# Are You an Artist, or a Craftsman?



## neodoering (Feb 13, 2017)

So.  I read an article online that offered 25 tips to beginning writers.  One of the tips was that writers are craftsmen, and should treat their writing as a "profession."  I looked up craftsman, which was defined as someone who follows the methods and best practices of their industry to produce _functional _objects.  In today's publishing industry, this means mass-produced fiction, where ideas, characters, scenes, plot arcs, etc. are viewed as snap-in, snap-out, interchangeable widgets.  Got a black man as main character, and market research says the white majority won't buy him?  Change him to a white guy, and adjust his background a little bit.  Snap-in, snap-out.  The story has no integrity; it's just cheap, mass-produced elements.  

The artist, in contrast to the craftsman, will use whatever tools and methods it takes to convey an _aesthetically pleasing_ story with a powerful message of some sort, either personal, artistic, or social.  The artist's story isn't made of snap-in parts.  Change pieces of it, and it falls apart and loses its power.  

Before you say, "Society values artists over craftsmen," I'd really think about that if I were you.  Craftsmen are accepted in the publishing industry as the industry standard; most everyone aspires to be a craftsman.  If they make it to professional levels, they will be quite well-paid, famous, and successful.  Contrast this to artists, who are seen as inflexible, weird, possibly mentally ill, and hard to work with.  Very few writers as artists make it in the publishing industry.  Their work tends to be challenging in a trade that prizes works that are simple and mindless entertainment, and that goes against the industry ethos.  Those who go against the grain are generally not rewarded.  Ask yourself this:  how many modern, fantasy epic poems in the vein of _Beowulf_ or _Inferno_ have been published in America in the last ten years?  How many full-color, illuminated fantasies in the style of the Middle East, or even Medieval England, or China, have you seen?  The publishing industry does not encourage artists.  Publishing professionals do not like taking risks on something as subjective as art.  They want to _manage_ risk, by publishing mass-produced, low-cost, low-value craft items that are not a big loss if the market rejects them.  

As to me, you have only to go here:  http://www.rdoering.com/temples.html, to see which I am.  I am currently looking into what it would take to bring out a paper version of this book.  I look forward to being rejected by the publishing industry.  

Which are you, craftsman or artist?


----------



## Alyssa (Feb 13, 2017)

I think this is somewhat of a  gross generalisation. I write what you would probably call "craft" fiction. It's standard, west-centric in cultural terms and in terms of literary history. And that's fine by me. I am happy to be part of a continuing thread of literary tradition that has continued unabated for centuries in an eternal golden braid. It is not a mark against its merit that it is widespread, neither is it one that it is popular.
No, what I take umbrage at, is the condescension in the suggestion that even though I want to make a piece of writing for my own sake, by dint of it being constructed partially upon a framework of normative western cultures, values and behaviours, it is in some way lacking and mechanical despite my focus instead being directed more to elements thematic and narrative in nature. Elements I daresay I find beautiful and worthy in their own right. I have not met a writer who writes without having some love of their "craft", without viewing it as some greater artistic expression, drawn over months out of the wellspring of their soul.
I'm not singly a craftsman or an artist, because I do not view them as mutually exclusive. My craft is my art, I write because it I find it beautiful. Yes it may be comprised of these so called snap elements with white characters (although I never mention it because it's just not that important) and all the widgets and gizmos and thingamajigs. And yet just because I find the narrative behind it beautiful, the thematic elements, so disparate against such a familiar background, you somehow have the gall to say that I write because I want to be published, evidenced by the literary tradition I follow, rather than because I find it beautiful and I could not live without being able to write. I think you ascribe too much upon other writers who do not share your particular views and your focus on your sole work. By all means write what you will, I am more than happy to read it if I find it beautiful. But on no account should you cast aspersions on or denigrate other people's work, in order to justify and aggrandise your own.
There's room enough in the world for one more book without another having to give way, or be seen as less because of it.
Writing is not a subtractive game of mutually exclusive elements. It's a craft which is an art, and art is its product.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 13, 2017)

> Got a black man as main character, and market research says the white majority won't buy him? Change him to a white guy, and adjust his background a little bit.



I think most writers in that situation would tell their editor to go suck a dick if that was actually suggested to them.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 13, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> I think most writers in that situation would tell their editor to go suck a dick if that was actually suggested to them.



Hear, hear! I will self-publish before I ever change the ethnicity of my characters.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 13, 2017)

I hesitate to respond because I disagree with the premise of the question. All art is part craft, writing more inherently so than most, because we work within the restrictions of words and language. And all artists wishing to make a living work within the restrictions of the market.

The old artist isn't appreciated until they're dead thing just ends up with a lot of dead, unappreciated artists who died with an excuse to never perfect their craft.


----------



## Gryphos (Feb 13, 2017)

I think when people say to think of writing as a craft rather than an art, the crux of what they're getting at is that you shouldn't think of writing (or any art, for that matter) as something mystical. It's not. Artists are not prophetic souls reaching out to the muses to pour divine ambrosia onto the page; no, an artist is a person who wants to make something pleasant/interesting/thought-provoking, studies how best to achieve this, and constructs an object to their own liking with the hopes that others will like it too – this is the mentality of a craftsman.


----------



## spectre (Feb 13, 2017)

The two are really not different, only a less mature artist strives to be a "craftsman", but he/she will eventually get there.

Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Feb 13, 2017)

Alyssa said:


> I think this is somewhat of a  gross generalisation. I write what you would probably call "craft" fiction. It's standard, west-centric in cultural terms and in terms of literary history. And that's fine by me. I am happy to be part of a continuing thread of literary tradition that has continued unabated for centuries in an eternal golden braid. It is not a mark against its merit that it is widespread, neither is it one that it is popular.
> No, what I take umbrage at, is the condescension in the suggestion that even though I want to make a piece of writing for my own sake, by dint of it being constructed partially upon a framework of normative western cultures, values and behaviours, it is in some way lacking and mechanical despite my focus instead being directed more to elements thematic and narrative in nature. Elements I daresay I find beautiful and worthy in their own right. I have not met a writer who writes without having some love of their "craft", without viewing it as some greater artistic expression, drawn over months out of the wellspring of their soul.
> I'm not singly a craftsman or an artist, because I do not view them as mutually exclusive. My craft is my art, I write because it I find it beautiful. Yes it may be comprised of these so called snap elements with white characters (although I never mention it because it's just not that important) and all the widgets and gizmos and thingamajigs. And yet just because I find the narrative behind it beautiful, the thematic elements, so disparate against such a familiar background, you somehow have the gall to say that I write because I want to be published, evidenced by the literary tradition I follow, rather than because I find it beautiful and I could not live without being able to write. I think you ascribe too much upon other writers who do not share your particular views and your focus on your sole work. By all means write what you will, I am more than happy to read it if I find it beautiful. But on no account should you cast aspersions on or denigrate other people's work, in order to justify and aggrandise your own.
> There's room enough in the world for one more book without another having to give way, or be seen as less because of it.
> Writing is not a subtractive game of mutually exclusive elements. It's a craft which is an art, and art is its product.



I think I'm a human conversation such as this, we will all have to brush aside any bristles with generalizations we have. For your side, I believe you probably haven't made a snap in snap out story. For his, readers may come for your book that won't read something akin to Beowulf simply because your book is more like the snap in snap out books. Both of you have your points here.





My response. I am an artist. I tend to mix and match very unrelatable items, plot twists, characters, histories, and try to make it all grind somehow (not always successfully)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oenanthe (Feb 13, 2017)

I'm finding it extremely puzzling that this is an either or question when you cannot be an artist if you don't engage in a lifelong pursuit of your craft. If you don't have the fundamentals, what exactly can you do?


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Feb 13, 2017)

oenanthe said:


> I'm finding it extremely puzzling that this is an either or question when you cannot be an artist if you don't engage in a lifelong pursuit of your craft. If you don't have the fundamentals, what exactly can you do?



I think it's less about fundamentals and more about... the difference between manufactured and hand crafted. Hand crafted can't be switched with other parts, whereas manufactured is easy to switch parts and interchange a lot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 13, 2017)

False Dilemma! False Dilemma! False Dilemma! 

I'm both. I craft art. I craft functional objects whose function is to be art. 

And if someone told me that I need to change the ethnicity of my character...well...Annoyingkid up there put it accurately, if bluntly.


----------



## Devor (Feb 13, 2017)

This is part of an old debate, and I think there are better ways to frame it. For instance you mentioned race as a "snap in/snap out" example, and to me that's confusing whatever point you're trying to make (unless that is your point, and you've gone a long way beating around it).  Do you feel the same about, say, an Inciting Incident?  Or the idea that an protagonist should be kind of an "everyman/person"? What snap-in model are you talking about?

As for the race issue, that specific example is a bigger concern in film, where there are literally thousands of jobs on the line trying to make the movie a success.  It sucks, and I don't mean to defend it, and there are a number of absolutely absurd examples.  But the bigger investment means a bigger concern for the mass audience.  A movie can be a huge failure after ten million people go to see it.  A book, on the other hand, can be pretty successful with.... say, 20,000 copies sold.  It only has to do well enough to support the author and some editing/publishing work.  That means you can take more risks.

As for the question of being an artist, I think this is a bad framework for tackling that discussion.  I read an article about the difference between literary and consumer novels, and they described it as the difference between a postcard and a scene.  You can google it yourself.  But the thing I noticed was, the literary format had just as much (or as little) of a formula, and could give you crap and gems just as easily.  I think comparing the two formats effectively needs to account for the way each one actually works.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 13, 2017)

For me, I don't worry about labels. I'm me. One of things about being me is I write. When I write I have a system of organising my thoughts and a certain approach I take that lets me comfortably tackle a project. This system is ever evolving. Call it artistry. Call it craft. Call it the Dumbarse's Approach to Writing. It doesn't matter to me.

I write. I write about what interests me. I do it regardless of if I'm paid or not, but I hope I can make a living at it one day. And if I do make it, call me what ever you want.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 13, 2017)

Sorry double post


----------



## neodoering (Feb 13, 2017)

Devor said:


> This is part of an old debate, and I think there are better ways to frame it. For instance you mentioned race as a "snap in/snap out" example, and to me that's confusing whatever point you're trying to make (unless that is your point, and you've gone a long way beating around it).  Do you feel the same about, say, an Inciting Incident?  Or the idea that an protagonist should be kind of an "everyman/person"? What snap-in model are you talking about?
> 
> As for the question of being an artist, I think this is a bad framework for tackling that discussion.  I read an article about the difference between literary and consumer novels, and they described it as the difference between a postcard and a scene.  You can google it yourself.  But the thing I noticed was, the literary format had just as much (or as little) of a formula, and could give you crap and gems just as easily.  I think comparing the two formats effectively needs to account for the way each one actually works.



Good afternoon, Devor. 
Yes, I feel the same way about an Inciting Incident, or the Caucasian Hero and the Person of Color Sidekick.  Or the climax at the 2/3 or 3/4 mark in the narrative.  Stock elements: if you don't like the scene set in Paris because there have been several terrorist incidents in Paris over the last year and it's kind of depressing, snap it out and snap in a scene set in London.  _As if it doesn't matter where the scene is set._  You wrote a book with a middle-aged male technical writer protagonist, but market research now comes back saying young women, who are the majority of fiction buyers, aren't into a story about middle-aged men this year.  So you snap him out and snap in a twenty-five year old male graduate student instead.  

It all comes down to why are you telling your story? If you want to become a professional writer, you need to listen to the market research and to a certain extent write to that.  Not because you believe in it--you know it changes by the month--but because the people who pay your advance believe in it, and you have to some extent to give them what they want.  Publishing is a business, with focus groups, market research, and a mass production ethos.  The focus is on right now and a few years in the future, and yesterday's success doesn't count for much.  

In some ways, it's no different for the writer who is an artist.  You need a patron, who wants his kids in your story, or he wants the climax to be set on his agribusiness farm.  Or you need to please the arts granting committee or academic press editor who is considering bringing out your work.  But the focus for the artist-writer is different than from the craftsman.  The craftsman in general is trying to pump out "product" that entertains.  That's the high and low of it.  The artist is trying to get at deeper human truths.  

A lot of people are posting that these two categories are not mutually exclusive, and I'm sure they're right, but it's useful to pull them apart and see how people identify themselves.  The category that draws you most strongly will determine which publishers you approach, how you present yourself, the elders you compare yourself to, and the type of stories you produce.  This is not life or death material, but it can establish what kind of career you have, and how "seriously" you are taken.  Good stuff for a thread!


----------



## Devor (Feb 13, 2017)

neodoering said:


> Yes, I feel the same way about an Inciting Incident, or the Caucasian Hero and the Person of Color Sidekick.



It sure didn't take you long to make it about race again.  I think you're making a mistake if you're letting the unfortunate problem of whitewashing tarnish your entire view of the role editors and other experts play in this industry.  Fighting the experts is one of the first things anybody needs to get over if they want to succeed at pretty much anything, and writing is no exception.

About race, however, the experts are still telling the truth.  If you stand around a mall and give hundreds of people the same book blurb, changing only the first name of the main character, you will get very different ratings depending on whether the name is male or female, traditional or ethnic (or whatever the PC words for that are).

It's awful, don't get me wrong, but denial doesn't fix a problem.  You mentioned a black MC, and now a black sidekick.  Which does more for the black community - a black MC in a book that nobody reads, or a black sidekick in a work that's popular?

But don't get me wrong.  Write a black MC and don't let anyone stop you if that's what you want to do.  My main point isn't about race, but about the wisdom of hearing out the experts, and seeing the problems with the depth that they actually deserve.  If you want to tackle diversity issues, the solution isn't yelling about it to the internet and swearing to do your own thing.  Change happens from the inside.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 13, 2017)

Totally off topic but fun...

While I doubt this happens in publishing much if at all, in screenwriting this sort of thing has and will continue to happen, both ethnicity and sex of character... it's something that simply must be accepted when in that world for two main reasons, target audience and interested actors. If Denzel will sign onto the pic if he gets the lead... bam! the lead is a black man. Tom Cruise will jump onboard? Bam! The character is white. Jennifer Lawrence wants that story? Your asian dude just grew breasts and turned white. In fact, much screenwriting advice goes to not writing a character of any ethinicity unless it matters to the story. Age is another major flex point.

But hey, that's a different world... once you've sold a script, it isn't yours anymore. Novels are quite different, novelists actually have power upto a point.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> False Dilemma! False Dilemma! False Dilemma!
> 
> I'm both. I craft art. I craft functional objects whose function is to be art.
> 
> And if someone told me that I need to change the ethnicity of my character...well...Annoyingkid up there put it accurately, if bluntly.


----------



## oenanthe (Feb 13, 2017)

> Yes, I feel the same way about an Inciting Incident, or the Caucasian Hero and the Person of Color Sidekick.





> It sure didn't take you long to make it about race again.



...is one sentence literally all it takes to get a mod breathing down your neck?

holy smokes.


----------



## Nimue (Feb 13, 2017)

Yeah, I'm not liking the parental tone of "realistically characters need to be white it's just realistic". Not that Neo's free of the condescension here either, but...come on.  Man, I don't like these sweeping hypothetical threads about The Industry without grounding in anybody's actual experience publishing.

My answer to this question:  I am a butthole.  A butthole knows how to do only one thing, and it just does it.  Pbbbbthh.

Oh my god.  Sorry. Migraine meds.


----------



## Devor (Feb 14, 2017)

Nimue said:


> Yeah, I'm not liking the parental tone of "realistically characters need to be white it's just realistic".



I am sorry, I can see that I struck the wrong tone and overreached with my last post.

But.... what?  That isn't remotely like anything that I actually said.


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 14, 2017)

I look forward to the day when writing, and art in general, moves away from all the identity politics and gets back to being about the craft and creative expression. I don't know why everything has to be side-tracked by discussions regarding race, gender, or what have you. It's truly depressing to see that this is what the entertainment industry has devolved into.


----------



## Alyssa (Feb 14, 2017)

Miskatonic said:


> I look forward to the day when writing, and art in general, moves away from all the identity politics and gets back to being about the craft and creative expression. I don't know why everything has to be side-tracked by discussions regarding race, gender, or what have you. It's truly depressing to see that this is what the entertainment industry has devolved into.



Thank god for the voice of reason here.

It's fine to have a healthy relationship with this stuff. But the way it's being pushed and shoved is not one.
Stephen Fry say it best. There are two types of people obsessed with food, anorexics and the morbidly obese.

We're seeing at the present the same sort of phenomenon with race gender sexuality etc. And it's just silly. You have people on one side that say that someone's skin colour means that they mean and amount to nothing (very few, and not very vocal) and on the other you have people who say that someone's skin colour means and amounts to everything (very few, and very vocal). It's absolutely insane. Yes there are problems focusing around culture and education but it doesn't and shouldn't mean that anyone's skin colour actually "means" anything significant except to the person themselves.
And nor should it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 14, 2017)

Slightly more on topic, let's remember that it was the art of story that created the structure, structure just being a means to reverse engineer why some stories work and others don't. And frankly, most structure is loosey goosey enough that damned near anything fits into it.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 14, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Totally off topic but fun...
> 
> While I doubt this happens in publishing much if at all, in screenwriting this sort of thing has and will continue to happen, both ethnicity and sex of character... it's something that simply must be accepted when in that world for two main reasons, target audience and interested actors. If Denzel will sign onto the pic if he gets the lead... bam! the lead is a black man. Tom Cruise will jump onboard? Bam! The character is white. Jennifer Lawrence wants that story? Your asian dude just grew breasts and turned white. In fact, much screenwriting advice goes to not writing a character of any ethinicity unless it matters to the story.


The problem is that this way of thinking creates a self-perpetuating cycle where white actors get most of the roles because there aren't nearly as many big-name actors of color that will make the suits happy. And the reason there aren't as many big-name actors of color is because they don't get the roles they need to build their careers because the powers that be think you should only cast someone as non-white if it's essential to the story. And they defend that by saying they just want to get a big-name actor to put butts in seats. And round and round the wheel goes. And I think this logic falls apart anyway because we know that movies can promote actors just as much as the other way around. I'd never heard of Henry Cavill before he became Superman, or Chris Hemsworth before he became Thor, or Chadwick Boseman before he became Black Panther, or Rinko Kikuchi before Pacific Rim, or John Boyega and Daisy Ridley before Star Wars 7. Hollywood gives roles to unknown white actors all the time. Non-white actors deserve the same opportunities. And when they get them, as in some of the examples I listed above, it can be wonderful culturally, artistically, and commercially.



Miskatonic said:


> I look forward to the day when writing, and art in general, moves away from all the identity politics and gets back to being about the craft and creative expression. I don't know why everything has to be side-tracked by discussions regarding race, gender, or what have you. It's truly depressing to see that this is what the entertainment industry has devolved into.


That's all well and good for you when it's _your_ identity that gets most of the screen time. But others, especially those of us who are non-white, are tired of our heroes not looking like us. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for you.

ETA: Can't believe I forgot to mention Luke Cage on Netflix. It's so good.


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 14, 2017)

Mindfire said:


> The problem is that this way of thinking creates a self-perpetuating cycle where white actors get most of the roles because there aren't nearly as many big-name actors of color that will make the suits happy. And the reason there aren't as many big-name actors of color is because they don't get the roles they need to build their careers because the powers that be think you should only cast someone as non-white if it's essential to the story. And they defend that by saying they just want to get a big-name actor to put butts in seats. And round and round the wheel goes. And I think this logic falls apart anyway because we know that movies can promote actors just as much as the other way around. I'd never heard of Henry Cavill before he became Superman, or Chris Hemsworth before he became Thor, or Chadwick Boseman before he became Black Panther, or Rinko Kikuchi before Pacific Rim, or John Boyega and Daisy Ridley before Star Wars 7. Hollywood gives roles to unknown white actors all the time. Non-white actors deserve the same opportunities.
> 
> 
> That's all well and good when it's _your_ identity that gets most of the screen time. But others, especially those of us who are non-white, are tired of our heroes not looking like us. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for you.



And you think having that chip on your shoulder is going to lead to any kind of solution?


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 14, 2017)

Miskatonic said:


> And you think having that chip on your shoulder is going to lead to any kind of solution?



1. That's kind of condescending. Disappointing, but sadly not unexpected. To use an extreme example, what you just said is kind of like visiting someone in the hospital and telling their family that "crying won't make them better." Technically true, extremely unhelpful, and kind of a dick move. But in this case I wouldn't even say you're technically correct because:

2. Yes, this chip on my shoulder does lead to solutions. When aggregated with lots of other people with chips on their shoulders, it gets the attention of the suits and tells them that they could please a lot of customers and potentially make a lot of money by paying attention to the wants of those who have historically been overlooked. That's why we got John Boyega in Star Wars (and the Pacific Rim sequel!) and the upcoming Black Panther movie to begin with. And why central roles for actors of color in film and television are starting to become more common. It's why Marvel and DC are pushing more diverse characters in their comics and film adaptations. Having a chip on your shoulder is where the change starts. So it's not very helpful to tell someone to chill out and not make a big deal about a problem that ultimately doesn't affect you.

3. Furthermore, this chip on my shoulder is part of what lead me to writing fantasy in the first place. I am, in fact, doing what is often disingenuously suggested to people in my position: "making my own." So yeah, if you dismiss the characters and world I created specifically so the kids of the next generation could have the fiction that I wished was around when I was a kid as "identity politics", then you should expect that I am going to be annoyed with you.


----------



## Dark Firestorm (Feb 14, 2017)

im an artist


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 14, 2017)

Mindfire said:


> 1. That's kind of condescending. Disappointing, but sadly not unexpected. To use an extreme example, what you just said is kind of like visiting someone in the hospital and telling their family that "crying won't make them better." Technically true, extremely unhelpful, and kind of a dick move. But in this case I wouldn't even say you're technically correct because:
> 
> 2. Yes, this chip on my shoulder does lead to solutions. When aggregated with lots of other people with chips on their shoulders, it gets the attention of the suits and tells them that they could please a lot of customers and potentially make a lot of money by paying attention to the wants of those who have historically been overlooked. That's why we got John Boyega in Star Wars (and the Pacific Rim sequel!) and the upcoming Black Panther movie to begin with. And why central roles for actors of color in film and television are starting to become more common. It's why Marvel and DC are pushing more diverse characters in their comics and film adaptations. Having a chip on your shoulder is where the change starts. So it's not very helpful to tell someone to chill out and not make a big deal about a problem that ultimately doesn't affect you.
> 
> 3. Furthermore, this chip on my shoulder is part of what lead me to writing fantasy in the first place. I am, in fact, doing what is often disingenuously suggested to people in my position: "making my own." So yeah, if you dismiss the characters and world I created specifically so the kids of the next generation could have the fiction that I wished was around when I was a kid as "identity politics", then you should expect that I am going to be annoyed with you.



Is it comfortable up there on your cross?

Like I said. It's all about politics now, and that's a shame. 

My apologies for all the "whiteness" out there.


----------



## Nimue (Feb 14, 2017)

Devor said:


> It's awful, don't get me wrong, but denial doesn't fix a problem.  You mentioned a black MC, and now a black sidekick.  Which does more for the black community - a black MC in a book that nobody reads, or a black sidekick in a work that's popular?





Devor said:


> I am sorry, I can see that I struck the wrong tone and overreached with my last post.
> 
> But.... what?  That isn't remotely like anything that I actually said.


Yes, sorry, that was obviously...poorly expressed.  I didn’t mean “realistic” in the sense of “historically accurate” but rather “market-feasible”, which is what you seem to be saying in the quote above.  While I understand the general tone of your post, the advice to swallow the lumps and put non-white characters in second place because it will “do more for the black community” strikes me as the wrong thing to be saying to aspiring writers, that’s all.



Miskatonic said:


> I look forward to the day when writing, and art in general, moves away from all the identity politics and gets back to being about the craft and creative expression. I don't know why everything has to be side-tracked by discussions regarding race, gender, or what have you. It's truly depressing to see that this is what the entertainment industry has devolved into.





Alyssa said:


> Yes there are problems focusing around culture and education but it doesn't and shouldn't mean that anyone's skin colour actually "means" anything significant except to the person themselves.


I’d also like to see a day when diversity is no longer a concern: when people in our world are reflected in writing and film as they are, and careless stereotypes are a thing of the past.  But I have to disagree with the idea that we live anywhere near that world today.  If you can look around at current events and mainstream media and say there is no problem, and it does not need to be addressed...I think you are lucky enough to be unaffected by it.

I cannot see the movement of the market and culture as a whole as devolving.  To be frank, most everyone these days would call that progress, and I think you know that.  You can look at the benefits and struggles of writing with diversity and make your own decision whether to join...but I feel that dismissing it completely as a fluke  or a disorder is a mistake.

I’ve made an effort these past 3-4 years to write with more diversity and it’s opened up my worlds and given them more dimension.  (Yes, even within European settings, if you look at the trade, travel, and cultural exchange that happened in history) Though I’ve stumbled, making the effort continues to be rewarding and enlightening.

Alright, I’m pretty familiar by now with the route that this conversation goes down.  I just wanted to post something positive and a little more, er, thoughtful than last night.  Carry on, discussion forum, carry on...


----------



## Nimue (Feb 14, 2017)

Oh, Jesus Christ, Miskatonic, seriously?!

I...I can't.  Going to go have a nice day at work.  Please get your shit together MS.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 14, 2017)

if you are always thinking about who you are empowering, who you are offending be it in terms of religion or identity politics, who you are marketing to, maximum sales, and so on , then you are lost creatively.  I've heard alot of people talk like that who haven't even written anything yet.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 14, 2017)

Miskatonic said:


> Is it comfortable up there on your cross?
> 
> Like I said. It's all about politics now, and that's a shame.
> 
> My apologies for all the "whiteness" out there.



I'm not on my cross; I carry it.  Saying "it's all about politics" is dismissive at best. And it's unfortunate that this whole issue is framed as being about politics. I don't see it as being about that at all. For me it's about creating a world where my (currently hypothetical) kids can have all the stories and heroes that I didn't have growing up. I don't really see how anyone can think that's an unworthy goal. 

And as far as I can see, no one here is attacking you for your whiteness. There's a quote I think applies here: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." So by all means, feel as free to be as white as you want. There are plenty of stories on offer about people like you and they're not going away. Let's just make some room for other people too.


----------



## Alyssa (Feb 14, 2017)

Miskatonic said:


> Is it comfortable up there on your cross?
> 
> Like I said. It's all about politics now, and that's a shame.
> 
> My apologies for all the "whiteness" out there.



Wow... you went from saying something reasonable it your first post to something really dumb here.
Someone's skin colour should not be an issue. Nor should it be politicised. 

But complaining about an injustice in a non political manner is not getting up on a cross, the assertion that someone is getting up on a cross in order to dissuade that person from stating quite reasonably an injustice is something far more pernicious and vile.

No, someone's race shouldn't be political. But they do have a valid reason to complain. There needs to be a cultural shift inside the communities, yes. But that is far easier to enact with proper housing, healthcare, education and protections. This is not about politicising race, a horrible and divisive thing, which I agree with you, is often done by the media to perpetuate an inferno of outrage from the sparks they sow. But better opportunities for people? Equal opportunities for people? That should certainly be politicised. Not just for a single race, no. But certain races have gotten the sharper end of the stick. And claiming otherwise, and that your own culture is being marginalised by other people making a name for themselves in the world, is, quite frankly, getting up on a cross.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alyssa (Feb 14, 2017)

Nimue said:


> Yes, sorry, that was obviously...poorly expressed.  I didn’t mean “realistic” in the sense of “historically accurate” but rather “market-feasible”, which is what you seem to be saying in the quote above.  While I understand the general tone of your post, the advice to swallow the lumps and put non-white characters in second place because it will “do more for the black community” strikes me as the wrong thing to be saying to aspiring writers, that’s all.
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> Alright, I’m pretty familiar by now with the route that this conversation goes down.  I just wanted to post something positive and a little more, er, thoughtful than last night.  Carry on, discussion forum, carry on...



Just to clarify. I agree there is a problem with diversity. But I believe that is solved by the quiet equalisation of opportunities. Allowing the next chinua achebe the next Edwidge danticat to take their rightful place among authors, and similar for other mediums. This is not done however by the screaming matches and accusation that political dialogue and political zoilism entails, often encouraged by news channels who like to set fires and then report on the flames. 
As a side note, I have for "reasons" been discriminated against, I am fully aware it's a thing. I just feel that making the world better for everyone, raising everyone up to an equal level is far better than the alternative option of bringing everyone down to bedrock that is sometimes advocated for due to the quick but temporary gratification of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 14, 2017)

I state reality without judgement. But, modern Hollywood, Denzel will get a character's race changed just as fast as some white guy, and as I mentioned, an awful lot of screenwriting advice is without race or color. These days too, the power of the lead big name actor is dying, as you've pointed out, so quit griping. Although most of them are super hero crap, so I still don't know any of their names. Right now the "trend" is strong, young, female leads, and that goes outside movies into lit. 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not going to defend Hollywood, I was on the periphery in screenwriting a decade or more ago and it is not what I would call a pretty place. But, it is purely about money... in the end it's a big business with a helluva lot of livings riding on it (of all colors and shades) and they use whatever actor they can get and they can afford, who they think can make the most money. Super movies, or based on previous properties with a big name, are ideal because they can put up an actor on the cheap and save money for production.



Mindfire said:


> The problem is that this way of thinking creates a self-perpetuating cycle where white actors get most of the roles because there aren't nearly as many big-name actors of color that will make the suits happy. And the reason there aren't as many big-name actors of color is because they don't get the roles they need to build their careers because the powers that be think you should only cast someone as non-white if it's essential to the story. And they defend that by saying they just want to get a big-name actor to put butts in seats. And round and round the wheel goes. And I think this logic falls apart anyway because we know that movies can promote actors just as much as the other way around. I'd never heard of Henry Cavill before he became Superman, or Chris Hemsworth before he became Thor, or Chadwick Boseman before he became Black Panther, or Rinko Kikuchi before Pacific Rim, or John Boyega and Daisy Ridley before Star Wars 7. Hollywood gives roles to unknown white actors all the time. Non-white actors deserve the same opportunities. And when they get them, as in some of the examples I listed above, it can be wonderful culturally, artistically, and commercially.
> 
> 
> That's all well and good for you when it's _your_ identity that gets most of the screen time. But others, especially those of us who are non-white, are tired of our heroes not looking like us. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for you.
> ...


----------



## FifthView (Feb 14, 2017)

Alyssa said:


> Stephen Fry say it best. There are two types of people obsessed with food, anorexics and the morbidly obese.





Demesnedenoir said:


> Slightly more on topic, let's remember that it was the art of story that created the structure, structure just being a means to reverse engineer why some stories work and others don't. And frankly, most structure is loosey goosey enough that damned near anything fits into it.



Even a little more on-topic, and a little cooption of Alyssa's citation....I'd amend Fry's idea to add that chefs and CEO's in the food distribution industry can be added to the list of types of people obsessed with food.

So if "food" means "prose/fiction" in this ad hoc metaphor....Then perhaps there are chefs who are artists and CEO's interested in throwing together and distributing whatever will sell best. (I'm leaving the extremes of "anorexics" and the "morbidly obese" out of this metaphor.  For now at least, heh.)

My problem with the art vs craft debate is complex, because a) I _can_, if I wanted, make arguments about those two approaches, providing I limit myself to limited definitions of the two, and b) the etymology/idea behind the words throws me off.

As for "b"....Well both seem to have originated similarly.  

There is the word "artisan" that might point at what I mean.  Or, "artifice."  

To some extent, the development of the two words over time may lead to the idea of distinguishing "art" as being merely a finer development of "craft," in the sense that any novice can begin with _craft_, learning and doing it, but years of experience may be needed for that craft to develop into something worthy of the designation _art_.  Here, I mean only to point out the historical development of the words, not settle upon how we should now consider them.  But at heart I'm personally still stuck on the earliest etymology and can't shake the overall notion that the two words have too much in common to be distinguished in a simplistic way.


----------



## Devor (Feb 14, 2017)

Nimue said:


> Yes, sorry, that was obviously...poorly expressed.  I didn’t mean “realistic” in the sense of “historically accurate” but rather “market-feasible”, which is what you seem to be saying in the quote above.  While I understand the general tone of your post, the advice to swallow the lumps and put non-white characters in second place because it will “do more for the black community” strikes me as the wrong thing to be saying to aspiring writers, that’s all.



I can at least see why you would interpret my post that way.  But it's not what I was saying.

My opinion is that the challenges are real, and that ignoring them does more harm than good.  That's been my opinion throughout all these kinds of discussions.

A great many editors and directors and publishers and executives are also trying to address these problems, and that's why things have progressed the way they have.  But you can't push an audience in a direction it doesn't want to move - and if you try they come to resent it. That's day one in any consumer behavior course. You have to start with the audience, and what they want, not with the product you want to push.

I'm not telling anybody what to write - just not to ignore or diminish the very real challenges, and the progress other people have made to address them, such as elevating the "black sidekick" to a staple with reasonably strong character development and some often badass moments.  Maybe that's not "enough" in the long run, but it's real and tangible progress that doesn't deserve the disparaging eye roll.


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 14, 2017)

Mindfire said:


> I'm not on my cross; I carry it.  Saying "it's all about politics" is dismissive at best. And it's unfortunate that this whole issue is framed as being about politics. I don't see it as being about that at all. For me it's about creating a world where my (currently hypothetical) kids can have all the stories and heroes that I didn't have growing up. I don't really see how anyone can think that's an unworthy goal.
> 
> And as far as I can see, no one here is attacking you for your whiteness. There's a quote I think applies here: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." So by all means, feel as free to be as white as you want. There are plenty of stories on offer about people like you and they're not going away. Let's just make some room for other people too.



Dude, seriously. Your whole first reply to me was focused completely on race. My apologies if my words triggered you. 

Now you want to call me privileged, as if you know me. Passive-aggressive much? 

People like me? 

You are too transparent. Painfully so.


----------



## Devor (Feb 14, 2017)

*Please everyone, let's do our best to stop with the personal attacks, with taking things personal, and with characterizing other people's behaviors.



*And Miskatonic . . . will be taking a few days off.  Please keep your emotional response to that to yourselves.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 14, 2017)

Artist or Craftsman? False dichotomy. We're all both, to one extent or another. Which way you lean more heavily depends on your goals and what types of work you are writing. Neither direction is more or pure than the other.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 14, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Artist or Craftsman? False dichotomy. We're all both, to one extent or another. Which way you lean more heavily depends on your goals and what types of work you are writing. Neither direction is more or pure than the other.



I'm still not entirely on board with the way this issue is framed. It doesn't seem to be an art vs. craft thing so much as an art vs. business and cynicism thing. But then, the way I define "art" and "craft" is different from what's premised in the original post.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 14, 2017)

Mindfire said:


> I'm still not entirely on board with the way this issue is framed. It doesn't seem to be an art vs. craft thing so much as an art vs. business and cynicism thing. But then, the way I define "art" and "craft" is different from what's premised in the original post.



As I said, it's a false dichotomy. There's a lot of overlap here. I can see the art v. business distinction as well, however the baggage that comes with such distinctions (biased in favor of the ideal of art versus business) doesn't work for me.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 14, 2017)

I think of myself as neither an artist or a craftsman, but simply as a storyteller.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 14, 2017)

I'm a baby that learned how to type somewhat coherent sentences.


----------



## valiant12 (Feb 14, 2017)

> So. I read an article online that offered 25 tips to beginning writers. One of the tips was that writers are craftsmen, and should treat their writing as a "profession." I looked up craftsman, which was defined as someone who follows the methods and best p.......................................................................................................................................................................................................



This is making me sad.
Too much cynicism. Masss producing art? Whats next? Humanity becoming the borg?


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Feb 14, 2017)

> I think of myself as neither an artist or a craftsman, but simply as a storyteller.



I agree totally. I tell stories regardless of what people think of me or want of me. 



> This is making me sad. Too much cynicism. Masss producing art? Whats next? Humanity becoming the borg?



There's a part in Deep Secret, by Diana Wynne Jones [probably my favourite author], where a writer gives a horribly boring speech at a convention on how his writing is like building a car, and lists how all of the 'machinery' fits together best in order to get the best money out of it.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 14, 2017)

valiant12 said:


> This is making me sad.
> Too much cynicism. Masss producing art? Whats next? Humanity becoming the borg?


The writer who views it as a job makes a living. The writer who views it as "art above all" starves.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 14, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> The writer who views it as a job makes a living. The writer who views it as "art above all" starves.



...Assuming the artist doesn't have a day job on the side or isn't independently wealthy.

Slaving over one book for your entire life is perfectly valid if you can pay your bills some other way.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 14, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> ...Assuming the artist doesn't have a day job on the side or isn't independently wealthy.
> 
> Slaving over one book for your entire life is perfectly valid if you can pay your bills some other way.



Which, rather blatantly, proves my point. If you want to _make a living_? You view writing as a job. A job you love. Even a job you can be artistic at. But still a job.
The writer who has to be "true to the art"? Doesn't make a living.

It really is that simple.



I consider myself both crafter and artist. But I treat writing like a job, not a hobby and most definitely not some form of "pure art."  I intend to make a living at it, making at least as much as I make now with my "day job."


----------



## Russ (Feb 14, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> The writer who views it as a job makes a living. The writer who views it as "art above all" starves.



There is a great story about Fred Forsyth speaking on a panel in England with a good friend of his who was a published literary writer.

The panel master asks how important it is to take your audience into account when you are writing.

FF says it is very important to think about the reader when you are writing and he always has his audience in mind throughout the entire writing process.

His literary friend scoffs at this at says that he writes for himself to satisfy himself.

To which FF says "That is why you are a very good writer...and I am very rich."


----------



## Russ (Feb 14, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> if you are always thinking about who you are empowering, who you are offending be it in terms of religion or identity politics, who you are marketing to, maximum sales, and so on , then you are lost creatively.  I've heard alot of people talk like that who haven't even written anything yet.



And I know a number of people who think like that who make seven figures a year from their writing.


----------



## Russ (Feb 14, 2017)

Miskatonic said:


> I look forward to the day when writing, and art in general, moves away from all the identity politics and gets back to being about the craft and creative expression. I don't know why everything has to be side-tracked by discussions regarding race, gender, or what have you. It's truly depressing to see that this is what the entertainment industry has devolved into.



Having lived through with clear memories of the times when people of colour had no significant role in any of the North American art scene (other than music), I am grateful that we now realize that art has an impact on society and we should be respectful of the realities of people who are not white males.


----------



## Russ (Feb 14, 2017)

Miskatonic said:


> Is it comfortable up there on your cross?
> 
> Like I said. It's all about politics now, and that's a shame.
> 
> My apologies for all the "whiteness" out there.




The oppressed have no obligation to offer comfort to the status quo.


----------



## Gurkhal (Feb 15, 2017)

To me writing is and, probably, will always be a form of art. While there's a certain ammount of craftsmanship involved, I see it no more a craft than poetry, where you need to know the tecnique used, or painting, where you need to know your tools and stuff.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 15, 2017)

Russ said:


> And I know a number of people who think like that who make seven figures a year from their writing.



Yeah. Seven zeroes, like Riley J Dennis, who has to give the books away.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 15, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> if you are always thinking about who you are empowering, who you are offending be it in terms of religion or identity politics, who you are marketing to, maximum sales, and so on , then you are lost creatively.  I've heard alot of people talk like that who haven't even written anything yet.



Actually, no. It is that very thought process, that knowledge and consideration, that MAKES you creative. It is the very reason I include persons of color, various sexualities, and religious beliefs, in my work. Because I absolutely do "write to market" in that way. And I've found, as every other writer has, that it forces me to grow as a craftsman and artist


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 15, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Yeah. Seven zeroes, like Riley J Dennis, who has to give the books away.



That's a completely different situation, as everyone can easily see. Irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Russ (Feb 15, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Yeah. Seven zeroes, like Riley J Dennis, who has to give the books away.



I have no idea who Riley J Dennis is.  But the list of people who make seven figures a year by writing books intentionally with a right wing political slant is long and well known.  The list on the left is pretty good as well.

You also suggest that people who worry about who they are marketing to and maximizing sales are creatively lost.  In your world I guess only good literature is available listening to readings in coffee houses by people who don't care about sales or their audience.

Do you actually know any authors who make seven figures a year from their writing?


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 15, 2017)

> You also suggest that people who worry about who they are marketing to and maximizing sales are creatively lost. In your world I guess only good literature is available listening to readings in coffee houses by people who don't care about sales or their audience.



You're going to an extreme. A certain degree of caring about an audience is required to prevent one from filling their works with self indulgent tripe. But you are creatively lost if your mind is full of demographics, statistics, social justice, real world politics, money instead of the conventions of narrative: Emotion, philosophy, development, design, conflict, choreography, iconography, meaning. These are the things that fill my mind. My job isn't that of an agent, or an activist, or a preacher. If money you crave, just write  teen harlequin romance novels with damaged, borderline abusive, male love interests. Or better yet get a real job. Otherwise the people making seven figures from their writing remain a small, elite handful in this industry.  



> Do you actually know any authors who make seven figures a year from their writing?



What, personally? No. You?


----------



## Russ (Feb 15, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> You're going to an extreme. A certain degree of caring about an audience is required to prevent one from filling their works with self indulgent tripe. But you are creatively lost if your mind is full of demographics, statistics, social justice, real world politics, money instead of the conventions of narrative: Emotion, philosophy, development, design, conflict, choreography, iconography, meaning. These are the things that fill my mind. My job isn't that of an agent, or an activist, or a preacher. If money you crave, just write  teen harlequin romance novels with damaged, borderline abusive, male love interests. Or better yet get a real job. Otherwise the people making seven figures from their writing remain a small, elite handful in this industry.



I am not being extreme...I am just quoting you.  

By the by, how much do you think people who bang out harlequins make?  Do you think that is the way to get rich or even make a decent living?  If you think the seven figure people are too elite, we can talk about the five and six figure people and their focus on business or politics as well if you like.

Many authors think about their audience all the time and the business model.  

For instance James Patterson spends a ton of time thinking about the business end of publishing and writes to it.  So do many other successful authors.

Another example is Lee Child who said this:



> "My job as as a writer is not really to please myself it is to understand the public," he said. "And I think people make it very clear what they want is another Reacher book next year. So there really is no motivation to stray outside of that."
> 
> "To put it another way, if I was J.K. Rowling I would be writing 'Harry Potter' forever because that's what people like."



How many zeroes do you think he has on his advance check?

For another example Brad Thor writes very political work for a right wing audience.  He is very clear, and in fact strict about it.  He won't even blurb other authors who don't pass his political litmus test. 

How many zeros do you think he has on his advance check?

The other thing your post presupposes is that one is incapable of having great writing skills and a great sense of your business and how the industry works.  There are lots of writers whose craft rises to the highest level who are obsessed, well informed and active in the business side of their writing and the industry in general.

And if you think your agent will take care of all the market issues and everything else for you, until you an industry on your own, you are sorely mistaken.  Both the traditionally published author and the self-pub author today more than ever need to have an active hand in the business and  marketing side of their career.




> What, personally? No. You?



Yeah, personally, like sat down and talked to.  Me, lots.  More than a dozen.  

And why you chose to pick on that trans person as an example of failure is beyond me.

Oh...and one other thing.  Writing commercial fiction is a real job.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 15, 2017)

This is going to come across as attacking and demeaning. I don't mean it that way. But I have to be blunt.



Annoyingkid said:


> You're going to an extreme. A certain degree of caring about an audience is required to prevent one from filling their works with self indulgent tripe. But you are creatively lost if your mind is full of demographics, statistics, social justice, real world politics, money instead of the conventions of narrative: Emotion, philosophy, development, design, conflict, choreography, iconography, meaning. These are the things that fill my mind. My job isn't that of an agent, or an activist, or a preacher.



If you can't do both, I question your seriousness and commitment.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 15, 2017)

russ said:


> and i know a number of people who think like that who make seven figures a year from their writing.


WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? Bring them out! I must learn their ways! THEIR POWER WILL BE MINE!


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 15, 2017)

Mindfire said:


> Who are these people? Bring them out! I must learn their ways!



I want to sit at their internetty kneee and listen to their wisdom. Russ, can you convince them to do an AMA here on Mythic Scribes?


----------



## Russ (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I want to sit at their internetty kneee and listen to their wisdom. Russ, can you convince them to do an AMA here on Mythic Scribes?



If I knew what an AMA was I might be able to tell you...

For sure I know which conferences you can find them at and can even get you into all of the cocktail parties...

Also if you are really serious I could direct you to audio recordings of them talking about how the business works...but I don't think they are free...


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 15, 2017)

Russ said:


> I am not being extreme...I am just quoting you.



If you were quoting me, you would notice I said:  if you are _*always*_ thinking about who you are empowering, who you are offending be it in terms of religion or identity politics, who you are marketing to, maximum sales, and so on , then you are lost creatively. 



> By the by, how much do you think people who bang out harlequins make?  Do you think that is the way to get rich or even make a decent living?



By far your best chance of, as romance is the most read genre. 



> Many authors think about their audience all the time and the business model.



In other word's they're  slave to formula to get a salary they could have gotten a different way. So if you're writing to business model, that is often an argument against diversity in lead roles. You tack on a romance because market research says the main lead and the opposite gender lead should be around the same age and kiss by the end. If they're mother and son, or brother and sister or father and daughter, you should change it because demographics indicate teenagers buy into romance more than platonic love between leads. You can't have a male hitting a female because it's offensive to the market. Resulting in a ton of hamstrung faux action girls who are all talk and no action.

You get writers asking me about what microaggressions to avoid against black people. I say I don't care about microaggressions and stop thinking you have to tread on eggshells. Don't write them like a minstrel or golliwag and you're good. Have some creative conviction.

I respect the writer who thinks who gives a shit and does what they want. If you don't make seven or six figures, or even five, so what. In the western world, you ain't starving. What were you doing before publication? Starving? No. Most writers are quite middle class and doing alright. People don't use writing fiction and the hope of publication as their way out of poverty.



> For instance James Patterson spends a ton of time thinking about the business end of publishing and writes to it.  So do many other successful authors.





> Another example is Lee Child who said this:



What he said is just sad. Once you say what you have to say in a series, you stop. You like money that much you're gonna go on forever until people are sick of it? Why? Cos people want? So the guy's basically just a literary vending machine. 



> How many zeroes do you think he has on his advance check?



I don't actually care. When I brought up that trans person (you say that like I'm picking on someone weaker than me) I'm talking about the vast majority of young people in the west who write, the college educated, socially conscious people who are too scared to take risks either because everything they make needs to pass the social justice test first as in Old Riley's case, or they got it into their head that they need to do X, Y, Z to be successful. They need to follow this that and the other rule. How about you actually care about writing the damn thing instead y'know, writing something decent? Instead of thinking about this big success you're statistically unlikely to ever see almost no matter what you do. Do it cos you enjoy it. 


> For another example Brad Thor writes very political work for a right wing audience.  He is very clear, and in fact strict about it.  He won't even blurb other authors who don't pass his political litmus test.



Exercise some common sense. The obvious exception to what I said was if you specifically write about real world politics. This is a fantasy forum last I checked and my comments were aimed at fantasy writers.



> How many zeros do you think he has on his advance check?



Don't care.



> The other thing your post presupposes is that one is incapable of having great writing skills and a great sense of your business and how the industry works.  There are lots of writers whose craft rises to the highest level who are obsessed, well informed and active in the business side of their writing and the industry in general.



It doesn't presuppose that at all. Someone can absolutely not allow marketing and formula dictate their work and be creative and bold, while still having strong understanding of business. In fact someone like that is more likely to get their work to the public. The operative word in my original post was "always." When you're writing, you're writing. You're not marketing. You're not thinking about maximum sales. Of course some do, but they're not creative in my opinion. 



> And if you think your agent will take care of all the market issues and everything else for you



Agents and yourself in collaboration will find the best fit for the project. That doesn't mean the project should be written in line with market demands because there's a market for most things.


> Yeah, personally, like sat down and talked to.  Me, lots.  More than a dozen.



They're not in my medium so there's no reason to speak to them. 



> And why you chose to pick on that trans person as an example of failure is beyond me.



Asked and answered.


> Oh...and one other thing.  Writing commercial fiction is a real job.



Not for most writers it ain't.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 15, 2017)

Russ said:


> If I knew what an AMA was I might be able to tell you...
> 
> For sure I know which conferences you can find them at and can even get you into all of the cocktail parties...
> 
> Also if you are really serious I could direct you to audio recordings of them talking about how the business works...but I don't think they are free...



AMA stands for ask me anything.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 15, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> This is going to come across as attacking and demeaning. I don't mean it that way. But I have to be blunt.
> 
> If you can't do both, I question your seriousness and commitment.



Oh really...you do, huh? 

 I will be equally as blunt. 

https://mythicscribes.com/forums/chit-chat/17767-i-suck-drawing-im-about-lose-few-friends-5.html

Intaglio Printing.

What have you done, bucko?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 15, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Oh really...you do, huh?
> 
> I will be equally as blunt.
> 
> ...



I don't mean to pile on but what do those two things have to do with his point?


----------



## Russ (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> AMA stands for ask me anything.



You know the idea has some merit...but then I think, should I really expose my friends to people like Annoyingkid?

At least he warned us with his name.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I don't mean to pile on but what do those two things have to do with his point?



What does showing a shit ton of my writing and art have to do with him questioning my commitment and seriousness to writing? 

Was that your question? 



Russ said:


> You know the idea has some merit...but then I think, should I really expose my friends to people like Annoyingkid?
> 
> At least he warned us with his name.



Reported.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 15, 2017)

Things are getting aggressive in here. O_O Let's chill before the mods come and pound us?


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 15, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Oh really...you do, huh?
> 
> I will be equally as blunt.
> 
> ...




That's not blunt. That's irrelevant. There's a difference.

What have I done? Write. And write. And write. For 30 years, I've been writing. I'm not published yet, because I haven't done anything deserving of it. But I write constantly. And it's not that difficult for someone who is serious about the craft to keep the tools AND the politics equally in mind.


----------



## Devor (Feb 15, 2017)

As this is the second blowout in this thread, I think it's best if we agree it's run its course.

I'm locking it.

And Russ, I do hope you'll consider whether an AMA might be a good fit.


----------

