|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Phy
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 866
Location: Wisconsin, USA
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: Automatic writing? |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Whatever the well from which it springs, automatic writing may add multi-faceted layers to our writing. |
I think knowing the 'well from which it springs' is a fundamental question that shouldn't be glossed over. This is a borderline occult practice akin to literary channeling. If we live in a spiritual world, we need to be vigilant about knowing who the players are, and how they operate.
When the Bible was written, it was /inspired/ by the Holy Spirit, but /written/ by normal men. That's a far different thing than automatic writing.
_________________
Johne (Phy) Cook | Overlord, Ray Gun Revival | phywriter.com | |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cameron Walker
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find the entire concept disturbing. This boarders on channeling the spirits.
I can't really point to a verse that says this is 'wrong' - not yet - but I do know that anything written in such a manner needs to be compared - as all works should but this far more so - to the Biblical truths alreadys given to us.
_________________
Truth is only relavant to your belief in God |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Snodgrass
Site Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 4832
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
When I read this, I focused on the modern idea that it is a way to tap into the "subconscious" or to get free from the distractions and roadblocks the conscious mind puts up. In mental health, sometimes it is helpful for the one being treated to do a stream of consciousness journal, putting on the page any thought that surfaces as fast as possible. Looking over this, later, helps to see into core issues and such.
I believe what we are offering here, in regards to fiction, is similar. Start pounding the keys and don't stop to edit. Let the words flow, etc.--let the mind wonder to and fro and see what comes of it.
Certainly, anything occult or any spirit channeling would be perilous, so I'll go on record to say that's not what I'd recommend.
_________________
Bill Snodgrass
www.doubleedgedpublishing.com
www.mindflights.com
www.dkamagazine.com | www.raygunrevival.com
www.haruah.com
www.siliar.com | www.billsnodgrass.com | http://blog.myspace.com/billsnodgrass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Loriendil
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 1788
Location: Dela-where USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Snodgrass wrote: |
I believe what we are offering here, in regards to fiction, is similar. Start pounding the keys and don't stop to edit. Let the words flow, etc.--let the mind wonder to and fro and see what comes of it.
|
Or in some writers cases, letting the characters go with full forward momentum and not trying to second-guess them.
Of course, that might end up with a cowboy wearing tights... 
_________________
~Lee S. King
Deuces Wild: Beginners' Luck Now in print!
With gangsters hot on their heels, a bereaved cowboy and cynical space pirate are forced to work together for their own survival. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dausema
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 324
Location: colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
When I hear 'automatic writing' that's what I think of as well, Bill--the turning off the inner editor and just allowing the strange images buried in our minds to come out. I'd be a bit skeptical about anything that comes from it to be immediately ready for publication, but possibly with some additional rewrites, or at the least it can give yourself good training for when you sit down to write something else.
I remember hearing in a few places a recommendation to write down your dreams as soon as you wake up, not trying to force order to the images, but just write down exactly what impressions you had. I was a bit hesitant at first--the only people I'd known who kept dream journals were a little too into lucid dreaming and dream interpretations for my comfort. But the point isn't to control dreams or to understand some occult meaning--it's to get you writing without that inner editor saying, "No, that doesn't work. Try this word instead. Switch the sentence there. Go back, go back. Delete it all and start again. You've used that word too many times already. Do you really think anyone would buy this??"
(Can you tell I'm familiar with that inner editor voice?  )
I don't write down my dreams often, but I have in the past, and I do still occasionally, and I do other exercises to help me overcome that questioning, nitpicking voice that ends up stifling creativity (and sometimes all writing). Automatic writing could be another valuable tool for this...but you have to see it from the right mindset. If you're picturing it as somehow occult or in some other way against your own religious beliefs, then it won't be a useful tool and you shouldn't touch it. If you approach it from a different direction, open-mindedly, but consistent with your own beliefs, then it can be a powerful tool.
_________________
Twigs and Brambles Blog and check out my website for current and forthcoming publications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Snodgrass
Site Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 4832
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Loriendil wrote: | Or in some writers cases, letting the characters go with full forward momentum and not trying to second-guess them.
Of course, that might end up with a cowboy wearing tights... |
About the tights-- 
I had a scene, the details of which I have long forgotten, but the idea of characters taking a "life" of their own grew from something along these lines. In that forgotten scene, something happened. Cameron's response was sort of like this: "Well that was nice, but do you think Lansal would really DO that? It's just not in his nature... etc." Of course he was right. The character had become more than words. In our minds, he had traits--some of which just bloomed and grew as the writing progress--that all-but dictated what he would do.
_________________
Bill Snodgrass
www.doubleedgedpublishing.com
www.mindflights.com
www.dkamagazine.com | www.raygunrevival.com
www.haruah.com
www.siliar.com | www.billsnodgrass.com | http://blog.myspace.com/billsnodgrass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phy
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 866
Location: Wisconsin, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've mentioned this before to Lee.
To me, the idea of automatic writing has everything to do with the source, and the source is external to the author.
If we're just talking about tapping into the writer's left brain, their subsconscious, I'm all for that, and have posted articles and columns about that, myself.
But the difference is that the subconscious is completely conceptual in nature, and requires the conscious mind or the right brain to translate those concepts into sentences, organized linear concepts made of stern enough stuff to pass around.
That's not what we're talking about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_writing
| Quote: |
Automatic writing is the process, or product, of writing material that does not come from the conscious thoughts of the writer. The writer's hand forms the message, and the person is unaware of what will be written. It is sometimes done in a trance state. Other times the writer is aware (not in a trance) of their surroundings but not of the actions of their writing hand. |
That definition comes across as borderline occult, an area that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
Think of it this way; if you're sick, you don't go stand out on a busy corner, close your eyes, and hold out your hands. If somebody dropped something into your hand, ask yourself if you would take that mystery medication blindly, without knowing the person or the medication, without knowing their motivation or the effect of that drug on your body.
As a Christian, I do believe in the spirit world as recorded in scripture; angels (messengers of light) and demons (fallen angels) who interact with we people as we seek to serve God or ourselves. Sdripture describes a vigorous spiritual conflict where the tools of battle are often temptation to disobedy God, and the prompting to remain obedient to God.
As long as I'm here, I may as well mention that I believe that those who wrote what is now considered scripture were not, in my opinion, using a variety of 'holy' automatic writing. Instead, I believe in the 'inspiration' principle, where the Holy Spirit suggests things to us, but we still are the ones who do the writing - supernatural wisdom written under our control, not supernatural ideas written outside of our control.
This is an interesting topic, and I am intrigued by the various ideas being offered. Thanks.
_________________
Johne (Phy) Cook | Overlord, Ray Gun Revival | phywriter.com | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RLCopple
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 525
Location: Marble Falls, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wondered what article you were reading and exactly what this was.
Based on what you quoted, Johne, I would agree with you. Such types of practices can open one up to spiritual deception. St. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. that we are always in control of God-given gifts.
I too would be very leery of such a practice.
_________________
R. L. Copple
My Blog
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dausema
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 324
Location: colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. And I can see that someone coming into the exercise thinking 'I'm going to channel xyz" would certainly make me uncomfortable. Yet, even when I read that definition from wikipedia, it strikes me as simply a way to access the subconscious while writing. Couched in somewhat mystical terms, it's true, but I think most people who do it would ultimately say that that's what they're doing. Certainly I'm sure there are some who use it as a form of occultism...and that fact should at least give us pause. But it strikes me as the type of thing that hinges on the writer's intent. I'm willing to be argued with though--my opinion is not set in stone.
I've never done this myself, at least not exactly how it's described, so this is completely an intellectual response, not an experiential one.
_________________
Twigs and Brambles Blog and check out my website for current and forthcoming publications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Loriendil
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 1788
Location: Dela-where USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RLCopple wrote: | I wondered what article you were reading and exactly what this was.
|
This is the column: http://theswordreview.com/columns.php?sub_id=262
_________________
~Lee S. King
Deuces Wild: Beginners' Luck Now in print!
With gangsters hot on their heels, a bereaved cowboy and cynical space pirate are forced to work together for their own survival. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phy
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 866
Location: Wisconsin, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dausema wrote: | | Yet, even when I read that definition from wikipedia, it strikes me as simply a way to access the subconscious while writing. |
Ok, let's play with that for a moment. I've written a post here early on that touches on the subject based on material written by Grandmaster sci-fi author and editor Damon Knight.
http://theswordreview.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=163&highlight=fred
| Quote: | Also, on fueling your speechless mind:
Quote:
"To begin with, your mind comes in two parts, the conscious part and the other one. 'Unconscious' is a lousy term, by the way - it isn't unconscious, it just has trouble communicating. 'The silent mind' would be better, maybe, or the tongue-tied mind, but I prefer to call it 'Fred'."
Knight goes on to say that the conscious mind works in a very linear fashion but the speechless mind - Fred, in his case - works by way of a web of association. His section on collaborating with Fred is fresh and insightful, and explains a great many things. |
To me, Knight gets this right. The 'subconscious' or 'unconscious' mind is the purely creative part. I like how he calls it the 'speechless' mind, because that illustrates it's strengths and weaknesses. It is hugely creative and comes at things unhindered by language or logic. It sees settings, scenes, people, as elements of pure image.
That's the good news.
The bad news it that it requires the analytical portion of the brain, the 'conscious', to translate these ideas into words, into sentences.
For me, how this works is that I'll have a problem with a scene or a situation, and I'll keep pounding away at that, all workmanlike and stubborn. But I'm missing a key insight or element because my conscious brain gets in the way. When I go to sleep, I'll think about what I think is the nature of the problem, and then I'll put it out of my mind and go to sleep. Frequently, when I wake up the next morning (or even sooner!), my speechless mind will have looked at the problem unhindered by language or logic and will be sitting, waiting, with the solution. The solution frequently comes to me fully developed, a complete image that my analytical brain receives like a gift, and the elegance of the solution is a little overpowering.
But you'll note that it requires my analytical mind, my conscious mind, to turn those concepts and ideas into words and sentences and logical flow. I do not believe that it is possible to tap into the speechless mind get logical speech.
When I speak of occultic activity, I'm talking about spiritual things. Scripture suggests to me that the fallen angels that I referred to earlier are able to suggest concepts to our minds, but can't read our minds. Scripture refers to this as 'temptation', for the suggestsions from the evil one and the fallen angels are always at cross purposes to living a life obedient to God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2010:13&version=31
| Quote: | | 13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it. |
The idea here is that we are responsible for using our will and our conscious minds to sort out thoughts that are good and those that are not.
Let me be clear - I have no issue if we are writing things that are generated in our own speechless mind. These are times when our conscioius minds have trouble getting our arms around an abstract idea and articulating something fully in words until we give the issue over to our speechless minds, that part of us sees clearly in terms of image and scene and scenario, and then we later see the issue clearly. To me, this is tapping into the complexity and wonder of how we're made. The difference between how I've defined this process and automatic writing is that the source in this case is us, an internal revelation.
My concern is when the source is external to us. From the Wikipedia article:
| Quote: | Sometime prior to 1900, William Stainton Moses, a respected priest and teacher, experimented with automatic writing. His beliefs were orthodox Christian, but the messages from his automatic writing took a more open, undogmatic view, to which he "converted" over time. He believed the message originated from higher spirits.
Rosemary Brown was an English housewife who automatically composed music. She could play the piano, though not very well. She felt that great composers were writing through her. |
I believe, from scripture, that there are no bleedover of dead people who have access to the living. Therefore, my problem would be if we are in a state where we are receiving thoughts from an external source and these thoughts that are not ours are being transmitted through written words directly onto a page or a screen. As I wrote in an earlier post, knowing the source of these insights is critical.
There is much more that could be said about this, but I think I've laid out my primary observations and concerns. This is a fascinating subject, and I am enjoying the exchange of ideas on what is a weighty topic.
_________________
Johne (Phy) Cook | Overlord, Ray Gun Revival | phywriter.com | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RLCopple
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 525
Location: Marble Falls, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, I should have guessed this was a discussion of something like a column.
Like Phy, I don't have a problem with working to release my subconscious creativity. I have as a rule taken the approach to writing with minimal attempts to correct grammar and spelling, or to stop and think, "I could say it better this way," but rather to focus on the flow of the story and plot. Writing a story and editing a story require two different frames of mind IMO, as well as from what I've read. I also have the experience several times when I came to a place in writing my novel that I didn't know what was going to happen next, or how they would get out of a particular predicamate. My 45 minute trip to Church and back, just mulling things over in my mind, exploring various possibilities, I would often arrive home with a solution that I felt hit the spot.
But, there are many stories in Christian history where someone thought they were hearing from God when it was a demon, and there are many warnings from many spiritually attuned Christians through history who warn if you hear anything in a dream or vision, don't automatically assume it is from God, but test the spirits, as Scripture warns us to do.
It is one thing to get your mental blinders out of the way to let your subconsious show us a solution from a fresh perspective, but I would be leery of any "words" that didn't come through my conscious mind in some form. That to me is coming too close to allowing demonic influence an inroad.
Each one should judge that for themselves, and I wouldn't diss a process that simply frees the creative mind to find expression in valid ways. But if I'm writing stuff that comes from a source other than me, then I would have a problem with that. This seems to at a minimum open up that possibility, which for me is too risky.
But that's about all I have to say on it, Phy's made some good points and obviousy has done some research and reading on this more, so continue on guys.
_________________
R. L. Copple
My Blog
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cameron Walker
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dont really know enough about it to give a definitive 'yes' or 'no'.
All I can say is 'be careful out there'.
I once talked to a woman in college working on her dr in psychology. To get to the point she ends up telling me that she believes that there are 'spirits' out there desperately needing a body and that, if someone wanted to kill themselves, they should 'do the right thing' and turn their body over to one of those needy souls.
The hair on my neck nearly -not in actual truth but nearly- stood up. That chilled me. And, to my discredit, I didnt have the knowledge or confidence to tell her what an absolute moron she was.
She's probably a college professor somewhere now teaching our kids.
So anytime I hear of anything remotely akin to 'channeling' now my shields go up and I go into agressive mode.
_________________
Truth is only relavant to your belief in God |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dausema
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 324
Location: colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phy wrote: | The difference between how I've defined this process and automatic writing is that the source in this case is us, an internal revelation.
My concern is when the source is external to us. |
I would be concerned about that as well. And clearly, as you've pointed out, people have used automatic writing believing the source to be outside of themselves. What I'm not as sure about is if that's an intrinsic part of automatic writing, or more a reflection of the people who interpret it that way. In other words, if I use it as a tool, approaching it in such a way that I'm considering it a way to allow my subconscious to speak, will it still be dangerous for me?
The way different people will answer that might come down to the way they see demons, how aggressive or active they believe them to be, something that there's a very broad spectrum of belief within the Christian (in the broadest sense) religious spectrum.
_________________
Twigs and Brambles Blog and check out my website for current and forthcoming publications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phy
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 866
Location: Wisconsin, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dausema wrote: | | In other words, if I use it as a tool, approaching it in such a way that I'm considering it a way to allow my subconscious to speak, will it still be dangerous for me? |
To be clear, the subconscious isn't capable of 'speech', or 'language', or spelling and grammar - the subconscious is capable of ideas, pictures, and a web of association, completely conceptual. We need the conscious mind to translate those mental images to written words and sentences and sytnax and anything related to order. If you're receiving written words and sentences from somewhere, I'd be very cautious.
_________________
Johne (Phy) Cook | Overlord, Ray Gun Revival | phywriter.com | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
