It's a fascinating question, and I wish I knew the answer. The thing is, I suspect that this is a little like the in-some-ways-related question of how a writer knows whether she's done enough research for a piece. The answer to that one, in my experience, is an ugly little paradox: a writer who's inclined to think that she's only done a fraction of her research is probably at the point where she should stop fretting about whether her characters would have shoes that laced, and should just write her story; the one who's confident that she's done plenty needs to go back to the library. I sometimes fear that, similarly, the writers who have enough self-awareness and skill to worry about how close they're coming to the self-indulgence line, and who hold themselves back because of it, may be cutting themselves off from doing remarkable work because of it. The people who don't worry about self-indulgence at all, meanwhile, are the ones posting the really embarrassing stuff.
But I don't know that, because if I'm right to worry, we just aren't seeing the cool stuff that the best writers might do if they weren't afflicted with taste and critical awareness. And if I'm wrong, then what's not making it through the filters is the material that in all justice ought not to.
As a reader, I know when the line's been crossed when a little voice in my head begins saying, well, this is all very interesting; but don't you think you should be discussing it with your therapist, not with me? But I find that happening with professionally published work all the time -- and that means, I can't help but think, that there's a huge audience that isn't bothered when the writer goes too far.
Not only isn't bothered, but may actually like it. Honestly, is there anything else that explains the popularity of Tom Clancy's later novels, which feature one of the most blatant Mary Sues in all pop literature? Or the readers who're defending Anne Rice?
Not, I suspect, that most of us here would want to be either one of them, artistically speaking. But their fans would probably be unhappy if they stopped doing the things that make us shudder.
Which is a hell of a long way to go round to repeat, damned if I know. But if anybody does have a better answer, or a good way to tell when you're crossing the line as you write, I'd love to hear it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 01:13 am (UTC)But I don't know that, because if I'm right to worry, we just aren't seeing the cool stuff that the best writers might do if they weren't afflicted with taste and critical awareness. And if I'm wrong, then what's not making it through the filters is the material that in all justice ought not to.
As a reader, I know when the line's been crossed when a little voice in my head begins saying, well, this is all very interesting; but don't you think you should be discussing it with your therapist, not with me? But I find that happening with professionally published work all the time -- and that means, I can't help but think, that there's a huge audience that isn't bothered when the writer goes too far.
Not only isn't bothered, but may actually like it. Honestly, is there anything else that explains the popularity of Tom Clancy's later novels, which feature one of the most blatant Mary Sues in all pop literature? Or the readers who're defending Anne Rice?
Not, I suspect, that most of us here would want to be either one of them, artistically speaking. But their fans would probably be unhappy if they stopped doing the things that make us shudder.
Which is a hell of a long way to go round to repeat, damned if I know. But if anybody does have a better answer, or a good way to tell when you're crossing the line as you write, I'd love to hear it.