Scan barcode
fieldofhats's review against another edition
tense
fast-paced
1.0
Assigned to read for Adv. Creative Writing.
This book is amazing and frustrating with wonderful ideas and some terrible perspectives. It did help me solidify my own feelings, though, and a lot of that was due to the things I hated about this book, and there’s something to be said about that.
There’s not as much substance here as I would have liked. This book has two really good ideas: creative living and ideas as magic. She basically expands on these two topics the entire book, which would be fine in theory because they are meaty topics, but there’s no practices, no examples on how to incorporate these ideas into your daily life. This is a very mystical book that outlines a mode of thinking that’s pretty unique, along with a lot of anecdotes and advice (most of which is either meh or downright awful), but beyond that there’s not a whole lot to it.
Let’s start with the good, shall we? There’s some really good advice in here. Gilbert talks about how to be patient and to not be discouraged in your youth. That’s definitely something I needed to hear and she explained it extremely well. She also talks about how people are entitled to, and have every right to share, their opinions and that you should write despite that, which is sometimes a hard, but absolutely necessary and good, reminder. She also speaks on how you should enjoy creating and how the archetype of the suffering, anguished writer is nothing to look up to (although she does go on for a bit too long about this).
The perspective and voice of the author is ever-present, which is both a good and a bad thing. It’s good because it makes the book feel more genuine, but it’s bad because she makes some weird off-handed remarks that don’t contribute to the themes or content of the book itself. We learn in the first section that she’s anti-polyamory. For some reason. To be fair, it is a joke, but it was in poor taste. In her section on motives, she says that you shouldn’t write a book about helping people, you should write to help yourself. I understand where she’s coming from, but it’s not really a black and white issue. People write history books to help people learn history, people write books on the LGBTQ+ and black experience to help people understand those experiences. Those books are important. Those books are needed. You absolutely should write for yourself and for your own benefit, but many people publishing their work are writing for other people. Hell, isn’t this book supposed to HELP us understand what big magic and creative living is? She says she wrote this book for her, but then why publish it if not to help people? To make money? Advice like this just falls completely flat. She also has a weird warning against getting a creative writing degree and says that you don’t need one to be creative. And while that is true, acting like you don’t need schooling at all is extremely foolish since a degree can help so much with recognition and publishing. Just because some people get lucky doesn’t mean everyone will.
The worst thing this book does, though, is say that creativity is “objectively pointless.” She implored the audience to not take creativity so seriously, which I agree with, because ultimately it’s not important at all, which is utterly untrue and extremely harmful. She says that teachers, doctors, fireman, custodians, etc. are “objectively more valuable” than writers or artists or what have you. This is stupid. This is beyond stupid. Aside from that fact that a poem, novel, or piece of art can change someone’s life and is thus inherently valuable, everything we do requires creativity. Creative problem solving is a thing in every single field of study. We need shelter to live. Who makes shelters? Architects. You have to be creative to be an architect. Who makes food? Chefs. Same thing. And the list goes on. I think the point she’s trying to make is to not take your creativity so seriously that it becomes no longer fun, which I agree with… but that’s not what Gilbert said. Or, at least, that’s not how she framed it. This idea is even counter to many of the other points she makes in this book. If creating doesn’t matter, why do it? Why make it seem like a pointless activity when it’s not? This idea is just so bad on so many levels.
This is definitely one of the most interesting books on writing that I’ve read, but it’s so far from good. If you are an experienced writer/creator with a solid routine and perspective, you might gain something from this book. Different perspectives are always interesting. But if you’re new to writing and want something inspiring, I beg you to go elsewhere. While there’s some good information in here, there’s too much bad. I can’t help but think of an impressionable young person who reads the section about how creating isn’t important and takes that to heart. Art is important. This book is not.
This book is amazing and frustrating with wonderful ideas and some terrible perspectives. It did help me solidify my own feelings, though, and a lot of that was due to the things I hated about this book, and there’s something to be said about that.
There’s not as much substance here as I would have liked. This book has two really good ideas: creative living and ideas as magic. She basically expands on these two topics the entire book, which would be fine in theory because they are meaty topics, but there’s no practices, no examples on how to incorporate these ideas into your daily life. This is a very mystical book that outlines a mode of thinking that’s pretty unique, along with a lot of anecdotes and advice (most of which is either meh or downright awful), but beyond that there’s not a whole lot to it.
Let’s start with the good, shall we? There’s some really good advice in here. Gilbert talks about how to be patient and to not be discouraged in your youth. That’s definitely something I needed to hear and she explained it extremely well. She also talks about how people are entitled to, and have every right to share, their opinions and that you should write despite that, which is sometimes a hard, but absolutely necessary and good, reminder. She also speaks on how you should enjoy creating and how the archetype of the suffering, anguished writer is nothing to look up to (although she does go on for a bit too long about this).
The perspective and voice of the author is ever-present, which is both a good and a bad thing. It’s good because it makes the book feel more genuine, but it’s bad because she makes some weird off-handed remarks that don’t contribute to the themes or content of the book itself. We learn in the first section that she’s anti-polyamory. For some reason. To be fair, it is a joke, but it was in poor taste. In her section on motives, she says that you shouldn’t write a book about helping people, you should write to help yourself. I understand where she’s coming from, but it’s not really a black and white issue. People write history books to help people learn history, people write books on the LGBTQ+ and black experience to help people understand those experiences. Those books are important. Those books are needed. You absolutely should write for yourself and for your own benefit, but many people publishing their work are writing for other people. Hell, isn’t this book supposed to HELP us understand what big magic and creative living is? She says she wrote this book for her, but then why publish it if not to help people? To make money? Advice like this just falls completely flat. She also has a weird warning against getting a creative writing degree and says that you don’t need one to be creative. And while that is true, acting like you don’t need schooling at all is extremely foolish since a degree can help so much with recognition and publishing. Just because some people get lucky doesn’t mean everyone will.
The worst thing this book does, though, is say that creativity is “objectively pointless.” She implored the audience to not take creativity so seriously, which I agree with, because ultimately it’s not important at all, which is utterly untrue and extremely harmful. She says that teachers, doctors, fireman, custodians, etc. are “objectively more valuable” than writers or artists or what have you. This is stupid. This is beyond stupid. Aside from that fact that a poem, novel, or piece of art can change someone’s life and is thus inherently valuable, everything we do requires creativity. Creative problem solving is a thing in every single field of study. We need shelter to live. Who makes shelters? Architects. You have to be creative to be an architect. Who makes food? Chefs. Same thing. And the list goes on. I think the point she’s trying to make is to not take your creativity so seriously that it becomes no longer fun, which I agree with… but that’s not what Gilbert said. Or, at least, that’s not how she framed it. This idea is even counter to many of the other points she makes in this book. If creating doesn’t matter, why do it? Why make it seem like a pointless activity when it’s not? This idea is just so bad on so many levels.
This is definitely one of the most interesting books on writing that I’ve read, but it’s so far from good. If you are an experienced writer/creator with a solid routine and perspective, you might gain something from this book. Different perspectives are always interesting. But if you’re new to writing and want something inspiring, I beg you to go elsewhere. While there’s some good information in here, there’s too much bad. I can’t help but think of an impressionable young person who reads the section about how creating isn’t important and takes that to heart. Art is important. This book is not.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Classism
More...