But the question wasn't asking if we would rather be passionate about writing or have commercial success. OP asked if we'd prefer good reviews or commercial success. Compliments don't pay bills.
True but I think you're missing the point. One would rather be rich, than produce something that they can be proud of that is worth praise. Been a long time since I have read anything in the contemporary that is even remotely noteworthy.
You're damn right I'd rather be well off than have acclaim and fall into obscurity. And I'd rather be proud that I was able to send my kids to good schools and provide for them than being proud of the nice things people said on the internet. "But look at this book I wrote, kids! Look at all the nice things these people said!"
I'm in the fortunate position of being retired and not needing income from books. If I was not in this position, and trying to earn a living by writing instead, this question would be more difficult to answer honestly. (Especially as good reviews often lead to commercial success. The two are often linked.) The OP's question doesn't quite cover the topic for me. It's making the assumption that at least one of these two choices 'matters' to me as a writer. My version of the question would be "Are you writing specifically to achieve commercial success and/or good reviews? If so, which of these two is more important to you?" Would you willingly make any changes an agent or publisher tells you to make, in order to make your book more 'saleable?' Would you happily churn out more work 'to order,' and aim it at a specific buying public? Would you write within a specific genre and be willing to accept all the requirements for that genre? Me? I would love commercial success and good reviews, and to hear from people who really like my stories—but I don't want to feel pressured to write somebody else's idea of what a book should be. Creating what I would want to read is what matters most to me, as a writer. I'm with @OurJud on this issue. Neither matters to me, if it means I have to change what I write about and/or the way I choose to write it. I'll happily make changes that I feel improve the writing and the story, but not in order to pander to the public's current version of 'taste.'
You're assuming there's a connection between "produce something that they can be proud of" and good reviews. Remember all those books "in the contemporary" that you've read and not cared for? Unless you've been deliberately seeking out unpopular works, I bet some of the stuff you read got good reviews. And we've all heard the stories of books that are currently considered great that weren't well-received by the critics of their day. Both money and good reviews are arbitrary, inaccurate measures of an author's ability to reach his or her goals. Only one of the arbitrary, inaccurate measures can be exchanged for goods and services. So it's the one I prefer.
Surely all that matters is that: A, you've proved to yourself you can write and polish a novel (even if it's the proverbial turd you're polishing). And B, that you've done so to the best of your ability? Nothing else matters, does it? Someone once said, 'If what drives your writing is fame and fortune, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.' I can get on board with that logic.
That assumes I need other people's approval to be proud of what I've done; I don't. I'm writing books that I'm proud of, and the fact that some people don't like them doesn't make me any less proud.
Writing has always been more of an intellectual pursuit for me. Becoming a commercial success on the back of something utterly trivial and mindless is likely to turn me into a crazed recluse living in her castle full of cats. (at this stage I'm not far off; all I need is the castle and the plural of cat) My dream has been to contribute something to society of lasting literary significance. If financial stability results from that I'd be thrilled, sure, but I prefer someone discover my book and have it make a lasting impression on them than have someone pay for my book only to have it sit on their shelf taking up space. But my priorities are my own.
I would go with success...mainly because I've never cared about reviews. Generally I just like telling stories and want a bunch of people to read them...and making money off of it ain't bad either ^^
Not really. You can be passionate about your work but that might not resonate well with others. Does your passion depend on other peoples opinion? If not then you can still be happy with less than amazing reviews. I will write, whether people like it or not so if I should write, i rather make money off of it so that one day I can afford to stay home and do nothing but write for my enjoyment.
Readers. I suppose this equates to commercial success, but my main point would be: Readers. To me, writing is about communication. If the communication is also art, that's nice.
*in my best voice mimicking the harribo adverts* I want to make more money to buy some more sweeties. On a serious note, someone else stated that they want to have commercial success to fund a career in writing. I mirror that. Would love to focus solely on my writing, we wouldnt have to worry about childcare
It depends what you mean by good reviews, i want my intended audience to love the book (commercial success tends to require that anyway) so good reviews on amazon etc would be needed, but i don't GAGF what the latterati book critics think of it , Ive never read anything that they recomended that was any good anyway (actually thats not true David Gutterson, Snow Falling on Cedars was okay , although the sequel was utter crap)
Strongly disagree. Writing anything takes some sort of passion, whether it's fluff fanfiction, a short story, a novel or anything else in between. For me, commercial success (as highly unlikely as that is) would mean the chance to further hone my writing and means my work is enjoying some circulation.
Commercial success isn't easy. Ask just about anyone who writes. Critical acclaim? That's a cinch. Be nice, dot all your i's, cross all your t's, and say please and thank you. Am I implying then that by being nasty, being contrary to everything that's prescribed us, and flipping the bird to anyone and everyone is the way to be? No, not by any means. What I'm saying is writing well has nothing to do with either commercial success or critical acclaim. Writing well has to do with innate talent which isn't squandered in such trivial pursuits as critical acclaim and commercial success--commercial success because besides knowing it isn't easy, we also know it's about marketing, packaging, luck, luck, and luck. Might as well go to Las Vegas. Like most people, I'm generally lazy; I like to take the easy way out. And I'm no different when in comes to Commercial Success and Critical Acclaim. Commercial Success is a steep climb. Critical Acclaim however...I can do that.
Both. Without good reviews who wants empty success? And who wants good reviews and no money? But I absolutely don't want to be one of those ding-bat writers who write weird crap just to be downloaded for novelties sake.
