There is only one thing I hate about writing a new manuscript: corruption. One of the things a writer must do, to be good and grow, is read other peoples writing. Now, I read non-fiction regularly as it tends to expand my work and give me new outlooks on life. It is a wonderful growth technique and I don’t stop reading non-fiction no matter what I am working on at that time. With my pledge to write essays, the odds are I will have to cease reading non-fiction when working on those non-fiction pieces – until I saw a painting. As of right now, I am solely a fiction writer, which means, I stop reading fiction when I am working on a manuscript, short story, or an outline – sometimes I read fiction during the writing process but it is rare.
The reason for this lack of reading is simple. I caught, during editing, that my narrators voice was absorbing the narrator from fiction I was reading at that time. Also, formatting can change when I see something that is more clear when formatted in a certain way. A great example is Nabokov’s use of the ‘ ‘ for internal thoughts instead of italics. I tend to use bolding, italics, or underlining to denote specific “realms” of the piece. For example, in Three Pills, I utilize all three to denote the different time periods that are taking place. This allows the reader to associate the setting with a specific type face. Back in the day, it was harder to use these formatting details. Yet, I found it easier to use the ‘ ‘ to denote thoughts in the newest manuscript because it was a simpler keystroke. However, I have the bulk of thoughts written as italics. Which means, by reading Nabokov, I have corrupted the manuscript and will have to change ‘ ‘ to italics or vice versa.
Now comes the tricky part and why I may change my model. Philosophically, I believe that manuscripts are living organisms with their own needs and wants. As weird as this sounds, I believe that I am a partial medium and I am helping write the book but the manuscript is also helping write itself. This is a Kantian belief. However, it is one I have experience when writing where I find myself deviating from the prescribed plan, and I cannot explain why I must go down this new path that has arisen from the ether. Those tangents lead to problems as the manuscript begins to shape itself and grow larger. With the Bohr’s Bathos, I am watching my piece expand daily. In my most recent chapter, I have written two thousand words on a tangent that came from a simple concept. I love that about writing, because I treat writing not as a job but as a solution to my mind’s need to solve problems. The original final word count for Bohr’s Bathos was estimated at somewhere between 70,000 and 80,000. At the current trajectory, I am looking at 100,000 due to all the new tangents and the constraints of the narration style.
This line of questioning and change began when I was visiting a friend. As we drove through a city, I came face to face with a mural. The mural was clear, it was beautiful, it was mesmerizing. It didn’t bash me over the head with a concept or idea, but it struck me as out of place and insanely compelling. It was at that point that I realized that I had been doing a disservice to Bohr’s Bathos when describing artwork. That single piece of art corrupted Bohr’s Bathos, but in doing so, it expanded the piece to be more encompassing and flesh out a previously muted point of the manuscript. It added tons of work to my docket, but it is important that it did this because I now have a superior version. So is this corruption or expansion? At this point, I have changed my thoughts and believe that expansion is what happened. But, if I keep expanding myself with additional inputs during the writing process, will I ever truly finish a piece? The first chapter of a book is fundamentally lacking compared to the last chapter, because, your writing grows as you write the manuscript. With each keystroke you grow, and in doing so, corrupt yourself in a good and healthy way.