...But I Keep Rolling On

Writing is inherently an autobigraphical process. When people say, "Write what you know," they are not necessarily referring to physical circumstances. Facts can be researched, after all. No, what people mean is that the emotional circumstances of the characters you create have to mirror the ones you see and know in your life. This is not to say that every character has to be based on a single, specific individual; in my experience the people I write about tend to be composites of people I know.

I had a conversation recently with a friend, who also writes, about the responsibility an author has to the people in their lives upon whom their writing is based. She mentioned that she had written several things that she would never publish or perform, for fear of hurting the people upon whom the work was based.

I don't know that I agree with that. Personally, I have enough problems with censoring and doubting myself without extending it to the things I write. When I write or when I perform anything about a relationship, I don't see any way to avoid having an observer with whom I have been in a relationship think it's written about them, or performed with them as the subtext. And they would be right - no matter the physical details, I will plagiarize my own emotional content to make the character more real. So in some way, shape or form, my feelings for that person will be expressed through the character. They might be positive, they might be negative, they might be illogical. But they will be as honest as I can make them.

And yet, it is true that as a member of society, it is right and good to hold things back from people. There are some things that no person deserves to hear, there are things that can be borne in the interest of society. If everyone sought instant gratification for all their wants, society would not exist. All art that concerns itself with the individual is inherently antisocial in the literal definition of the term, stripping it of its negative connotation - it is, after all, preoccupied with the individual. Perhaps it is this preoccupation within the art itself that has made artists so tortured in modern times; you don't hear stories about Michelangelo or Da Vinci crying in their wine about some girl they really liked who wouldn't go to the prom with them.

This raises an interesting question - which me is more "real", which is more truly "me"? The me free of societal cares and whims? Or the more controlled me that manages to get along with society?