Okay, the next person I hear accusing an autobiography or memoir writer of being self-indulgent gets a smack in the head, or—because violence is wrong—a pointed glare.
See the “auto” in front of “biography”? That means it’s about the person who wrote it. Very tricky to write one of those and not, you know, talk about yourself.
“Self-indulgence” does not mean talking about oneself. It means indulging oneself (presumably while talking about oneself). Melodrama, writing to justify, aggressive avoidance, self-pity — those are all bad qualities in any kind of writing, right? And they’re hallmarks of self-indulgence, whether in memoir or in fiction.
If an autobiography cannot be pitiless, then I’m not sure why read it — and I know plenty of people who don’t have the skill (or the insight) to be pitiless about themselves.
Most of those people don’t have autobiographies in print, but I’m sure quite a few of them do slip through the cracks, especially if they’re already famous (e.g., for naked antics in Hollywood).
The crits I was reading/have been hearing were using “self-indulgent” to mean “this woman has the temerity to talk about herself”. And “this book is self-indulgent because I do not like this woman”.
Unless you go into the detail you just went into, Veejane, calling a memoir or autobio “self-indulgent” tells the reader nothing. It’s meaningless.
I endorse and support your practice of inserting your foot into the ass of anyone who mis-uses the English language, especially on a wilful and sexist basis. “Self-indulgent” should not be an ambiguous phrase, people!
Sadly, though it has become a very muddy phrase. I was told not that long ago that I am leading a self-indulgent life because I write novels for teens for a living and don’t, you know, work for charities in Congo or something.
If that’s your criteria who amongst us is not self-indulgent?!
And for many here in the US of A “self-indulgent” seems to mean “enjoying yourself” which apparently is a bad thing. Sometimes I think Americans will never shake off their Puritan ancestry.
our host, “I was told not that long ago that I am leading a self-indulgent life because I write novels for teens for a living and don’t, you know, work for charities in Congo or something.”
Well, heck, I feed myself everyday (something that at one time in my life was iffy), if that isn’t “self-indulgent” (with that definition) to the most extreme, I don’t know what is.
Eeep. People, People…oy.
Rabbi Hillel said it best at the dawn of the first century: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” Notice being one’s own advocate comes first; without that, nothing else is possible.
Steve: exactly. that comment was so stupid it was hard not to laugh.
Dawn: Let me follow your “oy” with a “vey”.
Ariel: That’s a fabulous quote. So, so, so true. Thank you!
yeah. kind of off topic, but on my birthday wishlist, a donation to kiva (http://kiva.org/ don’t know how to link, thanks brotherhood 2.0!) was sandwhiched between a candy-bar-shaped-pillow and a shopping trip.
There are occasional behaviours I think of as “self-indulgent”….like, maybe, throwing a temper tantrum in public, I suppose. But ninety percent of the time, when somebody calls somebody else’s behaviour self-indulgent, when it’s not hurting somebody else, I mentally translate it as, “Not what they would have chosen.” Chosing to write, instead of working in the Congo, that’s a personal choice. Your choice. God forbid you do something that makes you happy. (BTW, what were they thinking? Somebody has to write the books for kids. Do they want LESS reading children in an age where many kids are plugged into the TV all the time?)
Also, as my therapist once told me, you have to be your own advocate. The world isn’t necessarily gonna indulge you, and it’s not wrong to choose things that make you happy. If you don’t indulge yourself, who will?
actually, i kinda think that writing an autobiography is inherently self-indulgent, i.e. it is indulging your worst urges towards public self-elevation.
what is NOT self-indulgent about stating publicly that your life is so interesting/important that it deserves a whole book? ALL autobiographies are self-indulgent in this way.
some autobiographers are correct that their lives are so interesting and important that they deserve a book–very few but some. most of these, however aren’t good enough writers to do their own lives justice, so they’re self-indulgent in thinking that their own writing is the best treatment of their lives.
it is only the very, very, rare few autobiographers who have had interesting or important enough lives, and are in possession of strong enough writing chops, to make an autobiography worth our while.
memoir is a little different, because it tends more to deal with a particular incident or time in a person’s life and is therefore more about personal story-telling and less about what an amazing and important life the writer has had. but the same can apply to memoir when it’s about the writer wanting to write about herself rather than the writer wanting to tell a compelling story about herself.
and yes, i know, the same can be said about blogging. guilty as charged. i’m self-indulgent for keep a personal blog–just for that. but i do hold out the hope that i’ll be one of those self-indulgent people who was RIGHT. 😉