Good evening everyone, I hope you are enjoying the rousing discussions which have been so thoughtfully prepared by all of us here at the AFLM family. Now, I have promised you concision, and in the spirit of faithfulness I am going to make sure I give you concision. And as furthering this enjoyable, yet admittedly gratuitous, introduction belies this promise, I will, now, simply vault into the matter at hand.
I was having a discussion with a friend today about writing and publishing (go figure) and he asked me whether it would be more advantageous for his career to write something widely marketable and pleasing instead of what most English majors aspire to write, the MAGNUM OPUS OF ARTISTIC ENDEAVOR! We discussed this for the better part of two hours, volleying back and forth the pros and cons of each potential decision and ended up lousy with hypotheticals. And that is why this question has made it to all of you good people. If a writer was to write something mass-marketable and tasty, as it were, which would lend to a higher chance of publication into novel, screenplay, etc., equaling a great deal of money on his part, is it artistically ethical to do so, or should this person continue to try and sell his esoteric opus? I think it is something interesting to think about, if only for the "thought experiment" nature of it. Now, understand that when I say "mass-marketable", I mean blithering trash. Also, I know some of you will say, can't the two be accomplished as one? Can't art be mass-marketable? Well, seeing as certain seemingly erroneous circumstances make it impossible to give a definitive no, I will say its not likely. Be honest with yourself, as much as you may love Ulysses, Song of Myself, As I Lay Dying, or The Decameron, these works will never be as grotesquely profitable as . . . dare I say it . . . Twilight, or any other revolting heap of worthlessness your mind can dredge up which would serve as ample example of a sideshow monstrosity which has garnered way too much profit for its putrid, hell hound charlatan of an "author."
So, there you have it, my thought provoking gift to you. I hope everyone gives this some thought, or, perhaps, if you are reading this, stunned by its elementary nature, please be so kind as to respond and educate the rest of us.
Thoughtfully,
Eric W. Strege
Eric,
ReplyDeleteI think it just depends on what the skill set of the author is. In order to illustrate this point, I'm actually going to use the case of a famous actor - not an author.
When Marlon Brando was starting out, he would take "pop" roles, which he knew would give him a shitload of money. Then, when he started to become recognized and had enough money to live off of, he chose roles that ended up being some of the best roles in the history of cinema.
Now, this isn't to say that anyone can do this; I think most people can either do one or the other, not both. Some people, like Meyers and her ilk, can crank out novels and make a boatload of cash, and, obviously, there are others who make actual literature.
Off the top of my head, I can only think of one author who could do both: Fitzgerald. Scott wrote screenplays and sold them to Hollywood in order to bolster his lavish lifestyle. Hemingway often called him a whore, and I think their friendship decayed because of that; but, really, can one blame Fitzgerald? The average American prefers The Hunger Games and Twilight over Ulysses and The Great Gatsby.
So, I think that there isn't really much of a problem here. If an author can write some shitty pop novel and get a boatload of money - yet at the same time turn around and write something as fantastic as Gatsby - that author should go for it. I just think that most authors are very proud creatures, and I would think a skilled author would have a problem with writing something he or she did not love.
So yeah. This was a long comment. Think about it, though.
JF
Another thing. I think authors who actually, seriously consider themselves artists are not willing to settle for anything less than their best. An author, one who is making Art, should know that writing one's Magnum Opus is not a money making endeavor. I think an author should consider themselves lucky if their work is read by 100 people.
ReplyDeleteAlso, and I meant to address this earlier in regards to the issue of publishing, e-markets such as amazon, as well as small presses like Wormwood and Hobart, make it easier for artists to publish their work; but, again, they need to realize that the readership will be small, and books of great worth do not usually explode overnight - not even over years sometimes. I thought it was particularly interesting that you brought up Walt Whitman because Leaves of Grass was actually self-published. Self-publishing is, in my opinion, a great things, and I'm glad the market of self-publishing is growing into something accessible.
I'm actually going to stop while I'm ahead, because I was just about to go off on a tangent about self publishing lol.
Let me know what you think.
JF
I completely agree with you, Jack, as I knew I would. As far as Fitzgerald and Hemingway, in the end they are both abundantly revered in the literary field so I suppose it didn't matter who wrote shit every once and a while.
ReplyDeleteEveryone, self-publish . . . I admit this whole blog was a plug for AFLM. Can't blame a CFO for advertising can you? ;)