• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

If you were a writer, which would you rather be?

direstraits

direstraits

Well-Known Member
On one hand, you are an author who writes books with broad appeal, and wildly successful commercially. You travel the world doing book signings, complain about the lack of sleep during tours, everything completely organized by your publisher, everyone recognizes you, and (if you're a guy) all the ladies want to have your babies (no prizes for guessing what the guys want to do if you are a gal).

However, the literary circles dismiss you as a freak of nature, an anomaly of the publishing world - they don't understand how someone who writes as crappily as you do make so much money. Make no mistake - everyone who reads on a consistent basis has read enough to think you are worse thing to happen since the printing press was invented.

On the other hand, you are a writer with moderate means. You actually work two jobs, your day job as a university professor, or a teaching profession of some kind, and you write at night, because you don't make enough from your writing.

However, in honoured literary circles, you are treated like royalty - they expound your genius and your work of great quality. They bemoan the standard of literary appreciation in your country for not recognizing and rewarding such a talent. They laud you and present you with more awards than the empty pizza boxes you have littered around your house.

Which author would you rather be?

ds
 
My husband and I discussed this and we have reached a decision: I will be the latter, and he will be the former.
 
I think I would want to be a little of both. And if you really think about it, every author is that way in a sense. Some like the attention and some you don't even know what they look like. Everyone has different opinions, some people think a particular person writes terribly while other people obviously don't and makes them best-selling authors. So really, in my opinion, it would be kind of hard to not be both.
 
I'd rather be the latter. I'm writing a story right now.. but if I were to ever become famous from it.. I would never drop my dream job of veterinary medicine. I'd quit writing before I did that.
 
I'd be the second. I don't think I would ever enjoy writing enough to do it as a full time job. I'd probably spend more time sitting around watching TV or reading other people's books. I also don't like being the center of attention in large groups. I think being the star of huge book signings and readings would really suck. Besides, I'd be thrilled with a job as a professor.
 
I wouldn't really be any of them. I would hate having to tour around signing books but I wouldn't really care much about what the publishing world thought. The other one I wouldn't like because I would hate being a professor or a teacher of any kind, and I really would hate having to receive all those awards.

Can't there be something in the middle?
 
... and which author would you actually be if you were either of the above?

Let's have a few examples.

I think Roberson Davies might possibly fit into category number two.

And, for category number one, just what is the name of that guy who wrote The Bridges of Madison County?

:rolleyes:
 
Mari said:
My husband and I discussed this and we have reached a decision: I will be the latter, and he will be the former.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let the guy pay all the bills. Sure. :)

Anyway, I wanted to say 'No fair!' You have your husband as a buffer and that influenced your choice. Without factoring in your husband, wouldn't you *not mind* being the former?

mehastings said:
I'd be the second. I don't think I would ever enjoy writing enough to do it as a full time job. I'd probably spend more time sitting around watching TV or reading other people's books. I also don't like being the center of attention in large groups. I think being the star of huge book signings and readings would really suck. Besides, I'd be thrilled with a job as a professor.
Click to expand...
mehastings - if you're the first kind of writer, you'd have enough money to do whatever it is you wanted, whether it is not to go on signings, or not to appear in large groups. The world is your oyster. Not everyone who's wildly successful goes around parading themselves to drum up sales they don't need.

Now, having explained that you could still do whatever you wanted, do you want to be in the first or second group of writers?

Yeah, who wrote Bridges of Madison County? :D

ds
 
Personally, I'd be the first writer. My reasoning is pretty darn similar to Neal Stephenson, who said "...that I don't pay that much notice [of lack of respect from 'quality' press] to these things because I am aware at some level that I am on one side of the bifurcation and most literary critics are on the other, and we simply are not that relevant to each other's lives and careers. "

ds
 
Why can't I have a bit of both? Be hugely succesful, rich, talented and well liked, why not? I guess I would go for the second if I can't combine the two, I hate being criticized.
 
I'd just love to be able to write, it wouldnt matter to me if no-one read it but myself, acclaim doesn't interest me in the slightest. I certainly wouldnt want to be a celebrity writer - too much pressure. I wouldnt say no to the money though, obviously. :p
 
I think I'd rather be the latter because it's an issue of self-respect. If you're only mildly talented, but have somehow managed to tap into the psyche of a mainstream audience (which admittedly doesn't have a really discriminating palate) you'd probably spend the rest of your life either 1) congratulating yourself for genius you don't possess based solely on your sales, which means you're egotistical and self-deluded, or 2) cashing the checks and accepting the accolades of a non-discriminating populace knowing in your heart that you're a fraud and a hack.

At least if you create works of value that are appreciated by people who know the difference between literature and pulp, you can live the rest of your life knowing you did your best, and that your best really WAS good. You can't take the money with you, whereas good literature may give you a certain degree of immortality. And I think people who create are actually striving for immortality more than money. In fact, it may be the litmus test that distinguishes the creative person from the businessman.
 
namedujour said:
... or 2) cashing the checks and accepting the accolades of a non-discriminating populace knowing in your heart that you're a fraud and a hack.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I disagree with this statement. I do not believe you can start out with every intention of being a fraud and a 'hack' and get to being an extremely successful and extremely rich author.

Let me put it this way. namedujour, let us suppose you are a new author. You're struggling financially, but you are gifted. You write your first novel in Starbucks because the aircon in your own apartment has broken down, and you don't have the money to fix it. You pour your heart and soul into your novel, and it has all the trappings of a fantastic novel - memorable characters, brilliant plot, nice scenes, flowing language.

Your novel gets published and the whole world falls in love with you. Somehow you've managed to tap into the world's pulse, and it resonates with everyone. You're soon a big star. The literary circles, however, starts to pan you with an intensity one can compare with squashing a cockroach in one's kitchen. You can write somewhat, they say, but it's obvious that you've gotten so many things wrong you should pay people to read your novel.

So now you've become a successful writer. Will your self-respect somehow get lower now? You know you've done your best, and despite everything, you're successful. Do you still accept your checks, despite knowing in your heart others think you're a fraud and hack?

ds
 
As tarablythe pointed out, most writers are a combination of both - Martin Amis certainly thinks he is, as this was the subject of his novel The Information - where he split himself into two novelists, one wildly successful and completely awful, the other wildly unsuccessful and "nobody was certain his books were shit."

I think which of direstraits' two options you would rather be depends on your own tastes in books. If you're a literary sort, like me, then you'd rather be the second type, because you would want to write the sort of books that you yourself would respect if another had written them. As namedujour says, it's a question of self-respect in that sense. If you're a popular fiction reader who doesn't really care for literary quality, then you'd rather be the first because you are more likely to view books as just another commodity and money is as good a reward from them as any.

But of course no writer chooses to be one or the other. They're just writing what they can and their success is down to forces outside their control. Even Dan Brown, believe it or not, is doing the best he can.
 
In response to direstraits' recent post (which appeared while I was typing mine), there are quite a lot of writers like this. Helen Fielding for example, after the success of the Bridget Jones books, wanted to do something more substantial and spent three years on a family saga set in the north of England. In the end she realised it wasn't good enough and scrapped it, opting for the easier to write (for her) but less satisfying (for her) Olivia Joules and the Overactive Imagination. In other words she finds herself trapped in the market for comic chick-lit even though she would like to do more, but she knows she doesn't have the ability, because she's tried. It's the classic novelist equivalent of the comic who wants to play Hamlet. Whether that would affect one's self-respect is a moot point, but it would certainly be very frustrating and depressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top