'He was a writer before he was breakfast food. He was a writer almost before he was a man.'

Benjamin Cheever, in the introduction to The Journals, advocates an admiration towards his father and the works that allowed his father to write for a living. This statement suggests that Cheever was born to be a writer, and perhaps even his journals, written work that appears not to have intentionally been written for the eyes of the public, demonstrate this. I think if I were to keep a journal, and years and years later in the future make the decision to show it to the world, I would have to be confident that I was doing so at the right time. I think Cheever knew that it was the right time, and whether or not the journals destroyed his readership, or his status, it wouldn't matter, because the journals showed his flaws, his mistakes and misdeeds, but that was who he was. He wanted to reveal the person behind the 'best-seller'. Although it may be the case that the journals express his private thoughts and desires that may not have been expressed before, I would like to propose that his short stories also profoundly display much of what is written in his journals, but simply in a different form, and through different characters with different lives. Therefore I do not believe it is an outrage for Cheever's private works to be shown, because they merely enhance the image I already had of him, although perhaps a harsher, coarser version of his individual. The Journals show the writer before he became a familiar cereal brand. Benjamin Cheever claims 'He seemed to enjoy this status. He must have suspected that the publication of the journals would alter it', implying a calculated decision by Cheever, a decision to surrender to his readers one last piece of his soul.

What influences and inspires you as a writer?

'Out now, into the lagoon, the boats with their gilded prows and triumphant lights. A bright ribbon, a talisman for the New Year.
I will have red roses next year. A forest of red roses.
On this rock? In this climate?
I'm telling you stories. Trust me.'
Jeanette Winterson, The Passion.

There is the question as to whether influences and inspiration are the same thing. I think most of the time they are, I will try not to separate the two too much, to save confusion.
In the past, my influences as a writer were the books I read and the authors I loved. This is still true today, however currently I am trying to focus more on my own experiences than that of others. The course I study and discussions that arise also provoke a sense of thoughtfulness in my writing.
What inspires me as a writer is a combination of my relationships with friends, family, and other significant characters in my life, recent experiences that have triggered thought or emotion, and perhaps most importantly, myself.
There is some stigma around writers who are 'unoriginal'. But what is it to be original? Our influences and inspiration makes us who we are, and makes our writing what it is. We can be different from everyone else, but what we write comes from everywhere.
I am influenced and inspired by my life, and my life is influenced and inspired; by people, places, situations, emotions, music. It makes me what I am.
I would like my writing to be all of those things.

Hope - dictating my desires -

Hope – dictating my desires -
but knowing that pride,
and dignity -
must be defended.

Struggle – that of existing need
fighting future need,
that is purer,
satisfying and protective.

His radar follows my footsteps,
with my helpless heart -
and my own eyes,
they allow danger.

Feeling my audience, who judge
the distance of the
bullet - they don't know,
it will hit me every time.

Oh fear – shoot me dead -
requited lust,
not consistent, not forever,
terrorises me.
Requited lust,
in an apocalyptic world.

Does a protagonist that embodies the flaws and weaknesses of the writer distract the reader from the narrative itself?

'Making his way home by an uncommon route gave him the feeling that he was a pilgrim, an explorer, a man with a destiny, and he knew that he would find firends all along the way; friends would line the banks of the Lucinda River.'

John Cheever, The Swimmer.

I find that, particularly in poetry, understanding why the writer has chosen their words is necessary in order to understand their 'meaning.' Poetry feels significantly more cryptic and therefore it seems impossible to understand it without knowing about the writer and their intentions. Their flaws and weaknesses are what creates the narrator or characters in the first place and so we should not disregard them. In terms of the poems of Emily Dickinson, I enjoy researching and understanding their background, and although my interpretation may be my own, and not necessarily what she 'intended', it allows me to feel as if I have understood the poem.
In terms of prose, I think it is less essential to know the life of the author, however in acknowledging John Cheever's alcoholism, I cannot help but take this personal conflict into account when reading his short stories. 'The Swimmer' is astounding, and without Cheever's alcoholic experiences infiltrated within the story, it wouldn't be half as effective for the reader. Most specifically, I think the section whereby Neddy swims through the public swimming pool is a suggestion of Cheever's disgust towards people trying to help him with his addiction, and not wanting to be cleansed or detoxed; he does not want to be separated from alcohol. It is nice to have an insight into the authors own life, particularly if the author has purposely centred a protagonist around himself.
Perhaps the solution to this is to read prose in a way that exemplifies 'new criticism', focusing simply on the text itself, and then in future interpret its meaning and discover an author's hidden weaknesses within the text.
It is not necessarily a distraction, merely something that the text and protagonist sometimes cannot be without.

New Yorker Style Prose

She heard the slight hum of the eight-thirty traffic, as it moved downhill along the main road beyond the park. But sound was swallowed by the music pulsating through her ears. Her footsteps tapped in time to the music; although she couldn't hear them she was aware of the way the boots would echo around the vast open space, as the heels had worn away and hard wood lay underneath. The park was glossed and sparkling with frost and sunlight that frequently forced her gloved hands to shield tired eyes. The sun itself seemed too bright for winter, but it gradually filtered out weakly over the sky. She could hear nothing except the music; he could only hear her footsteps. The man, old, fragile and tiny with white tufty hair, shuffled slowly and out of time in the silence of the park. His old, fragile, tiny white Yorkshire terrier hopped lightly across the grass. The girl wasn't oblivious to her surroundings, but still experienced a moment of surprise when the tennis ball appeared at her feet after rolling softly towards her. She looked down at the ball, then up to its owner. She crouched down to retrieve the toy, then with a small smile towards her audience, she swiftly propelled the ball across the field. By the time the dog had followed the arching ball and returned it to the man, she was already at the end of the path. She threw a vague glance over her shoulder at the extraordinary pair, and considered getting a hot chocolate in town, with cream. She didn't encounter the old man again, but every subsequent walk to work reminded her of the future, and the brightness of the winter sun.

Why might a writer be considered to have a 'style' or 'formula'? Is this a good or bad thing? Do you, as a writer, have a recognisable 'style'?

Finding a recognisable style seems to be my current focus within writing right now. However I have discovered that my fictional writing so far frequently falls into a particular tone, having a somewhat cynical delivery, but with subtle (I hope) attempts to create humour within this cynicism. It is also intensely centred around my experiences and myself as the protagonist, but the more I write the more I am trying to expand and develop this in order to reach a point were there are merely glimpses of my own life. I am unsure as to whether or not it is possible to deviate form this narrative tone, at least not yet.
I have encountered many works of which have emphasised a particular style in the author that enhances the predictability of their novels. This appears to be most evident in romantic/comedy novels, however I admit this is branching out into the style of the genre in general. For example, Cecilia Ahern's novels often focus on a mysterious plot combined with a love story; it is fairly simple to determine who the protagonist will fall in love with at the end and I quickly learnt what to expect from her novels. I think that this can be a good thing, as liking the style of a novel urges me to experience the same enjoyment again in a different story by the same author. This of course works both ways: many readers expect an author to have a recognisable style; there have been many times that I have read a book, and if I have disliked it I wouldn't read another by that author as I am expecting the worst in the next one. It is more surprising to encounter an author that deters from their previous novels; in other words, is consistently inconsistent! To be quite honest I cannot put my finger on a particular author that deals with their writing in that way.
One author who I find is pleasantly consistent (and yet not in a way that becomes predictable) is Robert Rankin, whose style is familiar in each novel, and yet the narrative or characters and so forth have not become inevitable; only the narrative tone that is comic and witty. In this sense, having a recognisable style is an advantage, and something I hope to achieve after further experimentation in novelistic work.

Is there a contrast between the truth of our lives and the story we tell of our existence?

“From this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork”
J.K. Rowling's Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Yes, and No.
Perhaps every story we tell has some form of truth in it of our own lives, whether fiction or not. Perhaps we cannot escape from this.
This is all dependent of course, upon the extent to which our writing is self-conscious of said truth-telling. Perhaps the story we tell is the truth of our lives because we believe it to be true. Memories are vague and adapted; the human mind is unreliable and distorts what we cannot remember. If, however, we know we are editing and adapting the facts of our lives for whatever reason (to be entertaining, to be original, to avoid displaying emotions and experiences we would rather forget..) then there is likely to be a contrast between what is true and what we tell.
A wise woman once said that her writing life was 'the inability to distinguish between the real and the imagined, or rather the attitude that what we consider real is also imagined.' So although there are many differences between our experience, our memory, our testimony and the final document, eventually what is true and what is imagined combine to make our work our own.
Perhaps we are unable to separate the two, whether we like it or not.

The wise woman was, of course, Margaret Attwood, but Albus Dumbledore is pretty cool too.

Is the writer, as an artist, special and if so, how?

'As a trafficker in climaxes and thrills and characterization and wonderful dialogue and suspense and confrontations, I had outlined the Dresden story many times. The best outline I ever made, or anyway the prettiest one, was on the back of a roll of wallpaper.'
Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse 5.

Naturally, there is a copious amount of esteemed and inspirational critics that may attempt to explain why a writer is special. Perhaps the fact that most people at some point in their life want to record their emotions and experiences, however some do not attempt this, no matter how much they desire to do so. Perhaps we all wish to write in order to leave a mark of our own on the planet that we would otherwise be unable to accomplish through any outrageous or dangerous achievement, and yet would be remembered for. A writer is special through the way that they write, and the fact that they write and express themselves through writing in the first place. Nevertheless, it is evermore difficult to begin to explain how a writer is special.
The term writer itself appears to be an impossibly vast notion. There are travel writers, novelists, biographers and the like, but there are also writers of video game scripts, catalogues, greeting cards or sermons. Are they just as special, important and artistic as a billionaire who made their fortune through a collection of best-selling romance novels? I find the most fascinating writers to be those who are wonderful but barely established, similarly the anonymous writers, and mostly the writers who want to achieve something within their work that is so significant that one can barely believe they have been able to record something of such magnificence. The reason for this is almost irrelevant in this case, but how they do it, and the way they do it, is possibly the most inspiring attribute of a writer. A writer is special if they can form the connection with the reader, whether the reader is expecting the connection or not. As an art form, literature and writing is arguably just as unlimited and expressive as paintings or sculptures, therefore a writer is special because they can reach no boundaries with a reader's anticipation.
I have most recently read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5, and to my surprise I have found my new favourite novel. Perhaps not my new favourite novel of all-time, I do think I am still waiting to discover that particular item, but a book that all the adjectives in the world could not describe the profound satisfaction I felt at the turn of the last page, and the inspiring nature of the author himself, despite his adamant remarks that the book really 'is a failure', (part of his charm, I believe). But is a book ever a failure entirely? A writer is special, just like an artist is, because it is unlikely that any piece is admonished by everyone; the most offensive of writing could be appreciated by someone, even if it is the author themselves, however bonkers they truly are.