I’m not saying nor suggesting that one should write with the sole purpose of gaining audience approval, but observing that the mentality behind writing for one’s self can be and often is problematic. Those writers with too much self often don’t deal well with criticism, if they can cope with it at all...
[t]he way one deals with critique is critical to a writer’s future successes and ability and willingness to improve.All true. Though, how many people genuinely enjoy criticism, even the constructive kind? By the way, appreciating and valuing that part of the process in helping to improve writing is not the same thing as enjoying it.
Certainly, "I write for myself" can be and is used as a hedge, covering anything from insecurity to laziness. But isn't that also where writers tend to start? How about ultra-personal diary-type material, (though I'd think that a person probably wouldn't discuss such a thing in public)? And what are writing exercises if not "writing for oneself?"
Maybe it's a matter of degree. If a writer claims that all of their writing is for their eyes only, it will sound lame. But, in addition to not having to listen to that person, we should remember that any decent writing will typically start "for oneself"--writing as practice, or therapy--before evolving into something the writer feels will fairly reflect on themselves and their skills in the larger, harsher world. Nos Populus was a combination of the two, vacillating back and forth over a few years until I decided it was ready to hand over to a couple of people I trusted to edit it. Then a few more years until I was girded enough to publish it.
Figured against my costs for publishing, I'm actually still in the red. Not by anything significant, of course, and I don't mind that part. Writing to finance writing is about all that I aspire to, money-wise. And anyway, my dreams of acclaim and royalties were more like outlandish fantasies; almost certainly not going to happen, but "stranger things... " sort of situation. It was about finishing the book, getting it out there, and avoiding the trap of editing it over and over again for years, driving myself irretrievably mad while negligibly improving upon a project that never sees the light of day. For myself, in a way.
Or take self-proclaimed "self-publishing failure" John Winters. He had a book, got frustrated with the query-agent-publisher stage, took his book to Amazon, found the process amazingly easy, didn't sell much, experienced a mysterious sales surge that disappeared just as mysteriously, and sits at the end of it all with a little-noticed, less-sold book. Hits close to home for me and (I shudder to think how many) millions of others. Would you take "for myself," away from him? Then again, Winters also managed to garner a five star review at Amazon; more than I can say for Nos Populus (no reviews is kind of like a perfect rating, right?). He also got to write a piece for Salon, so he's got that going. You can purchase a copy of Winters' book here. And here's his blog.
People sometimes ask me how my book sales are going. It reminds me of when I was unemployed immediately after college and I'd hear "how's the job search going?" They're making me think about this draining, demoralizing, seemingly futile process. And they can't think it's going well, or they'd have already heard about it. It takes whatever remaining socialization skills I still possess not to scream back, "Haven't you heard? I've sold nine billion copies! I'm the McDonald's of self-publishing!" But that's not fair to them. Is it? No, probably not.
I am sorry to sound bitter. Although in a world where Snooki gets to have multiple books published (she can use the words "my new book;" think about that), Paris Hilton gets a record deal, and Grumpy Cat is in talks for a film, one can't be totally surprised when creative-types who bust their asses to realize the same dreams just want to shove a shard of broken glass into their respective jugulars.
The point is, in a field as punishing as trying to write for others, having "the personal" to fall back on is as much a crutch as it is a parachute made of sanity. Just try not to overuse it.
I found it funny that you said, "I'm sorry to sound bitter." After reading that same post a while back, I also felt compelled to write a response to it, and I was sitting here thinking, "Man, this writer is a lot more open minded than I am."
ReplyDeleteI think there are several ways to write for yourself, the main two being, "Writing for myself as a writer," and "Writing for myself as a reader." Most times my criticism of first stories is that people aren't putting themselves into it, aren't writing what they want to read about, and are trying to reject what they like because it's not about them. Which is a viable way to go, but a hard one that doesn't reward authors any more than writing for people with similar tastes as you.
You hit the nail right on the head when you said her point in the article was, "writers use it as a way to avoid having their work peeled apart by others." I understood that to be what she actually was saying more than, "don't write for yourself." The article didn't seem to be about "who are you writing for" as its title indicated, but "stop telling me that you only write for yourself when you don't want to be criticized."
I am impressed with how you can understand and sum her up so well. And I agree with you full heartily. Especially when you said, "It was about finishing the book, getting it out there..." and everything about why you write and what you hope for. While I write for a career, I have done a lot more writing and a lot less careering, for the same reasons you said.