There's a great gulf of difference between 'accepted/conventionally published' writers and us. When we write, we (but maybe this only applies to me) are at great pains to write conventionally, to avoid eccentricity. This is because we self-criticise through the eyes of what we consider our audience - peers, agents, publishers, readers. We end up imprisoned by an entirely imaginary entity looking over our shoulder, ready to rap us over the knuckles. Writers accepted by the establishment as benchmarks do not suffer this problem. And we, instead of fault-finding when we come across some jarring unconventionality in their work, rather ponder its significance and seek to understand the motivations of the writer. Today I am going to allow myself that same leniency.
Comments