Okay, you kept the concept the same (or similar), but you exchanged long and boring for short and boring. It's not just about word count.
What The Fuck! Right, I got it already, you don't like Stephen King! Many people (also in the millions!) do think that Stephen King is good and even better than how you choose to represent him. On who's says so? Yours?!!! Others will disagree. There's absolutely no need whatsoever to spend so much time trying to get any story absolutely perfect for no reason other than to excel at vain perfectionism. It takes up a lot of time that could have been better spent writing more books which, incidentally, means a greater time spent actually perfecting the "art". Exactly how much does the obscure writer get paid for their first (or even tenth) novel? Not much. So the longer one spends with just the one novel trying desperately to perfect it to masterpice level they will only get paid the same amount (give or take) as someone who has 'churned' out the same quality of entertaniment in a mere month. Meawhile, that person is on to their next...and then their next...and their next. Get the picture already? So while the perfectionist has spent about ten months doing the boring perfectionist routine (and will still be in his 9 - 5 job getting ready to "perfect" his next "masterpiece") the "schlock" (your ignorant words) writer will have written ten and have earned ten times as much and can afford to retire at an early age therefore being able to spend more time "perfecting" his art, even though I have already stated that it is nonsense to even assume anyone can perfect writing. Anyone who does think so is an utter naive moron. For a moment there you almost had me convinced of my own sheer arrogance. But yours...! Don't ever assume a higher command that you think you know better than those mere 'book buyers/readers' you mention. You obviously don't but you don't mind looking down on them as piles of shit because of their taste in entertainment (see what I'm saying? The majority of book buyers only percieve books as entertainment because that is what they are...nothing more). People know what they like and what they don't like without someone feeling they can dictate what is good writing and what isn't. And for you to criticise others for their lack of grasp on the English language when you don't even use it here (grammar errors and "prez" for fuck's sake!) is so obviously stupid it's getting hard to take you seriously. Quite clearly you obviously think you are though. Once again you display your own arrogance to dictate that what you see as good must be good and anyone else's opinion doesn't matter and so their taste must be utter crap. Be careful where the fuck you tread here sweetheart. There's a difference between a debate and even an argument, but personal passive aggressive flaming bullshit I won't stand for, so don't even bother. And btw...it's English with a capital 'E'. I'll say it again because you obviously didn't get it the first time: duck and geese. Everybody has their own taste. You don't like King. How many times now? Once again, (your) vague representation of what, in your opinion, is good and bad. In fact, I would like to ask you an obvious but also important question: seeing as you obviously possess superior knowledge to all; please enthral us with your acumen on what exactly is good writing. Because, according to you, there is only one definition. So then maybe we will all change just to suit you and then be labelled a good writer.
Um...I don't really think it's a good idea to get involved with this one but I'll throw in my two cents anyway...and then try and get out as quick as possible (though I will back what I say). I think there are two sides to the coin that both of you (Max and Maia that is) are looking at. There is good and bad writing - but, like all art, it all depends on the reader...sort of. Maia is right, there are technical elements that make some writers "better" than others in that area. Structure, grammar, literary device usage etc. are things that people use to quantify writing. Like in any art form, writers use a tool set to develop their final product. Someone who masters these tools and uses them effectively to produce something (like a novel) could be considered a "better" writer. These novels get recognized by literary boards and people who have studied writing enough to pick these things out. The whole purpose of these awards is to recognize creative and effective usage of these literary tools. HOWEVER, there is definitely substance to Max's argument. There's a reason that J.K. Rowling is the richest person in the UK (or at least that's the rumor I heard) and The DaVinci Code has hundreds of spinoff books, documentaries and a feature film. Some writers are more appealing to the mass/general reading audience. And, some just have better publicists. It's the same reason Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise will never win academy awards but will always sell movies which, when it's all boiled down is another great way to quantify quality. It may not carry the prestige of a Pulitzer but it sure reaches a large audience of every day people and the writer is living much more comfortably when he goes to the bank. If you're looking to reach lots and LOTS of people then you probably want something with more mass appeal than technical prowess because it'll be lost on many readers. An interesting twist on this whole thing is that your commercial career typically skyrockets when you win an award like a Pulitzer because it can go right on the cover of every book you publish after that so a lot of people will "campaign" for awards - making them less and less about writing. Conversely, writers with nothing but commercial success often fall into the trap of letting their writing atrophy because they rehash the same story over and over until their audience quits reading from boredom. In order to continue their success they have to try and garner these awards because, by improving their technical skills, they avoid boring readers and they get that nifty seal on their books which will jump their book sales. Not to mention it will help them be better technically and more versatile as writers. So, which one is "right" or "better"? Both and neither. It really depends on your goals as to whether it accomplishes its purpose or not. Artistic success and commercial success are two different sides of the same coin - you don't have to look at the other side, but sometimes it helps to know that it is there. zb
well put, zeno!... and a valid take, on all points, imo... btw, it's nice to see that most here can take part in a discussion w/o resorting to blue language and childish petulance and nastiness... love and respectful hugs, m
...while at the same time being flanked by someone with no balls to step up other than to initiate passive aggression. WEAK!
If the craft survives on its own then it is a hobby that has turned into art. If money is involved then it is a business which its output is purely entertainment. Something which granny here has yet to understand. As for your analogy of the coin: some people are preoccupied with one side, others the other. A small amount are interested in both. I prefer the outer rim.
Of course, some of the discussion here exposes the problem of not defining what is meant by 'good' before discussing what is good literature and what isn't. I would have to disagree. Though it's not for everyone, many writers (at the literary end of the scale) strive for perfection, seeking quality over quantity, and want the recognition that goes with it, often, but not necessarily, in the form of awards. This is a perfectly normal and understandable approach to writing. I don't follow your logic. You either spend XX hours writing and perfecting few books, or you spend the same XX hours writing a greater number of books. The time spent is the same in either case. Arguably the latter spends less time and effort on 'perfecting the art' than the former, for the former is striving for that very perfection. Quality over quantity. But the time spent is the same. Each might argue they're perfecting, in their own form. It's perhaps a little more complicated, I think. Although there are some, perhaps many, writers of transient popular fiction whose works sell long after publication, the tendency is to sell more books over a shorter period. Those striving to perfect the art, on the other hand, probably sell over a longer period, because the art maintains its value while the transient fiction becomes unfashionable. It's a generalisation, sure, but it accepts there will be those like King whose works continue to sell well over time, but that he's atypical. But the two are seeking quite different goals, aiming to please quite different audiences, and don't generally compete in the marketplace. I'm not sure why you believe this to be so. There are certainly those writers whose works are considered to be at the top end of the literary scale, as close to perfection as matters in practice. Well, I disagree. I think writers can perfect writing, as many have done, and I don't think having that opinion makes anyone a naive moron. I guess the point is that there is more than one type of reader, and different writers aim to please different groups of readers. Thomas M. Disch puts it better than I can in his introduction to Philip K Dick's collection We Can Remember It For You Wholesale: I think this is apt in the context of the discussion in this thread. Cheers, Rob
Evenin', Rob. Thanks for the quote (although I have yet to read that particular PKD book). I'm still not convinced at this perfection thing that is thrown around so easily all the time. Such thinking is of a hope of human paradise: it doesn't exist; otherwise we as a species would create perfection and masterful pieces at will. But we survive around chaotic anarchy. This is our nature. This is why only progression is useful. There’s absolutely no need in holding archaic views while everyone else is excelling at [a] craft without needing to do the archaic thing of necessary learning old ideology of (in this context) writing. The only thing I see about any of this as art is a person’s own natural talent. Anything else is textbook knowledge. Masterpiece and perfection, I guess I will agree on, is purely in the mind and eye of the beholder. A Tarantino fan will see everything he makes as a masterpiece etc, but others will see tripe. Likewise, those who hate S. King will jump all over their own sense of vitriol at showing how much they hate him like it’s something people actually want to hear. But others who are diehard fans will see nothing but genius in his work. But let’s get down to what’s really important and is the underlying meaning of everything I have said this far: A film is meant to be viewed. A book is meant to be read. Radio is meant to be listened to. (I think you get the point by now.) That is their purpose. If any of those formats fail to generate a viewer, listener or reader then, regardless of anyone’s opinion, it’s a damn failure. Why would anyone, who concerns themselves with artistic perfection, write anything if it’s not going to garner as much attention as is possible? European “art” film makers always make a point of never spending too much on a film. Do you know why? Because they know they could only ever generate enough profit to break even but only on a small scale. And that’s because they know what they create only appeals to a small audience. Hollywood spends millions because they know the majority of people who buy tickets want to be entertained and they are willing to pay through the nose for it. Success is simply incidental to the demands of the people. If they feel your work is only created to serve one’s vanity towards one’s own sense of perfection then they are going to sniff a phony who is only interested in serving themselves. All of this does not in anyway mean that a craftsman cannot practice his art to perfection. But the damn naïve problem is when a writer is under the illusion that he should write to impress his literary butt pals. If that is the intention then they are seriously misguided. And if not then there’s no reason for his manuscript to make it past the manuscript stage or to be read past the manuscript stage. If he’s only interested in artistic integrity as his sole purpose for writing then the risk for a publisher to spend so much money on trying to sell his book is grand and illogical if he doesn’t think about the returns. And this, by others blind definition, is not art but business. As I have said, if it involves money and having to sell something to the public for, funnily enough, public consumption then it is a business. Art is personal opinion and of a personal, private viewpoint. One of the rules of being a writer is knowing how to be a salesman; because that, in essence, is what we all are if we all wish to see our books in print. And that is because books serve only one purpose: it is there solely for entertainment. What else is the use of a book (other than to educate if that is its nature)? There’s no other output. And putting books in print costs money. That means we need a reader base. That also means that we have to understand how to entertain people. Why else would the mass majority want to buy books? The art comes from the inner craft that all writers possess. Let the reader decide for themselves whether they see what they are reading is actually a piece of literary art. Forget the stupid critics; they only have their own opinion which doesn’t reflect on everyone else. I think that quote by Thomas M. Disch is a flawed observation. He says that a book that is not of the ‘writer’s writer’ nature will have characters that are not as wholesome or rounded as the literary character would be. I say bollocks! Regardless whether a book is a literary critic’s favourite piece of wanking fodder, or a ‘pop’ favourite, the chances whether characters in any book are well written or not is down to the skill of the writer. Ever heard of the nutshell and economy writing tactic? If you have then chances are you will know that you can write the greatest characters inside the page space of a nutshell using economy. Only the best writers develop that skill. This is something I have only just begun practicing but I have a firm grasp of understanding how it’s utilised. Literary VS pop is a myth perpetuated by gullible snobs. Don’t waste your time on it. Oh and PS, You mentioned Hemingway. He's dead. Stephen King is still alive. Who is alive today that is as close to Hemingway? Is he as well known, or is his only worth as a writer to titilate the testicles of literary critics while obscure to the people who matter? (There's something for you to think about ).
Hi Max, The statement that 'a book is meant to be read' is too simple for this discussion. Different books are written for different audiences, this is central to what Disch says. You argue against it because you don't see any justification for writers' writers, but in my opinion you're simply reflecting your own taste. Your word choices when discussing literary fiction reinforce this: literary butt pals; a literary critic’s favourite piece of wanking fodder. You ask why anyone would write anything if it's not going to garner as much attention as possible, and the answer of course is that the attention they're seeking differs from the writers of transient popular fiction. It really is a simple matter of quality versus quantity. Publishers still publish literary fiction. The rewards, we must assume, are sufficient. Having authors who win awards can't be a bad thing for any publishing house. Yes, Hemingway is dead. That's one reason why I mentioned him as being more famous than King. King sells well. This is his time, we would expect him to sell well. Hemingway sold pretty well in his day too. Hemingway is still selling well all these years later, and his works are often studied. We'll have to wait many years to see whether King can compete with that. Most writers of transient fiction can't, that's for sure. With King, who knows. Only time will tell. But Hemingway has achieved that already. So, your challenge to name one Pulitzer winner more famous than King was an easy one. Whether you'll agree with it or not is perhaps another matter, as you appear to view book sales alone as being primarily significant. This, I think, is why you're not likely to be swayed by any argument here (and that's fine). But for many others, it's not just about how many books are written or sold. Whatever our own taste, that remains true. Cheers, Rob
I dunno, for my writing it would be more accurate if it was that the second draft is the first draft -0%, because I always find things to add, as well as edit and remove. Meh, just me though.
I’m not sure whether I happen to have the knack of seeing things with incredible simplicity, or the fact that I’m a bit of an existentialist, but I like to see things as they are; the very purpose of a book is to be read, the purpose of a spade is to dig etc, etc. It has no other use. Now whether there are sections of people that perceive a book in any other original way is entirely from their viewpoint. You read a book to be entertained or to learn via study yes? There can be such a thing as mixing purpose, such as a fictional book that is also educational which would fulfil a dual purpose. But the book itself as a physical object fulfils but one and only one purpose: to be read. How the content is perceived is entirely upon the reader and the reader’s motive. What other use does a book have other than to prop up a lobsided table? “Different books are written for different ‘audiences’” actually supports this analogy. Those of us who do enjoy reading do so with a clear intent of wanting to understand life and how we as humans cope with it through ‘fictionalising’ it. It’s pretty much the most elite way of breaking down and reconstructing the human journey through a story. Documentaries don’t have the same power because they are too realistic. As much of a contradiction as that sounds it is true nonetheless. Fiction fills a void because it offers a more abstract ‘truth’ to the beginning, middle and end in what we have all come to know of as the journey of life. What happens is merely plot, how we cope is merely character (or characterisation if you will). But how the writer writes those ingredients is what sets him apart from another. It’s no wonder the life story of Jesus is so synonymous with what is taken as deep-rooted structure in so many arch-plot fiction ranging anywhere from small time drama to all the way through to action and science fiction. Fiction offers what real life does not: answers to questions. This is why the arch plot story device is so damned successful. Now whether literary critics are aware of this or not you cannot deny that the soul purpose for most people when wanting to buy and read a book is to be entertained and for one’s curiosity of the basic premise of a writer’s new book to be satisfied. All books in words are all under the banner of literary. So I’m obviously confused here as to the factors of what a critic of S. King’s books would differ with a critic of Hemingway’s. And as such I’m still strongly of the opinion that even though someone like King may not have a flair for intellectual words or their use he is, in fact, a lot more popular as a household name than Hemingway even despite most book readers have definitely heard of both. Some people, like maia, have this ridiculous view that if a book isn’t of the intellectual variety then it must be a dumbed down piece of trash that only appeals to people with the reading age of a pre-teen adolescent moron. Such blatant discrimination doesn’t offer any validation as to why one particular author would become more successful than the next. Yes, Stephen King and the like have a knack of sticking to simplicity. But a story doesn’t need to be overcomplicated. Those who do go out of their way to over complicate their works do so on the premise that it will somehow convince people of the author’s apparent thought collective and level of intelligence. But real intelligence is measured in being able to stick to simplicity. Beethoven (or was it Mozart?) made the same analogy. And yet those two were the Beatles of their time with their music that we all prejudice today as musical genius (just because it’s them). People have this fantastic view that Shakespeare’s works are of the highest calibre imaginable. Why would that be? I’ll be willing to put a serious amount of money on the fact that people have this view because his works are written in the old style of English. If the language were to be updated to today’s standards what you would get would be quaint but simple stories told in a basic, simple way. No different to Charles Dickens or Roald Dahl. Simplicity is the key. In the world of story creation new and improving writers have a popular saying drummed into them by writing tutors: “Keep it simple, stupid!” Simplicity, enjoyability and lastability are the factors to a book’s success and not the apparent lack of insight by people who buy certain 'pop' books.
Not in the context of the thread. In a simplistic form, it's literally true that all fiction is 'literary', but not all fiction is recognised as being 'literary fiction', a term with a specific meaning. If you haven't understood what people are referring to when they talk about literary fiction, that would go some way to explaining why you've presented your arguments in the way you have. Try this wiki link and see if that helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction No. Straw man argument, I'm afraid. It's not about an author convincing his readers that he's clever, it's about satisfying a reader's need for something that has more depth than most transient popular fiction. Another straw man argument. In many areas of life simplicity is a goal. Often, however, it isn't. Neither tell us much about intelligence. No. You're imposing your own preference on the readership at large. There are those who prefer books that are, for the sake of argument, simple, and there are those who prefer books with more depth and complexity. Accept that there are people who like books that you don't choose to read, and that some authors write for this target audience. Cheers, Rob
