Re-posting the link because I just read it (most of it) and it's excellent. Now I see exactly what you're talking about @alw86 , and we covered part of it above (once people got me on the right page ). She manages to cover so much territory with each blog post, I need to go in and read more of them.
Key points from the KM Weiland blog post: The first draft is for the writer. The second draft is for the reader. The Two Major Problems With Self-Indulgent Writing: 1. Your Story Won’t Live Up to Its Potential 2. You’re Being Disrespectful to Readers 7 Signs of Self-Indulgent Writing: 1. Extra Length 2. Extra POVs 3. Unnecessary Philosophical Discussions 4. Worldbuilding That Doesn’t Move the Plot 5. “Teacher’s Pet” Characters 6. Experiments That Don’t Work 7. Jerking Readers Around With Poor Plot Twists And this needs to be posted here as well: There’s only one rule in writing: Follow all the rules—unless you can break them brilliantly. Then break them.
i kind of wish the rule was "look, the rules are fine when you're consciously trying to learn things. they're decent guides. but ultimately they are just guides, and your goal is to skate just fine without them."
Some items I find self-indulgent within my own writing - Goofy metaphors 'lovely' writing that contradicts the mood taking ten sentences to say something that could be said in two waxing philosophical at the wrong moments author intrusion overly familiar poetic moments - those doggone sunsets and loosing my grip on first person POV - 1st person for novels (for me) is difficult as they quickly become bloated and hard to edit.
It's all the more self-indulgent if it appears you've written such a thing very, very well. Too bad. Doesn't matter how effective and believable the twist is in itself. If it throws off the story's overall trajectory, kill it. Kill it dead. (I'm laboring to get rid of one of these now.)
Here's my 10 cents worth. It's all self-indulgent. Whether writing to ingratiate an audience or communicate with an audience. It's still self-indulgent. That's not a bad thing. The artists we remember were often producing work that had no obvious commercial or popular appeal. They did it anyway, with skill and artistry and, sometimes, genius. Writing to appeal entirely to an existing audience is selling toilet paper. Nothing wrong with that. Someone has to do it. How else would we know that 3ply will transform our lives. Great writers have broken the mould. Maybe none of us are that but following a formula that will guarantee publication, maybe even sales, has no inherent appeal to many, especially as the primary objective. Fuck the begrudgers. Indulge yourself. If I don't like it I'll find another self-indulgent ass who speaks my language. Maybe I'll have a readership of one but it's not my job and I like it that way. I'd like to be read and well regarded. I'd like the skill to communicate with readers. Above all, I want to write what feels right to me, however indulgent that might be.
Yeah, there definitely seems to be some confusion. Everyone obviously writes what they want to, and that's a form of indulgence. Shit, you could say that about doing anything: if it wasn't self-indulgent to begin with, we probably won't bother doing it in the first place. There's another way to look at it though. Sometimes, the book itself can be self-indulgent, which doesn't necessarily refer to the person doing the writing. You see this is in movies/shows a little more I think, where the movie is in love with itself and thinks it's ever-so-clever or funny, perhaps dipping into its own lore or self-references a few times too many. You could see this with The Wire, which is one of the greatest shows ever made, but had a tendency to show off how clever it really was. They'd reuse poignant lines and bits of dialogue across multiple characters... almost sneakily, like the audience wouldn't notice. There was one bit that went something like, "When you follow the drugs you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But follow the money and you don't know what you're going to find." Great line, right? Trenchant, poignant, salient, (insert your own "nt")... problem was they used it like 3 times by different characters over different seasons. It was like, yo, we got it the first time, we know you're clever, stop robbing it in my face. There were other things like that in the show. Little self-references. I consider that self-indulgent.
The term self-indulgent has a strong negative connotation—it isn't the same as doing something for your own benefit. Self-indulgent means eating way too much ice cream knowing it's bad for you. Or smoking too much, or drinking too much, or shooting up heroin, knowing what the consequences will be but just saying 'screw it' and doing it anyway. If you write the kind of stuff you enjoy, but it's well written so readers will also benefit, that isn't self indulgent. That's what I'd call writing first and foremost for yourself, while knowing what will please the audience. It's only self indulgent if you don't care about readers.
When it doesn't matter if there's a theme, a storyline, the writing is good, or I have characters that the reader identifies with. I only write this piece because I want to write it. I've no intention of showing it to anyone else. ... then my writing is self-indulgent. Yes, I have indulged sometimes. Caveat above.
Some examples: If I write "This is like that part of the Book of Revelation where David and the angel with hundreds of eyes chant for eternity," that's not self-indulgent, because a lot of people will get it. If I write: "This is like the time my cat clawed me while I tried to baptize her in the kiddy pool," that's self-indulgent because only a few people understand that story.
self-indulgent /ˌsɛlfɪnˈdʌldʒ(ə)nt/ adjective characterized by doing or tending to do exactly what one wants, especially when this involves pleasure or idleness I get what people here mean by self-indulgent writing, where the author either deliberately or through lack of skill, insight or whatever loses connection with the reader and writes something that is satisfying to only themselves. My point on this is that any writing, apart from stuff like directions to the emergency exit, is an indulgence. I'd say the same about reading. It's not Doctors Without Borders nor pulling people from burning buildings. Writing well or reading a good book can make life a lot more tolerable, maybe even save lives, but only because humans need to satisfy more than need. There's no objective assessment here. I might be very moved by something you take as utterly self-indulgent. And sometimes the consensus is wrong! Not sure I get either nor if it's your point but baptizing the cat is more relatable to me. And something I'm more interested to hear about.
A member of my writer's group posted a blog saying she was going to have her heroine get on a soap box and preach about political issues that concerned her, even though people had warned her not to, because she enjoyed writing that way, so there. Is that an example of "self-indulgent" writing?
That story is up in the micro-fiction forum currently. Anyway, I'm going to withdraw from this conversation. My point still stands: More people will understand literary references than references to random things that happened to me.
That's extreme authorial intrusion. It's the worst thing she could do. It shows contempt for the reader. It's like going out on a date, and the guy/gal you meet spends the entire dinner trying to sell you a timeshare in Orlando. Self-indulgent writing is any form of excess that weakens the story. The bad idea above is definitely included. It pleases the writer because it has special meaning for him/her, but it conveys nothing, or less than nothing. It's the Negative Zone of prose, and you don't want to put any reader there (even if they're Zod). Its emptiness is felt on the page. We all do it, and we have to be brave enough to delete and restructure for the audience.
possibly. but so what? I write novels that concern themselves with political issues I personally think are important. That's kind of the point of SFF literature as far as I'm concerned - yeah okay spaceships and magic spells, but that's just setting detail, and the setting of science fiction and fantasy stories is a fancy outfit for your sociopolitical opinions anyway. So good for her for recognizing it.
You have to decide whether you want to write a compelling story with universal appeal or a political tract that will divide people.
that's the thing though. I don't believe in universal appeal, and I think striving for it is a waste of time.
But those are not the only two options. You could write a compelling political story that unites some and divides others and is cited in a call to arms until ten years later when it's viewed with a more distant perspective and dismissed as self-indulgent dirge. Fuck knows what or how your work will be received. All you can do is maintain some integrity. You ask for feedback and try to correct the mistakes you make, those habits borne of inexperience, lack of talent, loss of perspective that inhibit the delivery of what you are trying to communicate. And you try to say what you want to say, only betterly.
There are way more options than that too. I wasn't trying to condense it all down to one pithy statement lol! Personally I prefer to try to write compelling dramatic stories rather than political tracts, but to each his or her own of course. There's so much politics all around these days, I don't want to contribute more. Of course your politics will probably show through, but I prefer it to be subtle and incidental, more subliminal rather than explicit. Not like Heinlein.
I suppose my writing is self-indulgent in the sense that I use writing as therapy and there's always some message or statement. Honestly, I can't imagine writing without self indulgence of some form. I'm not sure I understand how that's possible.
