Archives
5:40:00 PM EST
Write With Your Whole Life
One of the ideas I've talked about in my journal before is "loving my reader." This is something I discovered as I was writing my novel, that I needed to love my reader in order to compose meaningful prose.
I've not talked about what this means, "loving my reader," partly because I wasn't sure how to explain it.
In my reading the other night, I found something that may serve as at least a partial explanation. It is from Thich Nhat Hanh's The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching.
Some of us have been asking about the difference between writing that is theraputic to the writer and writing that is theraputic to the reader. This is an issue I had to deal with my own novel because so much of the book is autobiographical. How could I write about my own pain in a way that would be meaningful for readers?
In his book, Thich Nhat Hanh discusses forms of writing. He tells us: "Of course you have suffered, but the other person has also suffered."
I think this is an important realization.
I think this realization is what transforms our own suffering into something our readers can use. We have to write with recognition that our reader has suffered, too.
Thich Nhat Hanh says that the other person's suffering is worth our compassion: "When you begin to understand the suffering of the other person, compassion will arise in you, and the language you use will have the power of healing. Compassion is the only energy that can help us connect with another person."
When we write, we are making important connections to others. As Thich Nhat Hanh says, "We know that our words will affect many other people." So it helps to consider the affect our words might have.
Thich Nhat Hanh says, "Writing is a deep practice. Even before we begin writing, during whatever we are doing--gardening or sweeping the floor--our book or essay is being written deep in our consciousness. To write a book, we must write with our whole life, not just during the moments we are sitting at our desk."
I love this phrase: "WE MUST WRITE WITH OUR WHOLE LIFE."
I also like the way Thich Nhat Hanh says that writing is a "Deep practice."
I'm not saying that our writing must be light and happy all the time. A lot of good writing is dark and a lot of good writing--important writing-- expresses hopelessness. We need to know that others feel hopeless, so that we don't feel so alone.
But what I believe Thich Nhat Hanh is saying is that when we express anything in writing, we have a responsibility, not just to ourselves, not just to our own anger, our own hurt, our own need, but to our readers.
One of the things I'm learning as I read about Buddhism is that there is no concept of "self" because we are all connected.
I am not separate from my reader!
Isn't that just the most amazing thing?
Written by theresarrt7 Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
Theresa, It`s funny, we`re traveling a similar path. I`ve been taking seminars in Mindfulness, which has Tibetan Buddhism as a theoretical base.
"When you begin to understand the suffering of the other person, compassion will arise in you, and the language you use will have the power of healing. Compassion is the only energy that can help us connect with another person."
What a lovely and profound thought.
V -
I liked this post very much Theresa. judi
-
"Teagrapple,"
There are two ways to look at it. First, I think it's reasonable to presuppose some capacity for empathy in your readers. People with the kinds of conditions you describe are incapable of empathy. Two, I have always thought it useful to think about how I might be connected to evil, somehow. Studies done after the Holocaust suggest that we all have a capacity for evil. Hannah Arendt called this capacity "The Banality of Evil." It is fascinating stuff. So taking oneself into the abyss, into the evil, may be necessary in order to avoid acting in an evil way ourselves. If I understand my own capacity for evil, I won't, hopefully, act on evil impulses. If more people had done this during the Holocaust, perhaps more people could have been saved. -
If we are not separate from anyone else, if we are all connected, then we are not separate from the psychopath or the sociopath (I always get the two kinds mixed up) who talks about slitting someone's throat as if it was fun, or less than fun, not worth thinking about, like swatting a fly or urinating or chewing gum. We are not separate from bigots or terrorists or worse, the ordinary, normal people in the other political party, whose views we find wrong, dead wrong. Worst of all, we are not separate from the mother (or father) who abused us, who continues to abuse us at every birthday or holiday get together, and who mocks any attempt at speaking truth. This is not a comfortable thought. I don't want to be connected to these people.
11/26/05 2:28 PM