[lit-ideas] Sustained Incongruencies (2)
- From: Eric <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:29:22 -0400
More on the Ideal versus the Real self.
Think of the aspiring young writers who plan to
write The Great American Novel. Those who use the
name seriously and not as a joke. Usually these
are people who are under lots of pressure to
achieve. They could have studied to be a doctor
or a lawyer or an astronaut, but instead decide to
write the Great American Novel.
Ask yourself why they had to write The Great
American Novel. Why couldn't they just write a
novel? Just an ordinary novel? Why did they have
to be a Great Writer? Why not just an ordinary writer?
Horney's thesis suggests that only a *spectacular*
vindication will redeem their gamble. The Ideal
Self must triumph to justify the eccentric career
choice.
Ultimately this strategy is self-defeating. Being
an ordinary writer is where all the lousy first
drafts are, all the false starts, bad ideas, and
jumbles. Being an ordinary writer is where you are
when you write.
Great Writers do not write lousy drafts, these
aspiring writers think, and as a result, they
eventually produce little. The Real Self never
gets a chance to write.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Sustained Incongruencies (2)
