Why Do Writers Write About Writers?
[Roxane Gay / May 26th, 2010 / Young Bright Things ]It’s really interesting (for me, and me alone of course) to see how my editorial tastes have evolved while reading submissions. As I have amply documented, stories and poetry about cats are difficult for me. This feline aversion began years ago, as a slush reader for a magazine where people would literally send in copies of their diaries. Â Oftentimes, these diarists would talk about their cats and there’s nothing sadder than reading an old lady’s diary perfect penmanship about her cat Mr. Mephistopheles and how he has his own parlor so I’m still suffering the effects of that trauma. It cannot be helped.
I’m developing a new intolerance–writing about writing and writers.
I have done this, more than once, writing about writers. It is very likely I will do so again in the future. There is wonderful creative writing about writing out in the world. I can’t think of a single example right now but I know it exists.
Lately though, I’ve had ample opportunity to think long and hard about why writers seem to be endlessly fascinated by writers and writing. Is it solipsism? Arrogance? A lack of imagination? Are we simply writing what we know? Increasingly, writing about writers/writing feels too self-referential, too meta, too much. There are so many occupations we could explore through our writing—fireman, astronaut, waitress, cowboy, ballet dancer, whatever—that have a lot of creative potential. Why do we (yes, I include myself) think writers, poets, novels in progress, writers’ block, readings, sex with writers, drinks with writers, feuds with writers, the love of writers, the hatred of writers, anything that could possibly involve writers, are such wonderful sources of narrative or poetic inspiration?
Possibly an over-developed sense of self-importance? Or maybe it was that study that said poets have more sex than any other type of artist. Now we feel like we have to prove it with our accounts of how fiery and tumultuous we are.
I wonder about this, too – there seems to be some assumption that writers are inherently interesting no matter what they’re doing. Especially if what they’re doing is buying drugs, drinking, and/or driving around at night. Even stories in which there’s no reason for a character to be a writer, it so often gets slipped in as some irrelevant (to me) detail.
writers who write about writers is beginning to bug me too, but it’s second to my annoyance at poets who poem about poeming.
I don’t know why. It’s like, maybe, “I came here to escape from my ‘norm’” or something. Like, if I work at Pizza Hut, I’m not going to Pizza Hut when it’s time for dinner.
Or something.
I am in total agreement with you in regards to poets poeming about poeming.
I think it’s a lack of anything actually interesting to say.
Maybe because of all those teachers saying “write about what you know.”
Personally, I doubt if I will ever write about a writer.
The worst is writers who write about writers writing, and then include long excepts of the “writing,” which is sometimes supposed to be good and is usually godawful.
It is good to know what is quickly becoming cliche in the writing community. I am increaslingly more grateful for prompt based or referential writing. They really help to keep the subjects fresh and creative.
Thanks for posting this question. I know from my own work on journals that this has been an ongoing problem for years now, and I am to the point that I have a hard time even considering these stories because I’m so sick of them.
I agree with Mike’s statement above, “write what you know” seems to be a big part of it, especially for younger writers. With that said, there are plenty of writers (including big-name, award winning novelists) that are just as guilty.
I hate to suggest this, but I think it may at least partially be because of the MFA: more people spending time in academia and not going out into the “Real World.” I say this because, seven times out of ten, if the writing is about a writer, they (being the writer of the story) are also a professor/MFA Student (or at least in some college environment).
I know several writers who went straight from undergrad to an MFA, and a couple of them are already talking about applying to PhD programs. I don’t mean to say that school isn’t a good thing, but what can they possibly have to write about when they’re 30 years old and have never been out of school?
As long as they aren’t only “writing what they know,” then they could be writing about anything.
I’m sure some of it is due to writers trying to transmute experiences that happen to them into fiction, and it’s easier to do so if parallel experiences happen to someone in a parallel (writer-y) position. Or maybe it’s just far easier for inexperienced authors to empathize with characters like them (I’m thinking here primarily of myself when I was 18 and naively snobbish and found it hard to imagine I would ever be engaged with a desk job). Or maybe it’s due to a lack of experience in engaging non-wordy jobs/occupations. Although I very much enjoyed my time in school, I can certainly see the dangers inherent in studying writing with writers and going out afterward to talk about writing in writerly bars instead of straight living out in the “regular” world, which most of your ideal readers will probably occupy.
In school a lot of the other writing students I knew expressed the same aversion most of the commenters (and I) have about stories centered on writers, but still stories cropped up in workshops featuring either writing or occupations that were obviously meant to sub for writing (I’m thinking of amateur music, amateur photography, etc.). Most of these pieces felt like they were more about the author trying to exorcise whatever miseries he or she felt were inherent to the creative life, which usually meant the loneliness, the frustration, the microwaved noodles.
I used to read for a few different journals and I noticed, strangely, that the work that came in via slush mail almost all used the cliche in a different way, so that we’d have stacks of stories in which phenomenally successful writers bounced around town getting into trouble or solving mysteries or just generally swimming in sex. This seems to be the cliche that TV and film uses, too–a shortcut explanation that gets a character freed up from any sort of monotonous desk routine.
this has always been a pet peeve. there are so many things that are far more interesting to write about. i was refreshed during my mfa because we were told many times not to write about writers or professors. it always made me laugh, ’cause i could look in any direction and see someone cringing and blushing because they knew they were about to go to workshop with a story about writing or professors.
This is so meta.
I think insularity is similar in fiction as in poetry; whereas poets seem to get away with it more often, it’s much more apparent if a fiction writer writes about…well, a fiction writer. Maybe they’ve read one too many Stephen King novels.
I think xtx is correct about poets, too. There seems to be–at least this is the perception of poets I know–more at stake in terms of “being aware of the history of the genre” or something like that. I’ve been guilty or meta-poetics, or ars poetica, or whatever you wanna call it, but I certainly don’t think it should be a line to stand on one side or the other.
Personally, my day-to-day life is pretty boring. Why do I want to share that with anyone? I may as well go back to livejournal or something. That will guarantee that absolutely no one will read it.
*of metapoetics
Stephen King is a spot-on choice for an example here. I’m a fan of his writing (of some of it, at least) but I’ve always been sort of annoyed that so many of his characters are not just writers, but writers of his level of success. For a long time they were all genre writers and then, about the time he started to get more mainstream cred, they became mainstream writers (a la the central writer in Lisey’s Story, who I couldn’t read about without thinking of Chabon, who edited the anthology in which the story first appeared).
I wrote a poem about writing once that got published. It was titled “Give Tongue” and yes, it was a pun!
I agree with all of this. I was glad to see this post, because it’s something, as a young writer, I’ve been dealing with a lot. I’ve written about writers, and then I find that I’m not satisfied with any of it, that I hate it, it seems forced, and in fact just is too transparent (a similar transparency as with S. King, mentioned above — though I’m a big fan of some of King’s work, namely The Dark Tower series).
I’m wondering what people think about writing about journalists, in that sense. Journalism, in a sense, is more of a trade than fiction writing, so I think that’s more of a gray area, but what are the general thoughts about that kind of thing? Clearly writing about someone at a desk job isn’t exactly thrilling (unless craziness ensues that just hasn’t been explored before).
In any event, thanks for this piece, and all the comments. It’s a really interesting thought, and I agree in that writing about writers is borderline predictable. It shouldn’t be the main focus, anyway. It’s like in music, when you hear someone singing about singing or playing, you just want to cringe. Plus, at least from what I’ve seen, it’s a rarity to see a painting of a painter painting (feel free to prove me wrong there, though).
[...] Why do writers write about writers Roxane? (excellent contemplation) [...]
paintings of people painting were frequent when art took a turn to impressionism and later to impressionism and…pretty much any time a sea change occurred – all the way from the dutch masters to the beginning of abstract art. it may be that a similar synchronicity rules the writings of writers on writing and/or writers. in the language of the philosophy of science: whenever a paradigm is about to change, the need for reflection and positioning abounds. if this is true then we’re about to see some change (which, incidentally, is overdue). just a thought.
How many actual lines does the average story about a writer spend on the fact that he/she writes? In my experience, there’s rarely many “on the job” type passages–sitting at the desk, struggling with next sentence. It’s just something that adds a sense of anxiety (or, more rarely, accomplishment) to the protagonist. Beyond that, the character goes about life much as anyone in any other profession might: drink, fuck, divorce, be abducted by aliens. But I happen to be reading a great novel about a writer right now: Tropic of Cancer. I can’t help but think you’ve stumbled upon a passing pet peeve associated to reading *bad* writing about writing. Do yourself a favor and re-read Henry Miller. You’ll get over it.
I think one clear reason still hasn`t been given enough attention. For example, a often got free tickets to the top jazz club in town through my friend who worked at the local jazz radio station. It didn`t take long for me to realize that I was the only one of only very few people there who wasnt from the radio station or a musician. Musicians playing for musicians… In my experience, the same goes for the audience at a book launch and poetry readings. Yes, yes, write what you know… but you`re forgetting, consider your audience. Writing at most levels is extremely inbred, and isolated. Just like conteporary Jazz.
Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written article. I??l make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I will definitely return.
I completely loved reading your blog! Do you plan about carrying out a stick to-up? You ought to watch my website it is information on pure green coffee bean Thanks