Criticizing the Published

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.