Thursday, August 13, 2009

Why Older Writers Aren't Necessarily Better ...



blockquotespan style="font-style: italic;"Yes, writing is a lifetime’s vocation. Which is why a 45-year-old writer is no more “superior” to a 25-year-old, than 45 years of life are “superior” to 25. The common mistake is to assume that at the later age you have all that you did at the earlier, plus 20 years experience. The truth is, people forget. At 20 it seems scarcely conceivable that we were once six years old — a child is a stranger — and similarly, at 40 the young person is a stranger. His or her way of thinking and feeling is irretrievably lost — it shows in the clash of the generations, and it shows in the writing. “Experience” is not a commodity that keeps increasing quantitatively; it only keeps changing qualitatively; and so, incredible though it may seem, the 25-year-old writer possesses as many passionately felt thoughts, and as many means of expressing them, as he or she ever will. Looked at another way, it is worth noting that there comes an age beyond which one word fits all: the word is “adult”, and if you are not one by 25, you probably won’t be one by 75./span/blockquoteAditya Sudarshan in span style="font-style: italic;"The Hindu/span has some interesting things to say a href="http://www.hindu.com/lr/2009/08/02/stories/2009080250020100.htm"about age and the fiction writer/a - a topic a href="http://thebookaholic.blogspot.com/2009/07/green-teens.html"which we've visited on this blog before/a ...div class="blogger-post-footer"img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7912730-3346340666033122406?l=thebookaholic.blogspot.com'//div

technorati tags:
| |
More at: News 2 Cromley

No comments: