I wrote a book. It's pretty good. Here is the problem:
I went pretty safe with the manuscript and am feeling a little guilty about it.
All my life I have admired, and looked up to writers like Henry Miller, Salinger, McCarthy, Kerouac, Bukowski, Fante, Knut Hamsun, Hemmingway and especialllyyyyy Hubert Selby Jr. (Last Exit To Brooklyn is one of the best American books ever written, IMO.)
They don't make men like that anymore.
Anyway, I'd always liked, and was influenced by, the idiosyncratic, non-traditional style of the way these people wrote.
I'd like to tell my own story in a similar way. My instincts as a writer and artist tell me that I can and should.
It feels like, though, that if you take any risks, stylistically, it would be hard to taken serious. It is so easy to do that style badly, and for people to not Get It.
I also feel that sometimes you have to play that game, to make it marketable, and readable, for a traditionally very conservative audience; agents, editors and publishers.
Take "On The Road." I could easily imagine Kerouac being torn to pieces, for his style. But he pulled it off, and it's now seen as a classic.
So what is the middle ground?
I was thinking of keeping a "safe" copy, then have another one, that is much more aesthetically radical. A copy that takes more risks stylistically and where I can indulge my inner Céline...
Thoughts?
