Ideally of course you balance the two somehow. It doesn't need to be all for money or all art for art's sake.
Unlike Hollywood, which produces more shite, than a cattle feed yard, when they try to remake something. Or when they push PC to the detriment of the story. They need to go back to story, like in the original Twelve Angry Men. That was riveting considering it was all dialog, and character driving the story. Not the biggest explosion, chase scene, or CGI. Those things can be fun, in context. But those seem to have taken over. Look at Avatar, it was basically a remake of Dances with Wolves, and a lot of special effects to covet that fact.
I do agree, though I may not have been giving that impression. If one wants to make money, one has to do what the people holding the wallet say. I'm just in the very fortunate position of being able to write next to my dayjob. Makes it very easy for me to ride a rather high horse. From atop my high horse, I am still of the opinion that what best appeals is not necessarily interesting. Though I have to take into account that I'm hardly any target audience. For all I know all that stuff is actually really good. No. I'm not looking at Avatar again. My eyeholes kept me up all night in revenge and I'm not doing that again. It felt like they built the story around the special effects, instead of the other way around. Kinda like porn, in that regard.
Amen Bother Bard! And Cameron used to be one of the good ones, who built everything around a good solid story. He went the same way Ridley Scott did, after being one of the pioneers of great movies where the special effects were in support of the story and characters.
Newer, bigger, and flashier. They have to do something in Hollywood to put butts in the seats the way prices are now a days. I don't agree with the direction they choose, but they won't listen to me.
To bad our wallets are not the most eloquent. Too often they'll walk away from a box office success or failure with completely the wrong idea of why it worked or didn't. As for the topic at hand, I disagree with the sentiment that being mindful of one's audience is at odds with being true to one's vision. To me art is best when it is a conversation between the creator and the audience. Art without the creator is a soulless product, but art that ignores its audience or worse, treats its audience with contempt, is just vanity. Neither have as much meaning as art that is made for both.
If you write somthing you would love to read, many others will love it as well. But it must also be well written. That's the difference between writing for yourself and being self-indulgent.
I did a writeup about this on my old Darkmatters blog in 2013: CronenBergman... Or why movie spectacle and good old fashioned storytelling just don't mix (Newly edited) Wherin I learned that Cronenberg actually works much like Bergman, Kurosawa and Godard. I was skeptical to say the least at first, but some reading and watching his films made me a believer.
I think that about sums it up, yes. No matter what you write, show your audience (existent or not) respect. That was my thinking as well. But it's easy to do that if another income allows you to write just for fun. I'll check your link later. I'm actually busy earning that other income right now...
If you get your clues from elsewhere, how can it be what you want to say? Everything I write is something I want to say. I can't imagine it otherwise.
Going back to the OP, and this applies to everything, not just writing - people ask questions because they don't know. You may get frustrated with people asking questions, but it's no one's place to say that they shouldn't ask those questions. The answer, as evidenced by the replies in this thread, is not as black and white as "write whatever you want".
There are different things that would come from each of us, I know unique creations come with my writing. Doing this often and being pretty well-read helps the writing structure become really good. I want to do the writing I do, and actually I wonder why more people are not doing this, though the greater competition is not really desirable. But writing like mine might be so niche I think it would not matter much.
Although I don’t have much time for the op who has now left this community I think to be fair it’s important to be clear that he was talking about writers asking permission to do things can I write a story about xyz is it okay if my character is abc rather than asking how to do things the answer to can I write xyz is always yes so long as it’s legal to do so in the jurisdiction in which you are writing that said can doesn’t mean should. You can write an erotic fantasy featuring a self insert character and your wife’s sister. But that doesn’t mean it would be wise to do so
I think The Simpsons had a throw-away joke once, when Homer rented a movie called "The Erotic Adventures of Hercules". (Frankly, it was PG at best). That seems much more acceptable than writing about a "self-insert" and one's wife's sister. Better still, if you really want to write somebody's erotic adventures, leave Hercules out of it. Many of the Greek gods had some of them, especially Zeus. (Seriously, the name "Zeus" should mean "He Who Cannot Keep It In His Pants"). As for the original question ("is it OK to write xyz" etc.) ... write anything you want (and of course, as Big Soft Moose pointed out, as long as it's legal). Worry about the marketing later. Nothing you or I or anyone else writes is set in stone, and can always be changed later, especially when the editors get involved. Write it down! Get it out of your system! Don't worry so much! Worry paralyses you and stops you from working. Get out there and write, dammit! Gosh, would you look at that? I'm giving advice and it's cutting into my writing time. Better go. *rushes off with his parchment and quill pen*
