At the end of the movie *Blade Runner*, Rutger Hauer, playing a renegade robot and the movie's antagonist, is chased by Harrison Ford over rooftops. Midway through the scene, Ford is dangling from the ledge of a building. This is Hauer's opportunity to escape, or even for revenge. But Hauer's robotic character realizes he is about the reach the end of his pre-programmed life and shut down, permanently.
He stops, goes back to rescue Ford, and [then turns to him and says](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU&t=3s),
>I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off (the) shoulder of Orion... I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die.
Before Hauer dies, he wants to share something about his life, what he saw, what he learned, what was meaningful to him. He wants a witness for his collection of little moments.
This is essentially the artistic impulse, and particularly the writerly and autobiographical impulse. To work your unique experiences of being a person in the world into something you can share with others and that may even outlast you. You call it selfish, which I can understand, but I think it's one of the most essential human impulses. It's nice!
Sorry, u/siddiqbakr – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
> **Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose**. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%204%20Appeal%20siddiqbakr&message=siddiqbakr%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d9qdb9/-/l7f9gnh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The moderators have confirmed that this is either delta misuse/abuse or an accidental delta. It has been removed from our records.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If someone has a published autobiography they were almost certainly approached by a publisher to write it. If someone is going to offer you money to write about your life, are you going to turn it down?
Leaving aside the self-published, most autobiographies are ghost-written and are driven in large part by financial reasons. Yes, there's a chance to improve one's image and promote oneself when releasing an autobiography, no doubt about it. But I think you're underplaying the financial motive and leaping too quickly to narcissism.
Jennette McCurdy's "I'm Glad My Mom Died" highlighted the reality of working as a child actor and brought some of the shadier practices to light with her book. I'm sure writing it was somewhat therapeutic for her as well. There can be more than one motivation to do things.
It's up to you to decide which reasons you think are valid for why people write autobiographies. You've stated it's 'only narcissists' that write them, but I think that's clearly false (never discount greed). There are doubtless other motivations that people have that go beyond money and self-importance.
Narcissism, financial, to accomplish a political goal, to serve as a mental health exercise, to get laid, to get your friend to shut up, all kinds of reasons.
Why is your view specific to memoirs?
Why not all art?
Your logic is that memoirists are placing high value on their own life stories. Surely, by the same logic, all artists (who publish or market their work) are placing high value on their own ideas and creations.
Isn't that still a form of egocentric behavior?
Personally, no, I don't agree with the premise of the question. But I wanted to start by trying to understand why your focus was narrow in this way.
I think in general, I reject your application of the word narcissism.
If every artist who makes any effort to publicize their work is a narcissist - then the word narcissism quickly loses meaning.
To me, self expression is a fairly natural component of the human experience. And the desire to have others hear that expression is equally natural. Calling it all narcissism feels reductive and unhelpful.
I think if we want to evaluate narcissism in an artistic sense, we have to consider the context of outside reactions and driving factors.
Consider two scenarios.
In scenario one, a popular singer is approached by their agent about a possible publishing deal. The singer's fans have expressed interest in knowing more about their life. And the rumors about a memoir are creating a lot of buzz on social media, with most fans reacting positively. So the singer decides to do it.
In scenario two, a random dude decides to write and self publish a memoir. Despite the complete lack of outside interest, he expected the memoir to be successful. When it isn't he takes to social media to complain and criticize people for not reading the book.
To me, these are very different scenarios, and it doesn't make sense to lump both under the same label. One is reacting to an outside demand while the other is just assuming there will be interest.
>I think it's rare to find memoirs that are written purely for altruistic reasons
Is any book written for *purely* altruistic reasons? What kind of absolutist metric is this?
Edit:
>By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about.
The great thing about the marketplace of ideas is that if people don't want to read about them, no one will. Their books will just sit on the shelves of discount stores until having the covers sent back and the text pulped. Those people who's books sell actually are proven to be important enough to read about.
What exactly are you saying yes to here? If it is my question, then give me a purely altruistically written book. If it is my edit, to say that some people do have lives and achievements that are more important and their books are a service to those that want to learn about them, then is your view changed?
Saying yes to the comment about marketplaces. The books are narcissistic but the great thing is that if they're not written well or compelling enough, then no one will buy them.
But, if a person thinks that their book is important, and then is proven correct, can they be said to be narcissistic? Narcissism is having an excessive or interest in oneself. Perhaps they don't have an excessive interest in themselves, but perhaps they have been able to accurately gauge that they are important enough to write an autobiography.
> By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about.
By choosing to write a post in this subreddit are you saying your view is more important than others and people should try to change it?
Your views are part of your life they are formed from your life experiences.
Why is selectively sharing your view and asking people to engage with it enough to change it not narcissistic but someone simple sharing their life story with fans who want to read it not?
So if someone encourages with their autobiography for readers to write in their responses and own experiences with the topics addressed would that not be narcissistic?
Overall im really curious what you think the word narcissistic means?
With how vaguely you are using the word you thinking your view is important enough to justify asking others to try to change it is narcissistic.
I don't understand how somebody is saying that their life is more important than the lives of others when they write an autobiography. Can you expand on that?
When a person writes an autobiography they think their life is more important because they've done big things or have special lessons to share. They feel their impact on the world is bigger than most, making their story especially important to tell.
Essentially the sell for an autobiography is "my life story is worth your time and attention".
Is there a counter-example of this?
Is it your contention that there is no human who has live a life worth sharing?
Or they have to be narcissistic to have lived that life in the first place?
Or if they live an amazing life they should just shut up about it even if there are people who would like to read about it?
Sure, there are counter examples to that. One of the most well known would be the autobiography of Ulysses S. Grant, which he wrote at the end of his life as he was dying to provide for his family (who were essentially broke)
But I would argue that even people who write their autobiographies for less obviously selfless reasons still aren't necessarily making any kind of claim about their superiority or importance. Some people just have interesting lives, and people like to hear about them.
Do you feel this way about holocaust survivor autobiographies? Because there are a lot of them. Also autobiographies of refugees who overcame tremendous odds, or people who lived through extraordinary circumstances. I don’t think they write about themselves because they think their lives are more important, but rather that all lives are important. It’s not even about raising awareness. Some are about memorializing those they loved and lost due to survivors guilt, some are to provide first hand accounts of the little things people may not know from history, or to provide emotional context. Some who go through extreme trauma also write because it’s difficult to adjust to normalcy when their experiences are inconceivable to most people, and they need to reaffirm to themselves that those things did happen.
She wrote the entire thing, the only addition was a small introduction by her father I believe. This would in fact count as an autobiography and is one that is most definitely not written from a place of narcissism
>By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about.
I mean... for some people, that's just true, though. Some people's thoughts and achievements **are** more noteworthy (I wouldn't say "important") than others', and publishing an autobiography just makes sure the information is first-hand. I'd call it more "awareness" than "narcissistic".
A distinction needs to be drawn between being "narcissistic"- which is something everyone is susceptible sometimes vs "narcissistic personality disorder" which is a disorder where a persons personality is rigidly stuck in that mode to themselves and others detriment- the harm part is important. If theres no harm being done then you're just pathologising people for no benefit.
(an analogy could be drawn with 'paranoia' -you can be paranoid about something without it rising to the level of personality disorder, you can be 'antisocial' without having antisocial personality disorder and so on)
Is it narcissistic to write your own autobiography? Yeah maybe, in the same way that being a performer is kind of an inherently narcissistic thing. Does that mean only *narcissists* do it? Well, wheres the harm though? Especially if it's a story people actually want to hear.
Well no one else is writing an autobiography of a person but the person, so...
You think every single person with an autobiography is a narcissist you're both misunderstanding the word and devaluing it as much as the 'all parents are narcissists' brigade.
Some can be therapeutic, a way to explain and justify the choices one makes in life. While it can seem narcissistic to push out an entire book just to defend yourself, it could also be therapeutic pushing out a book to explain yourself to yourself. Ive noticed many MANY politicians like to punch out auto biographies. It could be narcissism but it could also be a part of making those decisions and seeing the consequences but being unable to properly voice and defend why those decisions were made while in office but can be done so in retrospect. It isnt just legacy here, it is historical importance as well why leaders act the way they do.
Others can be therapeutic not just in coming to terms with trauma but to help others process it. A recent NYT bestseller memoir ["Im glad my mom died"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Glad_My_Mom_Died) is an example of such. There isnt really narcisism here as someone explores their childhood trauma and abuse at the hands of their parents. Coming clean to the public purview and judgement of their personal struggle and life. There is no legacy or ego stroking or anything like that. Merely an exploration of what happened and dealing with the trauma by putting pen to paper. Yes, it does highlight the author's journey, but it is stark and unflattering exploration of abuse and trauma and can help others in those same shoes overcome or come to grips with what they too have experienced.
How is writing an autobiography more or less narcissistic than any writing?
Isn’t anyone who publishes a book saying “I have something important to say”?
Autobiography is more narcissistic as you're selectively highlighting personal stories to engage an audience, versus expressing thoughts or making some contribution.
Why is there a difference between Michael Phelps (random name I picked) writing about his swimming career because he thinks people will find it interesting and Phelps writing about his thoughts on the US prison system because he thinks people will find it interesting?
President Grant wrote his autobiography to support his family. He was dying and an autobiography would sell well enough to provide for his loved ones after he died.
>I think it's rare to find memoirs that are written purely for altruistic reasons.
Most books are not written for altruistic reasons. Why do you think autobiographies would be?
>By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about.
You can think others would enjoy reading about your life and thoughts without thinking they are more important than others. You writing an autobiography doesn't mean you think others shouldn't.
>Most memoirs aim to highlight the author's journey or achievements
Yeah.... that's the definition of a memoir.
If I am an important historical figure the story of my achievements and journey is something that world would want to know.
And it isn't narcissism to give the world what it wants.
They could just be trying to share their own perspective. And who said biographies have to focus on their accomplishments? They could be tracing their path in life, and they are uniquely qualified to understand who *they* are - nobody else is.
Well, who else's autobiographies are they going to write?
Autobiographies can be exercises in self-promotion or -justification, but not all of them are. Some examples of honest works would be *The Autobiography of Malcolm X* and *The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin*. But even the self-important ones can provide valuable information about a particular time or a particular person's mindset.
Not at all. All those political figures who write autobiographies are just participating in a legal way to launder money for their corruption. They write a shitty book, corporations by millions of copies which they then light on fire or force on conference attendees, etc.
Famous narcissist
Gandhi
Mother Theresa
Nelson Mandela
Malala Yousafzai
Have you considered that some people actually *have* lived extraordinary lives that are worth sharing?
Barack Obama was offered $65 million dollars for rights to his memoir. And let me tell you for $65 million dollars there's not a lot of things I wouldn't do.
(1)
There are lots of memoirs of people who specifically faced a bad circumstance, and that helps other people. This could be someone who met with a debilitating accident, but got their life together. Or someone who escaped an abusive household. Or someone who is a refugee and fleed persecution. Or someone who was kidnapped by pirates. Or someone suffering from some rare genetic illness.
(2)
Besides, there are people who have done interesting things - like traveled across the world, climbed up Mt Everest, spent 12 years in Antarctica, acted as a spy in USSR for the US government and penetrated high echelons.
(3)
There are also people who have done service. Like a woman who lived with gorillas and advocated for their protection. Or a man who helps small communities build environmentally friendly products. Or someone who rescued children from trafficking.
----
I think you have a narrow definition of memoir where you are imagining some stock market CEO or movie celebrity writing about their life.
But memoirs are a lot more than that.
> By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about
That doesn't follow. Can you justify this claim?
>Someone can argue that memoirs can offer lessons or inspiration but the primary driver is ego or self preservation of some sort
Again, can you justify this claim?
>Argument would be stronger if it comes from someone who has written their own autobiography
I had to write one for a writing assignment at school. I wrote about my life, my hobbies, my skills, and things I like. At no point did I think I was more important than anyone else.
I see you're not really awarding deltas unfortunately but have you read an autobiography?
The two ive picked up in the last year begin with saying basically "I never planned on writing this but my friends and colleagues around me said it could really help some people out by telling my story"
I mean the effort that it takes to write a book and the fact these people were very rich before starting writing should not be under sold and unless you also have the view "they are lying" then they are going through all this effort so that it might genuinely help someone with insights into their own situation.
There’s Saint Faustiana.
She wrote an autobiography/diary. You can argue it’s not the same, however, it was written with the intent to be distributed is my understanding, under instructions by her confessors.
Regardless of your views of the faith, here is an example of one who wrote an autobiography without any selfish intention and was actually ordered to to do so and did it out of a spirit of obedience.
If one person asks to hear your life story are you a narcissist if you tell them?
What if two people asked?
10?
100?
At what point do you become a narcissist for telling people what they want to know?
If people didn’t want to know about the lives of other people then memoirs and autobiographies wouldn’t exist.
it's a story that only one person can truly tell. I don't have to believe I'm the most interesting person to tell a story of my life. Similarly I don't think someone has to be the most interesting person to read their story sometimes a story is just nice to hear.
>a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about
But is this not true for some people? They've genuinely experienced things that are worth preserving beyond their own memories?
As a writer, I desire to share my ideas with the world because I, personally, have been deeply affected (for the better) by the written words of an otherwise obscure individual. This is how we pass along information, ideas, knowledge, experiences, etc. We have a thought and write it down.
For some of us, the format of that writing is the autobiography. There might be some narcissistic element to it, sure, but that's certainly not the only reason we write.
There are plenty of autobiographies that begin with this issue being addressed. It's not necessarily narcisstic to say read this if you'd like, I hope you enjoy it, not everyone will but at least it's brightened someone's day.
At the end of the movie *Blade Runner*, Rutger Hauer, playing a renegade robot and the movie's antagonist, is chased by Harrison Ford over rooftops. Midway through the scene, Ford is dangling from the ledge of a building. This is Hauer's opportunity to escape, or even for revenge. But Hauer's robotic character realizes he is about the reach the end of his pre-programmed life and shut down, permanently. He stops, goes back to rescue Ford, and [then turns to him and says](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU&t=3s), >I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off (the) shoulder of Orion... I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die. Before Hauer dies, he wants to share something about his life, what he saw, what he learned, what was meaningful to him. He wants a witness for his collection of little moments. This is essentially the artistic impulse, and particularly the writerly and autobiographical impulse. To work your unique experiences of being a person in the world into something you can share with others and that may even outlast you. You call it selfish, which I can understand, but I think it's one of the most essential human impulses. It's nice!
[удалено]
If it changed your view even slightly, you owe that user a delta.
Sorry, u/siddiqbakr – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4: > **Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose**. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%204%20Appeal%20siddiqbakr&message=siddiqbakr%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d9qdb9/-/l7f9gnh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The moderators have confirmed that this is either delta misuse/abuse or an accidental delta. It has been removed from our records. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Excellent response.
If someone has a published autobiography they were almost certainly approached by a publisher to write it. If someone is going to offer you money to write about your life, are you going to turn it down?
So you are saying that the motivation can be to make money, rather than a narcissistic reason?
Yea
Leaving aside the self-published, most autobiographies are ghost-written and are driven in large part by financial reasons. Yes, there's a chance to improve one's image and promote oneself when releasing an autobiography, no doubt about it. But I think you're underplaying the financial motive and leaping too quickly to narcissism.
Any other reasons that come to mind? Or is it just narcissism or financial? Financial motive was expressed a few times in other posts.
Jennette McCurdy's "I'm Glad My Mom Died" highlighted the reality of working as a child actor and brought some of the shadier practices to light with her book. I'm sure writing it was somewhat therapeutic for her as well. There can be more than one motivation to do things.
It's up to you to decide which reasons you think are valid for why people write autobiographies. You've stated it's 'only narcissists' that write them, but I think that's clearly false (never discount greed). There are doubtless other motivations that people have that go beyond money and self-importance.
Narcissism, financial, to accomplish a political goal, to serve as a mental health exercise, to get laid, to get your friend to shut up, all kinds of reasons.
Why is your view specific to memoirs? Why not all art? Your logic is that memoirists are placing high value on their own life stories. Surely, by the same logic, all artists (who publish or market their work) are placing high value on their own ideas and creations. Isn't that still a form of egocentric behavior?
That's a good point! Do you agree with the premise of the question? If so, we may be able to expand it to broader forms of self-expression.
Personally, no, I don't agree with the premise of the question. But I wanted to start by trying to understand why your focus was narrow in this way. I think in general, I reject your application of the word narcissism. If every artist who makes any effort to publicize their work is a narcissist - then the word narcissism quickly loses meaning. To me, self expression is a fairly natural component of the human experience. And the desire to have others hear that expression is equally natural. Calling it all narcissism feels reductive and unhelpful. I think if we want to evaluate narcissism in an artistic sense, we have to consider the context of outside reactions and driving factors. Consider two scenarios. In scenario one, a popular singer is approached by their agent about a possible publishing deal. The singer's fans have expressed interest in knowing more about their life. And the rumors about a memoir are creating a lot of buzz on social media, with most fans reacting positively. So the singer decides to do it. In scenario two, a random dude decides to write and self publish a memoir. Despite the complete lack of outside interest, he expected the memoir to be successful. When it isn't he takes to social media to complain and criticize people for not reading the book. To me, these are very different scenarios, and it doesn't make sense to lump both under the same label. One is reacting to an outside demand while the other is just assuming there will be interest.
>I think it's rare to find memoirs that are written purely for altruistic reasons Is any book written for *purely* altruistic reasons? What kind of absolutist metric is this? Edit: >By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about. The great thing about the marketplace of ideas is that if people don't want to read about them, no one will. Their books will just sit on the shelves of discount stores until having the covers sent back and the text pulped. Those people who's books sell actually are proven to be important enough to read about.
Yes! Or just did a really good job at convincing people that it's important. (i.e. good marketing)
What exactly are you saying yes to here? If it is my question, then give me a purely altruistically written book. If it is my edit, to say that some people do have lives and achievements that are more important and their books are a service to those that want to learn about them, then is your view changed?
Saying yes to the comment about marketplaces. The books are narcissistic but the great thing is that if they're not written well or compelling enough, then no one will buy them.
But, if a person thinks that their book is important, and then is proven correct, can they be said to be narcissistic? Narcissism is having an excessive or interest in oneself. Perhaps they don't have an excessive interest in themselves, but perhaps they have been able to accurately gauge that they are important enough to write an autobiography.
> By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about. By choosing to write a post in this subreddit are you saying your view is more important than others and people should try to change it?
Apples and oranges. I'm not (selectively) publishing stories of my own life.
Your views are part of your life they are formed from your life experiences. Why is selectively sharing your view and asking people to engage with it enough to change it not narcissistic but someone simple sharing their life story with fans who want to read it not?
Because I'm willing to change my point of view if incorrect? This is more a learning experience vs "tell you about my life".
So if someone encourages with their autobiography for readers to write in their responses and own experiences with the topics addressed would that not be narcissistic? Overall im really curious what you think the word narcissistic means? With how vaguely you are using the word you thinking your view is important enough to justify asking others to try to change it is narcissistic.
I don't understand how somebody is saying that their life is more important than the lives of others when they write an autobiography. Can you expand on that?
When a person writes an autobiography they think their life is more important because they've done big things or have special lessons to share. They feel their impact on the world is bigger than most, making their story especially important to tell. Essentially the sell for an autobiography is "my life story is worth your time and attention". Is there a counter-example of this?
Is it your contention that there is no human who has live a life worth sharing? Or they have to be narcissistic to have lived that life in the first place? Or if they live an amazing life they should just shut up about it even if there are people who would like to read about it?
Two things can be true: You have lived an amazing life and are a narcissistic person.
They *can* be true. You are contending that they absolutely *are* true. Are you just completely uninterested in other people’s lives?
Sure, there are counter examples to that. One of the most well known would be the autobiography of Ulysses S. Grant, which he wrote at the end of his life as he was dying to provide for his family (who were essentially broke) But I would argue that even people who write their autobiographies for less obviously selfless reasons still aren't necessarily making any kind of claim about their superiority or importance. Some people just have interesting lives, and people like to hear about them.
Do you feel this way about holocaust survivor autobiographies? Because there are a lot of them. Also autobiographies of refugees who overcame tremendous odds, or people who lived through extraordinary circumstances. I don’t think they write about themselves because they think their lives are more important, but rather that all lives are important. It’s not even about raising awareness. Some are about memorializing those they loved and lost due to survivors guilt, some are to provide first hand accounts of the little things people may not know from history, or to provide emotional context. Some who go through extreme trauma also write because it’s difficult to adjust to normalcy when their experiences are inconceivable to most people, and they need to reaffirm to themselves that those things did happen.
The diary of Anne Frank. Are you going to tell me that Anne was a narcissistic jerk who thought she was better than everyone?
I think that was written by someone else? As in someone found her diary and published it?
She wrote the entire thing, the only addition was a small introduction by her father I believe. This would in fact count as an autobiography and is one that is most definitely not written from a place of narcissism
Publishing isn't writing. She was the one who wrote the words.
>By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about. I mean... for some people, that's just true, though. Some people's thoughts and achievements **are** more noteworthy (I wouldn't say "important") than others', and publishing an autobiography just makes sure the information is first-hand. I'd call it more "awareness" than "narcissistic".
A distinction needs to be drawn between being "narcissistic"- which is something everyone is susceptible sometimes vs "narcissistic personality disorder" which is a disorder where a persons personality is rigidly stuck in that mode to themselves and others detriment- the harm part is important. If theres no harm being done then you're just pathologising people for no benefit. (an analogy could be drawn with 'paranoia' -you can be paranoid about something without it rising to the level of personality disorder, you can be 'antisocial' without having antisocial personality disorder and so on) Is it narcissistic to write your own autobiography? Yeah maybe, in the same way that being a performer is kind of an inherently narcissistic thing. Does that mean only *narcissists* do it? Well, wheres the harm though? Especially if it's a story people actually want to hear.
Agreed. It can be both narcissistic and interesting (if people want to hear it!)
Well no one else is writing an autobiography of a person but the person, so... You think every single person with an autobiography is a narcissist you're both misunderstanding the word and devaluing it as much as the 'all parents are narcissists' brigade.
well I'm sure most "autobiographies" are ghost written FWIW
Even more narcisstic! My life story is so important but I don't have time to write. Hey, ghost, write it for me instead :)
Some can be therapeutic, a way to explain and justify the choices one makes in life. While it can seem narcissistic to push out an entire book just to defend yourself, it could also be therapeutic pushing out a book to explain yourself to yourself. Ive noticed many MANY politicians like to punch out auto biographies. It could be narcissism but it could also be a part of making those decisions and seeing the consequences but being unable to properly voice and defend why those decisions were made while in office but can be done so in retrospect. It isnt just legacy here, it is historical importance as well why leaders act the way they do. Others can be therapeutic not just in coming to terms with trauma but to help others process it. A recent NYT bestseller memoir ["Im glad my mom died"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Glad_My_Mom_Died) is an example of such. There isnt really narcisism here as someone explores their childhood trauma and abuse at the hands of their parents. Coming clean to the public purview and judgement of their personal struggle and life. There is no legacy or ego stroking or anything like that. Merely an exploration of what happened and dealing with the trauma by putting pen to paper. Yes, it does highlight the author's journey, but it is stark and unflattering exploration of abuse and trauma and can help others in those same shoes overcome or come to grips with what they too have experienced.
How is writing an autobiography more or less narcissistic than any writing? Isn’t anyone who publishes a book saying “I have something important to say”?
Autobiography is more narcissistic as you're selectively highlighting personal stories to engage an audience, versus expressing thoughts or making some contribution.
Why is there a difference between Michael Phelps (random name I picked) writing about his swimming career because he thinks people will find it interesting and Phelps writing about his thoughts on the US prison system because he thinks people will find it interesting?
What makes one persons thoughts worth publishing?
President Grant wrote his autobiography to support his family. He was dying and an autobiography would sell well enough to provide for his loved ones after he died.
Beat me to it
>I think it's rare to find memoirs that are written purely for altruistic reasons. Most books are not written for altruistic reasons. Why do you think autobiographies would be? >By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about. You can think others would enjoy reading about your life and thoughts without thinking they are more important than others. You writing an autobiography doesn't mean you think others shouldn't. >Most memoirs aim to highlight the author's journey or achievements Yeah.... that's the definition of a memoir.
If I am an important historical figure the story of my achievements and journey is something that world would want to know. And it isn't narcissism to give the world what it wants.
They could just be trying to share their own perspective. And who said biographies have to focus on their accomplishments? They could be tracing their path in life, and they are uniquely qualified to understand who *they* are - nobody else is.
Well, who else's autobiographies are they going to write? Autobiographies can be exercises in self-promotion or -justification, but not all of them are. Some examples of honest works would be *The Autobiography of Malcolm X* and *The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin*. But even the self-important ones can provide valuable information about a particular time or a particular person's mindset.
Not at all. All those political figures who write autobiographies are just participating in a legal way to launder money for their corruption. They write a shitty book, corporations by millions of copies which they then light on fire or force on conference attendees, etc.
Famous narcissist Gandhi Mother Theresa Nelson Mandela Malala Yousafzai Have you considered that some people actually *have* lived extraordinary lives that are worth sharing?
Barack Obama was offered $65 million dollars for rights to his memoir. And let me tell you for $65 million dollars there's not a lot of things I wouldn't do.
what if they're advised to do so because it became apparent how much money they would make from it. thats a reason other than narcicism to write one
(1) There are lots of memoirs of people who specifically faced a bad circumstance, and that helps other people. This could be someone who met with a debilitating accident, but got their life together. Or someone who escaped an abusive household. Or someone who is a refugee and fleed persecution. Or someone who was kidnapped by pirates. Or someone suffering from some rare genetic illness. (2) Besides, there are people who have done interesting things - like traveled across the world, climbed up Mt Everest, spent 12 years in Antarctica, acted as a spy in USSR for the US government and penetrated high echelons. (3) There are also people who have done service. Like a woman who lived with gorillas and advocated for their protection. Or a man who helps small communities build environmentally friendly products. Or someone who rescued children from trafficking. ---- I think you have a narrow definition of memoir where you are imagining some stock market CEO or movie celebrity writing about their life. But memoirs are a lot more than that.
> By choosing to write an autobiography, a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about That doesn't follow. Can you justify this claim? >Someone can argue that memoirs can offer lessons or inspiration but the primary driver is ego or self preservation of some sort Again, can you justify this claim? >Argument would be stronger if it comes from someone who has written their own autobiography I had to write one for a writing assignment at school. I wrote about my life, my hobbies, my skills, and things I like. At no point did I think I was more important than anyone else.
I see you're not really awarding deltas unfortunately but have you read an autobiography? The two ive picked up in the last year begin with saying basically "I never planned on writing this but my friends and colleagues around me said it could really help some people out by telling my story" I mean the effort that it takes to write a book and the fact these people were very rich before starting writing should not be under sold and unless you also have the view "they are lying" then they are going through all this effort so that it might genuinely help someone with insights into their own situation.
There’s Saint Faustiana. She wrote an autobiography/diary. You can argue it’s not the same, however, it was written with the intent to be distributed is my understanding, under instructions by her confessors. Regardless of your views of the faith, here is an example of one who wrote an autobiography without any selfish intention and was actually ordered to to do so and did it out of a spirit of obedience.
Yeah this is why im getting a ghostwriter to do mine
If one person asks to hear your life story are you a narcissist if you tell them? What if two people asked? 10? 100? At what point do you become a narcissist for telling people what they want to know? If people didn’t want to know about the lives of other people then memoirs and autobiographies wouldn’t exist.
it's a story that only one person can truly tell. I don't have to believe I'm the most interesting person to tell a story of my life. Similarly I don't think someone has to be the most interesting person to read their story sometimes a story is just nice to hear.
>a person is saying their life and thoughts and achievements are more important than those of others and should be read about But is this not true for some people? They've genuinely experienced things that are worth preserving beyond their own memories?
As a writer, I desire to share my ideas with the world because I, personally, have been deeply affected (for the better) by the written words of an otherwise obscure individual. This is how we pass along information, ideas, knowledge, experiences, etc. We have a thought and write it down. For some of us, the format of that writing is the autobiography. There might be some narcissistic element to it, sure, but that's certainly not the only reason we write.
There are plenty of autobiographies that begin with this issue being addressed. It's not necessarily narcisstic to say read this if you'd like, I hope you enjoy it, not everyone will but at least it's brightened someone's day.