# Criticizing the Published



## Garren Jacobsen

I've been here for awhile and I often come across a thread, at least once a quarter, where some of us writers criticize something that is popular. Recently, _The Inheritance Cycle_ by Paolini and _Twilight_ by Meyer took the punishment. I also do some skimming online and I find criticisms and responses to these criticisms. Often times the responses deal with the notion that aspiring writers tearing down a book that is wildly successful is a form of envy. I see their point and agree and disagree at the same time.

I agree that it can be a form of envy. This comes about when the writer is tearing down the published novel for the sheer sake of glee. They have an animus to something that could be written so poorly and be so poorly researched that it is a wonder to them that it got published. Their animus comes from a jealousy that they have not yet been published for whatever reason. Doing such criticism, to me, is wrong and smacks of envy.

However, there is another way to go about criticizing a book, which is to study it as an athlete would study film. I am a golfer. I am not a good golfer. However, when I get the chance, I watch a golf tournament on TV to watch their swings. I observe what they do and how they do it. I often find my self criticizing a pro-golfer's (who could golf me under the table six ways til Sunday) swing. I notice when they raise their body, snap their head around to fast, when they leave their club face too open, and so on and so forth. I don't do this because I hate the golfer. I do this to see what they do well and don't do well and try to incorporate that into my game. I am studying film. I am working on my game. As writers we should work on our craft the same way. We should look at published authors and look for mistakes, as well as strengths, in order to help us avoid making those same mistakes and incorporate their strengths into our writing. Published novels are the writer's version of film. Thinking critically about the book is being in the film room. Seeking to improve our craft like this does not, cannot, stem from envy but from a sincere desire to be the best that we can be. (Even if it is a 14 over par golfer...I mean unpublished author. Stupid long irons.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?


----------



## X Equestris

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.  It's about finding the flaws to improve your own work, or pointing them out so that the creator can correct them in the future.  

The whole "You shouldn't criticize unless you've done it yourself" defense that sometimes gets deployed in discussions about books, movies, television programs, and video games always rubs me the wrong way.  There's a quote that I remember seeing someone post a while back on a different forum that highlights the issues with that argument:  "I don't have to be able to cook to tell you that a cake tastes like crap."


----------



## BWFoster78

Brian,

I agree with you completely.

A discussion is very valuable when it asks what did this person do right and what did they do wrong and what can we learn from it.

I think the discussion becomes much less valuable when a successful author's work is dismissed as "that person just got lucky."

I don't disagree that luck plays a huge roll in mega-success, but I firmly believe that, for an author to reach those heights, they have to have tapped into something that the audience wanted.


----------



## Incanus

Though I can't prove it, and you can't prove me wrong, and likely won't even believe me--I envy artistic skill far, far, far more than monetary success.  For that reason Twilight and Eragon (and their authors) don't provide much for me to be envious about, I'm afraid.  There is always going to be mass quanities of poor art, and some of it will be 'successful'.  I have little interest in duplicating poor art, or learning from it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Here's what I glean from successes like the two stories you mentioned.   

Tell a story that resonates with an audience & little else matters. Storytelling trumps everything.  

Writing ability. Research. Voice. The amount of adverbs you use. Artistic "merit". Everything else is secondary. 

That doesn't mean writers shouldn't pay any attention to craft. Rather, we need to realize where the bread is buttered.


----------



## Steerpike

Eragon is harder to explain because the writing is awful. Meyer's writing is competent, but nothing special. Both demonstrate that the ability to tell a story that connects with readers is more important than technical writing ability.


----------



## Feo Takahari

In a forum like this one, I don't see it as relevant whether a story is published or unpublished. I mean, there's practically a giant brick wall between the advice we give about how to write a "good" story and the advice someone might give about how to write a story that gets published and sells a zillion copies. (And let's face it, if your goal is to make money, writing is like buying lottery tickets.) If we can agree or at least pretend that there's a "right" way of writing, then even if we disagree on the particulars, we can still sneer at folks who got sales by "doing it wrong." Besides, I refuse to accept any paradigm under which "I'm afraid one day we will wake up with our throats slit" is held up as an example of good writing.

I'd also like to point out that "You're just jealous" and "Let's see you do better" are the second and third parts of the Bad Writer Trinity, the three things bad writers say when you critique them. (The first is "If you don't like it, don't read it.")


----------



## BWFoster78

Incanus said:


> Though I can't prove it, and you can't prove me wrong, and likely won't even believe me--I envy artistic skill far, far, far more than monetary success.  For that reason Twilight and Eragon (and their authors) don't provide much for me to be envious about, I'm afraid.  There is always going to be mass quanities of poor art, and some of it will be 'successful'.  I have little interest in duplicating poor art, or learning from it.



I don't think that I desire monetary success (though I wouldn't reject it if you were to hand it to me!) as much as I want people to like my stories.  I think that monetary success is certainly an objective measure of people liking stories, especially when combined with all the people who outright state that they liked those stories.

I find it hard to relate to a writer who claims that they don't want their stories to be liked.


----------



## BWFoster78

> If we can agree or at least pretend that there's a "right" way of writing, then even if we disagree on the particulars, we can still sneer at folks who got sales by "doing it wrong."



To me, when those who haven't proved themselves to have the ability to do something express extreme derision at those who have achieved success, it can come across as sour grapes.


----------



## Incanus

BWFoster78 said:


> I find it hard to relate to a writer who claims that they don't want their stories to be liked.



Was there someone who claimed this?


----------



## BWFoster78

Incanus said:


> Was there someone who claimed this?



Uhh...

If you don't desire monetary success and monetary success is a measure of people liking your story, isn't that claiming that you don't desire for people to like your story?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> If you don't desire monetary success and monetary success is a measure of people liking your story, isn't that claiming that you don't desire for people to like your story?



What he said was that he envies artistic ability more than monetary success.  

Incanus never said he wouldn't like monetary success, or that monetary success is his measure of success.


----------



## Russ

> "I'm afraid one day we will wake up with our throats slit"



Come on...that is pure comic gold!

Critiquing of any writing is tricky, because like it or not, writing is a very personal thing to do, and it is a risk to put your work out there for the published and unpublished a like.  It evokes emotions on both sides of the equation.

I think if you want to talk about craft you have to take as much of the emotion out of it and be clinical and detached.  I think there is a huge value in learning about why things succeed, but that is a different question than determining if something is classically, or structurally "well written."  Personally I want to learn and understand *both subjects* as well as I can.  But they are two different subjects.  So I can read...Dan Brown, for instance, and to my mind see some very bad craft, but I can also study him to try to determine why he is (or was) successful.

I think the critiquing of successfully published authors should be done respectfully, because they have accomplished something most of us have not.  I also think that helps keep out the kind of comments that show real bitterness or envy.  There are plenty of petty, bitter people out there and they sure like to express themselves on the internet.  I don't think that does anything any good.  It is the Monday Morning Quarterback phenomena or how journalists were once described as watching a battle from a safe hill and then descending to kill the reputation of the survivors.  There are things you don't know about writing or anything else until you have been "in the arena."  I have a lot of respect for people who have made their way in the arena and gotten some success there.  Until your "theory" has been tested in the hot fire, it remains just that, an untested theory.

I thought the golf analogy was a great one.  But as I have pointed out elsewhere highly talented and successful authors can get away with some things the unbranded cannot, so you have to be careful how you approach analyzing work that is on a different level than yours.  It is not all "just writing."  The golf swing reminded me of Johnny Mac's tennis service motion.  IT worked for him, but it would put me in a wheelchair in no time flat.


----------



## Steerpike

There are a lot of factors that go into what you write and how you approach your writing apart from simply getting the greatest number of people to like the work and thereby make the most money. If you're writing literary fiction, you're not worrying about whether a large swatch of readers of mainstream commercial fiction are going to like your book. If you're writing in a niche that 1% of readers are into, you're not going to be worrying about pleasing the other 99% because they're not relevant to your work.

Even choice of genre affects the calculus. If you really want to write books that are going to be read and liked by the greatest number of people, and make you the most money, you should be writing romance or crime/mystery. You get the occasional writers like Rowling or GRRM in Fantasy, or King in Horror, but on sheer odds you stand to be a lot more successful monetarily as a good writer in Romance or Crime/Mystery than in Fantasy.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Russ said:


> I thought the golf analogy was a great one.  But as I have pointed out elsewhere highly talented and successful authors can get away with some things the unbranded cannot, so you have to be careful how you approach analyzing work that is on a different level than yours.  It is not all "just writing."  The golf swing reminded me of Johnny Mac's tennis service motion.  IT worked for him, but it would put me in a wheelchair in no time flat.



This right here is a good point of reminder. I saw a pro-golfer hit a tree twice and still make par. Me? Bah, that would make me a +3 if I was lucky. They can get away with those mistakes because they are that good. We aren't. (Meaning we can't sell based on past success and name value) Which means we have to be at the top of our game to get published.


----------



## Steerpike

Brian Scott Allen said:


> (Meaning we can't sell based on past success and name value) Which means we have to be at the top of our game to get published.



Which argues that Meyer really did something right with _Twilight, _getting publishers into a bidding war for a first novel from an unknown writer and ending up with a $750,000.00 advance.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Russ said:


> I think if you want to talk about craft you have to take as much of the emotion out of it and be clinical and detached.  I think there is a huge value in learning about why things succeed, but that is a different question than determining if something is classically, or structurally "well written."  Personally I want to learn and understand *both subjects* as well as I can.  But they are two different subjects.  So I can read...Dan Brown, for instance, and to my mind see some very bad craft, but I can also study him to try to determine why he is (or was) successful.



As a side note, I've read Digital Fortress, and Dan Brown is amazingly good at building tension. Chapter by chapter, paragraph by paragraph, and even through the placement of individual words in a sentence, he opens questions and invites speculation, providing just enough information to get readers wondering what will happen next. It's an invaluable skill for a thriller novelist, though it can impact his writing in other ways. (For instance, characters talk obliquely even when they have reasons to get straight to the point, so the dialogue can feel stilted.)


----------



## Steerpike

I read part of the Da Vinci Code and though it pretty much sucked. I didn't even get halfway through it. But Brown has certainly hit on a winning formula, so you have to give him credit for that.


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> Even choice of genre affects the calculus. If you really want to write books that are going to be read and liked by the greatest number of people, and make you the most money, you should be writing romance or crime/mystery. You get the occasional writers like Rowling or GRRM in Fantasy, or King in Horror, but on sheer odds you stand to be a lot more successful monetarily as a good writer in Romance or Crime/Mystery than in Fantasy.



Very true about the genre.  But I think the modern name of Crime/Mystery that is making all the money is the Thriller genre.  I walked into a bookstore today and the best sellers area was chock full of ITW (International Thriller Writers Ã¢â‚¬“) authors.  Same at airports, drug stores etc.


----------



## Incanus

Steerpike said:


> There are a lot of factors that go into what you write and how you approach your writing apart from simply getting the greatest number of people to like the work and thereby make the most money. If you're writing literary fiction, you're not worrying about whether a large swatch of readers of mainstream commercial fiction are going to like your book. If you're writing in a niche that 1% of readers are into, you're not going to be worrying about pleasing the other 99% because they're not relevant to your work.



Well said.  This is me.  While I think the world (of books) would be a slightly better place if folks appreciated the hard work that goes into craft and technique, I have no illusions about thinking that most folks respond to such things the way I do.  I like to think I'm fairly realistic about this--most folks aren't going to like my writing.  Period.  Still, there just may be some who do.  I write for them, and for myself.

(And thanks TAS!  With that answer, I didn't feel a need to respond.  You got it.  Missed a letter in my screen name though.  I think the name may be related to the word incantation.  Not sure if Tolkien had that in mind or not.)


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Yes I think there often is envy at work. Yet I think there is also genuine confusion about why certain books succeed where others fail. And it's all part of this myth that authors live with that if a book is good it will sell / be picked up etc.

The painful truth is that there is far more luck involved in this business than people want to accept. Good books / great books fall by the wayside and often mediocre ones fly. The horrid truth is that you might write the best book ever written and it'll never be picked up or sell. The odds are against you. But at the same time other books with half so much effort put into them will absolutely rocket.

Everyone mentions Twilight and Fifty shades as examples of the latter. And maybe they're right - I don't know - I've read neither. In my world they are both works that make me violently ill at fifty paces. But what happened with both these works is that they reached audiences that other books didn't reach - tween girls and frustrated housewives bored with basic romance. So while as a red neck guy I can't possibly find any merit in them and feel nauseas just talking about them, my vote doesn't count.

There's luck in that. Timing especially. Fifty shades would not have succeeded twenty years ago. The audience just wouldn't have been there. Housewives - in my humble opinion - weren't that jaded with what they were reading. And Wool - the Hugh Howie success succeeded because of happenstance as well. His book was picked up and tweeted about by a celeb and that blew his sales out of the water.

At the same time other books fail for luck. Alexie Panshin wrote a trilogy of books starting with Starwell, which are in my opinion, some of best comic narratives ever written. They were a commercial failure. His other book Rite of Passage did much better, but isn't a comic masterpiece. Then Harrison came along with the Stainless Steel Rat and which is amazingly similar to Starwell and sold big. The books are much the same in plot and characterization, the worlds too. The writing is almost a carbon copy. The difference is the twenty years between when they were published. Between the sixties and the eighties. (By the way I recommend them all.)

Anyway that's just my tuppence worth - and I'm sure many of you would want your money back!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Chessie

What makes one book or story better than another? I've certainly read books that I thought were awesome but seemed obscure and I have never read Twilight, Eragon, or...lol..FSOG. Considering this is a fantasy/scifi site, I have read "Wool" and loved it, certainly lived up to it's hype.

But all of these books offer reader satisfaction in their own way. It's okay that I think Twilight is cheesy because it wasn't intended for my type of person to read. I don't like vampires and can't stand Y.A. So who am I to judge Meyers and her success? If anything, it tells me she did something right but I don't care to study what that is. Why? Because I'm not her and I don't care what worked for her.

This is also why I abstain from trash talking other writers...it's poor form. On another forum, there is a thread pages upon pages upon pages long of people arguing as to why a sequel of FSOG is the end of the literary world. See, it shouldn't frustrate us that those with supposedly cheesy stories and poor writing skills get fame and fortune. If anything, it should be a hope to us that there are markets for everything out there and we should just keep on writing.


----------



## Steerpike

psychotick said:


> The painful truth is that there is far more luck involved in this business than people want to accept. Good books / great books fall by the wayside and often mediocre ones fly. The horrid truth is that you might write the best book ever written and it'll never be picked up or sell. The odds are against you.



This is the absolute truth, and something aspiring writers really don't want to hear. There are excellent writers who can't make enough to quit their day jobs.

But even though luck and timing play a significant factor, the more you develop your craft and the better you get at it, the more likely you'll be one of those writers whose works happens to be one of the lucky ones.


----------



## Russ

Incanus said:


> .  While I think the world (of books) would be a slightly better place if folks appreciated the hard work that goes into craft and technique,



But isn't this the great challenge of being great at anything?  Making it look effortless?


----------



## Nobby

I'm sort of on the fence a touch. Yes, you can say that people have got fat off poorly written (more often poorly edited) works that you yourself (being an artist) would never let the light of fandom see. Fair enough. Fairly free world, and all.

But sometimes, oh, my, bites lip, my inner goddess hangs from a tyre ring eating cheetos with a prehensile foot, just sometimes it's bloody hard to resist being sarcastic.


----------



## Nobby

Opposable toed foot, even


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

BWFoster78 said:


> I think the discussion becomes much less valuable when a successful author's work is dismissed as "that person just got lucky."
> 
> I don't disagree that luck plays a huge roll in mega-success, but I firmly believe that, for an author to reach those heights, they have to have tapped into something that the audience wanted.


R.A. Salvatore is one of many successful people who says he "got lucky." He once told me he "wrote the right book at the right time."

But, yeah, I agree it takes more than luck to write dozens of "right books" and sell millions of them.



I think anyone can critique any published work, and the critic need only be honest. I've been a big critic of _Game of Thrones_ this season, while last season, there was a lot more praise (but still a couple negatives). Could I have done a better job televising GRRM's work? No way! But don't tell me I can't have an opinion on it. It's the opinions of the audience that makes writers and artists successful _or not,_ so you cease to have an honest discussion if you expect everyone to pretend crap doesn't stink.

(Maybe the person selling the crap can wave away the smell with a fan made of many thousand-dollar bills.)


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> This is the absolute truth, and something aspiring writers really don't want to hear. There are excellent writers who can't make enough to quit their day jobs.
> 
> But even though luck and timing play a significant factor, the more you develop your craft and the better you get at it, the more likely you'll be one of those writers whose works happens to be one of the lucky ones.



Allow me to respectfully disagree on the "luck" issue.  It is close to being right, but I think misdescribes the reality of commercial success in writing.

It is true that the odds are against you if you want to make a living writing fiction.  That does not mean that any person's success is dependent on luck.  It means the way that the market works is such that it does not allow for a lot of people to make a good living at writing.  Luck remains just a small factor, perhaps not any larger than in any other occupation with similar market forces.

Only a tiny fraction of hockey players will make it to the NHL or make a living at it.  That does not mean that "luck" plays a big role, it means that it is hard to get one of those coveted spots.  You  need to train, get good coaching, identify the right teams to play, attend tournaments where scouts will be, etc.  Sure luck plays a role, but people like to over emphasize it and use it as a disguise to avoid saying that something is *really, really hard*.

Tons of people want to be astronauts, only very few will.  Are they supposed to be lucky?  Luck plays a role but a small one.

Timing is important, but is not the same thing as luck.  Firstly you can control your own timing.  You cannot control the market, but that does not mean it is bad luck that your product does not match the market, it means you did not read the market as well as someone else.  Or someone beat  you to it.  Beta is not dead because of "luck", computers did not swamp the world because of "luck" either.  Timing was important but timing and luck are not the same thing.

And if you work at it long and steady over a long period of time, producing good work consistently for a long period, you can reduce the impact of timing as well.  I have a friend who is a very successful writer.  He got a handful of books published for good numbers and had some that never got published because he couldn't sell them.  He could not afford to give up his day job.  Then Dan Brown published "Davinci Code" and publishers were hot for books of that ilk.  His agent called him up and said "Hey I have several potential buyers for one of those books you wrote that you could not sell.  Can you tune it up in a hurry?"  He did and it became his breakout novel.  He doesn't bother working as a lawyer anymore.  Some may call that luck, but what really happened is that he produced good work over a long period, developed quality professional relationships, and when the market favoured him, he was ready.

To enjoy a cliche "Luck favours the prepared."

So I would happily say that is very, very hard to make a living at writing, but the ones who do it, are no more "lucky" than people who successfully climb Everest, and that success in writing bears no resemblance to buying a lottery ticket or rolling a die.  But bust your ass to create opportunities and then try to take advantage of them.  IF you fail, it rarely luck or chance that really holds you back.  And if you fail, you get up and do it again for another decade or so and see what happens.

I would go a step further and say it is disrespectful to published authors to suggest that "luck" is key in the industry.  Those people work hard, suffer, market, train and educate themselves to get that success.  They are polite enough to say they are lucky to be able to make their living at writing, but that is just good manners, they work very, very hard and deserve some credit for it. 

The vast majority of the time people are either misusing the term luck or using it as a crutch or excuse.

Hitting a bulls eye at 200 meters with an arrow is very, very hard.  But when Olympic archers do it, I suspect you would not call them lucky.  If it is a windy day and they can't do it, that isn't luck, that is bad conditions.  Writing is very similar.

And oh yes I thought this one was interesting:



> you might write the best book ever written and it'll never be picked up or sell.



If you have such a book at hand, or know someone who does, get it to me and I will personally guarantee I will get it sold and will only charge 10% commission.


So while "luck" or "contingency" plays a role in everything we do there is no reason to believe it plays any more role in writing than any other really tough field.  

Writing is hard place to make a living, and opportunities to do so may be scarce, but that doesn't make it any more dependent on luck that just about anything else.

Guess I should climb off my soapbox and start the weekend now.


----------



## Nobby

Yikes, Russ, you were only missing an 'Ooh-rah' in that long, poisonous and ultimately belittling rant there.

Go exceptionalism!

No, seriously, if you write 'for the the big bucks' (ergh) and you play by the rules you have made obvious (can't effect the market, but show me a good enough yarn I can sell the suits and whooo-hooh money in the bank- major paraphrasing on my part, but that is what I took from your piece)...I just can't...

By God, if you only write to see the rain of gold piling up in your coffers, if that is your only motivation in this world, then I pity you greatly.


----------



## Trick

As Thomas Jefferson said, "I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."

EDIT:



Chesterama said:


> See, it shouldn't frustrate us that those with supposedly cheesy stories and poor writing skills get fame and fortune. If anything, it should be a hope to us that there are markets for everything out there and we should just keep on writing.



I try to take the same view. If I think a published book is absolute crap, I then think, "Well, if this got published, why not me?" and then I keep trying to learn about how to sell my book.

The only time I get incensed about certain published books is when someone tells me that a popular book, of the type discussed here, is a literary masterpiece. I've read works of far greater quality and I wouldn't even call them literary masterpieces. So, I'm more angry at the 'stupid' reader than the author. And the reader probably isn't actually stupid, they just loved the book and don't properly know how to express it.


----------



## Mythopoet

Personally, I only ever criticize and/or judge works/authors I have read and so have experienced. And I always make sure to only criticize/judge a work/author from the point of view of a reader. It is only readers who really have a right to do so.


----------



## Mindfire

Feo Takahari said:


> Besides, I refuse to accept any paradigm under which "I'm afraid one day we will wake up with our throats slit" is held up as an example of good writing.



Omg, what book is that from? I have to know! XD


----------



## Mindfire

Russ said:


> I think the critiquing of successfully published authors should be done respectfully, because they have accomplished something most of us have not.  I also think that helps keep out the kind of comments that show real bitterness or envy.  There are plenty of petty, bitter people out there and they sure like to express themselves on the internet.  I don't think that does anything any good.  It is the Monday Morning Quarterback phenomena or how journalists were once described as watching a battle from a safe hill and then descending to kill the reputation of the survivors.  There are things you don't know about writing or anything else until you have been "in the arena."  I have a lot of respect for people who have made their way in the arena and gotten some success there.  Until your "theory" has been tested in the hot fire, it remains just that, an untested theory.



Not agreeing with this. I'm not sure why anyone should be put on a pedestal simply by virtue of being successfully published. That comes a little too close to "I'm successful therefore your opinion is invalid" for my comfort.

And why must it be assumed that people tear into published authors out of pettiness, or bitter envy? What if it's just good old wholesome, malice-free schadenfreude?


----------



## Mindfire

Russ said:


> Allow me to respectfully disagree on the "luck" issue.  It is close to being right, but I think misdescribes the reality of commercial success in writing.
> *snip*



Few things in this life are a pure meritocracy. 

...Writing is not one of them.

EDIT: could one of the mods combine my posts or something? This stream-of-consciousness post-as-you-read thing will be the bane of me.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Mindfire said:


> Omg, what book is that from? I have to know! XD



Eragon. I didn't even notice it at first, and then I did a double take.


----------



## Mythopoet

Feo Takahari said:


> Besides, I refuse to accept any paradigm under which "I'm afraid one day we will wake up with our throats slit" is held up as an example of good writing.



Now see, I read a line like that and I don't think "wow, what a crappy author". I think, "why didn't the editor catch that?"


----------



## Trick

Feo Takahari said:


> Eragon. I didn't even notice it at first, and then I did a double take.



Where in the book is that from? I can't find it on Google and just wanted to read the whole passage.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I saw that line and thought it a great expression of character wit.  I love that kind of thing in dialogue, but then my "jokes" tend to be what I think of as witty, not really serious.  I'd read that line out of context and thought it brilliant.  Just FYI.  However, if it's really an editing flub and not an expression of a humorous character...it's just stupid.  

I often wonder whether readers will get my subtle, witty humor (and maybe this is just because I'm married to a British man and we have a sort of soft spot for wit), but I love that sort of thing that makes you double-take and go...Wha?  Holy crap, that's funny!

I will go so far as to say that in critique people have picked up on my subtle humor and expressed a genuine amusement by it, but it's also caused a number of confused reactions, where people didn't know whether i was being funny intentionally or just being a sloppy editor.


----------



## Mindfire

Feo Takahari said:


> Eragon. I didn't even notice it at first, and then I did a double take.


Was it a joke or was it played straight? Because if it's intentionally humorous then, despite what I may think of the rest of the book, that line is genius. If it's played totally straight, I must once more side eye and facepalm this book into infinity because not only is that dumb, it's a major missed opportunity.


----------



## Trick

Caged Maiden said:


> I saw that line and thought it a great expression of character wit.  I love that kind of thing in dialogue, but then my "jokes" tend to be what I think of as witty, not really serious.  I'd read that line out of context and thought it brilliant.  Just FYI.  However, if it's really an editing flub and not an expression of a humorous character...it's just stupid.






Mindfire said:


> Was it a joke or was it played straight? Because if it's intentionally humorous then, despite what I may think of the rest of the book, that line is genius. If it's played totally straight, I must once more side eye and facepalm this book into infinity because not only is that dumb, it's a major missed opportunity.



Agreed and agreed. I was trying to find an obvious grammar flaw because I simply took it as humor. Then I tried to find it's context online, with no luck. 

Being Irish, I took it more for a joke like: "I've lost my reading glasses and I won't be able to look for them until I find them."


----------



## Guy

Good, like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder. Books are popular and sell well because readers like them, and readers are going to look at a story from a different perspective from writers. I'm not a musician, so when I listen to music the only thing I'm interested in is how the music makes me feel. When I see musicians criticizing music, they nail it on things I'm completely oblivious to. Same thing with writing. Writers will notice all kinds of problems that never show up on readers' radars. They don't see the issues we do, nor do they care, and since they're the one buying the books, their opinions are the ones that matter. Readers' reviews on Amazon tend to be pretty short, whereas writers' reviews of book tend to be noticeably longer. 

Books that sell lots of copies have mass audience appeal and... well, I'm going to say something that's going to sound hopelessly arrogant and elitist and I'll try to put it diplomatically, but things that appeal to the masses usually aren't exactly at the pinnacle of artistic or creative development. There's a reason why more people can name all the Kardashians than can name their congressional representatives.


----------



## Miskatonic

Guy said:


> Books that sell lots of copies have mass audience appeal and... well, I'm going to say something that's going to sound hopelessly arrogant and elitist and I'll try to put it diplomatically, but things that appeal to the masses usually aren't exactly at the pinnacle of artistic or creative development. There's a reason why more people can name all the Kardashians than can name their congressional representatives.



It also seems to be why artistic genius often goes unrecognized during its era and only becomes appreciated further down the road when it's "re-discovered".

The majority of modern popular culture is just toxic, rotting garbage.


----------



## kennyc

Brian Scott Allen said:


> ...
> 
> Those are my thoughts. What are yours?



I hate golf. 

Stephen King says you can learn as much (or more) from bad books as from good ones.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Russ,

I don't think we're ever going to agree on how much of a role luck plays in having a successful writing career. And you're right, luck favours those prepare for it. Plus I am not and would never belittle those who succeed by calling their success purely a matter of luck.

But reread your own post, and consider your astronaut example. Then ask yourself, yes it is really, really hard to become an astronaut, but is that enough to explain why certain people make it and others don't? I mean yes it's really really hard, but presumably those who try for the program already know that and are motivated. They work really really hard - those who succeed and those who don't both. Is it fair to assume that those who succeeded were those who worked just that little bit harder or had just that little bit greater natural skill?

You're busy admonishing us not to belittle those who succeed by attributing their success to luck. But aren't you then doing exactly the same belittling to all those who don't succeed by attributing their lack of success to a lack of hard work and talent?

There is this paradigm in psychology called the just world hypothesis, which in essence is an idea of a world view that we all share to some extent. We all want to believe that we live in a just world. That if we do things right things will go well. If we work hard we will succeed. That the control of our destiny is essentially in our own hands. The reality is that it's only partly in our hands. Ask any actress who's spent years honing her craft only to be turned over for her dream role for a younger, prettier actress who hasn't worked half as hard and doesn't have her skill. Or the darker skinned people who end up doing time in prison for crimes that other lighter skinned people would simply get a fine for.

The reality is that the world is not fair and it's not pretty, and all the hard work and talent in the world will not guarantee or even come close to guaranteeing success. You can only maximise your chances.

And as for luck, I think your definition is different to mine here. Luck for a writer is about the sum total of all those factors that are outside of the writer's control and how they come together. They would be talent or hard work if he could control them. If he can't then it's all down to luck.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Miskatonic

kennyc said:


> I hate golf.
> 
> Stephen King says you can learn as much (or more) from bad books as from good ones.



If golf didn't cost so darn much I'd probably be pretty good at it by now.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

psychotick said:


> Luck for a writer is about the sum total of all those factors that are outside of the writer's control and how they come together. They would be talent or hard work if he could control them.


I like your definition of "luck" as not something random, but as beyond one's own control.

As for the just world, that's an excellent point which too many people fail to recognize. I've worked in different schools, some of which had principals or VPs who have no business being in education, management, or around members of the opposite sex. In the case of the VP who face sexual harassment charges for his creepy remarks about the (female) gym teacher's legs, the district covered for him letting him stay home and collect his salary and not mentioning a forced resignation (not fired!) so he could get a six-figure job as a principal.

Think about your own day jobs. Surely you know of some people who achieve high positions but abuse their power or are only where they are because of who they know or because of a hard-working subordinate. Likewise, you may know of someone who works hard for low pay, and the thanks she gets is to be kept in that position or given more responsibility without more compensation—punished instead of rewarded for the results of her work ethic!

I'm sure Stephanie Meyers did plenty of things right—her writing was good enough, her concept was marketable, and I'll be the first to admit I liked the book covers (black, white, one bright red object like an apple) before _Twilight_ books went to film. She did plenty of work and does have a talent, but the luck part is that her MS went to the right gatekeeper.

To expand on that thought—consider the rejections J.K. Rowling received before any of her work was published. The most successful series would never be if Rowling had given up or if that first gatekeeper (agent or publisher) hadn't given her a chance to become a published author.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I'm sure Stephanie Meyers did plenty of things right—her writing was good enough, her concept was marketable, and I'll be the first to admit I liked the book covers (black, white, one bright red object like an apple) before _Twilight_ books went to film. She did plenty of work and does have a talent, but the luck part is that her MS went to the right gatekeeper.


If that were true, there wouldn't have been a bidding war that raised her first time author advance to a whopping $750,000. Fact is, everyone who bid on that book had a pretty strong idea it would sell, and sell well.

Even if the agent is considered the gatekeeper, we'd be talking about an agent with a lot of great contacts, who probably receives hundreds of manuscripts a month. Something dragged her from that slush pile. It can't be pure luck.

I'll agree that there's always some luck involved. For example, the intern who first skimmed the books loved the idea of paranormal romance. She passed it onto her superior, and so on, until it landed in the hands of literature's Ari Gold (Entourage reference). He creates the bidding war, and bam! Meyers is a superstar. 

Even if all that were true, in the end, she had a story that resonated. The agent knew it. The bidders knew it. That is the biggest part of this story, and it wasn't luck.


----------



## kennyc

T.Allen.Smith said:


> If that were true, there wouldn't have been a bidding war that raised her first time author advance to a whopping $750,000. Fact is, everyone who bid on that book had a pretty strong idea it would sell, and sell well.
> 
> Even if the agent is considered the gatekeeper, we'd be talking about an agent with a lot of great contacts, who probably receives hundreds of manuscripts a month. Something dragged her from that slush pile. It can't be pure luck.
> 
> I'll agree that there's always some luck involved. For example, the intern who first skimmed the books loved the idea of paranormal romance. She passed it onto her superior, and so on, until it landed in the hands of literature's Ari Gold (Entourage reference). He creates the bidding war, and bam! Meyers is a superstar.
> 
> Even if all that were true, in the end, she had a story that resonated. The agent knew it. The bidders knew it. That is the biggest part of this story, and it wasn't luck.



Yep. It certainly wasn't luck alone!


----------



## Steerpike

I think that's true of Meyers. The editors knew they had massive hit on their hands and many publishers wanted it. But authors who sell like Meyers, Rowling, and King are outliers. For most people trying to break into writing I think circumstance plays more of a role than people like to admit. Which doesn't mean the craft isn't important - you can make luck and circumstance more likely to align for you - but chance can play a role. I know an author published with Tor who tried for some time to get a contract and ultimately ended up in a hotel pool with an agent, purely by chance. They hit it off and the agent took her on. The book still had to be salable, but agents get a lot of submissions that are potentially salable. A chance hotel pool encounter ended up being what tipped it in this case.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I bought Stephenie Meyer's books from Goodwill and haven't read them, but Stephen King says she can't write.  I admit I was curious about the books after hating the first movie, but bottom line--the readers like it.  Perhaps it's the same as low-brow comedy?  I mean...there's plenty of movies I enjoy that are anything but refined.  I do enjoy refined movies and gripping tales, but sometimes you just want to sit back and not think, and perhaps she hit on something that filled that need more than a "good" book, as in one that was written with more complexity and technical skill?  I can't presume to know the answers, but I think luck plays a part, and so does timing (I think Russ mentioned that?).  Timing is critical.  I hope I can figure out that bit, because I have a load of stories that just haven't been sent out because I'm not sure where to send them.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Steerpike said:


> I think that's true of Meyers. The editors knew they had massive hit on their hands and many publishers wanted it. But authors who sell like Meyers, Rowling, and King are outliers. For most people trying to break into writing I think circumstance plays more of a role than people like to admit. Which doesn't mean the craft isn't important - you can make luck and circumstance more likely to align for you - but chance can play a role. I know an author published with Tor who tried for some time to get a contract and ultimately ended up in a hotel pool with an agent, purely by chance. They hit it off and the agent took her on. The book still had to be salable, but agents get a lot of submissions that are potentially salable. A chance hotel pool encounter ended up being what tipped it in this case.


I can't disagree with any of that. Certainly luck _CAN_ play a role. I just don't believe it _ALWAYS_ does, or at least it's not _ALWAYS_ the predominant reason a book succeeds. Someone believing luck is always the major contributor to success is just as short-sighted as someone who has an unwavering belief in the fair world paradigm. 

There are many variables to success. I just refuse to believe that my fate is in luck's hands alone. 

Writing is, after all, an act of determination. - Tom Clancy

“There’s a word for a writer who doesn’t give up – published.” - Joe Konrath


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Caged Maiden said:


> ...perhaps she hit on something that filled that need more than a "good" book, as in one that was written with more complexity and technical skill?


Many adults turn to YA fiction because it is often easier reading...lacking in complexity. The Twilight books (Yes, I read them all) certainly fit in that category.


----------



## kennyc

And as Sir Van Morrison says in verse...."I made my own odds ten thousand to one"

You can certainly shoot yourself in the foot.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

T.Allen.Smith said:


> If that were true
> …
> 
> the intern who first skimmed the books loved the idea of paranormal romance. She passed it onto her superior, and so on, until it landed in the hands of literature's Ari Gold (Entourage reference). He creates the bidding war, and bam! Meyers is a superstar.


This part right here is luck. An intern noticed and passed it up the line, and it kept going up. Without that intern, who can say what would have happened? The other piece that is luck is the same as what R.A. Salvatore says of himself: "I wrote the right book at the right time."

Note that J.K. Rowling was rejected (9 times, according to IMDb).


> After spending six years writing the first installment of her "Harry Potter" novels, Rowling was rejected by 9 publishers before London's Bloomsbury Publishing signed her on.


Her luck was that she eventually wasn't rejected. The part that was under her control was that she believed in her work enough to keep pushing it, as opposed to saying, "Well, I was rejected. My work isn't selling, so it's no good. I give up."

That's my take-away from this luck conversation. Not "I'll never be lucky like them so don't try," but "if I believe my work's ready for the world to see, I need to get it out there like they did."

(EDIT - And it's certainly not, "Meyers was just lucky; she sucks." I did say she did the hard work and she is talented. If Stephen King says otherwise, I'll let the two wildly successful authors debate that.)


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

T.Allen.Smith said:


> There are many variables to success. I just refuse to believe that my fate is in luck's hands alone.


No, it's not luck alone. And just because you can't control all of the variables, it doesn't mean you give up. It means you control the variables that are under your control.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Legendary Sidekick said:


> This part right here is luck. An intern noticed and passed it up the line, and it kept going up. Without that intern, who can say what would have happened? The other piece that is luck is the same as what R.A. Salvatore says of himself: "I wrote the right book at the right time."


I don't disagree with that. Getting the right intern, and timing is luck. I just think it's a small piece of the puzzle.



Legendary Sidekick said:


> Note that J.K. Rowling was rejected (9 times, according to IMDb).
> 
> Her luck was that she eventually wasn't rejected. The part that was under her control was that she believed in her work enough to keep pushing it, as opposed to saying, "Well, I was rejected. My work isn't selling, so it's no good. I give up."


In my view that's not called luck. That's determination.

But anyways, I think we're splitting hairs and saying basically the same thing in different ways.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your approach—and J.K. Rowling's actions are determination, as you say. When I say "luck" I'm going with Psychotick's definition: luck = the factors you can't control.

I think that's part of the reason why some writers prefer self-publishing over traditional. You reduce the luck factor; more of the variables are under the your control.


----------



## ThinkerX

From what I'm seeing, once published, bias sets in.

Six months ago I subscribed to Asimov's and Fantasy & Science Fiction.  I noticed something right away:  most of the authors appearing in those works had novel length publishing credits elsewhere.  That's fine...but a lot of the stories simply are not that good.  I have seen better here on Showcase and in the various Challenges.   For that matter, some of my stories are probably better than some of the ones in those publications. And again, the bulk of these stories are by authors with a novel or five under their belt.


George RR Martin of Game of Thrones fame has been covering the whole 'Sad Puppy' fiasco.  At one point he listed the arguments made by the leader of the Sad Puppies, the reasons behind this...insurgency, and addressed them one by one.  At least three of the half dozen or so points raised by the Sad Puppies dealt with authors whom they believed wrote outstanding works deserving of wider recognition.  GRRM actually agreed with the Sad Puppies on this point - yes, lots of fine authors out there getting overlooked, then went and moved on to what really interested him - the rules under which the awards are given, and the way the Sad Puppies kind of sort of circumvented those rules.  Writing quality interested him far less than the 'established rules,' and the Sad Puppies actions put those rules at risk.

To me, it looks like new works stand a far better chance of being traditionally published by an already traditionally published author.  A reliance on name recognition to make the sale, regardless of the works actual quality.


----------



## Guy

ThinkerX said:


> From what I'm seeing, once published, bias sets in.
> 
> To me, it looks like new works stand a far better chance of being traditionally published by an already traditionally published author.  A reliance on name recognition to make the sale, regardless of the works actual quality.


Exactly. A lot of writers don't seem to understand the business aspect of writing. They tend to look at it from a purely artistic/creative standpoint. Every publisher I've ever submitted to said they were looking for "fresh, original voices and stories." It's a complete lie. Publisher's don't particularly care about artistic merit, originality, or any of that stuff. They're a business and their primary interest is profits. They're interested in what will sell. How do they determine what will sell? Look at what's selling right now. A casual perusal of bookstore shelves proves this. Go look and see what those publishers who want "fresh, original" stories are putting out - the same thing everyone else in their genre is. Most publishers aren't willing to take the risk of a new, unknown writer offering something fresh and new because they don't know if it will sell. A good way to generate sales is name recognition. So when Madonna wants to write a book, her writing ability is completely irrelevant. She automatically brings millions of fans (readers) to the table. It will sell because it has her name on it. Who cares if it's good? Contrast that with a writer offering a similar book, a writer who is very talented but completely unknown. The publisher looks at the two options - a talented but unknown writer who may or may not generate sales, or someone who's not even a writer but whose name is known and beloved by millions who will definitely generate sales. For the publisher, it's a pretty easy choice. For the talented but unknown writer, it sucks.


----------



## Miskatonic

Fan fiction in some situations has a better chance of being published than something from an author writing to get published. Rather disheartening to say the least for those with aspirations besides satisfying their own egos by interjecting themselves into another author's work.


----------



## Russ

Nobby said:


> Yikes, Russ, you were only missing an 'Ooh-rah' in that long, poisonous and ultimately belittling rant there.
> 
> Go exceptionalism!
> 
> No, seriously, if you write 'for the the big bucks' (ergh) and you play by the rules you have made obvious (can't effect the market, but show me a good enough yarn I can sell the suits and whooo-hooh money in the bank- major paraphrasing on my part, but that is what I took from your piece)...I just can't...
> 
> By God, if you only write to see the rain of gold piling up in your coffers, if that is your only motivation in this world, then I pity you greatly.



Being compared to a marine is a compliment for me.

I, personally, write because I want to.  My bills are paid, and my coffers filled by my day job.

By the by, the antidote to my "poison" is hard work and common sense. A large dose of each solves most ills.


----------



## Russ

psychotick said:


> Hi Russ,
> 
> I don't think we're ever going to agree on how much of a role luck plays in having a successful writing career. And you're right, luck favours those prepare for it. Plus I am not and would never belittle those who succeed by calling their success purely a matter of luck.
> 
> But reread your own post, and consider your astronaut example. Then ask yourself, yes it is really, really hard to become an astronaut, but is that enough to explain why certain people make it and others don't? I mean yes it's really really hard, but presumably those who try for the program already know that and are motivated. They work really really hard - those who succeed and those who don't both. Is it fair to assume that those who succeeded were those who worked just that little bit harder or had just that little bit greater natural skill?
> 
> You're busy admonishing us not to belittle those who succeed by attributing their success to luck. But aren't you then doing exactly the same belittling to all those who don't succeed by attributing their lack of success to a lack of hard work and talent?
> 
> There is this paradigm in psychology called the just world hypothesis, which in essence is an idea of a world view that we all share to some extent. We all want to believe that we live in a just world. That if we do things right things will go well. If we work hard we will succeed. That the control of our destiny is essentially in our own hands. The reality is that it's only partly in our hands. Ask any actress who's spent years honing her craft only to be turned over for her dream role for a younger, prettier actress who hasn't worked half as hard and doesn't have her skill. Or the darker skinned people who end up doing time in prison for crimes that other lighter skinned people would simply get a fine for.
> 
> The reality is that the world is not fair and it's not pretty, and all the hard work and talent in the world will not guarantee or even come close to guaranteeing success. You can only maximise your chances.
> 
> And as for luck, I think your definition is different to mine here. Luck for a writer is about the sum total of all those factors that are outside of the writer's control and how they come together. They would be talent or hard work if he could control them. If he can't then it's all down to luck.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



I always enjoy your thoughtful posts Greg.  I think if you drill down we are closer in our opinion of this than it might appear on the surface.

I think I define "luck" differently than  you do.  to me "luck" is chance (for good or ill) not all things that are beyond the author's control.  To me to call all things beyond one's control "luck" is too large a definition.  That is basically your entire environment from the accident of your birth, to the public taste.  To use the NHL example, it is not "luck" if you don't make a team because everyone else is faster than you on the ice, which could well be beyond your control. That just means the environment was too tough for that person to succeed.  It is luck if you trip and tear up your knee while walking down the sidewalk because you were distracted by a rare car driving by.

The question of success is an interesting one.  The only people I think that have not succeeded are those who have given up.  To me, people who are still trying to become published or succeed in the field still have a chance of success.  It is a tough field, and not everybody will reach their goals.  Some people don't have the capacity to succeed at their goals, and I think it is an assuaging balm to tell them that they system is deeply flawed, and that it is luck that has stopped them.  To understand why people don't succeed would take a case by case analysis, but of the potential writers I know who have not yet reached their goals I can't think of any who have failed due to luck or chance.  Blaming a lack of success on luck, or lack of it, makes a good cushion for the person who has given up (and they have every right to be as comfortable as they chose) but for the people who are still trying, it offers nothing.

Is that a harsh worldview?  Perhaps, but it is a hard industry and I don't think I would be doing anyone any good just saying "you are unlucky" or "you might get lucky" instead of explaining what I know about how the industry works, and how people have succeeded in it.  

Your suggestion that the best book ever might not get published is particularly off the mark.  If luck does play a role, logic tells us that it most likely plays a role on whether "marginal" books get published or not.  Great books are highly likely to get bought if their author sends them out, and obviously poor books are equally likely to get rejected if sent out.  Luck is only really likely to be a significant factor for works in the range of the quality curve where things could go either way, and that little nudge can make all the difference.  So the author's goal should be to work his ass off to get out of that range to eliminate luck playing a role.

I fully agree that the world is not a perfectly just place.  But I suggest that luck plays no larger a role in getting published than any other very hard to achieve goal, and perhaps more importantly from a functional perspective, it serves no purpose (beyond the philosophical) to spend time and energy pondering the role of luck in publishing success.

Best

Russ


----------



## Feo Takahari

Is it relevant to discuss published versus "published"? I mean, I don't think my publication with Alban Lake is comparable to publishing with Tor.

(Then again, if I wanted mass appeal, a lot more of my characters would be white.)


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

I'm fine with it. I enjoy organic discussion so wherever this goes I'm all for it.


----------



## Caged Maiden

So, just to clarify for people like me...I've written the best book I can.  I've spent a year doing nothing but editing it, strengthening the stuff I can, and I'm not a really green writer, but I'm not published.  So...back to my question, because I must consider myself in that "marginal" category in the grand scheme of things...how can I maximize my odds if I'm trying to get a debut novel picked up?  How does one (who has spent a lot of time honing their craft and finally confident in their work) become anything other than marginal?  I'd like to be good, but I feel mostly like the thing standing in my way is the validation that comes from someone simply saying, "yep, this is good, I want to represent it."

I can write.  I mean, I can do whatever it takes to change a story.  You want more emotion?  I can do that.  You want to see this romance really burn?  I can do that, too.  I can make a deep world with elves that shoot lasers from their eyes or squid-people who have a complex social hierarchy.  I COULD do all that and make it into a good story, but then is it my lacking talent that is hurting my odds right now, or is it simply that this particular story I'm querying isn't in fashion?  I mean, I'm happy to ditch this book and save it or self-publish it, but I'm just not clear why I'm not succeeding.  Am I too "new" and no one wants to take a chance?  Is my story too weak?  We've already discussed in this thread how widely successful books aren't necessarily the most skillfully written, so what's stopping me from breaking through the gatekeepers with my marginally good book?  I'm really serious about trying to understand how to make the most of my time, and I appreciate you folks who have more experience with the market and trends.  Basically, I had a romance writer (after I told her about my zombie book) ask whether it was a romance.  After I sort of swallowed down the vomit that wanted to creep up (thinking about a zombie romance story), I said no, it was a sort of thriller, using science to justify the experiments that turn men into something like a zombie (for military application).  She wasn't really excited about it then.  BUT to me...if I had a choice between reading a book about a lab that uses diseases to affect humans, in the hopes of creating soldiers who become sort of zombies...and a zombie romance, I'd pick the former.  Hands down.  Every damn time.

  But she said her friend just sold a zombie romance and the publisher is hungry for more like it.    I mean... I don't even know if I'd want to write that book even if someone promised me they'd pick it up.  I don't want to be critical of other people's work, but if someone told me they were writing a zombie romance, I'd (in my head) think it was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard of.  But there's at least one publisher out there who is searching for it.  I just ask myself, why can't I find someone who's searching for a cross between Dangerous Beauty and Assassin's Creed II?  It's like Borgias, but in a fake world.  Why doesn't that category (whatever it is) appeal?  To me, it's everything I want to read, but evidently, I'm in the minority (and perhaps I should switch to weird romances).


----------



## Caged Maiden

I'm sorry if that last post was confusing... I was asking you guys (Greg and Russ and others talking about the luck vs. skill thing) to clarify...for people like me who feel they've done their best, but can't catch a break.  I don't believe I'm unlucky...I'm pretty sure I just haven't worked hard enough.  But as rejections pile up, I'm just not sure which direction to go.


----------



## ThinkerX

Caged...

Donaldson - author of the Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever series, seen as a classic, had the manuscript for that work rejected by dang near every publisher on the planet before one finally said 'yes.'  That series is considered a cult classic.  Years later, he wrote a SF series which got printed because of his name and flopped pretty badly on the market.

Likewise, GRRM wrote a pile of novels and shorter tales prior to Game of Thrones. Again, some got published because of his name but flopped pretty badly in sales - the one he mentions the most is 'Armageddon Rag.'

Reading through the reviews and editorials in the likes of Asimov's and F&SF, I think I'm seeing some sort of shift or concern reaching deep into the rooms where 'who to publish' decisions are made.  Comments expressing not indifference, but bafflement at the self pub books...and to an extent small press publications.  And again, I have seen (and written) stories for Showcase and Challenges that are better than some of the stories appearing in those professional publications.  

Not long ago, I convinced a guy on my route to take a look at Wattpad - he's a hobby writer, not really looking to be published.  He did so, and was baffled by how some of the stories could have so many 'reads' (100,000+) and NOT be snapped up by a traditional publisher.  

I'm saying there is a huge amount of bias.


----------



## Caged Maiden

hmm...I appreciate that, ThinkerX.  I guess I just don't understand how someone with drive and maybe not natural talent but certainly a satisfactory level of learned talent can succeed at all.  I know a few really talented writers on this site and elsewhere, and we're good enough.  I mean, we perform better than the things above you mentioned, and I just can't for the life of me understand how it is that we're all in the same soggy boat and not one of us has been thrown a life preserver by the cruise boat sailing by.  Is on one concerned that we may drown?  If i had a connection, I'd share it with my friends who I admire.  (that ins't a plea to any person here, just a generalization aimed at agents)  Can we do anything to be noticed?  What's the point of my facebook author page and responding to author blogs if everyone I meet is just another starving artist?  Too many of them are too good to be in this boat after their hard-spent years.  There has to be some way to catch a break.

Maybe self-publishing is the break.  Agents certainly are rumored to respond differently to a writer who has a following and fans who will buy the newly-published book after reading self-published works.  Is that the door through which we should all start aiming to enter?  I'm just so confused.  What is an agent looking for, if not my careful consideration of my work?  Is it a concept I'm just not writing?  Is it my work being too shabby?  I just can't tell and I know I've heard the same mystified voices ask this question here more than a few times.  That's it, scribes!  We need our own publishing company!  Shit, we sort of are, already.  We help promote each other's blogs and self-published as well as traditional work.  We exchange crits and reviews.  Maybe that's the real deal in today's clime and I'm just watching for a big break that doesn't exist (by big break, I merely mean an opportunity, not a best-seller list or a monetary gain...just a chance to show my work to an agent who cares to represent it).


----------



## MineOwnKing

Agents have to commit to selling a manuscript to a publishing house. Publishing houses have to answer to stock holders. 

Amazon controls the market, Amazon is flooded with self-published novels.

Write a mainstream novel about a woman living in a cave with a bearman, a wolfman and a vampire. Sell a million copies and then write the books you really want to write.


----------



## Steerpike

Amazon has something like 41% of the total new book sales. That's a lot for one entity.


----------



## cupiscent

Chiming in as someone who's in roughly the same position as Caged - I wrote a book, I polished it, I repolished it, I got interest from agents but no representation for a variety of reasons, and now I'm polishing what I hope is a better and more marketable book.

I think it's partly about having the write novel in the write place with the right person at the right time. Agents are looking for authors they believe in and books they can sell right now. Which might mean what's hot right now on the shelves is dead in purchasing. (Remember what's hitting shelves right now was bought eighteen months ago or more.) Everyone's looking for the _next_ thing, but publishing is also very conservative because of the diminishing returns. So they want new, but perhaps not that new? Still, it's about people - the people at publishing houses, the agents who know them and what they're looking for, and the authors whose queries need to sell the book _hard_ and make a connection with those agents.

A big element is also that what makes a good novel for an established author might not be a good "breakout" novel. As a debut author, our novels need to punch hard and generate excitement. They need to do more, do it harder, pull no punches. (This was a big problem for my first novel: it's a quieter, more intricate and emotional novel. But no worries, I can stick it in the drawer and try it again once I'm established!)

Most agents get dozens if not hundreds of queries a week. Most publishing houses might pick up, what, ten debuts a year? We have to stand out: in the quality of our queries and writing, in our professionalism in picking up and carrying on, and in the quality of the ideas we're turning out. I believe, with persistence and quality, that right-place, right-time, right-person connection will happen sooner or later.


----------



## MineOwnKing

I check the best sellers list for fantasy quite often.

Right now it’s:

A Shade of Vampire,( a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
When an Alpha Purrs, (a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
Pursuing the Panther, (a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
First Bite, ( a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
Doctor Bear, ( a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)

I used to believe that real quality work and extraordinary talent were enough to get an agents attention, but the proof of the pudding, is in the eating.

If you're not writing this kind of fantasy, then it all comes down to who you know, or who you blow.


----------



## X Equestris

MineOwnKing said:


> I check the best sellers list for fantasy quite often.
> 
> Right now it’s:
> 
> A Shade of Vampire,( a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
> When an Alpha Purrs, (a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
> Pursuing the Panther, (a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
> First Bite, ( a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
> Doctor Bear, ( a super cut, shirtless man on the cover)
> 
> I used to believe that real quality work and extraordinary talent were enough to get an agents attention, but the proof of the pudding, is in the eating.
> 
> If you're not writing this kind of fantasy, then it all comes down to who you know, or who you blow.



Why am I not surprised with those results?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

I am with Russ on this one. You have to create your own luck. Sure there are some authors that can pull a J.K Rowling or Meyer, but not many. Martin has been writing stuff for years before he got his Song of Ice and Fire published. Another, I think even more extreme example, is Brandon Sanderson.

Before Sanderson was published he wrote twelve novels. (EUOLogy: My History as a Writer) That is a fairly ridiculous number. I know from Writing Excuses he attended several conferences and workshops. He honed his craft and had a backlog of books that he could also sell. The first book he sold was _Elantris_. That is not what he is known for. Instead, he's known for _The Mistborn Trilogy_ and _The Way of Kings_. He admits that he could _never_ have sold _The Way of Kings_. He says because it is just too dang weird, from a publishing standpoint. But, because of his early works, he got "lucky" when he was picked by Harriet to finish the _Wheel of Time_ series. Now, he is a well respected and well paid author (he and his family live off his income). That is a lot of luck. But, he put as much as he could in his court. He made the right choices and worked harder than many to get where he is today. So, yes, he got lucky. But he made sure the odds were in his favor.


----------



## Guy

Dear gods, it looks like fantasy is being infected by romance and erotica to produce a whole new unholy spawn. And just when I was breathing a sigh of relief that the vampire fad seemed to be waning, too...


----------



## ThinkerX

> Dear gods, it looks like fantasy is being infected by romance and erotica to produce a whole new unholy spawn. And just when I was breathing a sigh of relief that the vampire fad seemed to be waning, too...



Said spawn has been around for a while.  Take a gander at some of the magazine (and book) covers from the 60's and 70's - and more than a few of the sword and sorcery tales revolved around busty beauties alternately stalking and being stalked by hunky guys - Kirks 'Raven' (actually two authors sharing a penname) series and Rivkin's 'Silver Glass' series leap to mind, though there are many more.  Others, like Logston's 'Shadow' series are essentially romances with strong fantasy elements.  

I've known a number of used bookstore owners down through the decades, and they are in uniform agreement: fantasy /SF moves pretty good, but romances - especially the 'trashy' ones - outsell everything else.  In that context, its no great surprise romance authors wouldn't look to add fantasy / SF elements to some of their books.  

(I stole the map concept for my main world from Kirk's series)


----------



## MineOwnKing

Guy said:


> Dear gods, it looks like fantasy is being infected by romance and erotica to produce a whole new unholy spawn. And just when I was breathing a sigh of relief that the vampire fad seemed to be waning, too...



Yeah, 

 Don't shoot the messenger or anything; but if you're writing the next Moby Dick, that white whale better turn into a hot dude at some point in the tale.

 I'm totally fine with it. Whatever makes momma happy, makes daddy proud.


Nobody can tell you where your place is. Where is my place? Where is anybody’s place? I’ll tell you where it is. Wherever you’re happy, that’s your place. And happiness is a matter of purely personal adjustment to your environment. You’re the sole judge. In Hyde Park, for instance. Some people like to feed nuts to the squirrels. But if it makes you happy to feed squirrels to the nuts, who am I to say nuts to the squirrels?


----------



## Penpilot

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Before Sanderson was published he wrote twelve novels. (EUOLogy: My History as a Writer) That is a fairly ridiculous number..



If you want to make that number even more ridiculous, he wrote those twelve novels in one year, because he worked as a night manager at a hotel, and wrote at work. He also did what everyone says not to do. He quite his job after he sold Elantras, and was able to live off his advance because he lived in Dan Well's basement, and the only thing he did all day was write.

He also landed the Wheel of Time gig because he wowed Harriet by showing her how he was an uber fan of the series through his knowledge of it.

You can call Sanderson many things, but lazy is not one of them.


----------



## Caged Maiden

You know what's ridiculous?  I have written 13 novels and have about 100 short stories.  Admittedly, most of it is shit (either weak concept or first draft), but my word count has to be up there with published writers.  I just wish some of it counted for something, you know?  What have I got to show for all those words?  Nothing.


----------



## Penpilot

Caged Maiden said:


> You know what's ridiculous?  I have written 13 novels and have about 100 short stories.  Admittedly, most of it is shit (either weak concept or first draft), but my word count has to be up there with published writers.  I just wish some of it counted for something, you know?  What have I got to show for all those words?  Nothing.



I wouldn't call all those stories nothing. Thirteen novels is nothing to sneeze at. It's thirteen more than many writers have. And it's thirteen ideas that have been explored in which you can go back to if 14 or 15 gets picked up. Not to mention you've gained many thing just from the experience of writing those novels.

I mean, if you don't value what you've written, how do you expect someone else to value it enough to pay you for it?


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Thanks MOK. I am writing the next Moby Dick - and will make sure to put a whale of a hot dude on the cover!!!

Now my main problem is what to call a shapeshifting whale?!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Caged I'm sorry but there is no answer to your question. No one really knows why one book / author flies and another doesn't. People want to think they do, but really they're guessing. Usually it's about having the right book hit the right market at the right time, which is something that is mostly beyond people's control.

What you can do is maximise your chances. That means writing the best work you can. Getting it properly edited. Having a catchy blurb and even more importantly, a catchy cover - with a shirtless guy or girl on it! Then writing more of the same. Building a following. Marketing a bit. Sticking at it.

One thing I will say. In order to sell more books I've recently decided to start using cover artists instead of doing my own. I feel like a failure for doing it, and so far with only one new cover out - The Stars Betrayed - the results have been mixed. But I'm hopeful that when The Arcanist comes out, the (hopefully reasonably hot dude on the cover) will sell it. I won't post the five megs of cover here since I'm on dial up, but you can check out the cover on my latest blog: Greg's Books

Cheers, Greg.
Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ

Caged Maiden said:


> You know what's ridiculous?  I have written 13 novels and have about 100 short stories.  Admittedly, most of it is shit (either weak concept or first draft), but my word count has to be up there with published writers.  I just wish some of it counted for something, you know?  What have I got to show for all those words?  Nothing.



I have a  close friend whose every book now opens on the NYT bestseller list.  He swears that for the vast majority of writers that the first million words or so are shit, and how you learn your craft.

I would suggest that the fact you have had the work ethic to produce that much work at a reasonably young age is a testament to your desire to become a better writer.  What you have to show for it is about 13 novels and 100 short stories more than the vast majority of people, and about 12 novels and 100 short stories than most people who fancy themselves aspiring writers have.

I don't believe in chasing the market.

With that kind of commitment your decisions about what to do next should be based on your goals.  If it is just about money, you can find non-fiction writing jobs or probably make some money writing formula romance or erotica.  If you have certain tales you want to tell all you can do is keep writing them, keep getting better, and keep submitting them.  Of course you also have the option of self-publishing with its own pros and cons.

My friend who now appears on the NYT list regularly?  8 novels, 85 rejections, and 12 years before his first contract.  I think he quite his day job around published novel #7.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I hear you loud and clear, guys--start reading erotica.  HA!  Kidding.  I've been recently thinking about using some of the short stories as sort of collections.  I'd like to do something with all those words, because I'm a skilled enough editor now to whip them into shape.  Novels are trickier because, well, you know.  They take loads more time and planning.  Five of them are pretty good...the rest?  Not so much.  

I've considered how best to proceed, and the thing that really makes me cringe is that once I self-publish, can I go back?  I mean, I'm not striving for a best-seller, just a published novel that at least a few people give a go.  I'm not trying to make any money at all, but I feel I've put in the time to act like a professional.  I'm not sure what my goal should be,    I thought getting writing done and good was my goal, but now i'm more confused than ever.  I go through phases (perhaps a symptom of being bipolar) where I'm full of confidence, everything I write I love, and I'm feeling super high and querying with excitement.  The flip side of the coin are days like these, where I wonder what the hell I'm even playing at.  I tell myself it's a worthless pursuit because I obviously don't have what it takes, if no one wants to see a full manuscript.  I'm losing them somewhere, and since I don't know where, I don't know what to fix.  I'm a mom--we fix stuff.  We take care of stuff and get it done.  But this is creeping dangerously close to the border of anxiety-world for me.  I might be the worst businessman on the planet, and other than word of mouth (with my last business as a costumer), I've never had to market myself.  People saw my clothes and they wanted me to do work for them.  Then they saw what I made for other people, and they hired me more.  Books are a different animal altogether.  I'm not sure how I can show off what I can do without an agent.  I guess that's where I am.  I don't want to fail again on my own, but I've never succeeded at anything in my life.  I'm desperate to feel proud of myself, and this might simply be a case of feeling less proud as I struggle to find a path?


----------



## Philip Overby

I do believe if you feel you wouldn't be good at marketing yourself, then self-publishing might not be the right road to take. Not to say traditional publishing would be any easier because you'd still have to figure out how to promote yourself, just in different ways. To me, it's all about carving out a little island. And by little island I mean a place for me to write, experiment, and share my work with people. This island can grow or it can stay the same. It's up to me how I decide to go about doing it. For my first short story, I decided I wanted to try free ways of promotion only and hope for some word of mouth. That's worked on a smaller scale for me, but by no means is it blockbuster or even sustainable income success. So far I've made about what I'd make if I sold the short story to a semi-pro market. So I'll take that as some kind of a success having not used any money to promote it (so far.) My next step would be figuring out how to get my stories in the hands of people I think would enjoy them and developing a marketing budget. Maybe start off with 200 dollars. To me, I see self-publishing as more of a slow drip kind of approach. It's not all or nothing for me at this point. 

So I do think developing a plan might help relieve some of the stress that comes with it all. Just make a traditional plan and a self-publishing plan. Read about both topics as much as you can. It's not going to hit you like a lightning bolt, I don't think. It's going to come from soaking up as much info as you can.

It's natural to be confused on what to do. But I think there's a wealth of information out there (for free even) that can help push you along if you decide to self-publish. If I decided my dream was to start a pizzeria, then I wouldn't just open it with no idea of how to run a business. Luckily, publishing is one of those things you can mess around with a bit more, but you still need to know what successful people have done to get where they've gotten. And successful can mean whatever you want it to mean.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Often times the responses deal with the notion that aspiring writers tearing down a book that is wildly successful is a form of envy.



Going back to the original post for a moment...

I'm a big NFL fan.  Love going to NFL fan sites where posters argue back and forth about which team is going to be better and criticize the players and coaches and GMs.  

I don't think poorly at all about those fans.  It's just entertainment to fill the offseason.  Granted, I look askance at a few of them who truly believe that Sean Payton should ask their advice on what play to call, but, for the most part, it's all just good fun.  They don't know nothing and, again for the most part, know they don't know nothing.

Similarly, it's fun to watch two NFL cornerbacks criticize each other trying to determine who is the "best."  Both have earned bragging rights through long careers.  

If, however, a rookie cornerback were to step up to the microphone and start criticizing either of those two veterans, I'd think, "Shut up, rook; you haven't earned it."

Maybe that's just me as far as this board and writers are concerned, but, in the wider world, I think you'd find that a lot of football fans, at least, agree with me.

From a different perspective, I've been at my job for a dozen years and in the industry for seventeen.  If a guy fresh out of college came in a started telling me how I suck, I'd probably not have very favorable thoughts toward him.  When I see that same type of guy in any industry, the one who doesn't know nothing but thinks he does, start telling the people with experience how much they suck, I feel the same way.

Again, maybe that's just me as far as writing forums go, but I can't help but see that guy when I see aspiring authors start talking about how much certain authors' writing sucks.

If you're saying, as Brian Scott Allen stated, "Hey, what can I learn, positive and negative, from this?" I'm all for that.  If you're saying, "I didn't care for this." I get you.

I don't think, however, that it's a fantastic idea for you to say, "Hey, this bestselling author sucks."


----------



## kennyc

Caged Maiden said:


> So, just to clarify for people like me...I've written the best book I can.  I've spent a year doing nothing but editing it, strengthening the stuff I can, and I'm not a really green writer, but I'm not published.  .....
> ...how can I maximize my odds ...
> 
> ....
> 
> I'd like to be good, but I feel mostly like the thing standing in my way is the validation that comes from someone simply saying, "yep, this is good, I want to represent it."
> 
> ....
> 
> But she said her friend just sold a zombie romance and the publisher is hungry for more like it.    I mean... I don't even know if I'd want to write that book even if someone promised me they'd pick it up.  .......



I don't know that I can answer how to maximize your odds other than to play all the possibilities, BPH (big publishing houses), Agents, Independent publishers and self-publishing.

Now if you feel you are only going to be 'vindicated' by being traditional published (as opposed to selling your book directly to readers) then focus on that and keep the self-publishing card in your back pocket if the other TP route doesn't works. I'd say set a time-frame (and it's going to be loooong!) or list of publishers/agents/etc and then follow up with self publishing.

The main thing though that I think you understand is that you have to be true to yourself-- write YOUR books. Don't chase the markets or trends. Write the best book (or story) you can and market it as best you can and move on, keep at it, success in this business is mostly a matter of persistence.


----------



## kennyc

Guy said:


> Dear gods, it looks like fantasy is being infected by romance and erotica to produce a whole new unholy spawn. And just when I was breathing a sigh of relief that the vampire fad seemed to be waning, too...



Yes I wrote of this future many years back in my first collection of poetry:

*Many Worlds Hypothesis*

Romance Writers! They’re everywhere.
You’ve got to watch out for them.
They dress to the T’s with 
their new green vests
and perfect lipstick.

They’re in all the worlds and
they’re dangerous — they have power.
They intend to change the world
to their way of thinking --
and they will.


Kenny A. Chaffin — 3/5/01


----------



## kennyc

Caged Maiden said:


> You know what's ridiculous?  I have written 13 novels and have about 100 short stories.  Admittedly, most of it is shit (either weak concept or first draft), but my word count has to be up there with published writers.  I just wish some of it counted for something, you know?  What have I got to show for all those words?  Nothing.



It does, provided you have learned from the experience. If you've edited, analyzed and improved then each new piece of writing will be better.


----------



## kennyc

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks MOK. I am writing the next Moby Dick - and will make sure to put a whale of a hot dude on the cover!!!
> 
> Now my main problem is what to call a shapeshifting whale?!
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



'Ishmywhale'


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

kennyc said:


> 'Ishmywhale'



That sounds dirty.


----------



## kennyc

brian scott allen said:


> that sounds dirty.



So does 'Moby Dick'

:bounce::bounce::bounce:


----------



## Steerpike

I don't mind saying an author sucks if they suck. It's useful to try to figure out why they suck and still sell, I suppose. 

I like Moby Dick, so if you're writing the next Moby Dick, I'm down


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> Going back to the original post for a moment...
> 
> I'm a big NFL fan.  Love going to NFL fan sites where posters argue back and forth about which team is going to be better and criticize the players and coaches and GMs.
> 
> I don't think poorly at all about those fans.  It's just entertainment to fill the offseason.  Granted, I look askance at a few of them who truly believe that Sean Payton should ask their advice on what play to call, but, for the most part, it's all just good fun.  They don't know nothing and, again for the most part, know they don't know nothing.
> 
> Similarly, it's fun to watch two NFL cornerbacks criticize each other trying to determine who is the "best."  Both have earned bragging rights through long careers.
> 
> If, however, a rookie cornerback were to step up to the microphone and start criticizing either of those two veterans, I'd think, "Shut up, rook; you haven't earned it."
> 
> Maybe that's just me as far as this board and writers are concerned, but, in the wider world, I think you'd find that a lot of football fans, at least, agree with me.
> 
> From a different perspective, I've been at my job for a dozen years and in the industry for seventeen.  If a guy fresh out of college came in a started telling me how I suck, I'd probably not have very favorable thoughts toward him.  When I see that same type of guy in any industry, the one who doesn't know nothing but thinks he does, start telling the people with experience how much they suck, I feel the same way.
> 
> Again, maybe that's just me as far as writing forums go, but I can't help but see that guy when I see aspiring authors start talking about how much certain authors' writing sucks.
> 
> If you're saying, as Brian Scott Allen stated, "Hey, what can I learn, positive and negative, from this?" I'm all for that.  If you're saying, "I didn't care for this." I get you.
> 
> I don't think, however, that it's a fantastic idea for you to say, "Hey, this bestselling author sucks."



I think that stating the suckage depends on the forum that you're discussing the work in. For example, if I was with a bunch of fellow authors within a small tight-knit group reading books to learn from their strengths and weaknesses and we were reading _Twilight_ I think it would be safe to say the book has enough technical problems to say that it sucks. Provided that the book group analyzes the book and learns from it instead of bashing it for bashing's sake. However, I think it is more problematic when the up and coming writer decides to post a critique on their website, blog, or social media outlet. That is like the rookie mouthing off at a microphone. Whereas the book group is like the rookie watching film and working on his game.


----------



## BWFoster78

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I think that stating the suckage depends on the forum that you're discussing the work in. For example, if I was with a bunch of fellow authors within a small tight-knit group reading books to learn from their strengths and weaknesses and we were reading _Twilight_ I think it would be safe to say the book has enough technical problems to say that it sucks. Provided that the book group analyzes the book and learns from it instead of bashing it for bashing's sake. However, I think it is more problematic when the up and coming writer decides to post a critique on their website, blog, or social media outlet. That is like the rookie mouthing off at a microphone. Whereas the book group is like the rookie watching film and working on his game.



To me, the tone of the post is as important as the outlet.

I would imagine, however, that attitudes on the subject vary.  All I know is that I tend to view such statements in an unfavorable light.

I think also that I would not have said the same thing two years ago.  The more I learn about writing, the harder I think it is to write well.  At this point in my "career," I'm hesitant to make any criticism of someone who has accomplished so much more than me.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Or his full name - IshmywhaleandI'llcryifIwantto?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ

kennyc said:


> So does 'Moby Dick'
> 
> :bounce::bounce::bounce:



I guess the fact that it was the great white sperm whale doesn't help matters...


----------



## Steerpike

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Or his full name - IshmywhaleandI'llcryifIwantto?
> 
> Cheers, Greg.




You would cry too if it happened to you.


----------



## Trick

This seems like the best place to post this. I was doing some research on Joe Abercrombie and found a forum where someone asked for works similar to his. Check out what happened to the person who dissed him. Haha!

In case it's hard to read, click here









And then the making nice.


----------



## Penpilot

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks MOK. I am writing the next Moby Dick - and will make sure to put a whale of a hot dude on the cover!!!
> 
> Now my main problem is what to call a shapeshifting whale?!
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Well if they make a movie of it, just make sure they put the DVD price tags in the right spot. Otherwise you get something like this.


----------



## Steerpike

Penpilot said:


> Well if they make a movie of it, just make sure they put the DVD price tags in the right spot. Otherwise you get something like this.



The old movie with Gregory Peck playing Ahab, not Mapple, was a lot better.


----------



## Trick

Steerpike said:


> The old movie with Gregory Peck playing Ahab, not Mapple, was a lot better.



Agreed. I heard (unconfirmed, by me anyway) that the actor who played Ahab in the original silent movie played Mapple in the Gregory Peck-as-Ahab version. They made it a tradition by having Peck do the same.


----------



## Steerpike

Trick said:


> Agreed. I heard (unconfirmed, by me anyway) that the actor who played Ahab in the original silent movie played Mapple in the Gregory Peck-as-Ahab version. They made it a tradition by having Peck do the same.



That's cool. I didn't know that.


----------



## Incanus

Orson Wells played Mapple in the Peck version.  Didn't know he ever played Ahab, though.  Interesting.


----------



## Trick

Incanus said:


> Orson Wells played Mapple in the Peck version.  Didn't know he ever played Ahab, though.  Interesting.



It was just a rumor I heard. I can't find proof online, although Welles did put on a play of Moby Dick, I don't know if he was Ahab or not. I found two silent movies, The Sea Beast (1926) and Moby Dick (1930) which were both adaptations of the book, starring the same actor as Ahab and, as far as I can tell, the adaptations were nearly identical. Kind of funny actually, how similar they are only four years apart. Talk about being type cast.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

What I want to know is who played the whale?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> What I want to know is who played the whale?
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Aquaman...duh


----------



## Steerpike

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> What I want to know is who played the whale?
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



See, I thought _that_ was Orson Welles.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

You mean Orson Whales?!!!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Incanus

Another interesting item about the 50's, Gregory Peck version:  the screenplay was written by Ray Bradbury.


----------



## kennyc

Incanus said:


> Another interesting item about the 50's, Gregory Peck version:  the screenplay was written by Ray Bradbury.



Ah yes!!! I'd forgotten that!


----------



## Miskatonic

Nobody is above being critiqued, regardless of how successful they have become. 

Stephen King has had huge success but I have yet to find a book of his that I didn't find tedious with all the details he puts into the novel. Thank heaven I listened to the unabridged audio version of IT instead of actually reading the book. Otherwise I would have never finished it.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Miskatonic said:


> Nobody is above being critiqued


Agreed.

In addition, there's nothing wrong with an honest critique of a successful work, even if you agree it's a good, entertaining story.

Example: yesterday, I watched the Hunger Games for the first time. Kids killing kids is not my cup of tea, but it's good to have a movie like this when you have a room full of teenagers that finished final exams and have nothing to do.

I enjoyed the movie and later read a few book-to-film comparisons, so it at least seems the movie is mostly faithful to the book. Anyway, things I thought were strong points: there were a couple districts who trained people to win the games and believe in the games; therefore, you had enough people willing to kill that the teens didn't have time to stare at each other teary-eyed, none wanting to make the first move. (Like at a school dance, only awkward because you need to kill the person you dance with.) The Careers alliance... okay, so they all understood "honored combat" would be inevitable. I can deal. The MC was a good person, better her than her baby sister, and she never killed the innocents.

My questions: would she have? The girl by the fire who died begging for her life, Fox Face, Rue? Would Katniss have killed any of them? It seems that the story did the dirty work for her so she could come off as a hero. How heroic would she have looked if she took out the bad guys early and all that was left were her and a bunch of unarmed 12-to-14-year-olds huddled together crying? What was the long-term plan for Rue? (I think the district 11 male was planning to keep her alive then off himself.)

So my only critique is that the hero is heroic because she was spared of committing vile acts. I'm not sure if her relationship with Peeta is meant as a feel-good thing or if the reader is meant to be conflicted. Peeta's a dick who kills an innocent who dies begging, screaming, crying, and in the book, slowly (later finished by Peeta). Katniss should know of his involvement, plus she caught him tracking her. It's odd that she marries him rather than just holding hands for the camera then slapping him off camera. Does she love him or willingly live a lie?

So my critique is this:
* entertaining? Yes.
* did I feel for the characters? Yes.
* weakest point: Heroine is conveniently heroic.
* likability factor: Peeta is a dick, though this doesn't necessarily count as a weak point. I was thinking about how Katniss forgave this jackass for hunting her, and not killing him showed she'd rather die than kill one who won't fight her. (Still not sure how she'd have dealt with Fox Face and Rue and Peeta if all three were alive and unwilling to harm her.) Maybe I'd find the tale forgettable if Peeta died and Katniss was the lone survivor.

Anyway, critiquing isn't "hating." It's being honest about what you liked and disliked as a reader or member of an audience, then trying to--as a writer--emulate what works for you and avoid "making the same mistakes" when you see what's not working for you. If you look at all successful creators as gods you can't judge, then you may as well declare, "Phantom Menace was extra spicy awesome sauce because Lucas made a zillion dollars." That's not showing respect for the business by accepting your lower place; it's being dishonest.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Anyway, critiquing isn't "hating." It's being honest about what you liked and disliked as a reader or member of an audience, then trying to--as a writer--emulate what works for you and avoid "making the same mistakes" when you see what's not working for you. If you look at all successful creators as gods you can't judge, then you may as well declare, "Phantom Menace was extra spicy awesome sauce because Lucas made a zillion dollars." That's not showing respect for the business by accepting your lower place; it's being dishonest.



I believe strongly that an author should read a lot and use what he likes and doesn't like to inform his craft.  I think that posts in that vein are useful.  Your thoughts on Hunger Games were an example of that.

Here's what I object to (note: my interpretation from memory of the kind of comments I read in another thread b/c I'm too lazy to go look for the actual quotes):

Twilight was horribly written and was only successful because it marketed to tweens and bored housewives.

My objection is:

A. I think that the author of such statements miss what Twilight did well, which was connect with the audience.  I only wish I could connect to a reader as well as Meyer did with me (and I'm not a housewife or a tween).

B. It makes the author of the statement sound, to me, like a bit of a jerk by implying that tweens and bored housewives don't have the ability to discern good writing and that only his definition of good writing is valid.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> A. I think that the author of such statements miss what Twilight did well, which was connect with the audience.  I only wish I could connect to a reader as well as Meyer did with me (and I'm not a housewife or a tween).
> 
> B. It makes the author of the statement sound, to me, like a bit of a jerk by implying that tweens and bored housewives don't have the ability to discern good writing and that only his definition of good writing is valid.



Yes. Meyer did a lot right. She got $3/4 of a million in advance as an unknown, first time author, before a single book was printed or marketed. Plus, the books were read by tons of people who weren't housewives or tweens. Plus the books are competently written, though not above a mere level of competence, in my view. What you see on writing forums when very successful authors arise in conversation is a lot of sour grapes. I've seen it with respect to Rowling as well.


----------



## BWFoster78

> What you see on writing forums when very successful authors arise in conversation is a lot of sour grapes. I've seen it with respect to Rowling as well.



Exactly.

To be clear, though, I don't disagree with Brian Scott Allen, Miskatonic, or Legendary Sidekick on the issue of criticizing published authors.  As writers, it is absolutely useful to examine popular works.  I just think that one has to be careful when saying someone who has achieved a lot more than you is a horrible writer.


----------



## Steerpike

What I've seen from traditional publishers is generally at least competently written. Eragon is about as bad as I've seen in Fantasy, and in that case it may be they just didn't edit the novel much from the originally-published version.

I have no problem criticizing anyone in the field on whatever aspects of their work deserves criticism.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> What I've seen from traditional publishers is generally at least competently written. Eragon is about as bad as I've seen in Fantasy, and in that case it may be they just didn't edit the novel much from the originally-published version.
> 
> I have no problem criticizing anyone in the field on whatever aspects of their work deserves criticism.



I read Eragon a long time ago.  Truthfully, I don't remember much about it.

Did it do anything right?  If not, why is it popular enough that any of us have heard of it?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> I read Eragon a long time ago.  Truthfully, I don't remember much about it.
> 
> Did it do anything right?  If not, why is it popular enough that any of us have heard of it?



It was a classic heroes journey and for teens the protagonist seemed relatable. In short, the story was good but the writing was bad. It also had a lot of tropes, which if one isn't a fantasy vet, seemed amazing. It is a good introduction to the fantasy genre, but if you've read more than just LOTR and read some of fantasy's giants the book is just bland as milquetoast.


----------



## X Equestris

Brian Scott Allen said:


> It was a classic heroes journey and for teens the protagonist seemed relatable. In short, the story was good but the writing was bad. It also had a lot of tropes, which if one isn't a fantasy vet, seemed amazing. It is a good introduction to the fantasy genre, but if you've read more than just LOTR and read some of fantasy's giants the book is just bland as milquetoast.



Not to mention that there were times where it just felt like Star Wars in a fantasy setting.  Those decreased as you got into the third and fourth books, but it was kind of grating.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

BWFoster78 said:


> Twilight was horribly written and was only successful because it marketed to tweens and bored housewives.
> 
> My objection is:
> 
> A. I think that the author of such statements miss what Twilight did well, which was connect with the audience.  I only wish I could connect to a reader as well as Meyer did with me (and I'm not a housewife or a tween).
> 
> B. It makes the author of the statement sound, to me, like a bit of a jerk by implying that tweens and bored housewives don't have the ability to discern good writing and that only his definition of good writing is valid.


Yeah, I think when people gripe that Meyers doesn't deserve success, that's sour grapes. When I think "critiquing," I think of it as an honest assessment of a work's strength and weaknesses. Who the writer is and how much the writer made should not be relevant.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Who the writer is and how much the writer made should not be relevant.



I don't quite understand how the work's success can be separated from a discussion of its strengths and weaknesses.

Writing skill is highly subjective.  I tend to judge the merit of writing based on how well it engaged me and how emotionally attached I became toward the characters.  I couldn't care less about description.  Other writers/readers are the opposite.  How much they experienced the setting is more important than anything about the characters (I think, anyway, after reading opinions from people who view things in such a way).

I think there's a very simple equation we have to consider: if a book rose above all the other options out there, there has to be some reason for it.  What is that reason and can we learn anything from it?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't quite understand how the work's success can be separated from a discussion of its strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> Writing skill is highly subjective.  I tend to judge the merit of writing based on how well it engaged me and how emotionally attached I became toward the characters.  I couldn't care less about description.  Other writers/readers are the opposite.  How much they experienced the setting is more important than anything about the characters (I think, anyway, after reading opinions from people who view things in such a way).
> 
> I think there's a very simple equation we have to consider: if a book rose above all the other options out there, there has to be some reason for it.  What is that reason and can we learn anything from it?



I think legendary is saying that the amount of money made and the name of the author shouldn't color our perception of whether a book is good or not. And I have to agree with this. I shouldn't like or dislike a book based on name, I shouldn't also believe that sales mean the book is good. Sure, short term sales might mean an initial public interest and a surface enjoyment. But continual sales and having the book enter the culture's lexicon and making it a book for the ages those are the marks of a truly good book.


----------



## BWFoster78

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I think legendary is saying that the amount of money made and the name of the author shouldn't color our perception of whether a book is good or not.



I think it should certainly color our perception of what it takes to make money in today's publishing environment.



> I shouldn't also believe that sales mean the book is good.



Define "good."

If the readers are telling their friends to buy it because they enjoyed it, who are we to say it isn't "good."  Is our opinion more valid somehow that the readers who spent their hard-earned money to buy it?



> Sure, short term sales might mean an initial public interest and a surface enjoyment. But continual sales and having the book enter the culture's lexicon and making it a book for the ages those are the marks of a truly good book.



By your measure.  By my measure, a book is good if it entertained me.  Why is your measure of a "truly good book" more valid than mine?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> I think it should certainly color our perception of what it takes to make money in today's publishing environment.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "good."
> 
> If the readers are telling their friends to buy it because they enjoyed it, who are we to say it isn't "good."  Is our opinion more valid somehow that the readers who spent their hard-earned money to buy it?
> 
> 
> 
> By your measure.  By my measure, a book is good if it entertained me.  Why is your measure of a "truly good book" more valid than mine?



In the short term? Nothing. But tell me, will Eragon or Twilight be remembered for as long as LOTR, GoT, The Chronicles of Narnia, or any of the other classics? No. Why? They're not that good. Success and the value of the book, or anything really, is measured in short term and long term. Look at some movies. Back when you first saw them they were awesome (like the original Batman by Burton). Watch them now and they haven't aged well. Same with books. You could re-read a book that was great when it first came out but upon further review it's just not that great. It doesn't age well. So while the entertainment factor is great for the short term it is not necessarily the best measure for longevity, and longevity is a valuable measure for whether a book is good or not.


----------



## BWFoster78

First, I don't know if I agree with you at all about Twilight.  I'd much prefer to reread that series than LOTR or GoT or The Chronicles of Narnia. 

Second:



> longevity is a valuable measure for whether a book is good or not.



Who says?  Do all of us have to strive for books that become literary classics?  I hate literary classics.  Why would I want to write such? 

Am I somehow inferior as a writer because I don't share your opinion about longevity?


----------



## Trick

BWFoster78 said:


> By your measure.  By my measure, a book is good if it entertained me.



Nuff said. Your definition of "good" insofar as books go, is different than his. And mine. One is not better than the other, necessarily. The fact of the matter is, this is a discussion of two different topics. I find many movies "entertaining," mostly in a fleeting manner. Some movies, however, I will watch again and again. Does that make the fleetingly entertaining movie "not good?" No. It makes it fleeting in it's value for me. Is this because it is lesser quality? I think so. Apparently you don't. Therein lies the difference of opinion.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

BWFoster78 said:


> I think there's a very simple equation we have to consider: if a book rose above all the other options out there, there has to be some reason for it.  What is that reason and can we learn anything from it?


You're not asking about the merit of the work in this case, but why it sold.

There are things that successful authors do well outside of writing that contribute to their success.

I'm under the opinion that these are separate discussions. (Valid, but separate.)

For example, if I want to write a good web comic, I read web comics and find out what's working for me. If I see someone at my level, artistically, making money, I want to know how. What's the cost of hosting, advertising, etc? What resolution do I scan at so I can sell a year's worth of strips in print? What extras to I offer to make the print version attractive to fans? I won't list all my questions, but there's a lot I want to know about the business end, and I'm clueless because I've never hosted a web comic. Books on the craft give me ideas for pacing, level of detail depending on the type of work (goofy = sketchy is fine; serious = gotta learn to draw realistically), and how many strips/pages should be ready to upload prior to launching the first. So in recent weeks, I've read a little about the business end—how to make money as a cartoonist. And I've learned to hone my craft so I can be a better storyteller through this medium.

As for the content of my work—here's where I need to know well what I like and dislike, and make sure I'm not creating the same stuff I'd hate as a reader/viewer. This is where I think honest critiquing is important. No sour grapes, but also, don't just look at the big sellers and assume that makes them the best storytellers. Just take a brutally honest look at a work, and how it's pros and cons apply to my work. I can look at what, for example, _Skadi_ is doing well, and think, "Yeah, I like sending a barbarian girl on bloody, humorous adventures, but damn, that one where she rips the leg off a pixie? None of that crap in my comic."

Why do I separate the critique of the works merit from its ability to sell? Two reasons: #1, an unknown or starting comic may be the best thing I've ever seen in three panels. The artist's failure to market the work is irrelevant if I'm reading her little gem and loving it. Maybe the comic isn't making big bucks due to failure to advertise, lack of merchandizing or sporadic updates.

#2, what will I do with the information if I fail to see the genius of a successful work? I'm not going to emulate something I think is crap, even if it sold because the rest of the world loves it. I have to believe in my work. I'm also not going to emulate the content of the super-successful if I totally appreciate the genius but it's just not something I'd write. Me making _Nickel Arcade_ won't earn me _Penny Arcade_'s fame and fortune.


----------



## BWFoster78

> You're not asking about the merit of the work in this case, but why it sold.
> 
> There are things that successful authors do well outside of writing that contribute to their success.



If the reason is something other than "merit," then perhaps there is not much we can learn from it.  It seems silly, however, to claim a book has no merit simply because one doesn't personally like it.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Good point. I should have said "quality."

Or maybe "my opinion," since that's really all I'm looking at when I critique: what works for me, and what doesn't?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> If the reason is something other than "merit," then perhaps there is not much we can learn from it.  It seems silly, however, to claim a book has no merit simply because one doesn't personally like it.



But no one here is saying that Twilight or Eragon has no merit. I'm stating that their merit is based not in the ability to write but to tell a story that appeals to a certain audience. And look, let's be honest, there are much better books out there than Eragon and Twilight. GoT, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Vampire Diaries, Stormlight Archives, Dragon Riders of Pern, Harry Potter, etc all of these are better on a technical level, story telling, and characterizations. I know you don't agree, but history will play out and Eragon and Twilight will be largely forgotten and at least one of these will become something generations of people will enjoy for years to come.


----------



## BWFoster78

Brian Scott Allen said:


> But no one here is saying that Twilight or Eragon has no merit. I'm stating that their merit is based not in the ability to write but to tell a story that appeals to a certain audience. And look, let's be honest, there are much better books out there than Eragon and Twilight. GoT, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Vampire Diaries, Stormlight Archives, Dragon Riders of Pern, Harry Potter, etc all of these are better on a technical level, story telling, and characterizations. I know you don't agree, but history will play out and Eragon and Twilight will be largely forgotten and at least one of these will become something generations of people will enjoy for years to come.



Your crystal ball is aparently much better than mine.

My question though: why is the ability to "write" more important than the ability to tell a story?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> Your crystal ball is aparently much better than mine.  My question though: why is the ability to "write" more important than the ability to tell a story?


Answer: It's only more important to writers. You know, those people like us for whom writing is more difficult that it is for anyone else.


----------



## BWFoster78

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Good point. I should have said "quality."
> 
> Or maybe "my opinion," since that's really all I'm looking at when I critique: what works for me, and what doesn't?



Again, I have absolutely no issue with someone saying, "This book did not work for me."  That is a completely unarguable statement.  Only you can say what did or did not work for you.


----------



## BWFoster78

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Answer: It's only more important to writers. You know, those people like us for whom writing is more difficult that it is for anyone else.



I am much more concerned, at the moment, with my ability to tell a story than with my ability to write.


----------



## Svrtnsse

BWFoster78 said:


> I am much more concerned, at the moment, with my ability to tell a story than with my ability to write.



Me too, which is both frustrating and reassuring at the same time.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> Your crystal ball is aparently much better than mine.
> 
> My question though: why is the ability to "write" more important than the ability to tell a story?



It isn't, that's why you see Twilights and Eragons making it as big as they do. But, to be a classic to be something that is beyond entertaining, to have that lasting power I mentioned before, the book must be written well. It must be clear, well edited, and be above average in all of the technical aspects of writing. It needs something more than just a good story. Amazing characters are required to be beyond entertaining. There is also an x factor. It's different for every book. But that x factor needs to be there. For LOTR it was the transcendent nature of the tropes Tolkien created for fantasy. Harry Potter had its charm and poignant discussion of life and death. GoT has people in situations that are more than shocking, they are challenging. 

Telling a story is just a factor in the analysis of a book. There are many other things that go into making a book good, writing is another and a huge one for writers and those well educated in writing and literature. Characters are also huge, in many ways the most important factor. Then there's that x factor.


----------



## Mindfire

BWFoster78 said:


> A. I think that the author of such statements miss what Twilight did well, which was connect with the audience.  I only wish I could connect to a reader as well as Meyer did with me (and I'm not a housewife or a tween).



Then my question is: why and how in the blazing inferno of hell did Twilight connect to you in a meaningful way because such a happening utterly defies my very comprehension. The mind boggles. I just... can't. Like, it's not the anti-life equation, but it's pretty darn close. Please explain to me the arcane mystery of how you found value in a story that compares unfavorably in my estimation with Disney's _Princess Diaries*_ (which I despise, just to be clear). How can you enjoy it? It is like unto some kind of horrible Lovecraftian secret that I must not know, and yet I am compelled to try and understand it.



BWFoster78 said:


> First, I don't know if I agree with you at all about Twilight.  I'd much prefer to reread that series than LOTR or GoT or The Chronicles of Narnia.


*goes mad from the revelation*


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> I am much more concerned, at the moment, with my ability to tell a story than with my ability to write.




I am not sure the two are really different things.

Is not the ability to write just the delivery tool for telling the story?  

I think the ability to write just allows you to deliver the story better.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

For me the story always has to come first. I might read a truly terribly written book about a subject I love with a great plot - and then complain about the editing. I will absolutely never read the best ever written book about paint drying.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Russ said:


> I am not sure the two are really different things.
> 
> Is not the ability to write just the delivery tool for telling the story?
> 
> I think the ability to write just allows you to deliver the story better.



I guess this depends on how you define _ability to write_.

To me, in this context, being able to write means that I can express myself with clarity in writing. I can get my point across to the reader.
Defining storytelling is trickier, but lets say storytelling is _describing a series of events_. Based on that, we can define good storytelling as _describing a series of event in such a way that the reader will keep reading until the end_.

The above is how I see it.

Another way of viewing it might be that you define writing a story as the act of designing and creating the reading experience. Seen this way, writing combines the ability to write and the ability to tell a story into one.

I wouldn't say that this is wrong, but it IS different from how I view it. I'd like to think that I am for the most part pretty good at the technical aspects of writing - the wordcrafting. I tend to get my point across, usually.
I'm a lot less certain about my storytelling. Are my characters as interesting to my readers as they are to me? Is the world as fascinating, the action as exciting, the pain as real?

Can my wordcrafting make my characters as interesting as I feel they are on its own? I don't think so.
I think that in order to do that, I have to have an understanding of what makes them interesting and why so that I can choose to write about that.
Maybe storytelling is what you write, and writing is how you write it?


----------



## BWFoster78

Brian Scott Allen,

You say this:



> But no one here is saying that Twilight or Eragon has no merit.



But look at Mindfire's post below.  Maybe it doesn't say that Twilight has no merit, but consider how utterly dismissive it is of a work that has entertained millions of people.  That's exactly the kind of comment that I'm talking about.

As I see it, we write genre fiction.  The purpose of genre fiction is to entertain people.  If my book entertains a reader, I have succeeded.  If not, I have failed for that reader.

I highly unlikely that any of us will provide as much entertainment to as many people in our entire careers as Meyer did with Twilight.  But we still see posts like Mindfire's.

Ridiculous.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> I am not sure the two are really different things.
> 
> Is not the ability to write just the delivery tool for telling the story?
> 
> I think the ability to write just allows you to deliver the story better.



Conversations about writing vs. storytelling are kinda meaningless without defining terms.

For me, writing is the how and story is the what.

I decide that I want to portray a character as brave.  That's what.  That's story.

I decide to show that character's bravery by having him rush into burning building to save a child.  The words that I use to describe him running into the building is definitely writing.  Is the method I used to show his bravery story or writing?  Nebulous.

Still, I tend to think that writing is what keeps the reader turning pages and story is what makes them feel.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

BWFoster78 said:


> Ridiculous.


This is a dismissive comment as well.

This is where I was going earlier when I said those who receive fame and fortune are not gods immune to our judgment. I may be making an assumption here, but I'm pretty sure if you went to the Showcase here on this site, read something, and saw it was crap, you wouldn't hold back harsh words. You'd call an uninteresting work uninteresting, and you wouldn't sugarcoat it with "but this is just one man's opinion" or "I can see why other people might appreciate this, but…"

So why should Mindfire be held to a different standard if he honestly can't fathom how Meyers' work was famous?

I understand your point that it comes off as jealousy of success. I also understand that when you go into the Showcase and harshly critique, your intent is to show the writer what's not working so the writer can improve.

What I'm questioning is this: how can we, on a writers' forum, improve our craft if criticizing the published is deemed a faux pas?



Also, in Mindfire's defense, I trust his assessment of _Twilight_ is not out of jealousy or jumping on a bandwagon. In the GoT threads, he was defending the showrunners from my harsh critiques of Season 5. I felt like the discussion was going somewhere because there was never a post saying, "Hey! _Game of Thrones_ makes more per episode than you in your whole life, even if you have more lives than Pac Man. Quit yelling and jelling, hater!"

It was simply an honest discussion of why I thought D&D hurt the story and why Mindfire liked it, and there were some points of agreement regarding what changes for the screen made sense and what changes were genuinely entertaining. A no-criticizing-the-published-rule would have stifled this discussion, and then there would be no point in a discussion at all since relevant opinions are discouraged up-front.



On another note, I do agree that criticizing the published can be a career-killer for a newbie writer. I wouldn't expect to get far as a writer if I were to make weekly blog posts reviewing Salvatore, Martin, King, Rowling, Meyers… and giving them harsh, negative reviews. Even if they were my honest opinions, my only hope for fame would be to be known as the guy who gets thrashed by Twitter posts from famous authors. I don't wanna be that guy.


----------



## Steerpike

When it comes to famous work, a lot of critique comes from people who haven't even read the work,  which does strike as a bit ridiculous


----------



## BWFoster78

> This is where I was going earlier when I said those who receive fame and fortune are not gods immune to our judgment. I may be making an assumption here, but I'm pretty sure if you went to the Showcase here on this site, read something, and saw it was crap, you wouldn't hold back harsh words. You'd call an uninteresting work uninteresting, and you wouldn't sugarcoat it with "but this is just one man's opinion" or "I can see why other people might appreciate this, but…"
> 
> So why should Mindfire be held to a different standard if he honestly can't fathom how Meyers' work was famous?



The difference between Meyers and the Showcase is that a lot of people have demonstrated that they absolutely love Meyer's work.

There's a huge difference between saying, "What can we learn from her success?"

And:

"I simply can't believe that anyone would like her work."

That's not criticism or useful.  That's simply someone who is expressing the opinion that "I don't like something. Therefore, it's unbelievable that anyone else would either."


----------



## Mindfire

Russ said:


> I am not sure the two are really different things.
> 
> Is not the ability to write just the delivery tool for telling the story?
> 
> I think the ability to write just allows you to deliver the story better.



I think I see where BWFoster is coming from, actually. Not everyone can or should write novels with complex themes, dictionary words, expansive descriptions, and what some might judge to be "literary merit". Sometimes all you want is to write- or read- a story that makes you feel awesome. And if that goal is accomplished then in some sense you've succeeded, regardless of how others might judge the quality of the writing itself. So, in a sense, the only measure of your writing that matters is how well it manages to stay out of the reader's way and let them connect to the story you're telling. 

To give a concrete example: If you sit me down with a game console and give me a choice between Dragon Age: Inquisition, a game I love, (or Assassin's Creed, which could also serve for this example)* and Dark Souls, which is by all accounts a game design masterpiece, I will choose Dragon Age (or Assassin's Creed) every single time. Because even though Dark Souls might be considered the "better designed" game: very challenging, devoid of all hand-holding, made with "real gamers" in mind, Dragon Age and Assassin's Creed are super fun and make me feel like a badass, which is all that really matters to me. I don't care that they mark quests on my map for me instead of making me figure it out, or that Assassin's Creed tries to make free-running and combat easier. People who like Dark Souls scoff at such things, but I actually find them helpful because I don't play for challenge. I play to feel awesome.


What I don't understand is how anyone can derive an analogous awesome feeling from _Twilight._ Seriously. How?



*Not taking anything away from Bioware and Ubisoft here, or belittling their hard work on DA and AC. Just making an illustration.


----------



## Mindfire

BWFoster78 said:


> I highly unlikely that any of us will provide as much entertainment to as many people in our entire careers as Meyer did with Twilight.  But we still see posts like Mindfire's.
> 
> Ridiculous.



Ridiculous? Hardly. Have you never seen a bunch of people like something and you just can't fathom why? As in, it makes absolutely no sense to you whatsoever? If you have never experienced this feeling, you are either an absurdly tolerant individual or you have extremely broad and eclectic tastes.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Mindfire said:


> Have you never seen a bunch of people like something and you just can't fathom why? As in, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever? If you have never experienced this feeling, you are either an absurdly tolerant individual or you have extremely broad and eclectic tastes.


This is the way I feel about egg nog. 

There has never been a good reason to make a drink from eggs. A horrid creation that potentially ruins perfectly good whiskey.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

True, when I think of a meaningful discussion, I don't consider "this sucks" to be a valid criticism. But "it made a ton of money; therefore, it doesn't suck" is a weak defense. _Phantom Menace_ made a ton of money. A magazine whose sole purpose is the exploitation of women's body parts made Heffner obscenely wealthy. There's enough crap out there being sold to the masses that I can't accept the notion "it's not crap _because_ the masses bought it."

I agree people who criticize the published should have valid reasons, which only a person who actually read the work could articulate and elaborate on.

Likewise, if you love a story, book sales are not what made you love it. So why not say what you loved about the book?


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> When it comes to famous work, a lot of critique comes from people who haven't even read the work,  which does strike as a bit ridiculous



I'll admit, when I first got a summary of the story ("Girl falls in love with vampire. The vampire has no traditional vampire weaknesses. And sparkles.") I was predisposed to hate it. I'm not a romance fan and I think the sparkling and lack of weaknesses is stupid and defeats the point of having them be vampires in the first place. Then I saw trailers for the movies. The sole job of a trailer is to make the movie look interesting. I was not impressed. I found a copy of the book online. I couldn't make it past the first page. It was so... boring. But I was a freshman in high school then and had very little patience for anything. Unable to stomach the book itself but determined to know what all the commotion was about, I sought out and read summaries of it. _That_ was when I started to truly hate the book. It's not even Twilight's writing that irritates me if I'm honest. I mean, I made it through Eragon. It's just that Twilight tells a story that I have no interest in and find so off-putting that I can't understand why anyone would have interest in it.

Tell you what. In the interest of justice, and because I'm such a nice guy, the book shall be given a trial. I will try to read the first Twilight again. But, whenever I read something that makes me roll my eyes, facepalm, or want to throw the book at the wall, it gets a strike. I'll be generous and allow it ten. After ten strikes I deliver my verdict. Maybe I'll track storytelling failures separate from writing failures. Fair? Not sure if I'll do this before or after my Inheritance Inquisition.


----------



## Mindfire

Legendary Sidekick said:


> True, when I think of a meaningful discussion, I don't consider "this sucks" to be a valid criticism. But "it made a ton of money; therefore, it doesn't suck" is a weak defense. _Phantom Menace_ made a ton of money.



Hey! I actually liked The Phantom Menace and I think it has some redeeming qualities. A better example would be Transformers 2. Somehow that movie gets worse every time I watch it.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Just judge the want to throw based on your reason for wanting to throw it.



Spoiler: possible spoiler for ASoIaF books 4 & 5, but maybe not a real spoiler if you watch GoT



I wanted to throw GRRM's _Feast of Crows_ because I couldn't tell if Brienne lived or died. I found a wiki that confirmed she was seen alive in the next book, then continued reading. I considered the timing of the cut a cheap author trick, but had to give Martin credit for making me care enough about his character that I couldn't continue reading until I was sure of her fate. (Not sure if my critique would have been as generous if I had to wait for book 6 to find out if she lived through that scene.)


----------



## BWFoster78

> True, when I think of a meaningful discussion, I don't consider "this sucks" to be a valid criticism. But "it made a ton of money; therefore, it doesn't suck" is a weak defense. Phantom Menace made a ton of money. A magazine whose sole purpose is the exploitation of women's body parts made Heffner obscenely wealthy. There's enough crap out there being sold to the masses that I can't accept the notion "it's not crap because the masses bought it."



I'm not saying that you should accept "it's not crap because the masses bought it" as a valid reason.  The point I feel like I've made a thousand times in this thread, once again, is:

Since, presumably, our goal as fiction writers is to have people buy our books and be entertained by our books, we should not be dismissive of books and authors that have achieved that goal.



> Likewise, if you love a story, book sales are not what made you love it. So why not say what you loved about the book?



If this were a thread on the positives and negatives of Twilight, I'd do just that.  I'm trying to stay on topic.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Mindfire said:


> Hey! I actually liked The Phantom Menace and I think it has *some redeeming qualities.*


Meesa agrees.

And the Transformers movies? Yeah. The battles were basically unrecognizable mountains of metal zipping all over the screen. I didn't bother watching the second one.


----------



## Mindfire

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Meesa agrees.
> 
> And the Transformers movies? Yeah. The battles were basically unrecognizable mountains of metal zipping all over the screen. I didn't bother watching the second one.



I actually liked the first one. It felt more Spielberg than Bay for the most part. You could feel his influence on it. And while It had its share of dumb (really dumb), it also told a cohesive story, had some touching moments as well as awesome ones, and there were some nods to the cartoon that I appreciated. Plus it still stands up on repeat viewings. Far from a perfect film and there was a lot I would have changed, but good for what it was. The second movie was a fever dream. As I said, it felt dumber and dumber with each repeat viewing. As far as redeeming qualities goes, there's Optimus's scenes... and that's about it. I still haven't seen the third and fourth ones. I was going to watch the third but never got around to it. The fourth one almost pulled me back by dangling the carrot of a sword-wielding Optimus Prime riding on the back of a fire-breathing Grimlock. But then I found out the dinobots are barely in the film so I didn't bother.


----------



## Mindfire

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Just judge the want to throw based on your reason for wanting to throw it.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: possible spoiler for ASoIaF books 4 & 5, but maybe not a real spoiler if you watch GoT
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to throw GRRM's _Feast of Crows_ because I couldn't tell if Brienne lived or died. I found a wiki that confirmed she was seen alive in the next book, then continued reading. I considered the timing of the cut a cheap author trick, but had to give Martin credit for making me care enough about his character that I couldn't continue reading until I was sure of her fate. (Not sure if my critique would have been as generous if I had to wait for book 6 to find out if she lived through that scene.)



The Inquisition will take this under advisement.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm trying to stay on topic.


You're not implying I am not, are you?

The OP points out that criticisms of the published are dismissed as envy, and he goes on to say we should look at the author's mistakes as well as strengths.


Spoiler: original post






Brian Scott Allen said:


> I've been here for awhile and I often come across a thread, at least once a quarter, where some of us writers criticize something that is popular. Recently, _The Inheritance Cycle_ by Paolini and _Twilight_ by Meyer took the punishment. I also do some skimming online and I find criticisms and responses to these criticisms. Often times the responses deal with the notion that aspiring writers tearing down a book that is wildly successful is a form of envy. I see their point and agree and disagree at the same time.
> 
> I agree that it can be a form of envy. This comes about when the writer is tearing down the published novel for the sheer sake of glee. They have an animus to something that could be written so poorly and be so poorly researched that it is a wonder to them that it got published. Their animus comes from a jealousy that they have not yet been published for whatever reason. Doing such criticism, to me, is wrong and smacks of envy.
> 
> However, there is another way to go about criticizing a book, which is to study it as an athlete would study film. I am a golfer. I am not a good golfer. However, when I get the chance, I watch a golf tournament on TV to watch their swings. I observe what they do and how they do it. I often find my self criticizing a pro-golfer's (who could golf me under the table six ways til Sunday) swing. I notice when they raise their body, snap their head around to fast, when they leave their club face too open, and so on and so forth. I don't do this because I hate the golfer. I do this to see what they do well and don't do well and try to incorporate that into my game. I am studying film. I am working on my game. As writers we should work on our craft the same way. We should look at published authors and look for mistakes, as well as strengths, in order to help us avoid making those same mistakes and incorporate their strengths into our writing. Published novels are the writer's version of film. Thinking critically about the book is being in the film room. Seeking to improve our craft like this does not, cannot, stem from envy but from a sincere desire to be the best that we can be. (Even if it is a 14 over par golfer...I mean unpublished author. Stupid long irons.
> 
> Those are my thoughts. What are yours?






Criticizing a successful author is not being dismissive, unless you're just jumping on the This-Sucks bandwagon. I think we're in complete agreement with that piece.

The only part of your message I take issue with (unless I've misunderstood it) is that your focus is Published Author achieved the goal that I want to achieve, so what can we learn from Author?

I'm saying Published Author wrote a story I respect (whether that author is George Martin or Phil Overby). What did Published Author do that made me put the book down? What did Published Author do that made me keep turning the pages? What can I do to step up my game based on this information?

What if I find George Martin has more weaknesses than Phil Overby? Do I overlook them because Martin is considerably more successful? What about Michael J. Sullivan, who became an active member here while his books were published by Mrs. Sullivan? His books were just discovered by a big publisher when he joined MS. Now his works are well stocked at B&N. It's the same series as it was before Sullivan made it big. If he never sought a bigger publisher, he'd be less successful. I agree you can learn a lot from him–how did he go from a small publisher to a big one?

But what the OP seems to be talking about–and what I _am_ talking about–is that if I want to up my game in terms of writing/storytelling, I need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the story/novel/series itself. Book sales are not part of the equation. If they were, Sullivan's little-known debut novel through a small publisher would be seen differently than that same debut novel, which is now well-known through a big publisher.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mindfire said:


> The Inquisition will take this under advisement.



The Inquisition? That was unexpected.



> Since, presumably, our goal as fiction writers is to have people buy our books and be entertained by our books, we should not be dismissive of books and authors that have achieved that goal.



BWFoster, this shouldn't necessarily be the goal. If this is the goal then we set ourselves up for failure because this goal is dependent entirely upon the actions of others--people buying your books. To me the goal of the writer shouldn't be to sell as much as possible but to make an entertaining book (your second goal) and to write the best book we can at that time.


----------



## Mindfire

Brian Scott Allen said:


> The Inquisition? That was unexpected.



Must... not...

NO ONE EXPECTS THE MINDFIRE INQUISITION!!!


I was too weak. I could not resist.


----------



## BWFoster78

> You're not implying I am not, are you?
> 
> The OP points out that criticisms of the published are dismissed as envy, and he goes on to say we should look at the author's mistakes as well as strengths.



A discussion of a particular author's strengths and weaknesses strays from the conversation that I think we're having.



> Criticizing a successful author is not being dismissive, unless you're just jumping on the This-Sucks bandwagon. I think we're in complete agreement with that piece.



I concur.



> But what the OP seems to be talking about—and what I am talking about—is that if I want to up my game in terms of writing/storytelling, I need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the story/novel/series itself. Book sales are not part of the equation. If they were, Sullivan's little-known debut novel through a small publisher would be seen differently than that same debut novel, which is now well-known through a big publisher.



I think that you can find useful information from examining all kinds of sources.  For example, I've discovered some huge mistakes that I was making from reading a poorly written indie book and going, "Wow, I hated that.  Wait a second.  I'm doing that in my book."  You can also find cool stuff that you like and emulate in indie books. 

We, I think, agree completely on that point.

Let me try to restate my position in light of this last post of yours:

My reaction in another thread was partially to blame for the OP's post in this thread.  My primary reason for that reaction was seeing people completely dismiss a hugely successful book as being without merit.  I disagreed with their dismissal for two reasons:

1. If a book has done really, really well, there is likely some reason it has done well, especially if there are legions of fans that say, "I loved this book!"  Dismissing as being without merit because you don't personally like it is, imo, a poorly considered position.

2. It's my opinion that such a dismissal makes an aspiring author look bad.


----------



## Russ

Legendary Sidekick said:


> But what the OP seems to be talking about—and what I _am_ talking about—is that if I want to up my game in terms of writing/storytelling, I need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the story/novel/series itself. Book sales are not part of the equation. If they were, Sullivan's little-known debut novel through a small publisher would be seen differently than that same debut novel, which is now well-known through a big publisher.



The easiest way to deal with that question is to deal with writing quality, and commercial success, as two separate, but occasionally overlapping topics.


----------



## BWFoster78

> BWFoster, this shouldn't necessarily be the goal. If this is the goal then we set ourselves up for failure because this goal is dependent entirely upon the actions of others--people buying your books. To me the goal of the writer shouldn't be to sell as much as possible but to make an entertaining book (your second goal) and to write the best book we can at that time.



My goal is absolutely to sell books.

I view self publishing as a business.  Any business that doesn't have as a goal to make money is kinda pointless.

I respect, however, any author's decision not to make their hobby a business.

I think, however, that my point still stands even if the sole goal is to entertain people.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> My goal is absolutely to sell books.
> 
> I view self publishing as a business.  Any business that doesn't have as a goal to make money is kinda pointless.
> 
> I respect, however, any author's decision not to make their hobby a business.
> 
> I think, however, that my point still stands even if the sole goal is to entertain people.



Ah I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. I don't intend on self-publishing. That requires far too much time and effort and I have other responsibilities to attend to. If I were to get a book published it would be through traditional publishing, which is a hope of mine one that I am actively working towards I'm just not banking the definition of me as a writer into getting published.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

@BW, Got it. Based on your restated position, I think we're actually in agreement on pretty much everything.

@Russ, well put.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Brian Scott Allen said:


> If I were to get a book published it would be through traditional publishing...


This also takes a great deal of time & effort.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

T.Allen.Smith said:


> This also takes a great deal of time & effort.



I recognize that, but it takes significantly less time and effort, by all accounts I have read, than going the self-publishing route.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I recognize that, but it takes significantly less time and effort, by all accounts I have read, than going the self-publishing route.



I only know one professional, full-time, traditionally pubbed writer personally. 

He spends a great deal of time doing tasks for his writing other than actually writing. He claims that publishers don't handle the majority of business concerns (like marketing) for any but the top 1% of writers. Most are required to toil in the same manner as self-pubbers to achieve success.


----------



## Russ

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I only know one professional, full-time, traditionally pubbed writer personally.
> 
> He spends a great deal of time doing tasks for his writing other than actually writing. He claims that publishers don't handle the majority of business concerns (like marketing) for any but the top 1% of writers. Most are required to toil in the same manner as self-pubbers to achieve success.



I know and am friends with a large number of people who make their living through writing fiction, as well as other people in the industry (my father was an executive in the industry for 40 years or so, I worked in that industry for a time and my wife makes her living in that industry as well).

I would agree that besides the very successful, many of them now tell me publishers did less for them than they did in the past, but they still get a great number of things done for them by publishers (or agents) that save them a great deal of time.  Those include editing, cover art, a lot of promotional and marketing work, getting their books in bookstores, arranging appearances, writing blurbs and getting endorsements for them etc.  Some of those are big time savers.

That is not to say that a well off indy writer cannot replicate some of those advantages through their own spending, but that both throws the business equation out of whack, and many indy writers can't afford a top notch editor or a publicist, or a radio ad campaign in NYC...etc.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

@Russ: I don't doubt what you've said. My personal knowledge comes from one personal friend only. I'm sure the treatment varies wildly from client to client.   

My point was only to illustrate that there's still a lot you're responsible for as an author, even under the umbrella of traditional publishing.


----------



## Mindfire

T.Allen.Smith said:


> @Russ:
> I don't doubt what you've said. My personal knowledge comes from one personal friend only. I sure the treatment varies wildly from client to client.
> 
> My point was only to illustrate that there's still a lot you're responsible for as an author, even under the umbrella of traditional publishing.



It seems choosing between self and traditional publishing is like choosing whether to roll a giant boulder up a steep hill step by step with the ever-looming threat of it rolling back and crushing you or to be given a slightly smoother boulder and roll it up the same hill- while someone is simultaneously giving you water on occasion and jabbing you in the back with a pointy stick.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Mindfire said:


> It seems choosing between self and traditional publishing is like choosing whether to roll a giant boulder up a steep hill step by step with the ever-looming threat of it rolling back and crushing you or to be given a slightly smoother boulder and roll it up the same hill- while someone is simultaneously giving you water on occasion and jabbing you in the back with a pointy stick.


Yes. Either that or write a book that agents compete over like meat thrown to a pack of ravenous dogs, starting a bidding war that nets you a $750k advance as a first time author.... Like Twilight?


----------



## Mindfire

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Yes. Either that or write a book that agents compete over like meat thrown to a pack of ravenous dogs, starting a bidding war that nets you a $750k advance as a first time author.... Like Twilight?



I'm not sure what's more opaque and unbelievable: whichever alchemical formula those agents used to predict massive sales for the book, or the fact that it actually happened. Hunger Games I understand. But Twilight? Meanwhile there are so many other, more interesting books waiting patiently to be adapted into films.


----------



## Russ

Some literary agencies have far better connections with Hollywood than others.


----------



## Guy

Mindfire said:


> Ridiculous? Hardly. Have you never seen a bunch of people like something and you just can't fathom why? As in, it makes absolutely no sense to you whatsoever? If you have never experienced this feeling, you are either an absurdly tolerant individual or you have extremely broad and eclectic tastes.


Every damn day of my life.


----------



## Penpilot

Mindfire said:


> Hey! I actually liked The Phantom Menace and I think it has some redeeming qualities. A better example would be Transformers 2. Somehow that movie gets worse every time I watch it.



IMHO the story telling in the Transformers franchise is pretty awful. It took me a while to figure out what was going on. Things move along so quickly on first viewing you don't have enough time to think about how dumb some of the stuff is. So if you're not paying attention too closely, you can be fooled into thinking it's not that bad.  But on further viewing, you know what's coming up, so you have time to think about things, and it all falls apart.

I've seen all four movies, and what's wrong and what sort of makes it work as a no-brainboom-boom movie is that in terms of scene and sequel format (aka action and reaction scenes) in story telling there are pretty much zero sequels in the film. Sequels are where the emotions are developed and where actions are given meaning. By pretty much skipping over those it removes all life from the film.

BUT it also taps into this weird aspect of movie watching. IMHO it's like tapping into the toddler part of the brain where anything with bright colors, noise, and motion will put you into a trance and capture your attention. It will hold it so long as there's no lull to break you out of the trance.

As I've said, I've watched all four movies. I'm the target audience who is inclined to forgive the obvious flaws enough to watch it at least once. That's because part of my computer area looks like this. 








But even then, I can step back and objectively say that the Transformers movie franchise, in story telling terms, can be summed up in one word, and that word is Sh!t.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

I don't know about transformers. I think I liked the first one and I thought I would have been the target audience. But really for me the films all lost a hell of a lot of points because I couldn't tell one robot from another. It sort of left me sitting there thinking - "ohh that was a killer blow, but was it the good guy or the bad guy that got hit? Do I cheer or boo?"

Other movies have hit me for similar reasons. Thor got me because so much of it was filmed in black on black. I couldn't see a damned thing. You cannot imagine how angry that made me. And the angel series Dominion has a gawdawful habit of showing half the screen in black to hide characters. That p*s me off too. I keep writing reviews explaining that the v in TV is for vision. If I wanted to watch a damned radio show I'd watch a damned radio.

However, that's a problem that doesn't occur in books - at least if they're well written. You should know who's hitting who. And even if you don't know who's hiding in the shadows, you know that you're not supposed to know. So it's hard to judge the writing in a movie by the final very visual product.

As for Twilight I also have no understanding of why anyone would watch it. But that is not a criticism of the books or the films. It's simply that I'm not the target audience. I'm not a romantically addled teenage girl. It's not written for me. My only annoyance with it was that someone called it a vampire movie and marketed it as such. Which meant that since I love vampire movies, I watched the first half of the first movie. After that of course the true horror of the film started to grow on me as I realised Mr. Sparkles wasn't going to do the decent thing and rip the annoying "does he love me?'s" thoat out no matter how much I screamed at the screen.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Guy

My daughter was 13 when the Twilight movie came out. I didn't mind the movie. I was comfortable with my 13 year old watching it. I was disappointed in the absence of fangs. When Edward stepped into the light to show her his true self, I was primed to see all his demonic glory unveiled and he... sparkled? What the hell? Well, okay, whatever. I knew I wasn't the target audience and was able to accept certain things. 

My daughter read the books and told me about them, and I've got to say if I'd read them I would've been monumentally pissed. As I understand it, there was all this build up to what was supposed to be an epic battle royale, the ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny, and then, when the two groups come together they... drop the whole thing and walk away?! After wading through books thick enough to stop a bullet from an elephant gun, this is my final reward? Nothing? In the words of Bart Simpson:
"Lisa, do you know what would've been better than nothing?"
"What?"
"Anything!"
I wouldn't have thrown the book across the room. I would've tied it to an arrow, set it on fire, and launched it through Myers' front window. I don't understand how that ending didn't cause teeth-shattering frustration amongst rank and file readers. I never saw the other movies. I only saw the first one because I took my daughter to see it, and by the time the others came out she'd read the books and totally soured on them.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I'm not sure what's more opaque and unbelievable: whichever alchemical formula those agents used to predict massive sales for the book, or the fact that it actually happened. Hunger Games I understand. But Twilight? Meanwhile there are so many other, more interesting books waiting patiently to be adapted into films.



You can assume it is arcane, or make the more practical assumption that Meyers did a lot right, and multiple editors recognized that and that the book was likely to be a big hit, so they competed over it. A publisher isn't going to advance that kind of money over some mystical feeling about the book. They read it and said "OK, we have to have this." And they were right.


----------



## Penpilot

I saw the first Twilight movie, and though I rolled my eyes quite a bit, the one thing I came out of the movie certain of was it hit the bullseye when it came to target audience. If I was a teen/tween, I think I'd be moved by it too.

Over the years, I've had a chance to revisit beloved things from my childhood. Some of it held up to the test of time. Other things didn't. Some of the tv shows/movies/cartoons I watched, which I thought had depth of meaning and emotion when I was young, don't when seen through more mature eyes. Some of it is still watchable and fun to poke fun at. The other stuff, I just shrug and say yep that's for kids, or yeah, a more innocent time in TV history. But at the same time, when I think about things, each and every one has a certain... appeal... that's strong enough to draw people in.


----------



## stephenspower

Writing in a lot of ways is irrelevant to whether a book sells. It's often about the breaks.

Both _Twilight _and _The Inheritance Cycle_ had large audiences the authors built up before traditional publishers took them on, _Twilight _online (like its redheaded stepchild _50 Shades of Grey_) and _Inheritance_ thanks to the author's parents devoting themselves and lots of money to author appearances and getting the self-pubd book in front of readers (his agent told me this is why he courted them, just as Richard Paul Evans and James Redfield had been courted a decade before). They deserve their success, whatever you think of the writing itself. They made their own breaks.

So did Ray Bradbury. After his editor told him how to turn his Mars stories into a novel the editor would call _The Martian Chronicles_, the book was published to resounding silence. But, as he relates in the intro to the graphic novel version, one day Bradbury happened to meet Christopher Isherwood, whom he gave a copy of his novel. Isherwood was gracious, but Bradbury could tell he couldn't care less. Nonetheless, three days later Isherwood called Bradbury, told him loved the book and said he would review it. And that started it down the road to becoming a classic.

So instead of being jealous of others' success or, worse, trying to figure out how to replicate it as if publishing were a cargo cult, authors should ask, How can I make my own break?

They should also keep writing. Dan Brown's first three books sold nothing. Now they've sold tens of millions thanks to _Da Vinci Code_ selling north of 80 million copies.


----------



## Steerpike

@stephenspower

I don't think that's right re: Twilight. From what I recall, it was written in about three months and the $750K advance at auction came a couple of months after that. There was no online buzz or anything else about it prior to Meyer getting the publishing contract. The auction may even have been sooner. A little online searching shows the novel was begun in June, 2003, then finished in September of that same year. The contracts with the publisher were signed in November, 2003.

With respect to Eragon and 50 Shades, you are correct, however. I'm not sure anyone other than Meyer's family knew anything about her book before she sold it.

I think people also forget how good the initial reviews for Twilight were, from a number of reputable sources.


----------



## ThinkerX

If my hazy memory serves, the abomination that is '50 Shades of Grey' began as an internet fanfic which became so popular mainstream publishers snapped it up.

On the other hand, there are multiple works on Wattpad with 100,000+ reads that appear to have been ignored by the traditional publishing industry.


----------



## X Equestris

ThinkerX said:


> If my hazy memory serves, the abomination that is '50 Shades of Grey' began as an internet fanfic which became so popular mainstream publishers snapped it up.
> 
> On the other hand, there are multiple works on Wattpad with 100,000+ reads that appear to have been ignored by the traditional publishing industry.



It began life as a Twilight fanfic, yes.  The author removed the Twilight elements and then sold it.  So it's not like publishers had been combing Fanfiction.net for potential stories.


----------



## Micheale

I'm just wondering, and I'm new here, so I may have NO CLUE what I'm talking about… 

But isn't it sort of important to know your reader? I get the debate that "I just write for me and my own happiness"… but if you want to be published, you need to know your market. 

Shakespeare wrote "As you Like it" specifically because it was exactly how his audience 'liked it'. 

Mayer wrote for 13-17 year old girls who didn't have lit degrees and needed an easy read at a grade five reading level. She did it very well and she sold a lot of copies.


----------



## Russ

Micheale said:


> I'm just wondering, and I'm new here, so I may have NO CLUE what I'm talking about…
> 
> But isn't it sort of important to know your reader? I get the debate that "I just write for me and my own happiness"… but if you want to be published, you need to know your market.
> 
> Shakespeare wrote "As you Like it" specifically because it was exactly how his audience 'liked it'.
> 
> Mayer wrote for 13-17 year old girls who didn't have lit degrees and needed an easy read at a grade five reading level. She did it very well and she sold a lot of copies.



I agree strongly with this from any perspective, either commercial or artistic.  I view writing as a partnership, or potential partnership between the writer and the reader.  You have to take your partner into account in any endevour.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

I'm going to disagree to an extent - notbecause I think that writing for the reader is wrong, though it can be. But mostly because I believe writers should write for themselves first. They publish for the reader. My thought is that if you're not writing the books you want to read, then the chances that they'll appeal to others are slim.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## BWFoster78

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm going to disagree to an extent - notbecause I think that writing for the reader is wrong, though it can be. But mostly because I believe writers should write for themselves first. They publish for the reader. My thought is that if you're not writing the books you want to read, then the chances that they'll appeal to others are slim.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Greg,

Seems to me like this a major difference between a professional and an amateur.  A professional can write anything and have the story be appealing whereas, perhaps, an amateur needs to find internal motivation to be able to produce quality work.

I can't think of any business where the company says, "Produce the product you want, not the product the consumer wants."

If one wants to write for themselves, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  If one wants to earn a living from writing, though, I think considering writing a business is a better way to go.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Butterfly

See... this write for yourself thing can be translated another way. If you aim to write for the market with a story that is currently on trend you will likely miss out on that trend by the time the book is written, edited, etc.

It can even be thought of this way. As writers we are also readers. We are part of that market. That means we buy books. In writing for ourselves we are also writing for others who are just like us, who have similar tastes. What appeals to us may also appeal to others.


----------



## BWFoster78

Butterfly said:


> See... this write for yourself thing can be translated another way. If you aim to write for the market with a story that is currently on trend you will likely miss out on that trend by the time the book is written, edited, etc.
> 
> It can even be thought of this way. As writers we are also readers. We are part of that market. That means we buy books. In writing for ourselves we are also writing for others who are just like us, who have similar tastes. What appeals to us may also appeal to others.



Butterfly,

If this is the thought, then you're still considering what the readers want; you're just approaching it from a different direction.

In which case, you and I are mostly in agreement.

My issue is with those who don't consider the reader at all.


----------



## Micheale

I agree totally with what you are saying, I just mean that how can we criticize writers like Meyers and 50 shades (don't know her name) or the woman who writes the City of Glass books (I haven't seen her name written here yet, she was also a fan fic author) for their writing when there is obviously a market for it? I mean, at the end of the day I think MOST people want to be entertained, and I try to remember this when I'm writing. I come from a very heavy Lit background, and of course my favourite writers are the ones who have stood the test of time and are considered to be of the Literary Fiction genre, however, the books that I read over and over and over again are the ones that are entertaining. I don't always need to have a spiritual awakening. It's nice when it happens, and it is nice when both happen at the same time, but usually I just need to escape from reality. 

If I were to really write what I wanted I would be bringing back the old, Princess of Mars pulpy, sexy, stereotypical sic-fi of the 1920's. I love that stuff. 

I read a great article once about a TV writer talking about the 'campfire' method. When you are writing, imagine you are sitting around a campfire. You have to keep your audience entertained, enthralled in the story. Those are the ones I like to read, so those are the ones I write. 

This is why, as a teenager I didn't read LOTR over and over, I read Sword of Truth (Which I can now admit is TERRIBLE) but I loved it. It was light and fluffy and full of sex and mystery and violence and it was what I wanted at the time. I think most readers are looking for the basics with just enough controversy (50 shades, De Vinci Code, Game of Thrones) to keep it interesting and current.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Micheale said:


> I agree totally with what you are saying, I just mean that how can we criticize writers like Meyers and 50 shades (don't know her name) or the woman who writes the City of Glass books (I haven't seen her name written here yet, she was also a fan fic author) for their writing when there is obviously a market for it? I mean, at the end of the day I think MOST people want to be entertained, and I try to remember this when I'm writing. I come from a very heavy Lit background, and of course my favourite writers are the ones who have stood the test of time and are considered to be of the Literary Fiction genre, however, the books that I read over and over and over again are the ones that are entertaining. I don't always need to have a spiritual awakening. It's nice when it happens, and it is nice when both happen at the same time, but usually I just need to escape from reality.
> 
> If I were to really write what I wanted I would be bringing back the old, Princess of Mars pulpy, sexy, stereotypical sic-fi of the 1920's. I love that stuff.
> 
> I read a great article once about a TV writer talking about the 'campfire' method. When you are writing, imagine you are sitting around a campfire. You have to keep your audience entertained, enthralled in the story. Those are the ones I like to read, so those are the ones I write.
> 
> This is why, as a teenager I didn't read LOTR over and over, I read Sword of Truth (Which I can now admit is TERRIBLE) but I loved it. It was light and fluffy and full of sex and mystery and violence and it was what I wanted at the time. I think most readers are looking for the basics with just enough controversy (50 shades, De Vinci Code, Game of Thrones) to keep it interesting and current.



I don't think readers generally consciously know what they want, but they know what they want when they read it. This isn't because they're dumb or anything but they just don't consciously think about what they want from a story. They just want to be entertained, and there are some specific tried and true methods of entertaining people. Shades, Da Vinci Code and GoT all have this entertainment value. I think my point stands especially true for GoT. People would see those tomes and balk at their size and complexity. But when the show came out the book sales also spiked in large part because people got the basics from the TV and the nuance from the books. Which is why I think an author who wants to sell and sell well need to read the successful and unsuccessful and discover what made them sell and incorporate it.


----------



## Guy

Micheale said:


> I agree totally with what you are saying, I just mean that how can we criticize writers like Meyers and 50 shades (don't know her name) or the woman who writes the City of Glass books (I haven't seen her name written here yet, she was also a fan fic author) for their writing when there is obviously a market for it?


Because neither they nor their writing is infallible. Nobody is above criticism.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Brian,

I don't doubt that there are writers out there who can write anything and make it appealing to others. But by and large they are the minority in my view. And they need two abilities. The ability to write extremely well. And the ability to know what will appeal to others. The latter is going to be a problem for almost everyone.

My guess (and I have no stats etc) is that those books that do better are those ones that were written by writers passionate about the story. They wrote the story they wanted to immerse themselves in. They put all their passion and soul into the work. And then once it was finally done they went through the edits, probably reluctantly, to make their work more commercial within the eyes of the professionals. Other writers who don't do this but rather write according to what they think will sell are more likely to produce generic works that won't stand the tests of time and readership. They'll be as they say "phoning it home" and readers will pick up on the fact that their heart and soul wasn't buried in the book.

I suspect that a part of what has made some of the books mentioned in this thread such huge sellers is that the authors were deeply passionate about the books. They invested their hearts and souls in the work. And whether or not their writing skills were stellar, that passion is what comes through to the reader.

Writing is an art and art is about communication. But it's about the communication of what's within the artist, his passion. If that's not there, then readers will surely notice.

Again as I say, I have no stats for this - I doubt there are any. But if anyone wants to go and ask these authors - or read their author bywords - I'll bet not a one of them says "well I thought this was what my audience wanted to read".

Write for yourself, publish for others.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## BWFoster78

Greg,

I truly don't think that most of us have any control whatsoever about any of our books becoming mega bestsellers like the ones discussed in this thread.  If we work hard enough, I think it's likely that any of us can attain some measure of success, but I think reaching the stratosphere is akin to hitting the lottery.

A lot of authors (check the Writer's Cafe over at Kboards) talk about books that they wrote doing well because they followed a trend and wrote exactly what their readers wanted.

I don't think that it's too terribly hard to find out exactly what that is: simply study what is selling.

Nothing wrong with writing for yourself, but I tend to think that writing for readers gives you a better chance to sell to readers.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Mindfire

Resurrecting this thread because I just happened across this video and it got me thinking.






Could this be the true secret to the success of 50 Shades? All indications are that the author has constructed Anna as a character that is easy for the target audience to insert themselves into and also has, regardless of intention, portrayed a relationship that includes substantial abuse and manipulation. But is it possible that the author has, unwittingly, accomplished both of these things in a way that, through their strong connection to Anna, the book's target audience is in some sense being indoctrinated by proxy? And might there be a similar dynamic in the Twilight books? This would explain a lot. Especially the near-fanatical devotion shown by fans of both series.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mindfire said:


> Resurrecting this thread because I just happened across this video and it got me thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could this be the true secret to the success of 50 Shades? All indications are that the author has constructed Anna as a character that is easy for the target audience to insert themselves into and also has, regardless of intention, portrayed a relationship that includes substantial abuse and manipulation. But is it possible that the author has, unwittingly, accomplished both of these things in a way that, through their strong connection to Anna, the book's target audience is in some sense being indoctrinated by proxy? And might there be a similar dynamic in the Twilight books? This would explain a lot. Especially the near-fanatical devotion shown by fans of both series.



But that's just a theory...a film theory. (Yes shameless ripoff is shameless.) Seriously though it is an interesting thought. I was even tempted to put this same link into a discussion on scribophiles about the new 50 Shades book.


----------



## Micheale

Ok, the only thing I could think of watching this (about how cults lure their unassuming, low self esteem victims) is that the MC who does the luring is named 'Christian'. As an agnostic I find this really funny. (Not meaning to be offensive, but maybe the author was getting at something deeper than we thought she was…)


----------



## Trick

Micheale said:


> Ok, the only thing I could think of watching this (about how cults lure their unassuming, low self esteem victims) is that the MC who does the luring is named 'Christian'. Not meaning to be offensive, but as an agnostic I find this really funny. (Not meaning to be offensive, but maybe the author was getting at something deeper than we thought she was…)



If you say something offensive and then say that you don't intend to offensive, they don't cancel each other out. And the main character started out as Edward, since it was Twilight fanfiction.


----------



## Micheale

Geez. I just find it an interesting connection is all. I wan't meaning anything by it. I have a Masters Degree in English Lit. I'm pretty much indoctrinated (lol) to find bizarre connections (usually biblical) in everything I read.

I could probably go on to write an Essay on how 50 Shades is really a social commentary on how organized religion uses scare tactics and psychological warfare in order to groom it's unassuming followers into preforming acts of servitude for the church, and how the fact that most of the readers missed this aspect is an example of how indoctrinated our world has become. 

This how my mind has been trained to work.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Micheale said:


> Ok, the only thing I could think of watching this (about how cults lure their unassuming, low self esteem victims) is that the MC who does the luring is named 'Christian'. As an agnostic I find this really funny. (Not meaning to be offensive, but maybe the author was getting at something deeper than we thought she was…)



Yeah, I'm gonna be honest, I don't think that's what she was really going after, even subconsciously. I just can't believe someone who refuses to discuss the potential of the relationship between Grey and Ana to be abusive is capable of such intellectual subtlety. In fact, I think that refusal goes to my point that she clearly didn't intend that and that she wrote a kinky book to get people all hot and bothered and buy this written version of porn.


----------



## X Equestris

Micheale said:


> Ok, the only thing I could think of watching this (about how cults lure their unassuming, low self esteem victims) is that the MC who does the luring is named 'Christian'. As an agnostic I find this really funny. (Not meaning to be offensive, but maybe the author was getting at something deeper than we thought she was…)



It started out with Edward as a protagonist in pretty much the exact same role, so I doubt there's any deeper meaning.


----------



## Micheale

Of course I'm being somewhat facetious. But in many ways, I believe, so long as you can prove your novel means something (and controversial is always better) than it will have popularity. I don't think she meant to create that theme, but anyone (like the film maker who created the documentary) can prove anything if you use the right symbols and examples.


----------



## Mindfire

Micheale said:


> Ok, the only thing I could think of watching this (about how cults lure their unassuming, low self esteem victims) is that the MC who does the luring is named 'Christian'. As an agnostic I find this really funny. (Not meaning to be offensive, but maybe the author was getting at something deeper than we thought she was…)



Except that's not at all how mainstream Christianity works in the present or historically? Attaching a "totally not being offensive" disclaimer to your offensive statement is a lot like people who say, "I'm not a racist, but..."


----------



## Trick

Micheale said:


> Geez. I just find it an interesting connection is all. I wan't meaning anything by it. I have a Masters Degree in English Lit. I'm pretty much indoctrinated (lol) to find bizarre connections (usually biblical) in everything I read.
> 
> I could probably go on to write an Essay on how 50 Shades is really a social commentary on how organized religion uses scare tactics and psychological warfare in order to groom it's unassuming followers into preforming acts of servitude for the church, and how the fact that most of the readers missed this aspect is an example of how indoctrinated our world has become.
> 
> This how my mind has been trained to work.



Somehow a masters in English Lit conditioned you to make a connection between a movie/book about BDSM and organized religion, Christianity specifically? Sounds like you took some weird classes. You might want to go back and take one on statistics; calling over 2 billion people "unassuming, low self esteem victims" sounds a bit uneducated.


----------



## Trick

Micheale said:


> Of course I'm being somewhat facetious. But in many ways, I believe, so long as you can prove your novel means something (and controversial is always better) than it will have popularity. I don't think she meant to create that theme, but anyone (like the film maker who created the documentary) can prove anything if you use the right symbols and examples.



"anyone ... can prove anything if you use the right symbols and examples."

I'm guessing you don't mean that I can prove unicorns exist and that they often play soccer professionally? I think what you are trying to say is that analogy is the weakest form of argument.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

This debate is emotionally charged, so I'm asking everyone to move forward in this discussion with a level head.    

As posted in the site guidelines:   

When discussing religion, special care must be taken. Such discussions must be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and genuine inquiry. For this reason special guidelines have been enacted for threads on religion. 

Please see the following:  
http://mythicscribes.com/forums/news-and-announcements/2101-guidelines-discussing-religion.html

Please review the site policy on religious discussion if you intend to debate this point further.


----------



## Micheale

Ok. I understand. But I don't understand how, as authors and writers we can't have difficult discussions about finding meaning in literature? I mean, the best literature throughout history has been that that was messy. That asked difficult questions and made the readers question the validity of their answers. That made people stand up and say, hmmmmm, this makes me really uncomfortable and I don't like where you are going with this, but it is an interesting point. I'm not saying that 50 shades is anti-christrian rhetoric, I'm saying that I 'could' be interpreted that way based on the documentary shown. If a forum of writers cannot have difficult discussions about the purpose of their craft then where are they expected to go with their art? If we can't write about anything controversial, asking pointed questions and seeking challenging answers than what else is there? 

My degree taught me to be critical and open minded. To not follow the status quo. To ask questions and find meaning in things that otherwise appear empty. 

Good luck to all of you, as you entertain without ruffling any feathers.


----------



## Trick

I did get worked up, sorry about that.



Micheale said:


> Ok. I understand. But I don't understand how, as authors and writers we can't have difficult discussions about finding meaning in literature?



We can and often do.



Micheale said:


> I mean, the best literature throughout history has been that that was messy. That asked difficult questions and made the readers question the validity of their answers. That made people stand up and say, hmmmmm, this makes me really uncomfortable and I don't like where you are going with this, but it is an interesting point. I'm not saying that 50 shades is anti-christrian rhetoric, I'm saying that I 'could' be interpreted that way based on the documentary shown.



It could be interpreted that way, but in my opinion it is a leap. The issue is not asking the question, it is the insinuation that Christianity is a cult. There are a lot of Christians in the world and that's an easy way to start a fight. I do not begrudge you your opinion however, I simply ask that you don't call my religion a cult, nor imply that I am an unassuming, low self-esteemed victim. I am more than happy to discuss the cultish nature of 50 Shades though. 



Micheale said:


> If a forum of writers cannot have difficult discussions about the purpose of their craft then where are they expected to go with their art? If we can't write about anything controversial, asking pointed questions and seeking challenging answers than what else is there?



As I said above, we can and do have difficult discussions and ask pointed questions; we just attempt to do so without even unintentionally insulting each other and it usually works out pretty well. There is ample room for a more in-depth discussion of controversial themes.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Micheale said:


> Good luck to all of you, as you entertain without ruffling any feathers.


This is a community of writers. It is not _your_ writing. 

You're free to discuss any topics you choose and in whatever manner you deem appropriate in your writing. Ruffle your feathers there.

However, on these forums we must present our assertions or questions in a respectful manner. Without mutual respect, debates turn into arguments where nothing is accomplished besides the creation of disdain & division amongst the membership. 

We debate many topics like religious views. We may even ask controversial questions, but we do so with respect & the intention to understand. That's necessary for any community.

And, we are writers, after all. We should be capable of presenting ourselves clearly with the written word. A writer should be capable of clear and tactful expression. 

I don't think requiring a respectful discourse is too much to ask. Do you?


----------



## Guy

Brian Scott Allen said:


> she wrote a kinky book to get people all hot and bothered and buy this written version of porn.


Bingo. Sex sells. I don't think anything more complicated than that is at work here.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> Greg,
> 
> I truly don't think that most of us have any control whatsoever about any of our books becoming mega bestsellers like the ones discussed in this thread.  If we work hard enough, I think it's likely that any of us can attain some measure of success, but I think reaching the stratosphere is akin to hitting the lottery.
> 
> A lot of authors (check the Writer's Cafe over at Kboards) talk about books that they wrote doing well because they followed a trend and wrote exactly what their readers wanted.
> 
> I don't think that it's too terribly hard to find out exactly what that is: simply study what is selling.
> 
> Nothing wrong with writing for yourself, but I tend to think that writing for readers gives you a better chance to sell to readers.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Brian



While I recognize the point I am not sure that is 100% accurate. Harry Potter was something new, and written from the heart, not with readers in mind. And it sold. You can feel the passion flowing from the page. LOTR wasn't written with readers in mind, and that is hugely successful. Twilight also written from the hear, huge success. 50 Shades is the same, who knew BDSM with shades of (ooooooooooohhhhhhh) abuse, according to some, was written as a loving (horny?) fanfic of Twilight, not for an audience and that thing is making a mint.

The problem with the unprofessional writer is that most of them are writing behind the curve since they have day jobs, life, and other issues that get in the way of writing. So, why not write what you love, write a lot, maybe you'll get a sale and make it big through passion and not through cynicism.


----------



## Russ

The interesting thing about this discussion is that it seems to be dedicated to deriving a "rule" from the exceptions.


----------



## BWFoster78

> The problem with the unprofessional writer is that most of them are writing behind the curve since they have day jobs, life, and other issues that get in the way of writing. So, why not write what you love, write a lot, maybe you'll get a sale and make it big through passion and not through cynicism.



Brian,

I'm not saying not to do that.

I think that the side question that Greg and I started discussing was essentially: do you have more of a chance of success writing for the reader or writing for yourself?

First, define success.  If you're talking about Twilight/Harry Potter level, I have no idea how you reach that statosphere.  I think it takes a combination of skill and having the right book at the right time.  I don't know how to plan a goal around having the right book at the right time.

So I define success more as making a legitimate side income with the dream being to become a full time writer.

Given that definition, what is more likely to get you there - writing for the reader or writing for yourself?

I believe the former.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Mindfire

Russ said:


> The interesting thing about this discussion is that it seems to be dedicated to deriving a "rule" from the exceptions.





BWFoster78 said:


> First, define success.  If you're talking about Twilight/Harry Potter level, I have no idea how you reach that statosphere.  I think it takes a combination of skill and having the right book at the right time.  I don't know how to plan a goal around having the right book at the right time.
> 
> So I define success more as making a legitimate side income with the dream being to become a full time writer.
> 
> Given that definition, what is more likely to get you there - writing for the reader or writing for yourself?
> 
> I believe the former.



If there's any kind of "rule" it seems to be that things written to formula, with a predetermined audience in mind, are reasonably safe bets- likely to get published and sell decently well (e.g. the romance genre). Meanwhile things written as works of passion and imagination are less likely to be picked up immediately because they may not have a built-in marketing niche and are probably less likely to reach even middling success, but are also the pool from which the huge breakout successes are drawn. To use an imperfect analogy, writing to formula is a safe bet, while writing what you love is high stakes gambling. The evidence seems to bear this out. Brian is on to something there. So in a way both BW and Brian are right. If you're writing for sales, with the goal of achieving a nice source of side income or even writing full time, writing with the audience in mind is the smart choice. However, if, like myself, writing as a part or full-time job is not your goal and you're in it for personal enjoyment, escapism, the joy of sharing your imagination with others, etc., then it can't hurt to go for the high stakes gamble. If you don't win, you lose nothing, since you'll still have the enjoyment of the work itself which is what you started out for anyway. And if you do win, you win BIG. 

So really it's a tradeoff. Do you play it safe at the cost of your creative freedom? Or do you write for yourself and forego the likelihood of steady income from writing, but with a minute chance of being the next big thing?


----------



## Mindfire

And if you think about it, the fact that this tradeoff exists shouldn't be surprising. Things written to formula sell decently well because of it, but are also held back from greater success because they're more or less just like everything else. New and imaginative works become bestsellers because they're fresh and different and tap into undiscovered markets, but again the same factor that creates their success also restricts them because publishers may not want to take a chance on something that really is different. And if they do take that chance there's still the possibility that the fresh new thing may not be the kind of fresh new thing people are actually looking for. People are tricky that way. They don't always know what they want- or don't want- until you give it to them.


----------



## Micheale

I just wanted to come back to say that I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my post. I do tend to be rather socially awkward, say what I'm thinking (without thinking) and have been told before (often  that I can be less than tactful. This is something that I will try to reign in while I participate on these boards. I value the opinions and beliefs of others very much and never intended to offend. I really just thought it was an interesting connection and said it out loud before thinking. Again, I apologize. I am a very nice person  Just a bit eccentric at times.


----------



## Trick

Micheale said:


> I apologize. I am a very nice person  Just a bit eccentric at times.



I think we're all a bit eccentric at times  why else would we create our own little worlds and then write about them?


----------



## Guy

Trick said:


> I think we're all a bit eccentric at times  why else would we create our own little worlds and then write about them?


Because we're that much cooler than everyone else


----------

