If you had the choice (let's say your fairy godmother came to you, or whatever) to be a great with very limited success (say you published in a small market and never broke into mainstream) OR a decent writer (maybe a little better than Paolini) with huge success (Steven King level), which would you pick?

I know the knee-jerk answer is that you'd rather be the great writer, but think about it a little. Some of you have been at this for a while, and you are probably better than some of the stuff out there. Would you sacrifice a little talent for success? And, why would you make either decision?

Since I've no reason to rely upon my writing, I suppose my need for success in the field would be purely ego-driven, and I think as a result I would be much happier being proud of what I write, and have limited success, than feel I was succeeding undeservedly.

I know of a writer that I think probably sold more books than her talent gave her any reason to expect (given that having read one of her books, I know I would refuse to ever read another), but I don't know that she counts as mainstream. But I'll not cast her name into the ring; she got published, and congratulations to her for that.

I therefore choose skill. Because being a "successful" writer has nothing to do with pouring your heart and soul into characters and a world that represent you on many levels. "Success" is about attention and money, neither of which, nor the sum of, are more valuable to me than my dignity, my cathartic experience, and my opportunity to improve ad infinitum.

Let us presume that I am granted, by nature, genetics, or a fairy-godmother, some set amount of writing skill. I am allowed to choose between Shakespeare-greatness in my genius, with the caveat that nothing I ever write will reach a wide audience. The other option is mediocre writing skill. Nothing genius, but enough to write. (Probably something like the skill I have now, haha). But the caveat with this choice is that my books will become mainstream, bestsellers.

I choose the bestsellers. Let me clarify why.

Even if I fell into such a lifestyle, I still see writing as a secondary profession. I am a scientist at heart. I would never quit that "day-job" regardless of my success in writing, or lack thereof, so it's not about the money. But the point of writing, for me, is to tell a story that people enjoy. If my books are best-sellers, than I would presume that they are bringing some amount of happiness to millions of people, worldwide. In the end, isn't that the point? We all scoff at Eragon (myself included) because the writing is so poor. But really, my main antagonism with Eragon is NOT that people enjoy the book even though the writing is bad. It's that, because of the limited resources of the publishing industry, some books that have even BETTER stories, deeper characters, more originality, etc. are simply not being produced.

For me:

First: If I craft something for a particular market, I want to sell it. The initial sale and the subsequent book sales are a measure of how well I have addressed the market.

Second: In some ways, my most important audience is me. I would never stop writing for myself; for my own satisfaction. Selling any of this second sort of material would be a pleasant bonus.

By "great" skill do you mean that from the point of view of "the critics?" Because I assumed you meant that in the sense of how great I saw my own writing, and how much I liked it. How proud of it I was, etc.

Because honestly, nobody gives a damn about the critics.

I have no illusion that I'm a great writer. I'm becoming a competent wordsmith, I think, and I enjoy doing it. That's a lot to have in life and if I can also sell my work and have other people enjoy it that is great icing on my cake. Being a best seller would give me more time to do what I love, so you BET I'd take it.

Achieving Shakespeare-like greatness is so outside anything I aspire to, I have no trouble choosing.

Honestly, I want to have an impact, change the way people see things, help kids dream (YA sci-fi is my current interest) and share my ideas.

I have the rest of my life to improve my craft. I am not an idiot. Even experts have areas for improvement. I would much prefer to be wildly successful than to be a great but underappreciated writer.

If it were all left up to talent, then why do we keep trying? Wouldn't we just all have to give up after the first try and say...nope, we don't have what it takes, so we can go back to writing tv shows. No, we keep trying because when we keep at it we learn more, and when we learn more we do better. So...talent only dictates how much work we have to put in to become good.

I remember reading a writing book once that mentioned the fact that the author knew people who were so naturally gifted they had the ability to write at a level most people could only dream of. None of them have a book on the shelf for us to read. Why? Because to write one took genuine effort that they were not willing to put in. It wasn't that they couldn't, it is that the wouldn't.

Good is subjective to the eye of the beholder. You know, if I could get the story down, read it and like it enough to submit it, and get it published, that is good. Maybe it's not greatest, most incredible prose, but there's a multitude of writers out there who don't even achieve publication.

Coming into writing from an artist's perspective, I'm most attracted to work that brings images into focus with a sense of urgency and drama. That's what I read, that's what I want to write. I could care less if citics approve. If the work sells, and I can make a living doing something I love, how is that bad?

Touching lightly on Paolini: for all that I won't purchase any more of his Inheritance Cycle, if others do, that's proof that some people like it and want more. One book didn't sell me on reading, I can't see one turning someone off to reading (other than by that author).

No, these have to be consistently mutually exclusive for this kind of marginal analysis to be meaningful at all.

Assuming this is some kind of short-run decision tree destroys the entire nature of the trade-off, which sabotages the entire question.

If you cannot ever, have both, then we can really focus on which is more valuable. Success without skill--ever, or skill without major success--ever.

Because, otherwise, time and practice will beget skill, but skill and time might not ever beget success. Making success the only reasonable choice, or the "nash equillibrium."

Both my boys have class six peanut allergies and all that extra cash would mean more funding pouring into The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network. If I had Eragon money, just think how much more I could give to Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (both my mother-in-law and my mother are breast cancer survivors).

And... hey, on a purely selfish level: I'd love to be able to go back to Lucerne, Switzerland someday, to afford a new laptop...

If you allowed your fairy godmother to somehow make you a great writer, either by a magical boost or by 'allowing' the world to truly see your talent -- well that's cheating in a big way!

I would prefer to get the freebie leg-up into the big-time and have the free-time to improve my skills naturally, while basking in the success I deserve.

I'm all for marketability and economic security. I'd take the money.

The only exception to that might be my ego, if I new I was a schlock writer, I'd feel bad about my successs, I'd feel bad as I cashed the checks and watched my 72" wall TV, I'd feel bad as my driver took me to my next signing.

Maybe I wouldn't feel that bad...

I go back to what I said originally -
==
Honestly, I want to have an impact, change the way people see things, help kids dream (YA sci-fi is my current interest) and share my ideas.
==

I can't have an impact and reach a lot of people if the only ones who see my work are my biographer 20 years after my death, and my long-suffering husband. Success = LOTS OF PEOPLE READING.

quote:

---

But I'm surprised so many would be willing to cheapen the art to fatten their wallets.

---

quote:

---

Making success the only reasonable choice, or the "nash equillibrium."

---

Then:

quote:

---

But I'm surprised so many would be willing to cheapen the art to fatten their wallets.

---

It seems strange that you question the result, zero, when you so cleverly analyzed the question's merits in the first place.

I am a psychiatric nurse. I get paid for doing my job which at times I enjoy, but also at times dislike. Doing my job for money doesn't cheapen what I do. Writing and obtaining success would not cheapen my art -- the books may not be great, but they would be the very best I could do.

I think a better question would be if someone paid you ten million dollars/pounds to NEVER WRITE AGAIN, would you agree to it?

quote:

---

Oh, yeah....I got my first rejection letter today -- joy.

---

Congratulations. Now you're a real writer. Welcome to the club.

quote:

---

Honestly, I want to have an impact, change the way people see things, help kids dream (YA sci-fi is my current interest) and share my ideas.
==
I can't have an impact and reach a lot of people if the only ones who see my work are my biographer 20 years after my death, and my long-suffering husband. Success = LOTS OF PEOPLE READING.

---

quote:

---

It seems strange that you question the result, zero, when you so cleverly analyzed the question's merits in the first place.

---

But, judging from the volume of responses of people who automatically chose success and did not mention any interest in perfecting their craft afterwards, that is what surprised me. It seems people would rather be heard than have their message mean anything. To my eyes that lacks dignity.

quote:

---

I am a psychiatric nurse. I get paid for doing my job which at times I enjoy, but also at times dislike. Doing my job for money doesn't cheapen what I do.

---

What if I told you you had to choose between being a great psychiatric nurse and make a huge difference for your patients but you only ever have a handful. Or else I offer you 10 Million dollars and all the patients you could ever hope for, on the condition that you do terrible work and you aren't capable of being a good psychiatric nurse.

If you take the money you cheapen what you do, but if you don't you limit the people you have access to you. I think taking the money is not the dignified choice. I think the other option preserves the integrity of what your work is trying to achieve, what it means, and the other is just cheap and meaningless.

quote:

---

I think a better question would be if someone paid you ten million dollars/pounds to NEVER WRITE AGAIN, would you agree to it?

---

I didn't really think of anything else in posing the question than the success Paolini has had with crappy writing. But looking at it again, there are writers I really like whose writing is sometimes lacking. Jim Butcher is one of them. He makes errors, sometimes his sentences and comma use bother me. Sometimes his characters ramble. But most of the time I can't wait to read what's next. So, to me, that's the kind of writer I'd like to be. Sure, he makes mistakes and his style can be off, but he writes a darn good book that I have a hard time putting down. If we entertain our audience we don't need to be a Shakespeare. Why not be like Mozart? At the time I think the higher class found his work trivial, but he wrote for the masses, and the masses still love him.

You bet!

Then I'd hire a sassy secretary with scintillating shorthand and superb spelling skills ...

Pat

Edited to add: And I'd take pounds, they're worth more ;-)

quote:

---

It seems people would rather be heard than have their message mean anything.

---

By that definition greatness is meaningless, but money isn't. Money retains its value and it is understood universally. So, given that assumption, success is the only good answer.

So I'm going to repair matt's comparison by turning it into a useful one.

Case 1: You never publish ever. But your work is truly skillful, and you smile every time you read it. You share it with close relatives and friends who enjoy it, but you never break into the writing industry ever. But the time you spend writing is purely enjoyable and the characters and worlds you come up with have realistic depth and launch you into the nether-regions of your mind and the very limits of your imagination. But again you never get into print, not even a webzine, and many of your relatives think you're wasting your time because you will never earn a cent. Not one cent.

Case 2: Your writing is wildly successful. You've sold 150 million copies worldwide, predominantly to millions of tv-addicted teens. You're making money and people know your name. You can google it and a hundred thousand results pop up, many-many of which are negative and critical, however. Also your writing is literally god-awful. It's seriously bad. Every time you look at it you instantly see errors and profound mistakes, and things that could have been much, much better. And you cannot connect with your work cathartically, and you cannot improve ever. And you never tire of hating to read it because you hate your writing so much.

This is a true trade-off with set costs and conditions, making it a much more interesting/useful question. If one choice is obviously superior, or the costs aren't clear and/or consistent, then any comparison is completely pointless.

Again I think there are advantages to both and a 50/50 response designation should reflect if the trade-off is truly even.

I am still sticking with Case 1 for myself.

I don't know. I think I might still would be happy--he seems to be--because I wouldn't know the difference.

But if I could SEE the errors then I could at least edit them out the next time I wrote something even if I couldn't avoid them in the first place. I guess I have a hard time visualizing what you're saying. I know I'm ruining your scenarios, but there it is. My mind boggles.

I don't think there is any mention that I have to KEEP writing. I walk away (as a number of writers have) and take my money with me. I don't write to stick my prose in a trunk somewhere.

I am hear to lower the bar so all the good writers don't have to work so hard :-)

I guess another reason that I said I'd take success is that I have more a Dickensian/Shakespearian approach to writing: My goal is to entertain. That can mean making people laugh, cry, afraid, you name it, but I am not writing to alter anyone's mindset, political views, religion, etc.

If my work continues to entertain people long after I am dead, so much the better, but it will having little bearing on me. I won't be here anymore.

The other reason I write is that I have to write. I cannot stop. If I don't write then I can't get even the small amount of sleep each night that I currently enjoy. I'm not sure if that makes sense to anyone or not, bu there you go.

In this scenario, I would still entertain, but I would never reach a lofty height of critical acclaim. I would entertain millions of people and make tons of money. My peers would not respect my work. I would not respect my work as literature, but I would still have achieved my goal and more than that, I would be able to support my family in a grand manner while doing what I love.

I think I'd choose to be a skillful writer. Although I would like to be published, that's not and never has been my goal. (Although selling enough so that I have the free cash to get my laptop fixed would be nice...) I just want to be publishable. If it takes all my life to get there, then so be it. I write for love of the craft, to create worlds and to invent stories about my characters set in those worlds. And if the only people who ever read it are my friends and family - and if they like it - then that's good enough for me. (It's not stopping me from writing short stories and submitting them to magazines though.) It's really not a difficult choice for me.

I write brilliant crap.
I write because I love it. It is something fun to do while the TV is on.
There is a bit of excitement to seeing what comes out of my keyboard and onto the screen (I did a story idea recently about a guy who's keyboard was evil, and wrote what it wanted to say about what he was typing). I have imaginative concepts, and can take translate those concept to paper fairly well. They are even readable.
My actual writing skills are not up to publication levels. I have bad habits in things such as sentance structure, syntax, word choices, vocabulary, and am not likely to improve. I am too busy telling the stories to take the time to improve the machanics.

I write more on the idea of a columnist, where one has to get a piece out each and every day for the paper with deadlines, and not have time to concentrate on the quality. I am improving on the mechanics of production, of the art of writing, but not the quality.

I work from the concept that anybody with language skills can edit a work to publishable levels. Only the author can actually write the story. My works might end up beping publishes postumously because I am too busy to edit them to publishable levels.

The Prince of Heck (don't ask) offered Dilbert two choices.

He could make a great deal of money, but no respect, and his work would be piled up and burned in front of him at the end of every day.

Or...his work would be resepcted and admired, but he would never make much money at it.

JFLewis, the downside, I think, is the lack of pride in your own work. You might have pride that you are entertaining so many people, but remember one of the conditions is that you are deeply, profoundly unimpressed with your work. Borderline ashamed of it.

Well, okay, other than the fact that I'd be making a significanty larger sum of money, doing what I'd always wanted to do for a living (even though I'd feel my success undeserved and have a bit of confusion about why people actually liked my stuff), and actually accomplish my goal of entertaining people.

Even if, like one author I met at a convention recently, I wrote highly feteishistic lesbian porn of which I myself was somewhat ashamed, but which a steadliy increasing number of fans truly enjoyed and were moved by... I think I'd have to take the advice Maggie Shayne gave to that author...

Quoth Maggis Shayne: "I want you to stand up and be proud of your porn!"

I think I would be able to do that.

If you believe in a subjective reality then yes if enough people believe something then you are likely to, despite maybe an initial objection, in time agree with the majority.

I know that I have in my experience had films or novels that I initially disliked and through peer pressure/commentary, changed my opinion of said film or movie.

Now in my instances it was simply that they, through persuasion, had me reexamine my initial opinion and look at the work in a different manner. But often, for the sheeple of the world, the mob approval is sufficient to assure there endorsement.

If you are fortunate enough to have a job or lifestyle that allows you to make decisions purely on the merit of ascetics rahter than factoring in real world variable like food and rent, then more power to you. We always need a few more pretentious critics :-)