays many books have less vocabulary because people prefer more direct and fast stories. They also do not like difficult vocabulary because they are often obsolete words. It makes reading more difficult and unpleasant for some. That's why I don't think the praise for minimalist writers is bad: they managed to create accessible and good stories with few words and that is a surprising skill. If you read Gravity Rainbow you can certainly tell that Pynchon is pretentious, but he certainly has great prose. But a lot of people dislike Pynchon's style, and understandably so. You say that it is not worth saying that art is subjective, but you are having a totally subjective point of view here, and that is not wrong. If you think good writing is the opposite of minimalists, that's not wrong. But I don't agree with it. And you think people who can't read or understand their styles are stupid, which seems stupid to me.

@L_For_Literature

4 ай бұрын

@@Cholata123 I’m more referring to the current trend. I agree to an extent with what you’re saying. But also disagree. Vocab choice, the way you phrase and describe certain things, most certainly creates a unique style. And that’s thing, there’s not A LOT of minimalist writers that you can distinct from one another… And what you’re saying with making books more assessable is what I’m referring to. The decline in readership, intellectual thought, and the publishing houses pandering to them. And it’s not hard to write in a minimalist style. You use simpler words and simpler sentence structures. And yes, I say art is no longer subjective for literature because the publishing houses have made it so. My subjective POV doesn’t matter, because I’m not the one shoving shit literature out into the market. It’s the publishing houses and the critics.

@Cholata123

4 ай бұрын

@@L_For_Literature Yes, I agree that vocabulary creates a unique style, I just also think that it is not the most essential for it (I think that for example the approach to what is directed in the prose and the type of sentences used already have much more effect on it). Although it is true that to some extent being a minimalist writer is less expensive and takes much less time than other writers of a more complex style, I don't think it is that easy anyway; after all it does not mean that they neglect other aspects. And I don't think that just because it's easier to write means it's necessarily of poorer quality. Your opinion is important; to begin with, the market and the critics are two different entities (the market can sell whatever it wants individually whether it likes the criticism or not). The market does not decide if something is subjective or not, it only moves by what sells the most, it can be good or bad. People who are going to make a living as writers look to make books with a medium vocabulary because 1. it makes it more universal for all ages, 2. people who don't have much time can read it without problems, 3. people don't get bored. 4. They can't afford to write a book every 10 years and need a simpler style to write books faster. And so on. I'm not against using vocabulary and in fact I really like it. But people aren't going to buy some guy's 400k page book with no reviews who uses outdated words and that it moves like a snail. Does that mean that book is poorly written? Not at all. Look at Moby-Dick, fantastic, and yet there are people who hate it, they don't like reading 4 chapters of descriptions of whales. A publisher, of course (most of the times), is not going to accept this from you. And not all writers on the market are minimalists. In fact, just look at postmodernists, and you'll notice that they use more vocabulary than classical writers. I do not agree with this phrase "The decrease in the number of readers, intellectual thought and the publishers that please them." Right now we are not only in the era when there are more readers, but more books, both new and classic, are read. Just because Stephen King is more popular than Pynchon doesn't mean Pynchon isn't read or recognized. Calling it "intellectual though" sounds very elitist, as if any other type of books are for dumb people or that writers who don't write that way are automatically bad writers. Or to give you another example, look at Shakespeare. Each phrase is so delicate and refers to something. Many hate him right now, even understanding him. It's not that they don't "appreciate" his style and dedication, it's just that they don't like him. Now, as you say, did the market make writing worse? Yes, it's true, but I don't think it's the fault of the minimalists, because many if they tried they couldn't write like Cormac Mccarthy or Kafka. The minimalists you can't tell apart is because of their style? You can differentiate them if you look closely at the different sentence structures, speed of the plot and themes, etc. But of course the vocabulary would help. Also, can I ask you if you don't mind which writters you like the most? Thanks for this conversation by the way, it's good to hear a different opinion.

@L_For_Literature

4 ай бұрын

@@Cholata123 It all goes hand in hand. I’m not saying it’s the most important. Being repetitive, by in of itself, is bad writing. Something many new authors get jumped on for. Read more and write more and study the language, and it helps improve the prose and length of sentences, which corresponds with voice. I think overall we agree here! This second column, you have stated what I’ve been stating all along. It’s cheaper to edit these types of books. Therefore they are repeated, over and over, so the publishing houses save more money. I understand, it’s a business, but it’s a shit one at that. It would be intellectually dishonest to try and state the publishing houses 1.) do not have an agenda and 2.) they don’t sway the market where they want to take it. While yes, I the consumer, have a subjective opinion, the publishing house (aka the say all be all of what is released) deems what is worthy and what is not. There’s a reason they BUY reviews, and copies, to boost sells. It is well known in the industry. As to your other points, I know why they do it, but that accessibility doesn’t mean good. The top schools of the USA aren’t the top because they’re accessible, they’re the top because it requires the most effort and merit. Writing a good book, with nice prose and a good voice, doesn’t take ten years to write. Erikson wrote a tome once a year for 10 years. Robert Jordan wrote tomes. It’s nothing new. It doesn’t require 400k words. Brandon Sanderson is a slog, but he still does it (he’s my exception for simple writing done well.) Steven Erikson, Martin, Tolkien, Leguinn, GGK, they all have a plethora of words, beautiful prose, and awesome voices, and their books aren’t slogs. But I also find it funny that you bring up classics like MOBY Dick… because this is once again my point. Before publishing house turned to conglomerate mega corporations, they cared about what they put out. They simply do not care anymore. The authors I listed above in my original comment were published, had their books reviewed with $$$, and pressed to the NYT Bestseller’s list because they are people that align with their agenda. Plain and simple. I will admit that what you quoted is on me. I was at work when I typed this out. What I truly meant was the lack of intelligence in readers now a days, due to the constant decrease in comprehension skills and IQ (as in their ability to comprehend anything of depth through the written word), the publishing houses are appeasing them by shoveling straight shit into our mouths. It says a lot about the western culture. Even modern ‘classics’ are pressed with agendas that if you don’t align with, you simply will not get published. You’re talking about a man who wrote in essentially a different language than us. Modern Early English is vastly different than today’s English, and is a poor example. Something more adequate would be Faulkner, or McCarthy, or Dumas, or Victor Hugo, or Edgar Allan Poe, or Neitzche. While, yes, Shakespeare was a genius of his time, it’s hard to correlate when the modality of writing was hardly the same language. I know I listed authors who have been translated, but that is entirely different. Just an edit to add: I love this conversation we’re having and I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I could absolutely do this all night lol I love talking reading and writing, so while we may not necessarily agree, I appreciate the civil discourse.

@Cholata123

4 ай бұрын

@@L_For_Literature I'm glad you enjoy the conversation too. I admit that it is true that the market influences that opinion of "what is worthy or not" in literature today. But I think there is something that the market cannot do: define what is good or not in the sense of well-written literature. By this I mean that Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Fdoyor, Kafka, Faulker, Marcel Proust, Homer, Dante, Virginia Wolf, James Joyce, and a lot of classics authors are considered always more better than the critics, even if they are not the most sold or famous. The reason for this is not just because they care more about prose than 99% of writers; but because their stories have symbolism, good structure, good characters, and yes, much more vocabulary and effort. (Then there are other writers like George Orwell and Albert Camus who, although they don't have good prose, I think have mastered the meanings in their story quite well, which is why Pynchon praised 1984.) I also agree that being accessible does not mean it is good; I was trying to say that many authors (say Jane Austin) were accessible with their writing, but I ended up saying a fallacy. But of course being accessible is what the market wants, in the first instance for it to sell. Still, you can make a book about anything and put it in an indie form, say Egypt, and many people will read it, even if it is a commercial success. Sorry for exaggerating with 400k words, I just wanted to refer to the publisher's rules that they have. DFW suffered from this with Infinite Joke, which was going to be longer. And Anthony Burgess from Mechanic Orange removed his final chapter in one of the versions at the urging of his editor. Moby Dick was a commercial failure and today, although praised for its prose, it is the nightmare of many preschoolers. By this I don't mean "there should be books with less vocabulary for other people" or that "other people like easier and lighter books" (which is true but not an excuse for bad writing), but rather that The publishers have limited the authors as you have said, and I agree that they lead to bad writing. The only thing I still believe is that good books with many vocabularies are still being created, whether by famous writers or no one reads them, even if the market ignores them: everyone has the freedom to write good prose. Now, do minimalists, like the market, make bad writers? I would say yes, you are right. But it also makes good writers. Remember that being a minimalist is not being entirely Hemingway. Just look at Kafka, who is a minimalist but he is a prose genius to me; maybe I'm using a bad example again since he used distinctive vocabulary, but also, just analyze his sentence structures (or look at Tolstoy or Joyce, who although not a minimalist, had killer clean sentences). I feel that there are many more aspects that make writers distinguishable. Vocabulary is undoubtedly one of them and I would say that it is one of the most important as you have said. For this reason I believe that minimalists can be distinguished from each other, if they don't it will be because they are not very specialized writers or they have based their style too heavily on someone else instead of creating their own. Are there more minimalists equal to people who use vocabulary? It's true. And I reaffirm this again: vocabulary makes better writers and it is preferable that they use it than try to be (if they do not want to be) minimalists. And that's why it's amazing how a minimalist without using that can be good. I admit that I don't like most minimalists, but those that do, it's because they master everything else very well. The truth is I'm not sure if the publishers are suppressing much of the symbolism (I suppose so, since it makes the book more difficult). Bestsellers are usually jokes because they are not good books at all, but rather those that became popular in a few weeks. The agenda is unfair and so is its review method (it is not based on seeing quality, but on the public). I think writing to fit the public's tastes is castrating your creativity. Sorry for using Shakespeare as an example (more than anything I wanted to emphasize that outdated language and symbolism is no longer as loved as simple things, which is a shame because Shakespeare is some of the best writing there is). If you look at Edgar Alan Poe, and also Borges, they use obscure words, but they end up being easy to read and they are writers who touch on "global" themes and that is why they end up being recognized worldwide. Is it wrong to use obscure words? Nah, although many now would appreciate it if you find a simple variation that you use it before looking pretentious, but it's not bad. Reading Don Quixote in Old Spanish (even native Spanish readers) would be a pain for many because of this. Nadokov had a very effective balance in this, placing importance on both the prose and the story (which is why he is compared to Joyce, who can be cruel to read, as if Nadokov took importance for the reader to enjoy him). DFW looked at vocabulary in a way that did not want to repeat words and also searched, like Flaubert, for "The right word" (many other authors too). Many times they ended up being pretentious, it's true, although being pretentious does not always mean bad writing (and it is difficult to define what is pretentious, because DFW believed that it was using a word like "use" and "use" and he is the same one who wrote Infinite Joke ). Pynchon uses a word you've never seen in your life. I believe, in my opinion, that this is better writing, but also a certain prose style, which is why I don't think minimalists are bad. Pynchon, Umberto Eco and DFW are quite different despite using a lot of vocabulary Can I ask you what your favorite writers are/do you like the most and would you define the best writers? Sorry I asked this before, I just edited the answer late to ask it. And what is your all time favorite? Do you write also?

Rather worship God and write to glorify Him.

@donvonfilms2937

4 ай бұрын

There's a saying that we become what we worship. That explains why God is so badass.@@mazolab

How is Nathan Hill a marginalized voice? He’s literally a straight white man that wrote a book about a middle class straight white couple. Wellness is an exception in the litfic space, not the rule.