www.writersdigest.com/articles/ellison.asp

He talks about why there is so much bad writing today. Here's my take. I don't think wanna-be writers read enough (or anything!) outside of their genre, and they don't read enough (or anything!) published before World War II . . . much less anything written before 1900.

I'm sure that ol' Harlen did himself proud on audiotape there, maybe put in a few good mugs for the camera, but....

quote:

---

And there are fewer and fewer real venues for a professional writer nowadays to make a decent living at the craft.

---

Mr. Harlen Ellison. I'd like to introduce you to Ms. J.K. Rowling

quote:

---

You can't allow yourself to be frightened; not if you want the writing to have heat and reason and passion.

---

And Mr. Stephen King

Just kidding, but, wow, what a grump!

And from a read of the article it looks like there's a load of amateurs who have been seriously annoying him in the mean time.

I don't believe that a writer's work should be scanned in and posted on the internet for free. I do wonder, though, how quickly aol responded to his request to have it taken down. They conveniently forgot to mention that detail. If they were quick about it, then in my mind aol has done nothing wrong and he needs to back off. If they took their time, then he has a puropse in sueing them because they weren't taking copright law seriously. That's my take on the lawsuit angle, anyway. aol is just a provider, and while it does have some responsibility to make sure that copyrighted material doesn't end up on their sites, it should not be held liable unless it fails to take prompt action once it's learned of a violation.

As to bad writers...I sort of agree with him. I've seen an awful lot of amateurish writing since I began looking at other people's tuff. (Here and other places.) Some are just hobbyists, and that's all they say they want to be. (They may be dreaming in private, but I can't do anything about that unless they make serious efforts.) Some outwardly desire to be published, but make excuses. Andsome probably do think they already write quite well enough and don't need any help.

The thing about an amateur is that many of them can improve, but they have to put in the hours and the effort. Writing is thought of as a gift, and THAT, IMO, is the biggest problem. Writing is a bit of a gift, but the gift will be like Uncle Vernon's old sock unless you learn, study, research, practice, and repeat. This is why I no longer do critiques for bad writers. Until they've shown me that they intend to be serious enough to get past that stage when your writing just sucks (and we alls tarted out there, even Mr. King), then they're not worth my time. I've tried in the past, but the truth is they never listen to me anyway, they just keep writing the way they were, as if I'd never told them SPECIFICALLY how dialogue is properly formatted. And that gets us to the heart of why amateurs remain amateurs....they already think they're right they just want someone to tell them how wonderful they are. The sad truth is, if they look long and hard enough, they'll find someone to tell them it's wonderful because we live in a society based on lies and raising self-esteem.

That paragraph went on longer than I intended and changed topic a few times.

As to the theory that we don't read enough old books, I have to respectfully disagree. I do agree that we do not read enough out-of-genre books, but in my opinion it is snobery to suggest that the works of the 1800's need to be read and enjoyed by all. I've sampled a few from that era, and they don't write in the modern style. If I wrote like that, i wouldnt' get published. Therefore, it is not actually in my best interests to spend too much time reading that stuff. I feel comfortable with the sampling of Twain, Dickens, Steinbeck, and others I've read. Now I concentrate on reading the classics of my chosen genre (scifi and fantasy) and supplementing it with the odd mystery, romance, or pure mainstream novel to keep my eyes and ears open to new ideas. There are just too many books out there to read them all, I've got to pick and choose, and I do believe I've chosen well for my career.

People do think they should get things for fee...and I don't blam them. Things are just so expensive, and to top it all off those of us who are future consciouss have to save for a longer lifetime. So salary-%40 to goverment (this # includes state, federal, medicare, SS, and sales tax...my husband and I have been keeping track lately and 40% may just be conservative)-10% to retirement-%25 to housing-%15 percent to car(s) leaves very little for hobbies, especially books which can be gotten from the library for free. And I'm afraid as long as audiobooks cost 50 bucks apiece I'll be subscribing to the library for the blind for all my reading needs. Books are expensive, and people don't have that much money. But I will disagree with dear crochetty old Mr. Ellison on one thing--it's not so much that people don't read ANYMORE...I don't think they ever really read in the numbers he's imagining. In fact, I felt like he had a scewed vision of his life in his early days. Books have always been expensive, and until very recently (historically speaky), they were not available to the masses.

It is possible to make a living off of novels, but at the midlist range-- where many writers are-- it's very difficult, thanks to need for multiple novels a year to pay the bills, the degredation of the backlist (thank you, Thor Hammer-- it's from a tax decision to tax old stock instead of writing it off, which means keeping up a backlist is now less profitable), computer tracking of sell-through that means every new book will sink or fall by the auther's previous work, and the IRS elimination of income averaging. (I don't remember the good old days, but I certainly have relatives who do.) It's still possible to make a living writing novels, but there have been things making it more difficult to do so.

On the everyone-sucks stage... I think my only cogent comment on that is that people are only willing to hear what they're ready to hear. I have a very very hard time writing crits for people, because I learned to crit for family, and you can say "Toss the first three chapters and you'll have something" to family... but not to friends. (Or at least not if you want to have friends.)

He's always been that crochetty...

quote:

---

...but in my opinion it is snobery to suggest that the works of the 1800's need to be read and enjoyed by all

---

When did I suggest that?

Now, that said, I do believe that anyone who wishes to be a great writer should sample a wide variety of books. To never have read a book by Dickens or Twain is a terrible oversight, and it will weaken our writing in the end because it represents a refusal to broaden one's horizons. Now, as it happens, I think Dickens sucks rocks, but at least I know that. Twain, on the other hand, is an old author whose work I enjoy.

But old stuff is just like new stuff. How many on this site read romance? Precious few, judging from the discussions we have. Most scoff at the genre without really having sampled from its best. (Some have sampled from its worst, ie Harlequin.) To never have read a romance, or a mystery, or a mainstream novel is just as much a crime as not having read anything before WWII, and probably even more prevalent, because at least those books get covered in high school English classes. But I know a lot of scifi/fantasy snobs, or even worse, scifi snobs and fantasy snobs (who won't even cross those genre lines) and you can tell by reading their work. They rehash the same things that have been done before, without even having the ability to look outside the box and bring in new elements because they just don't know what other elements there are. But I've read romance, and I've read mystery, and I've read scifi, and I've read fantasy, and so I'm writing a fantasy/mystery/romance novel right now, using the best I've learned from all those genres.

I am not well read when it comes to pre WWII books. The truth is, in my sampling I found precious few authors I liked. They were writing in a different age to people with different values. I have a great deal of respect for their work, enough to give the classics a try if, for no other reason, to determine what makes them classic. But I have found, to a great extent, that English professors seem to have very different values from myself when it comes to good literature. At their recommendation, I have read some of the worst tripe of all time. I have to believe that better things were published in those days, and judging by their recommendations I shudder to think what might survive the modern age. Kurt Vonegut Jr. was our high school example of scifi. <shudder>

Perhaps, in the end, we are actually both saying the same thing. Liek I said, I think sampling from a wide variety of sources is crutial. But most of the time when people start claiming that the world (or writing) would be better if more people would read classic literature, they think we should all find all of it as brilliant as they did (or as brilliant as they claim ot think it is...sometimes I swear they just say what they think they should, rather than what they really believe.)

A while ago I posted about Romance writers. Yes, while I haven't gotten yet to reading them, I probably will in fact like some of them.

I started off thinking of all romance as jank. Then I realized that some of my favorites from my younger years were, in fact, romances at heart.

There was an article not long ago (forget where I read it) about the Ellison case - I think AOL took down the site/content pretty quickly once informed, but Ellison was upset it went up at all.

I remember having to read things in high school that I did not enjoy, and I don't feel the need to go find them again (Hemingway, Crane, Faulkner). On the otherhand, I bless my 8th grade English teacher for assigning "A Wizard of Earthsea" which led me deeper into the world of sf/f books. I know there are a lot of people who turn up their noses at sf/f like others do at romance. My mom hard time reading sf/f - said she wanted something she could relate to (as in real world, present, today, here...). She liked biographies, for example, but also had several Nora Roberts romances on her shelves. I didn't think much of her reading selections, but then I hadn't read them myself - definitely prejudged her and the books.

When mom passed, I was desperate for some escape reading, so I scavenged every Roberts book she had, organized them by date of publication, and started reading. I felt the earliest books were not very good, but the author got better (especially with her combined mystery/romance titles). I don't feel like going out and buying her books, but I don't think I wasted my time with them, and maybe I learned from them.

I haven't read any Harlequin's in many years, but when I was young my dad bought me a huge bag of books at a yard sale. It included 'classics' like Dickens, and a few Harlequins. I set up my own little library in my bedroom, catalogued the whole thing, and started reading them in order. When I got to the Harlequins, I found (to my surprise) that I really liked them. Each had an exotic setting at some point, a protagonist with a real problem, and built tension really well to a climax and satisfying catharsis. I still remember the story and settings of the very first one I read, though I do not remember the names of the characters (hmmm). Years later, I had some newer Harlequins passed to me for free, and they were not as good - the resolutions were too easy. I know now I can use the knowledge in whatever I write - about building tension to a climax, and that the resolutions should not come too easily for the characters. At least, I know what I liked and didn't like, and hope it is that way for others too.

I was afraid I don't read enough outside of my preferred genre after because of this thread, until I remembered reading those romances, as well as the entire set of Horatio Hornblower books we bought when the A&E movies came out. And some other things. Since meeting my husband, I broadened my horizons within the sf/f genre as well (he introduced me to Card and Gibson and Stephenson - but I in turn shared Herbert and Heinlein with him, which he liked - Eddings didn't go over to well with him!).