Posts Tagged ‘resouces for young writers’

Are young poets losing their sense of literary identity?

Monday, September 20th, 2010

For the month of August this year, while the rest of you were living it up at the Edinburgh Fringe, I was fortunate enough to be teaching at the University of Edinburgh’s International Summer School — my class was Creative Writing, and most of my students were poets. The majority were also English Literature undergrads, and hailed from a variety of countries.

One of the seminars I devised for the class was entitled “The Importance of Reading vs the Anxiety of Influence: Entering the Literary Canon and ‘Making New’”. In this seminar, I spoke about ideas of literary tradition, literary identity and essentially “knowing where you come from” as a writer. Dr Alan Gillis gave a lecture on the Modern Irish literary tradition on the same morning as my seminar, and I asked the students to talk about their own literary identities — how they felt they fit into their national literature as well as the wider literary canon, what tradition they felt they might be working in, or a tradition they might aspire to fitting into. I found their responses pretty surprising.

The students did not believe in literary tradition. Unanimously, they said they felt that tradition — and the idea of fitting into the canon in any specific place — no longer existed for contemporary writers. “It’s just not something I ever think about,” said one American literature undergrad. Indeed, the group seemed to think that if anything, identifying with a particular literary tradition or attempting to emulate literary predecessors was a bad idea. “Isn’t it just copying?” was a question that arose again and again. We talked about the Whitmanic tradition, and the influence of other literary heavyweights on contemporary writing. “It’s just riding on the coat tails of someone very respected,” was one response. The students also dismissed the idea of being part of a national literature. Only one student, who hailed from India, said she felt ties to her country’s literary identity, but said she also felt that embracing her role as “an Indian writer” — and more importantly, as “an Indian woman writing in English” — might actually be potentially damaging, or at least limiting, for her. “I prefer to just be a writer,” she said, and the others agreed. “If you’re a good writer,” said one of the American students, “why does it matter where you’re from?” The general feeling was that where you’re from, who you’ve read and who you admire is — or should be — irrelevant.

This provided real food for thought for me. I’d expected that such a diverse range of young people — hailing from universities all over the world — would have radically different opinions about literary identity and tradition. The fact that they stood united and totally dismissed the ideas about tradition and canon in TS Eliot’s Tradition and the Individual Talent really surprised me. I was also surprised by the fact that, when I asked the question “so, do you feel like you have a literary identity at all?”, the answer was a resounding “no”.

This made me think about my own literary identity, which is apparently a bit of a sore topic. Who I am as a writer — and indeed, who I am as a human being — is something that other people seem determined to have a say in. A while ago, after the now-legendary “where are all the young Scottish poets?” panel debate at StAnza 2009, a comment thread popped up online somewhere, and among a list of young Scottish poets, my name was dropped. I was unaware of this thread at the time, but when I was tipped off about it (I’ve just spent a good while Googling to try and find it again, but to no avail), I found that people were lining up to talk about my national — and therefore, literary — identity. To set the record straight, I had to point out that I was born in England (North Yorkshire, to be more specific), but moved to Scotland at the age of 8. I’ve received about 90% of my education north of the border, and I never wrote a word of poetry while I lived on English soil. Surely, therefore, I am a Scottish poet. Am I a Scot? This is a bit tricker. I have two Scottish grandparents (one on each side, as it happens), but both my parents were born and raised in Cumbria and speak with strong Cumbrian accents. I was born in North Yorkshire and between the ages of 2 and 7 my family lived in the Midlands. Apparently, these were my formative years, because in spite of my sixteen years on Scottish soil, I’ve never shaken my accent — which is a weird southern mongrel with northern vowels, but unmistakably English.
It’s tricky. Apparently, I’m Scottish enough to play rugby for Scotland — if, you know, I was a bloke, and any good at rugby, and even vaguely interested. But because of The Accent Thing I get asked to read at events called things like “Sassenachs in Scotland!”, which I’m not 100% comfortable with. During the festival I was very flattered to be asked to read at Utter!’s “Utter! The Brave” event, which was ‘Scots Only’. I accepted (and a damn fine event it was too), but as it turned out, I didn’t feel very comfortable with that, either.
So my feeling of literary identity is a confused one, but the urge to belong as a writer and to fathom out whose traditions I belong to and where I am accepted is a really strong one. To be faced with a diverse group of young writers (none of them that much younger than me) and told that literary identity “doesn’t exist”, or at least, “isn’t relevant” to writers of our generation was rather shocking. Am I weird? Are they weird? I can see that ideas about literary and national identity change over time, obviously they do — but do they really cease to matter? Have they ceased to matter? Am I the only person under 30 still worrying about this stuff?

Of course, the issue might be my Scottishness (or, my status as a Scottish resident, depending on your outlook). Dr Gillis’ lecture was all about Irish literary traditions and the Irish literary identity, so the Scots aren’t alone — but is it an inherently Scottish thing to constantly think about and debate one’s national and literary background? Is it just us? In the seminar group, there were students from all over the world — Americans, Canadians, Scandinavians, Europeans, etc — but I was the only Scot(tish resident). According to the students, the Americans, Scandinavians, Europeans and — dare I say it — maybe even the English, are just getting on with it. Even my Canadian students reckoned that questions about national and literary identity in their country had mainly been answered (”we just need to get over the fact that America’s right there, really”, said one). It’s just us Scots who are devoting hundreds of hours, blogs and column inches to the issue of what tradition, what nationality, and (apparently) where our new generation of writers are. Is this true? Are the Scots just “very into navel-gazing”, as one student put it? Or is this as much of an issue elsewhere? I don’t feel qualified to comment, but would love to hear others’ thoughts.

Something else that must surely have contributed to this general feeling of rootlessness and the apparent break from literary tradition is the rise of University education. These days, if you’re under 30 and want to be a writer, you’re probably at University, and probably studying something in the Humanities bracket. All of the students in my group were majoring or had majored in Literature. Most of them had moved on or were planning to move on to MA courses. Several of them stated that their MA course was or would eventually be Creative Writing.
I’m not going to debate the usefulness or value of Creative Writing at University level, don’t worry. What I’m left wondering about is the influence of all this literary study on the mentalities of young writers. With so many young writers picking up Literature degrees, is it possible that this study has contributed to their lack of interest in their personal and national literary traditions? As students of Literature, these young writers have access to libraries full of works by authors from across the world and down the ages; they are bombarded with option-courses on everything from Classics In Translation to the contemporary slam movement of Def Poetry Jam fame. Gone are the days where if you grew up in or attended University in New England you’d be expected to name Frost, Lowell or Dickinson as your primary poetic influence — or so my students seemed to think. One of them was, in fact, from New England, and his view was: I have a world canon full of amazing writers at my fingertips. Why should I read Frost just because he was from the same state as me? I can choose to read anything I like.

Obviously, the option to read anything you like — or at least, anything you can gain access to — has always been there for writers. But is access a key factor? More young writers are attending University and therefore getting the opportunity to visit incredible, sprawling libraries full of weird and wonderful works. Most University campuses grant access to inter-library loans across the world, as well as offering online services like LiOn and JSTOR for free. The internet has also, naturally, revolutionised the way we all read — but the current crop of writers under 30 are the first writers of “the web generation.” Does this all add up to explain this apparent disinterest in tradition and sense of place?

The short answer is, I don’t know. I’m still really surprised by the unanimous and unswerving response my students gave me. This post is mainly just the overspill of the seminar and its lengthy discussions. But I’d love to hear what other people think about these ideas… so no matter what your age, leave a comment!

(Photo by paper.lilies)

Don’t forget to visit The Read This Store, and its sister store, Edinburgh Vintage!

Subscribe to ONS! Add to Technorati Favorites

A closer look at pen names.

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

My article about finding a good pen name seems to have taken on a life of its own recently. First, it was mentioned by Ron Silliman in one of his legendary links posts. Then, Gala Darling snuck it onto a Carousel. Now, a few of you are clamouring to know more about pen names and their uses! Here are some of your questions from the comments thread… answered!

If you publish under your pen name, do people know you as only your pen name? What if you don’t want to be recognised by your real name?
This is rather tricky, I grant you. Pen names are, in theory, a great way of retaining some anonymity - of separating your writing life from your personal life. However, if you want to create a situation in which no one but your nearest and dearest know that you have a secret double identity, then there are a few things you need to make sure of…
1. That you pick a good, durable, believable pen name. No one’s going to buy the idea that there’s really someone out there who has Fifi-Marie Oppenheimer De La Lune on their birth certificate (although you never know…) - if your pen name sounds implausible, people are bound to start wondering a) what your real name is and b) why you wanted to ditch it.
2. That you set up a “life” for your pen name persona. If you decide that you don’t want even agents or editors to know your real identity, then a bank account under your pseudonym is probably essential if you’re planning on getting paid for your writing. You should also think about finding a way to prove that you ‘are’ your pen name in case you ever need to - some form of ID, if you can get it, could be useful.
3. That you only tell people you trust. So you’ve written a prizewinning poem and everyone’s buzzing about it… but no one knows it was you. Suddenly, it might seem tempting to take a co-worker on one side and say “psst, that’s my poem, dontcha know!”, but if you do this, you have to bear in mind that they may well decide to “out” you for whatever reason. If you definitely want to keep your pen name a secret, then stick to it!
4. That you definitely want to keep your identity secret. If you become super-famous, will you want to tell the world the truth? If so, it might be better to just do it now, rather than face awkward questions later.
At the end of the day, if you’re putting your work “out there” for people to see, you’re giving a little piece of yourself out to the general public, and they’re bound to be curious about the person behind the poetry. This curiosity about writers’ personal lives can be annoying, and it can certainly go too far, but it happens. Just do what you can!

Now I think like I should get a much more serious and mature pseudonym.
So you decided when you started publishing that you needed a pen name, and you blessed yourself with one which, at the time, seemed really cool. However, a few years down the line, you’ve realised that you now want to update your pseudonym. How do you do this without confusing people or seeming daft?
Well, again, this is tricky, but it can certainly be done. Some of the most famous writers in history have chopped and changed their pseudonyms - check out this anecdote from Margaret Atwood:

I grew up with a nickname, which had no legal validity, while my real name - if it can be called that - sat on my birth certificate, ticking away like a time-bomb. [...] My early work was published under my nickname; then there was a transitional period, during which I resorted to initials. Then, finally - after being told by someone much older than me that no one would take me seriously as a writer if I stuck to my nickname, and that initials had been used up forever by TS Eliot - I caved in to fate, and embraced my doubleness. The author is the name on the books. I’m the other one.
(Negotiating With The Dead.)

Basically, you may feel daft now, changing your pseudonym when all your friends have only just quit taking the mick out of you for having a pseudonym in the first place, but it’ll pay off. If you’ve created an identity for yourself that you’re not comfortable with, you can’t survive happily with it for long. OK, so people might go “what?!” at first, but just do it; just go for it. Reinvent yourself entirely, Madonna-style. Show people you’re serious this time, and they’ll get used to it. Just try and pick something a bit more lasting this time!

Is it wise to use a pen name if you are writing for several different markets? Or does it matter if your markets are totally different?
I think this depends on just how many markets you’re writing for! Obviously you don’t want to have seven totally different names and identities! However, even the most successful multi-tasking writers specialise in one particular area, so you probably will too. You may not know right now which this will be, but chances are that one of your pen names will become your “main” identity. Plenty of people write novels under a main pseudonym, but blog under another, and write journalistic copy for magazines and newspapers under their real name, for example. Or what about Iain Banks? He writes literary novels under Iain Banks, but sci-fi novels under Iain M Banks.
Basically, as long as you’re able to juggle your pseudonyms effectively, there’s nothing wrong with having more than one. The most important thing is, again, to choose good names that you won’t hate later!

Any more pen name questions? Random comments? Get in touch!

Also to read:
How To Find Yourself A Good Pen Name
Useful advice from writers and editors
If you don’t read, you will never be successful.
Do I need a creative writing qualification?
Get published here!

(Photo by Metatron1050)

 Subscribe to ONS! Add to Technorati Favorites