how much of a hack are you?

[preyer]

honestly now, how much of your storytelling is what you consider to be hack? what does hack even mean to you? and is it a bad thing?

(i'd wanted to do a 'quiz' kind of thing, but i'm just too tired atm.)

[Storm Dream]

I've always considered a hack to be someone who just churns out writing.

That, or someone who writes stuff that isn't considered "important" (i.e. a big literary work).

I like to call myself a hack, but then again, I have a self-deprecating sense of humor. :)

[JoNightshade]

I think a hack is someone, as Storm said, who just churns out whatever sells best.

I am slow and I don't write stuff that sells.

I am not a hack. ;)

[ottorino]

A hack is someone with craft but no art.

[David I]

A hack is someone you don't like who writes roughly as well as you do.

[Sunkissed27f]

A hack is preyer and myself! JK!!

A hack is a person who has the uncanny ability to decipher some ones writing techniques.

E.g. Knowing the ending of the story before it has ever been read/written.

I wouldn't call them some one who "steals" your written style, spits out some literary piece, then goes on to make fame, either more than or to yours or any at all.

A hack just has very sharp interpretation skills and or problem solving.
A sorta reading between the lines skill thats SUPAH cool!!

These skills give them the ability to "see the future".

Pueewwwyyy.....I agree with you all.


Shyte I am not making sense again!

[ottorino]

A hack is preyer and myself! JK!!

A hack is a person who has the uncanny ability to decipher some ones writing techniques.

E.g. Knowing the ending of the story before it has ever been read/written.

I wouldn't call them some one who "steals" your written style, spits out some literary piece, then goes on to make fame, either more than or to yours or any at all.

A hack just has very sharp interpretation skills and or problem solving.
A sorta reading between the lines skill thats SUPAH cool!!

These skills give them the ability to "see the future".

Pueewwwyyy.....I agree with you all.


Shyte I am not making sense again!

I think you're confused with a "hacker."

[Sunkissed27f]

Yeah, me too.

I am sleepy and being completely retarded forgive me.

A hack is not a person?

What's the difference between a hack and a hacker?

Hack to me sounds like an action...but in here it looks like people are describing it as a person.

A hack to me would be a story that is written like some one else's.
A hacker would be the person writing the story, no?

[JohnDavidPaxton]

A hack is anyone who writes for the sole purpose of making money.

I am not a hack. I'm only about 92% hack.

[Sunkissed27f]

Well, if the material a hack writes is deemed lousy, then why do they get published and make money?

Seems to me they would have some kind of talent.

[triceretops]

If it gets me money and readership, then I'll hack away. Lawd knows, what I've been doing in the past hasn't worked. I wouldn't mind writing novelizations if I really liked the franchise/storyline. So yeah, I'd slut meself out for a major break.

Tri:D

[GerriB]

To me, a hack doesn't really care about the craft or the art of writing. They're churning out stuff that's of dubious quality just because they can, not necessarily because they have passion or love for writing.

Another form of hack writers are the ones who have no desire to improve their craft. They don't necessarily have the artiste's attitude of "what I'm writing is awesome, and you're too ignorant to realize my genius." They just don't really care.

[Wolvel]

Basically a hack is someone who copies a style and story wiith enough changes as not to get sued and puts it out quick and halfhearted.

[dpaterso]

Some good definitions here. :)

Methinks a couple of dictionary definitions may also apply, to a degree:

hack v. cut or chop roughly.

hack n. person hired to do dull routine work, esp. writing.

I don't label myself a hack, tho' I see a lot of my writing as hack work, roughly cut, dull, routine.

-Derek

[megan_d]

A hack is anyone who makes more mony and/or is more successful than me. Yeah, there are an awful lot of hacks out there.

[Billingsgate]

In my view, a hack is either:

1) Someone who writes works for hire or by commission
2) Someone who writes with one eye on the market

In other words, a hack is a professional. In general I hear the word "hack" used derogatorily, mainly by other writers, in the same way that the fox said "the grapes are sour anyway."

I've been called a hack. But I make a living at it, and the people who call me that usually don't. So the word doesn't bother me.

[Wraith]

Of course a thread with no capitals had to be preyer's! :tongue

When I hear 'hack', the definition that pops in my mind is Dan Brown. Otherwise it's hard to define. Maybe someone who writes because he can/he knows how to make money through it, not because he likes/needs to (but that must be something awfully rare, considering how hard writing actually is when you take it up seriously), someone who doesn't express him/herself through writing but just gives people what they wanna hear, being in a way a deceiver of people. And of course someone who copies, takes a little of everything that seems successful and makes a story out of it. Like the dozens of books spawned by the success of 'The Da Vinci code', or books based heavily upon succesful fiction, like ' The key to Harry Potter' or whatever (no offense to anyone, it's all imho).

But 'hack' is such a general word, you can find amazing stuff in the writings of those called 'hacks' by some. Yeah, I sometimes think of myself as a hack whenever I catch myself trying to please the readers. I try to get over it, especially as I don't judge other people like that, usually. But well, after all, the fight between me and the (potential) readers is won by a single thing, the story. I'm glad that it has a life of its own. :D

[DVGuru]

I think of a hack as someone who writes a story they think will sell rather than one they truly want to tell. If someone really wants to write an epic fantasy, but keeps writing thrillers because that's what's at the top of the bestseller lists, then I would say that writer is a hack--they are just writing what they think will make them money.

Don't get me wrong, writing with the intension of getting paid is fine. But if writers force themselves to write in a genre they otherwise wouldn't be compelled to write in just because they think it will sell, then yes, I think those writers are hacks.

[scarletpeaches]

Hack is what old men do to loosen their morning phlegm.

[nevada]

a hack is what unpublished writers call published writers who make good money, in order to make themselves feel better about their own failures. "Oh I care about the craft. I care about the style. I write for the sake of art. He actually sells his books and can support himself with the income. He produces publishable work at least once a year. He's a hack."

[Garpy]

A hack for me, is any one of the legions of national newspaper journalists/columnists who have traded in on their cosy connections in the publishing business, quickly squeezed out a derivative 'me-too' bandwagon book, managed to get loads of marketing spend...and all their journalists/columnists buddies to pony-up plenty of review column inches in the papers.

Particularly sickening right now are the journo-writer thrillers. You can spot them a mile off:

1. They'res covered in super-duper attirbuted cover quotes
2. The cover usually has some cloister, monk, Holy grail motif

*sigh*

[DamaNegra]

I was under the impression that to hack was to attack something with an ax?

[Azraelsbane]

I don't think I'm a hack. I can only write stories that are important to me. If other people like them, wonderful. I'd love to have my stuff published, but you know, sometimes it's just not in the cards.

[Manderley]

I'm a hack in my day-to-day job.

Creative writing is still too much of a mystery and a challenge for me to be a hack in this field. In creative writing I am an amateur, in the best sense of the word.

[maestrowork]

I don't really know what a hack is. I guess a hack is someone who writes by the book?

Even though I am not sure, I don't think I'm a hack. In fact, I think I over think everything to a fault.

[veinglory]

I think a hack writes for money rather than art. I aspire to be one, a good hack would be making more than I do.

[pepperlandgirl]

Well, if somebody writes for money instead of "the love of the craft" then call me Pepper the Hack. If I wrote for "love of the craft" I'd still be happily writing fanfic. But I like to do crazy things like pay rent, make my car payment, and buy my family food. So yeah, I'll write what I can sell with a smile on my face....

[maestrowork]

I think a hack writes for money rather than art. I aspire to be one, a good hack would be making more than I do.

What if you write for both?

[Ken Schneider]

Hack writer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia) •


Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer#searchInput)
For other senses of this word, see hack (disambiguation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_%28disambiguation%29).
Hack writer is a colloquial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial), usually pejorative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative), term used to refer to a writer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writer) who is paid to write low-quality, quickly put-together articles or books "to order", often with a short deadline. In a fiction-writing context, the term is used to describe writers who are paid to churn out sensational, lower-quality "pulp" fiction such as "true crime" novels or "bodice ripping" erotic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic) paperbacks. In journalism, the term is used to describe a writer who is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet) or newspaper articles. So-called "hack writers" are usually paid by the number of words in their book or article; as a result, hack writing has a reputation for quantity taking precedence over quality.

[PeeDee]

A hack is someone with craft but no art.

Feh.



A hack is someone you don't like who writes roughly as well as you do.

Beautiful.

It's worth pointing out that frequently -- as preyer and I discussed -- that hack is frequently a degradory term that was thrown around at perfectly good writers. Raymond Chandler, for example, was a hack! by his peers. Literary? No! He wrote for Black Mask! He's a hack!

Well. If Stephen King was a hack, and Raymond Chandler was a hack, then I'll go ahead and happily be a hack. (I suspect I am.)

[DVGuru]

a hack is what unpublished writers call published writers who make good money, in order to make themselves feel better about their own failures. "Oh I care about the craft. I care about the style. I write for the sake of art. He actually sells his books and can support himself with the income. He produces publishable work at least once a year. He's a hack."

An unpublished writer can be just as much of a hack as a writer who has earned millions. If an unpublished writer is forcing him/herself to write in a genre purely because they think that's where the money is, then I consider that writer a hack, published or not.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Considering that many regard my favorite authors and my favorite stories as either hack authors or hack writing, writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs and much of the pulp fiction of the 30s and 40s like The Shadow, Doc Savage, et cetera, and considering that I try to write that same kind of fun, exciting type of story, then I am a hack and proud of it.

[PeeDee]

It's just a term, like "sell-out." It's either used by the Literary Elite (snot-nosed bunch, you ask me) to look down on a writer who tells good stories to the popular audience (viz. Stephen King).

Or used by an unpublished writer who looks down on those who have done something they haven't done yet (you know. Publish, instead of endlessly running they're fnuckin mouth about it).

Mostly, I just write. It all gets silly beyond that. :)

[Nateskate]

honestly now, how much of your storytelling is what you consider to be hack? what does hack even mean to you? and is it a bad thing?

(i'd wanted to do a 'quiz' kind of thing, but i'm just too tired atm.)


I used this term to describe my art, which some people find interesting. Mostly when I compare myself to my friends who are great artists.

In writing, I used to feel this way, and would say this when I was frustrated. I guess if that were true, then I'm a stubborn hack who will fight to make my story into something great, because I really do like it. But there are more books needing editing, and in a given moment I'd wish I could just let a ghost writer take care of. And so I hack away to make it beautiful or at least readable.

[PeeDee]

Considering that many regard my favorite authors and my favorite stories as either hack authors or hack writing, writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs and much of the pulp fiction of the 30s and 40s like The Shadow, Doc Savage, et cetera, and considering that I try to write that same kind of fun, exciting type of story, then I am a hack and proud of it.

Ay-men!

What this thread reminds me -- and I find interesting -- is that so many of the authors we remember now, deservedly or not, were hacks. Edgar Burroughs, E.E. "Doc" Smith, Isaac Asimov, Harlan Ellison, Raymond Chandler, Verne, Poe, Wells, and so on and so forth.

[GerriB]

Hack writer is a colloquial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial), usually pejorative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative), term used to refer to a writer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writer) who is paid to write low-quality, quickly put-together articles or books "to order", often with a short deadline. In a fiction-writing context, the term is used to describe writers who are paid to churn out sensational, lower-quality "pulp" fiction such as "true crime" novels or "bodice ripping" erotic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic) paperbacks. In journalism, the term is used to describe a writer who is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet) or newspaper articles. So-called "hack writers" are usually paid by the number of words in their book or article; as a result, hack writing has a reputation for quantity taking precedence over quality.

Yup, that's a hack. Low quality, churning out stuff just to churn, quantity over quality. I don't consider most published writers to be hacks. They're getting published on their merits. Then again, many media tie-ins are written by hacks, and the quality shows....

[GerriB]

What this thread reminds me -- and I find interesting -- is that so many of the authors we remember now, deservedly or not, were hacks. Edgar Burroughs, E.E. "Doc" Smith, Isaac Asimov, Harlan Ellison, Raymond Chandler, Verne, Poe, Wells, and so on and so forth.

They wouldn't be remembered if they were hacks. Writing at a high pace doesn't make someone a hack. Asimov didn't let his quality suffer; he was a fast writer. Same with the rest of them. Now, Mercedes Lackey didn't start off as a hack, but I have to wonder if she didn't turn into one for a bit. The quality of her books have fallen off severely until she started the 500 Kingdoms series. Piers Anthony has turned into a hack, too, pushing out Xanth books just to keep the editors happy. His quality has suffered greatly.

Quantity by itself doesn't define a hack. It's quantity with a lack of quality that defines a hack.

[PeeDee]

I think it's utterly a matter of opinion and it doesn't matter one iota.

[brokenfingers]

I'm pretty hackerific if I do say so myself.

[PeeDee]

I'm pretty hackerific if I do say so myself.

Or should that be hacktastic?

[brokenfingers]

Or should that be hacktastic?I hope to one day reach that pinnacle.

[PeeDee]

You're hackitude is strong. You'll make it. I know you will.

[brokenfingers]

The hack is strong with this one.

[preyer]

some good definitions in there, probably more accurate than my own. i consider myself a hack, though i have absolutely no interest in keeping up with the literary jones on any level except quality.

when i claim to be a hack, that means formulaic writing for me. there's not a consideration towards any ulterior motives. by this definition, i see a lot of 'hack' story aspects; that is, predictable and easy to figure out.

[Wraith]

when i claim to be a hack, that means formulaic writing for me. there's not a consideration towards any ulterior motives. by this definition, i see a lot of 'hack' story aspects; that is, predictable and easy to figure out.
Meh, someone who writes a story with the sole purpose of creating something unpredictable and shocking is more of a hack than you are, for sure.

[lfraser]

The word 'hackneyed' means cliche, tired. So to me a hack is someone who churns out the same old, same old.


Ooops. Forgot to answer the original question. I'm probably 100% dyed-in-the-wool hack. :tongue

[Jamesaritchie]

For me, a hack is a writer who isn't trying to write the best way he possibly can, no matter what it is he's working on. And it's usually a term one writer applies to another writer who's outselling him.

[a_sharp]

You're hackitude is strong. You'll make it. I know you will.



Is that a degradory hackitude?

[pepperlandgirl]

They wouldn't be remembered if they were hacks. Writing at a high pace doesn't make someone a hack. Asimov didn't let his quality suffer; he was a fast writer. Same with the rest of them. Now, Mercedes Lackey didn't start off as a hack, but I have to wonder if she didn't turn into one for a bit. The quality of her books have fallen off severely until she started the 500 Kingdoms series. Piers Anthony has turned into a hack, too, pushing out Xanth books just to keep the editors happy. His quality has suffered greatly.

Quantity by itself doesn't define a hack. It's quantity with a lack of quality that defines a hack.

I can't speak for the rest of the authors on the list, but Poe was pretty much the definition of hack. He perfected the short-story format because he could write them in a day or two and sell them. In fact, by your own definition in this very thread, Poe is a hack writer. It doesn't matter if we discuss his work now. There's no "but if people really like the stuff in 140 years you're not a hack" caveat.

[narnia]

Hmmm, I've been a waitress, a baker, a pizza maker, a diner owner, a seasonal vendor, an IT peon, an ice cream shop owner, a babysitter, and probably other things I've forgotten, but I don't think I have ever been a horse.....

Oh, sorry, wrong kind of hack. :tongue I'm still working on getting book number one out so I guess I am still aspiring to be a potential hack.

:Sun:

[GerriB]

I can't speak for the rest of the authors on the list, but Poe was pretty much the definition of hack. He perfected the short-story format because he could write them in a day or two and sell them. In fact, by your own definition in this very thread, Poe is a hack writer. It doesn't matter if we discuss his work now. There's no "but if people really like the stuff in 140 years you're not a hack" caveat.

Yah, I'll agree about Poe, although I would point out that many writers 140 years ago were in a very different position than writers in the 20th and 21st centuries. The patronage system, where a writer writes to please one person, who then coughs up cash so the writer can live, encourages hack writing.

But Poe shouldn't have been included in the original list; he's the odd man out there because he didn't write novels. The rest are novel writers, which even in that time had a different level of committment as well as a different screening process. Short stories, letters, articles, and short poems don't take as long as a novel to write, which makes them easier to hack out. Don't forget, too, that Poe published his own stuff, well, when he could get someone to back his magazine between depressive sprees (whether they were drunken or drugged sprees is still in question).

So yes, Peppergirl, point well taken, and thank you for pointing it out. :heart:

The one writer who hasn't been mentioned who I do think is a hack is H. P. Lovecraft. His stories are turgid, and I can't read any of them to make it to being scared like some obviously have. I think Lovecraft's universe, as interpreted by others, is awesome. Evil Dead! The original texts...ugh.

One man's poison is another man's tonic. :Shrug:

[swvaughn]

The definition of hack, I think, depends on the viewpoint of the person(s) labeling (or accusing) a writer of hackery. (Hey, I like that word!)

Most of the definitions have already been covered on this thread. Hack is a title usually reserved for genre writers. Sometimes it just means "they're published and they write a lot"; some people toss it out as an insult and insist that so-called hacks can't possibly have love for writing because they expect to get paid for their work.

Although I'm down with the idea that you have to write for love (because, really, not many of us are going to get rich doing it), I think there's a certain degree of consideration you should have for readers. It's nice to say "I'm writing for myself!" but if you want other people to read what you write (i.e., you want to get paid), you can't get caught up in the idealism that the words you're putting out are all about you, you, you.

So writers who give in to some pandering for the sake of their readers are slapped with a hack label, more often than not. Some dismiss their work as "cardboard" or "frothy" or even "trash" -- sometimes, when a writer's heart really isn't in the work, these naysayers are right. But sometimes the hack-caller hasn't even read the work in question, and wouldn't deign to attempt to see the excellent work contained in "hack" novels.

I've found, more often than not, that even the hackiest writers contain a few moments of real, living prose. Even if you're paid to churn out formulaic cow patties, you can't help but inject a little soul into it -- and it doesn't all get edited out.

By the way, I'm a hack. :D

[AJ Clare]

According to the Wikipedia definition I am a howling great hack. :D

The royalty cheques take the edge off my shame, though.

[CoriSCapnSkip]

To me hack really means ripoff and unoriginal, but there are some terrifically readable stories which are fairly original but hack-written in the sense of not being terribly literary. Then there are very literary works which are scarcely readable.

[cletus]

Ay-men!

What this thread reminds me -- and I find interesting -- is that so many of the authors we remember now, deservedly or not, were hacks. Edgar Burroughs, E.E. "Doc" Smith, Isaac Asimov, Harlan Ellison, Raymond Chandler, Verne, Poe, Wells, and so on and so forth.

And don't forget Charles Dickens, who was considered a hack by the "literary elite" of his day.

[roger]

Garpy, man, it sounds like your righteous anger is bourne out of sam personal experience.

[Ava Jarvis]

honestly now, how much of your storytelling is what you consider to be hack? what does hack even mean to you? and is it a bad thing?

Oh, I'm a hack. Even if I do a moving outline these days (have an ending, a few major scenes and character development points to hit, and then work my outline forwards a few chapters at a time as I write).

Just because you outline doesn't mean you're not a total hack!

If I'm writing a scene and I'm not having fun with it in any way, I drop it. "Fun" means that it emotionally affects me and I just need to keep writing. When writer's block drops down, I know it tends to mean I've not injected enough fun--or I'm too tired to have fun, in which case I go to sleep.

Sometimes "fun" is a bit twisted--I love to plot myself into corners and then find a way to crawl up the wall and leap onto the catwalks. This can sometimes make me bang my head against the wall, but it does mean I keep going.

If I'm writing a scene and it in no way, shape, or form challenges me--or if the challenge turns out to be "how do I keep the boredom hidden?"--I drop it. If I need to communicate information, guarantee I will try to find an interesting way to do it, even if it means crawling through a crocodile pit.

My characters tend to have voices that shade differently. They also have weird twists in their souls, somewhere, even if that is never explicit. Even the minor characters (although not the walk-ons. Usually). If I must choose between subtle and nutty, give me psychotically intense shoe salesmen. And I love the language divide and will use it as much as possible. A normal person? No one close pops up in my stories anymore, because when they do, they're boring.

Love scenes? Information scenes? Fight scenes? Occurring in normal situations or backgrounds? Pah! I've learned that boredom lies that way. Love scenes in tea cups, fight scenes in fancy restaurants, and information scenes in a love tunnel. Silent stealth jets on their way to drop propaganda fliers over Switzerland are the only way to fly.

As for plots? If it can't have an over-the-top moment, it's not for me. Something must hit a 10 on the intensity scale, even if it's just dialogue. If it can't constantly build up, it's also not for me. If the main character or situation can't make at least a radical 180 after all is said and done, it also isn't for me.

I will drop pop references like little rocks over the landscape. Worse for purists, I will drop pop references updated for 2090 over the landscape. Even imaginary pop references. Classical music? Sorry, but it's currently being played by Hell's String Quartet. And Lord of the Rings survives 200 years in the future.

I accept it. I am no classic writer. I am no literary writer. No work of mine will ever be accepted outside of some random genre. When I am gone, the best I can hope for is an A&E production that dies after a season.

I want people to have a fun ride that's very readable, so they'll pick my books up again, and again, and recommend them all over the place.

That's my goal in life.

I am a total hack!

:snoopy:

[qdsb]

Total hack here! Now if someone would just pay me...

;)

[notpc]

Basically a hack is someone who copies a style and story wiith enough changes as not to get sued and puts it out quick and halfhearted.

OK I'll try it. Oh wait, didn't someone do that with Eragon? Star Wars?
I don't like the story but my kids do.

I write to a market of two, my kids. The stories I write for them have a beginning, middle and an end, have the typical child heros, them, and they always win in the end. I steal my kids ideas and fold them into the story formula. They're the only ones that like them. But they don't pay me. So, does that make me a Hack or a real writer?

[Wraith]

So, does that make me a Hack or a real writer?
That makes you whatever you wish to be (hackness is a rather good thing on this thread anyway :D). But whatever that is, I love it. Must be real fun. :)

[notpc]

Man I KNOW how to kill a thread!