“She was a genius of sadness, immersing herself in it, separating its numerous strands, appreciating its subtle nuances. She was a prism through which sadness could be divided into its infinite spectrum.” ― Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything Is Illuminated

I was inspired to write by reading. The first book I fell in love with was The Enchanted Wood. I was in awe of the seemingly effortless magical world Enid Blyton had created using simple words that a child could easily understand. Then came along The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, and when I became a teenager- The Nightworld series (which was the original Twilight)
The odd thing is that now I can actually no longer stand fantasy fiction, and  tend to read novels that are cripplingly sad. I reluctantly admit to having googled “saddest books ever” in the past before making a purchase on my kindle…

This is probably why I've enjoyed reading the works of Cheever and Dickenson so much. They were influenced by the society they lived in, by their hobbies and the people in their lives, and this is true of all authors. They are influenced and inspired by what they perceive. 
Happy endings and stories about flowers just don’t cut it for me and it’s no surprise that I can't help but add tragic elements into my work.  Just like the run of the mill, vanilla sex didn't cut it for E.L James, and she wrote 50 Shades of Grey. 

As for poetry, my biggest inspiration was Philip Larkin who isn't exactly known for his sunny moods. I guess it’s the same for people. I tend to enjoy the company of those with a cynical disposition more than those who are happy go lucky. But hey, maybe this is where I've been going wrong all my life. I think I’ll google and download “The most uplifting book ever” before I turn into something I can’t reverse. 

"When we quarrel with others, we make rhetoric; when we quarrel with ourselves, we make poetry." W.B.Yeats

 Everything we write is autobiographical to some extent. When we allow others to read our writing, we are giving them a glimpse into our lives. Having said this, there are are some works that are more obviously personal than others.

“This is my letter to the world”, expresses Dickenson’s resentment towards a society which she feels has rejected her (even though she voluntarily segregated herself from it). Similarly, Cheever’s work is filled with protagonists who embody his own supposed flaws and weaknesses. An example of this is Neddy’s struggle with alcohol and existential meaningless in “The Swimmer.” Furthermore, Sylvia Plath’s work is a personal account of her struggle with her own sexuality, and deterioration of mental health. In her poem, “Daddy”, she describes the effect her father’s death had on her life.  

All of these works are a form of confessional or therapeutic writing, which is exactly what I infer from the phrase, “A letter to the world.”  If this is the case, then I can say that I have never written such a piece. Yes, I may have done so subconsciously, but I have never purposefully projected myself into my work. The thought seems terrifying, and I’m not quite ready to face my insecurities on paper. Maybe this is my “ground-breaking” revelation…

I’ll leave my letter writing until I’m at least fifty years old, and even then I’m sure it will come under the category of “hate mail”, rather than poetry.

I was ten when they buried you.

At twenty I tried to die

And get back, back, back to you.

I thought even the bones would do.

But they pulled me out of the sack,

And they stuck me together with glue.

Daddy  Sylvia Plath

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man."Jiddu Krishnamurti

          As students, we have been ripping writing into pieces in search of political and social undertones for years now. There seems to be an emphasis on finding a deeper meaning in everything we read, in order understand everything that much better. Personally, I tend to enjoy books more when I haven't analyzed the hell out of them for an extended period of time. 

           Aristotle maintained that humans by nature are political beings. So, regardless of whether or not a writer has applied conscious effort to incorporate themes of a political or social nature into their work, such ideas will creep in.  This is true in the case of both Cheever and Dickenson. Cheever makes reference to The American Dream, and Cold War paranoia regarding  Communism in his stories. Similarly, Dickenson’s poetry can be deconstructed to find  allusions of The American Civil War. We cannot escape contemporary political or social influences in  our ever day lives so why should our writing be any different?

           In an interview, Mo Yan stated that "Because a writer lives within society, the life that he describes includes politics and a wide variety of social problems, so a writer who cares about society, a writer who cares about the suffering of people, should naturally be critical.” A novel that successfully  incorporates a wonderful quality of writing and a political/social statement to me, is ideal. Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is a great example of this as it tackles the idea of a totalitarian socialist future-which was gaining  influence in Europe at the time of the book’s publication.   

"They're fancy talkers about themselves, writers. If I had to give young writers advice, I would say don't listen to writers talk about writing or themselves." Lillian Hellman

          When writing an academic piece, I do my level best to ensure that it is written in a clear and concise manner in order to get my ideas across in a comprehensible form. When writing articles, I choose language that is informative, gripping and shocking. When it comes to stories, which are not restricted by literary rules, my writing style differs according to genre. Given the same plot line, characters and genre, different writers will interpret and present the same information in a different way. The author will bring his own voice and personality into the piece. So what makes one particular way of assembling words into the page better than another?
          Joseph M Williams states in his "Toward Clarity and Grace", that writing style is not distinctly unique to an individual, but is rather a trait learned over time. The style that Cheever established during his time at The New Yorker was "sophisticated, poised, removed, sarcastic and amusing." Often described as the "Chekhov of the suburbs", his stories also revolve around a kernel of an object, idea or image that eventually swells and becomes something far greater than the object itself. So, the writing style we associate with Cheever is not entirely his own, but rather fragments of styles he was introduced to over the years. So would Cheever's short stories read differently if he was working for a Women's magazine rather than The New Yorker, and wasn't an American or an alcoholic? I would think so.

“Truth is such a rare thing, it is delightful to tell it.” Emily Dickenson

          The truth is relative. Unfortunately, this makes its very definition void. Can we ever be aware of an “absolute truth” when it varies from person to person depending on their individual experiences and perspectives? Surely, holding an honest opinion on something is the closest we can get to expressing our versions of reality. Either that, or every single one of us are liars. 

          Metaphysics aside, it is no myth that the truth is much easier to write down than to say out aloud. This is perhaps why so many people keep diaries throughout their lifetimes. However, very rarely are diaries fantastical enough to make good reading material for an outsider. In the rare case that they are - something very, very bad has happened to the author.
          Writing is often described as a form of escapism, but for Cheever, the consequences of writing were something that had to be escaped. He took solace in alcohol to which he eventually became addicted. It is no surprise then that themes related to liquor can be found in his stories, including “Reunion” and “O’ Youth and Beauty”. Although we may try, it is near impossible to write something without leaving a lingering sense of ourselves in it.  In Cheever's case, it's the lingering stench of gin. So, regardless of whether truth has any place in writing or not, it certainly does wriggle its way in. 

"People on the outside think there's something magical about writing, that you go up in the attic at midnight and cast the bones and come down in the morning with a story, but it isn't like that. You sit in back of the typewriter and you work, and that's all there is to it." (Harlan Ellison, science fiction writer)

           Luckily, I would describe myself more as a reader than a writer. I therefore avoid getting trapped in the narcissistic struggle  of answering a question that essentially begs “Am I, as a writer special, and if so, why?”  Maybe I’ll fight that battle one day.
          Joseph Epstein reckons that there are  “major writers and minor writers, and somewhere in between there is, or at least ought to be, another category known as `special writers.’ Special writers are those we react to in a special, usually quite personal way, for we feel a kinship between their imaginations and our own.” I suppose this is exactly why most people, including myself, keep reading material by a particular author. We feel that that the writer is speaking directly to us, communicating with us, and that spiritual communion (as corny as it sounds) is very special. 

            Writing, to me is exactly that- a form of communication, a way of expressing oneself.  After all, it seems to be the only way to talk without interruptions. And if you have thousands not only waiting, but paying to hear what you have to say then kudos to you. That’s therapy ticked off the list.

            Expressing oneself isn't limited to writing though. Are dancers, painters, photographers and cooks equally as special as the writer? I would say so. After all, no one art is greater than another.