A Mini Sociologic Theory on the Pyschology of Writers

I recently developed a theory about amateur writers (which applies loosely to professional ones occasionally).

There are only two types of beginning writers: level one and level two. These levels are easily distinguishable upon reading a piece of their work. Do keep in mind my definition of amateur writer. This is a person with a burgeoning interest in the art of written word; they are generally heavy readers and pretty nerdy. They are unpublished, unsure, and possibly mentally unstable for fantasizing about a career in writing.

Level one writers are characterized by conventions. In general, their works are thinly veiled rewrites of what they like to read. Twilight nerds write vampire fiction, fantasy novels, with the root of what they wish their lives were like at the core (dashing significant other, respect, power, beauty). Video games nerds write the plots of video games, just with more dialogue and less actual shooting. Realistic fiction readers write stories about poor people becoming famous singers and divorces and funerals. Eighty percent of the time, somebody wakes up at the end of these stories because everything is a damn dream.

Level two writers hate level one stories. They get a smug sense of superiority from reading the same five page tale of the first day working at a grocery store, where the zaniest non-zany things happen. They seek something more from their writing. They want to present metaphysical concepts, new perspectives, complex characters. Stories you have to read twice, with multi-layered allegories and names with hidden meaning. The problem is, they aren't good enough to write like that. They strive for the next Hemingway short story, and come up with something told from the perspective of a tree, a dog, or a teddy bear. It just creates a whole new set of cliches by trying to escape what is cliche.

I've been horribly caught between these two levels for a few years now. I know I can write the formulaic level one story with an acceptable level of competence. But I want to do better. Sadly, I do not possess the life experience, writing experience, and even reading experience to successfully execute my inherently lofty goals. The result is a story aiming for something higher, coming up short, and coming up sounding worse than the average to horrible level one stories. Average, average, average. They usually have titles like "A Mini Sociologic Theory on the Psychology of Writing."

I wonder what it takes to push somebody past this level one place. Is it simply the amount of talent one is born with that dictates what their pen will produce? Is it, as I'm partial to believe, all about experience levels? Do I need to pull a Mark Twain and float down a river?

I think I just need to keep writing. As every professional writer says to varying degrees and phrasing, you have to write a bunch of crap before you can get to the good stuff. I hope the elusive and mysterious level three is lurking beyond the cliche, trite, and self-important junk that stems continuously from my unripened brain.