Response to Sondra Perl's article.
I found the concept of "felt sense" was one of the most important ideas in the article. When I write, I refer to what I choose to say as "instinct" rather than the terms "inner voice" or "inspiration" as noted by Perl. I think of it as a spiritual experience that seems to come from an external source, rather than from yourself as you know yourself to be.
I also liked the discussion about a writer being a reader. I have found that it's sometimes better to stop writing for a while and come back to the material later with fresh eyes. Sometimes it feels as if you are reading somebody's else's work. This is good, because you can see it objectively to assess how clear and easy to understand the writing actually is. Then you can edit it to make it into something that you would find easy to read and understand.
I agree with Ms. Perl's comments that being aware of your methods of writing might hamper them. As mentioned, I feel it is instinct--which just has to be let flow if it is to be effective. It's not really meant to be analyzed because we don't really know where it comes from.
I'm so glad you respond well to the concept of Felt Sense. Just be careful about the "out of body" / spiritual idea. I think that's not quite right. Perl emphasizes the BODY, that it is a physical feeling of knowing what you REALLY think about something. So it's not exactly inspiration. It's more like just a personal truth that can be hard to access (and easy to lose track of) when you are trying to write for or please others. In Perl, it comes from inside, not outside.
ReplyDelete