What do you think?
Rate this book
On Writers and Writing
A brilliant, ambitious, insightful inquiry into the art of writing from the legendary Margaret Atwood.
What do we mean when we say that someone is a writer? Is he or she an entertainer? A high priest of the god of Art? An improver of readers' minds and morals? Looking back on her own childhood and the development of her writing career, Margaret Atwood addresses the riddle of her own art.
Her wide-ranging reference to other writers, living and dead, is accompanied by personal anecdotes from her own experiences as a writer. The lightness of her touch is offset by a seriousness about the purpose and the pleasures of writing. Wise, candid, informative, and engaging, On Writers and Writing provides an insider's view of the writer's universe, written by one of the most celebrated writers of our time.
What do we mean when we say that someone is a writer? Is he or she an entertainer? A high priest of the god of Art? An improver of readers' minds and morals? Looking back on her own childhood and the development of her writing career, Margaret Atwood addresses the riddle of her own art.
Her wide-ranging reference to other writers, living and dead, is accompanied by personal anecdotes from her own experiences as a writer. The lightness of her touch is offset by a seriousness about the purpose and the pleasures of writing. Wise, candid, informative, and engaging, On Writers and Writing provides an insider's view of the writer's universe, written by one of the most celebrated writers of our time.
256 pages, Paperback
First published March 7, 2002
335 people are currently reading
10.7k people want to read
About the author
Margaret Atwood
630books86.2kfollowersMargaret Atwood was born in 1939 in Ottawa and grew up in northern Ontario, Quebec, and Toronto. She received her undergraduate degree from Victoria College at the University of Toronto and her master's degree from Radcliffe College.
Throughout her writing career, Margaret Atwood has received numerous awards and honourary degrees. She is the author of more than thirty-five volumes of poetry, children’s literature, fiction, and non-fiction and is perhaps best known for her novels, which include The Edible Woman (1970), The Handmaid's Tale (1983), The Robber Bride (1994), Alias Grace (1996), and The Blind Assassin, which won the prestigious Booker Prize in 2000. Atwood's dystopic novel, Oryx and Crake, was published in 2003. The Tent (mini-fictions) and Moral Disorder (short stories) both appeared in 2006. Her most recent volume of poetry, The Door, was published in 2007. Her non-fiction book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth in the Massey series, appeared in 2008, and her most recent novel, The Year of the Flood, in the autumn of 2009. Ms. Atwood's work has been published in more than forty languages, including Farsi, Japanese, Turkish, Finnish, Korean, Icelandic and Estonian. In 2004 she co-invented the Long Pen TM.
Margaret Atwood currently lives in Toronto with writer Graeme Gibson.
Associations: Margaret Atwood was President of the Writers' Union of Canada from May 1981 to May 1982, and was President of International P.E.N., Canadian Centre (English Speaking) from 1984-1986. She and Graeme Gibson are the Joint Honourary Presidents of the Rare Bird Society within BirdLife International. Ms. Atwood is also a current Vice-President of PEN International.
Throughout her writing career, Margaret Atwood has received numerous awards and honourary degrees. She is the author of more than thirty-five volumes of poetry, children’s literature, fiction, and non-fiction and is perhaps best known for her novels, which include The Edible Woman (1970), The Handmaid's Tale (1983), The Robber Bride (1994), Alias Grace (1996), and The Blind Assassin, which won the prestigious Booker Prize in 2000. Atwood's dystopic novel, Oryx and Crake, was published in 2003. The Tent (mini-fictions) and Moral Disorder (short stories) both appeared in 2006. Her most recent volume of poetry, The Door, was published in 2007. Her non-fiction book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth in the Massey series, appeared in 2008, and her most recent novel, The Year of the Flood, in the autumn of 2009. Ms. Atwood's work has been published in more than forty languages, including Farsi, Japanese, Turkish, Finnish, Korean, Icelandic and Estonian. In 2004 she co-invented the Long Pen TM.
Margaret Atwood currently lives in Toronto with writer Graeme Gibson.
Associations: Margaret Atwood was President of the Writers' Union of Canada from May 1981 to May 1982, and was President of International P.E.N., Canadian Centre (English Speaking) from 1984-1986. She and Graeme Gibson are the Joint Honourary Presidents of the Rare Bird Society within BirdLife International. Ms. Atwood is also a current Vice-President of PEN International.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 644 reviews
July 24, 2022
Jak dorosnę chcę być jak Margaret Atwood.
September 24, 2020
Thanks to an amazing professor of mine, I've become super aware of just how rare these gems are. Writers writing on writing. I mean, can it get any more... essential? (For both the aspiring writer and astute reader.) To read her poetics, with so many citations and so many examples that bring light to the whole art form, well, it's a rare treat. & her elevated language & sheer accessibility is exactly why we've all come to love anything produced by this Literary Goddess.
& perhaps a few too many questions are set down; way more than the reader ever prepared himself to think about. It's rather illuminating.
But her sixth speech is best. Sharing the title of the book, this one is impossible for the student of lit not to read. The thesis is this: Writing is a reaction to the fear of death. Yup. It gets to those profound themes. Atwood is never ever not intrepid.
Honorable mention: that Atwood discusses the finances of a writer. This is the first time* such an intimate thing has even been presented to us by any novelist!
*lie. I remember Dave Eggers confessing to his own paycheck for his "Staggering Work" in its final pages.
& perhaps a few too many questions are set down; way more than the reader ever prepared himself to think about. It's rather illuminating.
But her sixth speech is best. Sharing the title of the book, this one is impossible for the student of lit not to read. The thesis is this: Writing is a reaction to the fear of death. Yup. It gets to those profound themes. Atwood is never ever not intrepid.
Honorable mention: that Atwood discusses the finances of a writer. This is the first time* such an intimate thing has even been presented to us by any novelist!
*lie. I remember Dave Eggers confessing to his own paycheck for his "Staggering Work" in its final pages.
March 26, 2021
الكتابة.... هذا العمل الانساني الملئ بالإبداع والمتعة والفائدة
سطور منظومة تُعبر عن النفس والأفكار والمشاعر وتُصور الواقع والخيال
محاضرات ألقتها مارجريت آتوود الكاتبة الكندية في جامعة كمبريدج عن الكتابة
دوافع الكتابة المختلفة وعلاقة الكاتب بالقارئ, علاقة الأدب بالمال وغيرها من الموضوعات..
تعرض مراحل من سيرتها الذاتية وسيرة ثقافية عن قراءاتها وكيف أصبحت كاتبة
وتأخذنا في جولة متنوعة عن الفن والأدب والأساطير في فترات مختلفة
ترى آتوود ضرورة تواصل الكُتاب والقراء مع التراث والأدب القديم بمختلف أنواعه
وتظل الكتابة تُحيي ذكر الكُتاب بعد الموت وتُخلد كتاباتهم عبر الأزمان
حديث جميل وهادئ الواضح فيه الشغف بالكتابة والقراءة معًا
سطور منظومة تُعبر عن النفس والأفكار والمشاعر وتُصور الواقع والخيال
محاضرات ألقتها مارجريت آتوود الكاتبة الكندية في جامعة كمبريدج عن الكتابة
دوافع الكتابة المختلفة وعلاقة الكاتب بالقارئ, علاقة الأدب بالمال وغيرها من الموضوعات..
تعرض مراحل من سيرتها الذاتية وسيرة ثقافية عن قراءاتها وكيف أصبحت كاتبة
وتأخذنا في جولة متنوعة عن الفن والأدب والأساطير في فترات مختلفة
ترى آتوود ضرورة تواصل الكُتاب والقراء مع التراث والأدب القديم بمختلف أنواعه
وتظل الكتابة تُحيي ذكر الكُتاب بعد الموت وتُخلد كتاباتهم عبر الأزمان
حديث جميل وهادئ الواضح فيه الشغف بالكتابة والقراءة معًا
March 29, 2022
What I learned from this book is that Margaret Atwood is way smarter than me and always will be no matter what I do.
Read
November 2, 2023The volume represents not only a guide for the future writers, but also a biography of the author, written in a literary style. This aspect has rather a background role, anyway.The questions from which the approach starts are some simple, elementary ones, in the case of anyone who decides to become a writer.
" And what, however, is the act of writing, as a human activity, as a slave labor, or perhaps as an art ?
What is the different, for ex., comparated to painting ,music, or theater ?
Is the writer an unrecognized legislator of the world, as Shelley proclaimed, or is it a crying wreck, beloved by contemporary biographers ? "
In short, " who do you write to ? Why ? Were does everything come from ? "
In fact, nor even the writers have a coherent picture of themselves, about their role in society ,as much as despise themselves, they love themselves, a compensatory narcissism, of course .
The author does not give a clear answers to all this puzzles, though - finally , an answer is prefigured, but, after all these questions, I don't know to what extent the reader is satisfied :
" If you are an artist, being a good man is quite irrelevant, if we talk about actual accomplishments . Moral perfection does not make up for the impression that you are a bad artist. However, being a good or a bad man is important ,if you happen to be a good wizzard , to create illusions that can convince people that they are true. "
M.Atwood's book is a problematic one, the questions propose a reconsideration of the act of writing, after all - writing is an act with quite serious implications, since it is related to the anxiety of death, because - as we see in the title, it is a " negotiating with death ".
To what extent does this negotiation have moral values in relation to society, it is up to each writer to decide.
Margaret Atwood just poses the problem. She just ask .
" And what, however, is the act of writing, as a human activity, as a slave labor, or perhaps as an art ?
What is the different, for ex., comparated to painting ,music, or theater ?
Is the writer an unrecognized legislator of the world, as Shelley proclaimed, or is it a crying wreck, beloved by contemporary biographers ? "
In short, " who do you write to ? Why ? Were does everything come from ? "
In fact, nor even the writers have a coherent picture of themselves, about their role in society ,as much as despise themselves, they love themselves, a compensatory narcissism, of course .
The author does not give a clear answers to all this puzzles, though - finally , an answer is prefigured, but, after all these questions, I don't know to what extent the reader is satisfied :
" If you are an artist, being a good man is quite irrelevant, if we talk about actual accomplishments . Moral perfection does not make up for the impression that you are a bad artist. However, being a good or a bad man is important ,if you happen to be a good wizzard , to create illusions that can convince people that they are true. "
M.Atwood's book is a problematic one, the questions propose a reconsideration of the act of writing, after all - writing is an act with quite serious implications, since it is related to the anxiety of death, because - as we see in the title, it is a " negotiating with death ".
To what extent does this negotiation have moral values in relation to society, it is up to each writer to decide.
Margaret Atwood just poses the problem. She just ask .
March 22, 2009
Atwood writing about how she became a writer, what it means to be a writer, and why writers do what they do.
If, in my struggles to be a writer, I manage to become even half as talented as Margaret Atwood, that will be enough. That's really all I can think of to say, so I'll just share some of my favorite parts of the book (warning - I had a lot of favorite parts):
"Around the age of seven I wrote a play. The protagonist was a giant; the theme was crime and punishment; the crime was lying, as befits a future novelist; the punishment was being squashed to death by the moon.
...This play was not a raging success. As I recall, my brother and his pals came in and laughed at it, thus giving me an early experience of literary criticism."
"All writers are double, for the simple reason that you can never actually meet the author of the book you have just read. Too much time has elapsed between composition and publication, and the person who wrote the book is now a different person. Or so goes the alibi. On the one hand, this is a convenient way for a writer to wriggle out of responsibility, and you should pay no attention to it. Yet on the other hand, it is quite true."
"...Alice [of Wonderland:] is not the writer of the story about her. Nevertheless, here is my best guess, about writers and their elusive doubles, and the question of who does what as far as the actual writing goes. The act of writing takes place at the moment when Alice passes through the mirror. At this one instant, the glass barrier between the doubles dissolves, and Alice is neither here nor there, neither art nor life, neither the one thing nor the other, though at the same time she is all of these at once. At that moment time itself stops, and also stretches out, and both writer and reader have all the time not in the world."
[talking about growing up in the 50s:] "You could not advertise sanitary products for women and call them what they were, which gave rise to a degree of surrealism unmatched in advertising since. I remember in particular a woman in a white Grecian-style evening gown standing on a marble staircase and gazing out over the sea, with a caption under her that said, 'Modess...Because.' Because what? I wondered as a child. This is a question that still recurs in dreams."
"The title of this chapter is 'Negotiating with the Dead,' and its hypothesis is that not just some, but all writing of the narrative kind, and perhaps all writing, is motivated, deep down, by a fear of and a fascination with mortality - by a desire to make the risky trip to the Underworld, and to bring something or someone back from the dead.
You may find the subject a little peculiar. It is a little peculiar. Writing itself is a little peculiar."
If, in my struggles to be a writer, I manage to become even half as talented as Margaret Atwood, that will be enough. That's really all I can think of to say, so I'll just share some of my favorite parts of the book (warning - I had a lot of favorite parts):
"Around the age of seven I wrote a play. The protagonist was a giant; the theme was crime and punishment; the crime was lying, as befits a future novelist; the punishment was being squashed to death by the moon.
...This play was not a raging success. As I recall, my brother and his pals came in and laughed at it, thus giving me an early experience of literary criticism."
"All writers are double, for the simple reason that you can never actually meet the author of the book you have just read. Too much time has elapsed between composition and publication, and the person who wrote the book is now a different person. Or so goes the alibi. On the one hand, this is a convenient way for a writer to wriggle out of responsibility, and you should pay no attention to it. Yet on the other hand, it is quite true."
"...Alice [of Wonderland:] is not the writer of the story about her. Nevertheless, here is my best guess, about writers and their elusive doubles, and the question of who does what as far as the actual writing goes. The act of writing takes place at the moment when Alice passes through the mirror. At this one instant, the glass barrier between the doubles dissolves, and Alice is neither here nor there, neither art nor life, neither the one thing nor the other, though at the same time she is all of these at once. At that moment time itself stops, and also stretches out, and both writer and reader have all the time not in the world."
[talking about growing up in the 50s:] "You could not advertise sanitary products for women and call them what they were, which gave rise to a degree of surrealism unmatched in advertising since. I remember in particular a woman in a white Grecian-style evening gown standing on a marble staircase and gazing out over the sea, with a caption under her that said, 'Modess...Because.' Because what? I wondered as a child. This is a question that still recurs in dreams."
"The title of this chapter is 'Negotiating with the Dead,' and its hypothesis is that not just some, but all writing of the narrative kind, and perhaps all writing, is motivated, deep down, by a fear of and a fascination with mortality - by a desire to make the risky trip to the Underworld, and to bring something or someone back from the dead.
You may find the subject a little peculiar. It is a little peculiar. Writing itself is a little peculiar."
September 28, 2022
A 3-star level of enjoyment overall, with inspiring 5-star moments and ideas. Atwood is brilliant, but this leaned too academic for me, with lots of references to support so much information, that it left little room for me to digest. Aside from a few perceptive take-always, what I most got from this work is a new list of to-reads.
May 2, 2012
Margaret Atwood claims she is just a regular person, but this book leaves no doubt about that claim. She isn't. Written in response to a request to be the Empson lecturer at the University of Cambridge, a series of five lectures, here worked into chapters, explains how it "is" to be a writer. One "how" that resonated with me was the writer as a creator and the writer as a person who does the laundry; the dishes and puts gas in the car. She writes beautifully about the duality of this relationship. She also writes about how painful it is to be the "writer" and meet the people who revere your writing. Atwood, who received her undergraduate degree from Victoria College at the University of Toronto and her master's degree from Radcliffe College, has written a truly scholarly work in NEGOTIATING WITH THE DEAD. The title refers to the the dead authors to whom we all owe so much and to our dead ancestors whose stories we are all compelled to tell, one way or another. References to legions of writers and literature, is thankfully, cited in ten pages of bibliography. These citations are so successfully used in this work that we, the reader, want to read them in full. Atwood's point of view is always en pointe which adds accessability to this, for me, formidable work. A true treasure!
July 12, 2020
লেখা� সাথে বোঝাপড়া� গল্প�
মার্গারে� এটউডের লেখা� হা� চমৎকার� যতক্ষণ তিনি আলোচনা করলে� নিজে� অভিজ্ঞতা নিয়�, তরতর কর� পড়া গেলো কিছুদূর। কিন্তু টানা সে গত� রাখা যায়নি, অন্য বহ� লেখকের অজস্� পঠ�-পাঠনের সূত্� টেনে জবড়জং কর� ফেলা হয়েছে বর্ণনা�
লেখা� সাথে লেখক এটউডের মোকাবেলা জানত� গিয়� তা� আরাম না পেলে�, পাঠক এটউডের প্রত� শ্রদ্ধাট� আকাশ ছোঁয়।
মার্গারে� এটউডের লেখা� হা� চমৎকার� যতক্ষণ তিনি আলোচনা করলে� নিজে� অভিজ্ঞতা নিয়�, তরতর কর� পড়া গেলো কিছুদূর। কিন্তু টানা সে গত� রাখা যায়নি, অন্য বহ� লেখকের অজস্� পঠ�-পাঠনের সূত্� টেনে জবড়জং কর� ফেলা হয়েছে বর্ণনা�
লেখা� সাথে লেখক এটউডের মোকাবেলা জানত� গিয়� তা� আরাম না পেলে�, পাঠক এটউডের প্রত� শ্রদ্ধাট� আকাশ ছোঁয়।
August 27, 2021
This was a case of a bad match. I think for the right reader this book has great value. It began as a series of lectures given by Margaret Atwood at Cambridge. She then took the lectures and reworked them as a book. She approaches the topic of writing and writers� motivations in a very intellectual, analytical manner. If you were pursuing a degree in literature, I think the content of this book would be very relevant and beneficial. In fact, I could see myself referring to it regularly throughout my degree program. I was instead looking more for stories about her personal experiences as a writer, and it was those aspects of the book that I really enjoyed; there were just not enough of those to satisfy me. For instance, Ms. Atwood provided some history of the publishing of Canadian fiction that I quite enjoyed. I also appreciated learning that while some writers find the writing process onerous and very painful, she enjoys writing which is probably one reason why she is so prolific. So for the right person this book could be a great fit and a valuable resource, it just wasn’t exactly what I was wanting.
August 28, 2018
3.5*
(Four stars for the first three of these Empson Lectures, three stars for the second trio, where it felt like Ms. Atwood wasn't quite as inspired as in the first half.)
I was really rooting for this one for some reason, in spite of the fact that I was largely unmoved by the two novels of hers (Surfacing and The Handmaid's Tale) that I've read. Perhaps it is because she's been under the gun of late because of her "intervention" (to use the horrid academese—anyone care to "interrogate" that?!) in those tempests-in-a-teaspoon (not in absolute terms, to be sure, but from an outsider's perspective, perhaps—they were both quite the literary furors here in Canada, easily bigger than anything else on our cultural horizon) the Joseph Boyden (cultural apropriation) and Steven Galloway (sexual harassment) Affairs. MA came to the defense of both authors, and social media ate her for lunch. So maybe I have a soft spot for underdogs, as she currently feels like one to me in spite of the global mega-success of the Hulu series based upon The Handmaid's Tale (<--excellent BTW)...
As I said, (my admittedly limited acquaintance with) her fiction did not stir me much, but her poetry�that amazing voice of hers has always been something special, and she brings that voice to this volume in a major way. The first lecture, "Who Do You Think You Are?", could have easily gone on at book length as far as I was concerned, as her dry wit made the details of this her abridged writer's autobiography really sing for me. And there seems to be much of the writer herself, too, in the second essay, "Duplicity", where Atwood dives into the difference between the writing and the quotidian selves.
She starts to pull back away from taking any kind of stand in the next two essay-lectures, though, "The Great God Pen" and "Temptation", where she lays out a variety of "higher callings" that the writer may serve ("Mammon", Art-for-Art's Sake, and Social Relevance): it is just when you most want her to stake some kind of claim about literary value , about the novel's conflicted, contridictory relationship to the market (and thus to its own birth and coming-of-age story, the novel's own Künstlerroman) that MA begins the process of removing herself from this book and with thereby contenting herself with "merely" laying out the various alternate routes that the writer and the novel could take without ever once returning as "MA-herself" to tell us which route (or combination thereof) she took, and why.
THAT was what I was hoping for in this book, and receiving more of it might have brought me back to her novels with renewed interest, but, alas she sits on the fence for the remainder of the series of lectures, and, though we are treated to a still-interesting synopticon of the wide range and depth of her own reading (for instance, I should have guessed beforehand —but didn't—that she would love Borges, yet who'da thunk that ol' DFW would get a look in, and even Uncle Don Delillo for godsakes—gotta luv her to death for that!) we just don't see enough of what Margaret Atwood thinks on very much, I'm afraid.
Thus did I limp my way through the last two essays (on the writer's relations with the reader, and with the dead—the later being the most anticipated and least enjoyed by yours truly. Oh, I was hoping, I guess, to get a practicing writer's response to the importance of "capital-T Tradition"—c.f. Harold Bloom's thesis about how, to borrow from Marx, "the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living". But alas, I closed the book with a sigh, remembering the excitement of the first third of the book, but feeling that much of it was really a missed opportunity for both of us, writer and reader.
(Four stars for the first three of these Empson Lectures, three stars for the second trio, where it felt like Ms. Atwood wasn't quite as inspired as in the first half.)
I was really rooting for this one for some reason, in spite of the fact that I was largely unmoved by the two novels of hers (Surfacing and The Handmaid's Tale) that I've read. Perhaps it is because she's been under the gun of late because of her "intervention" (to use the horrid academese—anyone care to "interrogate" that?!) in those tempests-in-a-teaspoon (not in absolute terms, to be sure, but from an outsider's perspective, perhaps—they were both quite the literary furors here in Canada, easily bigger than anything else on our cultural horizon) the Joseph Boyden (cultural apropriation) and Steven Galloway (sexual harassment) Affairs. MA came to the defense of both authors, and social media ate her for lunch. So maybe I have a soft spot for underdogs, as she currently feels like one to me in spite of the global mega-success of the Hulu series based upon The Handmaid's Tale (<--excellent BTW)...
As I said, (my admittedly limited acquaintance with) her fiction did not stir me much, but her poetry�that amazing voice of hers has always been something special, and she brings that voice to this volume in a major way. The first lecture, "Who Do You Think You Are?", could have easily gone on at book length as far as I was concerned, as her dry wit made the details of this her abridged writer's autobiography really sing for me. And there seems to be much of the writer herself, too, in the second essay, "Duplicity", where Atwood dives into the difference between the writing and the quotidian selves.
She starts to pull back away from taking any kind of stand in the next two essay-lectures, though, "The Great God Pen" and "Temptation", where she lays out a variety of "higher callings" that the writer may serve ("Mammon", Art-for-Art's Sake, and Social Relevance): it is just when you most want her to stake some kind of claim about literary value , about the novel's conflicted, contridictory relationship to the market (and thus to its own birth and coming-of-age story, the novel's own Künstlerroman) that MA begins the process of removing herself from this book and with thereby contenting herself with "merely" laying out the various alternate routes that the writer and the novel could take without ever once returning as "MA-herself" to tell us which route (or combination thereof) she took, and why.
THAT was what I was hoping for in this book, and receiving more of it might have brought me back to her novels with renewed interest, but, alas she sits on the fence for the remainder of the series of lectures, and, though we are treated to a still-interesting synopticon of the wide range and depth of her own reading (for instance, I should have guessed beforehand —but didn't—that she would love Borges, yet who'da thunk that ol' DFW would get a look in, and even Uncle Don Delillo for godsakes—gotta luv her to death for that!) we just don't see enough of what Margaret Atwood thinks on very much, I'm afraid.
Thus did I limp my way through the last two essays (on the writer's relations with the reader, and with the dead—the later being the most anticipated and least enjoyed by yours truly. Oh, I was hoping, I guess, to get a practicing writer's response to the importance of "capital-T Tradition"—c.f. Harold Bloom's thesis about how, to borrow from Marx, "the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living". But alas, I closed the book with a sigh, remembering the excitement of the first third of the book, but feeling that much of it was really a missed opportunity for both of us, writer and reader.
February 9, 2022
Margaret Atwood w „O pisaniu� nie pisze o tym jak tworzyć, ani o tym jak interpretować tekst, ale w pełen erudycji sposób, zasypując czytelnika literackimi przykładami, opowiada o dylematach pisarza.
Rozdarciu między sztuką, a mamoną; prawdą, a oczekiwaniami otoczenia; o oskarżeniach o zawłaszczanie cudzego głosu, gdy pisarz o wrażliwym sumieniu opisuje nieszczęścia uciśnionych.
Ale zdecydowanie najciekawsze były dla mnie fragmenty, w których Atwood nawiązując nie tylko do własnych doświadczeń, pisze o stereotypach i oczekiwaniach wobec piszących kobiet, o pisaniu kobiecym i pisaniu męskim, o innym traktowaniu pisarzy i pisarek przez recenzentów.
Rozdarciu między sztuką, a mamoną; prawdą, a oczekiwaniami otoczenia; o oskarżeniach o zawłaszczanie cudzego głosu, gdy pisarz o wrażliwym sumieniu opisuje nieszczęścia uciśnionych.
Ale zdecydowanie najciekawsze były dla mnie fragmenty, w których Atwood nawiązując nie tylko do własnych doświadczeń, pisze o stereotypach i oczekiwaniach wobec piszących kobiet, o pisaniu kobiecym i pisaniu męskim, o innym traktowaniu pisarzy i pisarek przez recenzentów.
July 17, 2023
If you’re looking for direct writing advice, it’s not here. But there’s a tremendous amount of perspective into the idea, profession, and mythology of “the writer.� It’s great food for thought and as brilliant as you’d expect from Atwood.
January 4, 2022
3.5
Najciekawsze były dla mnie wspomnienia Atwood, cofnięcie się do czasów, gdy sama zaczynała pisać. Teorie dotyczące pisania, bycia pisarzem i czytelnikiem też interesujące, ale, jak dla mnie, nie napisane w "porywający" sposób. Atwood wspomina na początku, że koniecznośc wygłoszenia tych wykładów w pewnym momencie zaczęła ją przerażać i... nie wiem, ale ja to jakoś czuję w tych tekstach: zabrakło w nich lekkości, bo zostały stworzone z obowiązku i z goniącym deadlinem? Niemniej pozaznaczałam tu całe mnóstwo fragmentów i komuś, kto jest fanem autorki ORAZ interesuje się literaturą, pisaniem i procesem tworzenia - polecam lekturę.
Najciekawsze były dla mnie wspomnienia Atwood, cofnięcie się do czasów, gdy sama zaczynała pisać. Teorie dotyczące pisania, bycia pisarzem i czytelnikiem też interesujące, ale, jak dla mnie, nie napisane w "porywający" sposób. Atwood wspomina na początku, że koniecznośc wygłoszenia tych wykładów w pewnym momencie zaczęła ją przerażać i... nie wiem, ale ja to jakoś czuję w tych tekstach: zabrakło w nich lekkości, bo zostały stworzone z obowiązku i z goniącym deadlinem? Niemniej pozaznaczałam tu całe mnóstwo fragmentów i komuś, kto jest fanem autorki ORAZ interesuje się literaturą, pisaniem i procesem tworzenia - polecam lekturę.
May 23, 2011
Margaret Atwood is, I tentatively conclude, not really the kind of writer I truly enjoy. I can appreciate her work, but I don't fall in love with it. I'm not sure why, altogether: partially, perhaps, because I think I could pinpoint her as the author of something without knowing. Her style gets between me and the narrative.
Her style is apparent even in her non-fiction book about writing. It's a collection of connected essays. The essays didn't feel particularly conclusive, though. Interesting, yes, and well-written in terms of metaphor and quotations -- I love the classical references -- but I haven't come out of it with a true understanding of what Atwood believes about writing, let alone with anything I can apply to my own writing.
Her style is apparent even in her non-fiction book about writing. It's a collection of connected essays. The essays didn't feel particularly conclusive, though. Interesting, yes, and well-written in terms of metaphor and quotations -- I love the classical references -- but I haven't come out of it with a true understanding of what Atwood believes about writing, let alone with anything I can apply to my own writing.
December 23, 2023
155th book of 2023. This hits #11 in my challenge with Alan, read a non-fiction book about writing.
Less about writing than the description suggests, but a breezy and gentle read. The essays in the book were adjusted from speeches Atwood has done. She claims to have not changed much, but has, she admits, removed some corny jokes. The most interesting bits were about writing being a craft and a Writer (capital W) being a discipline. I agree with this. I also had an argument with my ex-housemate the other day about intelligence being synonymous with a kind of madness, and Atwood delves into that, too. But mostly, Atwood seems to be having fun, quoting from her favourite books, chatting about the writers she likes and generally being passionate. There are also moments of autobiography: one of which Atwood recounts how one Valentine's Day, a boyfriend got her a real cow's heart with an arrow through it (in a bag - so it didn't drip).
Less about writing than the description suggests, but a breezy and gentle read. The essays in the book were adjusted from speeches Atwood has done. She claims to have not changed much, but has, she admits, removed some corny jokes. The most interesting bits were about writing being a craft and a Writer (capital W) being a discipline. I agree with this. I also had an argument with my ex-housemate the other day about intelligence being synonymous with a kind of madness, and Atwood delves into that, too. But mostly, Atwood seems to be having fun, quoting from her favourite books, chatting about the writers she likes and generally being passionate. There are also moments of autobiography: one of which Atwood recounts how one Valentine's Day, a boyfriend got her a real cow's heart with an arrow through it (in a bag - so it didn't drip).
September 10, 2014
I was reminded of something a medical student said to me about the interior of the human body, forty years ago: “It’s dark in there.�
Possibly, then, writing has to do with darkness, and a desire or perhaps a compulsion to enter it, and, with luck, to illuminate it, and to bring something back out to the light. This book is about that kind of darkness, and that kind of desire.
-Atwood
The writers I love are the ones who say writing is an act of sinking, emptiness, the shock of the void and the pleasure of the shock. Kafka, Cixous, Lispector, Duras. And Atwood sounds like them when she explains that the person whose name is on the book might be pleasant and mild, it's just that they have a double, a parasite in the brain -- she writes that the internal writer is something like a necrophiliac "tape-worm made of ink."
But Atwood isn't as far gone into the Dark Arts of Writing as the others -- after all she can keep her head above water enough to craft a functioning plot, while the other names mentioned are wide-eyed with the fishes. That makes this book somewhere between the fruitfully insane and the uninspiringly helpful (between Cixous' and Bradbury's ), and is probably The Answer for those who conclude that moderation is the key to most mysteries.
For instance, Atwood considers the reason for writing. Is it simply to write, Art-for-Art's Sake? If so, "won’t you end up making the equivalent of verbal doilies for the gilded armchairs in the Palace of Art?" But if instead you choose Social Relevance, "Will you end up on a panel discussion, and if so, is it the panel discussion in Hell?" Her books testify to the importance of never quite solving this question.
Read this, if you're a writer, especially if you love that dizzying inward movement of reading writers writing about writing for readers.
October 27, 2019
Interesting, but at times, a bit too 'fluffy' for my taste.
3.5* rounded down
3.5* rounded down
December 1, 2024
Yazmak ölülerle uzlaşmayı gerektirir diyor Atwood. O daha da fazlasını yapmış gibi görünüyor, edebiyat tarihinin tüm ölüleriyle (mitolojik kahramanlar, tragedya yazarları, roman karakterleri, öykü kişileri ve hepsinin yaratıcılarıyla) uzun ve derin bir teşriki mesaisi olmuş. Yazarın sırtını nasıl bir tarihe yasladığını görünce yazmanın asıl kısmının okumak olduğunu bir kez daha anladım. Yazar kendi hikayelerinin kazısını yapmakla yetinmediğinde ulaşılan derinlik bu işin mükafatı.
Margaret Atwood’un yazarlık ve okurluk üzerine birikimini yansıtan bu deneme kitabını okuyun da iştahınız kabarsın.
#okudumbitti #okumaönerisi #bookstagram #reklamdeğildir
Margaret Atwood’un yazarlık ve okurluk üzerine birikimini yansıtan bu deneme kitabını okuyun da iştahınız kabarsın.
#okudumbitti #okumaönerisi #bookstagram #reklamdeğildir
September 4, 2021
Atwood w tym świetnym zbiorze wykładów o literaturze mówi wiele na temat świata, wlasnego pochodzenia, pierwszych krokach w literaturę. Ale mówi też wiele o roli pisarki w zmieniającym się świecie.
---
“Wady związane z byciem kobietą trudniącą się pisaniem - przede wszystkim pisaniem wierszy - dobrze znałam, zanim jeszcze dołączyła do ich grona�. Margaret Atwood, jedna z najbardziej znanych na świecie pisarek w pasjonującej książce “O pisaniu� (tłum. Agnieszka Pokojska) opowiada o losie pisarza (a raczej o losie pisarki), mitach związanych z tworzeniem i pisarskich udrękach. (...)
Atwood jest pisarką szczęśliwą, uznaną i zamożną, co dla twórców i twórczyń jest dość rzadkim przywilejem. Historia literatury zna wiele nieszczęśliwych przykładów twórców oszalałych, biednych, zmarłych w podłych warunkach bytowych. Podobnie jak większość powieści opowiada o ludziach nieszczęśliwych, cierpiących na suchoty albo miłosne niespełnienie, tak historia literatury w przewrotny sposób celebruje tych, którzy do niej zapisali się nie tylko swoim dziełem, ale i smutną historią własnego życia. Jakby chcąc im wynagrodzić lata poniewierki, mit literacki karmi się nieszczęsnymi żywotami czasem chętniej niż tymi spełnionymi.
Fascynują - na co zwraca uwagę Atwood - szczególnie kobiety mające biografie pełne nieszczęść. Christina Rossetti, która “patrzyła na życie przez dziury wyjedzone przez mole w całunie�, Elizabeth Barrett Browning uzależniona od leków i cierpiąca na anoreksję, samobójczynie Charlotte Mew i Sylvia Plath. Dodajmy do tego spisu Marinę Cwietajewą... (...) .
“Wizja mrocznego losu do tego stopnia wrosła w powszechne wyobrażenie o poetkach, że gdy ukazały się dwa moje pierwsze tomiki, pytano mnie - najzupełniej poważnie - nie o to, czy popełnię samobójstwo, tylko kiedy�, pisze żywa wciąż Atwood.
Więcej tutaj:
---
“Wady związane z byciem kobietą trudniącą się pisaniem - przede wszystkim pisaniem wierszy - dobrze znałam, zanim jeszcze dołączyła do ich grona�. Margaret Atwood, jedna z najbardziej znanych na świecie pisarek w pasjonującej książce “O pisaniu� (tłum. Agnieszka Pokojska) opowiada o losie pisarza (a raczej o losie pisarki), mitach związanych z tworzeniem i pisarskich udrękach. (...)
Atwood jest pisarką szczęśliwą, uznaną i zamożną, co dla twórców i twórczyń jest dość rzadkim przywilejem. Historia literatury zna wiele nieszczęśliwych przykładów twórców oszalałych, biednych, zmarłych w podłych warunkach bytowych. Podobnie jak większość powieści opowiada o ludziach nieszczęśliwych, cierpiących na suchoty albo miłosne niespełnienie, tak historia literatury w przewrotny sposób celebruje tych, którzy do niej zapisali się nie tylko swoim dziełem, ale i smutną historią własnego życia. Jakby chcąc im wynagrodzić lata poniewierki, mit literacki karmi się nieszczęsnymi żywotami czasem chętniej niż tymi spełnionymi.
Fascynują - na co zwraca uwagę Atwood - szczególnie kobiety mające biografie pełne nieszczęść. Christina Rossetti, która “patrzyła na życie przez dziury wyjedzone przez mole w całunie�, Elizabeth Barrett Browning uzależniona od leków i cierpiąca na anoreksję, samobójczynie Charlotte Mew i Sylvia Plath. Dodajmy do tego spisu Marinę Cwietajewą... (...) .
“Wizja mrocznego losu do tego stopnia wrosła w powszechne wyobrażenie o poetkach, że gdy ukazały się dwa moje pierwsze tomiki, pytano mnie - najzupełniej poważnie - nie o to, czy popełnię samobójstwo, tylko kiedy�, pisze żywa wciąż Atwood.
Więcej tutaj:
May 8, 2017
I picked up this book at a used bookstore because I had no idea Atwood had ever written it and I thought it might be interesting. To be honest, I find writers writing about writing to be one of the most boring subjects a person can read about. I did however think Margaret Atwood would have something original to say on the subject. Nope.
To be fair, there are two things of interest here, the first being the insights Atwood has about her own experiences and what she shares about the expectations placed on women writers. Those alone might make the book worth reading for Atwood fans and that is why I gave it three stars. But to be honest there really isn't anything interesting about writing itself that hasn't been said before, and a lot of it I think is dead wrong anyway.
For instance, the title essay suggests that writers write in order to deal with death. Having just turned 37, I can say with confidence that most people before they approach middle-age only think of death in a theoretical sense. I think writers over forty think about their deaths and whether their lives are important all the time. However, this has nothing to do with why most writers start writing. People write partially to communicate their experience to the world in the hopes that somebody like them will feel less alone, just as the books they read brought comfort to them. That is why writers are often such outsiders, because in reality they see the world as strange, and the people in it hard to communicate with. That's just my opinion though. At least its not pretentious and hopelessly derivative.
To be fair, there are two things of interest here, the first being the insights Atwood has about her own experiences and what she shares about the expectations placed on women writers. Those alone might make the book worth reading for Atwood fans and that is why I gave it three stars. But to be honest there really isn't anything interesting about writing itself that hasn't been said before, and a lot of it I think is dead wrong anyway.
For instance, the title essay suggests that writers write in order to deal with death. Having just turned 37, I can say with confidence that most people before they approach middle-age only think of death in a theoretical sense. I think writers over forty think about their deaths and whether their lives are important all the time. However, this has nothing to do with why most writers start writing. People write partially to communicate their experience to the world in the hopes that somebody like them will feel less alone, just as the books they read brought comfort to them. That is why writers are often such outsiders, because in reality they see the world as strange, and the people in it hard to communicate with. That's just my opinion though. At least its not pretentious and hopelessly derivative.
January 18, 2021
Begun as a series of six lectures delivered at Cambridge University in 2000, Margaret Atwood's "On Writers and Writing" does not appear to have made much of an impression. At the moment, that I am writing it has a mere 3,234 ratings on ŷ which is only 0.2% of 1,483,750 ratings garnered by the "Handmaid's Tale". While "On Writers and Writing" is clearly not one of Atwood's major works, it still merits more attention than it is getting. Accordingly, I am giving it a longer review than I normally would.
The first lecture/chapter is entitled: "Orientation. What is a writer and how did I become one ". In it, Atwood describes how she became a socially acknowledged writer. She then announces that in the remaining chapters, she will only cover the activities of writers that are recognized as such by the general public. Her reason is that writers are like gravediggers:
"Anyone can dig a hole in a cemetery, but not everyone is a gravedigger. The latter takes a good deal more stamina and persistence. It is because of the nature of the activity, a deeply symbolic role. As a gravedigger, you are not just a person who excavates. You carry upon your shoulders the weight of other people's projections, their fears and fantasies, and anxieties and superstitions. You represent mortality whether you like it or not. And so it is with any public role, including that of the Writer, capital W." (p. 26)
Atwood will continue with this theme of death and the writer through to the end of the book.
The title of the second lecture/chapter is: "Duplicity: The jekyll hand, the hyde hand, and the slippery double. Why are there always two?"Atwood notes that writer- doppelgangers abound in literature. One entity is a real person and the other is the author. Atwood's point of view is that the writer is a rather a creature like Alice who can pass to the other side of the mirror. "The act of writing takes place at the moment when Alice passes through the mirror. At this one instant, the barrier between the doubles dissolves." (p. 57)
Atwood also notes in this chapter that as the Word of God, Jesus was never a writer: "Note however that in the New Testament, Jesus is a tale-teller. He teaches by parable, but he doesn't write a word, because he is the Word, the Spirit that bloweth where it listeth; he is fluid and intangible, like the speaking voice." (p 47)
The third chapter or title is "Dedication. The Great Good Pen. Apollo vs. Mammon". Here Atwood demolishes the notion that the true writer should avoid commercial success. Atwood argues that there has been a mistaken trend to elevate the writer into a God and as such a being who must be pure from the supposed corruption of money.
"In the West, as religion lost helium in society at large, the Real Presence crept back into the realm of art. The artist, he or she was to serve this mystic entity - Art with a Capital A - by assisting in the creation of a sacred space. There was a corollary. One mark of a true priest was his or her lack of interest in money. " (pp. 61-62)
Chapter/Lecture Four bears the title: "Temptation: Prospero, the Wizard of Oz, Mephisto & Co. Who waves the wand, pulls the string or signs the Devil's book?" In this section, Atwood addresses the question of the political engagement of the writer. "When split off from the needs of humanity, how guilty should an artist feel about his art." (p. 93) Atwood's conclusion is that the writer simply renders the truth and that it is the reader who puts the political content into the writer's work.
The fifth lecture/chapter is "Communion: Nobody to Nobody. The eternal triangle: the writer, the reader and the book as go-between." In this chapter, Atwood recalls how the first person to read any of her compositions was the sweet lady who was the troop leader (or Brown Owl) of her Brownie Troop. To this day, Atwood continues to write for the nice people who read and appreciate her books.
"For the ideal reader exists on a continuum somewhere between Brown Owl (i.e. the first person among your friends or family who took an interest in your composition) and God. And this ideal person may be anyone at all - any one at all - because the act of reading is just as singular - always - as the act of writing."
The concluding chapter/ lecture is: "Descent: Who makes the trip to the Underworld and Why?"
In this chapter, Atwood reminds her readers how many authors (Virgil, Dante, etc.) have visited the realm of the dead. In Atwood's view, this trip is a necessary part of the life of every writer. "All writers must go from now to once upon a time. ; all must do from here to there; all most descend to where the stories are kept; all must take care not to be captured and held immobile by the past. All most commit the act of larceny. The dead my guard the treasure, but it is useless treasure unless it can be brought back into the land of the living allowed to enter time once more." (p. 178)
The conclusion of this most contemporary of authors is that the role of the writer has not changed since the beginning of human civilization. I recommend this book highly for of Atwood's Canadian fans. Regretfully, I must acknowledge that in places, it will be difficult for the non-Canadian reader as Atwood quotes extensively throughout the book from Canadian authors who are essentially only known in our fair country.
The first lecture/chapter is entitled: "Orientation. What is a writer and how did I become one ". In it, Atwood describes how she became a socially acknowledged writer. She then announces that in the remaining chapters, she will only cover the activities of writers that are recognized as such by the general public. Her reason is that writers are like gravediggers:
"Anyone can dig a hole in a cemetery, but not everyone is a gravedigger. The latter takes a good deal more stamina and persistence. It is because of the nature of the activity, a deeply symbolic role. As a gravedigger, you are not just a person who excavates. You carry upon your shoulders the weight of other people's projections, their fears and fantasies, and anxieties and superstitions. You represent mortality whether you like it or not. And so it is with any public role, including that of the Writer, capital W." (p. 26)
Atwood will continue with this theme of death and the writer through to the end of the book.
The title of the second lecture/chapter is: "Duplicity: The jekyll hand, the hyde hand, and the slippery double. Why are there always two?"Atwood notes that writer- doppelgangers abound in literature. One entity is a real person and the other is the author. Atwood's point of view is that the writer is a rather a creature like Alice who can pass to the other side of the mirror. "The act of writing takes place at the moment when Alice passes through the mirror. At this one instant, the barrier between the doubles dissolves." (p. 57)
Atwood also notes in this chapter that as the Word of God, Jesus was never a writer: "Note however that in the New Testament, Jesus is a tale-teller. He teaches by parable, but he doesn't write a word, because he is the Word, the Spirit that bloweth where it listeth; he is fluid and intangible, like the speaking voice." (p 47)
The third chapter or title is "Dedication. The Great Good Pen. Apollo vs. Mammon". Here Atwood demolishes the notion that the true writer should avoid commercial success. Atwood argues that there has been a mistaken trend to elevate the writer into a God and as such a being who must be pure from the supposed corruption of money.
"In the West, as religion lost helium in society at large, the Real Presence crept back into the realm of art. The artist, he or she was to serve this mystic entity - Art with a Capital A - by assisting in the creation of a sacred space. There was a corollary. One mark of a true priest was his or her lack of interest in money. " (pp. 61-62)
Chapter/Lecture Four bears the title: "Temptation: Prospero, the Wizard of Oz, Mephisto & Co. Who waves the wand, pulls the string or signs the Devil's book?" In this section, Atwood addresses the question of the political engagement of the writer. "When split off from the needs of humanity, how guilty should an artist feel about his art." (p. 93) Atwood's conclusion is that the writer simply renders the truth and that it is the reader who puts the political content into the writer's work.
The fifth lecture/chapter is "Communion: Nobody to Nobody. The eternal triangle: the writer, the reader and the book as go-between." In this chapter, Atwood recalls how the first person to read any of her compositions was the sweet lady who was the troop leader (or Brown Owl) of her Brownie Troop. To this day, Atwood continues to write for the nice people who read and appreciate her books.
"For the ideal reader exists on a continuum somewhere between Brown Owl (i.e. the first person among your friends or family who took an interest in your composition) and God. And this ideal person may be anyone at all - any one at all - because the act of reading is just as singular - always - as the act of writing."
The concluding chapter/ lecture is: "Descent: Who makes the trip to the Underworld and Why?"
In this chapter, Atwood reminds her readers how many authors (Virgil, Dante, etc.) have visited the realm of the dead. In Atwood's view, this trip is a necessary part of the life of every writer. "All writers must go from now to once upon a time. ; all must do from here to there; all most descend to where the stories are kept; all must take care not to be captured and held immobile by the past. All most commit the act of larceny. The dead my guard the treasure, but it is useless treasure unless it can be brought back into the land of the living allowed to enter time once more." (p. 178)
The conclusion of this most contemporary of authors is that the role of the writer has not changed since the beginning of human civilization. I recommend this book highly for of Atwood's Canadian fans. Regretfully, I must acknowledge that in places, it will be difficult for the non-Canadian reader as Atwood quotes extensively throughout the book from Canadian authors who are essentially only known in our fair country.
September 13, 2011
Margaret Atwood made me get teary-eyed on the subway while reading this book.
"Negotiating With the Dead" is a reflection on the roles of writers and their readers, adapted and somewhat expanded from the Empson Lectures which Margaret Atwood delivered at Cambridge University in 2000. It is breathtakingly erudite and eclectic, but is also interwoven with very personal and down-to-earth recollections and episodes from Atwood's own journey as both a writer and a reader. It was a sweet reminiscence about the person whom she considered to be her first reader - and who she later paid tribute to with an appearance in one of her novels - that brought on my moved and appreciative tears. It also drove home that the audience and the individual reader are critical figures in the symbiosis of the writer's creative process.
This book brims with examples from the classical to the contemporary of the multifaceted and sometimes conflicted roles, challenges and opportunities of the writer. At the same time, much of it has a conversational tone that undoubtedly stems from both its origin as a series of lectures, but also Atwood's strong and singular voice. Some might count that as a flaw of this work, in that the overall voice is somewhat inconsistent, but I think that's part of its charm and makes the subject matter than much more approachable, digestible and memorable.
"Negotiating With the Dead" is a reflection on the roles of writers and their readers, adapted and somewhat expanded from the Empson Lectures which Margaret Atwood delivered at Cambridge University in 2000. It is breathtakingly erudite and eclectic, but is also interwoven with very personal and down-to-earth recollections and episodes from Atwood's own journey as both a writer and a reader. It was a sweet reminiscence about the person whom she considered to be her first reader - and who she later paid tribute to with an appearance in one of her novels - that brought on my moved and appreciative tears. It also drove home that the audience and the individual reader are critical figures in the symbiosis of the writer's creative process.
This book brims with examples from the classical to the contemporary of the multifaceted and sometimes conflicted roles, challenges and opportunities of the writer. At the same time, much of it has a conversational tone that undoubtedly stems from both its origin as a series of lectures, but also Atwood's strong and singular voice. Some might count that as a flaw of this work, in that the overall voice is somewhat inconsistent, but I think that's part of its charm and makes the subject matter than much more approachable, digestible and memorable.
July 30, 2013
I wanted to like this book. Really, I did. But my initial enthusiasm faded a little with each chapter until, a few months ago, within thirty pages of the endnotes, I just put it down and haven't felt any inclination to pick it up again. Atwood has a way with words (duh), but I think this works against her when she writes essays; what feel like profound insights when you read them, because of the clever, aphoristic turns of phrase, end up looking more like hollow abstractions when you get a little distance. More sizzle than steak. Perhaps her conceit (the artist's heroic journey into the underworld) is too weak to bear the weight of all she wants to say, or maybe she has less to say than she thinks, and has to pad it out with her conceit. I don't know, because I couldn't engage with the writing. Her collection "In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination" had a similar effect on me, but I love to read Atwood's fiction. Go figure.
August 5, 2022
Неплохой сборник историй и мыслей о письме и писателях. Многие произведения, особенно short stories, упомянутые в книге мне были знакомы, было любопытно узнать, что скажет о них Маргарет Этвуд. Также было интересно услышать имена Пушкина, Чехова, Гоголя (еще и с кратким анализом его повести 'Нос'), Ахматовой...
Аудиокнигу читает сама Маргарет Этвуд, и это круто.
Аудиокнигу читает сама Маргарет Этвуд, и это круто.
February 10, 2022
Margaret Atwood, popüler kültürün onca yazar mezarlığı arasında bu kitabı ile (diğer kitaplarını ya da televizyona aktarılan yapıtlarını izlemedim) bir adım öne çıktı ve o mezarlığın içinde olmadığını samimiyeti, bilgisi ve bunu aktarma şekliyle "yaşayanlar, ölmeyecekler" arasında olduğunu gösterdi. Bu noktada Stephen King ve yazmak isteyenler için müthiş paylaşımı, kitabı "Roman Sanatı" aklıma düştü. Buraya bir not olarak bırakmalıyım ki kendini bir halı gibi ayaklarımız altına serip tüm içtenlikleriyle "Yazabilirsin!" diye bağıran Ursula Le Guin, Stephen King, Chuck Palahniuk ve Neil Gaiman'ın yanına Margaret Atwood'u da ekleyebilirim. Kitap temel bir takım anlatı, yazma isteği olanları yakalayabilecek örnekler ve cümlelerle başlıyor. Fakat son bölümleri okurken zorlandığımı hissettim, daha detaya, daha fazla ayrıntıya, belki de ancak yazan kişilerin kavrayabileceği cümlelere geçiş yapmış. Şahsi düşünceme göre tek kusuru bu sanırım.
November 8, 2017
Interesting treatise on writing from various perspectives: the inherent duplicity of a writer's persona, the relationship between the writer and the reader, and, most intriguingly, the role of the writer as a mediator between this world and the Beyond (hence the title of the book).
For someone like me who's in the "writing a thesis while churning out essays 24/7" part of her life, this book contained one particularly important piece of advice on writerly resilience: "Get back on the horse that threw you" (p. xviii). Ergo, don't stop writing, even if it sometimes leaves you heaving for breath on the ground (for haven't we all been there? Either figuratively or literally, or both).
For someone like me who's in the "writing a thesis while churning out essays 24/7" part of her life, this book contained one particularly important piece of advice on writerly resilience: "Get back on the horse that threw you" (p. xviii). Ergo, don't stop writing, even if it sometimes leaves you heaving for breath on the ground (for haven't we all been there? Either figuratively or literally, or both).
February 9, 2018
3.5! Not as readable as her fiction, but really absorbing for those who have an interest in the art of writing or being a writer, although it often slips into philosophy when discussing ideas! Tons and tons of references to literature and a really great insight into Atwood's mind. My favourite essay was on the author as two dual personalities. Sometimes I felt that I was not intelligent enough to really 'get' some of her thought processes, though!
March 31, 2021
I’m reluctant to say this about a Margaret Atwood book, but: YAWN. An adaptation of a six lecture series on, well ... writers and writing. Sounds great, yeah? Total snooze fest. There’s obviously value to certain bits, but evidently much of it is too academic and esoteric for my little brain. Atwood’s narration didn’t help. Very monotone at times, but often pitching up on random words. Def go print if you intend to suffer through this.
July 28, 2017
Blerg. Love Atwood, did not love this book. Very academic and boring. Something an old-school professor would assign you to read. Does not live up to the badass title.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 644 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.