Skip to main content

Telling Stories

Why do I write? Why do I take the time to write things down that a handful of people will read...and in the case of my writing outside of this blog, at best one or two other people will read? Some days when the writing is hard, when the words just won't come and even a sentence is a struggle to piece together, it seems better just to give up and go read. But I always come back. So why do I do it?

A few years ago I read a book about our need to tell stories, The Storytelling Animal by Jonathan Gottschall. It was a fascinating read, other than a completely unwarranted and baseless attack on the Sherlock Holmes stories. To tell stories, in Gottshall's rendering, is to be human. It's what we do. Everything in our lives is based around telling stories. A little thought on our history is enough to support his thesis; from cave paintings and oral storytelling to Shakespeare, Wilde, and YouTube web series and social gatherings, our lives revolve around telling and hearing stories. It is a creative impulse that we seem bound to give voice to. 

It's interesting that in doing some browsing before writing this blog, I came across a survey asking writers why they write. A plethora of answers was the result, with no single reason winning a majority. 16% of the respondents, however, answered that they write because they have to! Not for fame, glory, or professional awards. They write because there is no choice in the matter, and this is a response I agree with. If someone assured me today with absolute certainty that nothing I've written, not a one of the short stories or longer works, would ever see print (disregarding, for a moment, self-publishing), I would still keep writing. I have to. I'm reminded of the character of Mike Noonan in Stephen King's Bag of Bones. Noonan, a writer, described how at the beginning of his career his head was filled with stories that ceaselessly hounded him, stories wanting to be told. He wrote book after book, until he had told all the stories that were within him. Sometimes I feel much the same way. The stories are there, and I have no choice but to tell them. Some I'm ready to tell now. For others, I know it isn't yet time. They will have to wait a little while. Publication is irrelevant; the stories must be told. Even if the stories end up being only for me, the effort spent in writing and editing was worth it. They still matter. 

There is some joy in the act of creation, in making something that is new to the world, whether it is writing or painting or sculpting or acting or whatever other creative act one engages in. There is struggle, yes, but those days where the act of making something new is hard make the good days all the better, the days where the words just flow and everything works. Even on the bad days, I never seriously think about quitting. For me there is no option but to write. A life without writing seems unthinkable.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...