Meta Writing

One of my favorite bloggers, Katya Andressen, has pledged to blog everyday throughout the year.

"Blogging forces you into a state of mental depth and rigor, and we can all do with more of that. It’s one thing to have a thought. It’s quite another to think it through and post it publicly. You have to work your brain harder."

In that vein, I want to use this blog for meta writing; writing about writing. I want to improve my craft as it is the core of my job. I use writing as a persuasive element to build relationships and ultimately solicit support for my employer.

I also want to spend more time writing creatively, as that was my first passion in the arts when I was in high school. I had brief bouts of furious fiction spewing from my keyboard that now I mostly think of as amateur drivel. Only within the last few years have I begun writing fiction, or more broadly, creative writing, again.

Other than "for my own enjoyment", I often struggle with the question: what is the purpose of fiction? I read on a forum that I frequent that fiction should never be didactic. I wholeheartedly disagree even if I do not have an answer as to what fiction "should" be.

When speaking about writing, my English Professor issued the following quote:

"There are three points of view
from which a writer can be considered:
he may be considered as a story teller,
as a teacher,
and as an enchanter.

A major writer combines these three -
storyteller, teacher, enchanter -

but it is the enchanter in him
that predominates
and makes him
a major writer."

Vladimir Naboko

The story teller is fairly easy to identify. You've got a protagonist, some conflict and a resolution. Hollywood is very good at this but rarely goes any further. As an example of a teacher, my professor mentioned the works of Michael Crichton. The story telling is still there, but the reader is learning something new and often complex.

The last aspect was never defined in that class. I think it is because enchantment cannot be quantified; the reader will know it when he sees it. Since it is up to each one of us to define enchantment, here is my elucidation: when you wake up in the middle of the night or first thing in the morning and your mind is so entrenched in a thought that you can tell it was thinking about it in your sleep. If that thought has been derived from literature, that my friends, is enchantment.


Often times literary snobs (I'm not casting stones, I openly self-identify as both a beer and coffee snob) get hung up on prose. It is quite a talent to give long, beautiful, descriptive, original imagery in a novel. I imagine that all enchanters are quite good at this. However, I see good writing as a pyramid of story teller, teacher, and enchanter. Each is not separate, but builds upon the lower level, transcends and includes its foundation. Some writers have wonderful prose that few others can match but they lack the compelling story telling capabilities that can complete them.

For me, the teaching element is necessary. I have a curious mind and if I'm not learning something new, I'm not interested. It doesn't have to be Michael Crichton explaining to me the complexities of dinosaur DNA. It could be Kurt Vonnegut describing the bombing of Dresden and the concept of fatalism as seen through the eyes of an alien species (The Tralfamadorians, in my opinion, were the crux of the novel. Not the war). We all have unique experiences to tell about and they should be included in every story so that the reader always has something new to learn.

Others simply want to be entertained and they need the refined wordsmith to do so. This thinking about thinking has gotten me to thinking, or meta meta thinking, so I guess I've done my job. I will write more on this later.