to self

 I ran across this quote the other day. I did mention it to one individual but thought I would share it here this morning. " Better to write for yourself and have no public, then to write for the public and have no self. " ( Cyrill Connolly ) I hadn't heard of him and google tells me he was an English literary critic and writer. He wrote a book, Enemies of Promise, combining literary criticism and the reason why he failed to become a successful author of fiction. That was his goal when he was a young man. No, I haven't read it but perhaps one day I will explore that. But his quote said exactly my thoughts. Once again I have found evidence to support my own statement, there is little one can say, or write, that hasn't been said or written before. The words may be different but the meaning is the same. His words express my sentiment. 

 I do write, for the greater part, for myself. Of course I like it when my writing is acknowledged by others. That's just human nature. Everyone likes it when others agree with you. It is only the degree of disagreement that establishes friendships. When friendships are built solely upon agreement, they are quite fragile. Cracks will appear, rifts develop, and eventually the whole thing crumbles. How much disagreement will you allow? That's the measure isn't it? For some it only takes one misstep, for others several, and still others a bit more. But all friendships will dissolve in the face of disagreement at some point. That's the reasoning behind agreeing to disagree. It's a method to preserve self. 

 I can't speak for others but I can sense when someone is being disingenuous. When they agree with everything I say, that's the first clue. For that reason I often find myself, writing for myself. I'm aware that some of my topics will irritate others, they won't agree, but I am compelled ; by self, to write it anyway. I'm not writing for popularity, not writing for the public. I think writing to please the public would be a fairly easy thing to do. The hard part there is determining the public to write too. At least that's what I think. Should I somehow stumble into being a successful author I'll be able to give that answer. It'll be like an observation of mine, " famous people say famous things. " I wonder though if they weren't famous would we repeat what they say? Doubtful, in my opinion. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I think if someone quotes you, as an authority, that would be pretty flattering. It doesn't count as much when they quote you as being a fool. Ah, but that's the nature of the beast I suppose, the nature of opinion. There are good ones and bad ones, and either may be either.

 Mr. Connolly wanted to write fiction when he was young and apparently failed at that. I've never had the desire to write fiction. Is it a lack of imagination? That could be the case, it does take an active imagination to make up good stories. I'd suggest some authors find that avenue of their imagination and stay pretty much on that road. Stephen King comes to mind. I read a good number of his books until I discovered his stories were pretty much the same. That isn't to say they weren't entertaining but became boring to me. Another favorite author of mine Louis La' amour wrote cowboy stories. Perhaps his most famous characters are the Sacketts. Tom Selleck and others played those characters in movies. I enjoyed reading his books, as entertainment, but mostly without any thought involved.      I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't like to have the success they did, but I'm not a writer of fiction. And in my experience, many people just don't want to read or hear the truth of the matter, no matter what matter it is! Our personal truths are usually pretty boring to others. I'm thinking that's human nature. Our truth is only accepted when it is useful to them, rejected when it is not. Our truths are offerings. For me it's like the old adage, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Yes, it can be disappointing, frustrating even, but that's the way it is. The frustration being, I can't help but think were I famous my truths would be repeated. It's the frustration of the common man. I think Mr. Connolly would understand exactly what I am saying. I'm not famous, I have failed at being a writer, although I haven't tried fiction, but I write for myself, to satisfy that need. But then again how do you define success? Is it fame? Albert Einstein said: " Strive not to be a success but rather to be of value. " But of value to whom, Mr. Einstein? To self has to be the answer, to self.