Ego ego ego

12 "I"'s. Not bad. ;)

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Thing is, it's hard - if not impossible - to separate ego from writing precisely because if you're showing your writing to someone then on some level you want them to say "ooh I see what you've done! Wow, you're well clever, I'd never thought of that. God, I wish could [be you / be fucking you*]!"

I find myself irritated sometimes even by the better writers here on ABC when it seems all they're doing is waggling their obscure knowledge in my face, as if I'm supposed to be impressed by their use of obscure references. (obscure references that need to be explained cos I didn't get them, which means other people didn't get them either, which means the message wasn't delivered, which means it's specialist writing, which may be what you're going for, but if so, don't be surprised when I don't like it).

What's worse is - and don't tell anyone because this is a trade secret - but I think that sometimes they use GOOGLE to get bits of info, etc that they can pass of as if it were from their own slightly insecure brain.

So really, it's someone else's knowledge their trying to poke me with.

Yes, I find this mostly with poets but certainly not exclusively. Ha- this forum is riddled with it too, is it not?

I'm as bad as anyone though so I shouldn't judge. After all, my ego's the best and everything I know is from Wikipedia.

* delete as appropriate

It's not necessarily about pulling a pose. I think the posh term is 'phatic communion'. Most people just want to say stuff and be heard. You can get that feeling from talking shit round the water cooler and you can sometimes get it from doing a poem on stage.

For me, a large part of it *is* about showing off. Pissing around and playing to the gallery was how I got through a lot of school. I used to write fairly mean comic poems about some of our teachers - it makes me wince now when I think about it. And when we sang hymns in infant school, I obsessively changed words and punned on lyrics to make songs rude or funny or nonsensical. So there's still a kind of puerile transgressive thrill in it for me. The communication part comes when I say something or deliver a line, and someone in the audience physically reacts - maybe they do the 'poetry nod' that Joe's satirised, maybe they laugh, maybe they walk out. It's nicest when they laugh. It doesn't make me think 'wow, I'm a fantastic person', I just think it's cool that something I found funny can make other people laugh. I still remember the gigs where one or two audience members were laughing so hard they could barely breathe or stay upright. I feel great about that, because they must have had a really cool night, and I know I look back fondly on comedy gigs I've gone to where I've laughed my bum off.

Ego is good, but needs to be tempered with a hefty dose of humility.

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"Ego is good, but needs to be tempered with a hefty dose of humility."

Peps, that's got to be a personal best for 'blandest thing said on a forum'

I'm starting to suspect Peps is actually some kind of holy man, and his dazzlingly incosequential gnomic utterances are all part of a spiritual process whereby he dissolves his ego, making himself so boring that he simply ceases to exist.

Would that he were successful in his quest!

Oh god, I remember seminars. I think it was the way the chairs and tables were set out. It seemed to give people the notion they’d been invited on to the Late Review. Whereas, Call My Bluff would have been more appropriate. Unfortunately, at the time, I felt intimidated by their complete confidence and tended to say next to nothing.

I guess the voice in the back of my head yelling 'that’s bollocks!' was *my* ego.

(I was right obviously, it was bollocks.)

~
www.fabulousmother.com

oh, for fucks sake. I'll tell you what's becoming boring: the fact that every topic is reduced to an attack on peps. You can only get away with succesfully satisfying your ego (without negative social consequences) if you're aware that others would like theirs satisfying too - and you're prepared to give and take. Isn't it a central code in communication? Music is a vivid example of this kind of 'pyramid' exchange of ego.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

“making himself so boring that he simply ceases to exist.”

That could never happen. Really. I’ve just had the most boring individual that DNA could come up with, pottering around my house for four days, two inches away from my elbow, regurgitating snippets of news he’d read in the paper as if they were flashes of personal inspiration. He was definitely here. Poked him with a sharp stick and everything.

~
www.fabulousmother.com

Thanks, Yan... :)

It's funny that I'm so "boring" and "inconsequential" that I attract this kind of attention, isn't it? ;)

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Yeah, hilarious.

I think, to an extent, writing and probably performance is an effort to create a space for yourself to do the things that you can't really do in real life.

It's a bit like playing make-believe, but instead of telling a story to yourself, you tell it to other people.

In that sense, writing and performance is like a more obscured form of acting. Or, if really extreme, acting out.

In this little kingdom, you're the boss. When other people read, critique or listen, it's hard not to want to be the boss of them too, like a stompy kid, irked that no-one will play the character assigned to them in the game: "No, you can't all be Indiana Jones, I'm Indiana Jones and you all have to be the Nazis."

I think the persona aspect of writing is interesting.

I've learned that people 'act out', either consciously or unconsciously, a series of characters and roles in their lives. These are models for reacting to events and relationships that create certain relations and certain understandings. I see that through people's writing a lot; a particular understanding of the world or of people, either affected or unconscious.

Some people want to be an avuncular monarch, full of good cheer; others the coruscating revolutionary, stripping the skin from the readers face. Others the hip cynic, the orphaned child, the last soul in the desecrated world or the final gasp of approaching entropy. If you're good, that comes across in your writing and its something that you're using and operating on purpose, if you're bad, or not aware that the game that you're playing is a game and not reality, it just comes across as egotism, browbeating people until they accept that their view of yourself should be the same as your view of yourself.

Personally, I like it when I recognise the character as a field of intention and understanding behind someone's work. I don't like it when they tell me, or tell me that I've got it completely wrong.

I often, especially with ABCtales writers, end up forming a character in my head from what they write, a sort of 'how I see them through the mirror of their work' thing. This is often at variance with the way people overtly present their 'writing character'.

I'm trying to exit from my work entirely.

Cheers,

Mark

There's an obvious resolution to people who don't like Peep's posts; don't read them. It's like people who moan about the crap on tevelision: sell the fucking thing! Harrumph.

Don't think it's got anything to do with writing or writers *per se*, except that writing is just one of the ways that egotistical people can find the adulation they want. I'm sure you'd find the situation was the same or worse if you were working in the world of pop music, TV, film, drama - anything which opens the door to celebritydom, to some sort of a stage.

The worst thing is that in writing, these people will tend to get their way. It'd be nice to believe in some kind of comeuppance, but the fact is that self-belief carries you much, much further than quiet introspection and self-knowledge, and I am sure that a slightly talented person with a lot of confidence stands a much better chance of success than a very talented person who's a bit of a wallflower.

Writing *is* about more than that, Hannah. It's just hard to believe when you're surrounded by these kids.

That said, I take exception to some of Enzo's remarks! It's nuts to believe that just because there are references you don't get, the writer is showing off. In some circumstances, yes - if the references and obscure words are jam-packed in there and easy to substitute with clearer wording, and have no discernible positive effect on the mood or voice or tone.

But not always. I know I go on Google and wikipedia looking things up because I want the point of reference that most accurately puts across what I'm describing. Who gives a damn whether it's common knowledge or not? We all know different things - we're all, in one respect or another, staggeringly ignorant. Anything that leads you to broaden your knowledge is a good thing. I know, as a reader, I *like* to find references to things I know nothing about - it can lead onto whole new areas of discovery. Seems to me that sticking to purely lowest common denominator/populist reference points is far more cynical than getting carried away with lost realms of information.

"It's nuts to believe that just because there are references you don't get, the writer is showing off."

Yes it is, thankfully that's not what I said. Whew!

Woohoo! I had seven quid on Jack taking exception to Enzo's comment-price wasn't that good, but hey I won!

I take exception to Enzo's poetism! Not all poets go around in their Jesus-creepers and velveteen jackets making oblique references to Honore de Balzac's Le Père Goriot and such like. I will not be buying him a drink in Brighton!

"Yes it is, thankfully that's not what I said. Whew!"

I took it as implied from the references to 'waggling', 'poking' etc. that you couldn't see any other reason for obscure references.

"I had seven quid on Jack taking exception to Enzo's comment-price wasn't that good, but hey I won!"

Why??

"Anything that leads you to broaden your knowledge is a good thing."

That's why I don't get the, "oo..he got that off google" thing. I've heard that said a few times. Surely it's a good thing to share (or make easily accessible) the knowledge you've spent some time digging-out(?)

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

I think the google question, in the context that I've heard it, is whether or not you've lifted entire passages from google, or if google consists of the entire ambit of your research on a subject your writing heavily leans on.

I still want to know why BBF put bets on me taking exception to Enzo's comments. Is there some kind of belief at large that I am *particularly* reliant on obscure references?

I don't think so but you did jump in defensively implying that you had something to defend?!

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

Well, people have complained about it in the past. But I don't think I do it as a general rule - only when I'm going for a certain kind of approach or feel for something. I couldn't control it if I wanted to - in a world where people can understand allusions to the hunting behaviour of herons but find a mention of Son-Goku utterly baffling, I am lost.

I say pft to those who complain about the use of Google, Wikipedia and the like. Far from trying to prove one's "cleverness," like the footnotes in books, they enable one to give a link to a bit of extra clarification on a point, which one can choose to read or not to read (personally I read all the footnotes, the introductions, the reviews, the acknowledgements, etc, etc, etc - well I wouldn't want to miss something!).

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

There is an element of ego involved in any creative process-writing, music, poetry, cooking whatever.
Problems only arise when the ego begins to dominate-ie when the sub-text to everything produced is simply "look how clever/intelligent/successful I am".
Griffiths at UKA is a good example of this.

Nah Jack, I don't think you are particularly reliant on obscure references (dunno about a 'belief at large). It just seemed clear that you would take what Enzo said more personally than it was meant. Perhaps you are sometimes guilty of slight searching, tis all.

As for 'Google Fever'-it's a bit like masturbation-we all do it, only some of us admit to it and some are cyber-catholics and need to pretend that we have no need for it. Also, like masturbation, there are those that over indulge and their stature and eyesight has suffered accordingly.

I think you can hazard a guess as to the percentage of your audience who will 'get' a reference. And as others have said, it needs to add something genuine to the piece and not be clever for the sake of clever. Our workshop leader at City Lit says people reading poetry want to think 'how clever I am ' not
' how clever he [the poet] is' !

Take that line in Don Paterson's 'Waking with Russell' where he uses the term 'Mezzo del Cammin'.
In a random sample of people on the street, I would guess only around 5% would 'get' this. Yet, approximately half of our class when looking at the poem knew what this meant and the reference to Dante. I think Paterson realized that people reading his poems were people who liked poetry and were more likely therefore to understand the Dante reference. However, the other half would probably look it up if they had been reading it alone and I myself enjoy this journey of discovery. I just had to look up Son-Goku and thoroughly enjoyed doing so!

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

"I think you can hazard a guess as to the percentage of your audience who will 'get' a reference."

Yeah, that was my point. If you use something deliberately obscure, then it will naturally go over most people's heads. I'm not talking about 'references' per se, I'm talking deliberately obscure.

For example, if someone wrote something about Big Brother (which thankfully hasn't dug its claws into me this year), then I wouldn't get it. I would, however, appreciate that it's a common enough reference but I am missing it.

Now, conversely, if I wrote something with a nod to a line from a Japan-only release of a New Kids on the Block B-side, then I would do so fully in the knowledge that it would pass over many reader's heads. Why would I do that? Either becuase I feel it needs to be said for my piece to work, or because I want to look like the hoarder of obscure knowledge (and, in this example, a bit of a twat).

So as for Googling knowledge, the same goes. I think it's fine to use anything if it serves the purpose of what you're trying to achieve with your writing, I just can't admire it if the sum total of what it appears you're trying to achieve is to appear cleverer than me - like Jude's quote from her workshop teacher.

Anyway, like I said, I do it myself. Most of us do. Not a big deal, really. It ain't gonna stop the world from turning (ha- that could have been a line from a New Kids b-side)

For what it's worth I didn't have anyone specific from ABC in mind when I ranted above.

Enzo..

Buy my book!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/1846855187/

well, I might relent and buy you a pint.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

*Quickly prints Jude's comment as an IOU*

"Our workshop leader at City Lit says people reading poetry want to think 'how clever I am' not 'how clever he [the poet] is'!"

That's a pretty shrewd observation, a mon avis. However, sometimes that just ends up being dependent on whether someone gets a reference. Even with a comic poem, people laugh extra hard if they feel they 'get' a tricky reference - sometimes they laugh even harder if it's one that many people in the audience miss. It's the allure of the in-joke, really.

The trick is to make allusions work on their own terms, so that if you don't 'get' it, you don't necessarily realise you've missed something. A lot of my performance pieces crib lines from more worthy, famous poetic works - it's fine if the audience don't know where the line came from, but, if they do, sometimes it gets an extra laugh. It's not like I'm doing it to showboat my superior poetry knowledge, though. Most of the time I have to look the lines up in an anthology.

'I might relent and buy you a pint.
jude'

*pastes comment onto bottom of Jude's flyer design. Presses print copies...*

Mwwwaaahaaahaaa...

~
www.fabulousmother.com

That's this design ...if anyone wants to print some off to display...

http://www.judesworld.net/abcbrighton.htm

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

I'd say it's easy to pick up examples which are obviously mainstream or obviously obscure, but there's a vast tract of in between stuff, which some people will claim is obscure while others claim is obvious. I've no idea, in any given crowd, whether people would be with me on a reference to, say, Optimus Prime or Mystery Science Theatre 3000, or Augustus or Alexander or skodas or The Prisoner or pogs or Replicants or delays on the Circle line or Leonard Cohen or pig-wanking or Hammer Horror or letters from estate agents or pens going missing...

You can do what Tim advises, but I find it overly cynical to put in what is effectively a contingency plan. I like finding stuff in writing I don't completely, immediately understand, and am generally put off by the whiff of anything that seems designed to appeal in particular to any kind of audience - be it an exclusive one or a populist one. A writer should be doing it, really, just because it works, just because it makes sense to them. If they can do that with confidence, even when it doesn't seem to get a reaction, then I admire that all the more.

Writing to seem clever, or to make the audience feel clever, or to get a reaction - it's all the same thing. If I detect any of that shit going on, I'd immediately rather be doing something else.

Transformers fan, Jack? ;)

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Maybe.

Mon Avis?

'a mon avis' = in my opinion.

I think I made my point.

Too subtle for me.

Using an obscure phrase?

I don't find French obscure, I do find it gives more than a hint of affectation when it's used like that.

Well, pardon moi!

Au contraire, Styx. French phrases are more a way of playing the stylish, fey sophisticate, rather than the deep, brooding genius. The genius mutters German, baustein auf baustein.

Now, there you go JC, rokkit 'n' others, without being laboured, this thread is about clarity. I rarely went to skool but I ain't daft. So when you use foreign phrases that are not even in my tattered book of umm, foreign phrases, I'm at a loss as to what you're on about. So you are not connecting. Which I think you are trying to do. Or are you?

Touché!

What can I say, Styx? I like to play with language. Watashi wa sakka desu, after all.

If it's good writing and carries you along, then a few references I don't understand are fine, I can even look them up if it's vital to the understanding of the piece. If, however, it's utterly full of foreign phrases and obscure words in what seems to me the whole purpose of the exercise then it goes down as pretentious wank and I move on to something else.

(For the sake of peace, I don't regard any of the above contributors in this category even though they produce some weird stuff!)

"Now, there you go JC, rokkit 'n' others, without being laboured, this thread is about clarity. I rarely went to skool but I ain't daft. So when you use foreign phrases that are not even in my tattered book of umm, foreign phrases, I'm at a loss as to what you're on about. So you are not connecting. Which I think you are trying to do. Or are you?"

I think you'll find that 'a mon avis' is a reference taken from the popular cartoon series Dogtanian and the Mustkethounds.

You may have a missed it.

Really?? I haven't watched it in a couple of years, but I only ever recall them saying 'mon amis'. The Muskahounds rarely took time between gluttony and frivolity to knuckle down to a good debate.

Non, non, non, Jacques, ecoutez a little harder next time. They were saying: 'M. Amis', in subtle allusion to erstwhile creator of Dogtanian and the Muskahounds, Martin Amis. It's just one of many self-references he slipped into the various Canadian animations he worked on. If you check out the TV that appears on 'Ovide Video', you'll see that there's always a tiny pixellated photograph of Mr Amis in the top-right-hand corner.

I'm going to confer with Cam Clarke about this.

*confers*

He says you're lying. He says Martin Amis was always drunk on the set of Dogtanian and the Muskahounds and quit in a blizzard of media attention after getting into a fight with Monsieur Treville.

Robots in disguise.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix