Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Comment on G+ on Writer's Writing

I made this comment on a post on G+ (although for the life of me I can't seem to figure out how to link to the particular post on someone's thread).  I can however link to the original story, and hopefully that will help explain some of the comments herein.

Back thirty or so years ago a good hack writer could make an honest living writing for local rag publications and publishing a few dime store novels, as long as their work was up to snuff, and they produced a new story every time.  When JRR Tolkien published the Hobbit it took him quite a bit of work with the publisher, and he was a great writer, well versed in languages.  He was no superstar.  Hemingway was no superstar either, he did well, and made a few dollars, but his estate is doing much better on the catalog than he ever did.  Jump ahead to Anne Rice, who rehashed the Bram Stoker story, sexed it up, and dumbed it down for the near illiterate masses, and you have stardom, go figure, Bram a star in his own right, had to work his entire life as a second page reporter.  Jump ahead again to an unemployed (although single mother is not really unemployed) single mother in her skid, re-telling the stories of JRR Tolkien and Shakespeare, and you get a super duper mega millionaire star.  The story never changes, that's why the same people keep buying it.  I am not knocking JK Rowling's, she did what she did because it worked for her, and good for her.  Thirty years ago she would not had the work to steal, and she would not have made it with the low brow crap that passes for literature these days.  I expect to see such use of language in the indie rags, but not in what is called a literary novel.  Fitzgerald could write circles around these clowns that the publishing world is lauding as great writers.  Not to mention such greats as MK Shelly, Jules Vern, Lovecraft, and the whole host of greats that today just don't get published, because it is too literary for the market, go figure.

Translate