Goodreads Sci-Fi/Fantasy Authors discussion
Writing and Publishing
>
Imposing boundaries on your own creative license
date
newest »
newest »
Danielle,Yes, I like taking chances. I mean, reading my responses here... do you really see me as that conservative?
That being said, you make a great point to another thread we are hammering away in, http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...
Here is the thing about choices, and how it relates to the other topic with book buyers views of indie authors vs large house authors.
I take lots of risks with my writing style. What I have found is that reviewers, fans, critics, book buyers, etc. are more critical of small house and self published authors than an author in a bigger firm. That is why, even when a big house puts out a project that is absolute crap, they still make money on it. Because, for some strange reason, the book buying public give the bigger boys a "pass."
So, I have found that if a lesser known author takes a risk that a more popular author in his industry is taking at the same time, the lesser known author will get his rear handed to him while the more popular author is hailed as a genius. (I am assuming that both as equally well written in this hypothetical scenario.)
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
George wrote: "This is where we will have to respectfully disagree...there are people in the real world (and thus reflected somewhere in the fictional one as well) who are fully aware of their true nature and sim..."Hmmm... might be a level of degrees. The guy who sets fire to a building full of people for kicks, at least to my way of thinking, is usually the kind of guy who doesn't care one way or another if he's hurt anyone. His pleasure is the greater good, the fact that he gets off on it is the justification.
As for changing a book to make it sell better...
Good question. I did cut some huge chunks out of Sylvianna because my betas said they were boring and didn't add to the plot. They were right. Is that changing the story to make it better, or changing it to make it more salable? Both were true when I was done.
Likewise, I had originally planned an everyone-dies-horribly ending to my current work, and decided not to do it. Basically, I like my characters, and I didn't want them to all die horribly. That also makes the book more commercial. I'm aware of the fact that it makes the book more commercial, and I'm sure that was part of the decision, but for the most part it was a matter of not torturing my characters.
My next book is a fluffy wodge of paranormal romance. I wrote it originally as fan fic and intend to substantially re-write it so it can stand on it's own. I can do it well. I can do it fast. A title that I can use to attract romance readers is a good thing. Re-doing that story is an entirely commercial decision. I don't feel any deep artistic need to go back and spruce it up. I do feel a need as a business woman to increase my presence and get more readers.
Wow! Wished I had seen this conversation earlier. I'll try not to rehash any well traveled ground but will make a few comments on some of the topics that currently stand out in my mind.Before I start let me just introduce myself. My name is Jim Rourke and my first work of fiction, The Eternal Struggle, was released this March. I am not writing for a living, though I would like to.
1. The concept of "self imposed censorship" came up - the limits of what one would write. Interestingly this issue recently came up for me. As i am working on an early draft of the third book of the trilogy one of the characters is put through a intense torture scene. When reading it back I wondered, "Do I have to do this to Niccolo?" My gut told me, yes, so I kept it. When I tried to tone it down I had knots in my stomach as if I were violating the story.
2. Who do you write for? Myself and I hope well enough that others like it. Got what i considered to be a great compliment the other day. My wife came home and said, "Mark want to know what happened to Seamus." I asked, "Mark who?" She informed me that was her friend's husband -whom I have never met and he wondered about a character in the book who is stuck in a pecarious position when the story ended. Awesome! I didn't write a book thinking, "what will make Mark identify with Seamus?" I wrote a book I enjoyed and hoped to craft in such a way to engage others.
3. artistic vision vs. the commercial slut. It took me seven years to find a traditinal publisher. Somewhere around year 5 1/2 i complained to someone, "Maybe I should throw a couple of F*&%^#@ vampires in the story. Then it will sell!" To me, that's a commercial slut...when you fundamentally change the course of a story to intentionally include popular elements that you have no interest in and were never part of the story.
4. You're not a writer until you have 1,000,000 words published(Hope that's right - going from memory) - What a great line! And I don't really doubt the virtue of that statement.
5. Villians who don't know they are doing wrong.
Jeffry Dahmer pleaded not guilty to his crimes. Not becasue he though he wasn't guilty, but becasue he hoped that, through the trial, he would discover why he did what he did. he knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
I guess it's the idea that doing something for money makes you a slut that bothers me. The idea that there's something dirty or impure about using your skills to make money makes my skin crawl. Look, I'm not a fan of YA Paranormal Romance. There are no vamps in my book, either, but if my husband suddenly lost his job and I had to support the family, I'd be writing the most gorgeously handsome, sparkly, super alpha, yet angsty, vampire YA romances you could think of. I'd spend pages fawning over how perfect my leading men were and how just like every other girl my leading woman is. I'd write books any girl could slip into and get to vicariously live being adored by the biggest, baddest, alpha male around. I'd do it, and do it well. And, if it put food on the table and kept the roof over our head, I'd consider it the height of honor. Even though I personally can't stand angsty, sparkly, borderline-stalker vamps.
Any sort of work, including literally being a slut and hooking, is honorable if it allows you to support you and yours. Your number one, biological, highest duty as a human is to support yourself and your family, everything else comes second. And the idea that anyone would look down on any effort that allows that bothers me.
Meanwhile, I'm a quarter of the way to the million word count, so I guess I'm .25 an author.
HEHE...Amen sister!
Of course, if I said that I would get drawn and quartered by this crowd.
Funny thing is, if you did write that, you would probably grow to love your angsty vamp characters and their trivial pursuits. You would begin to really enjoy writing them. Then your world would be in balance again.
Luckily, if you work at it hard enough, you can write what you really enjoy, make a living at it, and have the best of both worlds.
But, either way, people will still point their finger at you and say "whore" or "fake" or "hack."
It is funny, I do a convention about every 3 to 4 weeks somewhere. I do major ones, such as Comic-con and Gen-con, and small ones such as Combat-con last weekend. I actually had a writer accuse me of doing all these conferences just so I can write off going to conventions.
As nice as that would be, I spent just of $30,000 last year on conventions with all the travel and marketing that goes along with it. And, while at the conventions, the only thing I got to see what the booth directly across from me!!! It is not like I had time to "enjoy" them, I was working!
No, I could have spent 1/3 less, not had to carry 4 tons of books and marketing material, and actually ENJOYED the events had I gone as a fan instead of a professional.
But, as I said earlier in this thread, I think it falls back to jealousy. I don't think that writer who accused me of that really believed what he was saying. I just think he wished he could pack up his books and go to convention after convention himself. But, instead of trying to find a way to make it happen for him, to rise up from the level he was currently at. He instead found it easier to try and pull me down to his level.
Which is funny, because if you think I am that far ahead in this game, you are mistaken.
I think it is the same with those who look down their nose at what they call "selling whores." They want to sell the way someone else is, but instead of trying to find a way to rise up, they just pull down.
I am still a nothing author. I have a long way to go to become a something author. I was on a panel last weekend with Neil Stephenson. We were sitting in front of a the same group of people, giving the same type of advice, answering the same questions. Yet, he has sold WAY more books than me. Now, I could either look at him and think nasty thoughts about how undeserving he was, or I could think positively about what he has accomplished, and the steps I need to follow to move up to his level. Perhaps even get a moment to speak with him. Learn from him.
Unfortunately, most people take the low road as opposed to the high one.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
I'm going to address the original question ... at least as far my own books ... with curse words.My Adventures of Guy series are college guys who go on Quests. As college dudes, they are sophomoric and mildly profane, but I didn't cross certain boundaries I set up. No "F" word, no taking Jesus or God's names in vain.
I don't object to any of this in books I read, but I didn't feel right using them when crafting my own books. I don't think anyone missed it.
Then when I wrote my YA books Fang Face and WereWoof, I totally stripped out the cuss words. None of the kids who read it noticed because the dialogue was fun, though not necessarily realistic (because there's plenty of cussing in schools).
But here's where it got weird. I went back to writing the third book in the Adventures of Guy, and I couldn't seem to bring myself to have them cuss. They (my characters) noticed, and were upset I'd eliminated their form of free expression (yes, I broke the 4th wall).
At one point, they were shaking their fists, and saying, "we curse you, author." I, of course, rained hail on them. They apologized and later I relented and let them start cussing again.
Norm
http://www.normcowie.com
Maxwell wrote: "It is funny, I do a convention about every 3 to 4 weeks somewhere. I do major ones, such as Comic-con and Gen-con, and small ones such as Combat-con last weekend. I actually had a writer accuse me of doing all these conferences just so I can write off going to conventions."I created a bookselling business that travels to craft and gift fairs all over LI. Lately I've started doing some book festivals with my publisher, and some SF/F conventions as well. I spend all my time in the dealer room, but I probably get to talk more about books than the guys on the panels.
Danielle & Marc,Danielle,
I live in Las Vegas. Not by choice, but by accident. My family retired here, and this is just where I ended up a few years ago. That being said, I love Vegas. Not for Vegas - I don't drink, smoke, gamble, or even go out much past 9. But, 330 days of sunshine a year rocks. And it is hot here for only about 2 months (July and August) for most of the rest of the year, it is about 78 degrees. But, the big reason I love it is that the west coast is all open to me via car, and you can't live in a place in the U.S. with cheaper flights to and from. And, flights leave/arrive here about every 30 min., so you can pert near pick your travel time.
I have not been up to Washington yet, but feel free to pass my name and website along to the conference. I am always looking for more cons.
Marc,
Book Festivals are the best for moving product. This was a shock to me. I always figured that being in a room of 10,000 people who are fans of my genre would be better than 5,000 people at a book festival, but I was wrong. So, if you are looking to sell, book festivals are the way to go.
As to your comment on panels, I sell well everywhere I go. It does help that my cover artwork is done by one of the top 5 fantasy artists in the world. But, my publisher has also done a wonderful job of designing an awesome booth and marketing material to go along with it. Having awards and great reviews also helps. But, all that aside, I ALWAYS sell more books if I have both a booth, and I am speaking/teaching/sitting on a panel. So much so that this year I started turning down events which only want me to attend in a booth. Case in point, I was not going to go to Comic-Con this year. The largest convention in the U.S. But, luckily for me, they contacted me and wanted me to teach my creative writing class at the event. Now, I am going.
Again, it is because I have found that if I speak at a smaller event, I will sell more than attending a larger event and not speaking.
Either way, I am a firm believer that an author must get out there and meet fans. Unless you are with a mega-house that decides to drop a mega-funded marketing plan behind you (something that just does not happen anymore for us lesser-known people) the days of writing a book and staying at home while it sells is just gone.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Maxwell wrote: "Book Festivals are the best for moving product. This was a shock to me. I always figured that being in a room of 10,000 people who are fans of my genre would be better than 5,000 people at a book festival, but I was wrong. So, if you are looking to sell, book festivals are the way to go."I do well in book festivals only because I sell every genre my publisher makes. When I went to Printers Row or the SC Book Festival with just my own fantasy novel it didn't do so well, although that may have been because I only had the one title the one time I did that. My new werewolf adventure seems to be getting more interest, although like yours, it may be mostly due to the cover.
Danielle,As a teacher of psychology the shadow side of humanity has always held a bit of fascination for me.
I truly see your pont, but I would contend that their is a fine line between Dahmer and Hitler (and a massive chasm between them and the general population).
Dahmer, confronted by public punishment seemed to become introspective and concluded (in his own admission) that there was something wrong with him. To say the least this was the underdeveloped, perhaps non-existant, conscience. I would contend that, had he not been killed in prison, Dahmer's introspection MAY HAVE led to the slow development of a personal conscience and some crippling guilt. We don't know if this would have happened but personal conscience can develop or being sterngthened as life goes on. Dahmer's words hinted at a glimmer of potentiality...so I can't agree that he was incapable of understanding what he did was wrong.
Hitler, on the other hand, never expressed any doubt or regret for his actions or himself. One of the last written statements he made regarding the Holocaust went along the lines of - someday the world we see I was right about the Jews being a plague to mankind. There was no hint of second guessing in the man. he neve doubted he was right and that the world would eventually bend to his will and vision.
Not that any of this changes the profound suffering caused becasue of their lack of conscience. It is more of a philosophic question of Can even a monster develop a conscience? And if he can will it be too fragile to survive as Tolkein exhibited with Gollum in the Lord of the Rings?
Maxwell, Marc and Danielle
All of you are more experienced writers than I and I was wondering if you could give me a list of Book Festivals I could look over and perhaps particiapte in an attempt to build an audience. Particpating in a panal seems like some type of holy grail to me at this pont, but you never know.
I agree with just about everyone (grin) because I think we should write for our audience ... but also write for ourselves. If there's something we just HAVE to write, and there's no audience, then for Heaven's sake, do it. (Course, some people call that a diary, but I digress).Norm
http://www.normcowie.com
That said, if you write a book that doesn't appeal to the masses, find its audience ... it's out there.
Danielle,I won't touch your philosophical outlay, it is exactly what I said with my statement, "If you want to write a great bad guy, write him as if he sees himself as a hero." Only yours is smarter, cleaner, and it even smells nice.
And to the post before that, it is like we share a brain.
In the thread, http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5... we have been talking about that very subject.
Everyone loves to hammer on me when I say stuff like, "It is small- and self-publishing that is killing this industry. The ease of self-publishing is not going to take the power from the agents and large houses and put the power into the hands of the "people," it is only going to strengthen them." Like George taking it as if I was personally attacking him for being in that category and sarcastically apologizing to me. (I am not picking on you George, I am just using you as an example. We are cool.) Because, I am in "that" category as well! I am with a very small house. I am not downing ANYONE who goes that route.
I am, however, downing the METHOD in which they go down that path. If you write a manuscript, and read it, even let your friends read it, and you all agree that it is wonderful - no, the best story ever written - once you release it to the public, more time than not you will discover that you get tons of bad reviews because you have not produced "the next literary masterpiece," you have produced a sub-par story. A writer CAN NOT edit their own work. It is impossible. You are too close to it, and will never look at it with a critical eye. You may "think" you can, but you can't.
I am not saying all self- small-press stuff is bad. But, as Danielle pointed out, most that she has read has been. And, through my years of doing this, most of them I have seen are bad as well. Just take a gander at the reviews on Amazon. I always know when a book is terrible. It is the books that have only a few reviews (4 or 5) and half are 5 of 5 stars and they say stuff like, "Best book ever written." and the rest are all 1 of 5 stars and they say, "Worst book I have ever read." The few 5 of 5 are obviously either the author, or friends and family of the author. The 1 of 5 are actual readers. It is the books that have a mix of reviews that are the one's with a chance of being good. Because, this is entertainment, and entertainment is subjective. So, you, as a writer, are never going to please everyone. That is why the "average" rating is more important that the individual ones. And if you have over 15 reviews, with an average of 4 out of 5 or better, I will purchase your book and read it. Anything less and I will pass, thank you very much. Life is too short to read crappy books.
What this means is that even if you are one of the few of us (yes, I am putting myself on the side of the well-done small-press books. Not due to my vanity, but strictly based on the fact that my works have not only received wonderful reviews from readers, but also from professional critics. My fantasy series has also won several awards. All of these are independently given from people who do not know/owe me anything. So I feel I am valid in stating this, and not just giving my opinion. I actually think the first book in my fantasy series could be much better. But, I digress...) So, back to it. What this means is that even if you are one of the few of us who do produce a well-written, well-edited book that fans will appreciate spending their money on, you are still competing with all those that are not. I am out there every few weeks. And even though I sell really well at all the events I attend, I see it in the eyes of almost everyone who first approaches my booth. That, "I don't know you. I don't trust you. I have been burned before. I don't really want to give you any money for your book, because it is probably crap."
I made a statement in the other thread. "Those that are on the top are not affected by how many are below them. It is those that are below who are affected by the number around them." Big houses will always sell more books. They not only have the money to market, insuring that readers know their books exist, but they also have the "trust factor." And yes, they put out crap as well. But, that is beside the point. Even if a book buyer purchases a book from a big house, and they find it is not to their taste, they will still go back to that big house for other books. Because, they still feel that with a big house, there are dozens of professionals making decisions on what to produce. They still feel there is some "thing" behind a big house's books that is validating them.
And, that is just the book buyers. You hit the nail on the head about reviewers. When we first started looking for professional reviews for my fantasy series, we were told, "Don't even send us your book, Mr. small-press. I will not even open the box. I will simply throw it in the trash." I was like, "WHAT? Are you serious? You are a book reviewer. I have a book for review. Do your damn job!!!" But, no. They will not.
Because they have been through what you have, Danielle. There is just so much of it that is bad, they don't want to waste their time looking for the diamonds in the rough. There are already more Big House books out their for review than they can read anyway, so why bother.
No, the ease of self- and small-publishing, and the fact that they just do not understand the ins and outs of producing a commercially viable product, is doing nothing but pushing book buyers and reviewers toward books from bigger houses. This is simply diminishing the pool of buyers for our products, while at the same time adding more competition vying for those buyers.
The most expensive thing in this industry is picking up one fan. Each fan costs a fortune. And that cost is rising each year. If you do not WOW that fan, insure they they keep buying your books in the future, you will never succeed in this industry. That is why I am so happy that the second book in my fantasy series has over a 95% purchase rate of book one. It means I am on the right track, that I am doing my job well.
Because, and I got in trouble for saying this before, but I will say it again... "An author is not writing for themselves. An author is writing for their readers."
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Danielle,You are both right, and wrong in your analyses of the bigger houses.
First off, you are right in several ways... One is, they will always give more attention to an author with a selling track record. Again, I said the most expensive thing in this industry is getting one fan. And I don't mean your first fan. I mean each and every fan, 1 at a time. 3 years ago, the big houses looked at me as an expense - a risk that needed to be weighed. Now, with a decent sized fanbase, I have dialogues going with a few of them. They are not pounding down my door, no. But, they are at least talking to me. Still, pushing authors with a selling track record is just good business sense. If you owned a car dealership, you would stock the cars that where selling. Same with a fish market, shoe store, etc. etc. This industry is no different. If you open an appliance store, and only stock manual typewriters and manual bucket clothes washing tubs with that manual crack to wring the clothes dry, you will probably not be very successful. So, you can't fault them for doing this.
You are also correct in "some" of your bean-counting remarks. It is all about making money. And this is an ever increasingly expensive industry. One thing that has taken a hit is one aspect of editing (keep in mind, there is three levels of editors, each with a different job.) And that is of proof editing. These are the annoying little "missspellings", and sentences that have words that "should there", but are missing. :) However, these have almost no impact on the book buying public at large. They skim over them, perhaps laugh when they see them, then forget about them. Content and Line editing is still in full swing at all the major houses. And must be. If a manuscript has issues with content or readability, it will be branded as horrible. The funny thing is this is where the small- self-published authors screw the pooch. Even if they hire an editor, they are hiring "proof editors." Mostly because proof editors are WAY cheaper than the other two. But, also because they do not know the other two exist. They hear "editor" and think they are done. Unfortunately, a proof editor is the least needed (for most authors.)
Where you are incorrect the most is on Acquisition Editors. I have had the pleasure of meeting several now from the major houses, and I assure you - they are still fully in charge of what projects do and do not go to market. They are also your major "content editor" for the projects they release. They take this game very seriously, and try and put out the best product they can. Yes, they make mistakes. Sometimes at the cost of their jobs, which is why they can be so cautious. They work hands-on with the agent, and in some cases, the author, attempting to produce a great product.
Do not fool yourself thinking that this layer of the industry has devolved. It hasn't.
Another aspect that I think you are a bit incorrect on is that big houses do not take chances. They absolutely do. But, here is how it works.
Most major houses will published at least 5 or so unknown, or little known authors a year. They will give them the same editorial attention as any other project (though they probably lean heavier on the agent to help whip things into shape than with a more popular author.) However, it is after the project is to market that things change.
With these projects they will print up only a minimum run of books, and only in Mass Market (no trade or hardbacks here.) Usually 5,000 to 10,000 books. They will list this in their catalog, send out the information to the buyers for the "big box" stores, and throw it into the distribution channel.
Then, they are done. They will not spend any money on marketing, promoting, etc. Basically, they will let these projects sink or swim on their own merit. If one of them actually has a decent sell through (and for most houses this means 50% to 65% of books printed are sold during the first year) then they will keep the title in print and look at future projects with that author. The rest, usually most of them, are removed from the publisher's title list. Any remaining stock is sold for pennies on the dollar to deep discount bookstores. From a business standpoint this is actually smart. For the most part, the 1 or 2 titles that actually sell cover all the cost of those that didn't. So, they do not make nor lose money, but they have just created an author with a fanbase. That author's next project will probably make them money, so they will push it harder. Which is why in most new author's contract is the clause that gives your publisher right of first refusal on your next piece of work. Because they know it is your second book that will actually make money.
It is brutal. It is rough. It is the reason why, even though I had a shot to go with one of the big boys three years ago, I chose to start with a smaller house. Now that I have a fanbase, I am looking at dipping my toe into the larger arena.
Again, I am a nobody author with a small fanbase. But, as I am continually preaching, if you can get over your artistic pride, and study this industry as just that - an industry that is designed to make money - you will have a much better shot of being successful.
Yes, you have to love what you write. Yes, you have to actually be able to tell a compelling story. Yes, you have to be an "artist." But, at least in today's market, artists who do not study, learn and embrace this as a business...starve.
O.K., I will now stand here so you all can throw stones at me... Go ahead, I wont hold it against you. I am willing to be a martyr if it helps even one new author move a step closer to success. :)
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Danielle,And I said proof editors where the least needed... Sorry, that was suppose to be a "5" not a 50. I edited it in the above post... (if I have told you once, I have told you a million times, stop exaggerating!)
And no, I don't think we are disagreeing at all. I think that you and I are very much on the same page on every topic in this thread. Which is refreshing to me. :)
But, that is the problem with discussions like this. Many people try to turn it into a two-sided discussion. "It's either my way or it's their way. Which side are you on?" When, in reality, it is really shades of gray. To beat the proverbial dead horse, if you are just an artsy fartsy, you will probably not succeed. If you are just a commercial whore, you will probably not succeed. You have to do both, and do both well, with any hope for success.
Here is to the "artiswhoreic" we all need to strive to become.
(Hey! I am a fantasy author. I can make up words if I wish!) :)
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
To: Maxwell and DanielleWe all know the big houses can publish drivel that rivals some of the worst of the self-published stuff. So do some of the small presses. But in a world where Sarah Palin can be a best-selling author ... (sigh).
You both made great points that a lot of reviewers won't touch small press books. Publishers Weekly and Kirkus wouldn't consider any titles submitted by either of my two small press publishers.
Even though my works were small press, I found legitimate reviewers who reviewed them, like Midwest Book Reviews and BookLoon, and four best-selling authors -including James Rollins - blurbed my books. So you don't have to have Kirkus or PW, though it helps with the libraries.
And I think it's interesting that you (Danielle) would give authors the opportunity to 'opt out' of the review before you posted it. You shouldn't have. I always felt that if I asked someone to review my book, I'd better be prepared for whatever he/she said, good or bad.
In fact, on that note, my books have gotten nothing but great reviews ... well, all except this this one, by FWOMP Reviews. The reviewer, Byron Merritt, is a nephew of Frank Herbert and one of the current DUNE authors. Merritt reviewed my first book, and while he said some nice things (including comparing it to The Hitchhikers Guide) the review wasn't entirely flattering.
So what did I do? Well, I hid the review. Didn't post it or list it on my website, or use any of its quotes. I basically just tried to ignore its existence.
Then one day I thought, "what the hell, any publicity is good publicity" and posted it on the first page of my website (http://www.normcowie.com - if you want to check it out). And it's not so bad, really. But I'm not afraid of reviews, any reviews, anymore.
Anyway, in this new world, the cream will rise to the top. New technology that wasn't around ten years ago, or five years ago, is making it easier and easier to weed through the junk out there. There's GoodReads, where you can find new books to try. You can download free samples of books. You'll know if the book is garbage within the first ten pages. You've wasted little time, no money, and you move on to the next.
It's a great new world out there, and as soon as publishers stop gouging on ebook prices, and work out deals with libraries for ebook lending, it's just going to get better.
Norm
http://www.normcowie.com
fantasy-humor
It's unfortunate that this discussion became mired in a debate over writing talent and the willingness to learn the craft of writing...these were distractions that took away from my intended theme (though, I can be blamed...in part...for that digression).I think that a good context question to be put forward to all thread participants would be this:
Is you fiction a tangible representation of who you are as an individual...are your values, ethics and philosophical perspetives on life deeply inculcated into the fabric of your stories? Or are you creative products separate from you as a person...entities with their own lives in and of themselves? There is no 'right or wrong' answer to this question...but it will, however, dictate the way you regard the issue of writing for yourself versus writing to primarily to entertain others.
George,Yes, we did get off subject, and I do apologize. However, you can't deny that it was a fun ride!
Yet again, however, you have come up with an amazing question. This is the reason your threads are the only ones I post in :).
For me, I play no part in my writings. None of my characters are based on me, or anyone I know. Each of them are their own entity. They stand on their own merits, beliefs and morals.
I do not interject any of my religious, political, social, or any other beliefs into them. They find their own in each of those and stick to them as vehemently as the rest of us do.
Besides, since I love writing tragedy, I would not really want to be anyone in my worlds.
Case in point...
I was at Gen-Con last year at my booth talking to a small group of fans. This one girl (late teens / early twenties) came up and stood about 10 feet away. This is not uncommon, so I paid her little attention other than to make eye-contact and smile, as I do with anyone who stops to look at my booth.
I continued to talk and joke with those around me, and about 10 minutes later she approached. She asked, "Are you sure you are the guy who wrote this series?"
Her question struck me as odd, but, as I am a smartbutt I replied, "Well, my name is on the cover. And they let me sit here in this booth. So, yea. I am pretty sure. Why?"
"Well, I came here to meet you but you are not what I expected. I really thought I was going to meet someone who was one step away from suicide because your book gets kinda dark at times. And watching you, you are really just a big goofy guy that smiles and laughs a lot."
I nodded my head in somber understanding and replied, "Well, if it will make you feel better, and entice you to purchase my next book, I will slash my wrists for you."
Yet, how I write is the reason I am so drained when I write certain characters or scenes. They are so foreign to me in their beliefs, and what they do is so repulsive to me, that I walk away exhausted. Because, when I am writing them, I am them. I want to feel and experience everything they do. I want to really believe that what they are doing is just, or good, or at its basic level, done for selfish pleasure and enjoyment alone. And these scenes take their toll on me.
In one book I am the POV character brutally murdering a small boy. The boy in the scene was basically the same age as my own son. I reveled in the event, taking on the persona of the character as I wrote it. Then, due to the emotional drain on me once it was over, I did not write a word for over a week.
But, my main editor cried for an hour after she read it, so I think I pulled it off. That is what I was going for. Emotion. And pouring it in, pulling it from my being and giving it life through words, is worth any discomfort to me.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Hey, George,I don't think it got mired at all. One thought sparked another, then another, and it grew. That's good.
Norm
http://www.normcowie.com
George wrote: "Is you fiction a tangible representation of who you are as an individual...are your values, ethics and philosophical perspectives on life deeply inculcated into the fabric of your stories? Or are you creative products separate from you as a person...entities with their own lives in and of themselves? "Of course all my characters come from me, where else would I get them? I'm not the sort of writer who goes into a shed and rummages in bins for character attributes and sticks them on a two dimensional Dress-Me doll. I pull bits of my own soul off, plop them on the page, and then follow them around trying to see what they'll do. I don't even have a set constructed or a script written before the play starts.
Although my characters all have their own personalities and views, I'm sure that there is a little of me in each one, even the villains. I'm sure that they represent different facets of my personality. Also, although I write to entertain, my values, ethics and philosophical perspectives most certainly creep into my writing.
What is interesting about Danielle's last post is that it speaks directly to the concept I wished to discuss in the original thread...authors imposing limits on their creative product...basically what I'm talking about is the notion of self-imposed personal censorship...I think it is far better if authors and film makers are the arbiters of what is acceptable, than say a greater big brother agency...flood the market with Saw...or even something more repulsive like an endless stream of Human Centipede 2 type product and the British Ban on this type of product becomes more and more understandable...Personally, I think the self-imposed boundaries of the artist are preferable.
George wrote: "What is interesting about Danielle's last post is that it speaks directly to the concept I wished to discuss in the original thread...authors imposing limits on their creative product...basically w..."Sorry I've been gone for so long, I've been busy actually writing the work I'm not censoring, rather than thinking about censoring the work. :)
Now, while you'll never see me write wanton graphic descriptions of the destruction of humans (or animals for that matter) for kicks and giggles, I'm also not a fan of any body saying I can't do it. Likewise, I see no need for the MPAA or the British Ban. Even with things like Human Centipede 2 out there. If a theater thinks they can make money by playing that crap, more power to them.
In the part of the world where I live they'd see so many boycotts it'd be ridiculous. NC-17 movies are perfectly legal to show, and most of the chains won't because they want to maintain a family friendly image and keep people returning to them.
Let the market do it's thing. All seven people who want Human Centipede 2 or Saw 26 are welcome to it. The rest of us will vote with our dollars and let the people who want to write/film stuff like that know they can do it, but they can't get rich on it.
George,My big issue with your statement goes back to how we got off topic in the first place.
Are you stating that we should censor Saw and Human Centipede 2 because of their content, or because you do not appreciate their quality? Are you opposed to them because you really feel they crossed the line of human social standards, or because they do not appeal to your personal taste? Because, while I have not seen either of those films, I have seen Silence of the Lambs. And the scene where Hannibal slowly sliced pieces of a man's brain, while the man is alive, awake, and standing next to him is pretty gruesome. The fact that Hannibal is frying those strips of the man's brain while the man watches him do it, even making comments on how good his own cooking brain smells, pushes things even further. Then when Hannibal feeds the man his own cooked brain, then takes a scalpel and slices off another sliver to repeat the process, is absolutely horrendous. But, it is the most memorable scene in the movie. It is incredibly well written and acted, and what most Horror fans appreciate. Plus, and most important to me, it is DEAD ON what that character is. That one action fits Hannibal to the "T" defining his character perfectly.
Would you "censor" Human Centipede 2, yet let Silence of the Lambs stand because it was a better movie? That is not censorship, that is a biased opinion. (Which is basically what all censorship is, when you boil it down to its base anyway.)
And Keryl, there may have only been 7 people who paid to see Human Centipede, but Saw made a fortune.
But this goes back to the original, yet off-topic, discussion of this thread. Just because we are creators of entertainment, and we do not personally like a certain popular genre (like Saw or sparkly vampires) who are we to say that those that are making those types of products are sell-outs?
What if it is us who is selling out because we can't get over our artistic pride and are so narrow-minded that we will only create what "we" feel is good entertainment. What is so amazingly awesome about "our" opinion of what is good entertainment, that we can judge anyone else in this (or any entertainment) industry?
I personally don't like snuff films like Saw, nor sparkly vampire romance novels like Twilight. But, as I have learned from this very thread, those people who create it (regardless of whether "I" feel they have talent or not) probably not only enjoy and are proud of what they are creating, are successful at it as well. And, to continue picking on Keryl, (sorry Keryl) the rest of us ARE voting with our dollars. That is why Saw 8 (yes, 8) came out last year in 3D! And made money. Yet, beautifully written movies like Serenity will never see a sequel. Because more people are willing to pay for what we are pointing our fingers at and saying, "That is crap. Create something good" than pieces we brand as "O.K. to read."
Don't get mad at me, folks. I am just the man holding up the mirror.
You know, my first answer in this thread was that I would never write a rape scene. I did not want to live through the experience. I do not want to know what it feels like to be a woman being raped. Nor do I have any desire to dominate the opposite sex and brutalize them. Yet now I see the error in my thinking. Am I a professional writer? Someone who produces stories and entertainment for others? Someone who pulls a reader into a fictitious world or a fictitious situation and wraps them in a blanket so real they will forget they are reading a book and it is all just make believe? Or am I just puking words on a page for my own gratification?
I am a man who has to own up to myself. So, I will write a rape scene. I will write it from both POVs. I have nothing to put it in, and may never use it. But, that is not the point here, I think. I think the point is not the destination on this type of journey, but the journey itself. I think that as a writer I will grow from the experience. It will hurt me emotionally, leave an impression on me physiologically - that is just how I write. I can't write a scene without being "in" it. But I think I will walk away better for having gone down that dark path. Explored those feelings within my own mind. My own soul.
And who knows? I never throw out anything I write. One day it may end up in something I publish.
So, to wrap my rambling thoughts up because I am walking out the door to attend the Sony Fan Faire. Each of you must choose the paths you are to "creatively" walk down. None of them are wrong. I think the only mistake you can make is when you look at the path your neighbor is walking. When you judge his path against the path you have chosen for yourself. Because, he chose that path, be it warped or wrong or crappy or a sell-out path in your eyes. He chose his path with as much care, joy, love, creativity, pride of craft, and thought as you chose the path you are walking.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Why do you think you're picking on me?Tons of people liked Saw, more power to them.
Me, you, and apparently not nearly enough other people loved Serenity. We need to send Joss Whedon a whole lot of money if we want another movie. I'm good for about $13.50, so that means we just need another hundred million and we're all set to go. You can kick that in, right?
I don't see any reason for any governing body to get involved.
People want what they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else while they obtain those wants I see standing in the way of that to be an unwarranted infringement upon human freedom.
As for the selling out concept, I think it's a null construct created by those who loathe success.
Keryl said, "As for the selling out concept, I think it's a null construct created by those who loathe success."Amen sister. And no, I was not really picking on you. Just mentioned your name a few times.
And yea, I'll cover the extra 100 mill, no problem. However, as a writer, I do have a few notes and ideas that I would like to run past Joss.... Hmm. where are my Firefly notes, they were just here somewhere.... Damn you clutter... Damn you to hell!!!!
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Well well well.... Danielle. It seems I finally can play Devil's advocate with one of your posts... (*rubs his hands and laughs maniacally-Bwa ha ha ha ha*)I think with your last post you are mixing your ideals of what experiences entertainment (in our case literature) can bring, with your own personal opinions of morality.
You start by stating "Maybe what we express in our creative work, creator and participant, is something we would never dare, or have the chance to experience, in real life." Which I fully agree with. Though some of the subjects, characters, situations, etc. I write I find personally distasteful, I write them for the same reasons my fans read them: to experience something they would never dream of doing in real life. I mean, I will never use my bare hands to rip the throat out of someone who offended me. Nor, (I hope) would any of my fans.
But, then you move on to say "And I'm not in favor of imposing external moral constraints on Art except in extreme circumstances: the coliseums and the snuff films."
Yet, are not those one and the same? Why is it O.K. on the one hand to let your readers experience killing a husband who has been beating an abusing a character for years by dousing them with gasoline in their sleep and setting them on fire, but not O.K. to let them experience a character being held hostage by a deranged sadistic psychopath who chains their foot to a pip and tells them, "This room is going to flood and you are going to drown chained to that pipe. You can saw through the chain around your leg, but that will take 30 minutes, and the room will be filled in 10. Or, you can saw through your leg in about 5 - provided you don't pass out from the pain - and save yourself."
Are not both of those things us and our readers will probably never do? Are not both of those things situations that us and our readers probably find morally reprehensible?
You may feel that the first character is justified, but are they? Is there ever really a time in real life where murdering someone by burning they alive, even someone who is abusing you, is the morally just way of handling the situation? Could they not have simply left? Gone to the authorities?
I think that your definition of "extreme circumstances" as it pertains to fictitious situations presented for the entertainment of others is biased by your personal opinion of right or wrong. Now, I am not saying you are wrong thinking those situations are morally wrong, I agree with you. I can say with all confidence that I will never kidnap someone and torture them to death just for the pure amusement of it. I will most definitely have a reason for doing it if I go down that path. :) However, I can also say with certainty that I will never douse someone with gasoline in their sleep and set them a-burnin'. Still, I may just want to experience both of those things for entertainment. And, not entertainment in reality, like attending the games of the coliseum to watch real people die. But, I did thoroughly enjoy the movies Gladiator and 300, and the Star's TV show Spartacus. Both were brutal. Both showed people holding human lives and giving them no worth other than to die for the crowds pleasure.
But, I knew it was not real. I knew it was all special effect, slight of hand, etc. So, I enjoyed them.
To bring it closer to reality... I love watching someone getting hit by a bus in a movie. Like, Meet Joe Black. That was AWESOME! Jarring, horrifying, but awesome. Probably the most memorable scene in the movie. There are the same scenes out there on the Internet of REAL people getting hit by REAL buses. I will NEVER watch one of those. I am just not interested. I have too much respect for human life to watch one being killed. I actually feel icky just writing this, because I know I am writing about real people. And if you have ever read any of my bloody, gory scenes, it might shock you to learn that I am queasy from even hinting at real death. Because I am a BRUTALLY gory writer at times.
And no, I do not feel that entertainment influences society. The guy who puts on the Superman cape and jumps off the building thinking it will allow him to fly was not tricked by the creators of Superman. That guy was just plain crazy and his insanity was hunting for an outlet. It found it with Superman, but had Superman not fallen into his life, his crazy would have simply found something else.
Neither a book, nor film, nor any other piece of entertainment did one thing to influence the German population to follow a genocidal maniac. Religion, pride of country, racism, the power of a persuasive leader... these and more are what bent the moral compass of the German population of that day. Not some story like Marry Poppins.
So, while I agree with you that the Roman's view on the value of human life was a tragedy of their society, I do not think you can equate that to "selling out." That was REAL. And they allowed it to happen. Yes, they veiled in under the guise of "entertainment." But, it does not apply to this conversation. We are writers, not murders. Writing about a killer killing for his own enjoyment is not the same as going out and filming yourself killing someone for your enjoyment, then releasing that film to the Internet. With the first, even if it makes the writer money, they are not selling out, they are giving an audience that wants to experience that event what that audience is looking for. The other, even if it makes them money, even if it gives an audience what it is looking for (experiencing someone killing someone in real life) it is still murder, and morally "evil."
Saw is fake. It is entertainment. It allows an audience to experience something they would never actually do. You may not like that type of entertainment, as I have already stated, I have never seen the movie myself, nor do I have any interest in doing so. But, the Roman coliseum was real people meeting real death for the amusement of the crowd. A crowd who had lost their moral compass, not from the games in the coliseum, but from other, outside sources such as religion, politics, etc. Had those outside sources kept their population's moral compass "moral," the games would have never existed in the first place.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Danielle wrote: But I do believe sell-out isn't just a null concept. Let's take the Roman coliseum for an example. Snuff films, at their worst. People who have no moral constraints at all, who solely for purposes of gain willingly fulfill base or degenerate appetites. I think the whore for gain is a real concept. It exists in life; why shouldn't it exist in Art?So, are you saying it's only selling out if you kill people?
Because I'm getting more of a sense that you mean it more widely, but those are the sorts of examples you're willing to use the force of the state to go against.
As for me, the idea of base or degenerate desires is something I don't deal with. It's not a label I'm comfortable using. (Not to indicate I'm a moral relativist, because I'm not.) I am however well aware of what used to be considered base or degenerate, and well, me and mine rather enjoy most of what's on that list. Meanwhile any of us who either are gay or know and love people who are, are also well aware of how wide a shift just the last twenty-five years has seen on what constitutes "degenerate."
I have no problem however referring to someone who enjoys watching real people being killed as evil or psychopathic (depending on the person).
When it comes to bringing in the state, anything that does real, tangible, physical damage to a non-consenting human is something that needs to be stopped. Imagining it and writing about it never rises to that level.
Of course, when most people use the term sell out, what they actually mean is: So and So is producing art/music/tv/writing I personally don't happen to like, and worse they're succeeding at it.You'll note no one gets called a sell out for making art whoever it is doesn't like and not making money at it.
Likewise you rarely hear very successful people refer to others as sell outs. There is almost always a major difference between the income level between the name caller and the "sell out."
Let's put it this way: (I'm much more versed in music on this front.) I've heard tons of garage bands talking about how whomever they used to like became a sell out as soon as they started actually selling records. Yet, I don't think I've ever heard anyone from Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Guns and Roses or whatever other big name you like, ever call any artist a sell out.
To me it is a null concept because it has no real definition. It's just a way for someone to spout some annoyance at another person for succeeding in their particular field.
Now, if we want to speak of a more refined definition of going against your personal value system in order to make money, one must then question how closely held those morals actually are. To go to an absurd level, if you are willing to kill someone if you get paid enough, I'm willing to say you don't really believe in 'thou shall not kill.'
The thing which you will not do, no matter how much the money, how much the reward, is where your morals really lie.
Keryl, Yes. Almost all (and I am being politically correctly vague here, but I really think it is all.) "Almost" all people who point fingers at success and cry "sell-out" are doing so out of petty jealousy.Danielle, you misunderstand two things of mine.
First is, I am not saying that entertainment does not influence society in small ways. Kissing a girl goodnight, lines of dialogue that get used to death, dress and mannerisms, etc. But, none of those affect the moral compass of a society. I am stating that art does not affect the moral compass of a society. No piece of entertainment created Nazi Germany nor the complacency of the German people at that time to allow what happened to happen. No piece of entertainment created the Roman Coliseum or the complacency of the Roman people of that day to allow it to happen. No piece of art created terrorism, the Jun Horde, the massacres that has plagued the ancient Asian world because they did not value human life, any of the world wars, etc. etc. etc. The moral compass of a society has to be diverted first before things like public executions, blood sports with massive human death, etc. become "entertainment."
And I also think there is a BIG difference between feeding the inner human "monster" with visions of violence that we know are fake vs. those we know are real. As I said, I will not watch real pain, suffering or death. It brings me no pleasure. Quite the opposite, it disgusts me. And I will bet this is the case for most people. The trill is not the same when you know someone real dies.
This may not be the best example, but...
In NASCAR, when a car is totaled, the crowd goes crazy. Everyone is excited. When the driver walks away, even if they are injured, the crowd continues to be excited. However, on those few instances when the driver died, the crowd is very somber from then on out. Even as everyone leaves the stands, heading for their cars, there is a palpable feeling in the air that is anything but excitement.
No matter how many drivers die racing, the sport of NASCAR will never change that feeling of the crowd who watch the sport. (no, I am not one of them.) The will not continue to watch drivers dies and start to hunger for those deaths. Then, our society will not start to feed off that, and people start other, even more violent sports. No! Our society's moral compass must first make a U-turn, and we as a society will have to start looking at human life with little to no value FIRST. Then and only then will the sport turn out to be more like Death Race 2000. Which, BTW, is a movie I loved!
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
"I am stating that art does not affect the moral compass of a society. No piece of entertainment created Nazi Germany nor the complacency of the German people at that time to allow what happened to happen."On the contrary -- the Nazis were excellent propagandists and created works of entertainment that were specifically geared to encourage support and strengthen morale among the German people, and to teach their citizens that their enemies were subhuman, evil, and a necessary target for extermination. The germ of those feelings may have been there, but it took a massive propaganda campaign to convince the society to support, directly or tacitly, the goals of the movement.
Three good examples (among many) which are widely studied as effective war propaganda:
"Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl (1934), a superb (and chilling) pro-Nazi film that uses the Nuremberg Nazi Party Congress to show off German strength and superiority. (This is widely available, by the way, because it's considered one of the best propaganda films ever created.)
"Jew Suss" dir. by Veit Harlan (1940), a less available film that was one of many films produced to convince Germans that Jews were miserly, controlling and evil. "The Eternal Jew" is another German film made in 1940 for the same purpose.
Entertainment used as a way to convince has been used effectively since well before the motion picture. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (a novel that is almost painful to read today) was a runaway best seller and a scorching indictment of slavery; scenes from the book were performed all over the North and it had a huge influence on support for the war. Sinclair Lewis' 1906 novel "The Jungle" exposed conditions in the meat-packing industry that so shocked the public that it eventually led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration (originally called the Bureau of Chemistry).
Entertainment can affect people, and history, in large ways. I'm not going to comment on the whole violence in entertainment issue -- I have very mixed feelings on the subject -- but I always get frustrated when writers, of all people, say that words and entertainment can not have a major influence on people and on society. History says otherwise.
Barbara,You are both missing my point and proving it at the same time.
All those propaganda films and books did not CREATE the Nazi culture. The Nazi culture CREATED THEM. The moral compass of the German society at that time was already pointing in the wrong direction BEFORE those were created. Plus, you really can't claim those pieces as "works of art" as it pertains to this conversation. This conversation is about us, the common artist, putting limitations upon ourselves for fear that WE will influence and change the societies we live in today.
A piece of "entertainment" (and I use that term loosely here as we are talking about political and religious propaganda pieces) that is created by a group for the sole purpose of pushing their agenda (whatever that may be) is not a valid example here.
We are fiction writers. We are writing about events and characters (and in my case worlds, races, gods, etc.) that do not exist.
Can a political/religious/racial organization produce some piece of propaganda, sell it as "entertainment" and have it influence people? HELL YEA! We live in a world full of cattle. People just dying (literally) to have someone else tell them what to think/do/believe.
But, I will still stand by my point. Writing fiction, no matter what the topic is nor how horrible the scene you are describing is, unless the moral compass of the society is already skewed, is not going to change society as a whole. Individuals, yes. See my Superman example above. Crazy is as crazy does, to misquote Forrest Gump.
L.Ron Hubbard's fiction did not create a religion. He wrote and published many pulp fiction works and none of it changed society. Now, he did use the money he accumulated, and his popularity to create a religion. But, the Church of Scientology was not formed until after he wrote and published the RELIGIOUS book Dianetics. Again, the world is full of people who want to let someone else tell them what to believe. I am a FIRM believer that if you create ANY type of religion, and have the money to push it, you WILL find followers. No matter how wacky you make your religion, there are people who will believe it totally and follow it vehemently. To the point of murdering others, or taking their own lives, even. History is FULL of these.
Still, none of them were created by works of "fiction."
And yea, there are a lot of wonderful geeks out there who dive into their favorite fantasies feet-first. Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter... all have fans who dress up, try and live life as if those worlds were real, etc. But, excluding the few who have genuine mental issues, the majority of these people are good, hardworking members of our society. The time they are "playing" in their fantasy world is just that - play. They know the real world is not that way. But, for them it is an escape from reality, a chance to have fun.
Still, how they act when "geeking out" is not how they act in real life. None of those works of fiction are changing their moral compass. (Excluding, of course, those that have real mental problems. See my example of the guy jumping off the building with the Superman cape above.)
No, I disagree that entertainment affects anything in "large" ways. And by large I mean a societies moral compass. How they value human life, animal life, war, their neighbors, religion, etc. Yes, we pick up a few catch phrases, maybe change our hairstyle or dress code. But, Uncle Tom's Cabin did not create nor influence slavery any more than Triumph of the Will created a culture bent on genocide any more than Hubbard's early science fiction works create Scientology. It is a society whose moral compass is already pointing off to the left that allows the worst of their culture to create such pieces of "art" and pass them off as "entertainment."
You gave the proof on this in your last post... "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (a novel that is almost painful to read today) & "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl (1934), a superb (and chilling...)Our moral compass today finds both of those pieces of "entertainment" distasteful. Today, we do not see these are "entertainment." More of a glimpse into the dark past of humanity and a warning of how far our ancestors let their moral compass slip.
We will produce a movie like Saw, and be entertained watching a psychopath kill innocent strangers for his amusement. But, had the creators of that film presented it with a message of, "Come on people, we need to start killing each other. It is right and just and the way things need to be or we will not survive as a people." or worse, had they filmed an illegal film where they kidnapped real people and tortured them for real, they would never have made 8 films nor even a fraction of the money they made. (yes, they would still make money. Again, our world is full of cattle.)
But, our society is already skewed to the point that "simulated" violence, no matter how graphic, is O.K.
However, look at England just 20 short years ago. The violence on American T.V. was APPALLING to them. Now, their moral compass has shifted to something closer to ours. (I am not saying this is good or bad. I am simply stating how it is.)
Crap!!! I hate having a Devil's Advocate personality, because I always look at debates from both sides.
(*My evil Devil's Advocate side rises up from the depths of my fevered mind*) Ah, yes, Drake. But, doesn't your post about England's shift to a greater tolerance of violence on T.V. also prove that entertainment CAN alter a society.
Hmm... D.A. Drake, I think you may have a point. Because in the past 20 years, American T.V. has heavily infiltrated the BBC, not to mention Hollywood invading their cinemas, and the English people's tolerance of "simulated" violence has shifted.
HAHA, Drake! I have you now! You think your SOOOOO smart!
Well, D.A. Drake. There is no reason to take this to the personal level and insult me.
Oh, yea, Drake.... You are just mad that I found a flaw in your logic.
Logic? D.A. Drake, do you not know me? (which would be weird since you are me.) I have no logic. That is why I am a fantasy author - so I can just make crap up. I am just lucky it actually entertains people and I can make a living at it. Not much work for an inmate of an insane asylum. Which is where I would be if I could not hide my insanity behind my writing.
Well, Drake, that is true. You have very little logic. Still, you have to give me credit for poking a hole in your philosophy.
Yes and no, D.A. Drake. I mean. Yes, England is more tolerant of "simulated" violence now. But, keep in mind that their T.V. is still controlled by the government. Had that government not changed its opinion about simulated violence, then they would never have allowed the folks who produce the shows they show to move more towards that violence. So, did American "entertainment" influence them, or did they already start to change and then allow more simulated violence to be shown?
Hmm, Drake. I guess, being your Devil's Advocate personality, I could argue either side of that. Why don't you pick a side, and I will take the other?
Wait, D.A. Drake. That would mean you don't really care which side of the argument you are on. You are just arguing for argument's sake.
Well, Drake. Duh! That is kinda the point of being the "Devil's Advocate." To take the "other" side. No matter what that side may be.
So, D.A. Drake, you are saying you are not really invested on either side of the argument? That you can see value and inspiration on both sides?
Exactly, Drake. That is why I am so good at debating. I always approach an argument trying to find value on both sides.
(For you folks at home listening to my insane drivel, I am really trying to hit the character limit of this post - something I have never done before... But, I just can't. Even now, with as long and as pointless as most of this has been, I still have over 4,000 characters left. I think I will just stop while I am ahead before I REALLY start to annoy the masses.)
So... closing thoughts, Drake?
Well, D.A. Drake, I think when it is all said and done, I still believe that true entertainment, while it can nudge society in some ways, does not affect the masses in "large" ways. Propaganda that is disguised as entertainment, however, can and does affect the masses. I also think that the world is full of cattle. Oh! And, perhaps there is a chance that I personally might benefit from some professional help.
Drake, while I could argue with your first two points, I could not agree with your last statement more if I had said it myself. Which, depending on how you look at things, I did.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
(Crap. Still 3199 characters left... 3172, 3166, 3460...)
:)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Hehe, you don't think I did enough disagreeing with myself?That is the thing that makes this topic so wonderful. (Thank you again George.) There is no right or wrong answer. There is not even a clear-cut line of separation. Only shades of gray.
That is why it is so fun to debate it. Both sides are right. Both sides are wrong. It all just depends on how you look at it.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
I guess I'll take the middle ground on this. Can fiction push people in a direction they wouldn't have otherwise gone? Yes.
Let's look at it from the positive direction. Lots of people who were under the impression that slavery wasn't a big deal suddenly realized blacks were real people and needed real help by reading Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Can fiction create evil? Probably not. Can it nudge people in a direction they were already interested in going? Oh yeah.
The Nazi example is a good one because it shows how art was used to nudge people in a direction they probably wouldn't have gone without being told on a wide scale that it was perfectly all right. Most of us (them) were steeped in a culture that told them killing innocents was wrong, and that had to be overridden to make a population that would look away as children got loaded onto flat cars and driven to death camps. It took time. It took a lot of effort. But it also required a culture that was already steeped in hate to pull it off. Hitler would have had no chance of getting Germans to start putting the Swiss or Brits into train cars to die, because there was no kernel of hate to start up with.
I'd liken it to drugs. Fiction, art, music won't take you anywhere you couldn't get on your own, it just drops inhibitions and makes it easier to get there.
I've been waiting for this discussion to slow down so I could process the information and join in. Since that isn't happening, I'm going to reach out and grab the train as it goes by ....With the multiple mentions of the Roman Coliseum, I took a moment to read the Wikipedia entry on it. The games began as a religious ritual to honor the dead. It wasn't all about death. From "I Claudius", not all battles ended in death.
Re: selling out - is it only the jealousy of the unsuccessful? I'd say not. Hollywood has made three movies of 'I Am Legend' and all three skipped the original ending. Somebody sold out.
Writing about evil: the murder rate in the US for 2009 was 15 per 300,000 people, but if you look at the bestseller list, you'd think we were wading through blood on our way to get coffee. Putting a murder in a story is a way to raise the ante, to make the story important, to grab our attention. Through a story, we can test morality, examine our own beliefs, ask ourselves what is right and wrong, where the black and white becomes gray. Extremes test limits.
Robert J., Welcome on board the crazy train. Please remain seated for your own safety. However, as we are all insane here and none of us are really that concerned with your safety, please stand if you wish.You are correct on the coliseum. It was still a sport. The notion that every contest ended in death is incorrect.
As to selling out and I am Legend. I do not think taking someone else's work, and changing it to a new ending is selling out. That is remaking something you liked, and putting your own twist on it. As I have often said, "Everything that will ever be written from here on out has already been written. The goal is to make it your own." If the people who did I am Legend are sellouts, then I submit to you that everyone who even writes one single letter on a page is a sellout. Which, I do not believe. Remaking something EXACTLY like it was originally done is more of a sellout to me than changing it. If you copy it verbatim, you are not an artist. You are a copy-cat. By using your own creativity to mold an already created piece into something that you are proud of, (in your mind improving it, even if the world does not see it as an improvement) you may not be 100% original, but you are still an artist.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Hehe, yea.......I think we have now gone beyond my mental capacity. I am a fantasy author for a reason...when I get into a situation that I can't figure a way out of, I just make things up.
And, no Danielle, I am not squirming hard to avoid any hint of responsibility for what I write. If you have ever read anything of mine you would know that NOTHING I write has ANY chance of impacting society. LOL.
Really, it just boils down to semantics. I see religious and political text one way, and others see it as another.
Again, no right or wrong answers here. Just good ole opinions.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Not wimping out. You have reached the extent of my poor little fevered mind.I can be serious for only so long, then my insanity disability kicks in and I have to take a left turn at Albuquerque.
Where is that stupid rabbit, anyway? He should have been here hours ago! I wonder if he went right again?
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Danielle,Thank you for your kind words. And yes, I think we are very much in agreement with each other. We both (and Keryl and others I just can't remember right now) do know this debate is really just shades of gray and semantics. We are "discussing" it, but know there is no cut-and-dry, be-all-end-all answers to be found. It is the journey that is enjoyable.
This was a very nice discussion for me because I usually end up in the doghouse from something like this. I am opinionated - most are. However, unlike most, I do not get offended by the opinions of others. And, as is proof from this very discussion, I will change my opinion if arguments are presented showing my original opinion as incorrect. (Although, I am so loose with my thoughts I am usually the one who argues myself off my original opinion, as is also proved in this very thread.) Most here had that same attitude, and it was refreshing to have a genuine debate, with genuine people on both sides, and no one seemed to get their feathers ruffled. That was nice.
However, you have opened up two NEW cans of worms, so let the games begin anew!
First off, you are right about new authors. As I teach creative writing all over the world, and do free critiquing on my website, I get a lot of people sending me stuff. I have found that the worse the writer, the worse the person is about taking criticism.
(I am not making this up, and if the person this is about reads this, I am not trying to offend. I just want you to open your eyes and see the real world that the rest of us live in.)
I was at a fan event recently, and as always happens someone came up to me wanting to give me a copy of their manuscript. They approached me and said, "If you have a moment, I would love for you to look at this. I am not lying, this is the best fantasy manuscript EVERY WRITTEN! Much better than Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Wheel of Time. My problem is I can't understand why the publishing industry can't see my genius! I have been submitting this for about 5 years now and have received nothing except a few hundred rejection letters. Since you are an artist I admire (he "was" a fan of mine) can you please look at it and tell me why the people who work in this industry are so stupid."
As his demeanor was pleasant, I thought I would be safe, so I agreed.
I did not even read the first word, however something immediately struck me as odd and I said, "Well, right off the bat I can tell you why you are getting rejected. It seems you need to really study the craft of writing, and in particular, punctuation."
When he bowed-up, I probably should have taken that as a sign to bail from the conversation, but I really did want to help him out. He did bow-up, however, and ask, "What do you mean?"
"Well," I said. "The first paragraph on this page is about 35 lines or so long, and there is not a period in it until the very end."
He snatched the manuscript from my hands and practically screamed, "Well, I guess I was wrong about you! It is obvious that the industry has corrupted you already! You are NO artist!"
To which I replied, "This has nothing to do with art. You have a 35 line run-on sentence."
Instead of calming him, my statement only added to his anger. "NO IT IS NOT! IT IS MASTERFULLY CRAFTED! HAD YOU READ IT, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT! I can't understand why you people (I love how fast I became one of "you people") can't see true genius!"
And he stormed away, never to be seen by me again.
As much as people hate to hear this, being a professional in this industry is a game of give-and-take. The author gives and the agent takes. The author gives and the publisher takes. The author gives and the fans take. :)
Another way to think about this, however, is this...
How humbling is it to know that you can pay your bills because people are willing to give you money to have you tell them a make-believe story?
I am in awe of my fans. I owe them everything. And, if my attitude ever changes, I hope that people stop purchasing my books. Because, I never want to lose my respect for my fans.
The second can of worms is this...
Do you really feel an author needs to consider that there can be a higher aim to creative works? I am not saying you should not look at it that way yourself - that is awesome.
However, for me, I really am just the monkey who juggles. The dancing bear in the tutu. And I really mean that. Yes, I have serious relationship issues in my works. Yes, I show the good people trying to be really good, and the bad trying to be really bad. Yes, I instill a moral base in my characters. Push them to make choices based on their morals. Try to get them to break their morals and then crush them with the consequences. But, I am not trying to educate or change the world. I just don't think about my works like that.
For me, I am really and truly simply striving to take my readers on a joyride. To allow them a moment to escape reality for a while and just enjoy themselves. I honestly try to not inject my personal values, religion, political, or social views into my writing. Perhaps I am just not smart enough to entertain "and" enlighten. Perhaps I am too lazy to try. Either way, I do not look at my writing in that light.
I see myself more as the fair carney running a roller coaster he helped build. I am proud of the roller coaster, sure. But, in the end, it is simply a piece of entertainment that people are going to have fun riding. When they are done, they may talk about how fun it was. They may even ride it again, or better yet, seek out other roller coasters I have helped build. But, the ride is not something that is going to change their opinions on life.
I am Maxwell Alexander Drake... that will be two tickets please.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
I know that by giving my characters morals, and putting them in situations in which they must question at the least, go against at the worst, their morals, this is a tool that the reader will use to grow and learn by. So, in a way, my last statement was hypocritical.I have had lengthy conversations with fans who "feel" this way or that about a character, their situation, and their decisions. The fans say they were moved, or touched, or made to think about this or that in their own lives.
And even thought these discussions are wonderful and thought provoking and even a bit humbling to me, I still do not see what I do as life changing. Perhaps I am selling myself short. Or perhaps I am painting a picture, hanging it on the wall, then letting the reader interject their own personal values into it. Take from it whatever lessons they can, be it one that is actually in the work, or one that they formulated from a mix of what was on the page, what was implied, and what they have themselves experienced in life.
As I have often said, "Perception is reality to those who perceive it."
Which ties back to a writer who is bad at taking criticism. They "perceive" their work as good. So, to them, it is good.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
I had a critique group in college, and we had one really useful rule. The author was not allowed to talk or defend their work while it was being discussed. They could ask for clarification on comments, but beyond that they had to just sit there and take it. And to be a member you had to submit something at least once a semester.After a year of that, you could handle just about anything with grace.
As for shaping the world with our work, I'm once again in the middle. I'm striving for something a bit beyond the singing bear level without the lofty goal of artiste.
I want my readers to be entertained, and I want them to spend some time thinking as well. Sylvianna deals with theodicy (justifications of God) without beating the reader over the head with it. Hopefully you read and you think a bit about justice, free will, fate, and how basically good people can make some really bad decisions.
So, the story isn't quite as fast as it would be if it was all balls and no brains, but it doesn't bog down the way Atlas Shrugged does either.
Danielle wrote: Or conversely, hate and despise. They change our world. Who can forget Tiny Tim? The prickly and complex Snape? Snape's a philosophy lesson all by himself. (Or should have been in JKR hadn't turned him into Cartoon Emo! Snape in DH.)
That is all wonderful. And it is nice to think I can make an impact on others. However, if it happens, I will let it either be by accident, or perhaps, my subconscious slipping in words of wisdom to my work.For me, I am happy to don my tutu, crank up the music box, and dance like the fool I am. And since I am built like a bear, and probably hairier than one, you can laugh and laugh. I am here to amuse.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com
Topic One: Yes, we will have to disagree. Yes, there are people who are fully aware of their true nature and simply don't care. But I feel you are only seeing their outer shell. Take a murderer who is a sadist. Even if he knows what he does is morally wrong, he still justifies his actions to himself. Even if it is a simple, "It is what makes me happy." He still will not see himself as evil. He will say to himself that he has a disease, or no control, or his victims deserved it. Even if it is just the good ole standby of "the devil made me do it." But you will never get me to believe that anyone sees themselves as evil. Even Satan himself. In the bible, Satan was shocked and hurt when Jesus accused him of being evil.
My point still stands, if you write someone as if they see themselves as evil, and that is why they are evil, they will normally come across the page as 2D characters who no one will like.
Case in point...
Darth Vader vs Sauron. Darth Vader is an amazing bad guy that is not only instantly recognizable as the villain (Oh, look. There is a big scary looking guy in a black suit. He must be the Villain.) as you learn about him, you can appreciate his plight. You can think to yourself, "yea, if I was presented with those same options, I might have ended up just like him."
Sauron is a big stupid eyeball. He is an idea of evil that no one I know has ever felt any affinity, fear, connection, pity, loyalty, revulsion, or any other emotion from. Sure, we fear his orc hoard. But, not him. He is the one character that a man who was a master character creator failed with. Because Tolkien went with the philosophy that "Sauron is evil because he is evil. I would have him kick a puppy or two, but he is just a stupid eyeball so I was stuck there."
Point Two:Going WAY back in this thread. There is a distinct difference between the craft of writing and the craft of storytelling. Have I adjusted my "craft of writing?" Yes. Every time one of my editors even glance at what I have written I feel I am being molded. "I know it is not proper grammar, but it conveys the "feeling" I am trying to convey." is a common feeble whine of mine. Always answered with the reply of, "Great. But, you are better than that, Drake. Achieve the "feeling" you are going for, but do it in a way that is grammatically correct." Then I slink off to make it better.
As to the craft of storytelling, again, I have to say yes to some extent. I have a staff of professionals surrounding me that have been in this industry for a combined total of many decades. Do I really think I am smarter, that I know this industry better, than them? Hehe, sometimes. But, in listening to them, even if I have altered to suit them, my story has been improved. And in the end, that is what I want. The best story possible. If one of the ideas that I had is (God forbid) improved by someone other than me, how is that a loss for me? My name is still on the cover. It is me that my fans come to meet at conventions to let me know they appreciated "this thing" in the story. If "this thing" was actually an original idea of mine that I altered because my publisher said their way was better and they didn't care what I thought and to do it anyway (which is harsh and does not really happen exactly that way), then who am I to complain?
I simply thank the fan and tell them how much I appreciate the fact they I have entertained them.
Am I passionate about what I do, how I write, and the stories I tell... Yes. I think that should be obvious just by reading this thread. Am I willing to admit that I don't know everything and that there are others out there who could improve my work... yes. Again, I think that is obvious.
Does taking advice, learning from others who know more than me, looking at commercially successful projects for ways to improve my own, and learning as much about this craft as I can make me a sellout...? Some would say yes. But, I say no.
Maxwell Alexander Drake
Read the first five chapters of my award-winning fantasy saga at www.genesisofoblivion.com