Do you think that any of the people writing on this site have the ability to become New York Times Bestsellers one day? It just sparks my curiosity because it seems that if you enjoyed writing, and you were good at it, that you would probably hop on a forum and communicate with others that feel the same. I guess to paraphrase, the question is do you think that the people of this forum are some of the best writers amongst the "average joe" population?
Some of them are. Some are already published. The rest of us are here to learn how to be better writers. Best Sellers? Maybe.
Bestseller? Maybe. I think that being a best seller (in the NY Times or in any other sense of the word) is largely luck in today's market. After all, who would have thought that a book about a young wizard would get as much critical acclaim and financial success as the Harry Potter series did? It's not just about how well you write but also whether you fire the imagination of the right people at the right time. The Harry Potter series has sold over 400 Million copies. There's no way you can't call it a best seller. Discworld, on the other hand, has sold 55 million copies yet Mr. Pratchett's books are always on the top of the best seller lists when they are released. And what of similar series that have become best sellers? Well both The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy and His Dark Materials weigh in at around 15 million, yet they are also considered best sellers. I think just limiting it to the NY Times list really doesn't give a good enough picture of the market. That is not the be all and end all of the literary world and any book has a shot at reaching that particular list.
I'm fairly new on this site so I don't really know much about the writing history of the members here. On another site, though, I got talking to this chap, and was freindly with him for a long time before I found out he'd got several mainstream books under his belt and he was actually a creative writing tutor from a University in California (I picked up his book from the library and read it in the authors notes). A most humble man indeed. The point is, you don't know who it is you're talking on sites like these as they attract both fresh and hardcore writers. Many just enjoy the ride, and the communities they generate (yep, and it's a good promotional tool too!)...
The potential is here, for certain. We have some highly motivated writers here. Some have been published, others have not. Some will give up and follow other pursuits. Some will try over and over and never quite find their pace. Some will become successful writers in whatever way they define success. As for the bestseller lists, a great deal of that depends on marketing and luck. It's like entering any of the promotional contests you see every day - many will enter, few will win.
...much as i'd like to think 'yes' and may be ragged on for being honest, i have to say from what i see here now and in all the time i've been posting on the site, no one whose work i've read appears to... ...however, many are young and/or just beginning to write, so who knows what 'growth' in skills may take place after this moment in time... and there's much i haven't read, not being interested in some genres, so there could well be one or more i haven't noticed, who have that 'ability'... which, as cog notes, doesn't always rely only on talent and skill, but often hinges more on marketing savvy and luck...
well from what i've seen on this site, they're many people on here. so i think yes, there is alot of potentail for people to have sellout books.
I personally think that this question is a hard one to answer because you never know what kind of people you're going to find on any online forum. Some of the writers here may never become a writer at all...they may lack the patience and dedication that the art takes...others may end up dedicating their lives to writing (or already have). It takes all sorts of people to be a writer...whether any of the writers on this site are worthy of being on a bestselling list...well, I'd have to agree that it comes down to market savvy and luck.
Maybe. There are a few successful writers on this site right now, but not any NY Times Best Sellers that I know of...but who knows what the future holds? While there are some long-time members, there is also a large turnover at this site, and as was stated, younger writers just starting out. I think that there are, have been or will be writers here with the ability to build a career and regularly sell their fiction and nonfiction works. Others will sell a book or story or two to major markets. And some will sell sporadically, often to smaller markets. Some will never sell a completed piece, and others will never complete a piece or if they do, submit it for publication. A key word used in the question is 'ability'. Ability and taking the time and effort to develop and employ the skills to write and sell a NY Times best selling novel...the first does not necessarily lead to the second. Terry
Considering the small amount of unpublished writers that become published and make enough money to pay the bills, and of those writers how few become bestsellers . . .
I think a great writer is one who can write about 'boring things' in an entertaining way. Like for instance, he or she can write an entire short story about a guy who's walking down the street twiddling his thumbs and make it seem like it's the greatest thing you've ever read. I can't do that. At all. I need a plot...a good one, a clever one, an exciting one. I need to make things happen in my story to mask all of my deficiencies as a writer. Anyways, what are your thoughts on this?
This sort of reminds me of the Catcher in the Rye. If you haven't read it, it spans only a few days of some sixteen year old wandering around in the city. What really makes it is the unique style of writing and your care for the character. The writing really hooks you fast, which is something you probably need in a story about boring things (a good hook), and him as a character makes you stay along for the ride. Hope this helps.
I agree with you... in a sense... but what you get out of something might not be the same for someone else. I think identifying a great writer is subjective... it's no different than identifying a good movie. Ron Howard works for some... but others prefer the Cohen Brothers.
No one thing defines a great writer. I do agree that a good writer can write an interesting piece on what, on the surface, sounds like a mundane story idea. The example I always use is walking to the mailbox, and recently I put my money where my mouth is for my own peace of mind. The result is The Courier. Mostly what it proves is that I still have a good deal of learning to do, but I still encourage people to take on such challenges.
I think this is a horrible cliché. Nobody could possibly hold my interest to such a dull plot -- or rather, lack of plot. You'd have to have a fanatical obsession with the written word itself, in order to find such a read interesting, because all it really contains is words. But show me this story and I'll change my mind.
Or take the challenge yourself, instead of looking down your nose at it. Why is he twiddling his thumbs? What will happen if he stops? Maybe he's a decoy to divert attention from something else. Admittedly, if ALL he is doing is walking down the street, twiddling his thumbs, there isn't much story there. But the surface storyline need not be the total story. Maybe he is trying not to panic over a serious dilemna, and his casual appearance is only a facade over his inner turmoil. Don't judge a book by its cover, and don't judge a story by a brief description. Such descriptions often leave out key information.
I agree with Horus. It's impossible to make interesting a story entirely about a man walking down the street twiddling his thumbs. I could make an interesting story where a guy is walking down the street twiddling his thumbs, but the story is going to be about the conflict in his head, and not about him twiddling his thumbs. Perhaps that is what the OP meant, but I can't be sure. In order to make interesting a story about a man walking down the street twiddling his thumbs, you will need to focus on something else to make it interesting, in which case, the story is not about him walking down the street.
But an uninteresting story doesn't necessarily equate to bad writing. I mean, if your taste dictates that there must be a compelling story, then yes, you'd probably hate something like the example described above. But there are plenty of people for whom story is secondary to "words", style and deftness with language.
A good story and good writing are two completely different things. A good story is one that has a good plot, characters, and makes the reader feel like they are a part of the world you have created, throwing in twists of excitement and discovery along the way. Good writing is --at least in my opinion-- defined as something that touches life itself in some way or another. A great story is something that combines a good story and good writing. If you can write about a man walking down the street twiddling his thumbs and somehow while doing so touch upon something greater then it could be good writing. "The good writers touch life often. The mediocre ones run a quick hand over her. The bad ones rape her and leave her for the flies." - Ray Bradbury from Fahrenheit 451
If you described everything that the man saw, felt, smelled, etc. in great detail, I imagine there would be a certain type of hyper-realistic draw to the story; from experience, I can say that writing with intense realism tends to invoke its diametric opposite. Objects are not hyper-realistic in real life; we can't see more than one side of a tree at once, or the intricate detail on the surface of a leaf from far away; nor can we learn the entire history of an object just by paying attention to it. I daresay you could even make a story where time is dead interesting through such a revealing technique.
I think you might be contrasting plot-driven fiction to literary fiction, in which even the most mundane of points in the story are given a significance the reader wouldn't otherwise see or appreciate (and can sometimes miss entirely). I'm not sure most "great" literary fiction writers think of their fiction as writing about something--least of all something they find boring--so much as simply a way of creating an imaginative experience for their fictional character(s) and hoping the reader will share that experience in some compelling way. Underlying themes emerge from within the story rather than having a storyline thrust upon a topic or image that could be described as otherwise "boring" (or even "exciting," for that matter). There are also terrific writers who do write about things (most especially mundane things) in an entertaining way. But these kinds of stories are usually considered to be "essays," rather than fiction. That's how I think of them. I don't know why there couldn't be such a thing as a fictional essay, except that the fictionality, if any, in this kind of writing is usually irrelevant to its entertainment value. David Sedaris comes immediately to my mind when I think of brilliantly entertaining, relatively plotless stories about some fairly or frankly mundane things. There are tons of short story writers whose story themes are not always spectacular, yet their stories are compelling and brilliant or poignant or moving or beautiful or interesting in some significant way. Many of even the best ones wouldn't qualify as "entertaining," I think, so much as insightful, or enlightening, or simply experiential in some other way. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. A clever, exciting, plot-driven story is really just one form of storytelling, isn't it? I can't think why a clever, exciting plot would either limit or be responsible for its author's greatness or lack of; and I'm not sure there's any good reason to think it'd disguise its author's writing deficiencies. I think published writing will inevitably reveal both the author's strengths and his weaknesses. Anyway, I think you need to write what you write and do it as well as you can. If you're lucky enough to know that plotting your story works best for your writing, then there's nothing to be lost and everything to be gained by approaching your stories that way.
To be as philosophical as I can, I picture a great writer as somebody who enjoys the process. The opinions of others are rarely useful since most people are attracted to small, otherwise insignificant details. Colors, the shapes of objects, the way somebody speaks (Mr. Caulfield comes to mind) or simply the shimmering drops of rain dancing in a street. We fall in love with the pictures in our mind and when a writer can paint those so vibrantly then he is adored. Nevertheless, that does not mean he is a great writer. In the end the great writer title is subjective. It is determined by the person and no one else. To me a great writer is somebody who enjoys writing, who loves the ability to create entire worlds, and who cares little what I think about them.
Great work! I like how you gave life to all the occupants on the street. I love the thought of him doing it on purpose to win a game and cause a commotion. A nice twist. I think that's all I can do. Play to my strengths. In the final analysis, maybe the most important thing is that I entertain my readers through my fanfic. I've read a lot of professionally written stories with prose that dwarfs mine, yet I do not find them particularly moving in any way.
