Brandon Flakes
People seem to be getting their backs up over the WIRED magazine article slagging Brandon Sanderson.
After reading it, I don't have a reaction to it, honestly. Hell, I doubt Sanderson likely cares much about it, either. He's managed to become a hugely successful writer in spite of his writing ability. Sanderson's literally laughing all the way to the bank.
Whether the WIRED writer is envious or otherwise seething about Sanderson's success, it hardly matters. Sanderson already won. For whatever reason, he's been able to draw a fan base, which any writer would love to have.
I've always felt like magazine writers themselves come from a degree of privilege, so maybe the WIRED writer feels a sense of umbrage that somebody like Sanderson is able to make millions from bad writing. Could be a coastal snobbery thing, who knows?
All the social media indignation on Sanderson's behalf is sort of funny to me. I read the article, once I saw people losing their shit over it, and I just shrugged. People can/will write what they want to sell publications. Likely they knew running a piece like that would trigger people. Maybe Sanderson knew that, too -- that it would galvanize his already-ardent supporters. Who knows? I'm just that cynical.
In the continuum of life's calamities, I can't see a scathing article in WIRED lasting long in the Hall of Fleeting Infamy, frankly. What'll next week's outrage bring?
The cruel reality of writing is you can have great successes who are shit writers, and you can have great writers who are unable to find audience in their lifetimes. The successes just need to write something that a lot of people want to read. If they do that, however that happens, it's gravy for the writer. Sanderson's a multimillionaire, having pulled off the hat trick of all writerly hat tricks. Does that mean he's a great writer? Nah. It only means he's a successful one.
One of the writer's grumblings is that, despite his success, nobody he asked in his group had ever heard of Sanderson. Maybe that's genre snobbery in action -- certainly, people look down at genre work. Or maybe it's reflective of the fractionating of our society that somebody can make millions from their writing and still be a relative unknown, which is reflective of the dire condition of publishing. There could be other reasons, too.
All of these people howling in indignation over the WIRED article won't ever be within a light-year of Sanderson's level of success. It's like when poor people defend the estate tax -- like somehow, they're worried about the estates they don't (and won't) have in their lives getting taxed, and they angrily go after a tax that only affects .2% of Americans.
I'm just not getting all the indignation people are feeling about it.
After reading it, I don't have a reaction to it, honestly. Hell, I doubt Sanderson likely cares much about it, either. He's managed to become a hugely successful writer in spite of his writing ability. Sanderson's literally laughing all the way to the bank.
Whether the WIRED writer is envious or otherwise seething about Sanderson's success, it hardly matters. Sanderson already won. For whatever reason, he's been able to draw a fan base, which any writer would love to have.
I've always felt like magazine writers themselves come from a degree of privilege, so maybe the WIRED writer feels a sense of umbrage that somebody like Sanderson is able to make millions from bad writing. Could be a coastal snobbery thing, who knows?
All the social media indignation on Sanderson's behalf is sort of funny to me. I read the article, once I saw people losing their shit over it, and I just shrugged. People can/will write what they want to sell publications. Likely they knew running a piece like that would trigger people. Maybe Sanderson knew that, too -- that it would galvanize his already-ardent supporters. Who knows? I'm just that cynical.
In the continuum of life's calamities, I can't see a scathing article in WIRED lasting long in the Hall of Fleeting Infamy, frankly. What'll next week's outrage bring?
The cruel reality of writing is you can have great successes who are shit writers, and you can have great writers who are unable to find audience in their lifetimes. The successes just need to write something that a lot of people want to read. If they do that, however that happens, it's gravy for the writer. Sanderson's a multimillionaire, having pulled off the hat trick of all writerly hat tricks. Does that mean he's a great writer? Nah. It only means he's a successful one.
One of the writer's grumblings is that, despite his success, nobody he asked in his group had ever heard of Sanderson. Maybe that's genre snobbery in action -- certainly, people look down at genre work. Or maybe it's reflective of the fractionating of our society that somebody can make millions from their writing and still be a relative unknown, which is reflective of the dire condition of publishing. There could be other reasons, too.
All of these people howling in indignation over the WIRED article won't ever be within a light-year of Sanderson's level of success. It's like when poor people defend the estate tax -- like somehow, they're worried about the estates they don't (and won't) have in their lives getting taxed, and they angrily go after a tax that only affects .2% of Americans.
I'm just not getting all the indignation people are feeling about it.
No comments have been added yet.
