What if the world exist only because of one person?
One world – one person.
What if the world is dependent on the life of this person?
Bang again or Bingoooo? Or both?
In general this is the idea of the book I’m writing. And the biggest headache is not the story or the idea, but the writing itself. To be more specific: the description of the places. For example, one of the scenes, where the main hero is planning to meet her friends, to say ‘good bye’ (because she’s moving to Sweden), is taking place at the Starbucks.
I’m not a fan of the Starbucks, I’m kinda feeling lost when I’m visiting such places. But it isn’t only the experience that matters, but the language (description) too. For me – it is a very modern space/room with the tables and coffee. LOL
Yes, that’s all. But I guess I have to add more bulshit… otherwise it doesn’t sounds ‘right’. Or ‘not enough’ for the book.
Let’s chill and talk about Bunin:
Ivan Bunin have won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1933, in case you didn’t know (I’m sure you didn’t). Ok, ok…now you’ll try to convince me – you’ve heard about him and the story “The Gentleman from San Francisco”. Fine! But the thing is…’The Gentleman’ is his ATYPICAL work. DO NOT READ IT! If you’ll read that story – then you’ll never know what Bunin really IS and why the heck he’ve got the prize.
Bunin was the most amazing ‘descriptionist’ LOL: especially of the landscape and the typical russian village. The way Bunin could describe the apple-garden – aaahhhh, no-one would ever describe. Some people told he’ve been a very good painter (in the younger age, and in a free time) too, and those skills helped him to notice the smallest details that other people would never see.
Bunin could describe all the poetic specificity of the woods and steppes or of the muddy paths and huts without chimneys or of derelict manor houses glimmering with candles in front of soot-smudged icons… so charming.
I have to tell you – I love his descriptions. Why? Because I love the stories he’ve created. Most of his stories has ‘identical’ plot (he doesn’t change the plot much, but he is changing the environment lol). The plot is always ONE: rich guy meets a poor girl. He’s fuckin’ her brains out (as the result: she is with a baby. And because she is poor and to have sex without marriage is actually the sin – she kills the baby). Usually the rich guy is leaving her or simply never shows up at the end of the book (after a long-hot-sexy-night of sweet promises to marry her). Ending: never happy.
The plot is always similar, but still, all his stories are different. Why? Right! Because of the surroundings and the descriptions Bunin creates.
Now let’s jump to Gorky:
Bunin once advised Gorky: ‘Never write a nature description more specific than “It grew dark” or “It was raining”.
Gorky was famous too (no Nobel though): by creating a strong dialogues or the characters, or the plot. But he’ve never been good at ‘portraying’ or ‘illuminating’ the images of the nature (or surroundings) in his novels.
Gosh, I feel I’m writing more like #Gorky, but I’m so-so-sooooo much in love with #Bunin.
So how to balance it? Should we balance it? Or let’s just embrace what we’ve got: can’t describe shit – write the dialogues, don’t push the limits; can convey the image – forget about the dialogues, don’t push the limits. Or push the limits and screw all that of the above?
(I guess I could take Faulkner and Hemingway as examples too, but Bunin and Gorky sounds more fun)
Hm, I think I’m going to pretend – my hero is at the Starbucks without describing of the Starbucks lol 😂 What do you think?
Living in Sweden. Awesome. Happy. Ayurvedic food. Healthy lifestyle. Dogs. Literature. Painting. Meditation/Yoga. I love my life.
"It does not matter how long you are spending on the earth, how much money you have gathered or how much attention you have received. It is the amount of positive vibration you have radiated in life that matters" A. Ray