Ego and Writing

Wednesday, July 23, 2014 K.Z. Freeman 0 Comments

Recently I have been wondering how much of writing, or the want to be a writer, is actually purely ego-driven. There is a kind of Latin phrase spelled 'Cacoethes Scribendi' which is basically a pretentious way of saying you have a very strong desire to write at that very instant. But how many take the time to actually - at that very point - ask themselves why?

You may find that when you do this, and try to understand on the level of Mind just what it is that drives this need to scribble, almost asking the need itself if this is a way for the ego to prove itself, the answer will almost immediately be No. 
You will try to convince yourself that the reason you write is because You wish to write, like you may wish to play the guitar or a video game. Or run. For fun. But why then, is this fun also coiled inside a need for other people to experience this writing you have scribbled. Just like, for instance, it is imperative for your Facebook friends to know that you are, or will be writing at that particular time, or that you have been running a hour earlier. Why is it, if this is not ego driven behaviour, important or even relevant at all for any other individual to know you inner happenings? Even if you tell this in a non-direct way. Surely if Writing wasn't in its basis for most extremely ego driven, they would simply not need to have any acknowledgement whatsoever. They would be perfectly happy to write and leave their writings in an attic, never to be seen by anyone.

But that almost never happens.

It is true, being paid is nice. You need to get paid and investing hours into a short story, let alone days in a novel, may seem like a terrible waste of time if you need to pay the bills. But what if you didn't need to pay the bills? How many would still be writing instead of painting, for instance? Or laying around in hammock with their last thought being about that one story they were churning around in their heads?

Even as a kid, if you ever read a book and thought, "I could do this. Maybe I could do it better!" If you examine that statement, you will find it is purely egotistical.

It is not really a coincidence that the stronger ego driven gender still dominates (yes, dominates) the world of writing. Surely this isn't simply because of some discrimination, although it has to be noted that a lot of female authors had their names abbreviated by the publisher so it would not be immediately apparent that a woman had written the piece. JK Rolling is the biggest name that comes to mind.

That writing is strongly ego driven is evident in rejections. Anyone who has gotten a rejection letter for a work submitted will know that the blow goes directly to the ego. It is only the ego's reaction that differs. Most will not admit this. Why would they? Since the ego will work hard to convince You that is not what is happening. That's what it does best, anyway.

It takes a bit for it to recover, and the more rejection it gets, the easier it recovers and the faster it can continue to operate again. It will examine what it did wrong if you can make it work for you, or it will simply plough on until something bites.

Consider this: you are not your ego. Consider then, without this drive, what would you write, what would you write about? Would you write what you do now, or is what you are writing now some deeply seeded way to prove yourself because you consider that type of writing to take the most skill, the most knowledge, or the most expertise?  Would you even still want to write?