posted
If writing is your career and your publisher gives you deadlines, then by all means work to please your audience. If you're an unpayed writer or you do writing for a hobby and get published, then writing to please others is bad idea. You should derive a certain pleasure for creating a story and putting it on paper. If you desire to make money and fame out of writing, then you should put the pen down and go do something more constructive and greedy.
You know what, forget what I said earlier. If you are a writer and you think writing is nothing, but a business, and you can just pump out book after book with your only regard being towards making money and not towards the pleasure in writing a book, then burn every manuscript you own, take a sledgehammer to your computer, and roll your car over your fingers because you don't deserve to use your talent. A writer should take pride only in the fact that he has the talent to write and nothing more. If anything comes of your writing beyond that, then you should count yourself lucky.
quote:If you are a writer and you think writing is nothing, but a business, and you can just pump out book after book with your only regard being towards making money and not towards the pleasure in writing a book, then burn every manuscript you own, take a sledgehammer to your computer, and roll your car over your fingers because you don't deserve to use your talent.
Hmm, that's kind of... harsh. If someone has the talent to write books that vast numbers of people want to read, and that can thus make them a comfortable (or more than comfortable) living, then it's hard to argue that they shouldn't, just because "real writers" write for the pure pleasure of it.
I would much rather write what I want to write, than what I think will sell... and yet, do I really write just what I want to read? Not long ago I went through my various part-written WIPs, analysing which ones I felt were more saleable, which ones were better as "first novels", and so forth. And I certainly haven't done anything like the research into markets that a lot of people on here have.
Ultimately, pretty much everything in life ends up being a compromise, and it's just a matter of where on the scale between (for want of better terms) "artist" and "hack" that you want to sit. I don't think I'd want to go too far to the "hack" end, but on the other hand I have read that writers of romantic fiction and, more recently, erotica, are actually in short supply compared to the demand. Assuming I could write in those genres, would it really be wrong of me to do so? If the readers enjoy the stories, and the author gets paid for providing that enjoyment... is that really quite such a terrible thing?
posted
Hmmm Mystic, Not sure if I agree with that last paragraph of yours.
Your saying that an author who is a good writer shouldn't pump out books if they dont get a pleasure from writing and are purely in it for money?
I say if you can make a living out of it, and you are good at what you do -- get on with it and dont let the arty fartyness of the task at hand get in the way.
I come into work and manage I.T. projects all day long. I dont particularly enjoy it anymore, but I think I'm good at it and it pays the bills. So should I be moving on to some crummy job for a pittence, because I dont have a passion for it?
If the writings good and the readers are buying it, then the story has got to be okay. Otherwise the sales wouldn't be there and neither would the opportunity. Even if its performed as a business, rather than a labour of love, the readers are getting enjoyment and the author is receiving wealth.
If somebody has a natural talent, they should use / exploit it however they wish. Why let that talent go to waste just because somebody perceives them as being a cash cow rather than an artist? Especially since if they dont enjoy the writing purpose, they are having to work harder for their living than somebody who loves to write and has the talent too.
[This message has been edited by benskia (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
I know what you guys are saying and it is true...but writing is not a business, it is an art. I'm not saying you can't profit from writing and also get the pleasure of doing it, but I don't think people should write if they only look at the money and the attention they receive. If the first thing you tell me about your story is the amount of money you sold it for, I am probably going to hit you. I am very defensive of keeping writing an art.
Long ago, the ability to write was treasured and revered. It was a power over all the people of the world and this power gave them pleasure and should give the writers of today pleasure as well. Writers used their power to tell the world a brilliant story or change the world. They wanted to make a difference in society and not in their wallet. But now, most Americans can write and so the power to write has been spread too thin and become weak. Now any idiot can write a book and do it only for the sake of the money and a few lines in a magazine. These filthy subhumans desecrate our sacred art and clutter up the shelves with their trash and hide the real writers, who are treated with equality by a bookstore with the heaping masses of trash and slime that have a bad habit of refering to themselves as "humans" or "writers". I would love to walk into a bookstore and know that everything in there is worth a read because the writer cared enough about their own story and didn't worry about money.
So if you write and care little for what you write about, only worrying about if you will be liked and well-payed, go ahead, keep writing, but just remember that the "no vacancy" light never turns on in Hell.
[This message has been edited by Mystic (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
There are two facets to any art... the act of creation, which scratches our inner urges; and the act of presenting it to an audience. Whether you draw, sculpt, act, or write, any form of creativity ultimately involves an audience. A good writer ALWAYS considers their audience. It's why we ask for critiques for our work, to make sure we are communicating properly to our audience.
Book sales are simply a tool to measure how successful we've been at presenting our creative work to our audience.
The entire premise that a SUCCESSFUL author can sell writing that is devoid of creative impulse is bogus. Sure, they can try... but if the numbers aren't there from book sales, even a forgiving publisher would eventually withdraw their support. If you take a look at truly successful authors: Orson Scott Card, Stephen King, Isaac Asimov, Ben Bova... you will see that success doesn't hinder creativity. It merely provides a living so that these folks can devote more time to their art.
We all have to make a living. If some of us are able to supplement (or even live off of) the fruits of our creative work, then so much the better! It is no more "selling out" to make money from writing books than it is to make money as a grocery clerk or a nurse, or an architect. Money is not inherently evil, and neither is the desire to make a living.
Most people would love to make a living doing what they love to do most. In our case it's writing. Making a profit off your writing is a good thing, not a bad thing.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
Look I realize that it is alright to be rich and take pleasure in your work. However, do you not agree that people with only ability to write should be allowed to be published alongside those who actually care what is on the page? Okay, I am not satisfied with the whole "let people do what they want and don't fret over it thing" or "Don't forget about freedom of speech".
Too many people are allowed to recreate other people's works with the changes only noticeable to a good lawyer and to what ends? So that person profits off of some good writer's hardwork by changing a few names. MIDDLEEARTH IS CLOSED AND SO IS HOGWARTS. THE ELVES ARE DEAD, THE ORCS ARE GONE, THE DWARVES ARE EXTINCT, THE KNIGHTS BECAME POLICE OFFICERS, AND THE WIZARDS BECAME SCIENTISTS. NO ONE HAS A NAME WITH MORE THAN FOUR SYLLABLES ANYMORE. If you need to copy someone else's invented creatures, then you aren't trying hard enough. Even Tolkien was a dang copycat because his story is based on the German folklore story, the Nimbelungenlied. So let's all the copy the copycat, let's never have another original idea. We will continue to make books with a hero who grows up the in the mystic forest, his village is destroyed, and he goes on an arduous quest to destroy the dark wizard, movies with robots that are bad, the robot kills everyone, the hero and heroine make out, and then they save the world followed by a cheesy ending, let's make one more song about sex, drugs, hoes, and violence, why not create another tv show about a fat guy and his derranged family and put it on CBS, create another reality show that has everyone whispering behind each other's backs and the drama building as slut A sleeps guy A and then she sleeps with guy B after breaking her alliance with guy A, and for good measure let's have one more post about how it is alright to make money and do what you love. I'm alright with that, but it sickens me when someone says they love to write and only copy other people for the sake of some quick cash.
If people care so little about creating something new, inspriring, and wonderful, then I'm getting out of this craft because it sickens me to think that all writing is, is a source of income and not enjoyment.
[This message has been edited by Mystic (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
I'm of the opinion that anyone in this business "just for the money" isn't going to make it. They're looking for a quick, easy road to fame and fourtune...and writing is neither quick, nor easy. Somewhere around 30,000 words, the money-grasping kind will realize that writing is hard work...a lot harder work than flipping burgers at McDonald's. Writing one novel is hard. But who ever sells the first novel they ever wrote? No. They'll have to write one or two more, if they're lucky. Anyone writing "just for the money" doesn't have a snowball's chance in you-know-where of making it.
That said...I don't just write for pleasure, because frankly, writing isn't always pleasurable! Sitting on a fourth draft, hitting your head against a wall because you don't know how to fix the climax isn't my idea of fun. But I do it anyway, because I love this crazy world of stories and drafting and query letters.
posted
Mystic: Yes, there are many similarities between the Nimbelugenlied and The Lord of the Rings, but Tolkien himself steadfastly argued that he did not get the idea from that story. He said that the only real similarity in the two stories is a magic ring and that was it. At first I thought that he'd taken his story from that one as well, but upon closer inspection I found that the two stories were actully very different.
Another thing is that people have been copying other people since ancient times. To borrow a cliché: Nothing is created in a vacuum. People have been borrowing ideas from one another for a very long time (i.e. Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark). If you listen to classical music, you'll notice that Beethoven borrowed a few things from Bach and Bach borrowed things from Mozart, who borrowed things from other composers. What made each of their works original was they way in which they used these borrowed ideas. The same goes for story writing. It's not wrong to borrow ideas. It's nigh on impossible to come up with something completely original in the first place. What makes a story original is how those borrowed ideas are strung together and presented. You can borrow an idea and then add your own twists to it. (Just don't plagarize. There's a fine line between the two.) My point is that NOTHING is completely original. You'd be hard pressed to find something that is.
On a completely different note, but one that's on topic nevertheless, I write mostly to please myself, but I try to keep in mind what others want as well. First, I make sure I'm satisfied with my story and then I send it out to be critiqued so that I can make the changes I need to in order to make it more enjoyable for my readers (while still being satisfied with it myself).
[This message has been edited by Shendülféa (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
I wonder why you're so angry? You really are coming across as self righteous and upset. Have you ever heard or read a story that you felt you could tell or write better? Should you not flex your writing muscles and turn an old tale into art because someone else put it out there first? Even if it 500 or more years ago? If you were told that people really wanted new stories about Faeries, would you refuse to see if you make a new one because there are other books on the subject or involving them in some way? If you had a kid who loved the Jack in the Beanstalk story and they said they wanted to be read more stories like that, would you refuse? If something is slightly different then it's not the same, but it seems like your saying books shouldn't come within 10 feet of sharing the same topic or premise. Don't you know of people who love vampire stories and have all the different movies and books about vampires? Why can't they enjoy the variety on a subject they like? How much creativity do you want everyone else to do to make you happy? I can think of so many good books I would have missed out on if the writers had not written them because someone else wrote about dragons first, or because someone else had their wizards in school before. Even though the writers took it a different direction, it's still the same starting idea. Some of the professional writers out there wanted to write, and they wanted to write so well that people would know their names and they wouldn't have to work a 9-5 job. They wanted the freedom to spend all day writing and rewriting and making art, but that requires money. I doubt many were hoping to win the lottery so they could have their dreams. The people who write crap to have 15 mins of fame a) don't write fiction/fantasy b) don't stay in the field long. Those people put out their one time book "Why Jackson was Guilty" (or some such) and then they go away. You can't stop fools, and you can't let them stop you. Also, please, don't take it out on everyone else because those fools exist, or because someone was more dream than effort. They are sparks, not flames.
Posts: 233 | Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted
Beth: If you aren't going to contribute, don't bother posting. You choose to read and not be influenced. If the best input you can make is a childish "Who gives you the right to say this", then please don't post. I don't want to start a flame war with you, so until you think of something intelligent to say I just ignore your future posts. No one likes a nitpick either, alright?
Miriel: You do have a good point and oddly enough, I am actually a little swayed because I didn't see it from that point of view. To me writing is never hard, well hard as in aggravating. I enjoy those moments of frustration and agony, when that perfect word, phrase, or climax is just out of reach because I know that I will find them and that is rewarding. I guess for other people it is arduous to reach 30,000 words with something, but to me the challenge will make that word count fly by. So I will change my stance to this: If you have the talent and endurance to write, then go for it because if you are going on sheer greed then you won't finish the book anyway, unless you steal someone else's work then it is a simply matter of name changing and a few plots tweaks.
Shendülféa: The Nimbelung and Lord of the Rings thing...I'm just going to drop that for the hope that you are better experienced in that field, even though I do think there are more similiarites there. As far as everything else, I was talking about plagiarism...sort of. I am talking about people taking other people's stories, but changing them enough to avoid a lawsuit. These almost-plagiarizers take other people's works only for the sake of money. They are not writers, they are con artists. I remember a long time ago when Sliders was still on and I saw a series of books that was exactly the same, except for a few changes. Now on Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark, I think that if both stories are talking about an actual event then there is no problem and it is plausible. However, if the Bible stole the flood thing from Gilgamesh, then all of Christianity will crumble, so let's just keep quiet about that one.
JmariC: I'm upset, not self-righteous. If I was the latter, then I would be making some progress with everyone. Right now I'm just a heretic at most. I not talking about people who steal other people's work and make them better. I am talking people stealing other people's work, making it worse, and profiting off of the readers' trust in the work because it shares elements with the popular, stolen work.
[This message has been edited by Mystic (edited August 15, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Mystic (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
Wow, this topic is harsher than I expected when I glanced at the title. I'm still reeling a bit and trying to figure out what to say.
I'm with Beth when she said (paraphrased) that we each write for our own reasons and it's not anyone else's business.
Moreover, I disagree that anyone should stop writing for any reason that appeals to them. In fact, I find greediness a perfectly valid reason to churn out utter shit.
The people I'm disappointed in areb the readers who make this profitable.
But I assure you that if money-making did not exist for writers, if sound business principles couldn't be applied, not only would there be less crap, but there would also be less beauty.
Personally, I'm motivated by lots of reasons, including the potential for money and fame. I think if I were only motivated by a love of the art that I would have quit years ago. When one motivation isn't cutting it, when I have to get the butt in the chair for example, I can think about what could happen, what might happen, if I succeed. Then, when the word count goals and deadlines (external or internal) surround me and threaten to choke me, when I feel the need to rush too fast, the love of the art reminds me that more important than getting it done, is getting it done right. I don't just want to be a writer. I want to be a great writer.
posted
Oh, good, now I'm being told to shut up. That always works.
Mystic, you don't get to decide how I write. You don't get to decide if I'm going to hell. And you don't get to decide that I have to agree with you in order to post in this topic.
posted
Well, this is all getting pointlessly heated.
Mystic. You are entitled both to have and to voice your opinions. There are many people who share them, to some extent. However your presentation is coming across as more and more shrill and, indeed, upset with every posting, so may I politely suggest you type your responses, then read them, then delete them, then think about them, then type them again more reasonably. It's a very useful technique on bulletin boards.
There are definitely examples of successful "hack" writers - here in the UK, Lord Jeffrey Archer is a well known and much quoted example (he wrote his first book to pay off debts, and has been the subject of at least one lawsuit over plagiarism - but despite his murky personal life and eventually a spell in prison, his work still sells). I happen to loathe them, personally, but I would never dream of demanding that they be banned from the bookshelves. The challenge is to educate and enlighten readers so that the "good" stuff sells, and that's always been, and always will be, a challenge. Most of what is quoted as "great literature" is great only because it was popular in its day, often not because of literyary merit or artistic motives (take a look at Dickens, for example).
I get the impression that something has recently irked you to an extreme extent (a rejection letter?); I really would advise you to calm down and consider both what you're saying, and what other people are saying.
Oh, and as for Tolkein; Tolkein was trying to create a mythology for the English, who don't really have one of their own. To do so, he borrowed, logically, from Germanic myth (since we are more a Germanic people than a Celtic one), as well as other sources (such as his studies of Finnish). Mythology, dealing with the most basic themes of human reality, is always going to have resonances, but it isn't necessarily plagiaristic. Drinking from the same well as someone else is fine; stealing their cup is not.
posted
Well, now that you've narrowed it done a bit it's easier to understand. You hadn't said plagiarism or outright stealing before. I can't agree with someone saying no one should write stories that involve orcs, wizards, knights and Elves or have characters with long hard to pronounce names just because it's been done by someone else. There are Wizard stories that don't even have the same price of magic or envoirment. There are stories with Elves who live in the modern world, on a different world, in the classic settings and only in dreams. There is still room for someone to make something new of them and there will always be people who want more of their favorite meat with a different sauce. Side note: I didn't say you /were/ self righteous, I said you were coming across that way (and I doubt being self righteous would get you anywhere, especially with me). Perhaps it would have been better if I had clearly stated that you might consider calming down. This is one of the those moments when the voice of the writing is coming thru to the reader with ease, and it's not sounding pleasant or rational.
Posts: 233 | Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted
Suppose, for a moment, some of us are not who we appear to be. One or more of us is secretly 12! Less than 18, anyway. If we knew this, what would be different?
For me, the realization of this possibility makes me able to rise above flaming, rather than fighting it. I don't expect 12-year-olds to have the restraint and articulation to disagree without exploding. I wish they did. They probably wish it, too -- they'd get sent to their rooms less often.
Ergo, I will have no dog in this fight. And I will write to please myself AND my audience.
posted
Ahem. Ignoring the various things about various posters which have been said, since such things have no bearing on the topic at hand, I would like to offer an opinion on the subject of writing for money.
I work in the arts. As much as I wish I could say that I had passion for every project I worked on, I can't. Frequently I have to take on a project that doesn't interest me, but I have to pay my bills. There are many people who work in one of the art fields, be that writing, visual arts or performing arts, that recognize that there are times when one must cater to the audience.
Robert Nowall asked:
quote:If your writing doesn't please yourself, how can it possibly please any audience?
That's easy. One is not always a member of one's target audience, but a thorough knowledge of the target audience can create a good product.
I think that none of the people on the board currently have "writer" as their primary profession. Once I passed the point where I made a living from my art I stopped having the luxury to turn down projects that didn't interest me. I still endeavor to put as much of my skill and talent into crafting these things, but I do not enjoy always it. I am still passionate about the artform, but do not mistake that for the job.
For the rest of this conversation, I would ask that we refrain from pointing fingers at one another and instead focus on the issues being raised.
[This message has been edited by MaryRobinette (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
That is a good point, Mary, and it reminded me of something.
About a year ago, I watched the musical "Rent." I thought it was awful. The crappy ending (which I will not reveal for those who haven't seen it and might want to) notwithstanding, the basic theme that it's better for artists to starve than to cheapen their work by doing it for money rather than for art ... well, it completely failed to resonate with me. Unless you think starvation will cause hallucinations that will improve the quality and fun of your work, I suggest putting food on the table as a good start.
We've been writing things we don't care about since elementary school. How many school papers and research papers were you wild about? Yet all along I got plenty of encouragement that my writing was great, though my soul wasn't in it.
I don't think your heart and soul has to be in something for it to be good or even great.
Now, I'm not entirely certain if we're really talking about writing for money or writing bad stuff that is basically a cheap knock-off of something good....we seem to be wavering back and forth. They are, in my mind, two different and entirely unrelated topics.
It's been said there are no new ideas. I think this is true: everything you write has been written about in some way before. There's a fat book of all of Shakespeare's plays...as they were before he found the stories and re-wrote them into plays. If we ban everything that took ideas from something else, we would haven't Shakespeare, for sure (not that this would bother me...just an example). Even Homer was just re-telling a myth in a new and exciting way. If we weren't allowed to draw on other ideas, none of us could ever use orcs (I'm fairly positive Tolkien invented them). We couldn't have elves as we know them (before Tolkien, elves were pretty much interchangable with fairies). And, for that matter, we wouldn't have Peter Pan: those stories draw heavily on folklore about faerie-land. Plagerism is wrong, yes, I agree. But ideas...you can't copyright those. There are no new ideas, besides. It's how you use and combine ideas, and the characters you make, that constitute a new piece of fiction. I'm terribly sad to see that this thread has become so volitile: I thought this was an interesting topic to discuss, and I'm afraid people are being driven away from it.
posted
I agree with you, MaryRobinette, although I might add a caveat. I, too, have made a living from my art. I have worked as a graphic designer in one capacity or another since 1977, and in graphic design deadlines are the name of the game. However mundane I found the job (designing forms is not the height of creative fulfillment), I always tried to infuse the job with my artistic sense of balance, clear communication, and visual appeal. As an artist, I cannot not bring that part of myself to a job. Even when I do copywriting to promote a product, I care about writing clearly. If I didn't care about the quality of what I produced, I would make a horrible graphic designer. Or a horrible writer. Ultimately, pleasing an audience is about pleasing myself because it means I've done the best job I know how.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
Elan, I don't think your caveat is different from what I'm saying. I can care about the artform--which means executing things with an "artistic sense of balance, clear communication, and visual appeal"--without caring about the product per se. I have to do a good job to be happy with myself, but I don't have to like the final product to do it.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
True dat. I've done a lot of things that I thought were foolish, just because the client couldn't be convinced otherwise. Sometimes the client was right, and I always defer to their wishes because, while I know MY craft of graphic design, they know THEIR business.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that what I put my heart and soul into is in trying to do a good job, the best I can do. But I don't confuse that with the finished product. There aren't many brochures or catalogs or sales flyers I have emotional attachment to after they've been printed and mailed out, no matter how pithy the prose of the advertising copy was.
posted
I graduated from college in fine arts. I learned that most artists felt exactly the way Mystic does. They also felt that their government should support them in their endeavor to produce art for art's sake.
So where is the art in that? Where is the responsibility?
In my 3rd year of Art History, we had to do an oral presentation on some aspect of the arts. I did mine on "Why the NEA should be abolished." Started a lively discussion, but I wasn't very popular after that. Artists, in any medium, must be responsible for themselves in order to garner any amount of my respect. So you do the crap you hate in order to be able to afford to produce the divine (your personal definition) on your own time. That's what most of the great artists did. They painted portraits of ugly rich people so they could afford to buy a few more tubes of paint, then went home and painted Starry Sky for themselves.
Same for writing. If you don't care about selling your work, if you don't care about making your work appealing to an audience, then get a day job. If you want to tell stories that people will enjoy reading and that will make you money in the offing, then you MUST take your audience into account.
Neither choice is any less valid than the other. They're just different.
posted
Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?
I haven't made a dime off my writing (yet). My opinion is that only a very small percentage of writing is "art". The majority of writing is the mundane - newspapers, tech manuals, nutrition information - and it's all done for money. The idea that it's a sacred trust that should only be permitted by a select few is silly (to be polite). So much of what we know of history is distorted BECAUSE it was written by a select few that had their own interests in mind.
What's wrong with doing art for monetary compensation? Michelangelo would never have spent all those years on his back in the Sistine Chapel for free. Leonardo Da Vinci didn't invent, paint, sculpt, or write anything of consequence after he was given a steady "pension".
posted
I goto work for a few hours and this is what happens? I am confused and frustrated all at the same time because I try to write as plainly as possible and even rewrite the same thing over and over again, but it keeps getting twisted around.
First, I will explain to any outside person why I am getting annoyed. It feels like none of you are taking my opinion seriously, while raising your own opinions up as the right ones. I know you will deny this, but constantly my opinion means nothing and that isn't fair. I don't understand how to earn your respect so if could kindly explain...but don't me tell that I started it because I was disrespected in the Scifi/Fantasy standoff first and that set off my rage. I don't mind someone else saying their opinion, but I do mind someone assaulting my opinion with no opinion of their own, other than "Mystic is a meanie".
Second, just answer this question: Do you enjoy writing?
[This message has been edited by Mystic (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
I personally prefer the word "craft" applied to the process of creating genre fiction instead of "art." Certainly not because it cannot apply, but I just don't feel I'm an artist when I write, I guess.
That said, as the culprit who posted the link to Holly Lisle's online diary over on Christine's thread that may have contributed to this thread's existence, I still think Holly is right in her assertion. I perceive her meaning to be that she writes to an audience as a whole and can't waste the creative energy in worrying about things over which any individual reader may get his/her knickers twisted. She writes the story she wants to write knowing that it may not satisfy every reader, but hoping it'll resonate with enough to afford her the luxury of continuing to write fulltime, pay her bills, and support herself and her family.
Until forced to support myself with my questionable skills at crafting stories, I choose to write stories that I'd want to read, and about the ideas I feel strongly enough about to pour myself into to craft them. I'm not going to "ambulance chase" the latest "in-thing" or pander to readers. However, should I ever have my writing actually earn me an audience I'll have to answer to, I'd hope that I'd be strong enough to stick to my principles and deliver work that's as good as what brought them to me in the first place. But I've got a long way to go before I ever have to cross that bridge.
posted
I think people would be more receptive to your opinion if it wasn't voiced in such a harsh, albeit passionate, manner. I took one look at your original post and thought, uh-oh, flame war. And, yes, I do enjoy writing. Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
I enjoy writing a lot. I was a technical writer for a few years and didn't enjoy it at all. It was dull drudgery for me, so I got a different day job.
Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Mystic, I think the key here is your use of the word "rage." You are in a rage about something, and I am not quite sure what. I am not in a rage as I write this. I'm feeling fairly neutral (A little hungry, maybe, but that's because I haven't eaten my lunch). What is being said here doesn't strike me as "twisting words" even if the opinion disagrees with mine.
This gets back to the discussion of arguing with critiques. People have a right to their opinions, and this forum is intended for those opinions to be voiced. You have a right to be in a rage, just as you have a right to be happy, or peaceful. The choice in how you feel is up to you, and we cannot control that with our words.
The point I'm making is that this forum is INTENDED to solicite opinions and different points of view. If you are feeling enraged by that, then you are coloring everything you say and read with an emotional state that none of the rest of us are in.
Maturity means you can separate your emotional state from what is being said and to take the words rendered here at face value. Until you can approach the conversation without anger, you'll continue to miss the point of what is being said. And THAT is what is keeping the rest of us from taking you seriously.
posted
My vehemence towards people is sometimes a little extreme because I live in a fairy land of strict morality in ethics, where people aren't sleezy and do feel bad for only looking out for their own well-being. I am naive, but someday when I rule this country and later the world, I will take every last human to my little fairy land.
Next two questons, Would give up you talent as a writer permanently if you were offered a job that would give permanent financial security?
When you make a major decision about your story, do you take your own stance of what would be good or do you look to your audience and make the decision based on what they like?
Elan: So my moment of weak immaturity gives everyone license to drop their maturity without repercussions. No, if the people that posted and attacked me on this thread were really mature, not just this pseudo-mature that makes these people feel self-righteous, then they would calmly state their opinion, not disregard me. I have no problem with the opinions of others, but I do have a problem when someone posts with the intent to destroy my opinion, yet give no view of their own. I have even greater problem with people who don't read a post in its entirety and then they just pick and choose the words that will suit their petty argument against me.
[This message has been edited by Mystic (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
I enjoy writing, but not being sucked into pointless discussions or arguments. I shall refrain from responding further to this thread.
Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005
|
quote:Would give up you talent as a writer permanently if you were offered a job that would give permanent financial security?
Absolutely not.
quote:When you make a major decision about your story, do you take your own stance of what would be good or do you look to your audience and make the decision based on what they like?
Being a reader myself, I am the audience. I try to write the sort of stories I'd wish to read. Would I be willing to make small compromises to get the story out there? Yes, I would, but not to a degree that would make me feel like I was whoring myself.
posted
Isaiah13, you are the embodiment of my principles. You choose writing over money and choose to hold onto your integrity over horribly defacing your own work.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Jun 2005
|
quote:Next two questons, Would give up you talent as a writer permanently if you were offered a job that would give permanent financial security?
No.
quote: When you make a major decision about your story, do you take your own stance of what would be good or do you look to your audience and make the decision based on what they like?
I cannot entirely distinguish between the two. You see, I want to be a great writer, and IMHO great writers are the ones who can grab an audience by the heartstrings and tug. Every decision I make, the affects of my words, are based on what I like -- to write an excellent story -- but that is based on what the audience will react to.
I can pour my heart and soul into a work and still the readers may feel it is flat. I can cry over a manuscript and my audience may wonder if I'm a robot. Words are my tool, my weapon, and my sacred trust. I choose to use them wisely.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
I'm afraid that I am uninterested in hypothetical scenarios that can have no real world equivalent. The only way I could give up my talent permanently in exchange for a job that offered me permanent financial security is if I agree to be hit in the head, become brain-damaged and took a settlement fee.
No, thank you, that's not something I would choose.
If I were asked to write a story that did not excite me in exchange for a large sum of money, then yes, I would do that--provided I could do it well.
May I suggest, again, that we stick to the issues and ignore all the personal comments and slights, be they perceived or deliberate.
posted
Of course, I haven't actually been faced with that choice, so this is purely theoretical. I actually believe that most writers hold to this opinion. Some just choose a different place to draw their line in the sand. To each his own.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
<quote>When you make a major decision about your story, do you take your own stance of what would be good or do you look to your audience and make the decision based on what they like?</quote>
It's seems there's a line being drawn that doesn't function. When I write a story, I write it as I feel it should be written. But! I know that if I want to have something published I will need to be willing to make changes. In some cases those changes may be things I consider major. To quote Juliet E McKenna: "Was I prepared to do anything to see myself in print? No but digging my heels in then would have probably stopped my writing career in its tracks, and not only because that potential offer to publish would have most likely evaporated. I agreed because while I knew I had a good manuscript, I still believed it could be better. " Or to quote Terry Brooks: "Lester's comments were concise, thoughtful, and right on target. I could see my mistakes. .. I was astonished at how much I had assumed was working in my story and how little actually was." So, do I look to what my audience would like? If I am to every have an audience, yes. I wouldn't change everything, but I know I am not perfect, I can be wrong and I can believe something that is false. Including believing something is perfect when it's not.
[This message has been edited by JmariC (edited August 15, 2005).]
posted
This topic is closed for the sake of nothing new or intelligent will come of it from me or anyone else. You can continue to push it forward, but I think it is futile.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted
I'm late to this topic, so don't respond if you don't feel like it. However, please don't take writing or any other form of art too idealistically. Writing has, for a very long time, been done for profit. The writers you read in school and in class were published authors. They wrote for both themselves and their audiences. Pretending that writing is an art and therefore not a business is completely idealistic and ignores everything writing has been since the advent of the printing press.
Leonardo Da Vinci survived off his commissions. We , society, largely look upon his work in the Mona Lisa and consider it one of the finest pieces of artwork ever. Time has let us forget that someone paid him to do that, and that if he were not paid, that painting quite possibly wouldn't have been made.
Don't mistake making money off your art as making your art soulless. What we now consider incredible pieces of writing and artwork at one time started as a guy getting paid coin for writing.
posted
I recall at least one person mentioning that they were interested in the subject. As such I believe there is still things to be discussed. If we need to make a new thread, we can, but I honestly don't think it's neccessary. Be warned, I am asking questions without stating opinion yet because I want to hear from other people first, so please don't infer my standpoint from what I ask. I'm too much a player of devil's advocate.
How about we move the topic forward a bit? I think most people are aware that artists get paid, and quite a few posts agree that being paid isn't bad, so when does it become a bad thing? I would say everyone would agree that plagerism is bad. I would hazard to say that no one should get paid for plagerism, but is there a limit there? What about (here's a whole can of worms) fan fic? There are short story anthologies that are made up of stories written by other people involving a specific writers characters or world. Wouldn't that be fan fic? In the comic book world it is not unknown for someone to take up previous and now unused character or for someone to make a new series based on a non-major character. If someone takes another persons character and puts them thru whole new adventures, isn't it still someone elses idea? Because they have permission, it's not plagerism, right? (More philosophical questions about writing for audiences and pay will be saved for later. No point in going overboard too soon.)
posted
I thought that it was odd that Mystic would be the one to get all hyper about the purity of art and the sacred status of original work. But that's probably saying too much
For my part, I'm not an artist so much as a technician working with some pretty interesting material. I think it would be fun if my work became wildly popular, but I'm not really oriented in that direction. It would be interesting if it turned out to be entirely original, but that isn't my aim either.
My personal thought...art, or at least the art that touches my heart, comes out of a serious struggle. Not just the struggle to produce art, that's a meaningless struggle. I'm talking about Tolkien watching his friends die in the trenches of World War I, or Orwell watching his beloved dreams of socialism betrayed by the brutal realities of power and men. I'm talking about those people that gave up something tangible (rather than imagined) for love or honor or principles. I'm talking about the ones that had to struggle with the hopelessness of being low caste in highly class conscious societies (meaning no westerners). I'm even talking about the ones that lost out in the reproductive race (or believed they were, anyway) during their formative years. Stuff like that, even.
Those that are only struggling to be "serious artists" don't count. They just don't. So, I agree that art has to come out of genuine passion. But you can't have a genuine passion for art itself as your motive to produce art. Only the meta-art of consuming art can be informed by such a limited and non-essential passion.
I think that publishers and readers should have that passion, in addition to their other needs. But the artist doesn't need such a passion. It doesn't hurt, loving the art is good for the artist, makes life as an artist a little more satisfying.
And the mere presence of real struggle doesn't guarantee art, either. But it does seem to be essential to really powerful work.
So, I'm okay with work that is only entertaining or fun. I like work that relies on craftsmanship and a sense of perspective about "art". I have no problem with the writer who just wants to make the world a bit nicer and more enjoyable rather than trying to change everything. And I have no problem with them making a bit of money doing it. If they get obscenely wealthy and start turning out drivel that is calculated to shock and hurt others, I think that's bad. But some other people think that's art.
posted
I think you should try to do both. There's no shame in attemting to create something that will bring enjoyment to others. And if you are going to do that, there's nothing wrong with doing it in a way you are happy with. You may not achieve both, but you can try.
It may be a different situation if you primary goal is to get people to part with their money, but I don't begrudge people for making decisions to enhance their livelihood.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Started a lively discussion, but I wasn't very popular after that. Artists, in any medium, must be responsible for themselves in order to garner any amount of my respect. So you do the crap you hate in order to be able to afford to produce the divine (your personal definition) on your own time. That's what most of the great artists did. They painted portraits of ugly rich people so they could afford to buy a few more tubes of paint, then went home and painted Starry Sky for themselves.
