What very little I know about writing I learned from Faulkner, by studying this sentence:
Shreve was coming up the walk, shambling, fatly earnest, his glasses glinting beneath the running leaves like little pools.
This is what many writing programs sell: technique. In my experience, a lot of kids in writing programs think that theory and technique will therefore lead to ability, much in the way that people who lift weights, paying meticulous attention to form sometimes think that exercise will lead to Strength. Strength is an extension of will, supported by the body and the mind, but strengthening either the body, the mind or both are useless without will and application. Anyway, exercises should lead to utility. Obviously, I am not a successful writer, but what he says about vanity rings true in my mind. If it weren't, then I have no idea why anyone would write, since writing is an act of projecting one's realities on to the world.Let the writer take up surgery or bricklaying if he is interested in technique. There is no mechanical way to get the writing done, no shortcut. The young writer would be a fool to follow a theory. Teach yourself by your own mistakes; people learn only by error. The good artist believes that nobody is good enough to give him advice. He has supreme vanity. No matter how much he admires the old writer, he wants to beat him.
It depends what he means by 'theory'. Without definition, it's a bit hard for me to make a qualitative judgment. I don't know anything about writing theory. I know a little about music theory, and I would say that it is an excellent idea for young composers to follow music theory, as no one will take a young Varese seriously if he hasn't proven himself already. Does theory in writing refer to some kind of formulaic style? Even that could have utility, if just for practice. I agree with his assessment that people only learn by doing. That is true of any craft (and I do think that writing is a craft, in much the same way Herzog talks about filmmaking as a craft). I also find it quite interesting that he tells us not to pay any attention to 'mechanical style', while I've taken the sentence at the top apart so many ways; it's a perfect sentence, and I hold it as my standard of how a sentence should be constructed. I wonder if his vanity would take pleasure in this, or if he would say that I'm wrong for studying his technique too seriously.
He could be talking about any number of things, as there are a lot of different kinds of writing theory and different theories for different genres, so that is one major difference between "writing theory" and "music theory", the latter of which applies to all genres. I don't think it could be said that any writing theories can be referred to as formulaic styles as "style" in writing is the most personal part, involving word selection, organization of sentences/lines, paragraphs/stanzas, chapters/parts, etc. but, if you mean style as in method of composition, then yes. Writing theories tend to focus on process and are generally used by instructors as tools for students to gain insight into how best to create their own processes. To me, Faulkner is saying that practice won't win the game, only playing the game will win the game. So yeah, it might help for practice, but at some point you've got to move beyond it and commit to something so that you can make mistakes and learn from them in order to write something good. I agree that writing is a craft, but the craft part generally comes after the first draft. In a way, it's a bit like whittling wood. First you get your source material and then your hands and knife figure out what it might be. Once that's achieved, then work is done to shape it into that, but along the way, details and refinements are discovered. I'm sure there are people that set out to write a short story the way that a carpenter builds a bookshelf, but that seems a lot harder.
This is what I mean by Herzog's definition of filmmaking as craft, a technical component and a creative component: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liYnvIBLMBQ
That was really great. I wonder if Steiner's anecdote about the raven is true? I had no idea this guy existed, but now I want to learn more about him. I think Herzog would agree with me though. Of course technical skill comes into the creation of a first draft; how can it not? But, what I meant by saying that most of the craft comes in revision is that that's when the bulk of the conscious choices are made in how the piece is refined. i really liked the atmosphere that the music gave to the film and the fact that a guy named Popol Vuh did it is icing on the cake.
So the only environment the artist needs is whatever peace, whatever solitude, and whatever pleasure he can get at not too high a cost. All the wrong environment will do is run his blood pressure up; he will spend more time being frustrated or outraged. My own experience has been that the tools I need for my trade are paper, tobacco, food, and a little whiskey. So there you have it writers: Tobacco, food and whiskey. Oh... and it doesn't hurt to manage a brothel. -I kid, but what he is saying here makes perfect sense. You don't need some cabin in the mountains to write, you just need to know that you have the essentials. I know that a lot of people share Faulkner's view that the morning is the best time to work, but I tend to disagree. I am much more prolific late in the evening. That's when that whiskey really starts to grease the wheels.Art is not concerned with environment either; it doesn’t care where it is. If you mean me, the best job that was ever offered to me was to become a landlord in a brothel. In my opinion it’s the perfect milieu for an artist to work in. It gives him perfect economic freedom; he’s free of fear and hunger; he has a roof over his head and nothing whatever to do except keep a few simple accounts and to go once every month and pay off the local police. The place is quiet during the morning hours, which is the best time of the day to work. There’s enough social life in the evening, if he wishes to participate, to keep him from being bored; it gives him a certain standing in his society; he has nothing to do because the madam keeps the books; all the inmates of the house are females and would defer to him and call him “sir.” All the bootleggers in the neighborhood would call him “sir.” And he could call the police by their first names.