"If a man only writes well when drunk, I would tell him: Get drunk. And if he said to me that his liver suffers because of that, I would answer: What is your liver? It's a dead thing that lives as long as you do, while the poems you write live forever."

The above is a quote from Fernando Pessoa, an unusual, and now highly regarded Portuguese poet who died in 1935 (of liver failure). He is unusual in that he wrote from dozens and dozens of different personalities ('heteronyms'). He is said to have inhabited these personalities in such a complete way as to challenge conventional notions of the self.

Anyway - is he 'right'? Is his statement one that it is possible to be right about? For myself, I'd rather have a functioning liver.

A very interesting question, David. Personally, I can't produce anything creative when drunk - and not much when sober, actually. I usually fall asleep instead. (In my younger days I would throw up). Even if others are more successful drunk writers, it's taking a bit of a gamble to hope that the work you produce while intoxicated will live longer than your liver. Does this advice include drugs such as opium, though? Kubla Khan would seem to support Pessoa's advice ...

Kind of relevant to this is the foreword in Patti Smith's book, 'Just Kids', which I will type out here in full because I think it's just so spot-on:

"Much has been said about Robert (Mapplethorpe), and more will be added. Young men will adopt his gait. Young girls will wear white dresses and mourn his curls. He will be condemned and adored. His excesses damned or romanticized. In the end, truth will be found in his work, the corporeal body of the artist. It will not fall away. Man cannot judge it. For art sings of God, and ultimately belongs to him"

I would agree with Pessoa, myself. If that's what spurred him into all of that creativity, opened up the doors for him, then he leaves us with HIS truth, HIS corporeal body - one that lasts forever.

Personally, I have to write completely straight. I've tried writing drunk or stoned - sounds great at the time but when you look at it next day it's just nonsense, and the associations you thought were genius the night before become cringeworthy doggerel in the sober light of day.

Editing, however, is different. If I've been working on a piece intensely, I HAVE to step away for a few days, then come back after a smoke - this gives me the objective remove that I need to be able to continue.

I'm with everyone else on this one. I could never write anything worth reading whilst drunk. I suppose there are exceptions to any rule though and the brain of a genius may work differently.

I suppose experimenting with substances might open your mind up to a more surreal way of seeing things. I mistakenly thought that Lewis Carroll took drugs whilst writing Alice in Wonderland. Having researched it, I see that the claim was unsubstantiated and possibly just a myth.

What anyone does with their own physical body is up to them. Whether or not you think it's worth the sacrifice might depend on just what you have in your life to keep on living for. If we were all producing masterpieces, I think the temptation would be to keep on drinking - with the intention of giving up at some point...

Interesting. Laura, you've explored two lines of thought. One, started by Greg, is about writing when under the influence and we all seem to agree that doesn't work for us, even if it worked for Pessoa. Though I'd put in a word for sleep deprivation for encouraging the Muse - not quite the same as inebriation even if it can feel like it.

The second is about the enduring nature of what we write. Does it endure in some cosmic sense, even if no one is actually reading it years later? I'd like to think so, and Pessoa seems to have done. Is that what you're saying?

Steve's fascinating contribution has opened up a third line - why are so many very creative people so difficult at a personal, everyday level?

For a fourth line - the book describing Pessoa identified both his drinking AND his poetry AND his alternative personalities as to do with escape. In support of this hypothesis, there was a T S Eliot quote -

"Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things."

I don't agree but am probably missing some subtlety of the great man's.

And Lewis Carroll did all that without drugs? Wow.

External influences like alcohol and more noxious substances may provide a temporary shift in perception in the mind but they are liable to produce nonsense. A meeting of minds might be a good description of the business of writing and reading poetry. I would never dream of reading poetry "under the influence" so why would I want to write it in a similar condition? I lived through the Timothy Leary era and escapism is no match for the hard application of determined mental creativity free from poisonous external substances.

It is not about whether you should use substances to assist you in your writing; it is about what you would sacrifice if your writing demanded it.
It may be that writing is your reason for living but for others it is merely a distraction. If this rings true to you then your choice is already made.

I'm a bit pissed right now...not sure how that affects the relevance of my comments, beyond knowing that WOL advises against 'post pub commentary'. I've been watching 'Strictly' and wrapped my liver around a nice Pinot Grigio in the process.

There used to be an odd statistic about 'What's the most dangerous job in the world?' the answer being 'American Nobel Prize Winner for literature'. They all died drunk and disorderly. If you chuck in Edgar Allen Poe (died a drunk before they'd even invented the Nobel Prize) and Dylan Thomas (died a drunk in America, but was Welsh) the stats get even more dangerous.

I guess the proof is in the pudding. We remember the dissolute and dishevelled more for their chaotic and memorable lives. Does anyone actually know how many geniuses were quiet, abstemious, productive fellows?

The majority, I'll warrant!

: )
Jx

Pete's right about what it's fundamentally about. What would one give up for one's writing? Lover, family, country, job, security.....?

At any rate, giving things and people up seems to both cause and be a symptom of chaos, and as John says, chaos seems to accompany genius. Johann Sebastian Bach is an exception isn't he? Wasn't he a happy family man?

JA makes a good point about the quiet geniuses. Far too often it seems that the noisy, attention seeking type gets in the public eye and his/her lifestyle either adds to or detracts from what is on offer, according to the POV of the observer. Interestingly, the lyricist Lorenz Hart was well-known for his intemperate habits and these effectively ended his productive working relationship with composer Richard Rodgers, who went on to even greater fame and glory with Oscar Hammerstein. However, Hart's drinking has been ascribed to his unhappy inability to accept his physical stature and homosexuality, yet despite his situation he was widely loved. Able to create some of the most memorable popular song lyrics ever heard, he was that rare breed -a quiet genius who sought relief in the alcohol that was to contribute (prematurely) to his death in a hospital ward.

Dave,
I think that this idea of artists ruining their lives for their art is a very dangerous one
particularly for young folk. It seems also to be an accepted idea in the pop world (All that waffle about Amy Winehouse?)

I think it arises because some folk
elevate poetry into some sort of mysticism...It isn`t. I think that it can take us to some place that we can`t really describe...but we should be able to discuss how we got there soberly and drug-free.

It's quite cheap at our local butcher. Nutritious, too.

Writing whilst under the influence isn't a problem; it's thinking it isn't a problem that's the problem. Or is it thinking it is a problem? Damn, not sure now, but then, I am stone cold sober. Perhaps I'd understand if I had had a little drink to bring me face to face with the muse?
I do find, sometimes, that taking myself off to a pub where I am not known (i.e. won't be disturbed by friends rather than one from which I am banned) can be a great way to draft something, or jot down ideas. It's what I do with it once sober that really matters.

In support of the thesis that state-altering substances can offer inspiration, here is a quote from Wikipedia about the (United) States altering substance of the poem, Howl:
Ginsberg had an important auditory hallucination in 1948 of William Blake reading his poems "Ah, Sunflower", "The Sick Rose", and "Little Girl Lost". Ginsberg said it revealed to him the interconnectedness of all existence. He said his drug experimentation in many ways was an attempt to recapture that feeling.[22][23]
The above referred to this part of Howl:
"Who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake — light tragedies among the scholars of war" and “who thought they were only mad when Baltimore gleamed in supernatural ecstasy”

Not sure I follow this. What if DT (et al) had been even more of a drunk and had died before he wrote his recognised greats (Under Milk Wood, Do Not Go..etc) would that have made him an even better poet? So what if he had been less of a drunk and lived longer, could he have written more Greats?

Oh THAT DT - I thought you meant Darren Thomas at first. Alcohol certainly affects his poetry. It gets kind of slowed up, slurred and whimsical.

That would probably be the delivery more than the poetry. You could say the same for many performance poets - particularly if they end up compering at the same time :)

A superb thread this. I think mind-altering 'situations', via substances or lack of sleep, are effective to lay bare personal emotional barriers, but that, after the fact, the intellect then takes over for true expression of the 'insights' gained. If you were too far gone to remember what you learned, you couldn't have written anything in the moment anyway. IMO, the whole concept of 'corrupted genius' is a crock; but 'influenced clarity' has some validity. And - that which is not read is dead. The likelihood of being resurrected like the Greek thinkers is very slim to nil.

There are some excellent comments on this subject. I'm glad to be back in the loop.

Mr.Fernando Pessoa is wrong. He was due to create his best work, the ideas were there, just as he realised this and picked up his pen, his liver failed and he died. All artists last thoughts are "wait a minute I haven't quite finished !!!

I'd like the finest wines known to man (hic)!

I jus' wan' to say... I jus... I jus wanna say... (hic!)

...What you lookin' at? You lookin' at my muse?

So much dipsomaniac
upon

the red Stella
lager can

glazed with beer
piss

beside the rainbow
chuck-ups

Very good. What would William Carlos Williams and Fernando Pessoa have made of each other?

"We want the finest wines available to humanity, we want them here, and we want them now!"

: )

Liver....and let die.

J