Anne Rice talks about Writing - GOOD Video!

Wolf Coven, thanks for posting the Anne Rice link—very interesting!

Don't embed anything- stick with the link.

Wolf Coven said:

This is a video from the legendary novelist, Anne Rice, creator of many many famous books, most prominent of course are her Vampire Chronicles

Now whether you like her work or not, her advice is so important to anyone who is writing

I found her advice always useful for me to get my work done

I just wish I knew how to embed a video here without the need to click on a separate link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw2KXX7WrOY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I feel about her "don't revise" advice.

I'm not sure about the editor vs. agent comment too.So many houses have closed to unsolicited subs. This may depend on what you write.

JoBird said:

I'm not sure how I feel about her "don't revise" advice.

Click to expand...

She proved it with some of the crap she wrote right after the four iconic Vampire Lestat novels. It looked like it had been written while she was locked in a cell by her publisher, who shouted, "No food or water until you finish another vampire novel."

Don't revise? Heck, I'm an organic, revision writer. What are we supposed to do?

To me, her comment about not revising was more about not changing your book just to please someone if it is not true to your story or your vision. Kind of one of those platitudes you hear - be true to your art. I'm kind of whatever about things like that because they're usually things people say once they've already made it.

southbel said:

To me, her comment about not revising was more about not changing your book just to please someone if it is not true to your story or your vision. Kind of one of those platitudes you hear - be true to your art. I'm kind of whatever about things like that because they're usually things people say once they've already made it.

Click to expand...

aaaah, one of THOSE bits....by the lady who trashed her own film, before watching it, because of the casting of Cruise, then went back later (methinks after realizing the studio wasn't caving to her tantrums and she only stood to lose out by shitting upon her own film), then came back and said how wonderful he was.....

Rice is a decent writer, she deserves the success she got, but I think she's more than a bit of a snowflake and some of her advice I'm not sure I believe SHE follows, let alone that it is ideal for many other writers. Particularly the "don't revise," regardless of if it was about not re-writing (a normal part of editing for many writers) or being "true to your art" (look, you want to sell, you either offer a product the buyer wants or you do not--if Thomas Kinkaid started painting pictures of puppies being ripped to pieces, he'd have no right to expect the public to buy simply because 'he's the fucking painter of light, dammit!').

Wolf Coven said:

I agree. I do think that's what Anne Rice meant.

You should revive if you think that the story needs revision, but never revise to appease someone else. If you don't think that you should change something, don't do it. You're the author, not them.

Click to expand...

again, it all depends if you want to sell. If you can't bring yourself to make something someone else wants, then you can't expect to sell. You can certainly HOPE, but nobody owes you anything.....the free market has two sides and applies to writiong just like anything else.

Rice is established enough to throw some tantrums, but for the rest of us, not so much.



If you are writing for YOURSELF, change nothing.

If you're writing to sell to OTHERS, there's no higher glory in refusing to make changes to meet your own ultimiate goal.

dangerousbill said:

She proved it with some of the crap she wrote right after the four iconic Vampire Lestat novels. It looked like it had been written while she was locked in a cell by her publisher, who shouted, "No food or water until you finish another vampire novel."

Click to expand...

From what I've read, she didn't revise those first four, either, and wouldn't let editors touch them.

But I like her later stuff more than her earlier books, so go figure.

Wolf Coven said:

In many interviews, Anne Rice revealed that her first famous book, Interview with the Vampire was actually a flop and many publishers refused to publish it. Well it goes to show, that there is always a difference in view between the Author, and the Agent/Publishers.

Authors are artists, looking to tell a story and sometimes those stories take different forms. I think Publishers in particular are looking for what sells, Agents as well.

That being said, its not that we don't get literary masterpieces today we do, and in great abundance but imagine all those stories that don't get sold, don't get published, usually for reasons beyond our knowing.

I think Anne Rice is a big supporter of the independent publishing system, in particular the Kindle Revolution and E-Books.

Click to expand...

Like many novels, Interview went through a few publishes, but in no sense of the word was it a flop. It sold a bajillion copies.

Thee reason those stories don't sell is not beyond knowing, it's because almost all of them stink on ice. The good ones do sell, if the writer does his part.

I've read a lot of slush, and if there's anything really good out there than doesn't sell, writers are hiding it very, very well.

Wolf Coven said:

yes, but you can't please everybody. The minute you try to pander and write for what others think, you've surrendered your own creative control already to a hypothetical crowd that may or may not even like your work.

Why second guess yourself? At least if you write honestly you wrote honestly for yourself and that honesty reflects in your work. Pandering has rarely ever pleased anyone in the long run.

Click to expand...

yeah, no.

there's a big difference between pandering and trying to define anything other than doing exactly as you please as "pandering." and pandering/artistic integrity have been co-opted into the bloody shirt of legions of snowflakes.

In a perfect world, you write for both, but if push comes to shove, you are either writing for yourself, or your audience. There's no sin in either choice, but the road to hell goes right through trying to split the difference or insisting there is no difference.


Hypothetically, say an agent tells you your book is too long by at least 20%; do you cut? Is this assailing that integrity, and are you pandering to do so? What if they say your writing is way too florid and all the thesaurus-browsing is getting in the way of telling an actual story? Routine edits? Nobody should write things they hate writing, but if you consider any of the above pandering, you're gonna have a tough road.

I've seen this before and despite her advice she also added that if what she says isn't useful to you, throw it out. She's right. What works for her may not work for me. I believe she's correct about the publishing world wanting new voices, not a rehash of another author's voice and work. The writers who made it big had something new to say or were saying it in a unique way. I also like how she says there are no rules and that we are free to write whatever we want, whatever excites us, whatever keeps us dying to get back and keep writing. That's exactly how I feel. If I'm bored, I can absolutely expect a reader to be bored. if I can't wait to find out what's going to happen next then there's far more of a chance there will be readers who will feel the same way.

As far as the revision thing goes I haven't run into an agent or editor who wanted major revisions but if I did I'd feel like she says, they just don't get it so it's probably better for both of us if I move on and find someone who's excited about my work. Not that I don't expect to do some revising but if it were major then I'd probably get nervous and back away because major revising means they want something a lot different than I do.

There is one thing about Anne Rice. Back when I was at Tulane, her Halloween parties were kick ass!

I think she gave really good advice. It worked really well for her, but it doesn't mean it will work the same way for everyone else.

I usually read writing advice posts, then try it out. If it doesn't work, I try something else. Eventually, I'll get to the point where I know what's best for me

southbel said:

To me, her comment about not revising was more about not changing your book just to please someone if it is not true to your story or your vision. Kind of one of those platitudes you hear - be true to your art. I'm kind of whatever about things like that because they're usually things people say once they've already made it.

Click to expand...

You're probably right, and that's certainly how I'd take it and apply it.

Though if that person who wanted me to change the story into something that's not completely "true" to its original intent was an editor dangling a lucrative contract...

Argh!

Wolf Coven said:

You should revive if you think that the story needs revision, but never revise to appease someone else.

Click to expand...

I think you're under a misapprehension. Anne Rice writes about vampires, not as a vampire.

Oh, come on. Little joke?

Of course, you can request anything, but your best bet is to use bookmark or ear-mark it as a Favourite.

Thank you for posting this link.

On the revise/pandering thing - personally, I think if a professional agent/editor suggests changes, I'd think mighty hard before dismissing them. If I decided that they make good points (ie, they have reasons for telling me to change something that I can agree with) I would make the changes. To me, that's the business part of being a writer - making the book better so it sells better. Now, if they made some suggestion that I just didn't feel right about, I wouldn't change it. That's the "still the author" part of it.

Pandering is letting the agent/editor run roughshod over you and your book because "I want to get published - pleeeease publish meeeee!!!!! I'll do whatever you saaaayyyyy!"