Do you own your own published work?

areteus · Sep 19, 2011

This is a hard topic to place. I have stuck it here in movies and TV because it refers to a film but it is also about the creative process. Feel free to move it to a relevant forum if needed...

First, some background. In this thread:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224338&page=2#post6560779 (the 'Yet another how not to handle criticism' thread) I made reference to this article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14944240

I made a mistake and claimed the comments in there were made by Simon Pegg when they weren't (he is merely referenced in there for another comment made on twitter, I read this too quickly and mis-referenced it) but the comments made by the writer here are I think pertinent to writers.

The overall gist of this article is that an artist no longer has control over a piece of work once it has been released 'into the wild'. It belongs to 'the people' because they are the ones who decide if it is any good or not. As the article says:

"The artist may shout from all the rooftops that he is a genius: he will have to wait for the verdict of the spectator in order that his declarations take a social value and that, finally, posterity includes him in the primers of Artist History."

So, an artist cannot decide if they are a great artist or not, it is up to the viewer of thier art to make that decision.

I just wondered if anyone out there had any thoughts on this concept?

Mutive · Sep 20, 2011

I think that it's really, really hard for any original creator to remove himself/herself enough from his/her process to really be a good judge of his/her own quality. This is true not only in writing, but in other creative pursuits. (Acting, fashion, painting, etc.)

That said, most writers (and other creators) I think do have some understanding of what their better and worse works are. I certainly know that some of what I produce is better than other bits - despite that I'm not very objective in realizing whether what I write is great or not.

Even this can be a bit biased, though. A writer, in general, is a lot more familiar with literature than an average person. This probably means that he/she is going to see more innovative, more unusual writing as better than a reader who might have more tolerance for seeing the same thing thrown out again and again. (For instance, I suspect that Tchaikovsky hated the Nutcracker in part as the tunes are rather simplistic - for someone like me who isn't a composer, that makes them catchy. But I can see why he found them trite.)

areteus · Sep 20, 2011

There are issues of differences in opinion between creator and consumer... I suppose this is that nebulous 'it' factor which writers, agents and publishers look for in a work but which they will not know for certain they have until it hits the shelves and people start reading it... A writer is only one reader, an agent is only one reader, a publisher is only one reader and their personal biases and preferences are going to apply (and be heavily influential). So, in general, we have a piece of work which may have been checked by 3 - 10 readers (assuming betas) being given to thousands to assess...

katiemac · Sep 20, 2011

Moved from Movies/TV.

Do you own your own published work?

areteus

Mutive

Blissfully Clueless

areteus

katiemac

Five by Five