Beginners' Four Faults

[psychotick]

Hi Dusty,

I'd agree with that to an extent. There is a strong undercurrant in the artisitic realm of people who don't want to do the hard yards and end up hiding behind ideas such as the purity of their vision. But there are just a lot of lazy people out there who want to say they are writers but simply aren't willing to do the work. Even more prevalent if you've ever been to a general writers group, are the people who will tell you at length about their brilliant idea and their artistic vision, but have never and will never put finger to keyboard. Because they don't want to be an author. They want to be considered an author.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

at length about their brilliant idea and their artistic vision,

but it means nothing without a professional approach to writing.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Because they don't want to be an author. They want to be considered an author.

Dorothy Parker -- "I don't want to write. I want to have written."

 

[MWagner]

But WHICH audience?

People write for all sorts of reasons. But if your goal is to sign a book deal with a commercial publisher, I think you need to have some idea of who your audience is. It's a question an agent or publisher will almost certainly want you to answer. An agent at a recent seminar I attended said naming a couple authors whose fans your book might appeal to is a standard element she looks for in a query letter. There are authors who defy expectations and genres with their first novel. But my sense is they get a book deal because their novel has some other extraordinary quality - like a home-run premise, or an absolutely compelling protagonist. And even then, it probably takes a stroke of good fortune with a sympathetic acquisitions editor to find a buyer.

But yes, audiences for different genres and different eras have very different expectations. I can't image in a modern urban fantasy told with the narrative distance of a James Michener novel. Or a heroic fantasy that relied on painstaking psychological realism for its characterizations.

This ties into our discussions about literary vs genre fiction. I believe the distinctions are genuine and useful. A Brent Weeks fan who picks up Kazuo Ishiguro's The Buried Giant expecting something similar is likely to be very disappointed.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I do write for myself. I write for others in that I consider whether or not the prose is easy to understand and follow, whether the story is paced and engaging etc, but then that is what I want out of a story.

What I have given up doing is writing for a market. Mostly, I write what I feel is missing from the market. When I get asked who my audience is I tend to blink and say me. Beta readers and those who have liked Mayhem haven't been an easily market to define. They appear to be people like myself who go for imaginative stories and fun characters before a particular genre. Mayhem has elements of all my favourite stories and genres in it.

And yes that means I have to sacrifice the traditional publishing route for now.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

My guess is that most successful authors write what they want, and this happens to converge with tastes at the time.

Absolutely. And then someone comes along and does something completely different that is an unexpected hit, readers discover that their tastes were not as narrow as they thought, and a new trend begins.

I mean in sense of the professional book you'd like to pay good money for, but rather than searching the shelves, writing it for yourself.

Yes. Write the book you would love to read if someone else had written it.

The problem with reading talented writers deliberately to improve your style is there's dramatically different notions out there of what constitutes talented or masterful writing.

The idea is for the writer hoping to improve (which I hope would include all of us) to study the authors that he or she considers masterful, to see what can be learned, what can be applied. No good can come of trying to emulate, in even the smallest degree, writing that you personally dislike.

The best writing is always writing that comes from the heart (as sentimental as that seems). Where some people who say they are "writing for themselves" go wrong is in thinking that's enough, and it isn't, not unless it's a hobby and they don't really care if other people read it or what anyone thinks of it. (But if they don't care, then they shouldn't moan about how nobody understands what an artist they are.)

 

[psychotick]

Hi Ray,

It's not just the professional approach to writing that they lack - it's any desire to write at all. A writer should write because he or she is inspired. It's what they want to do. It's what that damned muse is kicking them in the backside to do.

Failing that those who aren't inspired but want to write for a market or money can sell copy or write advertising jingles or what have you. At least they are still writing even if its not what they dream of.

But there is such a huge load of hangers on. People who want to pester you with their dreams and have you tell them - that's brilliant you could be the next Poe etc. But when you tell them the truth - ie if that's what you want to write then stop talking about it, go out and start writing it - they'll give you a fistful of excuses or walk away with a hint of - "you really don't understand me" lingering behind them. There is a cachet to being a writer even if it's only held by a few. A vision of this misunderstood genius, out there beavering away on his or her masterpiece for years, never showing it to anyone but always being described as brilliant. It's like a romantic stereotype. It's also complete twaddle. (I could use other terms.) Just as the misunderstood genius musician who would never sell out his work to the producers is also twaddle. The brilliant artist with the inspired vision who hides his work from everyone but which has been seen by the one critic in the world with sufficient understanding to understand his dream - again more twaddle.

In the end there is a really simple phrase that covers this. Writers write. (And presumably musicians musician and artists art.) And it has nothing to do with image. It has nothing to do with sales and fame and filthy lucre. It has everything to do with passion.

That's why I say you should write for yourself. Because that's where your passion must be. I can't imagine anyone gets up in the morning, sits in front of his or her laptop, and thinks passionately I should write this scene this way because readers will love it. It is my dream to write what other people want to read. There are people who will do that. People who want to make money etc. And people who could equally turn their hand to writing advertising bumph, news stories or legal contracts. And people who can do it well. But their best work surely has to always be the stuff they're passionate about. Even if it's not commercial.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Writers write. ... And it has nothing to do with image. It has nothing to do with sales and fame and filthy lucre. It has everything to do with passion.

And working at it as hard or harder as any job, putting in the time writing, reaching that 1st million words and keeping going.
Question for anyone wanting to be a writer:
Is the lettering wearing off your keyboard yet?

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

No,buj the neighbours complained abouj my groaning.
Jhe lack of inspirajion can be ...ANNOYING!
Waij,I can'j see jhe J anymore.Dunno where ij used jo be
Some ojher lejjers are slighjly faded.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

'The Muse' is why JK Rowling didn't give up.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

My guess is that most successful authors write what they want, and this happens to converge with tastes at the time.

I think this is correct. It explains things like the extraordinary success of Neuromancer for instance.

 

[Toby Frost]

It’s wearing off two keyboards now!

I think there are three or four different sorts of writing here, not just two.

1) Writing purely for your own amusement. This is the equivalent of picking up a trumpet and making random noises down it. It may well be that they’re pleasing noises to someone other than you, or that you’re got the raw talent to produce something good, but that’s beside the point because it’s purely for your own entertainment and you’re not going to take any lessons.

2) Writing to a publishable standard without considering the market. This I think is what Anya’s talking about doing. It does involve trying to improve, learning about writing and creating a product which is ultimately of publishable quality. Like a musician who takes lessons and plays with other musicians.

3) Writing to a publishable standard while considering the market. This is essentially the musician looking for a record contract. It means not just being of publishable quality, but putting something out there that has a potential fan-base and fits however broadly into a particular genre.

4) Writing to order. The session musician. This is writing in someone else’s setting, doing tie-in fiction, a shared world (to a lesser extent) or some other situation where the writer doesn’t have control of the IP and can be vetoed from, say, killing off characters. While a somewhat different kettle of fish, what’s produced doesn’t have to be bad or constitute selling-out.

In fact, I think the less talk there is about selling out, the better (not that anyone does it here, but you do see it in the wider world). Nobody says that a lawyer is selling out when he takes a lucrative case. It gets close to politics, but I think a person (not necessarily an artist) is entitled to be rewarded financially if they follow their vocation, and that the idea that making people happier is a reward in itself is just an excuse for not giving people what they deserve. I think Psychotick is right to say that there are a lot of people who like the idea of being writers without actually doing any writing.

Besides, I want some money. How else am I supposed to afford a tastefully-modified V8 Interceptor, let alone pay for the petrol?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Toby, I'm intrigued to know where Steely Dan fit into your musical analogy!

 

[MWagner]

I can't imagine anyone gets up in the morning, sits in front of his or her laptop, and thinks passionately I should write this scene this way because readers will love it. It is my dream to write what other people want to read. There are people who will do that. People who want to make money etc. And people who could equally turn their hand to writing advertising bumph, news stories or legal contracts. And people who can do it well. But their best work surely has to always be the stuff they're passionate about. Even if it's not commercial.

You can be passionate and still write for an audience. Take J.K. Rowling. She had incredible success writing for children. Presumably, she was deliberately seeking to write something that would be enjoyed by children, and not just tapping away with no notion of who might read the stories. Then, after she sold millions of books and had no need for more money, she wrote adult novels under a different name. And she wrote those novels in a dramatically different style than she wrote the Harry Potter books. Why? Was she being phoney, or selling out? No. She wanted to write for a different audience, to entertain or impress different people. That means writing in a different way. Employing different literary styles and techniques.

A writer can have more than one voice. Many do. And calibrating those voices can be a conscious and deliberate choice to speak to a different audience. Graham Greene sometimes wrote in a literary style, and sometimes in the style of a thriller. Roald Dahl's literary stories couldn't be more different from his children's stories. Often, writers use pseudonyms for the different voices. Tom Holt's work is told in a different style from K.J. Parker's books, though it's the same guy behind the keyboard. Different audience, different voice.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I think the less talk there is about selling out, the better

Yes, IMO, nonsense talk by pretentious prigs
Excellent analysis. I'm doing a mix of mostly 2 & a little of 3 actually. Well, that's the plan. I'm in no rush to publish or SP until I (a) improve and (b) have a good editor.
My own flavour of SF is very much ignoring the market. My fantasy, with an eye on the market and I'm curious to see can I write a "sweet romance". I'm not technically good enough or known for 4 ( House of Silk Sherlock Holmes by Anthony Horowitz, various Bond Novels, various The Saint Novels, Another Thing... 6th instalment of Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Eoin Colfer). Session musicians are often far better than the "well known" muscians! But the book equivalent have to be well known and technically good, unless they are ghost writing or using a Franchise "author's name").

 

[Ray McCarthy]

where Steely Dan fit into your musical analogy

I prefer Steeleye Span

 

[HareBrain]

I think (3) covers an incredible broad spectrum in itself, though, from someone analysing what publishers are signing and actively trying to mimic that, to someone who reads enough modern stuff to realise that two-page descriptions of weather are no longer the way to start a novel (and may or may not choose to act on that). I'm all in favour of the latter, and I think the former is largely pointless because thousands of people are already doing exactly the same.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I'm all in favour of the latter, and I think the former is largely pointless

I think I followed that, and agree, but I had to read it three times. Maybe I need a hot drink.

 

[HareBrain]

I think I followed that, and agree, but I had to read it three times. Maybe I need a hot drink.

Or maybe I needed to write it better.

Nevertheless, I like the idea that people feel compelled to read my stuff over and over again.

 

[psychotick]

Hi MW,

I can't speak to any of these authors. I don't know enough of their bio's etc. I can only speak for myself. But having said that I think I've a fairly typical guy. And as Clint would say I know my limitations. And my limitation here is that I simply can't write outside of the genre's I love. Actually that's not true, I could - but I wouldn't. More than that there are certain plots I won't write. Certain characters / arcs I won't touch etc.

So go to your own writing. Pick a genre you don't like - for me it might say be romance or western - and try and commit yourself to writing a book in it. Can you do it? Quite likely. Will it sell better assuming that it's in a more saleable genre? Quite possibly. But will it be your best work? Will it get you up each morning with an absolute desire to write it? Will it dominate your thoughts to the exclusion of all else? Will it inspire you? That seems unlikely.

And that's my point. Your best work is going to be the stuff that you feel passionately about. So write for yourself as I say, and when you're finally done and ready to edit etc, then think about the reader. You may not be so comercially successful - I don't know - but you will be happier and more satisfied with the product.

Cheers, Greg.