Hi everyone - new here, and new to this as an idea. Please forgive if above has been covered 10000 times before, but does anyone else struggle with the relationship between these two? I notice some writers have great reputations after a very few magazine publications and a small award or two: others seem to publish solidly, get good reviews, etc etc for years on end, but never get hyped or pushed. Which would you rather? My dream's always been to let the work speak for itself. Probably unrealistic - but that's why it's a dream, like the 30s song said "got to have a dream.../If you don't have a dream/How you gonna have a dream come true?" Thanks - Chrysostummy
When does the work not speak for itself? Even to get into the big name publications and develop a solid reputation, it came down to the work. It always comes down to the work. Certain magazines and awards are very important and get noticed. But people work really hard to get to that level because again it comes down to the work. Good thing that's your dream.
Money. I don't care about reputation and I don't care about reviews, except insofar as either or both of them will contribute to me making money. I write for the fun of writing and for the cash; the rest of it is all just noise.
Hi Deadrats - when people start describing themselves as -- seriously -- "Italian-Canadian Lesbian poets." When awards are given for ever narrower fields of writing determined by gender, ethnicity and orientation (i.e. things no writer can do too much about); when people win these awards, and cite a string of them on their websites without mentioning that the field to whom these awards are open is less wide than some other awards. That's when - yes, the work matters -- but other considerations also come in to play. Thank you for your reply!
Well bad publicity is still publicity. Though with the advent of youtube, it could limit your work to reaching new audiences if it happens to be picked apart piece by piece. Obviously you like some authors and try to read all their books. But that does not mean they are all going to be great works. Personally I get bored with reading the same author all the time. Though a few of them write more than a single genre, which does make them interesting. Though there will be those 'one trick ponies', that basically write the same thing over and over again. Which means after a while of keeping up with them, they stagnate. More or less some things just can't be reinvented, then again some people like the same formula over and over again. But there is no point it changing a winning formula as long as it still works. And there is no point in trying to diversify into other genres, where there is a risk that it will not perform as well. Steve King is a good example of this singular genre monopoly. Since that is all that he is known for why change? Final thoughts is having a bad rep, is not the same as making it to infamy. Bad reppers get picked apart, and infamous works get banned or become novelty.
I suppose it depends to some extent on what your 'reputation' is based on. If you have a bad reputation as a writer because your work is poorly finished or basically unreadable, I don't think that reputation is going to help you get you more readers. If you have a 'bad' reputation because your work is controversial—some love it and some hate it—that might actually be a good thing in the long run, I reckon.
Stephen King is known for so much more than just his genre work. Look at Stand by Me. And he still currently publishes literary short fiction, I'm sure among other things.
