Research vs. Action
As I have mentioned earlier, I have decided to begin another book. Throughout my days (and sometimes at night), I come across pieces of characters or plot points that somehow will fit into the grand scheme -- though, at present, I have absolutely no idea how.
Some writers begin the process by just sitting in front of a computer or piece of paper and getting the thoughts out; others take time to research and structure each piece, and don't put finger to key until it's all laid out.
I find myself in a battle between the two. There's a part of me that just wants to jump in and start telling the story from the beginning, without having an idea of where it's going or how it's going to get there; in fact, not even an idea of where the beginning is. Then there's the other side of me that wants to get all the chacters and facts straight and have a structured plan of action to lead me through the process. The latter certainly appears to be the safer route, though perhaps not the most enjoyable or productive.
I find myself in this predicament in other areas of life. I'm not sure if our society has contributed to a need for validation-before-action, but I certainly see its evidence all around. On the Internet we have "users opinions", Ebert and Roeper have practically bought a small nation sharing their feelings about movies, and advertising leads us toward a sense of common choice and security, all the while selling a few items along the way.
I'm not so sure that this approach is good for us or our country. With the threats of foreign competition and terrorism, we have spent so much time on research and positioning in an effort to give ourselves a sense of structure and security. In fact, we have lost a sense of who we are. We lack an overall vision that comes not from testing, but from instinct.
But can we trust that instinct? What if it leads us down a path of failure? What if it draws attention to the fact that we didn't really know where we were going or how we were going to get there? Well, I guess that would make us unique -- and human.
Some writers begin the process by just sitting in front of a computer or piece of paper and getting the thoughts out; others take time to research and structure each piece, and don't put finger to key until it's all laid out.
I find myself in a battle between the two. There's a part of me that just wants to jump in and start telling the story from the beginning, without having an idea of where it's going or how it's going to get there; in fact, not even an idea of where the beginning is. Then there's the other side of me that wants to get all the chacters and facts straight and have a structured plan of action to lead me through the process. The latter certainly appears to be the safer route, though perhaps not the most enjoyable or productive.
I find myself in this predicament in other areas of life. I'm not sure if our society has contributed to a need for validation-before-action, but I certainly see its evidence all around. On the Internet we have "users opinions", Ebert and Roeper have practically bought a small nation sharing their feelings about movies, and advertising leads us toward a sense of common choice and security, all the while selling a few items along the way.
I'm not so sure that this approach is good for us or our country. With the threats of foreign competition and terrorism, we have spent so much time on research and positioning in an effort to give ourselves a sense of structure and security. In fact, we have lost a sense of who we are. We lack an overall vision that comes not from testing, but from instinct.
But can we trust that instinct? What if it leads us down a path of failure? What if it draws attention to the fact that we didn't really know where we were going or how we were going to get there? Well, I guess that would make us unique -- and human.
posted by Lou at 9:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home