At the risk of annoying anyone by further continuing an older thread, I think this has got into an interesting topic and I have some thoughts on the original post as well as the very latest responses to it. This is coming from someone who hasn't had any experience trying to get published, but what I'm learning in life is that people really make themselves suffer when they spend their lives waiting for success, expecting things to work themselves out the way they hope, and therefore set themselves up to get depressed whenever they don't. Sometimes it's a big dream and sometimes it's a modest compromise, but if the idea is that it's unfair that it doesn't become a reality, that mindset is never going to get you anywhere except by extraordinary luck. Spoiler: This is how my perspective has developed through my current career path and the people I've known... As someone who's going to be looking for work as a teacher by the end of the year, I've been listening to what working teachers have to say and what teachers who haven't found work are saying, and I'm noticing some patterns. I've noticed that the people who are unsatisfied talk about the jobs they don't have like the universe owes them, like they just expected that there would be a job waiting for them when they got their degree, as if a job offer is part of a qualification. But universities are under no obligation to adjust their intake based on how many nice cushy jobs are available, and yet I see people every day who assume that because the first step in their plan worked like they pictured it, the whole of reality will fall into line with their vision for their future, no matter how naive it is. These individuals seem to get into a spiral of resentment and misery, and while they might have been more appealing when they were more optimistic, I don't blame employers for not being very impressed with them now. They're unpleasant, for one thing. Meanwhile the people I've talked to and heard from who are doing work they love are people who've remained open to possibilities, and done everything they could to find and especially create real opportunities in unexpected places. None of the people I can think of come across like they ever expected their level of success, but they were all very grateful for what they had, even when it wasn't as much. And the positivity these people have is infectious. Another commonality is that they all started out with the more realistic idea that the only guarantee of a job is where there's a specific, pronounced need in a market, and therefore they worked to do something well that other people were less willing or able to do (which in teaching terms usually means moving out to the boonies or to a struggling school with high staff turnover), or else working to be the best, the most clearly employable person, getting all the unpaid experience they could get and working to the highest standard possible in everything they did. Again, success breeds success, these people are probably more positive because they've had more good experiences, but you can see how the two things feed into each other. You have to set yourself up to make that first success as likely as possible, but not expect it. You also have to be prepared to accept a backup plan if there just isn't someone willing to pay for the work you have in mind. If you can't make peace with that from the start, you're going to be banging your head against a wall. I figure publishing must be similar, except with even less work in demand because there isn't ever going to be a tangible pre-existing need for it. Even if you're a brilliant writer, there's no reason a publisher need ever take a chance on you in an overcrowded and (if not dying) changing market. It would be great if they did, maybe thousands of people would be happy to discover you, but that's not a reason that it's ever going to happen, and your personal sense of fulfilment shouldn't rely on its happening. You can find ways to be happy doing all kinds of things for money, and whether or not you're ever recognised for your greatest talents. The object of writing, as has been pointed out here, isn't to be celebrated as a great writer, or make lots of money from it. It's to write good stuff, and no one can stop you doing that even if the market won't publish you. So I think one has to find a way to make peace with the timeless advice "don't quit your day job", to find one's happiness in the things that don't require relatively astronomical luck (which often means focusing on the lucky things that have already happened, like human relationships), and take any outside chance that you will have an amazing publishing career in the future as a potential but unnecessary bonus on top of the things you can more reasonably anticipate. Keep submitting manuscripts, of course, but invest your emotional energy into the things that will pay off. It's lowering your expectations without becoming a bitter asshole, basically. Having seen how people fare based on these different attitudes, and how much people get out of their lives regardless of what happens to them, I think this is really important. To me it's a huge relief to know that the thing that will make the biggest difference to my own happiness is much more within my own control than whether or not the circumstances ever line up to make a specific dream come true.
I think the chances are very good that @Pinkymcfiddle is drunk again and therefore being an asshole again. At some point, Pinky, you need to find something better to do with your weekend nights.
While it will not deny that alcohol was the lubrication, I also will not deny the veracity of my comment. Argue the comment, not the person.
While Pinky is being a bit of a tool, he does have a point - one reason why so many people get rejected is due to the volume of submissions (I think he meant that 'writing was a nice job which is why the volume is so high). Its the same with job hunting in a desirable field, if the hiring manager gets a metric fucktonne of applications he can't possibly read them all properly and is forced to use some sort of simple process to thin them down In the thinning process some good people are pretty well bound to get thrown out with all the dross...
Yeah, I think it's a point, but it's one that's been made a lot of times in this thread (and usually without all the angsty hostility).
Isn`t that why digital publishing has had so much success (among other things), a chance for those that slipped through the cracks to rise above the pavement?
The OP, way back at the start of this thread, was trying to get published in pretty prestigious literary journals. I don't think he'd have been satisfied with "lesser" forms of publishing. But in general, I think you're right. Of course, there are still only so many readers out there willing to spend only so much money on what they read. So depending on how we define rising above the pavement, digital publishing may or may not have made that goal more attainable.
Seems to me to be an almost impossible thing to quantify. I`ve read so much on this, and on so many other, forums and articles, and I still don`t know what to make of it. I once thought that the only thing I wanted for my writing was to be published, now I`m not so sure.
That part made sense. On the other hand he asserts that people being over-ambitious with their writing goals is a portent that a civilisation is about to collapse, and that this is history repeating itself. I guess shortly before the sack of Rome there were a bunch of people lamenting how no one appreciated that they were the next Virgil. That was how the Visigoths realised they stood a chance.
No. Either you do not understand or chose not to (I assume the latter). John Bagot Glubb theorised (through extensive research) seven ages of empire: - 1. The age of outburst (or pioneers). 2. The age of conquests. 3. The age of commerce. 4. The age of affluence. 5. The age of intellect. 6. The age of decadence. 7. The age of decline and collapse. The age of decadence is marked by, defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, celebrity, an influx of foreigners, the Welfare State, a weakening of religion.... among others My point clearly was that this need to be elevated beyond talent, an entitlement to accolades without reason and empowerment of the individual, ticks a good few of these boxes.
Even if this were all true, and the collapse is just around the corner, there is no reason to give up. I will keep on fighting, and you, if you like, may sit at the side of the road. Not all of us feel the urge for celebrity, most of us just want to excel.
Your post should be bronzed, Sir. Best advice I've ever seen on the basics of a healthy perspective. It reminded me of two things: "Happiness in life comes from controlling one's expectations." --Dickens and... "Failure meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. [writing] Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged." --JK Rowling
I think you are right. It takes actual time to actually sit down and actually think and write the story. So if one doesn't even sit down, or specifically think on the story and work it out, play, mold, morph, weave it out then it will never come to be. JK's speech was very touching, and I have this theory that different people took away different meanings. To me what it meant was her path (fate, whatever you call it) toward being a writer could have been subverted if she had received success in some other pursuit or job, but that by failing in all of those her whole life was boiled down to nothing left but time to write. In other words, had she got the job she had gone for and moved up the ladder, she may have stayed so busy that she might never have taken the time to sit down at the table to write... 'failure relieved me of the inessential' It was like a 'life-algebra' problem, and failure eventually reduced her life down to only one thing: writing. That is my perception of what she meant, anyway. Here it is in her own words: www.youtube.com/jkrowlingonfailure
Hmm, that is interesting, and I think she`s right, you can never possibly live without some kind of failure, small or large. It brings perspective and tests your will to pursue your dream. And I would also add that in overcoming she became more than just a good writer, it helped her to do just that but it had even more of an effect on her life than just succeeding at writing.
Got a nice rejection letter from an agent today: Good story, good writer, lots of potential, however blah blah blah blah... keep querying, don't give up, we're really looking for women's fiction so if you do any of that blah blah blah blah. Meh. Whatevs. Heard that before. Fortunately I have no soul or expectations left regarding writing.
I had an editor rejection on Monday. The usual "This is great but it's not for me." There should definitely be a rejection drinking game. We can package a bottle of absinthe with a bingo card, make millions, and start our own publishing companies. What should be on the card? - I liked it but didn't love it - Couldn't connect with the characters - Not the right fit - ?
- Not enough of this. Too much of that. - Not enough of that. Too much of this. - I loved it, but nobody else did. - So last year. - Ah love ya, honey, but your feet's too big.