When is using the first person self indulgent?

[YW1990]

This issue has been picking at me since the very beginnings of when i began my writing degree. When is using the first person self indulgent? I personally LOVE reading pieces of writing in the first person. Rarely have i ever come across many pieces of writing that's done in the first person that sounds self indulgent. To me, it just sounds very confessional and open. Like the writer is allowing you access to their inner thoughts and are seeking some sort of connection with you. Admittedly, i find writing in the first person to be the easiest for me since i enjoy writing about my experiences and ideas about the world most of all but every time i begin writing, this issue reminds itself to me.

What are your thoughts? Do you struggle with this as well? For me it is a fear because i want my writing to come across as convincing, intellectual and insightful. For my writing to sound as if it were written for me and me only is the last thing that i want. I do believe however that a proportion of what writers write is for themselves. Whether it be to clarify their own thoughts or to solidify them. But there comes a point where first person perspective can seem exclusive and distancing. As if the writer were writing for them and them alone.

[Charles Darnay]

I think self-indulgence is part of the act in many first-person stories. The first narrator's that come to mind when I think of this are: Holden (Catcher in the Rye, The Underground Man, and Nick Carraway (Great Gatsby). These are narrators that can prompt the idea that an author is being self-indulgent.

The way I think of it is that you (the reader) are reading this person's story, and there is a reason why you are reading his or her story - because he/she has something important to say. So it stands to reason that the narrator might come off as self-indulgent, and think very highly of him/herself in regards to their opinions - but I do not think this reflects on the author.

The trick when reading and writing first person narrators is to understand the blurred line between author and narrator.

[hillwalker]

The trick when reading and writing first person narrators is to understand the blurred line between author and narrator.

That's exactly the point - writing from a first person pov is only self-indulgent when the author's own voice intrudes: putting forward his own personal ideas, observations and beliefs as if they were those of his fictional character is hoodwinking the reader and can be counter-productive.

H

[Delta40]

You will have to forgive me for my grass roots background on literature. By that I mean, I love to read the intelligent, informed discussion that go on Lit-Net regarding literature. I personally found it a journey before I was able to start writing in the first person, as if I reached a point where my own experience, world view and writing what I knew no longer had to be in the third person. It was a liberating experience and since then, I am learning to appreciate the context and appropriateness of using the two devices as well as the present tense for some pieces and the past for others. I don't have much more to say about the topic other than it's like coming out of a dark closet and admitting, 'ok, this is me and I'm not going to hide who I am or the influences that have shaped my outlook any longer.' But I realise that it cannot be the only voice in writing. I guess that is what makes writing exciting for me. It's a constant learning experience.

I hope this helps in some way.

[Charles Darnay]

I personally found it a journey before I was able to start writing in the first person, as if I reached a point where my own experience, world view and writing what I knew no longer had to be in the third person.

That is a very interesting way of looking at it; as if first you must achieve some deep understanding of your "self" before you can write in first person, and this is something that must be earned. Then again, you could make a similar argument for writing in third person, it's just not as apparent due to the added distance between writer and reader.

[zoolane]

HM I think writing in 1ST person as well as 3RD person can be self indulgent depend on way they are wrote. You expose yourself as writing the experience and detail as 1ST and 3RD person. It about way you used the vocabulary and suppose style as well.

[YW1990]

That's exactly the point - writing from a first person pov is only self-indulgent when the author's own voice intrudes: putting forward his own personal ideas, observations and beliefs as if they were those of his fictional character is hoodwinking the reader and can be counter-productive.

H

So you're saying that the characters in a short story should be more or less autonomous? But aren't characters the creation of authors? Don't they stem from the authors own experiences and are materialized through the authors themselves?

[TeranikaSloane]

So you're saying that the characters in a short story should be more or less autonomous? But aren't characters the creation of authors? Don't they stem from the authors own experiences and are materialized through the authors themselves?

This is a very good point. All of my characters can in someway resemble me but also not entirely. I think the authors beliefs are built into the characters but also, we shouldn't limit them. I think limiting our characters to just our beliefs and opinions is self-indulgent and should be avoided.

[hillwalker]

Of course the characters we create are facets of ourselves - how could they not be? But the skill in good story-telling is that the reader believes the character is a separate being (rather than just the writer dressing up in a new disguise).

We all reveal parts of ourselves when we write -consciously or subconsciously - articularly when using 1st person narrative. But that doesn't mean we only write in order to reveal ourselves. If every character we wrote about was purely a manifestation of our own personality then we'd soon become predictable and tiresome. Half the fun of writing is discovering another (perhaps hidden) layer of your personality, feeding it on magination then watching it come to life in someone else's shoes.

H

[zoolane]

I agree with Hillwalker, the idea is of a story is create piece which one tell a story also show bit but not everything about the writer. Again in story you have show a creative levels of invent a characters as well a story flow easy and develop with the characters. As Hillwalker suggest put yourself in different angle within the characters feelings and emotions is good. It show that the writer is expand their ideas and a ways of explore of their own writing.

[MystyrMystyry]

You will have to forgive me for my grass roots background on literature. By that I mean, I love to read the intelligent, informed discussion that go on Lit-Net regarding literature. I personally found it a journey before I was able to start writing in the first person, as if I reached a point where my own experience, world view and writing what I knew no longer had to be in the third person. It was a liberating experience and since then, I am learning to appreciate the context and appropriateness of using the two devices as well as the present tense for some pieces and the past for others. I don't have much more to say about the topic other than it's like coming out of a dark closet and admitting, 'ok, this is me and I'm not going to hide who I am or the influences that have shaped my outlook any longer.' But I realise that it cannot be the only voice in writing. I guess that is what makes writing exciting for me. It's a constant learning experience.

I hope this helps in some way.

Since when did self-indulgence become a bad quality? Shakespeare filled his stuff with conceits to show off what a smarty pants he was.

Here's the thing - if you're narrating a fiction from the first person (presumably a character you've imagined within the story, even if they're based upon yourself) then the only problem for the reader would be if too much observation is related to what you want to happen rather than the realistic freedom of the world you create, which really needs a life of its own.

The literary use of language is much different from the everyday and tends to have a formality of rules placed on it (though that's up to the author - Catcher in the Rye being a case in point, but a too close analysis of the limited language and expression throughout will actually result in disappointment).

The reality of language is that conversationally 'I' is the most common word. Have another look at Delta's paragraph (reproduced here with her tacit permission) as she describes her writing experience and count the number of self-references - I think it's thirteen (unlucky!) including the 'me's (thankyou Delta, you may be seated now [you've broken the record incidentally]) and that is how many conversations roll. Which is fine paragraphically but an entire short story of two thousand words written like this would personally set my teeth on edge.

I guess in an autobiography the style would still need to engage the reader, otherwise it's a diary unintended for wider readership.

It's up to the observational writer to self-reference as little as possible, to over-cloud the goings on in the narrative with opinions and attitudes is a grave sin punishable by eternal damnation.


Actually this is too abstract for me - perhaps just put something up so we can see what the OP could be referring to :)

[Delta40]

There are 'I' stories and 'they' stories. Either way, our imprint in within the text. I find it self-dulgent when people put other people's experience into a context that becomes about them - not just in narratives but their whole goddam life! That's when I want to tell them where to go!

[YW1990]

Since when did self-indulgence become a bad quality?

Haha, this is definitely the first time i've heard this.
In all my years at university it has been drilled into us to avoid sounding not only self-indulgent but also cloy. That's another one of the main issues that confronts me as a practicing writer. When is something too emotional? When does something we write become saccharine? Now there's nothing i love more than a book that attempts to sear into my mind, whether it be through joy, sadness, torment or whatever.
What differentiates for you guys between sickly sweet and insightful and deep?

[zoolane]

There are 'I' stories and 'they' stories. Either way, our imprint in within the text. I find it self-dulgent when people put other people's experience into a context that becomes about them - not just in narratives but their whole goddam life! That's when I want to tell them where to go!

LOL Delta Total agree with last bit. If only people would listen to being told.


Haha, this is definitely the first time i've heard this.
In all my years at university it has been drilled into us to avoid sounding not only self-indulgent but also cloy. That's another one of the main issues that confronts me as a practicing writer. When is something too emotional? When does something we write become saccharine? Now there's nothing i love more than a book that attempts to sear into my mind, whether it be through joy, sadness, torment or whatever.
What differentiates for you guys between sickly sweet and insightful and deep?

I think sometime way story was writing and message convey to reader such moral dilmenna which I writing about as 1st and 3rd person. Again it can deep story with more of thought pattern which writer will suggest that the character is express their feeling or emotions thought out piece.

[hillwalker]

What differentiates for you guys between sickly sweet and insightful and deep?

Well - here's an example I stumbled across today of saccharine sweet (only in parts admittedly) -

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65056

insightful and deep might be a little more difficult to uncover.

H

[YW1990]

Based on that story, i'm gathering that saccharine and cloy to you means sweeping statements and grandiloquent language. I think however that you can be sentimental in writing if you do it in a certain way. In a sort of observant and detached way if you get me.

[hillwalker]

You're right. There's a fine line between sentimentality and pathos and sometimes the writer is aiming to merely tug at the heart strings rather than create a deeper emotional response.

H

[Charles Darnay]

Sentimentality - there's an interesting topic in of itself. I think we have lost the ability to write good sentimental literature, because our cultures have becomes ones that discourage the very "heart" of sentimentality. So any attempt really comes across as drivel.

[YW1990]

Sentimentality - there's an interesting topic in of itself. I think we have lost the ability to write good sentimental literature, because our cultures have becomes ones that discourage the very "heart" of sentimentality. So any attempt really comes across as drivel.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Although i do question your point about whether we've actually lost the ability to write good sentimental literature or whether it's our society that actually rejects it?
I am at odds. I have encountered some works of fiction that are SO cloy and SO sentimental that i could not help but laugh ( this girl from my fiction writing class's story springs to mind as we had to workshop it one day ). But then again, passages from Notes from Underground, Eyeless in Gaza and Norwegian wood ( Murakami ) are totally sentimental and full of feeling and do not sound like drivel at all but are poignant and moving.

Your point about our culture dismissing sentimentality is right. I at times don't know whether it is a bad thing to be a romantic in the creative arts or a good thing. On the one hand, i feel it's good because everyone i've known in the creative arts has possessed some sort of romantic quality about them. To explain this would require a whole new paragraph so i'll skip it. On the other hand i feel that it's a hindrance because on the contrary to what some outsiders may think, being romantic in the arts makes you seem illogical, un-intellectual and dis-illusioned. Completely at odds with this. Some people may be surprised at how un-arty the arts is sometimes.

[Jack of Hearts]

This has been a relatively fruitful discussion so far. Here's hoping this reader's contribution doesn't become the stinker.

When it comes to being sentimental in writing, this reader thinks, we have to recognize a certain idea. We cannot make ourselves feel a certain way about something (for the most part). Feelings seem to arise more organically than through willful consciousness alone.

Bad sentimentality in writing seems to be the writer telling the reader to feel a certain way. It may not be a direct command- but obvious and failed attempts at emotional manipulation may as well read as "Feel this way!", signposted, for all they're worth. But if the reader is shown, through sensation, elements that suggest a specific sentimental feeling, and the suggestion arises organically from these elements, the writing seems to be more successful.


... in this reader's opinion.





J

[Charles Darnay]

This has been a relatively fruitful discussion so far. Here's hoping this reader's contribution doesn't become the stinker.

When it comes to being sentimental in writing, this reader thinks, we have to recognize a certain idea. We cannot make ourselves feel a certain way about something (for the most part). Feelings seem to arise more organically than through willful consciousness alone.

Bad sentimentality in writing seems to be the writer telling the reader to feel a certain way. It may not be a direct command- but obvious and failed attempts at emotional manipulation may as well read as "Feel this way!", signposted, for all they're worth. But if the reader is shown, through sensation, elements that suggest a specific sentimental feeling, and the suggestion arises organically from these elements, the writing seems to be more successful.


... in this reader's opinion.





J

I think this is an excellent point. The very essence of sentimentality is the transcending of thought - something that by-passes thought and reaches emotion directly. And when this is contrived (as it so often is today - as my previous point states) it becomes dreadful.

I was "forced" to read Richardson's "Clarissa" (and by forced I mean I willingly took a class on it). Here is a sentimental novel at its finest. There is a section at the back of the edition I was using that contained letters from readers to the author (Richardson) about the novel, and there was this one that spoke about how Clarissa (the character) moved him to tears through her act of sublime sentimentality - and I will admit that Clarissa is one of the few books that I have read that caused me to tear up (David Copperfield being another, and another great example of sentimentality.)

Now of course, sentimental does not have to equal sad - but it has to be genuine, and your comment of an author commanding his/her reader to "feel" is what causes me to cringe when reading samples of sentimental writing produced in the last half-century.

I had a professor once who pointed out that the ability to create sentimental art (books, plays, film &c) died after WWII: thoughts?

[YW1990]

I had a professor once who pointed out that the ability to create sentimental art (books, plays, film &c) died after WWII: thoughts?

I'm intrigued. I don't know a lot about history regrettably. Why do you think this is so? Why would this be so?

[Charles Darnay]

The theory is because of the horrors and tragedies that the world underwent during the Second World war, and because they are still fresh (relatively speaking), we are unable to produce sincere sentimentality that rivals the real tragedy, and any attempt is just seen as pathetic (or bathetic).

[Jack of Hearts]

Isn't sentimentality the thing we joke about when we refer to harlequinn novels (other than the gratuitous elements of sexuality)?

The point being that it exists out there, and in some cases, in some circles, is in vogue (Twilight series, etc). You might say that's not art. This reader isn't interested in that nasty conversation.

Is sentimentality treated with any degree of seriousness in contemporary literature? Well, it's one of the reasons this reader hated reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand so much- try as it might to put up a different front. Swear to god, the minute we run out of firewood...

Maybe 'sentimental' just means any time the author asks you to make an emotional leap that you can't or won't take.




J