Writers Who Don't Like Other Writers?

dgiharris · Apr 27, 2008

I think your view will be understood here, but that is because we are writers.

I think there is a danger though of putting the craft before the customer. The end result is that we want people to read our works. I do believe that art is important, but we must be mindful of our customer which is the reader.

Now there are different types of readers at all levels of sophistication. Perhaps your writings target a more 'sophisticated' crowd that likes good literature.

But even that type of writing needs to be mindful of its true master.

How about this compromise. It's o.k. to whore ourselves out to the lords of marketing and sales. Then when we become big, then we can do what we want.

I just hope, when we get to that point, we have enough of our souls left to remember what good writing is

But I'm not at that stage yet. I' m just submitting shorts. My career as a novelist will start this NanoWriMo

Mel...

Shweta · Apr 27, 2008

In my opinion, the best chance we have to be sold is to write a damn good story, and not worry about what we can afford to not do

Us noobs need great characters, settings, plots, and prose. And whatever else.
And luck.
And persistence.
Gods help us.

aka eraser · Apr 28, 2008

I think we should be grateful for the fact that most bookstores offer a gobsmackingly wonderful smorgasbord, with something that'll satisfy every reader's appetite.

That gives all us would-be chefs a chance to get something of ours on the menu.

DWSTXS · Apr 28, 2008

DonnaDuck said:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Aka literary masturbation. Some of the older works I don't understand how they're so fantasmagorical. Joyce's Dubliners? What kind of smack was he on when he wrote that and why the hell is it considered a literary masterpiece? Is that even written in an earthbound language? A lot of the canon is good but what's written today is also good on its own level. Writing for the educated and writing for the masses aren't mutually exclusive. While I am educated (BA in English with a minor in creative writing), I don't find all canon magical and wonderfully written. Wuthering Heights made me want to commit suicide, revive myself and then commit suicide again. Fuck Heathcliffe, is what I say to that one. Some of Shakespeare's plays I found incredibly dull, Emily Dickinson, while writing excellent poetry, is incredibly cryptic and it gives me pause to wonder who actually said the bumble bees was work to be held to such a higher standard?

I think the major difference is the standards of publication has changed and I can see how people would see it as being dumbed down. Books weren't published for the "unwashed masses" 200 years ago because most of them couldn't read. They were published for other like-minded literary folk who had impossibly high standards to begin with. Today, the every day man can read and thus teh books reflect that. Imagine if all literature was kept up to the academic standard of that held some 200 years ago, how many people wouldn't read because they couldn't crack a chapter without becoming narcoleptic. Lets face it; the common man doesn't appreciate finely worded prose like those who have been educated on the matter can. He or she appreciates a story that will propel them from one cover to the other. If it doesn't do that, it's not worth reading. They don't care about the mistakes we can pick up or the subpar writing that's staring us in the face. They just want a good story. There are good stories coupled with good writing but there are also good stories coupled with mediocre and sometimes terrible writing. I think the aim should be to add more good stories/good writing to the mix instead of condemning all contemporary literature to the fiery pits of hell, never to be read again.

While sounding a little redundant, the stories from the days of yore that are still read today have weathered the test of time because they were good enough to bypass time. Whether John Grisham or JK Rowling or Ann Rice or Nora Roberts will stand the test of time or whether we'll have the same turn of events, relatively obscure writers of today will emerge as the great literaries of the past in the future, only time will tell. But to dwell solely in canon means to overlook the possible future canon brewing right under your nose.

I agree with this. completely.

Deleted member 42 · Apr 28, 2008

Higgins said:
But to what end? Does one only want a certain type of reading experience?

I'm currently plowing through some really bad writing in search of some
otherwise un-attainable images (non-fiction on the Maya)

And on other occasions I have skipped reading perfectly fine prose (George Eliot/Maryann Evans, in fact) to look at some facsimiles of perfectly awful prose
(a "romance" written by Sir Philip Sidney in fact).

Are you reading the Old Arcadia or the New?

I heart Sidney . . .

Ken · Apr 28, 2008

we're all individuals with distinct tastes and preferences. So while some consensus can be reached about the value of particular works some of us will remain at odds. So rather than getting on one another's cases for differences in opinions on fictional works, let's rejoice in the simple fact that we have differences, capable of being debated in the first place. For otherwise we'd be no better than the machines we're typing these comments out on...though in my own particular case that might not be so bad, at least in respects to my appearance.

Higgins · Apr 28, 2008

Medievalist said:
Are you reading the Old Arcadia or the New?

I heart Sidney . . .

I think it was the New. With the evil Montrabrolio. Extraordinary stuff...but
not something I would want to read for weeks at a time.

Sidney is extremely interesting, but I think the Arcadias don't rate high on the good fiction list...which is my point. They are well worth reading, but they aren't exactly good fiction.

Didn't his sister write better than he did? Or am I confused?

Mr Sci Fi · Jun 19, 2008

I enjoy reading the work of talented writers who tell tales that need to be told. The world doesn't have enough fiction. I can only hope I do my stories as half as much justice as they do.

Kalyke · Jun 19, 2008

I don't quite understand why Dan Brown is reviled as much as all that. He told a darned good story that had been around a long time in popular myth, but had not been written because people were afraid of the church. I personally like "The DaVinci Code." as a story. It works for its genre.

Shweta · Jun 19, 2008

Use Her Name said:
I don't quite understand why Dan Brown is reviled as much as all that.

In my case, because I found the writing so heavy-handed and clunky I put the book down after page 2. :Shrug:

Different people, different tastes, etc...

In other news, this thread never dies! It just keeps... coming... back...

Kalyke · Jun 19, 2008

Shweta said:
In other news, this thread never dies! It just keeps... coming... back...

Yeah. I said, "16 pages, do I really want to do this?"

Libbie · Jun 19, 2008

Use Her Name said:
Yeah. I said, "16 pages, do I really want to do this?"

It was awfully heavy-handed. I found the plot fast enough that I decided to keep reading in spite of the really, really, really obvious foreshadowing and the super-weird dialog that was full of needless exposition. I tried to ignore it and kept reading. At the end of the book, I thought, "Well, it was a fun story. Could have been written better, but I had a good time reading it."

I went to see the movie, thinking it had to be better than the book. Thinking it had to translate flawlessly into film what with all the action-packedness and all. That, I left early. They managed to make the movie more pedestrian than the book. I was stunned.

IceCreamEmpress · Jun 19, 2008

Use Her Name said:
I don't quite understand why Dan Brown is reviled as much as all that. He told a darned good story that had been around a long time in popular myth, but had not been written because people were afraid of the church.

You mean "had not been written" except as a series of non-fiction books by Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh? Books that sold a bazillion copies?

Or do you mean "had not been written" except as an opera by Stewart Copeland (better known as the drummer for The Police)?

Nobody was "afraid of the church"--the Merovingian theory has been written about many times. Brown just happened to hit the lottery with his retelling of the story.

Michael Parks · Jun 22, 2008

I didn't finished reading Da Vinci Code. Why? His style and the fact that I heard about the ending on the news. It just wasn't enough to keep me reading. I was raised a Catholic, too, alter boy and all, so you'd think I'd been a bit more into it.. but I just wasn't. :Shrug:

Felt sorta bad, cuz it was the hardcover, pictorial edition, a Christmas present. Looks good on the shelf, anyway.

aka eraser · Jun 22, 2008

DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the whole thread.

I find I dislike writers in approximately the same ratio that I dislike anyone else I come across.

Most people/writers are honestly going about the business of life. I respect, often admire, and like them.

Some few people/writers are asswipes. They lie, cheat, or are otherwise unethical. Some, because they mistake their publisher's PR for The Truth, become insufferable.

Therefore, they're undeserving of my respect or affection.

Or $.

Shweta · Jun 22, 2008

The thread's mostly more about disliking other writers' writing, rather than disliking them personally

Danger Jane · Jun 24, 2008

Mr Sci Fi said:
There are bad writers out there, but they must've done something right to get published. It's not going to make me stop reading altogether, just stop reading those writers.

When I see books like "Eragon" and "The DaVinci Code," I'm reminded that novels are about market before the craft. It's true. It doesn't matter to publishers how horribly written and cliche something is, if it will sell millions they will publish it. It's the nature of the beast.

You look around and you see all these books that say, "Written in the style of..." You know that writer doesn't have a voice or style of their own, and their writing is sub-par and a cheap imitation of Stephen King. They're just writing "In the style of" certified crap. I could write "In the style of..." said author and get published too, but I'd rather not. It's writing before money to me.

Call me snooty, but I'm much more inclined to read an amazing piece of writing that has no chance of selling, then reading a bestselling POS.

Sorry for contributing after the sell-by date...nothing good on TV. :tongue

I think it's good to exercise caution when criticizing books with "in the style of" on the cover simply because the author didn't put it there. Someone else, some a reviewer who meant it positively, a design/marketing person, whoever, made that comment and someone else put that comment on the cover.

The voice may not be a cheap imitation of King or anyone else. It might just be similar. Or maybe the tone, or the storyline, or some other aspect of the story/execution reminded the reviewer/marketer/whomever of King, or whomever.

Now, it's a different matter when someone says outright, "I'm trying to copy _____ here in this book." And often books called "in the style" do lack in some area. But not universally.

Writers Who Don't Like Other Writers?

dgiharris

Disgruntled Scientist

Shweta

Sick and absent

aka eraser

Fish Whisperer

DWSTXS

Mr Mojo Risin...

Deleted member 42

Ken

Higgins

Mr Sci Fi

Street Samurai

Kalyke

Shweta

Sick and absent

Kalyke

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago

Michael Parks

In the moment

aka eraser

Fish Whisperer

Shweta

Sick and absent

Danger Jane