Writing from Home

Following an interview with Bad Language about how writers are affected by their environments it got me thinking about my own writing identity and what has effected this. Or indeed, what it is?

Although others felt that their home had a relation or presence in their writing, I'm sad to say I don't think mine does, at all. I think one thing that was so disappointing for me growing up was that there wasn't any inspiration about the place I grew up. Not even out of hatred, I didn't even passionately dislike the place, I was just bored. One of the things that drew me to Manchester in the first place was the fact that it seemed to have an identity; I've never been part of somewhere that has a collective identity.

To me, Essex is flacid; it's got no collective identity or atmosphere, people leave Essex to find the activity. Something that is so refreshing as a writer is that Manchester is full of activity; built on atmosphere. Perhaps it is the conflict element? The fact that a city will always have conflict, whether it be crime, or the buzz of a collection of different people in the same place, but a city will always have conflict. I guess, in a depressing way, that is inspirational. It creates something to write about. Happier, calmer places are harder to write about because there's less of a story to be resolved.

It's interesting moving to a city how the environment has started to creep into my writing. I've tried in the past to force my hometown into my writing, unsuccessfully. I've tried writing in dialect which I have no true connection to. The story had no truth. I've tried writing about memories, places I've been. But my memories have no excitement, at least not enough to drive a piece of fiction. Is fiction lively then life? I guess in my case it is. So it's a change to move to a place where people do feel that connection to their environment and allow it to influence their writing in an organic manner.

Continuing on from the idea that I find it hard to write about a place I have a memory connected to, I find it inspiring to see a place I have no connection to. There are so many more stories in the unknown than in the known and in that I find creative freedom. In Manchester, for me, there can be anyone or anything. It's a fresh story everytime I leave the house. In that sense, perhaps I have no true writing identity. Only that of other, imagined roots.

However, it's only once you leave a place that you can see it's true identity. For me, when living there, Essex had no identity. Since leaving, I can recognise someone from Essex, through their mannerisms, speech, reservedness. I can sometimes even place which part of Essex they're from. I find now, from a distance, I can start to define and find my identity in my roots and how that has affected me. Standing in the middle, it's impossible to see.

Which leaves me with the question: As I writer, can I ever take on another idenity in a new place? If I now start to write stories about Manchester and organicially grow to have a Manchester writers voice, will that make me a Manchester writer? Or will I always be an Essex writer? Perhaps, despite the fact that I can't see it, others will think that my writing carries an essence of Essex. Perhaps, it is impossible for writer's to move away from their root identity. 

Obviously this debate doesn't only apply to rural vs city but it's a simpler definition of how an environment can effect your writing. My environment affects my writing on a subconsious level, until I've stepped away from that place and can start to reminisce. There is more creative freedom in the unknown or past known, than the now. Is that depressing?

As writers, is it impossible to write in the present?