Stephenie Meyer was very lucky, but the truth is that the YA-fiction world was screaming out for something like hers. I wouldn't believe for a second that she hadn't done her research, no matter what she says. Nobody just writes a whole saga and an independant novel for themselves - she planned for others to read them. At some point, she would have had to see her work both as an "art" and as a business. I don't know why people are so defensive about the business side of writing - it's there whether you can face it or not. Just because something must be sellable doesn't mean it's any less of an "art". In fact, this is such an old chestnut I can hardly be bothered to talk about it. Take bands, for example - They're popular to a small market, on an indie label, and suddenly their album takes off. They get alot of financial backing and suddenly their options are vastly improved. It took artists to get there, but to keep popular and keep them afloat, they need skills outside the recording room. Some (idiotic) people would call that "selling out", whereas I just call it sensible. Hell, it's smart, if you know your market. It doesn't make it any less dignified or less artistic, but the fact is that if nobody heard their album in the first place, the only people who could call them artists is themselves. The art world is the same. Tracy Emmin's "Bed" might've been an accidental piece of art, but she knew exactly how to use it to show it to the world. Some think that's exploitation, but most can see that art is for sharing. I'd also like to point out that if you plan on living off your writing in the future, you will need to treat it as a business. Money doesn't come freely in publishing, but with alot of thought and nurturing, it is possible. I fear this is gonna be another boring ol' debate between those who hide their fiction away for fear of being judged and those who actually intend to sell it. Art vs business, blah blah blah...Fact is that anyone who knows their stuff will understand that the two can go together hand in hand, without any pride lost. You just have to be brave enough.
Absolutely. I never said that one was better than the other, simply that I don't understand those who claim it's all about art. I also said that publishing is a major part of this career and, in my honest opinion, out weighs the art aspect.
Bookstores are filled with all the proof needed. Though admittedly not all writers. Don't you know 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot? Perhaps an exageration on my part, but the point is a great deal of authors publish to make money and not just to see their name in print. I'm well aware that I came off quite biased and I apologize. Never talked down to anyone. Prove it. Thanks for showing everyone that you can be a jerk. This gets old. Nice to know.
Franks Zappa had an album set called 'Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar'... The more time we spend contemplating our navel, the less time we write and work towards becoming better at it. I think it's a matter of writing whatever it is that gets you jazzed and if it sells, great. If not, you enjoyed it anyway. I've said commerce is key to truly offering an objective definition of good. I kind of contradict that here but in the end, just write. If you find it's worth selling, get out there an do it. If not, then stop spending time at forum and get writing...
I suppose most of us are here just twiddling our thumbs then? It's usually because when people refer to the business side of writing, they make it seem like a writer is only a writer in order to make money. Yea, a lot of the more successful authors write for a living and to make money, but they didn't get into writing just to make money. They started writing because they wanted to. Once they realized people would pay big bucks for their writing, then they probably started looking at writing as a business. I mentioned them before, but I'll mention them again. Ray Bradbury, J.K. Rowling, Stephen King, Tom Clancy-they all wrote for a living and made a lot of money from it, but they didn't originally start writing because of the money.
"...of course they were doin' it for dough, just like you and me do what we do for dough, but the question is in the last analysis. What were they doin' for dough?" - Barney Greenwald in The Caine Mutiny Court Martial, Herman Wouk.
Well of course not, that really goes without saying. But my point is that people like Stephen King knew they had to send it off to get anywhere - he didn't just write some personal magnum opus and stick it in a draw afterwards. Do you think someone knocked on Stephen King's caravan door offering him big money because they'd heard he liked writing? Of course not. It took alot of work, but when it paid off, you can be sure it wasn't just luck. He pumped stories out like no man's business and sent them out left right and centre. Stephen King stresses exactly that in On Writing - he whored his work out 'til the cows came home to get noticed. That doesn't mean his work wasn't excellent enough to deserve it as well. If you can't see that I'm saying art and hard work -both on the product and the selling of it- go hand in hand, then you've missed my point entirely.
That is exactly my idea too. i write because I enjoy it, and if I happen to earn something from it even better, actually that would be amazing, who wouldn't wanna be able to make money from their passion, but if not I would still write for my own pleasure. that is the first and ultimate reason for me.
Yeah, see, to me you aren't an example of someone who seriously wants to be an author. I'm not saying you aren't serious about your work, but if someone wants to sell their work so they can live off their writing one day, then they'd have a very different view point. I would continue writing even if I got nowhere, but my ambition is to be a full-time author. That's not just gonna fall into my lap unless I actually endeavour to get exciting, sellable novels published. It's still possible to find writing relaxing and enjoyable whilst working to get it sold, though. Some people don't understand that. Just 'cause Nabokov's Lolita was literary art doesn't mean he didn't have a ball writing it anyway.
There's a difference between sending out what you've been moved and compelled to write, and writing what you hope will specifically move and compel who you're sending a story. People act as if the passion and artistic nature of work is invalidated because others want to buy something. It's BS. Most writers didn't start out by targeting a market and try to construct something that sold. Most writers started out simply writing from a place of passion and creative drive (even Stephen King, as also outlined in On Writing). Art = Horse. Business = Cart. Your cart full of goods can't go anywhere without the horse, though plenty of people find personal enjoyment of leaving the cart of goods behind so they can at least experience the travel or companionship of the horse. If you're stuck with the cart full of goods, and no horse, you end up with a bunch of rotten goods nobody wants anyways. And, as I see happen with many aspiring writers, when pushes the cart before the horse, the horse usually gets run over, breaks a leg, needs put down or forever suffers a debilitating limp, and the writer is stuck pushing a cart full of goods that sure, everyone wanted, but it's taking the writer so long to get the goods to market since they killed their horse that by the time they get there the goods are either rotten or no longer in demand.
Well, you don't know me enough to tell if Im serious about it or not, do you? I put a lot of thought, work and time on my writing, and on improving, learning the craft, experimenting, figuring out how to make it as appealing and "sellable" (to use your word) as possible, and my intentions are the same as yours, actually they grow stronger for each day. I don't care how I come out as for seriousness, as long as I know what my goals are.
To me the business and the art of writing are the same thing. Art is about moving people, stirring the mind. People want to be moved by fiction. If you achieve this with your writing then people will buy your book. And that's good business. So good art is good business. People who equate these highbrow literary pieces to elite forms of art are perhaps a little misguided. Since most people will not identify with or be moved by those pieces. Why should people who appreciate that form of writing be the last word in what passes for great art? So in reply to the OP. I wouldn't worry too much about this dilemma. Just write good fiction, and good fiction always sells. That's how we know that it's good. It moved enough people to take a chance. As an unpublished writer the choice between writing a potential bestseller or an instant classic is almost laughable. The odds of a new writer producing either of those are devastatingly slim. The odds that the book will be published at all are minute. If your choice is between what compels you and what compels the world, then always choose you, because it's very difficult to write about something that doesn't interest you. And even if you write a novel based on the tastes of others, there's still that high possibility that you got it completely wrong.
If you're working hard to make it "sellable", and your goal is also to get published, then you're doing what Ashleigh is saying, and balancing art and business. As so many people have said on this thread, including her, the two go hand in hand and you can't have one without the other.
I write for myself and I share myself through what I write. It's important to stick to your goals and be true to yourself in my opinion. I'm a TGMtF and I am going to have a strong L theme in what I am writing currently. I believe I have strong talent, but I also feel that due to the smaller community my book will be directed at I'll probably never have a big name like Mark Twain, but I'd really love it if I were at the level of Nancy Garden in how influential I could be. Even the smaller stuff, though I usually write it through a character's eyes I am under the same theme. It's more open to others this way, but I'd never write a book like that. Do what feels right for you, but honestly, it seems more like you're already justifying why you'll never be great to me and that's a little sad.
exactly! Actually I can't imagine anyone writing for pure business. Who would dedicate all the time and unpayed work with no garantees whatsoever if they weren't passionate about it, if they didn't somehow get a huge gratification just out of the writing of that story? if you only want to make money there are lots of better options, as we know there are no guarantees that you will a.get it published (after having found an agent) and b. earn anything significant from it and finally c.be one of those relatively few writers that turn out to be a huge success. no one would work under those premisses if they didn't have the passion for the art in itself. Every writer wants to sell their work, but it's the fuel that keeps the engine going, not the reason for travelling.
Thank you! I don't see what's hard for some to understand about that. Honestly, I'm not surprised about the defensive attitude some people display. They declare that they aren't fussed about writing anything that gets published - because they write for "themselves" (writing is communication and you may aswell not write at all if nobody sees it IMO)- and then get on their high horse when someone asks if they're serious about it. Classic example of no bravery, if you ask me. So many people say this stuff because they're scared of finding out that they're rubbish, and that they don't actually have a choice about whether their work sells or not. Harsh maybe, but true. I for one am prepared to face it, because from the day I discovered what I wanted to do, I was willing to work damn hard for it. Also, please, enough of this "nobody plans to sell..." bull! No, the future-artist didn't start planning his way to popularity when he first picked up a crayon and decided he liked to draw. But at some point he realised what it takes, and he applied himself. It doesn't matter how you start off, it's how you deliver yourself.
Great artists had patrons who supported them. For that support, the artist made things the patron enjoyed. Great artists lived this way over many a century. Unless of course you were DiVinci, in which case, if things got meager, whip up a weapon or two....
There seems to be an assumption that work that's done with no concern for pleasing others is inherently better than work that's done with the goal of pleasing others and being publishable. But how often is that true? Why should it be assumed that readers are idiots who want work dumbed down? Why can't the demands of readers make work _better_? Why assume that the author is a universe within himself and that he can make the very best work with no outside input? ChickenFreak
Agreed completely! Also, I find the attitude that most readers are morons who only ever want to be spoon-fed pablum incredibly annoying.
To the OP, you should write what you want to write and not base it on if you think it will sell well or not. The time, effort and passion you put into it is what matters and that's what will get you far. If you write something just because you think it will sell well but you're not that interested in then you won't be able to apply your full potential due to lack of interest in the subject. Of course, this is just my humble opinion. Completely agree with you.
Yep. As to avoid the political aspect of this kind of statement; I think people, particularly of the creative persuasion, feel that commerce is an inherently bad thing. Having been a musician (well, I still play), being a graphic designer and now attempting some writing; I've always noted an element of 'sell out' is pervasive through these disciplines particularly when an artist does something that is broadly popular. Not sure I understand why this is so pervasive throughout creative communities...other than it is jealousy wrapped in some feigned 'artistic integrity'. What a creative person can't do is something that is unnatural to their creative process to try to sell. That is a sell out and that will make for a substandard end result. Most people will notice this too and the sell out will backfire anyway. However, if the artist happens to really dig what they are doing and is in a more popular realm/style, what's the problem? Case and point (showing my age); in the 80's there were lots of them hair bands. When the Seattle stuff came around (Nirvana, AIC etc), many hair bands changed to try to remain relevant. Bon Jovi did not. Whether or not my cup of tea, they kept writing guitar driven pop tunes and sold millions and still sell out stadiums. The other bands that 'changed with the times', died a quick, painful death. It was creativity that was true to them and it translated to many people. So, I go back to Zappa 'Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar'...or at least get writing.
Exactly. It seems that current culture has a strong tendency to create false dichotomies, and then argue about which extreme of the artificial polarization is better or worse than the other.
Well said, though replace "current culture" with "the entire history of mankind", and you have a winning quote.