"What's the point of writing if no one reads it?"

[sarillia]

...and I will also be rambling about the idea that everyone should be constantly working to improve

I only started writing less than seven years ago. A few times before that, I had started to write something but it never got past two handwritten pages and I never made a serious attempt at it. Then when I was 16, for reasons I still don't understand, I signed up for National Novel Writing Month. I loved it and I've done it every year since and I've also participated in a lot of the unofficial spin-offs.

So maybe I have a different approach to writing than most people because it was nothing but entertainment from Day One. I had no grand plans to be published or ideas about making a career as a writer. I have always been a very anxious person so from the start I told myself that I would not be showing my writing to other people. It was just for fun. Just for me. And I kept that up for a long time.

But people could not let me do so in peace. So many people kept asking me that question that I typed up there in the post title. They kept telling me how sad it was that these stories would sit on my computer forever only to be read by me.

What makes writing different from other pastimes? Obviously one big thing is that it produces something, but why should that come with an obligation to share that product with the world.

Speaking of obligations, that's another thing that I always heard. "If you don't show anyone your writing then you are never going to improve." Fair enough. But who said I wanted to improve? Why should that be a given? Why couldn't it just be something I did for fun? I realize that "having fun" and "trying to improve" are not incompatible but that doesn't mean they can't be separated.

I've come across this idea a lot that if you write or do anything creative then you should be trying to become great at it. Even in fandom, which has lately been derided as a place where people want to hear nothing but positive comments (which is apparently just awful), there are people acting like writers are breaking some kind of code if they don't ask for constructive criticism.

Things have changed for me. I've decided that I would like to try out the whole sharing and getting criticism thing. But I don't think that's the only valid way to write. There are hobbyists who care about nothing but how much fun they're having--I used to be one of them and it brought me a lot of joy--and I don't see why they should be looked down on so much.

Maybe someone who disagrees with me can make a persuasive argument. I honestly don't understand this, and I have a feeling that my attitude is just as incomprehensible to some other people.

Comments

[inkdust]

I think for story and audience, that's just the way it is. Storytelling - it has to be told to someone. But I also think that a story's creator can count as an audience. If you read over your own work to enjoy the story, you are an audience. Most storytellers, I think, just also feel the desire to tell their stories to others as well. I do write little bits that I only enjoy privately, but most of what I've written I have shared with at least one close friend, because I wanted to try to share the excitement I felt about it.

I wouldn't call a novel a diary just because you didn't intend to share it, but I can see how many people would see keeping novels private as counter-intuitive, simply because writing is generally seen as communication. Storytelling, emphasis on telling. That's just how many people see it.

[sarillia]

I just seem to have a fundamentally different view of the characteristics that define these labels here. A novel is a novel and a diary is a diary no matter how many people read or are intended to read each one. I don't see audience as a defining criterion. That just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sure some people use fiction writing for communication but that attitude is just completely foreign to me.

...I need to stop using the word "just" so much.

I also need to think about this more. I'm having a lot of trouble articulating my thoughts.

[inkdust]

I abuse the word "just" to an unholy degree.

I agree that a novel is a novel and a diary is a diary. I think most people would agree with you on that. Most people would just also think that a novel's purpose is generally to be shared, at least eventually. If you want to give it some more thought, I find the subject interesting.

[sarillia]

I guess I just don't see a novel as something that has any one inherent purpose. Some are meant to be shared and some are not. I don't see it as something intrinsic but as something that is influenced by the creator. If I say I'm not trying to communicate but that I'm just mucking about with some characters for fun, then on what grounds can anyone argue with me?

[inkdust]

They can't - I think you're absolutely in the right. What it ends up being about isn't definition and purpose but expectation and familiarity.

[sarillia]

I guess I can concede that there is an expectation that storytelling is a form of communication. It just bugs me to have people talking like that's universal to all writers.

[inkdust]

I get that. Generalizations really bother me too. I don't notice them as much about writers because I think I fit a lot of the stereotypes, but there are all kinds of writers out there. It's a shame people want to make everything fit into their boxes.