*snickers* It used to bug me a whole lot but it does less so, now. It's happened everywhere I've been with everyone I've known. It's just really rare to have a friend who wants to read the things I've written, even tho' I'd gladly send it to them.
So, because it happens so damn often, I have concluded that it's not me. Which is why I developed the "confers legitimacy" hypothesis. I mean, if people read my stuff and didn't like it, well, that'd stink for me on a personal level because I would like validation from my friends and loved ones, of course, but I'd deal with it. The weird thing is that they just avoid it altogether (I suspect in part because, y'know, it must be hard for them, too; they'd be stuck saying, "Golly, Chris, your writing stinks" and that'd be difficult for them, too). And more broadly, I think that most people have trouble having artists as friends at all.
But at least for the written word, I really think there's a lot of validation that goes on through publishing, because I've just seen it in too many places. A person has written something as good as published material and offered it to be read by a group, like a gaming group, and the writer's material has been rejected in favor of more poorly written material. It's just baffling to me except if I take into account the power of accredentialization. Publication is a form of accredentialization, I feel, that invests the work with significance. I could babble about how it stems from the aristocratic patronage of writers which is the foundation of the modern publishing system, but that might be tedious. But I think it's very real. Writers don't get taken seriously until they're accredentialized through publication.
no subject
So, because it happens so damn often, I have concluded that it's not me. Which is why I developed the "confers legitimacy" hypothesis. I mean, if people read my stuff and didn't like it, well, that'd stink for me on a personal level because I would like validation from my friends and loved ones, of course, but I'd deal with it. The weird thing is that they just avoid it altogether (I suspect in part because, y'know, it must be hard for them, too; they'd be stuck saying, "Golly, Chris, your writing stinks" and that'd be difficult for them, too). And more broadly, I think that most people have trouble having artists as friends at all.
But at least for the written word, I really think there's a lot of validation that goes on through publishing, because I've just seen it in too many places. A person has written something as good as published material and offered it to be read by a group, like a gaming group, and the writer's material has been rejected in favor of more poorly written material. It's just baffling to me except if I take into account the power of accredentialization. Publication is a form of accredentialization, I feel, that invests the work with significance. I could babble about how it stems from the aristocratic patronage of writers which is the foundation of the modern publishing system, but that might be tedious. But I think it's very real. Writers don't get taken seriously until they're accredentialized through publication.