Natalie's review

If You Want to Write: A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit
by Brenda Ueland

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/248954.If_You_Want_to_Write_A_Book_about_Art_Independence_and_Spirit?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="If You Want to Write: A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit" border="0" src="http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173124836m/248954.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/248954.If_You_Want_to_Write_A_Book_about_Art_Independence_and_Spirit?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">If You Want to Write: A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/145456.Brenda_Ueland">Brenda Ueland</a> 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/9830947?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
 rating: 2 of 5 stars I struggled to get through this. I know a lot of people really like this book but wasn't really feeling it. Don't get me wrong, I agree with her basically: one should write from a place of truth, and you can usually even tell by the writing whether someone did or not. It's just... she says the same thing over and over, and it's tedious. The chapter breaks seem arbitrary, as do the chapter headings. It's not condescending, but there's still the "okay already, I get it" feeling while reading it. The book really could have said the same thing more effectively in a single chapter. :-/ Then there are the things I don't agree with, most notably the way she presents her ideas of the creative process as more objective than they actually are. For example, she seems convinced that sudden epiphanies don't exist. I'll admit they're not exactly a dime a dozen, and for the most part the creative process isn't a "lightning bolt" -- if only it were that easy. Much of what I do is exactly as she describes, just letting my mind wander. At the same time, I've had two "lightning bolts" before. For her to deny that happens to people rubs me the wrong way; to put boundaries on the creative process is rather self-defeating, isn't it? And then there's the issue of the writing samples she uses. She says that if you're speaking from that place of truth that what you write will be inherently interesting. Eh... more interesting than usual, perhaps, but I just disagree that *anything* can be made interesting. I forget who said it, but someone referred to the majority of published novels as literary exercises in which "nothing much ever happens," and I cannot agree more. I can endure a truth-fueled passage about some mundane event in someone's childhood, but I don't *enjoy* it. Some of the writing she sampled was like, "this is how I cleaned my floor," or "we went outside and played in the snow" and I'm sorry, no matter what, I cannot bring myself to care. It's not interesting, it just isn't. I agree that deep down, everyone has something interesting to say. I just don't agree that having them engage in endless re-hashings of their childhood is guaranteed to result in something moving, no matter how truthful. I also feel like she has an unnecessary aversion to literary criticism. Sure, it's easy for someone to be a pretentious jerk and tear something apart, and that can shut someone down creatively. But at the same time, there's a reason there are rules of thumb for good writing, and most writing could profit from constructive criticism. I don't think paying attention to advice like that rapes anyone's creative spirit, and if it does, I think perhaps the problem lies more with their being oversensitive. Us writers as a bunch tend to be more emotionally on-edge than other people, perhaps, but since when is it healthy to use one's shortcomings as justification for behaving irrationally? It's something that people should strive to overcome, not justify. It's a subjective field and we ought to handle that maturely. It doesn't mean the people who don't like someone's work are horrible people, they just don't like it, end of story. And sometimes those critical people are right. It's on the writer to learn to differentiate those people and use their criticism to improve their work, not to curl up into a ball whenever someone says something unflattering. I felt like Ueland was encouraging people to not only dismiss criticism, but that she was saying anyone who criticizes is insecure or something -- which I suppose *some* people are -- instead of thoughtful. She also says needlessly unfavorable things about people that have not chosen a creative profession (even scientists, for Christ's sake). It seems hypocritical, basically, the way she yammers on about how terrible judgmental people are, when right there on the page she is proof of just how judgmental people can be. I much prefer other books on the creative process. :-/ 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/645835?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

Natalie's review
rating:

bookshelves: nonfiction, writing, writing--creative-process

I struggled to get through this. I know a lot of people really like this book but wasn't really feeling it. Don't get me wrong, I agree with her basically: one should write from a place of truth, and you can usually even tell by the writing whether someone did or not.

It's just... she says the same thing over and over, and it's tedious. The chapter breaks seem arbitrary, as do the chapter headings. It's not condescending, but there's still the "okay already, I get it" feeling while reading it. The book really could have said the same thing more effectively in a single chapter. :-/

Then there are the things I don't agree with, most notably the way she presents her ideas of the creative process as more objective than they actually are. For example, she seems convinced that sudden epiphanies don't exist. I'll admit they're not exactly a dime a dozen, and for the most part the creative process isn't a "lightning bolt" -- if only it were that easy. Much of wh...more I struggled to get through this. I know a lot of people really like this book but wasn't really feeling it. Don't get me wrong, I agree with her basically: one should write from a place of truth, and you can usually even tell by the writing whether someone did or not.

It's just... she says the same thing over and over, and it's tedious. The chapter breaks seem arbitrary, as do the chapter headings. It's not condescending, but there's still the "okay already, I get it" feeling while reading it. The book really could have said the same thing more effectively in a single chapter. :-/

Then there are the things I don't agree with, most notably the way she presents her ideas of the creative process as more objective than they actually are. For example, she seems convinced that sudden epiphanies don't exist. I'll admit they're not exactly a dime a dozen, and for the most part the creative process isn't a "lightning bolt" -- if only it were that easy. Much of what I do is exactly as she describes, just letting my mind wander. At the same time, I've had two "lightning bolts" before. For her to deny that happens to people rubs me the wrong way; to put boundaries on the creative process is rather self-defeating, isn't it?

And then there's the issue of the writing samples she uses. She says that if you're speaking from that place of truth that what you write will be inherently interesting. Eh... more interesting than usual, perhaps, but I just disagree that *anything* can be made interesting. I forget who said it, but someone referred to the majority of published novels as literary exercises in which "nothing much ever happens," and I cannot agree more. I can endure a truth-fueled passage about some mundane event in someone's childhood, but I don't *enjoy* it. Some of the writing she sampled was like, "this is how I cleaned my floor," or "we went outside and played in the snow" and I'm sorry, no matter what, I cannot bring myself to care. It's not interesting, it just isn't. I agree that deep down, everyone has something interesting to say. I just don't agree that having them engage in endless re-hashings of their childhood is guaranteed to result in something moving, no matter how truthful.

I also feel like she has an unnecessary aversion to literary criticism. Sure, it's easy for someone to be a pretentious jerk and tear something apart, and that can shut someone down creatively. But at the same time, there's a reason there are rules of thumb for good writing, and most writing could profit from constructive criticism. I don't think paying attention to advice like that rapes anyone's creative spirit, and if it does, I think perhaps the problem lies more with their being oversensitive. Us writers as a bunch tend to be more emotionally on-edge than other people, perhaps, but since when is it healthy to use one's shortcomings as justification for behaving irrationally? It's something that people should strive to overcome, not justify. It's a subjective field and we ought to handle that maturely. It doesn't mean the people who don't like someone's work are horrible people, they just don't like it, end of story. And sometimes those critical people are right. It's on the writer to learn to differentiate those people and use their criticism to improve their work, not to curl up into a ball whenever someone says something unflattering. I felt like Ueland was encouraging people to not only dismiss criticism, but that she was saying anyone who criticizes is insecure or something -- which I suppose *some* people are -- instead of thoughtful.

She also says needlessly unfavorable things about people that have not chosen a creative profession (even scientists, for Christ's sake). It seems hypocritical, basically, the way she yammers on about how terrible judgmental people are, when right there on the page she is proof of just how judgmental people can be.

I much prefer other books on the creative process. :-/
...less

Like this review? yes flag

comments (showing 0-0 of 0)

newest »

date

all Natalie's books »