Writing and Self-Absorption

[lesbiaphrodite]

There's a question I have been pondering of late, and I'm curious to see what others think. At present, I'm working on a novel, and I'm about three chapters into it. The events of the story are based on real-life events that I experienced. The goal of the novel is to explore one person's response to tragedy, but it is my hope that it goes much further and explores the entire issue of what we all deal with when tragedy strikes.

There is a question coming, I assure you. It is this: Do you find that the best writing seems to be the kind that least smacks of self-indulgence/self-absorption? Do you think that the best writers are the ones who avoid this clap-trap of solipsism and go beyond it?

I have read so many amateurish writers whose experiences fail to engage me because I sense that I am being excluded from their work somehow. I sense that they have no interest in making their experiences accessible to readers.

I don't like any art form in which the artist is trying to tell me how to feel or make me feel emotion A or B or C. It's like hearing the pistons fire in an engine. When this one fires, you feel joy. When this one fires, you feel sorrow. And, you have neat little firing noises along the way to guide your emotions. I hate that. It reminds me of the old methods they used to train actors. When you feel sorrow, you must make this face, or when happy, this face. It's false.

Thoughts?

 

[Texienne]

Actually, yeah. Forget 'write what you know'. Whenever I start getting suspicious that someone is inserting their own life experience in, it's usually because it feels less like a story and more like a sales job, trying to convince me that this is really interesting and I should be wowed by it.

I get the same for when someone is putting themselves into the arms of a person they only wished they had dated.

I love writing up my fantasies, but when I'm writing other stuff, I try to get away from my own life. That way I have to sell _me_ on it, first, and I'm likely to do a better job.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I see what you mean, Texienne. I think we agree on this. I just can't stand to read something by a writer who is trying to MAKE me feel anything the way they feel it. I want to be respected enough to be given the freedom in reading to feel whatever the hell I want to feel.

 

[Verdad]

My favorite South Park shtick is when they ramp up the music because someone's making a 'poignant' speech.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

LOL! I love that Verdad. Yes. I have SO seen about a million movies where they cue up the violins at that "special" moment when we all are supposed to weep. Ah me.

 

[jacks4u]

An interesting question. Personally, I hadn't thought about literature like that, but do recall several stories that I thought the author was trying to convince me that it was actually her/him in the story. I've even seen characters in stories here, in .lit where the character's name matches the author's nick.....

In every instance, I lost interest, as soon as I thought the author was actually in the story, instead of writing it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I read somewhere that fiction's appeal consists of realistic problems and solutions the reader benefits from but doesnt have to do the math for. So real life experiences with solutions are excellent grist for the fiction mill.

I suspect 99% of William Styron's fiction is autobiographical.

 

[Teloz]

There's a question I have been pondering of late, and I'm curious to see what others think. At present, I'm working on a novel, and I'm about three chapters into it. The events of the story are based on real-life events that I experienced. The goal of the novel is to explore one person's response to tragedy, but it is my hope that it goes much further and explores the entire issue of what we all deal with when tragedy strikes.

There is a question coming, I assure you. It is this: Do you find that the best writing seems to be the kind that least smacks of self-indulgence/self-absorption? Do you think that the best writers are the ones who avoid this clap-trap of solipsism and go beyond it?

I have read so many amateurish writers whose experiences fail to engage me because I sense that I am being excluded from their work somehow. I sense that they have no interest in making their experiences accessible to readers.

I don't like any art form in which the artist is trying to tell me how to feel or make me feel emotion A or B or C. It's like hearing the pistons fire in an engine. When this one fires, you feel joy. When this one fires, you feel sorrow. And, you have neat little firing noises along the way to guide your emotions. I hate that. It reminds me of the old methods they used to train actors. When you feel sorrow, you must make this face, or when happy, this face. It's false.

Thoughts?

Surely the answer is in the tag line to your signature? Or am I misunderstanding your question?

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

It wasn't a quiz question. I wanted thoughts and views, c'est tout.

 

[lance gt]

It wasn't a quiz question. I wanted thoughts and views, c'est tout.

I feel the best stories I've read that express your thoughts are the ones that drag you in on your own personal level of experience. I don't care what the author felt, I want the situation presented so I can immerse my own life experience in it and relate to it on my own level. If I relate to the character in a sympathetic way, so much the better. Most of us have had to face tragedy or dire situations that we understand the emotional impact it has on us. If you are writing a story basing those things in it, allow the reader to connect on their level.

 

[driphoney]

An interesting question. Personally, I hadn't thought about literature like that, but do recall several stories that I thought the author was trying to convince me that it was actually her/him in the story. I've even seen characters in stories here, in .lit where the character's name matches the author's nick.....

In every instance, I lost interest, as soon as I thought the author was actually in the story, instead of writing it.

I never thought of this either, but I suppose many 'good' authors do it, and there are those non-fiction things called 'autobiographies'. At first I was surprised to see writers here on Lit actually naming their 'characters' after themselves. It's kind of cute, but I'm often turned off. Then again, I love a well done first person story. Whether it's actually being patterned after the author's own experiences or not, I never ponder.

I had to blink when I got a very nice private feedback calling me by my character's name. They put a question mark by it, like they weren't sure, and the funny thing was they were actually commenting on my one stroker, not that story. My character does have bits of me tucked into her, but she's NOT me and her story is pure fiction!

 

[TE999]

One can mix equal parts of one's life experience and sheer imagination and produce an interesting story. Some times it can be things you wish you had done or things you would have done differently with sexy or humorous overtones.

Life's experiences, in the main, are rather prosaic...it's the imaginative aspect in the retelling that makes it interesting.

 

[McKenna]

Do you find that the best writing seems to be the kind that least smacks of self-indulgence/self-absorption? Do you think that the best writers are the ones who avoid this clap-trap of solipsism and go beyond it?

I don't believe so, no, and here's why: The type of writers who engage me the most are those who can tell a story from a personal point of view, but wrap it up in a package that is relevant to me and/or the rest of the world. Such a writer tells a story in such a way that it resonates within me, that I find something worthwhile in his viewpoint –even if I don't agree with him.

One of my favorite books is Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey; it's a story of his journey down the Glenn Canyon before it was dammed. One could say it's completely self-absorbent of him to write about himself and his adventures, but he does it in such a way that you forget. He makes you feel a part of it, rather than excluded.

I think a writer who writes to exclude his audience is a major turn-off. Some do this through their pompous purple prose, others through their sheer stupidity or lack of experience.