I’m saving this because I think I’ll be using Larkin’s ideas in my teaching and writing.
For what it’s worth-- I can see how Larkin “skipping the creation part” can seem like an oversight, or a cop out.
But there’s another way to look at it. I think his point was that during the creation part, an artist is apt to forget about the importance of parts one and two. Or, worse-- to not recognize their importance to begin with.
His emphasis on those phases implies that he thinks it’s fatal to a work of art when the artist skips them. Also implied-- an unerring focus on them is the only correct way to get into the creation part.
The subtext, I think, of these implications-- art is always a device for getting an emotional response from the audience. Artists who focus on any other thing (expressing themselves, making an unmissable statement, telling the truth, etc.) are going to make subpar art. This is already my guiding philosophy, so it’s nice to see Larkin apparently espousing it before I was born.
I actually think I can only write when I am wallowing in some emotional state, something that approximates loss/lamentation/regret. When I'm happy, I find it very hard to approach writing. 🙃
Hearing of Larkin's process was really fascinating, thanks.
Loving this - and thinking about is slightly slant in the sense that in my writing, I want to disrupt the feeling people usually have in response to the story. There's a standard response to one telling that isn't the one I want people to have, so in a sense, the writing I'm doing is an attempt to give people a different emotional reaction to the same set of facts. Thank you so much for this!!
My experience is that the process of teaching/explaining something is an unparalleled aid in understanding something. So, it seems as if where the two-- Larkin and Gornick-- meet is there. In the process of trying to put words to a feeling/experience/story so that the reader can experience it with the writer, the writer is coming to understand the feeling/experience/story more deeply. Then, per Gornick, you can tell it again, but differently, perhaps. From a deeper place.
Isn't that the whole point of writing for many of us? Certainly for me, at my best and most vulnerable. I'm writing into my own, hopefully ever-deeper, understanding of myself.
Thanks for this, Mason. It's a really rich reminder.
I love the way you are able to see the Parts and Process in an artist’s work. I’m fascinated by the creative process, too.
Do you know what underlying idea is driving you, Mason? Of course you don’t have to say. It’s just a question I ask myself a lot. The notion of a “through line” in one’s work is such an interesting concept.
Such a great newsletter, thank you for sharing this. I am bookmarking this one to keep coming back to.
I agree with your assessment that the feeling one is working towards can, and even should, change over time. I find in writing my own poetry, the pieces that I can feel are finished, or feel are complete, all have to do with three different feelings that are intertwined with the stage of life I’m in at the moment. I fully expect that those feelings will morph one by one as I change.
Loved this! Was nodding my head in agreement like one of those head-bobbing dolls. 😆
And I totally agree with the self-gratification point. I learnt this recently in my work as well that if I am not satisfied and happy with what I have written and how I have written it, then there's no point. I am my first audience.
Such a helpful emphasis on the primacy of the "emotional concept" wanting to be shared. I love how the phrase "emotional concept" itself smashes together the realms of feeling and idea into something like the feelingidea! It rings true, too, that if as artists we don't experience that deeply satisfying response ourselves to the work while creating it, then it is unlikely to do much for anyone else.
I embrace the ideas for any form of art. Start with an obsessive interest in a message. Attempt to get others to feel it. Let them run with it if they will. This is the path to great work. As opposed to trying to please others etc.
Oh crikey. Philip, what the hell with Stage 3, man?
Thank you for introducing me to this, Mason, because I don't think I've ever resonated more with the first half of a piece of advice and felt so utterly short-changed by the second half of it. 😂
>>"One thing I wish Larkin had addressed in “The Pleasure Principle” is whether the original feeling in stage one ought to be different from work to work, or if the poet/artist can spend his or her entire career trying to replicate one feeling, over and over. I suspect the latter is true."
I really think so too! For the last few years, I've felt like my own newsletter is powered by my ability to convey the "wow!" moments of awe and wonder that I feel when learning about something - that emotional reaction that's so quietly enjoyable and oddly useful for feeling a bit more hopeful about uncertainty and the unknown. But it's more or less than same "wow" each time - the same button I'm trying to push in others? (A good book on this: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/05/awe-by-dacher-keltner-review-the-transformative-power-of-wonder)
Making art is like setting a trap
I’m saving this because I think I’ll be using Larkin’s ideas in my teaching and writing.
For what it’s worth-- I can see how Larkin “skipping the creation part” can seem like an oversight, or a cop out.
But there’s another way to look at it. I think his point was that during the creation part, an artist is apt to forget about the importance of parts one and two. Or, worse-- to not recognize their importance to begin with.
His emphasis on those phases implies that he thinks it’s fatal to a work of art when the artist skips them. Also implied-- an unerring focus on them is the only correct way to get into the creation part.
The subtext, I think, of these implications-- art is always a device for getting an emotional response from the audience. Artists who focus on any other thing (expressing themselves, making an unmissable statement, telling the truth, etc.) are going to make subpar art. This is already my guiding philosophy, so it’s nice to see Larkin apparently espousing it before I was born.
Love this, Mason.
I actually think I can only write when I am wallowing in some emotional state, something that approximates loss/lamentation/regret. When I'm happy, I find it very hard to approach writing. 🙃
Hearing of Larkin's process was really fascinating, thanks.
Loving this - and thinking about is slightly slant in the sense that in my writing, I want to disrupt the feeling people usually have in response to the story. There's a standard response to one telling that isn't the one I want people to have, so in a sense, the writing I'm doing is an attempt to give people a different emotional reaction to the same set of facts. Thank you so much for this!!
My experience is that the process of teaching/explaining something is an unparalleled aid in understanding something. So, it seems as if where the two-- Larkin and Gornick-- meet is there. In the process of trying to put words to a feeling/experience/story so that the reader can experience it with the writer, the writer is coming to understand the feeling/experience/story more deeply. Then, per Gornick, you can tell it again, but differently, perhaps. From a deeper place.
Isn't that the whole point of writing for many of us? Certainly for me, at my best and most vulnerable. I'm writing into my own, hopefully ever-deeper, understanding of myself.
Thanks for this, Mason. It's a really rich reminder.
Great post! I I also like Larkin's comparison of the poem as a device, and the words within it are like tools.
Beautifully done, especially your mixture of admiration for and impatience with Larkin and his meaningful silences. Bravo
This is so fascinating! If course, now I’m wondering if I can find Larkin’s notes & uncover the mysterious parts of his process.
I love the way you are able to see the Parts and Process in an artist’s work. I’m fascinated by the creative process, too.
Do you know what underlying idea is driving you, Mason? Of course you don’t have to say. It’s just a question I ask myself a lot. The notion of a “through line” in one’s work is such an interesting concept.
Such a great newsletter, thank you for sharing this. I am bookmarking this one to keep coming back to.
I agree with your assessment that the feeling one is working towards can, and even should, change over time. I find in writing my own poetry, the pieces that I can feel are finished, or feel are complete, all have to do with three different feelings that are intertwined with the stage of life I’m in at the moment. I fully expect that those feelings will morph one by one as I change.
I love the idea of writing a poem being like building a trap!
Loved this! Was nodding my head in agreement like one of those head-bobbing dolls. 😆
And I totally agree with the self-gratification point. I learnt this recently in my work as well that if I am not satisfied and happy with what I have written and how I have written it, then there's no point. I am my first audience.
Such a helpful emphasis on the primacy of the "emotional concept" wanting to be shared. I love how the phrase "emotional concept" itself smashes together the realms of feeling and idea into something like the feelingidea! It rings true, too, that if as artists we don't experience that deeply satisfying response ourselves to the work while creating it, then it is unlikely to do much for anyone else.
This is my first time to read your work and I had fun. I'll be back!
I embrace the ideas for any form of art. Start with an obsessive interest in a message. Attempt to get others to feel it. Let them run with it if they will. This is the path to great work. As opposed to trying to please others etc.
Great message.
Oh crikey. Philip, what the hell with Stage 3, man?
Thank you for introducing me to this, Mason, because I don't think I've ever resonated more with the first half of a piece of advice and felt so utterly short-changed by the second half of it. 😂
>>"One thing I wish Larkin had addressed in “The Pleasure Principle” is whether the original feeling in stage one ought to be different from work to work, or if the poet/artist can spend his or her entire career trying to replicate one feeling, over and over. I suspect the latter is true."
I really think so too! For the last few years, I've felt like my own newsletter is powered by my ability to convey the "wow!" moments of awe and wonder that I feel when learning about something - that emotional reaction that's so quietly enjoyable and oddly useful for feeling a bit more hopeful about uncertainty and the unknown. But it's more or less than same "wow" each time - the same button I'm trying to push in others? (A good book on this: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/05/awe-by-dacher-keltner-review-the-transformative-power-of-wonder)
I especially like the last line.