Must a writer suffer for their art?

Would you call all the psychology articles I posted romanticizing? But I suppose it depends on what somebody thinks suffering for your art means. If it's discipline and work and rejections and all the rest I brought up, that's hardly romanticized. I think the romanticized version of it is what I said a ways back, about people who think it's cool to become an addict to try to make better art, or that depression somehow makes you a better artist (not sure I said that one).

I think when people see that vague word Suffering they disconnect and assume it means something big and terrible. But as soon as you think about the things you have to do in order to accomplish anything worthwhile (like write a novel, or learn how to write to a professional level), when maybe you'd rather be sleeping or watching TV all day instead, then (small) suffering becomes an everyday thing we all put ourselves through frequently in order to be artists.

 

I've suffered a tad. The things I write about are so far disconnected from my own minor suffering though, that I don't know if I will be able to draw from my experience. Sure, I've walked up a small mountain, been attacked by people, lost loved ones, suffered psychosis with its sickness sticking around, and had cancer. But all that pales in comparison to what I let my characters suffer through. Some will suffer prolonged mental and physical torture (cliché but I will still do it), loss of loved ones left and right, see sights no standard human alive today could ever see (space sights), creatures from nightmares, and other horrors.

Storytelling is worth gold to me. But I would not say that I suffer much right now, even though I am on sick leave because of mental issues. My psychologist told me I fit the picture for the suffering and starving artist, but I don't know if I agree with him. Other than what I have suffered, life is pretty good thanks to a government that helps their sick (somewhat). It could be worse.

I just consider myself a lucky survivor. My fictional texts have little to do with my own suffering.

 

Good question. But I don't see how that could be when if a "writer" is using generative AI they have much of the hard parts done for them. With a few simple prompts, you can get the worldbuilding done, fleshed-out characters, a synopsis and scenes written within a day. Using AI is more of an assembly process than a creative process the way I understand it to be.

Another good question! I suppose I would feel pretty proud if I could churn out the best-sellers, but it wouldn't be pride in having produced art.

I agree with this. Emotion in is not the only factor bearing on the quality of the output. But it is a necessary ingredient in the production of art.

Producing art from concept to expression from your depths is not an arbitrary requirement. And I don't think anyone is imposing on anyone. Just defining terms.

Clearly, Scorsese is a purist.

I did a little more digging and found an article in which he expands on his position:

Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.

 

As with everything, the more suffering it costs, the higher the quality.

I know I have to suffer a lot for my writing—seeing things about the world that I’d rather not know (no need for details here), having to write a poem right away and not being able to stop until I finish it even though it’s 10:00 at night, hostile criticism from people I thought were friendlier than that, being forced to think about emotionally difficult topics, lots of rejections… the list goes on.

But it’s well worth it, especially when someone tells me his life has been set on a better course because he read something I wrote.

 

I'd like to know where the phrase comes from. (Not the idea, the specific phrase.)

This in 1884 is the earliest I could turn up on Google Books, but it's too obscure and too badly-written
https://archive.org/details/plutusadonis00unkngoog/page/n84/mode/2up

 

I think those of us who suffer in life tend to find artistic outlets. I don't believe it's any sort of prerequisite to being an artist or a writer, but when people suffer or live a really hard life they can offer different views and different kinds of stories. I also don't think aspiring writers seek out suffering. No one wants to do that. I would give up writing forever in exchange for the suffering and hardships I have faced. There is no question about that. But I can tell you the starving artist thing is real because I'm actually quite hungry and there is really nothing in my fridge.

I think there is also the suffering that comes from writing itself. Writing is hard and it can take a lot out of you. It takes a lot of work and dedication. We give up things and our time to bleed bleed onto the page. And it often takes many, many tries (years of trying) to get into print.

Again, I don't think you have to have a hard life to be an artist or writer, but many people who do have hard lives seem to turn to the arts in some sort of way.

 

The idea probably goes back to the very earliest writers thousands of years ago.

Very interesting - thanks for sharing

 

Thanks for mentioning this. This is the "suffering" I was referring to in the OP.

 

Actual suffering doesn't equate quality of insight nor output. It is wholly dependent on the confluence of the abilities of the individual. Statistically speaking one is more likely to end up as a sociopath as a result of trauma than they are to become a virtuoso with a tragic back story.

Clinical depression affects 1 in 3 people. Anxiety 1 in 2. Diagnosable sociopathy 1 in 20. Bipolar disorder affects 1 in 45 individuals. These numbers don't begin to take into account the drama of life in general. PTSD affects 1 in 36 individuals.

The sheer volume of emotional impact should be heralding a new age of Enlightenment. Instead the average reading comprehension level in the US is barely a sixth grade level. Average IQ is between 80 - 100. The volume of circumstantial metrics doesn't prove a correlation between traumatic emotions and increased creativity.

 

I think we need to make a clear statement between the two different types of factors contributing to an artist's suffering. There are psychiatric factors (which you mention here) and there are work-related stressors (which are mentioned in the OP). I see the work-related stressors as part of the creative process, but I suppose in some cases they may lead to more long-lasting mental issues.

But, in some ways, it's a chicken and egg thing. Do mood disorders lead to creativity, or does creativity lead to mood disorders?
Both mood disorders and the creative process are characterized by intense focus, rapidly occurring ideas, and the reduced need for food and sleep.

And yes, while not all people with mental issues end up as artists, the statistics are clear that artists are at higher risk of mental issues.

Gender and suicide risk among artists: a multivariate analysis

 

Not always. I really do believe that if a story gives you such hell, maybe you shouldn't write it at all. I've been participating in the contests here and many stories which took so much effort and "suffering" didn't perform well. In June, I put together a flash piece in maybe not more than an hour and it won.

Not that what you're saying is completely untrue. It really depends on the story, and the writer.

 

I didn't read them, therefore I wasn't referring to them.

Life is full of challenges, acute and chronic. Talking/writing/painting/fill in the blank can be important components of those challenges. Deliberately glamorizing and sentimentalizing the drama and pathos of artistic struggle in such a way that one becomes the star of one's own soap opera is romaticization. There's a big difference between tapping into one's personal challenges to produce art and glorifying one's personal challenges to garner sympathy and admiration.

 

This afternoon, I went down an internet rabbit hole about suffering artists. Came across a lot of interesting things. One thing I read was an interpretation of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 134 as the cry of the artist tortured by his work.

In it, the poet is addressing his mistress, and referring to his friend. Try reading it, thinking of the poet as the artist, the friend as the artistic impulse, and the mistress as art.

So now I have confessed that he is thine,
And I my self am mortgaged to thy will,
Myself I’ll forfeit, so that other mine
Thou wilt restore to be my comfort still:
But thou wilt not, nor he will not be free,
For thou art covetous, and he is kind;
He learned but surety-like to write for me,
Under that bond that him as fast doth bind.
The statute of thy beauty thou wilt take,
Thou usurer, that put’st forth all to use,
And sue a friend came debtor for my sake;
So him I lose through my unkind abuse.
Him have I lost; thou hast both him and me:
He pays the whole, and yet am I not free.


You can read the modern English translation below with the same characters (artist, artistic impulse, art) in mind.

So now I’ve admitted that he’s yours, and that I’m still contracted to your desire, I’ll sacrifice myself if you’ll let my friend go so that he can comfort me. But you won’t; nor does he want his freedom, because you’re greedy and he’s soft-hearted. He tried to bail me out but that action has bound him to you as securely as I am. You’ll insist on the legal right your beauty entitles you to – you loan-shark, who lends your body to everyone, and then pursues my friend, who only borrowed from you for my sake! So I lose him because I abused him cruelly by allowing him to go to you. I’ve lost him: you’ve got both him and me. He repays both our debts with all the sex you want and yet I’m still not free.

https://nosweatshakespeare.com/sonnets/134/

 

I take suffering for your art to refer to the internal struggle of digging that deeply into yourself in order to breathe life into your characters. What experiences can you dredge up that tell you about how the characters will feel or react to specific events they go through. And what is the toll on the author for doing that digging.

 

You find the basic idea expresseed in Buddhism, among other religions and wisdom systems designed around improving how you live your life. Not in relation to art in particular (that idea didn't exist until more recently, what we call art would have been considered lowly trades or crafts until the Romantic period). But the general idea that suffering improves your life despite the problems it causes. Especially if that suffering is encountered in pursuit of a meaningful goal or an important purpose.

 

Exactly. I'm going to repeat my inspiration for this thread: generative AI can't be called writing because writing without thinking is nothing more than content.

How can you separate the act of writing from the effort of doing it?

 

To add a bit to my last response, if you can find meaning or purpose in suffering, then you're far more likely to heal from it and to develop or grow as a result. But if you find no meaning or purpose in it, then it's merely suffering or worse, it can destroy you or severely damage you. I mean emotionally/internally rather than just physically. It can cause you to fall into utter depair or nihilism if you find no meaning or purpose.

This was well known to our ancient forbears in their systems of wisdom we know as religions and mythology or spiriual belief systems. And it's gradually becoming known to today's psychology and science as well.

 

This is so true. It reminds me of Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning: He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.

 

I suspect the idea of suffering for your art, comes from the time when artists had to find patronage to support themselves on while they painted.

 

Suffering is necessary but not sufficient.

 

Ok, so then we were talking about two very different things. It seems you only skimmed the thread.

 

Yes, excatly. Frankl is one of the modern psychologists who rediscovered one of the ancient principles and found evidence backing it. So did Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in a Soviet gulag rather than a Nazi stalag, but on the inside they're pretty much identical, aside from the uniforms worn and the language spoken.

 

So, you find the meaning, and the artist takes it one step further - they express it.

 

Had Van Gogh been an orthodontist, he'd still have been a very troubled man, scared his customers and died destitute.
Had Behan or Bukowski been labourers, they'd still probably have kept the same company and drank themselves to death.

I don't know much about William Wordsworth but imagine him to have been a rather stable individual. I'm sure Surprised by Joy caused him much torment as he found the right words for his deceased daughter, but his torment wasn't about writing a poem, nor was it any greater than that of any other parent going through that kind of loss.

The only difference between the joy/pain of an artist when compared to a non-artist is that the former may try to express those feelings in a manner that is accessible to others while the latter deal with the very same feelings differently. If the torment of the artist is framed around artistic creation, that's faking it. The rest is life as lived by everyone.