One writer's guide to writing insisted that a writer must experience everything, including homsexuality. I much preferred her advice to study my Latin roots.

Balzac had his servant chain him to his desk so he'd be forced to work. I like that one, too.

Our director, Charles Rome Smith (I'm doing a Bradbury play right now), started Pandemonium Theatre Company with Ray back in, I think, 1962, and has known Ray for many, many years, and describes him as a 12 year old boy who is still chasing fireflies through an Illinois field with his friends. I think that innocence, that total lack of guile, is what Ray taps into with his writing. It's certainly not good advice to eschew an educaiton, but I'm not sure that's precisely what Ray's advocating. I'm sure he hopes that all writers don't pave over their childhood with college and experience, and remember that who were are is very much about who we were.

I guess my favorite authors in the science fiction genre are Ray Bradbury (of course), Arthur C. Clarke (only his Space Odyssey quintrilogy), Robert Heinlein (only because of Starship Troopers), Martin Caidin (for Marooned and Cyborg), Stanislaw Lem(mostly beacuse of Solaris), Victor Appleton(his Tom Swift series), and to some extent Ben Bova (his Mars novels). When you really get right down to it, I like space opera, hard science fiction and science fact. As long as the stories, plot, and characters are three-dimensional, or even multi-dimensional, I'll be just as satisfied.

As I understand Ray's recommendations, a writer needs to study at the feet of other great writers, to know and appreciate why they are considered great in the first place. To take a course of study from a Shaw, a Melville, a Collier, a Keats or Shelley, one needs only to reach up to the shelf and read. Great writing is not of a time or place, a certain vernacular, or correctness of language, it is mostly about feelings, touching the human condition that vibrates in us all, regardless of station or training. To study great writing one must only begin to read the works of great writers.

A college education will do little to expose one to the works of great writers that could not be gained from sitting in the library and reading. Formal education is training in what NOT to do and thus can limit the essential creativeness that one could develop outside the establishment. It is the old saw: "If presented with lined paper, write outside the lines". It is also about the use of time. In fact, I would bet that Ray read more works in four years in the LA library than he would have had the time to read if he had been enrolled in a college curriculm. And, his own interests were pulling him in the direction of most benefit to himself, as contrasted with the need to fulfil a professor's idea of a certain curriculm. This is the Montessori Method working at its best.

As a person who has four college degrees(don't ask), I can tell you that I learned more and and worked with greater energy, with the ideas and interests that I chose to pursue, as against the requirements of an approved curriculm, where I had to jump through the hoops to reach the certification as graduate. As for rubbing elbows with people and making contacts, join with others who have similar interests in an informal setting and offer up the efforts of one's writing labors to friendly and sometimes brutal critism. That is what the California Sorcerers were doing and why they had a profound effect on the writing, in their chosen genres, that evolved from that period. Writer's should write, painters should paint, the rest is just vocabulary to lend a stamp of correctness and the aire of intellectualism. Most of the great creative people learned the ropes, studied the prior efforts of their idols and then broke the mold and went in new directions. That is what made them noticable and ultimately recognizable as great. They stood out. In a technical field, in order to be accepted as a qualified member, one usually must demonstrate the necessary minimal skill set and then can begin to go in a new direction. It is only because the professions require evidence of this minimal skill set, that the formal education is needed. Einstein was a patent clerk, who read and knew the physics of his time, and then broke the mold and bravely proposed solutions that challeged what was then being taught. I personally agree with Mr. Bradbury. Read, read, read, then write, write, write. The public is the ultimate judge of the writer's talent.

[This message has been edited by patrask (edited 05-13-2003).]

Patrask,

Was it the four degrees or your internal wisdom that helped you reach such an eloquent conclusion?

Whatever it is, don't loose it. "Breaking the mold" is so important in the 21st century. A life constantly seeking to conform will eventually be shaped by preconceived notions, determined by others, leaving little room for fresh ideas. I believe your altitude depends on your attitude, so soar...just soar.

nicely put Patrask, though one must wonder (and one does) are certain people predisposed to an interest in writing or reading (or any other occupation or past time for that matter). I was always encouraged to read, but never forced. Reading is an escpae more sublime and tempting than drugs in some senses to me, i can never fall asleep when i should, for reading. I haunt used book stores as ghost to grave, but i know poeople who wouldn't touch books if they weren't forced. I know they would rather burn holes in their face than read huck fin. And i am sure that many (if not all of you) feel the same way about reading that i do. The question again is quite arguable: is there predisposition?

Mephistopheles:
In response to:

quote:

Originally posted by Mephistopheles:
The question again is quite arguable: is there predisposition?

and to continue my previous post:

Out of respect for those who have chosen a path other than mine, I sometimes feel we all seek something in the middle.

My particular internal blueprint avoided higher education and the wonders found in literature, although I was given the option to pursue those ideals. The love of thoughts projected in the written word has always been there. Living life was more important than studying or reading about it at the time. I only sought higher education as it directly applied to my specific career choices and took it from point A (design & drafting knowledge) to point B (financial benefits) without a lofty thought in sight. Now, approaching life in reversed order while trying to adjust my gyroscope, I read...read...read...and WRITE...WRITE...WRITE But I could never diminsh the value of going through the school of life. I do believe I'm paying very close attention to the words now. Couldn't sit still long enough it to save my life when I was 18.

Make life work for you. Create your own predisposition.

On your other issue mentioned, I would imagine being too far away from a coastal area might feel a bit confining. I can't deal with sleeping in highrise airtight hotel rooms. It feels absolutel suffocating.





[This message has been edited by Celestial (edited 05-13-2003).]

Great writing and thoughts. I guess for me, the idea that it is EITHER go to college OR be a free thinker is a false alternative. I met wonderful fellow-students and professors who taught, exposed and encouraged me to study materials and in methodologies that were true to my own talents and interests. I was exposed to ideas and writers that I may (or may not) have found on my own. In philosophy, at least, most of the significant contributors have been VERY well educated. Why not take as much advantage of an education as possible AND read, read, read, write, write, write?

For those who favor bypassing a formal education, there is a wonderful book called, "The Day I Became an Autodidact" by Kendall Hailey, that talks about her decision to pursue reading and writing, as opposed to formal education. In the early part of the book she writes:

"The highlight of the first day [of high school] was learning how little schooling Benjamin Franklin had. Inspired by my commitment to being an autodidact, I felt compelled to ask: If Benjamin Franklin had done all he had done without ever going to high school, why are we all here?"

"If Benjamin Franklin had done all he had done without ever going to high school, why are we all here?" Well, obviously, not all of us are Benjamin Franklin.

No, school isn't for everyone. But I'd be willing to guess that it helps a lot more than it doesn't. Like most things, going back to school at 43 has been a mixed blessing. On the one hand, I'm afforded the opportunity to take the time and have access to resources I wouldn't have pursuing my studies on my own. And, having lived life a little, I can see just how much an ivory tower the world of academia is. Perhaps that's as it should be.

Pete

Somewhere, paraphrasing it, I read this old time worn statement. It went:
....Many 'people' at 15 think they know "everything." In fact, they are convinced they know everything. And you can't tell them any different.
But, if you are 40, and still think you know everything, and are convinced that you have all the answers, then really you're still just only 15.

So i suppose, Nard, that it is in everyones best interest to know everything and stay young. Or perhaps: know just enough and stay just old enough.

~(:

On the subject of Autodidacts, my neighbor has been homeschooling her twin daughters since birth. They're now twelve and have never seen the inside of an educational facility. Both girls are bright, but quite shy and extremely sheltered for their years. I know homeschooling has caught on nationwide and many times these kids surpass traditionally-taught kids in national spelling bees, etc.

As I understand it, pursuing the path of an autodidact is a personal adult decision. I'm intrigued by any classification that grants acceptance of self-acquired wisdom, as my own life seems to mimic the autodidact lifestyle. Do any of the teachers on this forum have a sense of what the future will hold for the home-schooled? Are they to become a new wave of autodidacts in our future society, or do they tend to follow the traditional collegiate paths available to everyone?

I realize that each child is a by-product of their upbringing, education and evironmental surrounds, but there must be trends that are starting to emerge with regard to the home-schooled. The trade-off for one-on-one education in place of a classroom society is compelling.

Most home-schooled kids are not auto-didacts in the true sense of the word. They do not self-direct thier study. Their parents set up the curriculum -- typically with the assistance of curriculum set up by home study groups. One of the challenges of home-schooling is getting into college. How do they document their progress? Nevertheless, most home-schooled kids go on to college. So, they end up not being auto-didacts as they are now working within the framework of a traditional educational institution.

I think there is a kind of arrogant false alternative in this arena. We have seen this come up on these very pages. The assumption seems to be that people who work within a formal, structured educational framework definitionally are not free thinkers. This is not necessarily true. I have had professors and teachers who have really encouraged me (and other students) to pursue knowledge in thier own way.

Even for people who go through formal educational programs -- if they do not seek out learning on thier own throughout their lives -- will not be truly educated. But this same thing holds true for the home schooled and true auto-didacts. When self-education stops (reading, thinking, discussions) then it doesn't matter what their educational roots are; they have become intellectually stagnant.

Mr. Dark,

I'm aware of the lesson plans,curriculum, etc. that the home-schooled must adhere to, and certainly that classification doesn't fit into the realm of auto-didacts. Certainly, arrogance toward formal education is not my intention here. Some of the wisest people (yourself included)are by-products of higher education. But, to be fair, so are many that have avoided that path.

And by nature, perhaps we are all auto-didacts in the pursuit of knowledge. However, when you consider the sheltering that occurs in home-schooling, are these children equipped with the copping skills necesssary for institutional higher learning?
The rituals of college life can be over-whelming even for a traditionally-educated freshman. Can you imagine the impact on a home-schooled student walking on campus for the first time?

Would Ray Bradbury be considered an auto-didact?

Okay. Just realized I contradicted myself with the opening sentences of my past two posts.

Clarification: Home-schooled children are not auto-didacts because their parents are their "teachers". However, does homeschooling promote auto-didacts?

Perhaps social concerns, peer pressure and now even the safety for our kids has the potential to direct the home-schooled toward continuing the discipline privately.

Kudos to those who pursue all facets of knowledge at their resource.

While a fan of public schools, I also support parents who want to home-school. I have a sister home-schooling her kids out in California.

I went through public schools and have taught in public schools. Contrary to the press accounts, I think there is a lot of quality work that goes on in the public schools. I also think that much of the good is because a combination of people -- the student, the parent and the teacher -- are all working together towards a real education. To just abdicate the responsibility to learn on the schools is not going to assure anyone of a quality education. It is not the role of the public school system to be both parent, student and school.

The alleged lack of social skills in home-schooled kids is regularly compensated for in group learing and group field trips, as well as group physical eduction activities. I like how frequently home-schooling families combine resources in a variety of learning and socialization activities.

I agree with what I think is the spirit of what you've said in that people ultimately are responsible for thier own education -- regardless of the path. I have tried to indicate that (awkwardly) in my earlier posts. In either track, individuals who have a love of learning will seek it out and maximize learning and joy in learning regardless of which path they pursue.

As we get on in life, we need to become auto-didacts in order to avoid intellectual stagnation. I think that with intellectual stagnation, we run the risk of becoming emotionally stagnant as well. I think we "work" best when our hearts and heads are both in growing, dynamic places.