I appreciate this, but I really do need to clarify--although I'm not sure why I should need to--that I know I'm not the arbiter of quality and how it's defined. This kind of attribution is bugging me. Nowhere have I advocated for this kind of silencing effect in the discussion. I know very well that I have no say in anything. This is a discussion. I'm trying to clarify points for the sake of, well, clarity, not because I'm trying to force everyone to submit to some ideal. That ideal doesn't exist. People can think what they like. I really don't like when certain costumes are placed on me that I don't feel comfortable wearing. Perhaps if I was much younger I'd be telling you all to, "Shut up and listen to me because I'm 100% right," but that's not me... Edit: "but it is disingenuous to pretend that the definition of quality you are using is anything other than your opinion." Please read pretty much all the other comments I've said today. I know it's just my opinion. I've never pretended otherwise.
We're talking at cross-purposes, I think. It's difficult when there are multiple variables. I have stated my opinion regarding quality, yes, but there I'm talking about something else entirely. I think I'll leave it there as I can see this is getting tricky to keep track of. Anyway, thanks for the input, everyone.
"Hey are you available on June 12th to perform at my sister's wedding? They already spent a boat load of money renting the Plaza Hotel, so we can't pay you anything, but you'll get a ton of exposure!"
I tried telling my builder that he should pay me for the exposure that having his work displayed in my extension would bring him... strangely he wasnt down with that arrangement
I'm subscribed to a library journal that showcases and reviews self-pub books each month in every genre. 14 pages, 3-5 books reviewed on each page. A lot of them i've ordered for my library. "These books are recommended by Blueink Review, a fee-based review service devoted exclusively to self-published books. Every month, BlueInk compiles a list of their favorites for BookList [journal im subscribed to], as a service to librarians hoping to incorporate self-published work into their collection" The Seed Keeper by Diane Wilson is doing EXTREMELY well and has been checked out multiple times (listed as Adult/YA) and is historical fiction. When Twilight Breaks by Sara Sundin is Historical Fiction/Romance and is doing very well. Across The Green Grass Fields by Seanan McGuire, listed as SF/F/Horror has had high circulation The Forever Sea by Joshua Phillip Johnson did REALLY well at my library and this is his debut novel. (The list goes on) You can look those up yourself to read about them. Im posting from my phone and its a pain to link stuff. Also note, this is from my January issue. It was the most current that i had on my coffee table. The ones from these past 2 months are somewhere at work
I appreciate your in-depth response, but at this point I really can't believe I'm having to say this again. Imperfect analogies tend to muddy the waters of understanding. They can be entertaining, though, and now I'm tempted to come up with some other ecological/literary examples, such as "traditional publishing is the keystone species of the writing world and without it the entire system goes into trophic cascade." That's kind of clever, but if most of participants in the discussion go, "Huh?" it's time for me to rethink my presentation, if not my contention.
True. Also, I should add that the analogy was written in a very tongue-in-cheek way anyway. It was a little one or two line thing at the end of a couple of paragraphs, if I recall correctly.
It's a total opinion/eye of the beholder thing. Some people value money above art. Others art above money. Ask ten people and you'll get ten different opinions. It all depends on what matters more to an individual. I'm a 50/50 guy myself, but I'm a little biased because I get paid IRL to filter all things through the prism of commercial success, deliberately excluding all other considerations. Different situation for a business with over a $1 million in expenditures, but the same concept. An author has to sell quite a few books to be able to quit their day job. And while that might not be a big deal for somebody in their 20s, the narrative changes as you grow older, incur expenses, buy houses, have kids, and want to retire some day. Being 42 now, if I were to find some commercial success as an author tomorrow and Path A let me quit my day job while Path B meant running restaurants until I drop dead on the expo line at 65 (but still in possession of my artistic integrity), I'd take path A. Somebody in a similar discussion on this forum said something along the lines of "you can't eat integrity." Think it might have been @Cephus, but not sure.
People need money, this is true. I just think when it comes to writing and other pursuits about which one has a lot of passion, one shouldn't value success over making something "good". That doesn't mean they can't value money. It's "over" that is the key word, I think. But I suppose the two aren't mutually exclusive. One can write incredible works of fiction and get paid a decent amount, right? It's just not very common. In my view, most work which is successful and pays well isn't principally concerned with having something important to say and isn't written well, etc. etc. I'm sure it sounds idealistic, but I'd rather live in a hovel and write like Dunsany than live in a mansion and write Twilight. In fact, I'm almost certain there will be people who scoff at this and will respond with something like, "Well, that's the twenty-something worldview for you!" If anything, I see the mansion-Twilight route as being idealistic. I just want to write stuff that I feel proud of writing. Simple as that!
But what makes you feel proud? From the other posts it sounds like you want fame or recognition, but you could just write something in a hovel and still be proud of your writing. Some people won't feel proud if no one buys their work. Others want to get some type of literary award or praise from top critics. This reminds me of a quote, I think about Andre Agassi, that goes something like "Usually the path to stardom involves getting good, getting wealthy, then getting famous. For him it was in reverse."
There's nothing wrong with idealism unless taking it to extremes results in starvation. One can't produce great works if one has starved to death. I keep my day job so I can afford to write what I want to write, weave what I want to weave, and teach what I want to teach. My evening jobs (if I can so characterize writing, weaving, teaching) bring in enough extra income to allow me to work a part time day job. That puts my dwelling place somewhere between mansion and hovel. As long as the dog, cats, and husband are fed, I'm good with it.
You appear to have left out his comparison of some readers of fiction to meth addicts. Otherwise, nice summary.
I tried not to sigh there, I really did. I said I was just going to leave this, but I don't particularly like my words being twisted or being misinterpreted to make me look bad. I can't even be bothered to go through it, but I will. I did not compare readers of certain types of fiction to meth addicts. The conversation was about the logic of being addicted to bad things. I said that Macdonalds is full of junk so people enjoy it. True statement. It's part of biology. I added to this the other example that meth addicts enjoy meth because of [insert chemistry]. I was using this as another example of being addicted to things. It is a fundamentally true statement that people enjoy things that are easy and give them pleasure. However, it's my personal opinion that certain things are bad for you, others good. Sure, the actual example was a bit crude and maybe too personal and harsh, but I did not say, "People who read Twilight are no better than meth addicts." I feel like I'm forced to keep arguing because someone somewhere down the line will say, "Teladan said what?" Hopefully you can appreciate why this would make me annoyed.
If you'd like to reduce that particular annoyance in your life going forward, you might consider not leaving crude, too personal, and harsh (purposefully inflammatory imo) examples/comparisons against others on public forums.
Frankly the comparison isn't too bad. I would rather be likened a meth addict than a consumer of reality TV. I think it's unnecessary to chase down what's hyperbole at most. And he's right to an extent—consumption does not equal quality. I just don't understand why people still think 'traditional' publishing really has that magical unobtanium seal of merit, since houses publish for denominator consumption rather than artistic merit (after the baseline of legibility) because they are businesses. It's more important that someone thinks a lot of people will like your novel, rather than a lot of people liking your novel? Further, and the stubborn (not necessarily a pejorative there) @Teladan probably won't admit this, people refine their opinion throughout a discussion. In fact that's the best boon one can get from a discussion. I think he's changed his mind or at least thesis somewhat, and some breathing room good faith is generosity I think we can afford. And for the record, I'm not offended if someone pulls the snob take on something I like. People call Stephen King trash all the time. I will proudly say I see quality in the work. 'It's my opinion' goes without saying.
No, you did a lot more than that. You called marvel films trash, and strongly implied that it is morally indefensible to watch them and enjoy them. Forgive me for assuming that you are a snob.
Fine by me. I believe in free speech without restriction. Those are my opinions. I mean, I thought we were finished, but feel free to call me a snob out of nowhere.
The problem is, you have to write good things if you're trying to make a buck, otherwise people aren't going to buy it and you're going to make nothing. The idea that there's an automatic difference between quality and art is nonsense. Every single one of the classical literature masters, you know what they all had in common? They were trying to sell their work. It wasn't just letting their masterpieces go into the wild for the good of humanity, they were trying to get paid. If you don't get paid, you don't eat and you don't write for long. Maybe you need to rethink that.
Not only that, but Weird Fiction, which included authors like Lord Dunsany and Clark Ashton Smith, was considered trash and published only in pulp fiction magazines. They were the comic books of their day.
@Cephus Please quote where I said I think one shouldn't have to sell their work and accommodate/play to the market, etc. I realise this is imperative and largely necessary... In the post you quoted I said I understood the necessity for this. Do you think I'm some sort of anarcho-primitivist, anti-capitalist hippie or something? I only said that my own personal goal is to write what I think is meaningful to me and I don't put any stock in success by numbers and wealth like Homer or whoever it was. Which is fine... I can summarise it this way: if I don't get paid to write, so be it. I'd rather not get paid to write at all than bang out something like Fifty Shades of Grey just to get by. @Xoic Very true. Edit: Before anyone says, "Stop bashing Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey!", once again I'm talking about myself. More power to the authors. If that's how they want to go about things, more power to them, I suppose. Not for me. I can't ever envisage myself doing that.
