posted
Of course, I'm not thier yet. But on the topic of 'poorly' written novels... Once a writer has a string of successes, I wonder if the editorial standards are lowered.
Maybe the publishers figure, since readers are going to read it anyway, why bother? Or perhaps a writer is rushing to meet a deadline to put out another of thier series. So they throw in several -ly a page, use a litter of 'to be' verbs.
Of course with me, I've been let down usually around the last novels of a series. But it's not really the writing (which for the most part should be invisible to the reader) but the story itself. Plots are swept under the carpet, problems that should have taken several books to resolve are solved all too easy, things go off into right field (BTW I'm left-handed)...
My biggest disapointments is usually with favorite authors and series. Like Roger Zelazy. One of my favorite books of all time is the 9th book in the Amber series. But then the 10th and final book came along and I was bitterly crushed. Of course, I'll cut him a break, he was dying as he wrote it.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited December 03, 2004).]
posted
I've wondered the same thing myself. Given that people don't become writers by being lazy, I've always assumed that the pressures of commercialization influence authors towards more output / less quality. I'd be interested to know if that's really the main factor.
I know that Hemingway used to criticize Fitzgerald for suborning the quality of his writing to commercial interests; but they had such a strange relationship that its impossible confidently to derive truth from what either said about the other.
posted
Perhaps your trouble is that you read authors producing series of more than 3 books. Not to paint them all with one stroke or anything.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted
Here's my take, as a writer, on the series thing:
I don't want to be bound to something that I may tire of. Like Rowling for example. her last book was scads worse than the previous four. I attribute it to burnout. She's tired of doing it, but she's trapped herself into a seven book deal.
I (fingers crossed) don't intend to make that same mistake.
posted
I think, also, that as writers become more successful, two things happen with the editing:
1. They get more power and have more leeway to refuse edits. I'm thinking of Ann Rice's recent hissy fit, where she says every word she writes is golden and no one, but no one, is going to edit her.
2. Editors become more cautious with the editing - they don't want to break something that's clearly popular.
posted
It's the Stephen King principle. Mind you, I think he's a fine author. He's written some of my favorite stories ever. Now, he's got such a strong fanbase that he can now crap on a page and call it his latest, and approximately 398 million people will buy it. So, if you know crap will sell millions, why put the effort into creating art?
If someone would pay me 9.50/hr. + benefits to crap on some paper, I would certainly quit my job.
posted
How many of you have read Stephen King's Bag of Bones? In it, the main character is a novelist. He gets writer's block, but he still has a contract he has to fulfill. So he does (he says) what most writers do. He opens his closet and pulls out a novel he wrote that was never published. As it turns out, he has about a half dozen of these things.
Now, here's my thesis.
Most writers write continually. Every day. But most writers don't have the luxurgy of knowing everything the write is going to be published. So when they write something that's not as good as something else, they put that which is of lesser quality aside and get on with life. So I suspect the vast majority of writers have a closet full of old manuscripts that have never seen the light of day. Hell, even Hemingway had a pile of unpublished manuscripts--some dating all the way back to the 20s--when he died. Even Flannery O'Connor talked about how most of what she wrote was just bad.
Now I'm guessing that really successful writers--writers like King, or Rice, or Grisham, or Jordan--will send EVERYTHING they write to be published. I'm guessing they don't have that closet full of unwanted manuscripts.
I used to condemn writers for this kind of behavior--being so uncritical of their work. But I'm not any longer. Every writer is allowed to write a dud or two. And, as we all know, we want everything we write to be published. Unlike them, we're not in that position. So I don't fault the writers as much as I do the NY editors who really are only in it for the money.
Once you're a celebrity of any kind, you can put your name on anything and it will sell.
Publishers know this. Editors know this. Writers know this. Readers know this. Even small children and their imaginary friends know this.
More importantly, after that huge blowup over when it is appropriate to use an apostrophe in creating the plural, why did you do it in your topic title?
posted
So if your famous just go recluse and never be heard from again by that name. Choose a different one and do it all over again. Which would be as hard as all get out but fun. (unless of course you wish to feed your children.)
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
I pray I will never become so prideful that I won't accept good advice when someone gives it--like an editor.
quote:Is it that bad to be handcuffed when the cuffs are made of 24k gold?
I suppose not. But the reality is that Rowling is a complete freak of nature to have hit it so big. Most writers, even with multi-book series', (and I expect to be a proud member of this group) don't make enough money to be chained with 24k gold cuffs. Not by a long shot. More likely they're cheap plastic cuffs.
posted
Most of what Rowling has made hasn't been from the books. It's that royalty on the movie tickets and rentals and on every one of those HP Christmas ornaments and Valentines, and toys, and don't forget those little red bags of jelly beans. Merchandising is where the big checks come from. Walmart, Kmart, Target, even the small Mom and Pop stores. Is there anywhere you can't find HP stuff?
Anyway, I suspect the reason for off books is somewhere between Survivor and Balthasar's answers. Every writer has an off day, and produces work that is of lower quality from time to time. But, as you move up the ladder you begin to write on contract. That means you don't have time to do a poor job. Because you're pressed for time you clean up what you've got the best you can and send it in. Because Publishers want product (to cover your fat advance) they hound the Editors to get it in print. Because you're a successful author, the Editors are reluctant to correct you, and so it goes happily to print with whatever skid marks you might have left on the paper.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
