The Artist's Secret

I think if I did that I would sell more books. I still write stuff that works for me and a small but discerning readership : )

I think I should simplify my stuff ( I write YA) but which bits should I take out? There is always a danger that you lose the very thing that makes it worth publishing in the first place. it isn't as straight forward as you might think.

That brings to mind many quotes from others. Joel Hodgeson of Mystery Science Theater 3000 fame said "we never write a joke wondering who's going to get it; we write a joke knowing the right people will get it." However, this doesn't resolve the "abnormal brains" observation.

Kurt Vonnegut said something to the effect of "you should write to make one particular person smile." It's in the intro to Bagombo Snuffbox if you're curious. This gets me out of my own head and gets me thinking of the reader. However, if that one person has an abnormal brain also I've not done much.

I wrote the ending of my currently-being-betad book to suit my now-exwife so "it doesn't end stupid." I happen to love stupid endings (meaning the good guy doesn't quite get what he wants), but since the movies she watches are blockbusters and the ones I watch win foreign awards but never hit the theaters, I figured more people would be pleased by a not-stupid ending.

So far, my short stories have been received somewhat favorably, I figure I'm not too far off with how I do things.

I simply don't agree that "all art comes from abnormal brains," even though we artists like to think so at times. Many people, artists and non-artists alike, call themselves abnormal or crazy as a sort of badge of honor or as a defense for less-than-sensible behavior. I'm skeptical about those boasts.

Who wants to be normal?

RemusShepherd said:

I've been trying to put this into words for years, but Scott Adams says it better than I could:



That nugget of wisdom is key, I think. It's why the Long Tail exists, and it's the root of the vague admonition to 'Kill your Darlings'. It is not, however, an answer -- just a clear restatement of the problem.

Scott Adams apparently triangulates on what normal people like by soliciting input from his fans. That's useful if you already have fans, I suppose.

What's your strategy? How do identify what elements of your writing do not work for the mainstream, and how do you tune your writing away from your own niche tastes and toward a more marketable average?

Click to expand...

I guess I just plain disagree. There's a lot of common chords under the surface that ANY story is about. Bridges of Madison County wasn't about a photographer, or bridges. It was about love and infidelity,. and those were the subjects people latched onto. Whole books have been written about underlying subtext in books like The Lord of the Rings, or Moby Dick.

Maybe some people have trouble identifying the mainstream chords within their book, but I suspect very, very few are so out there that they want to tell a story nobody wants to hear, and have to deliberately bury some inner meaning or tilt it towards the mainstream.

on the other hand, there are genres like splatterpunk where when it is done well, it's perfectly fine, but it already lies so close to an edge that bad writers fling themselves over that edge. However, they aren't so much telling a story as deliberately pushing an envelope in an attempt to titillate. Write an actual story, and the above should take care of itself, imho.

Miss Plum said:

I simply don't agree that "all art comes from abnormal brains," even though we artists like to think so at times. Many people, artists and non-artists alike, call themselves abnormal or crazy as a sort of badge of honor or as a defense for less-than-sensible behavior. I'm skeptical about those boasts.

Click to expand...

thank you.

I've also seen a lot of people use the term "artist" as an excuse for a whole lot of high-handed, elitist douchery. I'm thinking more of a couple people I've met in dance than in writing specifically, but I've seen plenty of "writers" like that too. I doubt anyone is "normal", but I have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who brags about it or feels a need to flaunt it.....and an only slightly smaller reaction to anyone who wants to insist they are an artist.

I'm not sure that the initial quote was elitist actually. Most people don't feel the urge to write a novel those that do are 'abnormal' by definition, in that respect at least.
Like many YA writers I don't write for real children but for the child I recall being. I wasn't typical then and I don't think the kind of bookish introverted weirdo is any more common now - except in books (many of us who write were not popular mainstream people.)

There is no suggestion in this that weird bookish people are in anyway superior to any other kind just the recognition that there are not as many of them as those trying to make a living writing from them would like : )

[ Write an actual story, and the above should take care of itself, imho.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that is true. While some deeply esoteric books have found out their niche is rather large, many writers aiming for their version of the mainstream go awry. Sometimes that's bad writing, poor marketing etc sometimes it is just that what interests the writer and for them is universal turns out to strike a chord with few others.

timewaster said:

I'm not sure that the initial quote was elitist actually. Most people don't feel the urge to write a novel those that do are 'abnormal' by definition, in that respect at least.
Like many YA writers I don't write for real children but for the child I recall being. I wasn't typical then and I don't think the kind of bookish introverted weirdo is any more common now - except in books (many of us who write were not popular mainstream people.)

There is no suggestion in this that weird bookish people are in anyway superior to any other kind just the recognition that there are not as many of them as those trying to make a living writing from them would like : )

Click to expand...

I never said they were all bookish nerds, on the contrary I think they are all regular folks doing a job that some try to pretend is less regular than it really is. The OP's quote said artists had abnormal brains; I'm thinking they don't have abnormal brains for wanting to write anymore than cops do for being cops.

There is no "abnormal writing brain", IMHO that is just a lot of self-serving bullshit

timewaster said:

[ Write an actual story, and the above should take care of itself, imho.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is true. While some deeply esoteric books have found out their niche is rather large, many writers aiming for their version of the mainstream go awry. Sometimes that's bad writing, poor marketing etc sometimes it is just that what interests the writer and for them is universal turns out to strike a chord with few others.[/QUOTE]


I think anything, written well and with the underpinnings that make it relatable, sells. Books have been written about sanitation workers, astronauts, time travel, magic, tollbooth workers, and taxidermists and all gone on to be successful--what do you have in mind that is less interesting or relatable to the general public than the examples above?

Certainly books have failed, but because they were garbage or because they may have detailed these things right down to mind-numbing minutae, but they failed to tell a story. Telling you exactly how I set my plate reader today to run an experiment and how I loaded my plate of cells may be a niche, and would be boring, but it's also not a story. It's a procedural account. Telling you how I did all this while pining for my dead wife's sister or waiting for the boss to come through announcing a round of cuts does tell a story.

RemusShepherd said:

What's your strategy? How do identify what elements of your writing do not work for the mainstream, and how do you tune your writing away from your own niche tastes and toward a more marketable average?

Click to expand...

Some would say you must sacrifice your artistry and write to a know trope with simple character archetypes and a simple plot. The biggest mainstream market out there is romance. If you want to appeal to that market, write a romance novel that follows the formula that is used in other books of that type. (I'm not trying to disparage romance. But we all know that many romance stories are very similar. It's the nature of the beast. Just as many fantasy novels are very similar.)

Or

Write what you love and tell a good story. Identify what is important to the story and do not deviate from that. Make your characters multidimensional and real. Use the universal foundations of any story: love, hate, betrayal, compassion, mystery, tensions, resolution, etc. Do not indulge yourself with purple prose and tangents that don't support the real story. Your story may still not appeal to the romance market, but you'll find a market for it if you've done a good job. If you happen to have the gift of words too, then you might have yourself a masterpiece that also happens to sell well.

do note you are of course free to disagree, but again, my personal feeling is there is no "artist's brain", just people who would rather believe it in order to feel special. There is no "biologist's brain", "dancer's brain," or "proctologist's brain" either

I am a freak.
I write freaks.
I write them freakishly well.

I would take any advice about targeting work to meet the taste of the masses with a grain of salt. I don't think it can be done, given how fickle people tend to be.

A few things.

I have never considered myself an artist.

I don't consider myself abnormal.

I write stories like the ones I enjoy reading, which means there's already a market for it.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I don't consider myself abnormal.

Click to expand...

*glances at Ferret's avi*

I don't try to make my writing more mainstream. I like it how it is. If other people like it, too, that will make me happy. But I don't write to make money. I have another degree for that. If I never have a big readership, that's fine with me. But I'd like to think there are a few other abnormal people out there that will like what I like and feel how I feel.

RemusShepherd said:

I've been trying to put this into words for years, but Scott Adams says it better than I could:



That nugget of wisdom is key, I think. It's why the Long Tail exists, and it's the root of the vague admonition to 'Kill your Darlings'. It is not, however, an answer -- just a clear restatement of the problem.

Scott Adams apparently triangulates on what normal people like by soliciting input from his fans. That's useful if you already have fans, I suppose.

What's your strategy? How do identify what elements of your writing do not work for the mainstream, and how do you tune your writing away from your own niche tastes and toward a more marketable average?

Click to expand...

God, I hate it when writer's start talking about "art," as if art is always good, or always justified, or as if something is art just because someone created it.

You don't have to solicit anything from fans to know what "normal" people like. You just have to take a quick look at the NYT list.

Abnormal brains, my ass. That's just more amateur psychiatry, more hogwash, and has no basis at all in reality.

The quote may or may not be elitist, but it is idiotic.

Well someone needs to write the stories for the other abnormal people. I'd like to be that person.

I think everyone is capable of art, and to me, art is simply the act of creation, in any way you know how, with whatever tools you have available.

However, I will say that it does take a certain kind of person to step away from practicality and pursue something, not for the traditional reason (money, fame, fortune), but out of the simple need to create and share this creation.

Again, I think ALL people are like this to an extent, but not all people act on it.

So, we have to ask, WHY don't they act on it? Why aren't they DRIVEN to act on it? You may disagree, of course, but I believe Carlos Ruiz Zafon, in his Angel's Game, writing from the perspective of a writer in early twentieth century Barcelona, attributes this need to vanity. There may be other factors at play, sure, but I think vanity is a big part. Knowing that people are reading your words. Buying your words. Even if they don't know you real name, even if there aren't that many of them. Still. Knowing people are reading what you've written, knowing you were able to get published. It is a validation of your effort, but more importantly, it is a validation of what drove you to create in the first place.

Which is what, exactly?

The idea, perhaps, that you could tell a story the way nobody else could. That you knew a story nobody else knew. That you could put words together, the way nobody else could. Again, this is true for all people, but only a certain small percentage, believe this to the point where they sit down and write, and write, and write. Because they believe they have something worth saying, worth writing, and eventually, worth reading.

Now, I mentioned before we use the tools at our disposal to write. What are a writer's tools? Well, words, of course. But let's dig deeper. What is language? Well, language is communication, the fundamental basis for all social creatures and the majority of human interaction. And language allows us not just to communicate through dialogue, but also to simulate other means of communication by appealing to our senses of sight, smell, touch, etc. So, when we create, we are using the tool of language, but for what end, and why? Well, it is my belief that when we are born, we are in large part blank slates (heredity + experience = you), and so, our drive to create is a direct response of our life experiences.

We are driven to create, by our lives, by our world, and by the way in which we respond (given that our responses shape our lives, and our world, it is a neverending cycle.)

Which goes back to the question of validation. What do we want validated by being published and read? Our effort, our drive, but what is our drive? Our drive is our life experiences, who we are, we are looking for validation of THE PERSON who was able to sit down and WRITE this novel, this play, this short story. Validation of his LIFE, and HOW HE RESPONDS.

But again, only very few people are driven to pursue this form of validation via art. Or are they? Perhaps the simple act of living, day to day, is an act of creation, an act of art? Are we not all the writers of our own lives, the artists of our bedrooms?

Still, what makes writers unique, I think, is that they are driven to create in a very specific way. By appealing to language, and through language, reconstructing life itself. What does this say about us? That we are not satisfied with our lives, our worlds as they are, and so must create new ones? Or perhaps the opposite, that in life we see so very much to draw from, so much that we are bursting with it and feel the need to let it all spill into a new world? Maybe a combination of the two.

I was hoping to come to some sort of conclusion at the end of all this rambling, but it appears that I have failed. Ah well.

quicklime said:

do note you are of course free to disagree, but again, my personal feeling is there is no "artist's brain", just people who would rather believe it in order to feel special. There is no "biologist's brain", "dancer's brain," or "proctologist's brain" either

Click to expand...

Actually I believe that a certain amount of rewiring does go on in the brain if you do one kind of thing a lot. You may not begin with a writer's brain but if you write stories for thirty years maybe you end up with one. I am not a scientist but much is made of the plasticity of the brain.

I am not saying that people who write are special in the sense that you seem to think that I mean it merely that a) creative writing is not something everybody does, b) being interested in creative writing doesn't necessarily mean that the things you want to write about are interesting to other people.
I can assure you I regard writing as a job and my attitude to it is pretty practical but not everyone who can write a story can write one that is interesting to a lot of other people. Trust me on this.

quicklime said:

I don't think that is true. While some deeply esoteric books have found out their niche is rather large, many writers aiming for their version of the mainstream go awry. Sometimes that's bad writing, poor marketing etc sometimes it is just that what interests the writer and for them is universal turns out to strike a chord with few others.

Click to expand...

I think anything, written well and with the underpinnings that make it relatable, sells. Books have been written about sanitation workers, astronauts, time travel, magic, tollbooth workers, and taxidermists and all gone on to be successful--what do you have in mind that is less interesting or relatable to the general public than the examples above?

Certainly books have failed, but because they were garbage or because they may have detailed these things right down to mind-numbing minutae, but they failed to tell a story. Telling you exactly how I set my plate reader today to run an experiment and how I loaded my plate of cells may be a niche, and would be boring, but it's also not a story. It's a procedural account. Telling you how I did all this while pining for my dead wife's sister or waiting for the boss to come through announcing a round of cuts does tell a story.[/QUOTE]

I think you are missing the point or you are defining 'story' in a very narrow way. Lots of very good, well written stories that are not garbage sell badly, they don't attract a huge readership, they don't 'speak ' to people, or at least not enough of them.
Some books I think are garbage - in that they don't tell an interesting story and they are horribly written- do speak to people and sell well.
It isn't a question of too much of the wrong kind of detail, or not enough of the right kind of emotion - it is something to do with the way that they tap into something which interests many people. As you point out some quite weird subjects have yielded highly successful books so it is not really the subject.
I think everyone who has written a non best selling book wonders about this. Most of us ask ourselves if we should have written a different story particularly now in this market where publishers are looking for mainstream success more than ever.

timewaster said:

Most people don't feel the urge to write a novel those that do are 'abnormal' by definition, in that respect at least.

Click to expand...

Most people don't love statistics, cat breeding, foreign policy, neuroscience, lacemaking, dollmaking, restoring old cars, and dozens more activities and pursuits that people turn into hobbies and professions. My accountant digs tax law like nothing you've ever seen. Artists haven't cornered the market on abnormality, despite the implications of Adams's boast.