Why I Write

This is a piece intended to explain a little something about myself and my writing style.  I ask reviewers to read this before rating any of my work.



To address the common question: “Why do you write?”



The answer is, I don't know exactly why.  When I was a child I wrote stories, as a pre-teen I wrote stories, as a teen I took a creative writing classes, and once in university I studied poetry, drama, and literature over several courses.  It was then I  learned different writing techniques and tried to emulate them.  In my last year of university I took a 'writing short stories' class which was run by a (somewhat) famous Canadian author. The point is, I've always written stories, and I've always loved to read. 



To address the questions regarding my purpose for writing.



I feel writing is a tool to be used in order to make a point, to change something in the world, or to express a view-point that the reader should (but doesn't) think about.  The writer who fails to do any of the previously mentioned or, worse yet, doesn't even attempt to, has failed from my perspective. As Marx said, “Many people write about the world, the point, however, is to change it.”



All of my writing has a purpose behind it, there is no 'fluff' in my portfolio. While the message may not be obvious, it is always there.  It is your job as the reader to use your intellect and uncover the meaning.



To address the questions regarding emotions (or lack thereof) in my writing. 



I have had more than one reviewer comment about the lack of emotion in my writing. Good. That's the way I want it to be. I include myself in the Brechtian school, with my goal being to bring his ideas regarding theater to literature. 



Emotion clouds the intellect. 



This is not a new or original idea, it's been around since Aristotle's 'On Poetics' and I would highly recommend reading that book, as well as Brecht's  “The Modern Theatre is the Epic Theater”, for an in depth philosophical discussion regarding the purpose of theater, poetry, and literature.

 

Brecht thought that the experience of a climactic catharsis of emotion left an audience complacent. Instead, he wanted his audiences to adopt a critical perspective in order to recognize social injustice and exploitation and to be moved to go forth from the theater and effect change in the world outside.  This does not have to be a 'world-wide' change; it may simply be a change of habits or a change to the way one perceives the world or people around them.  In a similar vein, it is impossible to eliminate all emotion from art, the goal is to minimize the influence it has on the reader while simultaneously maximizing their critical thinking.



An extreme example of my views on emotions comes from 'chick flick' films. The film 'The Notebook' serves as a prime example. It's a strong movie, great plot, interesting characters, well written, and lots of action. However, once it's over, I wonder 'What was the point?' It's nothing more than a cheap emotional high. There was nothing life changing about the movie, no important message to be taken, it didn't try to 'change the world' or present a new viewpoint. While it may be entertaining, it fails to achieve anything greater. If you're looking for a such a quick emotional high, do not bother reading anything in my portfolio. 



Many reviewers to date have made comments that pure entertainment (i.e., fluff) has its place as well - this I will disagree with as well.  There is a huge amount of poetry, plays, songs, novels, etc. that are effective because they accomplish one of the three goals I previously listed and are entertaining.  Think of '1984 or Brave New World' as prime examples of works which are entertaining as well as offer a new perspective, make a point, and are world-changing (even if it's on the personal level).



Lastly, for those reviewers who would make comments like “your work is not publishable for such-and-such a reason”, I will disagree on two points. 



First, the goal of writing should not be to get published. Being published should only be a by-product of your desire to write and effect change.  Many critics told Brecht that his revolutionary plays would never see an audience, yet almost all theater today is influenced by him in some way. As well as still being performed, his plays are required reading in almost all University English classes dealing with drama or poetry. Mother Courage & Her Children, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, and The Threepenny (or Threepence) Opera are his best known works though many more are read and discussed.



Second, I will disagree that writers should feel a need to water down or alter their work in order to fit into a mold set by publishing houses.  If your goal is to make money, then by all means pump out work that may be published, sell some copies, and then end up in the dust bin of history.  However, if you want to change the world and have a lasting impact you must carve your own mold.  If your work truly can stand on it's merits then it will and you will eventually find a publisher willing to take on your work.



Happy reading,

Matty Zink