Writerly Arrogance

[Garren Jacobsen]

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?

 

[X Equestris]

Well, nothing crushes someone's arrogance like a series of rejections. That can crush anybody, arrogant or not.

I think a certain amount of pride is to be expected. If you don't believe in yourself and your work enough, you won't ever get to the point where your work gets published. But that can be a problem when someone starts expecting the world to bend to their whims.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think that it takes a lot of arrogance to ever put a work of fiction out there and say, "Hey, you're going to like this. I guarantee it."

I think that it takes a lot of humility to finally admit, "Hey, maybe I need to learn what the heck I'm doing before I try to guarantee that I'm going to entertain you."

I also think that I had to go through a process of determining what worked for me. While determining what worked for me, it helped to divide all writing into two categories:

Cat A - Good Writing (that which appealed to me and I could incorporate into my work)
Cat B - Crappy Writing (that which did not appeal to me and I couldn't incorporate into my work)

Now that I've figured out the basics of what works for me (hopefully!), it's easier to say, "Hey, that isn't really my thing, but it doesn't necessarily suck."

So is this arrogance harmful or just part of a natural progression? I've read some writers who are legitimately terrible who think they should be awarded some kind of prize for their brilliance. Those people are hurt by failing to realize their shortcomings. For most, though, I think it's probably just a step along the path.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'll address the second point first.

I don't feel you're describing a trait restricted to writers. Rather, it's a common human flaw I see constantly. I even feel it myself from time to time until I recognize it for what it is. There's this perpetuated notion that another's success is somehow a comment on ourselves, or our lack of achievement. That common, flawed thinking often blinds us to our potential...meaning, if someone else can, why can't I? It's easier to blame success on luck, who you know, or other factors instead of looking at baser reasons why someone achieved. While extraneous aspects certainly may play a role, that doesn't mean we cannot reach similar levels of success. It also doesn't mean there aren't commonalities we may all share if we're willing to work hard and make sacrifices. But, it's easier to complain, gripe, moan, and tear down than it is to work, sacrifice, and create.

Now onto the first point...idiot readers.

If you're writing to readers thinking they're stupid, or may not "get" what you mean, you're doing it wrong. It's your job as the writer to convey information in a clear and entertaining way. There's loads of ways to accomplish that feat, but if you're incapable that's on you, not the reader.

We should also consider what readers want. I don't mean pandering to some commercial audience, but rather, seeking to understand why a reader liked a certain book. I've seen and read tons of criticism leveled at readers that loved Twilight, or The Hunger Games, or any number of other YA-geared books. There's wisdom there, to be gleaned if we want it.... These readers liked the easy, unassuming prose. They wanted entertainment, not work. Writing that's simple, clear, and entertaining for the reader is hard work. If you don't think that's true, then you don't understand the craft (even that sounds somewhat arrogant, I suppose). The style and story may not be your personal cup of tea, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. It certainly doesn't mean the success was not earned by the author, or that the reader is unintelligent or doesn't understand what good writing is. It is earned. Readers do understand, on a visceral level.

Last point....

No story or book is perfect. Perfection itself is subjective.

 

[Nihilium 7th]

I think almost all writers fluctuate between arrogance and self-loathing; the former is what is often seen by the public while the latter is only let out in the confinements of one's own home.

I do agree with you though. Many writers do underestimate their readers. As a writer one has to be a Jack-of-all-trades which feeds into that writer's arrogance. I also believe that many writers tend to think themselves wiser and morally superior than their readers. I think that, is more dangerous than anything else.

 

[Snowpoint]

There is this annoying idea people have that accuracy must be absolute to tell a good story. Technical Manuals are accurate, but you don't read those for good storytelling, do you? Such people are quick to point out flaws as if it invalidate the premise of the novel.

As for the hate against certain popular novels seen as "low quality"... Anything that tricks people into reading is a good thing. More opportunities for those people to find good books.

 

[Penpilot]

I think every writer goes through similar phases at the beginning. The difference is the amplitude of things.

There's nothing wrong with having confidence that your writing is good and that you're getting better. The rub for me is when one is confronted with criticism. Does one look to figure out what the problem is and try to fix it, because you know you can do better, or does one automatically think the reader just didn't get it, because my writing is great?

If it's the latter, then that formula for failure and delusion.

I think part of it comes from the fact that most people can write. What I mean by that is most people can string together sentences and describe things and events. And there's no real metric that one can use to say this sentence/paragraph is better than that one.

In sports, it's easy separate the average Joe from elite athlete. The elite athlete can go faster, jump higher, throw further, etc. And that's easy to measure and see. Not so much with writing, for the writer and the reader.

There's just what works for most people and what doesn't. And for the minority, who can tell them they shouldn't be enjoying something or should be despising it? If it speaks to them it speaks to them.

I think a part of it is about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Some learn a little about writing and they think they're experts. They read the "rules" of writing and without actually understanding them just take them as gospel and think anything that doesn't follow the "rules" is automatically crap. To me, it's the difference between knowledge and wisdom. 'Cause the like in any field, the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. And you realize every "rule" is followed by a "but", a big but or butt, a big Santa Claus level one, that opens many things up a larger realm of possibilities.

Another point is that people see a flaw in a story and they latch onto it because there was an obvious solution to it. Because they can see and solve that flaw, they automatically think they could do better. Maybe they can and maybe they can't, but there's a universe of difference between spotting and fixing one issue versus creating a whole story from scratch.

 

[Incanus]

Doesn't this concept of an attitude of arrogance, and the analysis/comparison of similar works, apply to any and all art forms (or those practicing them)? Or even to anything that is a learned skill? I mean, I imagine you might find similar dynamics among architects, and wannabe architects. I think this has a wider application than to just writers.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

For me your OP lacks a word - "some". Yes some writers are arrogant. Some treat readers like idiots and denigrate the commercial successes. But I don't think it's fair to place all writers in that category. Not even most in my view. Most I suspect are just like everyone else - middling it. And most I suspect waver between confidence - perhaps even over-confidence in their work and a complete lack of faith in it.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Trick]

I'm a pretty arrogant person in some ways... but I think my writing is nowhere near good enough. I also think that about some other people's writing. Is that arrogant or honest? I don't think I'm a very worthwhile judge of others' writing but if someone asks me, I'm going to be honest. As long as I try to be just as critical of myself, if not more so, and I admit that it's just one person's opinion, isn't that ok?

Here's an arrogant thought I had recently while reading reviews on Audible: Most reviewers can't spell to save their lives. If you can't spell, should you really be reviewing a book?

Then I thought, you don't have to be a good speller to have good reading-comprehension so I'm just being a jerk. Still hurts me to see someone review a book and say "grate story" though.

 

[cupiscent]

I've been distracted by musing on the comparison between lawyers and writers. I think it's a stronger link than might be immediately apparent. After all, if you're the greatest legal brain of your time, but terrible with clients and no one wants to work with you, how many cases are you really going to get?

Both tasks require a specialised set of skills and knowledge. Both tasks ostensibly have an "objective" measure of success - winning the case or getting sales. But for both tasks, "success" can also be measured much more subjectively through the relationship between practitioner and client (or reader). Different clients may have different goals for the same process, and need to have a clear understanding of what is and isn't possible depending on how a legal process is run. Similarly, different readers want different things from books, and you'll never get a satisfied reader if you promise one thing (say through cover or summary text) and deliver another entirely.

In both, a matter of key importance is the management of relationship with client, and of that client's expectations for the process. Keeping the client happy isn't just about doing what they want, or even winning the case, but also about laying the groundwork and maintaining communication so that they are more likely to want what you can deliver. So much of a writer's craft - foreshadowing and payoffs, proper pacing and clever dialogue - is geared towards making a story overall satisfying. That's the real measure of success: satisfaction.

Not sure how all this ties into the arrogance thing, but I found it interesting to think about.

 

[Philip Overby]

I notice layers with this kind of concept.

Layer 1: Literary fiction
Layer 2: Genre fiction
Layer 3: Erotica or so-called "trash" fiction

There seems to be this feeling that the layers below are doing "something wrong." That's where I see the arrogance come in. It usually has something to do with the following:

1. It makes a lot of money, so I hate it because I'm not making that much.
2. It has poor writing mechanics, so I hate it because I don't have poor writing mechanics.
3a. It has no artistic value, so I hate it because my work has artistic value.
3b. It focuses too much on artistic value, so I hate it because my writing is entertaining.

I see it as a combination of jealousy, snobbery, and non-acceptance which in turn breeds this arrogance that what they're doing is better. As we all know, "better" or "best" is subjective. There may be a person who loves Harry Potter, but doesn't like Lord of the Rings. Does that make one better than the other? I don't think so.

I've always seen the core of fiction to be a mixture of entertainment and artistry. Despite what some people think, it takes creativity to compose any kind of fiction, whether or not they think it sucks or not. Instead of writers turning their nose up at others, it's best to just stay in your lane and enjoy what you enjoy. Ranting about who is making money off "trash" doesn't do anything for you.

For example, I like K-Pop music. Someone who likes classical music may scoff at that, but it's what I like. On the other hand, I don't like some of the newer pop from the U.S. Does that mean it's bad? No, I just don't like it. I may shake my head and wonder why people like it, but it does me no good.

Same goes for writing. Worry about yourself and what you're doing first and foremost. If anything, you can use your distaste (if you must) to make sure you don't replicate the things you hate. Overall, I think writers should worry less about what everyone else is doing, or not doing, and try to do more writing.

I've learned more writing my own fiction than I've ever learned from hating someone else's.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I can only speak for myself, because I'm intimately familiar with how my own brain works...but for me, I'm really proud of some of my writing, the hard work I've put in over the years, and the general quality I KNOW I can accomplish. BUT, I'm ashamed at how dismally I seem to apply my knowledge as I continuously fine tune work for agents. I just haven't found the winning combination yet, and until I'm genuinely and thoroughly proud of a novel, I won't publish anything.

Now, that being said, some of the reasons I'm proud of the work I'm doing is based upon beta reader's opinions and feedback. Every time I get a comment like, "Wonderful scene. Tension from beginning to end!" I celebrate in my head and smile. It makes me feel like I might not be completely hopeless at this thing. But I've critted for a few folks who were awful beyond words, and their attitudes were less about improving their craft (as I quantify my own personal success), and more about self-indulgence and entitlement in a way. They felt they "ought" to be awesome because their idea/ concept/ character/ whatever was simply the best thing ever. That's the kind of confidence I think is quite toxic, not only to the individual, but we've seen it here, too--some jackass spouting off what everyone should be doing, when he's got nothing backing up his sometimes unsolicited advice. They usually don't hang around long before moving on.

Anyways, my point is that while I think confidence is a grand thing to have, I think yes, a large number of newer writers think themselves particularly brilliant, and they fail to miss the bigger picture--that this world is full of much better writers who coincidentally all have brilliant ideas and concepts. Who does it benefit to cast aspersions at others? It doesn't benefit the struggling writer, except maybe giving him some small justification for feeling smarter than the whole rest of the world...

Arrogance, to me, is pretty unattractive. I love the way Chuck Wendig puts all his thoughts in a no-nonsense, call 'em like I see 'em kinda way, but when a green writer tries on those pants, I think he sometimes just looks like a clown.

I feel very appreciative of everyone who's ever helped me out, by reading, by sharing their story, or by just being a friend. I think the more one appreciates the toil of other writers, the less one can feel arrogant. Even those famous writers who people say are crap...man, they got there, didn't they? I mean...it takes something, some luck, some work, some creativity, some connections, whatever, but it takes something, and most of us aren't there yet. Maybe we'll never be. And that's okay. Arrogance, it seems, stems more from a place of jealousy, because the ones I hear talking loudest on blogs or whatever, are the same folks who simply haven't put in the work. That work humbles you. Seriously.

 

[skip.knox]

I'm with psychotik on this one. It may well be there are many wannabe writers who are arrogant, but most authors I respect are thoughtful, considerate and not in the least arrogant. They do not look down on their readers. I can think of a couple of exceptions, but I rather think if I had met Ernest Hemingway or Harlan Ellison, I wouldn't much like them, however much I respect their writing. But I could name twenty--maybe fifty--others who appear to be kind and humble.

Perhaps the OP just ran across a rough crowd?

 

[Philip Overby]

I think professionalism certainly is a factor. Most writers I like, I think I would also like them personally because they come off as humble and respectful. There are surely some big name authors that let success go to their heads, but I haven't come across them very often. I do find that this kind of phenomenon of writerly arrogance is seen more in people who are just starting out. I mean, I've never seen, Brandon Sanderson for example, say, "Geez, I hate so-and-so's work. It's so shitty." That's because he's busy writing and reading stuff he likes. Like most professionals, he's too busy trying to do his own work and help out others (from his classes and podcast, for example).

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I'm with psychotik on this one. It may well be there are many wannabe writers who are arrogant, but most authors I respect are thoughtful, considerate and not in the least arrogant. They do not look down on their readers. I can think of a couple of exceptions, but I rather think if I had met Ernest Hemingway or Harlan Ellison, I wouldn't much like them, however much I respect their writing. But I could name twenty--maybe fifty--others who appear to be kind and humble.

Perhaps the OP just ran across a rough crowd?

Let me clarify the arrogant audience, it's most of the time, not published authors. Usually the student writers, those who are writing but have yet to actually publish. I also may be more prone to pick it out since I avoid gunners (people in school who do their best to further themselves while undercutting their peers) while I am in school because I hate them. The students I refer to writers those published I refer to as authors.

Next, yes I believe that only some writers are arrogant all the time, however, we are all susceptible to this arrogance some of the time.

 

[skip.knox]

Ah, that's different. In that case I do believe that what comes across as arrogance is an unfortunate blend of insecurity and inexperience. Writing is hard. Commenting about writing, however, is easy. There's no reason to take that any more seriously than you do someone who makes comments about movies or music or painting. It's bar talk. Smile, nod, and have another drink.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Something I have noticed, especially among novice, amateurs, and those barely entering the writing scene, is that writers have a sense of arrogance.

Oh, I remember going through this stage. I used to go to Waterstones, open random books in the fantasy section, and laugh at the intros.

I even once had the gall to tell David Gemmell, in person, that I didn't like the opening of one of his books. I'm surprised now that he didn't punch me. Perhaps he should have. Or maybe he recognised that he was just talking to a complete novice who didn't have a clue.

Either way, Lion of Macedon has since become one of my favourites by him. Go figure.

 

[Incanus]

I'm still convinced that this issue falls into the catagory of 'human nature', and is not at all limited to 'student' or amateur writers. Is there even one learned skill that this would not apply to? Can't think of one.

 

[Trick]

I'm still convinced that this issue falls into the catagory of 'human nature', and is not at all limited to 'student' or amateur writers. Is there even one learned skill that this would not apply to? Can't think of one.

Maybe writers just... write about it more?