Well, one book, but... Gone with the Wind was popular with American readers from the onset and was the top American fiction bestseller in the year it was published and in 1937. As of 2014, a Harris poll found it to be the second favorite book of American readers, just behind the Bible. More than 30 million copies have been printed worldwide. - Wikipedia That's one hell of a successful product. I'd say Harper Lee didn't do too badly with 'one book' either. (Never mind that the publishing industry recently got their mittens on her first draft effort she never intended to see the light of day.). To Kill A Mockingbird was a huge commercial success as well. It's possible for an 'author' to have a personal vision of a story she wants to tell, write only one book and have it become a commercial success—and then stop, because she's said what she wanted to say. However, in both of the above cases the author understood how to write well, and was able to reach a wide audience. I think that's the key to this ongoing thread discussion. It's not whether you deliberately write to please an audience, but whether your writing CAN please an audience. If it doesn't, it won't really matter how marvellous your personal vision is, because not many people will read it. You'll be writing for yourself. Fine, have fun, but don't expect to make a living at it.
And here's more of your black-and-white thinking again! Film school either makes complete sense or no sense at all. There's nothing in the middle! But of course there is. It's entirely possible to get better at reaching your audience. It's possible to learn how other people have reached their audiences, get feedback on whether your current work is successfully reaching its audience, and explore new ways to create things that will successfully reach your audience. Film school makes sense, in so far as it does, because there are a lot of films out there, some of which have reached their audiences and some of which haven't. You can learn lots from that. If you want to write with no audience in mind, that's fine - totally your call. But, honestly, why bother? Why not just lie back and imagine your stories, without the trouble of writing them down? Don't worry about clarity, because things are already completely clear to you. Don't worry about imagery, because you already know what everything looks like, right? Don't worry about spelling --you know what you meant! etc. But when you start writing with the intention of someone else reading, those issues become more important. So if you've ever worried about any of them? Sorry, Buttercup, but you're writing for an audience. You're corrupting your art in the name of craft. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing, but apparently you do. Also - why the hell wouldn't you be able to call ice cream good? Do you just mean "nutritionally sound"?
I am not sure I get it. I mean it is a gut feeling, a initial reaction. An emotion. How do I curb it? Isn't the point of emotions is that they are feeling? Like how one does not pick that they love someone. It is a feeling. Or am I missing something? At this point I wouldn't be surprised. Then again, this topic isn't why I am feeling bad. At the end of the day and opinion. Just as people that sell for money are intitled to do it and like it. I am intitled not to like it. This just reminded me of a lot of other stuff. So I am just not in a good frame of mind right now. I am sorry.
It means you're the boss of your emotions. You get to decide whether a particular emotion is BS or legit. If you write to publish, you have to get a general idea of what people generally want to read about. If people are complaining and groaning about how the zombie fad just won't end, then don't publish a book about a zombie apocalypse, or find some way to tweak it so you breathe new life into the whole genre. You kind of have to work with them a little. It's called a compromise. If you are asking them to spend their money and time reading your book, you've got to give them a product that they'll consider interesting to read about. Sometimes you've got to make some sacrifices. Creativity is fun and all, but sometimes you have to give a little as well. Now if you're doing this for the pure pleasure of it, then go crazy. Forget the rest, just go crazy on your books.
Well, yeah, you can moderate your emotions. Can't you? I can. Like, if I'm angry at someone, I think about the situation from their side, try to find reasons to be compassionate toward them, remember good things they've done for me, etc., and my anger fades. So, again, it's fine for you to disagree with someone else's approach to writing, just like it's fine for me to disagree with your approach. But when that disagreement turns into hatred and anger, it hurts you, not them. So... overcome it. Let it go.
Again, I think I being misunderstood. I am not calling for complete and total unfiltered creativity. Maybe a good example here is a music critic I like. He was talking about a band called "One Direction" and he goes on to say that a band like this usually doesn't even write their own songs. There is no meaning behind the love songs they right. They are speficially being written to take advantage of teenage girls that haven't learned to handle there emotions yet. A project not designed to produce meaningful art but just sell music. For the most part, that idealism makes me sick, but me as the critic can deal with that just being how the world works. But calling it art or "great love song" makes me ill. If you want to call it a functional product. Sure, fine. I modify my art. I want it to be better. I want it to sell well. I want it to be loved, but I won't compromise that integrity for those ends. If a publisher asks me to change my MC to connect with current teenagers. I would think about it. Can that MC change in that way and still be who the were meant to be? If yes, then sure I would change it. If no, then I wouldn't. Funny enough I dont think the world is black and white. I think the world is black and white and grey. I understand that in the case of a film school it isn't completely black and white. You may find a good use for a thing they think sucks. That is an example of grey. But the world is not 100%. There are some moments of black and some moments of white. In my opinion. Well, ice cream may taste good, but this hardly makes it something that adds to a balanced diet. Again, sort of my point. I am not saying ice cream should be banned. I am saying lets not call it food. Lets call it what it is. Meaningless enjoyment. My computer is lagging, not sure if that was the best phrasing. Can't think of better words though. I am just hoping to not be misunderstood anymore.
I mean, I dunno. I have never been so good at that. I can understand the idea, but well. Wait. I don't hate people that do this. Again perhaps I have been misunderstood. I even said I would defend Twilight if it turns out it used this method because of that. I just disagree with it and I don't like it. I am all for rights. I am never want to encrouch on how another person expresses there creativity. To me art is my life. I have literally nothing else. So someone that "sells out" art for money leaves a bad taste in my mouth which was my original phrasing. But as @Tenderiser said it. She didn't consider her work art but work. Well there is nothing wrong with that. That doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. There is a place in this world for that. In the same way that the "One Direction" music is filling a void. If that is what it is. Fine. The Transformers movie is something I find funny, because everyone called it awesome. I watched it, didn't like it. I didn't want it banned. I didn't call for people to stop watching it. I just didn't watch the next movies. I find it funny because at the time people were arguing that bowl of ice cream was a salad, but now, four movies (or more?) later people seem to realize that all the movies were ice cream. Again, that is fine. If I hate anything it is people that try and give me ice cream and pretend it is a salad.
I think I understand. I just hope you can unpack some of your words and figure out what you're really saying. Like, when you say One Directions music is "written to take advantage of teenage girls that haven't learned to handle there emotions yet" - let's unpack a few words. What do you mean by "take advantage of"? Is it taking advantage of someone to sell them a product they enjoy? If that's what you think, why do you think that? And then let's move on to the "teenage girls who haven't learned to handle their emotions" part. Is there something about these girls that makes them less deserving of music they enjoy, to your mind? Isn't it possible that they have a better connection to music than others might, since, to me at least, one of the main purposes of music is to evoke emotion, and these girls are apparently very good at having their emotions evoked? And should we look at the "handle their emotions" part, in light of your post in which you said you couldn't change your emotional reaction to more practical writing goals? Are you, like the teenage girls, unable to handle your emotions, and if so, does that mean anyone who writes something to suit your taste is taking advantage of you? I know, that was a lot for one paragraph! But I feel like you're tossing a lot of ideas out, ideas you've probably heard from someone else, without really thinking them through to see if they make sense. You may think them through and still disagree with me - fair enough! But I don't think you're being misunderstood just because I'm asking you to explain the reasoning behind the ideas you're expressing.
I don't think writing for a target demographic is going to make you a horrible person, then again the opposite will not make you a horrible person either. Lots of people create for a demographic, and that is all fine and dandy. It is up to you whether you feel you are horrible because you feel like you are pandering to an audience, AKA becoming a Sellout or a Schill per say. Or you feel horrible because you feel that your art is a representation of yourself and you are afraid people will not like you for it? You can't please everyone, and that is ok. As long as you enjoy what you're doing and not harming anyone in the process, you are not a horrible person. You are just being you, and that is all that matters. Or as my grandfather always told me: Look out for number one first, and everyone else second. Bottom line you worry about yourself, cause you have to live with yourself. So do what feels right and makes you happy, and to hell with what others think.
First. AWESOME! I like you right now! I know I am not perfect. I love it when someone can just rip me apart. It is how I will grow. In many respects my mind hasn't modified yet, but this chat just got awesome. So maybe it is too early to call. Though I think it is important to ask. What do you mean by writing goals? This has nothing to do with my writing goals. I was talking about personal preference in the light of modifaction for artistic choices. I am not quite sure how that connects? I am a firm believer that if an argument can't be defended or explained than it is flawed. And you have sure challenged me on that front. Okay. I think before I can unpack taken advantage of. I must first unpack “meaningful art.” By my defintion here I think I see meaningful art as something that can last. A dated reference is not meaningful. Like the Swan Princess as an example. I always felt that movie was trying to tell a story, a story I would be proud to watch even today. I think it failed and many people may destroy me for using it as a reference because many would argue that the makers of that movie were just trying to copy disney. Well, maybe I am wrong, but it always felt like to me, that someone in that team(since movies are team projects) was trying to tell meaningful art. By taken advantage of. I mean, that the art is not trying to be meaningful. It is trying to capture something like a fad. Fad isn't right since there will always be teenage girls. But that being the idea. They are not trying to stimulate deep thought or make something that will last. The material tends to be something most of those girls no longer like later on. Because they “outgrow it”. No, I think they are fine. I think the music is fine. And by haven't learned to control their emotions I am referring to the difficult all teenagers face in the light of hormones. I just wish people wouldn't call it art. Let me get on a side track for a moment. A show I loved as a kid and still love today(not perfect by any means) but it inspires meaningful thought. It was titled Digimon, in paricular 01. That show blew my damn mind as a kid and it still does so today. I could talk about it for hours in length on how it did so many things write. Classes on writing I think could be taught on what it did write. It was a kids show, so the packaging was maybe… kidish, but as an adult I can see past candy covered aspect and see this deep and meaningful art to which I hope I can be half as good as myself. Such powerful themes. So powerful story telling. Take this and compare it to Pokemon. Pokemon said “no story, screw it.” It repeated the same story over and over with no growth. Because it only wanted those 5 years olds. As a five year old. It blew my mind! As a seven year old. I was done with it. I am not saying Pokemon is bad for doing that. I am saying it makes me ill that people think that Pokemon is “better” because it made more money because instead of great art, they just waited for the next batch of five year olds.. Okay back on topic. Yeah, I can't really defend any more of my words. Perhaps my phrasing was poor. Maybe I explained it better with Digmon/Pokemon? I am 25. So I know I am not master of life. That is why I am willing to open topics like this, which will in all likelihood just serve to embarrass me more than anything else in a week. I want to grow, but to grow I must be challenged. Which is why I opened saying you are awesome. You challenged me. Have I successfully answered your challenge? Is there a point I should go over more?
Well, we're assuming that your writing goal is to create art, while someone else's writing goal is something else. Possibly to connect to as many readers as possible, possibly to make as much money as possible. Who knows? But I don't see how we're not talking about writing goals, since I think the main thing you were objecting to was someone whose goal was to write a popular novel. I think this is a pretty idiosyncratic definition, and it seems to depend very heavily on the impact the art has on its audience. When I was in in kindergarten, I crazy-glued two round stone together to make a snowman, and my mom still puts the damn thing out every Christmas. In my mind, it's the fact that she puts it out, that she cares enough about it to display it, that would give it any sort of claim to being art (although obviously art for a very limited audience!). If she left it in the attic or threw it in the trash, it would still be two stones stuck together with crazy glue, but it wouldn't be art any more. It would just be junk. So even if you think longevity is an important aspect of "meaningful art", I don't think you can claim that it's the only aspect. I think there still has to be a message to it, an impact of some sort. In other words, it has to have an effect on its audience. But for me, I'm not sure why the longevity has to be a component. I'd consider dance artistic, and music, but until recently these forms of expression were only available live. Is a dancer from the sixteenth century less artistic than one from the twentieth century just because the modern one has been video-recorded? Have you ever seen middle aged women at a Backstreet Boys concert? I really don't think they've outgrown much! But even if people do only like certain art at certain stages of their life, does that mean the art is meaningless? If a song makes a teenager cry, and a different song makes an adult cry, are the adult's tears somehow more of a prize? How does it affect you if someone calls something art that you don't think is art? Why is it a problem?
@GuardianWynn, I feel as if you're making some assumptions and over-simplifications here. One of the over-simplifications is that you seem to be assuming that everything has one and only one criterion for quality, that there's agreement on what that criterion is, and that there's agreement on how to fulfill it. I don't think that any of those are true. It appears that your criterion for art is "themes", and for food it's "nutrition". But there are countless criteria for quality. Ice cream may not fulfill "nutrition", but it can certainly fulfill texture, flavor, appearance, creativity, tradition, emotion...all sorts of things. Michelin-starred chefs make ice cream. I think that there are few things made by Michelin-starred chefs that do not fulfill lots of criteria for quality. Now, you, personally, may make nutrition your primary or only measure for quality in food and cooking. But that doesn't mean that there's agreement on that. It doesn't mean that quality in food is an objective measure. For that matter, even nutrition is not an objective measure. Some dietary philosopies would say that the fat in the ice cream is horrible. Some would say that the fat is just fine, but the sugar is horrible. Some would say that as long as the ice cream is eaten only in moderation, the fat and sugar are just fine, and that ice cream can be a very high quality example of food art if it's made with very fine natural ingredients. And so on and so on. Similarly, "follows theme" may be your one and only criterion for quality in fiction, but it's not mine. For me, the most important part is exploration of character, followed by the writing voice. But there are countless other criteria. And most of them are evaluated subjectively. You say that the existence of film school means that there is an objective measure of film quality. I don't see any link at all there. The existence of film school means that there are skills to learn with regard to film. It also MAY mean that there are enough people who agree on enough aspects of quality to be able to teach the details of that agreement. Re: "A dated reference is not meaningful." Why not? Huckleberry Finn's attitude about slavery may be dated now, but it was certainly very, very meaningful at the time. Death of a Salesman could be said to have reflected the souls of a whole generation of men, but those men are aging away now, so much of it is dated. Someday, we may finally conquer racism; will that mean that To Kill a Mockingbird was never art?
Perhaps you are right. I certainly can't argue much of you. Maybe I am flawed here. Digimon for example was a TV show, so the writing I am complimenting so highly was based upon people that worked a daily job. It wasn't their vision, but they were following the vision of another and they told such a meaningful story. And you are right. Were are talking about writing goals and process. Good point. I dunno. I love stories, they are my life. In a very pure sense I am just holding high standards. My logic reminds me of a movie quote. “I don't like food, I love it, and if I don't I don't swallow.” - A Disney movie with a cooking rat. In a sense, maybe I am more sad. I want more art like that. It saddens me to think some people aren't even trying. Again, they don't have too. But why couldn't Pokemon have tried to be as good as Digimon? Why couldn't One Direction tried to write more heartfelt music?(Actually I kind of like the musical sound they have. Lol. To say it bluntly, I am not saying it is bad it exists. Lol.) This reminds me of a the Four Generation of My Little Pony. Something that I think has an astoundingly high quality of writing. Because it can capture the hearts of its audience and me. But in particular. A girl named Rarity. She is a girly-girl and I normally hate girly-girls in media. Yet I love her, because her passion is so astoundingly high I can't help but connect to it. So maybe that is my better argument. I am sad, I am sad because art is passion to me and to see someone in my field but to have no passion saddens me. And people that sole goal is money feel like they have no passion to me. In some cases this is not true. Digimon again was written by people with money as the goal likely(a tv show writer) but yet they held the passion. Perhaps my standards are too high. Perhaps it I wrong to express myself. Perhaps I am just a bad person. But this is what my mind feels.
You're overthinking this. • It's OK to have a high standard for writing or any other creative pursuit. Thinking something beneath it is trash, trite, complete and utter garbage does not make you a bad person. Art is subjective, some are OK with the run-of-the-mill fantasy, others demand something on the level of Dickens. It doesn't make you a bad person. • That said, someone thinking that some crap teen music is art does not, in any way, impact your creativity, what you define as art. It's just that their perspective of art is a tad different. All of that is OK. None of this makes you a bad person.
With the dated reference, perhaps I was being too simple. Obvious all things become dated. I meant perhaps more pop culture references. Making a joke about the latest supermodel slip up is something that is not going to hold well. Material that captures the mindset or heart of s generation in that sense is a time capsule and it holds some obvious value based on that. Perhaps I am just too simple in my logic. But I mean, ever everyone agrees on aspects of quality to the point of it is able to be taught in school as critia. Isn't that an objective measure? Different people with different tastes measures something based outside of those tastes? But in the terms of ice cream, in a sense that is my point, there are too bars of measure. Enjoyment, which can be based on texture, flavor or any assortment of things. A subjective measure. Quality, which can be objectively measured by how well someone followed a recipe or how good the item is for you. Even if people disagreed on why it is bad, the fat or the sugar, isn't the key issue here is they are both calling it bad? From a quality stand point. Which is an objective measure.
Yeah. People just have different tastes, people just have their own personal definition of what's amazing and what's just a complete waste of time. Art is subjective, it varies from person to person. I personally find Assassin's Creed dull, bland, and uninspiring, but a lot of people like the series. That's their right. They get to like it, I get to dislike it and go play something else. I feel like you're trying to take something so obscure, so subjective and plug it into some sort of formula labeled ‘Art’ and ‘Not Art’. This isn't science. This isn't even history. This is creativity and what each and every human being feel about one particular thing or another.
I have a hell of a lot of passion for writing. That's why I spend the majority of my waking hours doing it, even the ones where I'm (possibly) doing it for no pay at all and, even if I'm lucky enough to sell it, it will be a pittance compared to the hourly rate I charge in my day job. My primary goal is still to sell it. Passion, care and a desire for money or recognition are not mutually exclusive. All this "art" nonsense is irritating me. To me, writing is a process just like solving a maths problem or putting together a piece of IKEA furniture. If somebody else sees it as "letting the muse use them" or some of the other pretentious nonsense things that writers come out with, that doesn't make them a better writer than me, per se.
Have you studied literature in school? Like, above high school? My experience was that some profs would love some works, other profs would love other works. There was huge variation in what they considered good. They might have more agreement on what they thought was important, but, again, that comes back to the impact the work had, not the nature of the work itself.
Perhaps my approach is being a bit forceful. Heck, I even respond this way to my old art. My first try at a book was a pathetic waste of paper garbage which only meaning I deprive from is how it is a signal of my growth. My sister was my first my first beta reader. She liked it. And I kind of dislike that. Not that she liked it but that didn't see the difference. I once tried to explain it to her with my own artwork. See, my second try was so much better. I showed her and she loved it. She cried. And I tried to use that as an example. I remember telling her. "See! Emotinal connection beyond the moment. This is what the first book should have done, and by not doing it is a failure! You shouldn't call it good. You should want it to be better! " Even my second try was a failure, but it was better and I will take that as a sign to continue and become even better. But my sister, enjoying my bad work. I look at that and I just wish I could show her art from my eyes and be like. "No! It gets so much better! You have to realize the faults to notice they aren''t there!" Again, maybe I am being a bit too extreme.
I believe I said somewhere today I see the passion you have and valued you as a friend as such. I also opened calling myself a bad person for feeling this way but was just expressing my feelings and trying to come to terms with them. I mean, are you saying I should not try to express my feelings? I should instead bottle them up and not be honest with myself or those around me? At moments it almost feels like that would have been the superior choice.
My brother is really into wine. Goes to tastings, reads magazines, has a cellar... whatever. Wine's his thing. I like wine, but my palate is primitive at best, I know I don't like Chardonnay or weak reds but just about anything else is just fine, and if I buy a bottle for more than $20 I know I'm wasting my money. We both enjoy wine. We just enjoy it differently.
No, my education is limited. I am a bad student and a bad reader too. Just another of my many short comings it would seem.
I'm saying you should stop making judgments on people based on them thinking differently to you. Somebody defining writing as a product rather than art doesn't mean they have no passion for it, and I still can't for the life of me fathom why it makes you "dislike" them or feel "sad" or like you've been spat on. It's bizarre to me. Really bizarre.
I did say perhaps I was being too forceful. I don't know. At this point I am thinking I am just a failure as a human being. Perhaps it would have been better for the world had art not been there for me as a child. I am sorry. I don't mean to be a burden on all of you.
Exactly. Even professors have their own definition of what makes good literature. Some even specialize strictly on literature from a specific country/culture. Just because she didn't cry when reading the first draft doesn't mean she didn't have some connection, even if it were only “Wow! Look at what my sister wrote!” GAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!! No one...is saying...you should bottle up your feelings. Did anyone here say that?! Point to me where that was said. Then teach yourself. Go attend creative writing courses. Give us excerpts from your work and let us look at it. This isn't a black-white scenario, this isn't a ‘Oh, I can't write like Dickens on my first try, I'm an abysmal failure at everything, I'm a horrible person’. Gotta start somewhere.
