Is there a name for this paradox of wanting?

[Erik Mesoy]

Examples: A writer who writes because he has something to say will come off as a better writer than a writer who is trying to be a good writer directly. A man who is honest and forthright will make a better impression than a man focused on making good impressions.
(caveats and exceptions apply, yadda yadda, this is a generalisation and all that.)

I've noticed the first frequently. When I have something to write on a topic that interests me, I write far better than I've ever done in several years of wanting to write a fantasy novel. The latter has only resulted in horrible horrible drafts that I inevitably throw out and start again.

Most advanced ideologies, religions, philosophies have something of the sort too. Follow them and you'll get some reward; aim for the reward and you'll get nothing.

I seem unable to put a name to this, but it seems to happen so often that I feel it must have been named by someone who noted it earlier.

 

[Swedishguy]

That doesn't sound like a paradox to me.

 

[Arwon]

The law of unintended consequences?

Don't be THAT guy?

Do or do not, there is no try?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

That doesn't sound like a paradox to me.

That certain things are only gotten if you don't try to get them, but try to get something else? Fine, if it's not a paradox, what are you going to call it?

 

[warpus]

Maybe your fantasy story isn't coming off because you don't really have anything to say.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Not sure if theres one word but I'm reminded of this Lewis quote:

It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at Heaven and you will get earth 'thrown in': aim at earth and you will get neither.

 

[sourboy]

Examples: A writer who writes because he has something to say will come off as a better writer than a writer who is trying to be a good writer directly. A man who is honest and forthright will make a better impression than a man focused on making good impressions.
(caveats and exceptions apply, yadda yadda, this is a generalisation and all that.)

I've noticed the first frequently. When I have something to write on a topic that interests me, I write far better than I've ever done in several years of wanting to write a fantasy novel. The latter has only resulted in horrible horrible drafts that I inevitably throw out and start again.

Most advanced ideologies, religions, philosophies have something of the sort too. Follow them and you'll get some reward; aim for the reward and you'll get nothing.

I seem unable to put a name to this, but it seems to happen so often that I feel it must have been named by someone who noted it earlier.

So you're saying it's easier to write what you believe than it is to write what you think others believe? Umm.... duh?

 

[angeleyes]

don't count one's chickens before they have hatched

 

[aneeshm]

This is the ultimate paradox WRT Enlightenment.

In Enlightenment, all desires cease. However, if we destroy all desires, will not the desire to achieve Enlightenment still be left, and deny it to us?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

When you said "paradox of wanting" I thought you meant a persons unlimited wants. Like in the law of supply and demand.

 

[Miles Teg]

The word is sincerity.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since no one thought of a name for it, by the powers invested in me I hereby declare it the Mesoyan paradox. Congratulations

It would have been nice in a recent thread to be able to name it, instead of describing it.

 

[Mise]

That certain things are only gotten if you don't try to get them, but try to get something else? Fine, if it's not a paradox, what are you going to call it?

I think you need to make the distinction between it being this way by design and it being this way by accident. I.e. religion = by design; good writing = by accident. There's nothing in the rule books which say that you can't be a good writer by setting out to be a good writer (i.e. in a clinical, dispassionate way*), but there is something in most religions which say that you can't get to heaven by paying lip-service to God.


*- Or perhaps you believe that good writing requires passion

 

[.Shane.]

I seem unable to put a name to this, but it seems to happen so often that I feel it must have been named by someone who noted it earlier.

You've hit on something that is one of my core... mantras.. for lack of a better word. I've often struggled with what to call it. I hate this term, its sounds awkward, but I call it "meanism". Meaning living focused on the means by which you live rather than the ends.

For example. Most people will say "I wish I was more honest with people". And, thus, they identify "honesty" as an ends they want to work toward. And, as an end, they can feel free to deviate from the goal as need be.

Where as, as a meanist, I'm not trying to be honest. I am honest. And, I don't worry about the consequences. To me, a huge part of "meanism" is a willingness to be consistent and not focus on the "end". The core of the belief is that you are willing to take the consequences for the behavior because you believe in the virtue of the behavior and, therefore, whatever it naturally leads to is the best.

Not sure if this is, ultimately, what you're after or not....

 

[BasketCase]

You can't force creativity. If people could simply go "okay, I'm gonna sit down and write an Emmy-winning screenplay" and do it, everybody would be a Gene Roddenberry, and the world would rapidly run out of gold with which to make those little Emmy statues that get handed out at the ceremonies by extremely well-endowed women.

Creativity is something along the lines of sitting in your chair, staring at the wall and trying to spell rude words out of the mottled ridges in the stucco, when suddenly a really great idea jumps out of nowhere and goes "BOO" at you.

Writing a fantasy novel isn't really something you can "want" to do.

 

[warpus]

You've hit on something that is one of my core... mantras.. for lack of a better word. I've often struggled with what to call it. I hate this term, its sounds awkward, but I call it "meanism". Meaning living focused on the means by which you live rather than the ends.

For example. Most people will say "I wish I was more honest with people". And, thus, they identify "honesty" as an ends they want to work toward. And, as an end, they can feel free to deviate from the goal as need be.

Where as, as a meanist, I'm not trying to be honest. I am honest. And, I don't worry about the consequences. To me, a huge part of "meanism" is a willingness to be consistent and not focus on the "end". The core of the belief is that you are willing to take the consequences for the behavior because you believe in the virtue of the behavior and, therefore, whatever it naturally leads to is the best.

Not sure if this is, ultimately, what you're after or not....

I know exactly what you're talking about here.

It has been my experience that the wisest and most satisfying course of action is to take both the "journey" and the "goal" and keep both of these things in mind as you live your life.

You will arrive at a lot of the goals you set up to reach - and the journey there will be somewhat enjoyable.

By only focusing on the journey you might not reach the goal - and by only focusing on the goal, the journey might suck. You will have to compromise.

 

[bhsup]

Fine, if it's not a paradox, what are you going to call it?

"Working the system" vs. "being true to yourself".

 

[Kyriakos]

Writing is about expressing oneself, like all art. Now of course many people (and arguably every single author in his early work), particularly when they have not yet formed a style, try to become something by reacting to various influences they have. However the problem here is that only you are conscious of your reaction to those; the readers will not value your work via knowing how it was created, they will just read what they think is there. Moreover trying to write something you think is "good" will inevitably take away at least some of your focus from the actual attempt to express yourself. In the end most stories are ok if they were real to the author, that is if the author actually felt what he was writing about, and that is so because then the story pretty much builds itself since it resembles more an autobiographical note, where you cannot go wrong since at worst you would have had presented in the story your shortcommings as well, and they would be again an integral part of it.

There is a nice quote by Fernando Pessoa about this issue:

"Great poets write what they feel,
average poets write what they think they are feeling,
and bad poets write what they think they should be feeling"

 

[Birdjaguar]

Where as, as a meanist, I'm not trying to be honest. I am honest. And, I don't worry about the consequences. To me, a huge part of "meanism" is a willingness to be consistent and not focus on the "end". The core of the belief is that you are willing to take the consequences for the behavior because you believe in the virtue of the behavior and, therefore, whatever it naturally leads to is the best.

The Buddhists embrace this concept heavily. It is action without attachment to the results. It is living in the world and fullfilling ones duties without without regard to the outcomes. It is committment to right action, but no concern for the results.

Writing what you know is far easier than making stuff up. I could more easily write a story about life in New Mexico than Norway. But in either case writing is mostly hard work. Having a talent for storytelling helps too.

 

[Jawz II]

Well the psychology of it is pretty simple isn't it?

When youre trying to achive something, you put a lot of stress on yourself, but when youre just screwing around, youre just screwing around. Youre relaxed.