check out my story 'the lawyer's letter.' it's long, stylized, supposed to be humourous, and doesn't really follow any strong storytelling 'craft'. as a result, it's roundly panned by all who read it (here, at least. it's been read before by a few people who really liked it). at the same time, i knew this when i wrote it. personally, i thought it was okay, however i know, too, that's it's the equivalent of improvisational jazz when it's pop that gets all the buzz. i certainly can't unwrite it, nor do i have the umption to rewrite to fit mass appeal. i wouldn't have written it in the first place were that my goal, though i'm sure i could have gotten positive reactions if i had 'sold out' on that level. not that it couldn't have been better, but at the same time it wouldn't have necessarily been the difference between 'what the hell is this?' and 'oh, i get it now.'
now, i'm rather proud of the story. i know people loathe it. it's not my best, not my worst. it is what it is. it was one of those things i had to get out of my system. i don't see how i could ever submit it anywhere for publication, though, with any real expectation it would be picked up. there are just too many stories with too much 'craft' involved which is really where my story falls apart.
the point is, when i'm being 'arty', i know i'm putting a lot of doomable features into the thing and in the end i'm writing for myself and perhaps entertaining a very, very small segment of readers. when i'm practicing hackery, that is 'craft,' my odds go up expoentially of it being accepted. what's truly ironic about writing is the best that a person can do will still get panned by *someone*, while the worst hackneyed, purply, cliche-riddled nonsense will get *praised* by someone else.
'ya know ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself.' ricky nelson, the song 'garden party.' words to live by.