Garren Jacobsen
Auror
This is all kind of stream of consciousness right now so if I am unclear I apologize. But I have been bouncing around here and other sites that deal with writing. Something I have noticed, especially among novice, amateurs, and those barely entering the writing scene, is that writers have a sense of arrogance. That arrogance is expressed in two ways. First, and most troubling, is that they seem to believe their readers are idiots. Second, they believe any writer that is either popular, a writer of a certain genre, or makes a few "mistakes" in their writing is a hack.
Before I begin the body of this post let me express I know that there is a fine line between legitimate criticisms and this kind of behavior and it is difficult to find that line. My purpose is to not draw that line, I've already posted something similar to that earlier. Further, I am not accusing any one person. In fact, I believe all of us are prone to this kind of arrogance from time to time. So, I do not intend this to be a call out of sorts.
I think the first manifestation is the most problematic because it is by far the more untrue of the two arrogance expressions. First, readers are generally intelligent. They are usually fairly well accomplished in their field. Problem is, they do not have the same expertise as writers do. Most writers I know could not navigate the legal system against a lawyer successfully (barring those writers I know that are lawyers [I'm looking at you Russ and Steerpike] ). Does that make the writer stupid? No, just untrained. Similarly, a lawyer that doesn't know all the technicalities and nuances of writing good fiction is not an idiot, just untrained. As writers we spot things most people don't even think about and get bugged by them. Similarly, a lawyer is trained to spot different problems in a law or legal opinion that may seem to the untrained eye to be no big deal. Again the difference isn't the intelligence, it's the training.
The second is also problematic, but not as much as problem 1. Much of writing and story telling is subjective. Storytelling especially needs to have a certain x factor to be successful. We see time and again that not technically perfect books stand up and hit the stratosphere because of their story, despite the imperfections.
I think giving into these arrogant expressions too often is actually harmful for as writers because it gives us a false sense of pride. This sense of pride can eat at us until we turn into this. We turn into someone that believes with every fiber of their being that if given a shot they would make it; when in reality it is our lack of development that is holding us back since we are not realizing our own flaws.
So, I ask, what are your thoughts and how can we help eliminate this sense of arrogance?
Before I begin the body of this post let me express I know that there is a fine line between legitimate criticisms and this kind of behavior and it is difficult to find that line. My purpose is to not draw that line, I've already posted something similar to that earlier. Further, I am not accusing any one person. In fact, I believe all of us are prone to this kind of arrogance from time to time. So, I do not intend this to be a call out of sorts.
I think the first manifestation is the most problematic because it is by far the more untrue of the two arrogance expressions. First, readers are generally intelligent. They are usually fairly well accomplished in their field. Problem is, they do not have the same expertise as writers do. Most writers I know could not navigate the legal system against a lawyer successfully (barring those writers I know that are lawyers [I'm looking at you Russ and Steerpike] ). Does that make the writer stupid? No, just untrained. Similarly, a lawyer that doesn't know all the technicalities and nuances of writing good fiction is not an idiot, just untrained. As writers we spot things most people don't even think about and get bugged by them. Similarly, a lawyer is trained to spot different problems in a law or legal opinion that may seem to the untrained eye to be no big deal. Again the difference isn't the intelligence, it's the training.
The second is also problematic, but not as much as problem 1. Much of writing and story telling is subjective. Storytelling especially needs to have a certain x factor to be successful. We see time and again that not technically perfect books stand up and hit the stratosphere because of their story, despite the imperfections.
I think giving into these arrogant expressions too often is actually harmful for as writers because it gives us a false sense of pride. This sense of pride can eat at us until we turn into this. We turn into someone that believes with every fiber of their being that if given a shot they would make it; when in reality it is our lack of development that is holding us back since we are not realizing our own flaws.
So, I ask, what are your thoughts and how can we help eliminate this sense of arrogance?