I’m blowing a good idea here, for the beginning of this blog. But that’s okay, because it is a blog and it’s actually the end.
This good idea is not worth mentioning, so I will go on with my third blog post.
This blog post will not be self-referencing.
That is, beyond this point:
Quoting myself from a reddit.com/r/writing post Why is having a writer as your central character usually discouraged?
One difficulty with choosing a writer as a protagonist is that, sooner or later, his writing is going to make its way into your book. And his writing will be different from the writing about him — in other words, you will have another story on your plate, to deal with.
And the more attention you give the story within the story, the more complexities will spring up — this is the nature of story — which will require resolution (of plot) and polish (of prose) — and this ends up elongating the finishing process (which is endless to begin with, despite its lip-service to finality).
But the potential rewards of having an author as a subject is the ability to elaborate the world and themes of the novel in radical ways—by means “perpendicular” to the flow and tone of the “outer” story. If positioned right, your creative protagonist can become an infinite doorway of narratives for your novel to pass through, picking up and setting down locations, times and particulars—and as long as the characters translate through these transitions of narrative, the reader will be able to follow — for however long the story is engaging.
But yes, the far greater pitfall is that the subject will be a creatively stunted nobody, or writing teacher who bangs a student, or any other cliche that is more a practice novel than a proper contribution to the stack of informative furniture that lines our shelves and builds up like tartar on ebook hdds.
As ever, good fiction relies on good realization.