Which would you take?

[vrabinec]

Saw this question posed on another site. Which would you choose: writing a manuscript on the order of Twilight which fills your coffers to the top, but isn't necessarily considered all that well written, or wiritng a "classic" which is studied by school children for centuries, but it becomes a "classic" posthumously, so you never know?

[SarahMacManus]

The first. So I could afford to write whatever I bloody well wanted to afterward. :)

[Rushie]

Twilight. I think a lot of "classics" suck and are just ways for academia to intellectually lord it over schoolchildren.

[DeleyanLee]

Something the order of Twilight, Harry Potter, DaVinci Code and the like.

The thing about most of the "classics" of literature is that they were the success stories of commercial fiction of their time. Something about them hit a chord that allows them to still be read decades, centuries after their original publication. Gotta make the first mark before the second can be reached as far as I can see.

[ChristineR]

How many children's classics are still read by children anyhow? Books like Treasure Island and Little Women come to mind, but they're mostly read by adults as far as I can tell. Everyone knows Alice In Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz...how many children have actually read the originals, as opposed to the Disney and MGM versions? Beatrix Potter and Pooh are still read, but they're very simple books, not comparable to Harry Potter or Twilight.

Children don't really have the intellectual capacity to comprehend things like the civil war or sailing ships unless they've had some direct experience with them. That's why children like to read books that take place in fanciful versions of their own world. Harry Potter is going to seem terribly dated in fifty years, and young children will probably not read it because they won't know what a flying station wagon or wild football (Quidditch) match would be like.

[Charlie Horse]

I'm more into the immediate gratification. Besides, I wouldn't give a rat's butt if I had written something that successful.

[Feidb]

I would go for the fun stuff, mainly because that's all I'm interested in, in the first place. I would never read a classic as I don't care for literary fiction. If I became successful, I would continue writing what I'd read. I am a hard-core genre reader AND writer.

I read some classics in high school and they were awful. Just not my thing. Most recently, I tried to read an Edgar Allen Poe "classic" and it was horribly written.

I know just as many readers and writers that wouldn't touch genre fiction with a ten foot pole (okay it's a cliche, sue me).

[vrabinec]

Okay, just remember, if you select the money, the "fun stuff", your work will be read this year, and next year, but in ten years, nobody will know it ever existed except for a handful of librarians. If it's a classic, two hundred years from now, your name will live on.

[ClaudiaGray]

You'd be lucky as hell to write either.

[James D. Macdonald]

Classics are not all, or even mostly, "literary" fiction.

[scarletpeaches]

You'd be lucky as hell to write either.

I don't believe in luck.

I believe in 'bloody hard work' and 'making my own fate'.

[Ken Schneider]

You would first have to answer the question, "What's my dream as a writer."

[scope]

It's a cruel world out there. Give me a book like Twilight all the time.

[vrabinec]

I've never seen so many people squirm. This is the equivalent of inventing the pet rock and getting wealthy doing it, or inventing the telephone, dying broke because nobody's using it while you're still alive, but being remembered for the invention.

Both are good ideas in their own right. You think you have a good book written when you're done with your classic, you worked long and hard at it, but nobody appreciates it while you're alive. The money book, you write, you know it's catchy, but you also know there are books out there better written than yours that aren't making the money you're making.

Think Mozart and Saliere.

[AllieB]

The second. But "my dream as a writer" is to create the most beautiful piece of literature that I can possibly come up with...not to quit my day job.

[IceCreamEmpress]

The thing about most of the "classics" of literature is that they were the success stories of commercial fiction of their time.

Yes and no. Most of the classic authors we read today were outsold by now-forgotten writers of market-focused fiction. Dickens really is the exception here; Jane Austen and the Brontes, for example, were vastly outsold by Maria Edgeworth and other "moral novelists," and Fitzgerald and Hemingway were vastly outsold by writers like Booth Tarkington, Anne Douglas Sedgwick, and Dorothy Canfield Fisher, not to mention genre writers of the day like Zane Grey and Edgar Wallace.

Bestsellerdom is not enough on its own to guarantee a literary legacy. Beaumont and Fletcher were more popular, in their day, than Shakespeare. Poe could hardly make a living as a writer, while his contemporary George Washington Harris accumulated a tidy fortune.

I think that 100 years from now people will still be reading Stephen King and J.K. Rowling, but not Dan Brown or Stephenie Meyer. Mastery is what lasts; even page-turning plots and appeal to reader wish-fulfillment don't overcome barely competent prose and flat characters. Nobody reads E. Phillips Oppenheim or Harold Bell Wright or Vincent Blasco Ibanez or Ouida today, but they were once blockbuster bestsellers in the Brown and Meyer mold.

And, oh! I didn't answer the question. I'd much rather write a book that was well-received by readers than one that gained posthumous acclaim from schoolteachers and professors of literature.

[Bubastes]

I don't see any squirming going on, but maybe that's just me. Give me the money, honey! Knowing that I gave so many readers a bit of escapist fun is the best reward I can think of. I don't care about being remembered. That's the ego talking anyway. Who cares what happens after I'm dead? I'll be DEAD.

No matter what, though, I'll write the best stories I possibly can and keep working on the craft. That's a given. But I'm also aware that my best efforts may never rise to "classic" level, and that's okay too.

[vrabinec]

I don't see any squirming going on, but maybe that's just me. .

Lot of squirming going on at the site I took this question from. People want both. But money seems to be winning out. They'd rather rake the money in and be wealthy Saliere on the balcony, knowing peniless Mozart is better. Amazing how many people take the money over the respect.

[Bubastes]

Why is it amazing? Posthumous respect doesn't pay the light bill.

Amadeus is fiction, and it goes much deeper than the money/respect false dichotomy. Yes, I'm an enormous fan of the play.

[Toothpaste]

Okay, just remember, if you select the money, the "fun stuff", your work will be read this year, and next year, but in ten years, nobody will know it ever existed except for a handful of librarians. If it's a classic, two hundred years from now, your name will live on.

You didn't say this in the original post, no fair changing the rules halfway through.

I actually find this tough to answer, because of course I want both. I also have to ask myself would I be compromising doing the first, or blissfully unaware? What I mean is, Meyer doesn't think her writing is bad, even if lots of other people do. So if I wrote the next book a la Twilight, and was proud of what I did, made lots of money from it etc, despite the critical response, why would I not be happy and proud in the moment? How would I know it was going to fade into nothingness in a few years? The ignorance part of it, makes it far more palatable.

But knowing for sure that my book would fade into nothingness in the Twilight option, but being known for all time in the classic version . . . I'd probably take the latter. But I would take the latter with the comfort of knowing in time my books would be a big deal.

If I was making this choice with the ignorance of just living life in the present, I'd probably choose the first.

And to be fair, the money thing is a pretty big deal.

And I agree, no squirming here. Just because people on another site are squirming, doesn't mean you should apply that to this one. We are all unique after all . . .

[Little Bird]

How many children's classics are still read by children anyhow? Books like Treasure Island and Little Women come to mind, but they're mostly read by adults as far as I can tell. Everyone knows Alice In Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz...how many children have actually read the originals, as opposed to the Disney and MGM versions? Beatrix Potter and Pooh are still read, but they're very simple books, not comparable to Harry Potter or Twilight.

Children don't really have the intellectual capacity to comprehend things like the civil war or sailing ships unless they've had some direct experience with them. That's why children like to read books that take place in fanciful versions of their own world. Harry Potter is going to seem terribly dated in fifty years, and young children will probably not read it because they won't know what a flying station wagon or wild football (Quidditch) match would be like.

Are you serious? My nine-year-old's current favorite books are Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson, and White Fang, by Jack London. And I never give my kids abridged books.

When he was six he read the original Peter Pan, though The Trumpet of the Swan replaced it as his favorite a year later.

My six-year-old daughter isn't quite as precocious in her ability to read on her own, but she spends hours attempting to read Charlotte's Web and begs me to read Heidi and The Wind in the Willows aloud—again.

Maybe they don't understand everything, but they understand enough to appreciate a great story, and the things that are strange to them raise questions that are a launching pad for learning. Thanks to Kidnapped, my son wanted to read everything about Scotland he could get his hands on, and he now knows more about it than I do.

I'm no snob—I'd take Twilight's success for the reasons already mentioned, so that I could write other (hopefully better) stuff later. And I love "genre" fiction. But let's give the kids some credit.

[vrabinec]

And I agree, no squirming here. Just because people on another site are squirming, doesn't mean you should apply that to this one. We are all unique after all . . .

At the time I posted that 6 of 11 responses were one or the other (the ones that want both in some fashion are a non-response). On the other site 10 of 21 responded. Falls within the realm of squirming in my book.

BTW, I had a hard time answering as well, and haven't really made up my mind.

[Toothpaste]

I see squirming as discomfort, not people making reasoned answers that sometimes might result in a non-choice. But whatever. Just seems weird dissing people when you want their answers is all (and yes, I see telling people they're squirming as a negative).

[virtue_summer]

Children don't really have the intellectual capacity to comprehend things like the civil war or sailing ships unless they've had some direct experience with them. That's why children like to read books that take place in fanciful versions of their own world. Harry Potter is going to seem terribly dated in fifty years, and young children will probably not read it because they won't know what a flying station wagon or wild football (Quidditch) match would be like.

I think you underestimate children. Sure they might need to ask more questions and they might not understand some things, but there are lots of adults who read books with references they don't get as well. I mean think of how many children are crazy about dinosaurs, or about castles and knights and kings and queens. They don't have direct experience with any of these things and yet a lot of kids are crazy about them. When I was a kid I loved the American Girl books which were all historical and didn't exactly relate to my direct experiences in terms of details but which fascinated me none the less. Here's the thing: It's not the flying car, etc, that draw kids into things like Harry Potter (although they might love those as well), it's Harry and Ron and Hermione. It's the relationships. It's the common experiences that most of the kids would share with the characters that are not confined to a time period such as dealing with bullies. The main reason older novels end up not being read much by kids has little to do with their concerning sailing ships or the Civil War and everything to do with a fascination with the new that our society has and secondly with the language which does change and is more confined to time period while the stories aren't (a parallel for adults is Shakespeare whose language is difficult for many today to comprehend right away and which scares people off but whose stories still draw people in).

Oh, to the original question: I guess I'd lean more toward Twilight than the book that only becomes popular after I'm dead. I'm selfish. I want to know that someone enjoys my work and I don't care whether or not everyone thinks it's well written as long as it meets my own quality standards and those of my future readers. You can't please everyone.

[vrabinec]

Just seems weird dissing people when you want their answers is all (and yes, I see telling people they're squirming as a negative).

Well, if it was a diss, that was unintended. Not sure how marvelling at how difficult the choice seems to be for some is a diss. Doesn't make them inferior somehow to those who make the choice easily. (At least, I hope not, since, as I said, I haven't picked one). But, I'll back away, hat in hand. Don't want anyone pissed off about it.

[MumblingSage]

writing a manuscript on the order of Twilight which fills your coffers to the top, but isn't necessarily considered all that well written,

This one. I know I won't ever write something that goes against my values to, say, the order of Twilight (or Ayn Rand), so I can say with confidence that I would not be ashamed to be a barely sufficient commercial writer. I'd entertain a bunch of people, be able to retire to Mackinac Island, and then quietly pass away without hurting anybody. All good by me.

Anyway, if I became a classic I'd run the risk of alienating generations of schoolchildren.

[Phaeal]

I was reading stuff like Hiroshima in the third grade and Gone with the Wind in the fifth, so as a former child and on behalf of future children, I'm insulted by the implication that kids are too unimaginative to read books that aren't set in THEIR little time and THEIR little place. Talk about low expectations.

I'm also confused by the implication that if your book is to be successful in the present, it can't be well written. As much as I'm always discovering crummy bestsellers, much to my distress, you CAN have both quality of product and quantity of sales.

Kudos for wisdom to both James D. Macdonald and Ice Cream Empress for clearing up some of the mystification of the "classics." I don't think there was a cult of the literary versus the commercial or genre much before MFA programs became prevalent. Jane Austen wrote romance. Moby Dick is action/adventure. 1984 is dystopian SF. Chaucer was entertaining the court, not dreaming of readers centuries into the future.

At any rate, the writer does not determine whether his book reaps him riches and/or endures as a classic. Readers determine these things. The writer's job is to write the stories he must write the best he can, then present that work for consideration.

So I take that option C.

[Bubastes]

At any rate, the writer does not determine whether his book reaps him riches and/or endures as a classic. Readers determine these things. The writer's job is to write the stories he must write the best he can, then present that work for consideration.


Quoted for truth. And I'd much rather have the respect of the readers than the respect of the literati or what have you.

[vrabinec]

This one. I know I won't ever write something that goes against my values to, say, the order of Twilight (or Ayn Rand), so I can say with confidence that I would not be ashamed to be a barely sufficient commercial writer. I'd entertain a bunch of people, be able to retire to Mackinac Island, and then quietly pass away without hurting anybody. All good by me.

Anyway, if I became a classic I'd run the risk of alienating generations of schoolchildren.

Ayn Rand goes against your values? Wow, that's pretty much where I got mine.

[Phaeal]

Ayn Rand goes against your values? Wow, that's pretty much where I got mine.

Heh, I'll join you in Galt's Gulch, vrabinec. I think if more people read the second half of Galt's oath, they'd, um, squirm less over it. ;)

ROFL thinking about Twilight and Atlas Shrugged on the same reading (or nonreading) list. Now I'm being attacked by the idea of a Beavis and Butthead debate:

Heh heh, what if it was a fight between Stephenie Meyer and Ayn Rand?

Ayn would kick Stephenie's ass.

What if Stephenie had an ultrasonic weapon that could disrupt all known life forms?

Then Stephenie would own Ayn.

Aynus, heh heh.

Hunh hunh, hunh hunh.

[C.M.C.]

If I'm not allowed to split the difference, I'd take the 'classic'. I don't want to write badly enough to put my name on something I can't find value in.

[ClaudiaGray]

Count me in the "Ayn Rand is odious" camp. Her storytelling has a lot of sweep and power, but her ideology is laughable.

The only reason I posted my opinion on Rand is to show just how tenuous a prize "respect" is. Money, meanwhile, is accepted for all debts, public and private.

[Toothpaste]

Well, if it was a diss, that was unintended. Not sure how marvelling at how difficult the choice seems to be for some is a diss. Doesn't make them inferior somehow to those who make the choice easily. (At least, I hope not, since, as I said, I haven't picked one). But, I'll back away, hat in hand. Don't want anyone pissed off about it.

I guess for me it was just a strange word choice, making it sound like people were getting all uncomfortable and childlike (as it's kids we talk of squirming, ie in their seats at a movie theatre or something), as opposed to having a very adult conversation about it. But that's probably just my perspective, not a big deal at all. I know I'm not "pissed off" about it, and I'm the only one who brought it up, so I doubt anyone else is either. No worries hon!

[CaroGirl]

I choose classic. I already have a day job that pays the bills and I'm definitely not in this writing gig for the money. If I were, I'd be pretty disappointed.

[Phaeal]

Count me in the "Ayn Rand is odious" camp. Her storytelling has a lot of sweep and power, but her ideology is laughable.

The only reason I posted my opinion on Rand is to show just how tenuous a prize "respect" is. Money, meanwhile, is accepted for all debts, public and private.

Heh heh, yeah, her storytelling kicks Stephenie's ass.

But Ayn doesn't have vampires.

Um, doesn't Ellsworth Toohey count? He's got, like, really white legs.

How do you know that, dude?

Heh heh.

Hunh hunh.

Shut up, Beavis and Butthead. But here's another literary truth. Write something that inspires both an amazed "Yes!" and a horrified "No!" and you're on the way to classicdom.

Yeah, controversy rocks.

Yeah.

[fringle]

1. I'll answer the question and say give me either or and I'll be happy.

2. I really disagree with this:
How many children's classics are still read by children anyhow? Books like Treasure Island and Little Women come to mind, but they're mostly read by adults as far as I can tell. Everyone knows Alice In Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz...how many children have actually read the originals, as opposed to the Disney and MGM versions? Beatrix Potter and Pooh are still read, but they're very simple books, not comparable to Harry Potter or Twilight.

Children don't really have the intellectual capacity to comprehend things like the civil war or sailing ships unless they've had some direct experience with them. That's why children like to read books that take place in fanciful versions of their own world. Harry Potter is going to seem terribly dated in fifty years, and young children will probably not read it because they won't know what a flying station wagon or wild football (Quidditch) match would be like.


My 7 y.o. has read, just from this list, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Beatrix Potter books, all of the Pooh stories and is working her way through the HP series. I have no doubt that she will read Little Woman while she's still a child as I did and most of my childhood friends did as well (for reference I'm 32).

[MumblingSage]

Ayn Rand goes against your values? Wow, that's pretty much where I got mine.

I am a woman, therefore I cannot be an objectivist. Point in fact, that annoying feminist side of me is the reason I dislike Twilight, too.

The only reason I posted my opinion on Rand is to show just how tenuous a prize "respect" is. Money, meanwhile, is accepted for all debts, public and private.
Very good insight (and capitalist, too :D)!



Going slightly off-topic to avoid going farther off-topic in the future, is there a thread for discussing Ayn Rand somewhere on this forum? If not, somebody should probably start one. Is so, I'm heading there...

[vrabinec]

But Ayn doesn't have vampires.

Reason and logic eat vampires for lunch.

I used to wonder if authors gravitated toward their genre based on whether they are objective or not. But it's gotta be more of a case of their philosophy influencing the type of story they write. Maybe the objectivists who write romance make the MC earn the love of the love interest, while the altruists have the MC yen for it, only to have it handed to the MC, simply because he/she needs it.

[CaroGirl]

Going slightly off-topic to avoid going farther off-topic in the future, is there a thread for discussing Ayn Rand somewhere on this forum? If not, somebody should probably start one. Is so, I'm heading there...
There are two in Book Club, but both are for the same book.

Atlas Shrugged
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109372&highlight=rand

Another for Atlas Shrugged
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109372&highlight=rand

[Phaeal]

Reason and logic eat vampires for lunch.

I used to wonder if authors gravitated toward their genre based on whether they are objective or not. But it's gotta be more of a case of their philosophy influencing the type of story they write. Maybe the objectivists who write romance make the MC earn the love of the love interest, while the altruists have the MC yen for it, only to have it handed to the MC, simply because he/she needs it.

Just give me Francisco d'Anconia -- I promise I deserve him. ;)

[MumblingSage]

Franciso and Hank Rearden are an adorable romance, honestly.

As for the rest...I'm sorry, Ayn, I don't need a man to look up to, and I don't think a man who acts 'contemptously' and 'like a slave owner' (describing the Objectivist love interest of "We the Living") is at all sexy. It says something that I find her friendship between two men far more romantic than anything between, well, anyone else.

Explain how Howard Roark earned anything from Dominique, for instance.

That said, on the other hand we have Edward somehow having a right to let the air out of Bella's tires and spy on her while sleeping. Eh, creepy all around.

Another thing on Ayn Rand, closer again to the heart of this thread: What about being both commerically successful and a classic? I can't argue that she's both, and like a lot of other people I honestly admire her writing style--just not what she chooses to express with it.

[vrabinec]

Explain how Howard Roark earned anything from Dominique, for instance.

He was good at what he did. He was sure of himself. He believed that everything in life was better when it was earned than if it was given to you. So, he earned her respect. As she said, he wasn't the most handsome guy in the room, some women (admitedly not all or even most) find a man who is sure of himself and competent appealing. They like a man who's affection they have to earn, rather than having it tossed at them just for being who they are or for their looks.

[Feidb]

Mr. McDonald,

You are quite right that not all classics are literary.

Everyone,

I don't care whether I'm remembered or not. If someone gets pleasure out of what I wrote, I'll be happy. I'm certainly happy writing it!

I don't really care all that much about either money or fame when it comes to my writing. Sure, I'd like to win the Megabucks, but I don't design my life around that extremely remote possibility.

Yes, writing a novel and getting paid for it would be nice, but I will never hedge my bets on it, and it is not the reason I write.

My best reward is first, writing the story. Second is to have my stories appreciated by someone else. Third, is to get published.

I am also a realist. What I like to write, and what I'm interesed in are not necessarily mainstream, but I'm not about to write something I'd never read just to make money. I already have a day job.

[Rushie]

I am a woman, therefore I cannot be an objectivist. Point in fact, that annoying feminist side of me is the reason I dislike Twilight, too.

As for the rest...I'm sorry, Ayn, I don't need a man to look up to, and I don't think a man who acts 'contemptously' and 'like a slave owner' (describing the Objectivist love interest of "We the Living") is at all sexy.



But Ayn Rand's women are incredibly strong and self sufficient. Exactly what I thought feminism wanted women to be? I took all the male-domination stuff in Rand's books to be just sexual bedroom stuff. And when Rand says the highest value in the world is a man's productivity, I take it she means "man" as in "human", like "man OR woman"? I never get the feeling Rand puts women down. If anything, she made me feel like I could own a whole railroad.

[Bryan M Stephenson]

I have to say give me the twilight version. One entertains some other persons children. The other one puts mine through Harvard. My goal is to walk into a book store and see my book being sold. period. After all i am sure someone reading this thread has no clue who Samuel Clemons is.
Right now thirty million teenage girls increased their reading skills with something that will be forgotten in 100 years. So be it. The DVD will still be playing on SCIFI and AMC then. :-)
Who knows what fame and fortune my children will make from the money received from a Twilight like career? Any fame they do receive will start include that thier father was a writer. Works for me.

[BravoYankee]

I'm too vain and poor to try and pull off an Achilles routine.

[Phaeal]

I have no clue about Samuel Clemons. Samuel Clemens, on the other hand, would have enjoyed dueling with Ayn Rand. He probably would have watched Beavis and Butthead, too. He enjoyed making money on his books. By the end of his life, he was probably too cynical to worry about becoming a classic, but he did become one anyhow.

Cisco and Hank are darlings, aren't they? But Cisco is still mine. Mine, I tell you!

[scarletpeaches]

I have to say give me the twilight version. One entertains some other persons children. The other one puts mine through Harvard. My goal is to walk into a book store and see my book being sold. period. After all i am sure someone reading this thread has no clue who Samuel Clemons is.

And I'm sure still more know how to spell that name.

Right now thirty million teenage girls increased their reading skills...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha that's funny. No really. It is.

You slay me.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! :ROFL:

...with something that will be forgotten in 100 years. So be it. The DVD will still be playing on SCIFI and AMC then. :-)
Who knows what fame and fortune my children will make from the money received from a Twilight like career? Any fame they do receive will start include that thier father was a writer. Works for me.

Hmm.

[Etola]

I'm also confused by the implication that if your book is to be successful in the present, it can't be well written. As much as I'm always discovering crummy bestsellers, much to my distress, you CAN have both quality of product and quantity of sales.

I don't think that was necessarily being implied in the original question. I just took it to be a straight hypothetical.

That said, I don't know what my own answer would be, since my writing goals haven't extended past "get published" yet. But I would never deliberately go out of my way to churn out something basic for some easy money; I want everything I write to be the best I can do at that time.

However, assuming that the poorly-written book didn't have to be my only book, then hypothetically I would choose that option, knowing that I would have time (and the resources) to improve my skills. I can forgive myself for a clunky start to my career if I can better myself over time, and maybe have a chance to give my readers something better to remember me by.

[Quossum]

Which would you choose: writing a manuscript on the order of Twilight which fills your coffers to the top, but isn't necessarily considered all that well written, or wiritng a "classic" which is studied by school children for centuries, but it becomes a "classic" posthumously, so you never know?

I plan to write at least one of each. Possibly with the same book.

--Q

[Bryan M Stephenson]

Do not post on thread when eating nachos and trying to make it look like you are working. :)

Sorry about my typo's and spelling issues. I apologize profusely to Mr. Twain.

My point was that he did not get fame for his work, his pen name did. trying to show that fame is not that big of a deal.
failed to express my point though.

[RavenCorinnCarluk]

I may count as a squirmer with my answer here. I don't care if I ever become a "classic" author. I really think a lot of books hailed as classics are overrated, or almost randomly picked because one person somewhere liked it. (I've never understood why The Great Gatsby is so awesome.)

I want my stories to be liked, and would love to see it as popular as some others, but I don't want to compromise my stories just to get sold. I have no desire to compromise my skills, or my visions, just to become a best seller. I'd rather linger in obscurity.

[Memnon624]

I'll take the money. If the book is popular enough in my lifetime to amass me a Bill Gates-esque fortune, then I'll blow it before I die on the mother of all pyramids, thus ensuring my immortality . . . :)

Best,

Scott

[cletus]

The thought of some middle-aged hag of an English teacher telling a teenager their idea of what I meant when I wrote something is wrong, based on what a textbook tells the hag I supposedly meant, fills me with dread.

[ElsaM]

Maybe I'm biased because I actually enjoyed studying classics in highschool and really enjoyed reading many of the childhood classics, but I'd choose posthumous classic status over immediate money making. That's assuming at least a few people were enjoying my book while I was still alive.

[Etola]

The thought of some middle-aged hag of an English teacher telling a teenager their idea of what I meant when I wrote something is wrong, based on what a textbook tells the hag I supposedly meant, fills me with dread.

Not that I am necessarily a fan of how English is taught in our modern-day education system, but I don't think you can hold it against English teachers for trying. Not all of them are middle-aged hags cynically quoting from textbooks. When I was in high school, I tended to be more put off by the indifferent and often scornful attitudes of my classmates than by my teachers, who were, more often than not, quite passionate about what they were trying to teach.

And to play devil's advocate here: regardless of when an author becomes famous (today or a hundred years from now), there will be people interpreting the book differently from what the author intended. And many of those people will present their interpretation as "What the Author Really Meant."

[vrabinec]

Not all of them are middle-aged hags

My 11th grade teacher, Mrs. Brandell, was smokin'. Probably the only teacher in any of my schools I hoped would end up in a Playboy "teachers of the northeast" spread. Good teacher too.

[AnonymousWriter]

I'd go for a classic. I'd love for students to study my work. It doesn't particularly matter to me if I was dead before my work was recognised. I'm not particularly bothered about fame to be honest.

[Susan Breen]

I don't accept the choice.
I don't see why I can't try to write something with literary merit that will sell well. And why would I want to get myself into a mindset of thinking that every writing decision is about choosing crap versus art? There has to be a plan C!

[unicornjam]

You guys are making my skin CRAWL. For real. I'd rather write a classic novel.

P.S. I do agree with Ms. Susan Breen, though!

[The Lonely One]

So...some of you would take millions of dollars even being essentially mocked as a joke among professional circles? Being called a sham and having fangirls swipe your idea to write their own crappy self-published book? Even to have a movie made about your book that is more a joke than your book was in the first place?

Let's be honest. You can sell out to aim for riches, but 10 to 1 says you'll never get them.

So really, you're just selling out.

[Delhomeboy]

And to play devil's advocate here: regardless of when an author becomes famous (today or a hundred years from now), there will be people interpreting the book differently from what the author intended. And many of those people will present their interpretation as "What the Author Really Meant."

Are you a Roland Barthes fan, Etola?

And as for the question, to quote Jerry Maguire, Show me the money! I'd love for my book to be remembered after I'm dead, but if it isn't, what do I care? I'm dead.

[Bubastes]

So...some of you would take millions of dollars even being essentially mocked as a joke among professional circles? Being called a sham and having fangirls swipe your idea to write their own crappy self-published book? Even to have a movie made about your book that is more a joke than your book was in the first place?

Let's be honest. You can sell out to aim for riches, but 10 to 1 says you'll never get them.

So really, you're just selling out.

I can only write the best stories I possibly can. If the literati think my best efforts are a joke, well, I can't do anything about that, can I?

[scarletpeaches]

That's different to setting out to pander to the lowest common denominator, though.

[cletus]

The love of millions of readers > the love of other writers and critics.

The pay is better, too.

[scarletpeaches]

The love of millions of readers > the love of other writers and critics.

The pay is better, too.

'Payment' doesn't just refer to money.

Some would say self-respect is far superior to green.

ETA: And in case you've forgotten, those other writers you're so ready to dismiss are your peers and hopefully, professionals who know what they're talking about.

[Bubastes]

The love of millions of readers > the love of other writers and critics.

The pay is better, too.

Exactly.

[cletus]

'Payment' doesn't just refer to money.

Some would say self-respect is far superior to green.

The OP doesn't mention self-respect or setting out to pander to the lowest common denominator.

"writing a manuscript which fills your coffers to the top, but isn't necessarily considered all that well written"

Considered by whom?

[scarletpeaches]

The OP doesn't mention self-respect or setting out to pander to the lowest common denominator.

"writing a manuscript which fills your coffers to the top, but isn't necessarily considered all that well written"

Considered by whom?

Writing a book which isn't considered to be well-written = means its errors are obvious = means its errors would be easily fixed, if only I could have been bothered = I didnt, so = loss of self-respect.

Or maybe that's just me.

[Delhomeboy]

Considered by whom?

By the all knowing shadow-mafia known as the "Literary Elite" of course. No one knows who the real members are. Anyone who has tried to find out has met their untimely death...be afraid. be very afraid.

[Bubastes]

Writing a book which isn't considered to be well-written = means its errors are obvious = means its errors would be easily fixed, if only I could have been bothered = I didnt, so = loss of self-respect.

Or maybe that's just me.

And if opinions differ on whether the book is well-written, then what?

Heck, not everyone agrees that Revolutionary Road (one of my favorite books) is well-written. If people can't even agree on that, then trying to please the critics is a futile exercise.

[maestrowork]

I don't accept the choice.
I don't see why I can't try to write something with literary merit that will sell well. And why would I want to get myself into a mindset of thinking that every writing decision is about choosing crap versus art? There has to be a plan C!

I agree. The whole premise of this thread is flawed. It's as if we can only have one but not the other, that we shouldn't aim for doing both. Granted, both are out of our control, but what we can control is write something of quality and also commercial. Why does it have to be money OR art? Plenty of writers manage to do both, and their books will still be read long after we're all dead.

If I REALLY must choose between money and quality, I'd choose quality any day. I'd rather be known as the dead guy who wrote awesome stuff and had 102 different TV miniseries and movies made of his books, or a few biographies made into movies and a thousand Ray Wong Book Clubs in the world... then a "fleeting" success and be known as a hack writer. The thing with success w/o quality is that it comes with both good and bad stuff: money, fame, and the world's scrutiny. If you can bear all that, great. But there's something romantic and poetic about living on forever long after you're gone, and no amount of money can buy that.

[dawinsor]

Wow. Those choices are both way better than what I have now! Is this one of those win-win situations? :-)

[The Lonely One]

Writing a book which isn't considered to be well-written = means its errors are obvious = means its errors would be easily fixed, if only I could have been bothered = I didnt, so = loss of self-respect.

Or maybe that's just me.

In the context of this thread I'm not thinking "not well-written" so much as in "errors," but rather in ailments which are more subjective but which there is somewhat of a consensus on at extremes.

Having many "ailments" which are more or less agreed to have flattened your idea into cardboard, but being OK with that to make millions, I consider selling out.

I mean, do any of us here make more than a lower-middle class income at best with our writing? What are the chances? Why give in to that ideology of being "teh next big thing"?

[scarletpeaches]

And if opinions differ on whether the book is well-written, then what?

Heck, not everyone agrees that Revolutionary Road (one of my favorite books) is well-written. If people can't even agree on that, then trying to please the critics is a futile exercise.

I'm not saying you should try to please the critics.

But thinking one has to pander to the lowest common denominator (and yes, that is inherent in the question "Money or respect among your peers?") to survive is a falsehood I'm not prepared to perpetuate.

There's money to be made in writing well; not just in mediocrity.

And personally I'd listen to a literary critic a thousand times before I took a Twilight fan's reading habits into account when writing a book.

In the context of this thread I'm not thinking "not well-written" so much as in "errors," but rather in ailments which are more subjective but which there is somewhat of a consensus on at extremes.

If there's a consensus, then why not at least look into it to see if there's any merit in refining your book accordingly? That's not to say you should listen to other people every step of the way otherwise it stops being your book and becomes a community project but if you know what you write is going to sell well but be mocked by certain sections of society who read a lot and know their stuff...why not write a book that sells well and is appreciated by the well-read? It's certainly possible to do that.

Having many "ailments" which are more or less agreed to have flattened your idea into cardboard, but being OK with that to make millions, I consider selling out.

As do I.

If the author's aware of his book's faults, I don't see why he doesn't just bloody fix them. Not to do so is lazy.

I mean, do any of us here make more than a lower-middle class income at best with our writing? What are the chances? Why give in to that ideology of being "teh next big thing"?

Why not?

Why not strive for the best and avoid mediocrity in all walks of life? Why compromise? Why not try to do your best work in whatever you do, whether it's writing a book or scrubbing the toilet, even?

[Bubastes]

I agree. The whole premise of this thread is flawed. It's as if we can only have one but not the other, that we shouldn't aim for doing both.

I agree, and I don't know why this false dichotomy keeps popping up every few months.

[Quossum]

The thought of some middle-aged hag of an English teacher telling a teenager their idea of what I meant when I wrote something is wrong, based on what a textbook tells the hag I supposedly meant, fills me with dread.

Wow. Ouch.

--Quossum, Middle-aged hag English teacher who tries to help teenagers figure out what authors meant (granted, I usually use my own brain, but not all textbooks are absolute dreck)

[The Lonely One]

Well I agree the general direction Literature Education has taken over the years is snooty if not pretentious. Though not all of it is that way, and it's important not to let a stereotype overrule individuals like Quossum. Speaking for a dead man can be bad manners, but hey, at least your name's still on someone's tongue, right?

I will perpetuate that: it beats selling out for money and not even succeeding.

[James D. Macdonald]

As Roger Moore once said, "I don't want to be remembered as Roger Moore the great actor, I want to be remembered as Roger Moore the rich actor."


I'll take the tons of money right now, then fool everyone and have the same book become a classic.

Bwah ha ha ha ha!

[Phaeal]

Do not post on thread when eating nachos and trying to make it look like you are working. :)

Sorry about my typo's and spelling issues. I apologize profusely to Mr. Twain.

My point was that he did not get fame for his work, his pen name did. trying to show that fame is not that big of a deal.
failed to express my point though.

Actually, who "Mark Twain" was was no secret, so Clemens did get the fame as well as the money. And don't think the Tom Sawyer in him didn't enjoy that fame, too. ;)

[cletus]

Wow. Ouch.

--Quossum, Middle-aged hag English teacher who tries to help teenagers figure out what authors meant (granted, I usually use my own brain, but not all textbooks are absolute dreck)
The remark was aimed at two teachers from back in high school, one who wasn't even middle-aged. One taught English, the other History. The common denominator was if it wasn't in the teacher's edition of the text book it was wrong. How can you expect students to think for themselves when the teacher can't?

The OP says nothing about dumbing down or writing sloppy on purpose. Money now vs critical acclaim when I'm dead? All the critics can come poop on my grave if they want. I'll be dead. I won't know or care.

[Phaeal]

By the all knowing shadow-mafia known as the "Literary Elite" of course. No one knows who the real members are. Anyone who has tried to find out has met their untimely death...be afraid. be very afraid.

Yeah, and we have kick-ass home brew at all our meetings, because we're way too good for, sniff, commercial beer. :e2drunk:

(That's me on the right.)

[Etola]

Are you a Roland Barthes fan, Etola?

I studied him a little back in my college days, but I never really was a fan of theoretical literary criticism.

[maestrowork]

As Roger Moore once said, "I don't want to be remembered as Roger Moore the great actor, I want to be remembered as Roger Moore the rich actor."


I'll take the tons of money right now, then fool everyone and have the same book become a classic.

Bwah ha ha ha ha!

That's exactly what Michael Caine is doing -- he openly admits that he's doing it for money. He's done some really crappy movies but also so classics. Kathy Joosten told me the same thing -- she's in it for the money. But you know what? Caine is known as a master actor, and Kathy won two Emmys in the last three years.

That proves my point, you can have both. And that you really have no control over what other people consider you... you just do the work, make the money, and let the rest take care of itself. It doesn't mean, however, that you don't constantly improve yourself and work on your craft and be the best you can be. Thus the faux dichotomy of this thread.

So it comes down to: Do you want to be Vincent Van Gogh, or Some-Rich-Writer/Artist-Guy-You've-Never-Heard-Of?


Now, if quality is not the question -- that you can have quality while being rich and famous... the means, you get to choose between Stephen King or Vincent Van Gogh, then I'd say I want it now. Stephen King all the way. Who wouldn't? Van Gogh was a miserable bastard.

[angeliz2k]

If I had to choose, I'd go with a book that people care about for a very long time, not one that goes away in a flash. I plan to have a day job, so I don't care about making the moolah off of it . . . not that I wouldn't love to be a success AND write a good book. But I have no illusions.

[The Lonely One]

That's exactly what Michael Caine is doing -- he openly admits that he's doing it for money. He's done some really crappy movies but also so classics. Kathy Joosten told me the same thing -- she's in it for the money. But you know what? Caine is known as a master actor, and Kathy won two Emmys in the last three years.

That proves my point, you can have both. And that you really have no control over what other people consider you... you just do the work, make the money, and let the rest take care of itself. It doesn't mean, however, that you don't constantly improve yourself and work on your craft and be the best you can be. Thus the faux dichotomy of this thread.

So it comes down to: Do you want to be Vincent Van Gogh, or Some-Rich-Writer/Artist-Guy-You've-Never-Heard-Of?


Now, if quality is not the question -- that you can have quality while being rich and famous... the means, you get to choose between Stephen King or Vincent Van Gogh, then I'd say I want it now. Stephen King all the way. Who wouldn't? Van Gogh was a miserable bastard.

You have some important points here. I kind of read the question like, "will money buy your happiness?" despite having gotten the money via writing poorly but with marketing in mind. I understand the idea that you can make money and be revered as a brilliant writer, but with the chances of that happening why would anyone in their right mind write with money as a primary goal?

[Delhomeboy]

I studied him a little back in my college days, but I never really was a fan of theoretical literary criticism.

Just wondering, cause you pretty much stated the premise of his "Death of the Author" piece.

[vrabinec]

I agree. The whole premise of this thread is flawed. It's as if we can only have one but not the other, that we shouldn't aim for doing both.

The prmise isn't that you can't have both, money and fame. Obviously, it's possible. And, I'm sure the author of Twilight doesn't shoot for money only, and quality be damned. Yes, everyone should certainly shoot for both. But, the sad fact is, and history proves it, that there are many authors who fall into one of these two categories. So, IMO, asking, "If you can't have both, which would you select?" doesn't present a false dichotomy.

And I still don't know which one I'd take. I think I'm leaning toward the money. I can't pass my fame and respect down to my kids. All they'd get out of it is a little bit of pride in daddy. Money builds them houses.

[The Lonely One]

The prmise isn't that you can't have both, money and fame. Obviously, it's possible. And, I'm sure the author of Twilight doesn't shoot for money only, and quality be damned. Yes, everyone should certainly shoot for both. But, the sad fact is, and history proves it, that there are many authors who fall into one of these two categories. So, IMO, asking, "If you can't have both, which would you select?" doesn't present a false dichotomy.

And I still don't know which one I'd take. I think I'm leaning toward the money. I can't pass my fame and respect down to my kids. All they'd get out of it is a little bit of pride in daddy. Money builds them houses.

Well it breaks down more simply to a philosophical debate, I suppose. The same question could be presented on a more basic level as not having to do with literature and writing. Philosophies will always differ, but if presented with money or long-term respect and impact, I'd say piles of money aren't that comfortable to sleep on.

[maestrowork]

Let me put it this way: If I KNOW I'm a hack, I'd take the money and fame (or infamy) and run.

If I know I'm a great writer, I'd want both. I write FOR an audience, and not some imaginary friends. To me, it's not art if no one sees it.

The trouble is, there's no WAY anyone of us would know if option #2 would ever pan out. We'd be dead. So only #1 seems reasonable for most of us, realistically. And my thought is this (thus the reason why I think the original premise is flawed):

Either #1 or #1_AND_#2.

[Etola]

Just wondering, cause you pretty much stated the premise of his "Death of the Author" piece.

It was purely by accident, I assure you ;)

[Kaylee]

Both, but I'm delusional.

Life is what happens, while you're busy making other plans. -- John Lennon

[Izz]

Y'know - it's impossible to choose this: or wiritng a "classic" which is studied by school children for centuries, but it becomes a "classic" posthumously, so you never know? for the very reason stated in the question--because you can never know what will happen after you die. I'm sure for every work we consider a classic today there were others written in the same time period that were a whole lot better. A work being labelled today as a 'classic' is a fairly arbitrary process--and sometimes depends solely on the work's survival through the ages.

The entire premise of this question is circular and based on conjecture, so therefore impossible to answer.

I would happily settle for being able to write well enough and be prolific enough to make a living as a writer (and yes, that is possible, just more challenging than making a living in most fields) because writing is what i love. Whatever else happens happens.

[caitysdad]

I'm closer to Stephanie Meyer than I ever could be to Charles Dickens. I'm not looking to change the world, and the only place I should be studied is Ripley's Believe It or Not.

I try to tell the best story I can. It's my hope that a hard-working person will enjoy my work, and that I can make their difficult life a little better for a few hundred pages.

Does Stephanie Meyer owe a lot to Buffy The Vampire Slayer? Sure but people enjoy her work, which is what I'll take any day. And if people enjoy your work, the money will be there.

[backslashbaby]

I don't think I'm any good at trying to write very popular stuff anyway, so it's not a hard question :)

If all of my tricks and cleverness are overlooked or unliked till I'm dead, but then respected? Awesome! I just like to think that some readers somewhere (or some time) enjoy how I put it together and have that "I like books like this!" moment.

That's really hard to pull off, so yeah! That works for me :)