Our Lives Laid Bare

A very valid point Deepti. There is a certain bit of ourselves that we lay bare everytime we write. Yet, I don't have the courage to lay bare the innards of my soul or write of the issues that really plague me. I always marvel the courage of writers who are able to reveal the innermost struggles of their lives in print. Is that why a lot of writers who really do write on personal issue on the blogosphere are annonymous?

But yes, if one can pen down their innermost fears, hurts, thoughts and feelings it is certainly cathartic. That means that you have actually stood up and faced them. Yet, there are very few people who can stand up and do that and put their name to it. I think there is a certain bit of ourselves that we all cherish and love to keep in only to ourselves. In a way it is your wealth.

OK I shall stop before I start sounding completely abstract... but nice article!

A writer has plenty choices. She does not have to bare her soul. Her characters and scripts do not have to be biographical. She does not have to live thru her characters. Sure some authors, when they are at the pinnacle of fame, feel their fans deserve to know them at more personal level, and so they let them in to have a peek as authors make cameo appearances in their characters and scripts. But narcissism and voyeurism can get boring very fast.

Ritu, glad you liked it.

Kerty, readers have the choice not to read what bores them.

dee, lovely post. really gets to the heart of what many of us feel as writers.

kerty, maybe you're just jealous that at this point no one really cares what you think? plus, you missed the whole point here.

Thanks SS- knew you'd get it and the other letter -I plead the fifth;)

Deepti,

Not unexpectedly, coming from you, a very thoughtful piece. I agree with your take on Naipaul. He may be an SOB to some and an inspiration as a fiction writer to others, but even so, all writers (as well as non-writers!) lead tortured lives and it takes a lot of courage to bare what one considers to be one's soul. Not for everyone, as Ritu points out...but then, it shouldn't be...all a matter of the comfort zone that one has with oneself, or one's understanding of one's self.

#3

"readers have the choice not to read what bores them."

And most readers do exercise that choice about subjects and authors that bore them. Once an author acquires a celebrity status and a loyal fan base, that is when the author can get away with certain liberties, and a license to act like a mutual admiration club that gives them false sense of approval and appreciation, that is otherwise so boring. This is not personalized observation about any particular author but applies to all authors in general.

SS,

Not the one to tell others what to do, but please don't feed the troll. (Leave that task to me - a certified troll feeder)

Oh man ... I'm turning off the music to focus on what I want to say in as few words as possible.

To start with not-me, the need to bare a soul is different from the desire to bare a soul and then also publicize it. Plenty of people write diaries or something similar to get through the bare part of things.

Then there are those who seek to publicize their naked thoughts. These can't directly be shuffled into the same corral. It's nice to think that many do so just because they can't help themselves or truly believe that others will learn from their mistakes - and their successes - to do better and to learn more about themselves, other people, interactions and the world around them

There are also those who just need attention and that's the ONLY reason they share, and these are the kind I almost never can stand. It's the (full) Pulp Fiction quote "Well, we'd have to talking about one charming motherfuckin' pig." Someone is going to have to be very talented - charming - to get me to listen to them / read them go on about themselves rooting in their own feces. So to speak.

I don't know why Kerty was dismissed so easily - perhaps she / he doesn't say anything in agreement, ever - but I agree with her. people do like to make the mistake of thinking a writer is in every character they write about and it simply isn't. Though she's talking about the reader and Dee is talking about the writer, really they're the flip sides of the same coin. A better writer almost certainly isn't one with mass appeal, but at the same time, a better writer isn't one with 50 fans cheering and agreeing without question everything the writer writes.

With that said, let me - briefly :-) - mention end my comment with the letter that was the springboard to the piece.

I was clearing things up at my place; and this paper was in a box, already crumpled, already to be thrown away. I read it and I cringed for a couple of the reasons I mentioned at my site. But I am still friends with the person I wrote the letter about / for. English was not her first language so I was trying to get it off my chest because she was geographically far away and explain it deliberatively. Also, I was younger and wanted more than she wanted (OR I wanted less than she wanted depending on how you look at it).

She would hate that I put that letter up there, but I know she doesn't read my site.


To put it all together then, a writer who has interested people enough, who knows that people are paying attention, may generally explain MORE about themselves to see what resonates, what kicks. But they actually need to explain, rather than wrap themselves in more layers of mystery and obtusiveness otherwise they aren't helping anyone but their own ego.

At the low - and I do mean low - end of the spectrum look at the celebrities who should know better but appear on reality shows. To me there's a complete loss of dignity in most of what they get up to. I think at least some of them have to see it differently because it's hard to believe they're such publicity whores they would do it otherwise. At a slightly higher level, people agree to be interviewed; famous people, every day people, with too many of the former and not enough of the later.

People do have stories; more people should share and more people should not only absorb but give, as well. Full circle, I'll post this on my site with a few extra paragraphs. hopefully today sometime.

Kerty, the first cardinal rule of writing that most authors (the serious ones/even aspiring ones)live by is to never take readers for granted and if writers don't enjoy writing whatever piece they are working at neither would their readers like the stuff. Its tried and tested.

And hey even if people mass buy Paris Hilton's book or Britney Spears bio its their choice and what right do we have to begrudge their taste at least they are reading!

I believe in Freedom of Expression and Speech. If voyeurism sells well good for the writer and his readers. And I don't have anything against fan clubs either. Stephen King in fact finished his Tower Series for his fans. After his brush with death he realized how important his work was for his readers. He felt a sense of responsibility towards them and finished the series he had left hanging for years.

Readers are hard to come by and especially those who become regular readers. Most of us value those who take interest in our work. Only the arrogant ones think otherwise.

Even Jeffery Archer was overwhelmed when he came to India and met his fans.

This on going romance between writers and their readers may be boring for you and others which is why there are other forms of entertainment to please your senses and intellect.

Temple, its a small online world after all;)
btw- Kerty is a he:)

Deepti

Most of what you have said rings so true. I do not think I would disagree with it - I tried to give another perspective. That does not mean what I said is a universal truth either. It is just another point of view, another way of looking at it. I do not consider myself a writer, so I look at it as a reader and from the vintage point of what would appeal to what kind of readers. Different authors seek to appeal to different kinds of readers. That is why we have so many genre of literature. More the merrier. Though, it does make it harder for aspiring or serious writers to stand out from the crowded field, and baring it all may be one way to grab the reader or stand out from the crowd. Hey, if it works, it works, and risk may seem worth while when it works.

Fair enough Kerty. Thanks for commenting:)

Nice Post.

The difference between voyeurism and a sincere desire to share ones life and experiences is very thin. It's very subjective, boils down to the mind of the reader.

sorry but I think the difference between pandering to reader by encouraging voyeurism and what most sincere writers do is miles apart. what kerty was speaking of is when someone writes for maximum titillation. it is pandering to an audience. most sincere writers have a story they want to get out. it is a story or a character that is important to him/her and at the end, while they might be interested in forming a connection with the audience is it not at all about titillation or a mutual admiration club at all.

temple, you can think what you want. the reason I said up front that kerty is full or poop is that he often attacks people, but never writes anything himself. but he's full of misogynistic ideas and likes to take the piss out of authors for sport. yet by admission he is not an author and cares little about writing. so why should I take him seriously?

Temple Stark,

Kerty is a certified shit-distuber, but not just that. Not just a garden-variety shit disturber but who spews hate at a moment's notice, against women, against gays, against anybody who does not share his sectarian Hindutva agenda. So, yes, it's his business as to what he believes and posts; but surely it's also others' business to be allergic to him and to pay back in kind, thankless a task though it is.

CS#6 and Lexiss, good points.