Discussion → "Wannabe" and "persona"
-
Two terms that may not relate much to writing itself but that may define people as writers: (I picked these up from FB notes by Howard Junker, editor of Zyzzyva): "wannabe" and "persona." (I will not quote him directly but say I didn't flinch when he wrote that he had published good writing over the years but no literature.)
My own earliest exposure to the word "wannabe" was in a Hollywood context: a wannabe was someone who wanted something that had to do with the film industry, who was able or not able to get it. I was not one.
I started going to the AWP convention in 2007 (M.A. '88 and M.F.A. '94). I went (go) as a non-teaching independent writer (with a disability, though I'm usually unsure of where that fits in), who does freelance editing. When I got to the convention in Atlanta, I was overjoyed to see former classmates from writing programs, both Binghamton U and U of Houston -- mostly men in the middle of lifelong teaching careers. I saw few women I had known in school. One woman had moved across the country to start a third writing degree after undergoing a divorce and health issues. I took on the role (no cool persona) of court demographer. The following year, when the AWP was in New York, a few of us met at the bookfair, including a New York-based friend (poet, writer, and then-cw adjunct whose students referred to her as "Professor [Last Name]" though she taught without a Ph.D.). She said she didn't believe in going to the AWP, in paying for or traveling to it, because the AWP is for "wannabes." That struck me, and now, for a week, since reading "wannabe" paired with "persona" in Junker's notes, both words strike.
What does a wannabe want? Is anything redeeming about it? How does persona relate and to writing itself?
-
The word "wannabe" suggests to me someone who is trying to succeed in a career for which they don't have the natural talents. To the degree that this person's attempt is in earnest (and to the degree that success in this career is not the only measure of his or her self-worth), the term does not do the person justice.
-
The connotation for me is wholly negative. I suppose Edward's right in the sense that a wannabe may actually be trying very hard to succeed (but will likely never do so), but when I think wannabe, I tend to think of someone is not only unsuited in skill-set, but also in work ethic. Someone who wants the glory without the gore.
Coming from one writer about other writers, it seems callous and elitist.
I'm not sure the relationship between a writer's persona and his/her wannabe status is a very strong one. Any link, I think, would be relatively fluid. You can still be a "wannabe" and still change your persona or your writing.
-
Ben makes a good point. The word is clearly a pejorative. I suppose I wanted to distinguish between those people who don't have the necessary skill-sets, but who have 'pure' motives, and those who have neither, or who have the former but not the latter.
-
Hmmm. I take the wannabe as a groupie of sorts. Who either believes himself to be a (insert writer, actor, Olympic quality athlete) yet others know he is not at that level or he admits his professed goal and his lower standard of being. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I considered myself a wannabe writer until validation by publication grants me that title. Thus, this is a personal achievement standard set; whether by my own standards or by someone else's. So also thus (!) even though I've met my own standards, others with a different understanding of the term "writer" may still consider be a "wannabe."
I'm not ready to tackle "persona" yet.
-
Here is the opening of Junker's statement:
"A platform is like the social network that a wannabe creates in order to get noticed (and published).
A persona is more like the "social role or character" a writer develops to flesh out as an "author."
I enjoy reading Junker's notes and think they're among the best on FB. I agree with Ben that it may be elitist to define writers using these terms. The terms relate to how writers use the internet. Persona connotes "actor." An old question: How does someone play the role of author while simultaneously fulfilling the requirement to write? A new one: while using the internet? I hear the word "ethics" in the word "ethos."
"Platform" has a technological sense to it. It brings up "ease of use," "convenience" and "access" and reminds me of "form" vs. "format."
As Edward writes, a writer may have pure intentions while lacking in another way: talent (or experience or connections or money or time), or, as Ben notes, "work ethic."
What Susan writes is also interesting: what if we meet our own expectations?
-
Based on Ann's excerpt of Junker's statement, the two terms ('wannabe' and 'persona') might be seen as related. A wannabe who uses the internet as a platform, to be noticed, seems likely to also want to create a persona - an appearance that has no bearing on the quality of his or her creative output but that may be intended to suggest otherwise. I haven't read Junker in full (so my critique is removed from his discussion), but the terms in question seem related to the notion of 'poseur.' It's for this reason that one might say that the use of them (unless, as Susan says, one is describing oneself) should be limited to an abstract context. In a general sense the terms can be useful (as a means of discussing theory), but to use them to describe people specifically (which it doesn't appear Junker has done), might only be hurtful. I think my point here is related to my perception of the origin of the term 'wannabe,' which carries a sort of careless, disconcerting impulse.
-
I found Junker's FB notes today also at Zyzzyva Speaks, a weblog:
-
I apologize if my comments veer a bit off topic, but I would like to respond as one who has both read the full post and recently been on the receiving end of a relatively gentle (i.e. less harsh than usual) personal assessment by H.J., which he offered in response to what I considered to be kind commentary on my blog.
H.J. is known for being gruff, harsh, curmudgeonly, even mean. His words must be taken in the context of who he is, and who he is, is the afore-described persona (or "person," as I would argue), especially in the Bay Area lit world. He is provocative and goading at times, and overwhelmingly unapologetic (though I was pleasantly surprised in my personal interactions with him.)
Contrary to Edward's generous supposition that H.J. was speaking in theory, in actuality he followed his theoretical statements with brief, declarative character dissections of five well-known Bay Area writers. One would think that he would apply his opening theses to these writers; however, aside from stating that his assessments were of them as "personae," he did not refer back, which at first made me question his inclusion of his first statement. However, upon further reading, his underlying assertion that that each of the writers embodies both "personae" and "wannabe" characteristics became clear.
I read his descriptions of these writers as exemplary of neither persona nor wannabe, but simply as who they are outside of being writers, or who they are that compels them to write. However, in accordance with his categorization of the writers at issue, H.J. concludes, either by strong suggestion or by outright statement, that none lives up to his reputation. Stephen Elliott is a rambunctious, immature, bad boy; Daniel Handler is a nice guy and family man; Michael Chabon is sweet and hardworking. But did they develop these traits after finding success as writers or did they acquire them as a result of their success? Doesn’t it matter?
Of course, there are "wannabe" writers. As noted, some genuinely want to write, but do not possess the talent, drive, motivation, work ethic, etc. to be a good writer. Others want to be part of the writing scene more than they want to produce actual writing. As for personae, though there are certainly extremes, I believe we all develop various versions of ourselves that we display under relevant circumstances, including the writer self, the employee self, the romantic partner self, the parent self, etc. It might be more interesting to examine how different the persona, or "social role," is from the person, than to assess which intended insult is worse than the other.
-
ann, thank you for opening the pandora box of this topic - and for stoking the embers.
As someone standing outside of your culture in many ways (and inside in others), the term "wannabe" for me does not carry the "careless disconcerting impulse" that ed mentioned. i'm largely with susan (nice analysis!) on this, and i'm not surprised she's not ready to discuss 'persona' yet - this must be one of (literary) history's most milked concepts: ending with the movie by bergman of this title, through c g jung's deep treatment (or re-invention) of the concept back to Greek tragedy (persona as mask behind which any actor could hide, akin to Junker's 'platform') to the mistiest mist of time's beginning whence 'persona' denoted a very malleable face presented to the gods, who in turn wore as many faces as there were leaves on the tree of wisdom (cp. campbell 'hero with a thousand faces').
i liked the definition of persona in literature that i found in the (excellent, IMHO) wikipedia article on 'Persona': "a persona can, broadly-speaking, be understood as the "organizing consciousness" of the narrative."
if that is so, 'wannabe' and 'persona' could be separated by degrees of freedom only, beginning and end of an alchemical process. 'wannabe' is an early stage, the prima materia where the ego dominates the organization of a piece, while 'persona' is the (or a more) fully formed later stage. over time: the marriage of opposites within (the individual ego and the world).
operating under a (amateurishly disguised) pseudonym, finnegan flawnt, helps me get away from the 'wannabe' stage more quickly, i think, than if i were out there under my real identity.
on susan's question, sharpened to a quill by ann: interestingly (for me) my immediate and long-term direction is determined not so much by short term approval, publication etc. but by a very clear internal picture of what it is that i want to write and achieve. it's a mythical clarity though, paradoxically blurred at the same time: that is, i cannot write it yet while i know at the same time that i will recognise it when i see and do it.
-
lauren, i like your assessment of junker's examples, too, especially the last paragraph, which threw up a few person-al questions for me (though i have only read chabon, a writer much in the lineage of nabokov, who was an expert at changing personae, and also, may i add, not a native speaker. perhaps multiple personae come easier to us bi/multilingual hobbits with the large furry feet).
-
What bothers me about the term "wannabe" is the supposition (whose, exactly?) that every young (or unrecognized) (or neglectorino) WRITER is dying to become a "famous" AUTHOR OF NOVELS living on the east or west coast, with a string of elite appositives trailing his or her name: grants, awards, professorships, visiting writerships, silent deals, honorary degrees -- as if the repetition of that template never misses, never cheats. As if the AUTHORS' stoic positioning isn't a loss to speech. It isn't boring to read the work of certain WRITERS and POETS. It's a communal celebration to read alone, say, the POETRY of Robert Hass, to HEAR out loud the poetry of Bruce Andrews.
Strange movements in culture. Walking on the street to attend a poetry reading, dressed all in wool and wearing tall boots, something I did a hundred times in New York last year. Even close writer friends thought I was out to booksling and network, that there is only one reason to go there, into "the scene," that no one goes just to hear POETRY read aloud or as an expression of group wishes and witness.
Under the best of circumstances, I would become a poetry AGENT in New York.
I never submit to publishing houses, qualify never: *rarely* -- send. Independent publishing houses wrote to me in 2000 that though they admired my writing technique, they were uninterested in publishing short story collections THEN -- as if I had bumped a little crop plane on fields set aside for fallowing; as if all the gatekeepers of the literary world had drawn straws and agreed to call it off: the short story as a form (written decently, a half-lie). I do want *something* besides writing itself in a life of writing but it is not just a litany of straight. It is: clairvoyant READERS.
. . .
So, Howard Junker. I like it that he speaks. Zyzzyva speaks. I like it that Lauren Becker and Finnegan Flawnt speak.
-
awww, what a great post, ann. it spoke to me even though i'm a couch writer and a culture vulture and do not live in NYC at present. i really appreciate your openness. it helps me fling an umbilical chord across the pond. may many stories travel either way!
technically, i believe your views are clairvoyant, too: the days of the 'scene' as you know it, including the publishing houses, are numbered. i'm just writing a keynote for next year's publisher's forum (attended by most of the world's top publishing houses) which will feed on some of what you describe.
these corporations are (mostly) not interested in the deep questions you throw up but in their dwindling profits, but they must, in the shadow of the sword of damocles hanging above their heads, develop a new sensibility for listening to what's going on in the streets. in the context of "wannabe vs. persona" this is a detour, of course.
-
Finnegan, I am keen on business: The business keeps indicating it's moved on to headstones. It seems like a failure of vision if I consider that social networking sites, such as FB, without even charging participants, have thrived.
Tell us more about the forum!
-
Talking headstones, my working background I typify as being a stonemason. I am not exactly that, but it suffices. I have always been very serious as a writer, and to me that means that I write, a lot.
In the traditional building trades there is the concept floated around of a Master. In the EU this has a more practical and precise meaning than in the US. I consider that a Master is distinguished in a few ways, 1. they know how much their work should cost, 2. they know enough about their work that they likely invented it to begin with, 3. they are relatively impervious to what everyone else thinks is going on in the world (thus distinctions of wannabe and persona are relatively useless from their inner lights), and 4. generally enough people identify the individual as a Master, which can be a blessing or a curse. I won't extend this out to A-holes, though there are those also.
As a writer I made a decision a long time ago to walk away from the 'scene' not out of any great crisis as much as a general distaste for the pissing contests that it appeared that one needs to engage with (in NYC in particular) in order to 'rise.' None of that activity, though it did quite easily lend me a persona, did a diddle for my writing. And there was no money in it.
The comment that strikes me the most above though is the desire for a clairvoyant reader. I do not need any of the accolades of position, but I do need to feel the touch, response and feedback of readers, the more awake the better, on occasion. For me publication begins at that place where the writer begins to share, even if only to turn to the person next to them and say, "Would you like to see what I wrote?" Everything past that is noise. It can be entertaining noise, it can be life sustaining noise, but IMHO it has little to do with the act of writing.
I have a friend a stonemason in Mississippi. I am not very sure if his stonework is any good or not, I have never actually seen him do it, ever. But he has one hell of a persona and he likes to write, but he has absolutely no sense of grammar or spelling. I swear that a semi-colon means that he raises his arm up into the air. Regardless, he writes a prose that readers hunger to receive, and these readers are not by any means naive. At least one of his most ardent readers is a career columnist for the NY Times. My friend could be a wannabe writer and when last year he attended a 10 day writing workshop in Minnesota, or wherever it was he dragged up an affinity with, I was worried that it would ruin him. We are blessed that it did not.
I always think of 'wannabe' as a social designation in that a closed-group in self-definition designates outsiders that don't quite make it up to the set of social definitions, but that hover around close enough to be seen. It is a derogatory term of exclusion that designates the other and at the same time reinforces the set of defining characteristics of the group.
I do not know Howard Junker, never heard of him until now, may not care about it later either, but I think it interesting that his Wikipedia entry intimates that it is autobiography and probably entered by him.
My impression is that "Professor [Last Name]" designated AWP attendees as being outsiders to the group that she is inside of. My knee jerk reaction is that she probably did this to bolster her self esteem in the eyes of anyone that would listen because maybe her group is smaller, less well defined in the writer-educator-sphere and she is insecure. It may well have been a defense mechanism. My otherwise quite sweet dog has bit people, usually in the fleshy posterior, for similar cause. I would avoid bringing him to the AWP due to his outright expressions of eloquence.
%20(281x336).thumb.jpg)
Group Description
We're an online literary journal that publishes works of short, indeterminate prose and accompanying criticism. We feature one author every posting period (every two weeks). Every so often a question related to the form and function of fiction will be posted here for discussion.
http://www.matchbooklitmag.comThis is a public group.
Anyone can see it and join.