I am not ranting

[ksmith]

In response to various posts that have been circulating about writing speed and the definition of "good" and my own current pondering...

Your definition of 'good' and mine are likely two different things. A hundred different things. I read different books for different reasons, and my definition of good may change from book to book or day to day, depending on the itch I need scratched at that particular time. There are things I prefer to read that pretty much overlap with things I like to write. Some folks, readers and writers both, hate those things. I sometimes hate what they love. Do I believe that there is an overarching definition of "good"? In a word, no.

Five books, same pattern. I'm screwed. Likely doomed to a non-commercial writing life as well. I'm adjusting.

At some point, I lose patience. I lose patience with folks talking things to death. I lose patience with myself for talking things to death. Just write the damned thing. That goes for me, and anyone out there who happens to be reading. Just write the damned thing. What happens, happens. And sometimes it has to do with being fast, and sometimes it doesn't. And sometimes it has to do with being "good", and sometimes it doesn't. It just happens, because writing is part of life and life ain't fair.

Ultimately, it's all down to you. You go in knowing, or more likely, learning as you go, that wanting it isn't enough. Needing it isn't enough. Loving it isn't enough. It's an art and a business. Sacred and profane. It's just writing and no one cares if you do it or not because if they don't read your story, they'll read someone else's.

Authors stop writing well-beloved characters, and we survive.

Just write the damned thing.

Comments

[kateelliott.livejournal.com]

I get tired of the conversations which mostly seem to be, at base, about establishing one's place in the hierarchy, that hierarchy having in addition been defined so as to allow space for one's position being - as we are primates - in the upper level.

I wish people would write the stuff they want to write, and I hope that as much of it as possible that I want to read is published so I can read it (in my copious spare time), and that stuff that other people want to read that I might not like much is published for them to read. Or whatever. Pollyanna, what?

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

I get tired of the conversations which mostly seem to be, at base, about establishing one's place in the hierarchy, that hierarchy having in addition been defined so as to allow space for one's position being - as we are primates - in the upper level.

As old boundaries are erased, new ones are drawn to take their place. And there's always someone around to tell you on which side you fall.

Pollyanna, what?

I hope publishing shakes out so that more venues of pro--by this, I mean edited/CE'd--level publication develop. And what's "good" will be decided after we're dead, by different standards than exist today.

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

Lately I've been trying to emulate the writers who just don't give a damn. They tend to write, and do well, and brook little analysis or criticism. And, it seems, they sell well. The ones I'm trying to emulate, anyhoo.

And yes, just write, damnit.

Aye aye ma'am, and all that :)

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

It's hard to avoid being sucked into the vortex of the self-appointed arbiters. But I think it's healthier in the long run if some of us (read: me, frex) spend my time talking with kateelliott about genre boundaries or something, because I'll feel better.

And yes. Give a damn about what you're writing about, but write the damned thing.

Dismissed.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

Good gravy, who's saying what in the where, now?

I sit in a weird position, here in the bowels of a pub company. I see authors who write to market, and authors who say "Screw the market, I'm writing what I want to write and if I'm lucky, it's what a significant number of people want to read." Both sorts of writers do just fine for themselves.

As far as I can see, there's no magic formula to success. Good work habits and steady plugging away are required. Being a jerk causes almost guaranteed failure.

All writers' careers take an arc. How high the arc goes, what angle it's launched at, how far it travels before crashing, how long it takes to burn out at the end... These are all unpredictable. Also, it's entirely possible for a writer to be riding a multi-stage rocket.

About the only general rules I can come up with for this ballistic formula are these:

1. If you don't aim high, you're likely to crash early.
2. A continuous, steady burn is more dependable, but staged boosters and strategic slingshotting are more efficient for extraplanetary excursions.

Some careers are like airplanes: they fly often, have regular stops, and don't break orbit. Some careers are one-way trips to Mars. Rare writers have the equivalent of intercontental ballistic transports (er, which don't exist yet, but I assume an SF writer knows what I'm talking about).

And I have definitely beaten this metaphor to death.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

I blew up a bit based on discussions linked to via this post. What too fast? What's too slow? How quickly should A Writer be able to write A Book (this was no time to twig me on Process, which lately has proved a sandspur in the undies like no other)? What is the definition of "good"?

I think that given the current state of the market, there is a certain rate of production that is more desirable than others, and if I mentioned it--a book every 9-18 months--you would likely be able to give me a list of writers who don't release at that rate and who do just fine.

And if a member of the opinion set has never written a set of book under contract--series or non-series, but you've had to deal with all the overlap--I'm going to get on my high horse for what I believe is the first time and say "Don't fucking tell me."

I like your metaphor, btw, because it seems to indicate that there are all kinds of ways. And this makes me feel...I think the word is hopeful.