Boy, I’ve been thinking about this one all day Graham … and maybe because it’s because I’m so reluctant to “access my feelings,” to “tap into my deeper emotions” (I’m not quoting you, really, so much as my caricature of what you’ve written). In truth, even using those phrases makes me a bit uncomfortable. If I were being completely unguarded … which I guess I am … I’d say, what is the point in wallowing around in one’s emotions? What makes that so special? And why isn’t holding one’s emotions in check itself a way of accessing feelings, even if it is a kind of distrust of feelings? I think there are people who “access their feelings” fairly well in writing. Meg Oolders, who you mentioned, is one of them. But is that way of writing any better than that of someone who holds their feelings at arm’s length? I’m asking a bunch of argumentative questions, but it’s mostly because when I try to “plumb the depths” of my feelings, I end up writing the way I already do! I’m not sure there is some deeper or more emotive well that I’m reluctant to access.
As always, my greatest respect and esteem for the way you make me think.
I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs. But I've heard it many times that if you don't have emotional impact -- if you don't make people care about your characters and then crank up the stakes -- you're not going to have a story. The first novel I finished suffered from that affliction (among others). And when you think about it, it makes sense. Think of a bad book you've read or a bad movie. One of the things that makes it "bad" is that you don't care about the characters or what happens to them. (In the worst movies, you're rooting for them to just die, already... lol)
So I get it in that way, at least on an academic level.
I'm also starting to recognize that the emotional side of things is what drives plot. If the main characters in "When Harry Met Sally" didn't want anything, the movie would be flat. Every scene is driven by some sort of emotion -- various wants conflicting with various misconceptions.
This seems to work even in something like Monty Python. Arthur is so committed to his quest for the Holy Grail, that you end up cheering for him. Yes, the movie is about the jokes. But they all hang on that emotional plot. If Arthur was a baboon like the rest of them, the story would fall apart, I think.
Lastly, another adage I've come across is that if the writer doesn't feel it, the reader won't feel it. That's the scariest one for me. It means I can't write my way out of it...! lol
So, here I am, instead of deflecting with humour, trying to open up to myself so I can somehow convey that without coming off (to myself) as an uncomfortable, wallowing, emasculated, blubbering nutbar.
I think I'm making progress, but I'm not sure how much, quite yet. I'll keep you posted.
I think there are many cases where what you say is true … but then I reflect on some of the writing I love (Hemingway, Raymond Carver) and I don’t recall them delving into the emotional side of things. They reference it or set the scene in ways that you know the emotional side is there but they don’t deal with it explicitly and openly. And I also know that I often read too much emotion as maudlin and self-serving, which I find off-putting. I’m going to have to pay more attention to how I’m reading this (and writing it).
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I don't (or didn't) see it either. But then I started to look for it, thinking of emotion in writing like a colour blindness -- I couldn't see the nuances of what was happening, and didn't really care, either.
I haven't read Carver, but I've read a fair bit of Hemingway. I think for him, it's more about triggering that emotion in the reader rather than, say, describing a sad scene with everyone crying. So, for example, Hemingway's last line in "A Farewell to Arms" isn't blatantly emotional, but the emotion is certainly implied. His short story, "A Cat in the Rain" also deals with emotions, but you need to tease them out from what's being inferred from the action. "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" shows a lot of emotion, I think -- an old hunter dying on the African savannah, reflecting on his life. But even here, it's probably subtle.
I did come up with one novel that had no emotion: Less Than Zero by Brett Easton Ellis. Apparently, it had emotion to start with, but his editor or writing mentor or someone suggested stripping it all away. The raw and shocking things that happen in that book have even bigger impact because nothing seems to affect any of the characters. But again, I see it as a motif to trigger emotion in the reader. Personally, I know I felt even more outraged by some of the events simply because nobody stopped them from happening, or even cared or wanted to.
But even this "felt outraged" is relatively minor -- I'm sure there are readers out there who felt it even stronger than I did. I know people who cry at long-distance telephone commercials. (When they, you know, existed -- just realized that they don't really exist anymore, do they?) Again, I'm with you in this case -- I find it off-putting. (The commercial. Not my friends crying. To be clear... lol)
The upshot is that I've started to pay more attention to that as I'm reading, looking for it in books like my favourite, "The Great Gatsby". Which is probably in part why I turned to Fitzgerald to start this post. Currently, I'm reading "Lincoln in the Bardo" by George Saunders -- I have to dig for the emotion in that book too, but it's there. I guess I try to imagine how I'd be feeling saying this line of dialogue or that line. It's not intuitive for me, but when I work at it, I can feel a flutter of the emotion there. It certainly opens my eyes a bit...!
Yes, Victorianism is still very much a thing in certain parts of the world. I tried not to impart in on my kids, but it gets so engrained, I don't believe there's anything you can do to avoid it. Perhaps, hopefully, lessen the impact... lol
In any case, yes, putting emotion in my writing is definitely a thing I wrestle with, simply because I'm not always in touch with those emotions. But I'm working on it. I thought I was in the slim minority, but maybe this ragged heart thing is bigger than I thought!
Glad the post inspired -- and thanks for giving us your viewpoint!
I've always found it best to write about emotions once they have been properly processed and enough time has passed for me to zoom out and make sense of them.
After reading this, I'm inspired to put down words "still bleeding" from an experience. It will be a different way of processing such emotions. Thanks for the inspiration Graham!
Yes - I've heard of writers using the "still bleeding" approach for doing the processing work itself. Something I still aspire to -- I get in my own damn way too much! lol
I love it Graham! I was one of these emotionally constipated people. I could not even understand what the word feeling meant. I could analyse everything very nicely but I was not doing emotions. Here are some of the tools that really helped me: tapping meditation, journaling (hello old friend!), microdosing psilocybin, guided meditation, energy work, havening, psilocybin journeys, visualization. Feeling safe enough is step one to reconnect with your emotions. Overthinking is a protection mechanism.
"Emotionally constipated" -- I both love and hate that term! lol
Thanks for those tips! I didn't even think outside of reading/writing itself, but of course putting yourself in the right mood can be accomplished in many ways.
And yes, I have been accused of overthinking on occasion. (Not least of all, by me.)
Boy, I’ve been thinking about this one all day Graham … and maybe because it’s because I’m so reluctant to “access my feelings,” to “tap into my deeper emotions” (I’m not quoting you, really, so much as my caricature of what you’ve written). In truth, even using those phrases makes me a bit uncomfortable. If I were being completely unguarded … which I guess I am … I’d say, what is the point in wallowing around in one’s emotions? What makes that so special? And why isn’t holding one’s emotions in check itself a way of accessing feelings, even if it is a kind of distrust of feelings? I think there are people who “access their feelings” fairly well in writing. Meg Oolders, who you mentioned, is one of them. But is that way of writing any better than that of someone who holds their feelings at arm’s length? I’m asking a bunch of argumentative questions, but it’s mostly because when I try to “plumb the depths” of my feelings, I end up writing the way I already do! I’m not sure there is some deeper or more emotive well that I’m reluctant to access.
As always, my greatest respect and esteem for the way you make me think.
Thinking is always a good thing!
I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs. But I've heard it many times that if you don't have emotional impact -- if you don't make people care about your characters and then crank up the stakes -- you're not going to have a story. The first novel I finished suffered from that affliction (among others). And when you think about it, it makes sense. Think of a bad book you've read or a bad movie. One of the things that makes it "bad" is that you don't care about the characters or what happens to them. (In the worst movies, you're rooting for them to just die, already... lol)
So I get it in that way, at least on an academic level.
I'm also starting to recognize that the emotional side of things is what drives plot. If the main characters in "When Harry Met Sally" didn't want anything, the movie would be flat. Every scene is driven by some sort of emotion -- various wants conflicting with various misconceptions.
This seems to work even in something like Monty Python. Arthur is so committed to his quest for the Holy Grail, that you end up cheering for him. Yes, the movie is about the jokes. But they all hang on that emotional plot. If Arthur was a baboon like the rest of them, the story would fall apart, I think.
Lastly, another adage I've come across is that if the writer doesn't feel it, the reader won't feel it. That's the scariest one for me. It means I can't write my way out of it...! lol
So, here I am, instead of deflecting with humour, trying to open up to myself so I can somehow convey that without coming off (to myself) as an uncomfortable, wallowing, emasculated, blubbering nutbar.
I think I'm making progress, but I'm not sure how much, quite yet. I'll keep you posted.
I think there are many cases where what you say is true … but then I reflect on some of the writing I love (Hemingway, Raymond Carver) and I don’t recall them delving into the emotional side of things. They reference it or set the scene in ways that you know the emotional side is there but they don’t deal with it explicitly and openly. And I also know that I often read too much emotion as maudlin and self-serving, which I find off-putting. I’m going to have to pay more attention to how I’m reading this (and writing it).
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I don't (or didn't) see it either. But then I started to look for it, thinking of emotion in writing like a colour blindness -- I couldn't see the nuances of what was happening, and didn't really care, either.
I haven't read Carver, but I've read a fair bit of Hemingway. I think for him, it's more about triggering that emotion in the reader rather than, say, describing a sad scene with everyone crying. So, for example, Hemingway's last line in "A Farewell to Arms" isn't blatantly emotional, but the emotion is certainly implied. His short story, "A Cat in the Rain" also deals with emotions, but you need to tease them out from what's being inferred from the action. "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" shows a lot of emotion, I think -- an old hunter dying on the African savannah, reflecting on his life. But even here, it's probably subtle.
I did come up with one novel that had no emotion: Less Than Zero by Brett Easton Ellis. Apparently, it had emotion to start with, but his editor or writing mentor or someone suggested stripping it all away. The raw and shocking things that happen in that book have even bigger impact because nothing seems to affect any of the characters. But again, I see it as a motif to trigger emotion in the reader. Personally, I know I felt even more outraged by some of the events simply because nobody stopped them from happening, or even cared or wanted to.
But even this "felt outraged" is relatively minor -- I'm sure there are readers out there who felt it even stronger than I did. I know people who cry at long-distance telephone commercials. (When they, you know, existed -- just realized that they don't really exist anymore, do they?) Again, I'm with you in this case -- I find it off-putting. (The commercial. Not my friends crying. To be clear... lol)
The upshot is that I've started to pay more attention to that as I'm reading, looking for it in books like my favourite, "The Great Gatsby". Which is probably in part why I turned to Fitzgerald to start this post. Currently, I'm reading "Lincoln in the Bardo" by George Saunders -- I have to dig for the emotion in that book too, but it's there. I guess I try to imagine how I'd be feeling saying this line of dialogue or that line. It's not intuitive for me, but when I work at it, I can feel a flutter of the emotion there. It certainly opens my eyes a bit...!
You had me with tea, Newcastle, and shepherd's pie...my upbringing also. Kept reading and, as always, your post has given me much to digest.
I find it difficult to put emotion into my writing. Fear of offending? Not wanting to be that vulnerable?
Still working on it as I edit my book, Just Call Me Irene, to add detail and emotion...a little distance (timewise) has helped.
Your posts always inspire me in some way. Thanks!!
Yes, Victorianism is still very much a thing in certain parts of the world. I tried not to impart in on my kids, but it gets so engrained, I don't believe there's anything you can do to avoid it. Perhaps, hopefully, lessen the impact... lol
In any case, yes, putting emotion in my writing is definitely a thing I wrestle with, simply because I'm not always in touch with those emotions. But I'm working on it. I thought I was in the slim minority, but maybe this ragged heart thing is bigger than I thought!
Glad the post inspired -- and thanks for giving us your viewpoint!
PS to the post -- Jeannine Ouellette, quoted above, gave a huge and generous shoutout to this post on her own blog this morning. I'm sending much appreciation back to her! https://writinginthedark.substack.com/p/writer-ethics-karma-and-literary
I've always found it best to write about emotions once they have been properly processed and enough time has passed for me to zoom out and make sense of them.
After reading this, I'm inspired to put down words "still bleeding" from an experience. It will be a different way of processing such emotions. Thanks for the inspiration Graham!
Yes - I've heard of writers using the "still bleeding" approach for doing the processing work itself. Something I still aspire to -- I get in my own damn way too much! lol
Glad you found this post helpful!
I love it Graham! I was one of these emotionally constipated people. I could not even understand what the word feeling meant. I could analyse everything very nicely but I was not doing emotions. Here are some of the tools that really helped me: tapping meditation, journaling (hello old friend!), microdosing psilocybin, guided meditation, energy work, havening, psilocybin journeys, visualization. Feeling safe enough is step one to reconnect with your emotions. Overthinking is a protection mechanism.
"Emotionally constipated" -- I both love and hate that term! lol
Thanks for those tips! I didn't even think outside of reading/writing itself, but of course putting yourself in the right mood can be accomplished in many ways.
And yes, I have been accused of overthinking on occasion. (Not least of all, by me.)
Glad you love the post!