We've talked a bit about truth in writing, how even within the wildest fantasy there must be truth in order for an audience to relate and suspend disbelief.
Some people took this as putting some of themself in their writing, and while I can have truth, it can be completely not my personal truth. If I were writing something historical, I can do a tonne of research and include a lot of accuracy and still not have it be *me*.
So, now I'd like to talk a bit about that. How much, as an author, do you put of yourself into your writing?
I have personally known or seen authors who will create lead characters in their likeness and then make them into heroes. Laurell K. Hamilton comes to mind. It is glaringly obvious how she puts herself into her writing, as Anita Blake.
Stephen King, Anne Rice, Edgar Allen Poe, etc used their writings to exorcise personal demons.
Jack London expanded upon personal experience through settings and characters in his life, as did Mark Twain and well, I could go on and on and on.
My point, everyone does it in different ways. Some through their protagonist, some through personal connection to a setting, some through support characters, etc. I have found that these authors are fairly consistent in how they present it though.
It has made me stop and look at my stories at how I put myself into it and I realised I am not so consistent across the board. For my "fantasy"/experimental I put the truth more in characters. For the more realistic stories I think it is easier because it is through situation, character and setting. I also feel, in thinking on this,that I find those of either historic or "fantasy"/experimental to be more enjoyable for me to write because they are more challenging to put myself, truth and balance into.
What are your thoughts on this?