# Writer's Image



## M. LeRenard (Aug 19, 2009)

A lot of writing types I've met (meaning, those folks who actually want their job to be 'writer') seem to have a certain common image they all try to express.  This is your usual beret- and scarf-wearing, lattÃ©-drinking brooding fellow who always carries around a notepad or a laptop, sitting in cafÃ©s and jotting down emotional poetry or notes about the meaning of life or some other such thing.  When they talk about the craft, they often use the word 'soul' or 'heart', and they seem to believe that as long as a piece was written in a state that was trance-like somehow, it always turns out to be a masterpiece.  Scratch that: an under-appreciated masterpiece.  They write a lot of things, and they dream about publication, but they never quite seem to get around to actually sending things out.  And those that have were rejected and so gave up, intent that the simpletons in the business just don't have the brains to see the true genius of their work.
It's kind of the pop-culture image of a gothic poet, but it seems like people sometimes take it to be the generic image of a writer, especially when those people want to become this kind of writer themselves.  But I also know that most writers are, in fact, nothing like this.  These folks are out there, but they're few and far between considering how gigantic the writing community actually is.
So I'm wondering, what do you think about these kinds of people?  Where did they get the idea that writers should be like this?  Where do you agree with them, and where do you disagree when it comes to their methods, their opinions, etc?  Do you think overly emotional writing like what they seem to idolize is any good, or is it just pretense?  And lastly, how many of you are actually like this, or know some people who are actually like this?


----------



## Nikolai (Aug 19, 2009)

I think they're great to sit and have a chat with on a total random whim. Otherwise, I don't try to think too hard about it.

Personally, I'm the writer who locks himself in a room and meditates to classical music for 15 minutes before even touching the keyboard. My method IS my image, and that's about where it ends. You'd never guess I was a writer by the way I look on the street.

I actually prefer having my stuff read under anonymous before I display myself as the writer, it really can help gain some respect points, since people don't have pre-conceived ideas. I think by attempting to assert such a moody writer persona, someone might be cutting their legs out from underneath it. 

After all, a wonderful quote is either brilliant when it comes from a world-renowned genius, or simply arrogant and stupid when it comes from a snooty "writer".

It's all about the words, not about the image. If you're a good writer, you should let your emotion speak through the work, not your clothes.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 19, 2009)

I like how anyone thinks that they can write something down and it's considered "a good story." The wannabes that think the best stories are decided by how big the climatic scene is, without the will or ability to work up drama to the point where a climatic finish happens, or think that just when the writing is over that they should end it as soon as possible, thus leaving an almost unintentional cliffhanger of, "so what happens next?"

I believe a good story is written to be guided by emotion.. but not just ones like "love" and "soul"... people over portray these things as a big part of a story, but forget things like how to capture a readers attention or try to bring out emotions of excitement, anger, fear... 

Which leads me to my point: If you try to copy all your favorite authors, or try to clique with other authors, then you are destined to be mediocre at best. If you can't be your own person, then why are you even a writer? You are just gonna create more mass produced dribble that the world has seen enough of.

Why do people really like to think that going, "why is my writing not looked at?" or "The publisher didn't like what I wrote" mean that they are the one that's at fault. Look at your own work, and seriously think about where it was going, was their even a point to the story or were you just throwing around a story without actually sitting down and thinking about where this will go? 

tl;dr (why are you here?)

People falsely think copycatting = success


----------



## Nikolai (Aug 19, 2009)

Eli said:


> I like how anyone thinks that they can write something down and it's considered "a good story." The wannabes that think the best stories are decided by how big the climatic scene is, without the will or ability to work up drama to the point where a climatic finish happens, or think that just when the writing is over that they should end it as soon as possible, thus leaving an almost unintentional cliffhanger of, "so what happens next?"
> 
> I believe a good story is written to be guided by emotion.. but not just ones like "love" and "soul"... people over portray these things as a big part of a story, but forget things like how to capture a readers attention or try to bring out emotions of excitement, anger, fear...
> 
> ...



100% Agreed. Archetypes and basic human emotion have to be separated from cliche and commonly used ideas.

I'm in the middle of a 150,000 word novel right now, and my biggest, most important thought in writing, is to hit human core, in a new direction. Aim for the deep emotion, from a direction that can be original and appealing.

My biggest influence in writing, was Mozart. Not a writer, but a musician. I find that when you really try to understand human emotion, you can get influence, inspiration, and insight from any form of great artistic medium, and the less "spoon-fed" it is, the better. And I find that other people's writing can be INCREDIBLY spoon-fed to others, and gaining inspiration from them is just setting yourself up for defeat.


----------



## foozzzball (Aug 19, 2009)

*Snigger.*

The thing is, a writer's image is typically the last thing their audience gets ahold of. Usually their work comes first. In the examples they have to promote their image first... generally this is because they can't put their work first without looking like a fool.

Or they're socializing with other writers, in which case the ultimate smackdown is 'I'M PUBLISHED AND YOU'RE NOT! > > >'. All that beret stuff just crumbles before it.


----------



## Tiarhlu (Aug 19, 2009)

I'm not sure if I've ever met anyone that fits that stereotype. I had a digital arts teacher years ago that was close, but not quite. He was skinny, drank his coffee non stop, and was always talking with this artist jargon and this floaty poetic voice.

I kind of have to disagree with some of the above comments on influence. If you never expose yourself to other writers, how can you learn and develop? You can't get better in a box without some divine intervention. I've learned as a musician that you've got to get out and expose yourself to others, the good and the bad, to really improve. You don't want to copy, but you do want to let it become part of you, like adding new words to your language.


----------



## GraemeLion (Aug 19, 2009)

I think the sooner a writer gets their stuff out there and starts getting rejections, the better.  I also think that the world of "positive encouragement" that writers sometimes gets hinders their ability to become better writers.

I wrote a piece that I thought was great, set it down for a month, and came back to it and nearly vomited.   It was drivel.  I worked it through, set it down, came back again.  It sucked less, but was still vapid.  The third time was when I got it in a state of saleability and grace, and then I sent it to my editor friend.    It came back looking like it was on the wrong side of a UFC fight.  After two more back and forths, it finally was done and is now making the rounds. 

And getting rejected.

Writing is cathartic, wonderful, and world building.  You can literally create something out of nothing and breathe life into it.

Selling your writing, and finding an audience for it, is painful and debasing.  Worth it, yes.  But still, it can be humbling.

The image of the writer that I want to dissuade people from are the "Ohh, I want to be a professional novelist."  My response to that is "So what job will you be working to pay the bills?"

People seem to think that Stephen King's are the common versions.  For every Stephen King, there are five hundred writers in the book stores right now that are working at gas stations and restaurants and computer software firms who might not see another sale for ten or fifteen novels.


----------



## panzergulo (Aug 19, 2009)

redcard said:


> People seem to think that Stephen King's are the common versions.  For every Stephen King, there are *five hundred* writers in the book stores right now that are working at gas stations and restaurants and computer software firms who might not see another sale for ten or fifteen novels.



I believe the actual number is much, _much_ higher...

Anyway, very little I can add to this conversation. Writing will never be something I primarily do. I have always been enough a realist to not actually even dream about it. Plus, publishing my own stuff feels disgusting. As long as I don't do it, I can say my stories are one hundred per cent my own. I couldn't trust an editor, in whatever case.

I think writers are overweight nerds glued to their computers and not some beret-wearing poet types. Just my image... Gladly, I don't really resemble either of those images.


----------



## TakeWalker (Aug 19, 2009)

Fuck them. >:[


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 19, 2009)

Nikolai said:
			
		

> Aim for the deep emotion, from a direction that can be original and appealing.


Don't take this the wrong way, but this echoes a lot of the rhetoric I hear from these folks.  Things like 'deep emotion', meditating to music before writing a piece, etc.  I guess my major problem with things like this is that it assumes writing is not so much a cerebral activity as something inspired by the gods.
Now, for all I know, your listening to music is very much a cerebral activity, getting your brain in the right mood to start working where you last left off, things like that.  But more often than not, I hear people discussing their methods as though all they think is necessary to pump out something great is to wait for some kind of divine intervention, for an angel to come down to Earth and plop a wonderful idea in their heads.  The beatnik philosophy.
But the fact is, writing requires concentration and a lot of thought and careful planning.  Every time I've tried to write something 'from the heart', or aiming for 'deep emotion', it's turned out to be total garbage.  It's something I expect little kids to do, and not adults, because adults are thinking beings.  It feels like when people do this, they're trying to be like their favorite literary masters.  But what they don't realize is that those masters did not just sit down and write their masterpieces (except maybe for Balzac, but he doesn't count anyway); they planned them out for years beforehand, did research, gave them a lot of _thought_.  If you look into these authors, you'll find thousands of pages of notes and scraps that they left behind in pursuit of a larger work.  People now who take on this image seem to forget that.



			
				TakeWalker said:
			
		

> Fuck them. >:[


What, did one of these people kill your puppy?  Jeez.


----------



## Murphy Z (Aug 19, 2009)

I think your "image" should be very low on a writer's priority list, unless maybe you've landed that major publishing deal and want your dust jacket picture to match with your genre. Why spend time thinking "do people see me as a writer?" when I could be thinking about the stories themselves. 
     For some people, maybe they think dressing that way is like "being in uniform" and helps the to "work" or at least helps them to be in that state of mind, so I wouldn't dismiss them yet: the "true test" is what they wrote. When I write, I wear grubby- comfy clothes or my kilt, but it's the privacy of my house, so you don't have to alert the fashion police. 
     I thought the clothing was supposed to be either a black t-shirt or those ugly/ plain shirts while wearing out of style glasses. There's usually a group of them on campus and I think at least one is required to be in a creative writing class (along with the Stephen King-esque bucket of blood writer and the guy who's only there because he thought the class would be an easy A). A good many of these people are trying to write "cutting edge" pieces by aping stuff that's been done at least 10 years ago.
      Because we're online, maybe we should discuss how writers make their avatars and their pages look. A lot of theirs do look different than the drawing artists' pages.


----------



## Vintage (Aug 19, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> But what they don't realize is that those masters did not just sit down and write their masterpieces (except maybe for Balzac, but he doesn't count anyway); they planned them out for years beforehand, did research, gave them a lot of _thought_.



i should point out that i feel the ability to concentrate and plan meticulously is a passion in and of itself.  maybe the only reason some famous works aren't unearthed unfinished in a tomb somewhere is because of some sort of spark the logical process could not provide.

writing is certainly a cerebral activity, but we still don't know our brains very well after all these years


----------



## Poetigress (Aug 19, 2009)

First off, I don't know where that stereotype writer persona/image comes from, because I don't know anyone who acts like that, and even when I was somewhat active in a major city's poetry community (those stereotypes being even stronger among poets than other writers), I really didn't meet anyone like that. So I think you're dealing with something there that comes from nonwriters/wannabes and not from the real thing.



M. Le Renard said:


> Don't take this the wrong way, but this echoes a lot of the rhetoric I hear from these folks.  Things like 'deep emotion', meditating to music before writing a piece, etc.  I guess my major problem with things like this is that it assumes writing is not so much a cerebral activity as something inspired by the gods.
> Now, for all I know, your listening to music is very much a cerebral activity, getting your brain in the right mood to start working where you last left off, things like that.  But more often than not, I hear people discussing their methods as though all they think is necessary to pump out something great is to wait for some kind of divine intervention, for an angel to come down to Earth and plop a wonderful idea in their heads.



This is where I think things get a little more complicated, because I think you're starting to confuse method with stereotypes/image. Based on my personal experiences, I've come to feel that there are intuitive/emotional writers and intellectual/analytical writers -- and it's not an either/or necessarily, but more like a spectrum. I know that I tend more toward the intuitive side, and I've met other writers who are far more intuitively based than I am, along with those (present company included, perhaps) who are far more intellectually and analytically based than I could ever be. I'm guilty of talking about my writing in spiritual terms and probably saying and describing things in the very way that most irritates you.  But I do think that, for me, while writing does require concentration and thought (and sometimes a little planning here and there when I just can't avoid it), there's more to writing for me than just me thinking and being clever. There is an intuitive element, and whether I ascribe it to an outer force or an inner one, I can't deny that I don't do everything I do consciously or with intent when it comes to what and how I write.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being on either end of the spectrum. And that doesn't mean that an intuitive writer can't work very consciously and from a careful plan, or that an intellectual writer can't freewrite and meander and see where things go. I see the distinction as kind of like a personality type -- I think we do tend one way or another naturally, but that doesn't mean you can't alter your behavior when or if you need to. That said, though, I do think a lot of conflict is caused because one end doesn't understand the other -- the intellectual types see the intuitive writers as childish, flighty dreamers always waiting on the Muse and blathering about their characters running away with the story, and the intuitive writers see the intellectual types as wanting to construct everything artificially and boil it all down to a science where the characters are nothing more than cleverly-designed puppets to show off the author's mental prowess.

The truth is, no matter which end of that spectrum one falls on, there's equal possibility for producing excellent work. Different paths to the same place.

So as far as that persona goes, hey, if hanging out in cafÃ©s and acting tortured and whatever helps you feel enough like a 'real' writer to help you get the words on the page -- if you can talk that talk and also walk the walk -- then fine. But as I said above, I think the people you're really talking about are the ones who don't write anything at all, who just want to play dress-up and impress people with allusions to the novel they say they're working on.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 19, 2009)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> First off, I don't know where that stereotype writer persona/image comes from, because I don't know anyone who acts like that, and even when I was somewhat active in a major city's poetry community (those stereotypes being even stronger among poets than other writers), I really didn't meet anyone like that. So I think you're dealing with something there that comes from nonwriters/wannabes and not from the real thing.


Could be.  But the odd thing is that although I'm not active in any real writing communities, I've met... I think four people who ascribed to this stereotype.  And they were all in the two creative writing classes that I've taken, and they all had an air of superiority about them that told me they were the ones who thought they were real writers, and that everyone else was amateur.
But like I said, I know 99.9% of all writers are not like this.


> Based on my personal experiences, I've come to feel that there are intuitive/emotional writers and intellectual/analytical writers -- and it's not an either/or necessarily, but more like a spectrum.


Of course.  And just like everything else, I think the extreme ends of that spectrum are full of baloney.  I mean, I wouldn't trust someone who writes all his works based on a psychology textbook either.
But you're using the word 'intuitive'.  To me, that means something completely different than 'heart' or 'soul'.  Intuitive means intuition, and Sherlock Holmes had a great intuition, and not a spiritual guide.  Fact is (and I'm sure you'll agree with me here), you have to use your brain while writing.


----------



## Poetigress (Aug 19, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> But you're using the word 'intuitive'.  To me, that means something completely different than 'heart' or 'soul'.  Intuitive means intuition, and Sherlock Holmes had a great intuition, and not a spiritual guide.



I'm not 100% certain, as my Holmes-reading phase was about fifteen years ago , but I think Holmes was known more for deduction, not so much intuition. My dictionary lists intuition as "the act or faculty of knowing or sensing _without the use of rational processes_" (emphasis mine), or "a sense of something not evident or deducible."



> Fact is (and I'm sure you'll agree with me here), you have to use your brain while writing.



True. But what I'm saying here is, if you get along fine with your writing without ascribing any sort of spiritual or nonrational element to the process, that's great. But don't automatically discount those of us who do incorporate those elements into our methods and our writing lives.


----------



## Jwargod (Aug 19, 2009)

Maybe related, maybe not.

In past experiencing in commissioning writers, I dealt with people who were on different sides of the spectrum, but mostly in the stereotype that ya seem to talk about. They don't accept criticism real well, and not well-suited to doing a "job" rather then "their destiny". I understand the plight of writing being ignored in favor of questionable quality pictures of cat-girls and fairies, but ya don't need to take your anger out on the rest of the people who take interest in your work.

I can also understand different writing styles as in there's variations in anything in this world, but what bothered me is when EVERYTHING has to be some form of poetry or emotion. It's also kind of throwing all readers into a group that a person who likes reading will read ANYTHING. Not interested in poetry, Shakespeare (even when back in highschool I'm the only one who understood the language), and etc. But because I don't like it and many writers (or the ones who are trying to be the way you're talking about) and some readers think this is how writing should be, it makes me look heartless in the eyes of the community.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 19, 2009)

You have no idea how enjoyable it is to write on a laptop from a cafe.

EIDT: God I feel silly posting a one-sentence post in this topic.


----------



## foozzzball (Aug 19, 2009)

See, the method doesn't matter.

I can tell you that I write by dropping bowling balls on the keyboard and rolling them around and it's not affecting the quality of my work.

Writing is a funny craft like that.

It doesn't matter how you bleed for this art, or whether or not you bleed at all. Just matters what's on the page and whether or not the audience likes it.

Pretending otherwise is severely beret-wearing and coffee-drinkning. (Which I enjoy doing - arguments are fun!)


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 19, 2009)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> My dictionary lists intuition as "the act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes" (emphasis mine), or "a sense of something not evident or deducible."


Well, I was thinking of how my physics instructors used the word, which was more along the lines of deducing something because it just makes sense that it would be such and such a way.


> But don't automatically discount those of us who do incorporate those elements into our methods and our writing lives.


I discount those elements themselves because I don't believe in muses or the soul, but that's a whole other discussion that I don't want to get into.


			
				Jwargod said:
			
		

> I can also understand different writing styles as in there's variations in anything in this world, but what bothered me is when EVERYTHING has to be some form of poetry or emotion.


Right.  That's what I was saying.  I'm talking about extremes here.


			
				foozzzball said:
			
		

> I can tell you that I write by dropping bowling balls on the keyboard and rolling them around and it's not affecting the quality of my work.


You could tell me that, but I sure as hell won't believe you.  I don't think there are *limitless* possibilities.  For example, in order to write, you need a writing instrument of some kind.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 19, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> You could tell me that, but I sure as hell won't believe you. I don't think there are *limitless* possibilities. For example, in order to write, you need a writing instrument of some kind.


 Pretty much anything will do the job, as long as it can store information by a certain pattern which is recognizable to others.


----------



## Xadera (Aug 19, 2009)

I think this stereotypical image you've described isn't so much for writers but one for broody people that want attention. They dress up like this to make people think "oo, that person is sooo deep!" and go to the cafe's to show off like this in public. Being a writer simply helps reinforce that image, because writing is seen as an "intellectual's" task. I would actually assume most writer's are from all walks of life, hence why there's so much variation in what is already out there.

As for the writing with your "heart" bit, there is some sense behind it. Writing by inspiration is like having your heart into it, you're motivated so you'll actually write more. But, what these people are referring to with "pouring their soul" into the work means, I would assume, that they are writing very, umm... "deep". They write without actually putting too much thought into what they are doing, letting their thoughts just sorta "flow". While sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't, in the case of this stereotype you are referring to they see doing this as making something purely from themselves. What they write is a part of them. That's all well and dandy, and I agree to a point. However, for these people, they want attention for their superiority, so these things that are a part of themselves must be superior and deserve attention as well. 

Overall, I guess it would be some sort of superiority complex, a "the world revolves around me" kind of thinking. I'm not a psychologist, though, but I would assume this is some sort of defense mechanism they've picked up for some reason or another.


----------



## Tolgron (Aug 19, 2009)

I think what you described is probably a beatnik with a smidgeon of yuppie/student (the latter especially if the computer they're using is a Mac). Myself, I tend to think of writers as eccentric people who spend their time jotting down everything they think may help them write whatever they're working on; from interesting conversations with friends, to how a particular pattern falling leaves are making could make a great metaphor.


----------



## BitofaDreamer (Aug 20, 2009)

Might be related.

Um. Ernest Hemingway said about his writing that "My aim is to put down on paper what I see and what I feel in the best and simplest way." I know he said that, because I typed in "Ernest Hemingway quotes" on google and that was on one website. So yeah.

That quote's stuck with me for a while. I try to keep it in mind when writing, because that's all that writing really is--recording what you've seen and experienced in a way that only you can (for better or worse.) Granted, as a fiction writer this is mostly going to come out in made-up stories, but these stories are still born from the people you've met in your life and the events that have happened to or around you. 

So, I do think that writing is primarily based in emotions, because why else do we read stories but to feel something? It might be happiness due to a story's humor, or sadness because of a tale's tragedy, but in the end we still want to feel something--connection to the characters, an interest in the world, etc. Writing from a purely intellectual level isn't going to lead to very much warmth or enjoyment in one's writing--or at least, that's how it seems to me. We may like things because they're smart/intelligent/whatever, but there has to be something that's emotionally satisfying to the reader.

That said, writing on a purely emotional level can only lead to problems. Emotions are confusing, often contradictory, and need some kind of guide to make them be something other than senseless noise, i.e. a mind. In order for writing to have the maximum impact, it needs to be thought out to the fullest. (Am I making sense? I hope so.)  Writing from the heart (quote unquote) will only lead to rambling; sometimes this rambling can be pretty cool, in the manner of really awesome jazz musicians improvising, but it's pretty hard to pull off, and I don't think very many can. 

Moving on to the image of the writer, I can't help but feel like anyone who acts how they think a writer should act is more than a little full of baloney. By that I don't mean they taste good in sandwiches, but that they're ultimately more concerned with being taken seriously than actually producing something, and that to do so they need to function in a manner they think befitting of an artist that's different from other, "average" people. (Because they think their emotions are somehow "deeper" than others'? I don't know.) It's a way to feel cool, I guess. 

Okay. Enough babbling. I'm done.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 20, 2009)

So the one thing we all agree on is that people who only write to have an image of being a writer either aren't writers or shouldn't be writers, because the product is the most important thing.
So how many of you are afraid of what your portrait's going to look like on your book jacket?


----------



## BitofaDreamer (Aug 20, 2009)

I'm terrified.

I'm awful at smiling for the sake of a photo, and I don't really want to give off the "brooding artist" persona, because I don't think that's really what I am. It's hard to encapsulate someone in a photo, but then again that's kind of what a book does. (I wonder if the publisher would be down with simply leaving the photo out?)

Maybe I could just look bored?

This is assuming I ever get in print, of course.


----------



## GraemeLion (Aug 20, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> So the one thing we all agree on is that people who only write to have an image of being a writer either aren't writers or shouldn't be writers, because the product is the most important thing.
> So how many of you are afraid of what your portrait's going to look like on your book jacket?



For my first novel, I suspect they'll take one look at me and hire a ghost for the picture.



It's done more commonly for first time authors , until they get established.  By that time, the publishing company decides that the looks won't make bad enough an impression.


----------



## Poetigress (Aug 20, 2009)

Well, they don't always do author photos for paperback originals, and most new writers these days don't get their books published in hardcover until they become more established/popular. So I would say that if I were to get something published that involved a book jacket, they could use my driver's license photo for all I'd care -- I'd be in too much of a state of utter ecstasy over just having achieved a hardcover original to be all that worried about the photo.


----------



## Vintage (Aug 20, 2009)

my book jacket photo is of gilbert gottfried instead


----------



## TakeWalker (Aug 20, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> What, did one of these people kill your puppy?  Jeez.



I have a deep-seated and irrational hatred of hipsters. :| They turn me into an inarticulate pottymouth.


----------



## Xadera (Aug 21, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> So how many of you are afraid of what your portrait's going to look like on your book jacket?


 
No issue there. Reason? Hand puppets ;3


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 21, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> So how many of you are afraid of what your portrait's going to look like on your book jacket?


 
I think that that'd just shed terrifying light that my main character is based on my on dramatic wishful thinking and it's a masked self-insertion character minus the talking snow leopard part. :O


----------



## BitofaDreamer (Aug 21, 2009)

Do you think they'd be okay with just putting a picture of Geddy Lee in there instead?

http://www.celebrityrockstarguitars.com/rock/images/geddy_lee.jpg

Because then I could fool people into thinking I'm awesome.


----------



## Murphy Z (Aug 21, 2009)

I'll be in a full platypus fursuit with a kilt and waving my tooth fairy wand.

+100 credibility points for me!


----------



## TakeWalker (Aug 22, 2009)

BitofaDreamer said:


> Do you think they'd be okay with just putting a picture of Geddy Lee in there instead?
> 
> http://www.celebrityrockstarguitars.com/rock/images/geddy_lee.jpg
> 
> Because then I could fool people into thinking I'm awesome.



Well, see, Geddy Lee is just fucking sweet.

Of course, not much was written with a double-necked bass(?).


----------



## BitofaDreamer (Aug 22, 2009)

Well, no, but you have to admit the double-necked bass looks pretty awesome. And besides, Geddy Lee can do ANYTHING.

http://fender.com/news/news_images/78/snippet_78.jpg

This is just epic. (And thus the thread was successfully derailed!)


----------



## TakeWalker (Aug 22, 2009)

BitofaDreamer said:


> Well, no, but you have to admit the double-necked bass looks pretty awesome. And besides, Geddy Lee can do ANYTHING.



You're right, of course. They would be blinded by the sheer awesomeness of the double-necked bass and forget all else.


----------



## Shotgunjim (Aug 24, 2009)

panzergulo said:


> I believe the actual number is much, _much_ higher...
> 
> Anyway, very little I can add to this conversation. Writing will never be something I primarily do. I have always been enough a realist to not actually even dream about it. Plus, publishing my own stuff feels disgusting. As long as I don't do it, I can say my stories are one hundred per cent my own. I couldn't trust an editor, in whatever case.
> 
> *I think writers are overweight nerds glued to their computers and not some beret-wearing poet types. Just my image... Gladly, I don't really resemble either of those images*.


 
Aww shit Panzer, I think you just hit the nail right on the damn head! I think I'm somewhere around 70 pounds over my ideal weight! Seriously, are you able to see me through your computer screen or something? I hope not. lol


----------

