highest literary acclaim OR bucketloads of cash, which?
Towse
"You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can
always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.
"Which do you choose?"
[from Nathan Bransford's blog: <http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/>
where a quick spin through 180+ comments shows a tilt toward rich hack]
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
$Zero
> "You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
> future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
> can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
> that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can
> always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.
>
> "Which do you choose?"
bucketloads of cash.
what day job?
> [from Nathan Bransford's blog: <http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/>
> where a quick spin through 180+ comments shows a tilt toward rich hack]
which explains why so few writers are rich.
ba' dum, chsh!
-$Zero...
pound wise, minute foolish
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c8fca4de818a047d
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I'd take the acclaim. Day jobs can change, money can be spent, but to
write something truly lasting and historic, you can't buy that.
Ask any poet.
Bill Penrose
> "You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
> future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
> can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
> that you will never earn enough to give up your day job.
Acclaim is fleeting, and never unconditional. There are people who
devote their lives to trashing the works of literary authors. Fame
carries burdens of its own, too, like having to put up with jealous
rivals, sycophants, morons and the press.
Money you can take to the bank. I'll take a check or even a gift card,
thanks.
DB
wcmartell
> "Which do you choose?"
The problem is that we don't choose... history does.
There are those who write what they believe to be brilliant work...
and it goes unpublished, or is published and forgotten.
Others write popular material, make money... and decades later are
acclaimed as brilliant writers. There's a new collection of early
works by Lawrence Block - all pulp schlock published in magazines like
MANHUNT and even some mags that featured half naked women. Block wrote
them for money - now they are being republished because he's an award
winning novelist, and the early works show his early talent.
I think Dennis Lehane is making a huge career mistake right now - his
early genre work is *much* better than his recent "serious" work. The
genre work has more depth, better characters and is (due to genre)
better structured. The "serious" stuff tends to meander, often has
sketchy characters, and the stories seem more obvious (I think in the
genre stuff he had to layer everything - no genre, no layers:
everything is obvious).
We have no idea what will stand the test of time. SHAKESPEARE didn't
write for posterity, he wrote for money. But just because he wrote for
money, doesn't mean he wrote crap.
- Bill
Alan Hope
>"You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
>future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
>can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
>that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can
>always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.
>"Which do you choose?"
>[from Nathan Bransford's blog: <http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/>
>where a quick spin through 180+ comments shows a tilt toward rich hack]
I'd go for acclaim. I'm making enough.
$Zero
who the fuck needs "acclaim"?
and i certainly don't care what i'm "considered" by the critics, FFS.
consider me a hack if you want, that doesn't change whether my writing
is brilliant or not.
see how that works?
-$Zero...
more original photos, original videos, original songs, original
sentences, etc., soon to be added to this week's project theme
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a647cdcec6325bfa
Alan Hope
>On Nov 26, 1:32 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Towse goes:
>>
>> >"You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
>> >future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
>> >can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
>> >that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can
>> >always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.
>> >"Which do you choose?"
>> >[from Nathan Bransford's blog: <http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/>
>> >where a quick spin through 180+ comments shows a tilt toward rich hack]
>>
>> I'd go for acclaim. I'm making enough.
>who the fuck needs "acclaim"?
Hey, you answer the question your way and I'll answer it my way, all
right?
Of course you don't need acclaim because you spend all of your time
applauding yourself. To the exclusion of actually doing anything.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >On Nov 26, 1:32 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Towse goes:
>
> >> >"You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
> >> >future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
> >> >can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
> >> >that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can
> >> >always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.
> >> >"Which do you choose?"
> >> >[from Nathan Bransford's blog: <http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/>
> >> >where a quick spin through 180+ comments shows a tilt toward rich hack]
>
> >> I'd go for acclaim. I'm making enough.
> >who the fuck needs "acclaim"?
>
> Hey, you answer the question your way and I'll answer it my way, all
> right?
ok.
> Of course you don't need acclaim because you spend all of your time
> applauding yourself.
that's not why.
> To the exclusion of actually doing anything.
http://questionless.blogspot.com/2008/11/petty-minds-petty-cash.html
boots
>
>"You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
>future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
>can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
>that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can
>always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.
>
>"Which do you choose?"
"No thanks, I'll dig ditches until I'm 95 instead and think of you
whenever I piss in the bushes."
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
boots
gekko
days, except that upon that day, Bill Penrose
<danger...@gmail.com> wrote in news:8ba62fcc-9af0-4dd6-be04-
739978...@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> Money you can take to the bank.
Or the hole in the back yard. I mean, these days?
--
gekko
There is delight in singing, though none hear beside the singer. --
Walter Savage Landor
serenebabe
> "You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
> future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
> can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
> that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can
> always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.
>
> "Which do you choose?"
> [from Nathan Bransford's blog: <http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/>
> where a quick spin through 180+ comments shows a tilt toward rich hack]
Considered a terrible hack, bucketloads of cash.
BUT, I'd have to not *feel* I was a terrible hack. I'd have to love
what I was doing and feel good about it. Wouldn't care if others
thought I was a hack.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 11/25
Bill Penrose
> There is delight in singing, though none hear beside the singer. --
> Walter Savage Landor
When my total lifetime earnings from writing are still in the three
digits, it's not an issue that occupies a lot of my time.
DB
Bill Penrose
> BUT, I'd have to not *feel* I was a terrible hack. I'd have to love
> what I was doing and feel good about it. Wouldn't care if others
> thought I was a hack.
Using electionese, if you sat down to have a beer with someone, would
you rather it be a hack writer, or an acclaimed writer of literary
fiction who writes prose so elevated and intellectual no one can
understand it.
Gimme the hack.
DB
ing
<.....>
> Using electionese, if you sat down to have a beer with someone, would
> you rather it be a hack writer, or an acclaimed writer of literary
> fiction who writes prose so elevated and intellectual no one can
> understand it.
>
> Gimme the hack.
If I was you, I might've put a period at the end of 'fiction'. If I
remember right, Ejucaided Redneck once wrote in this group about
meeting Jim Harrison for a beer. Not all literary fiction writers
write prose so elevated no one can understand it. Harrison's
definitely 'literary'. Based on ER's recommendation, I bought a couple
of Harrison's books and loved them -- would sit down for a beer with
the guy anytime.
OTOH, Raymond Chandler often referred to himself as a 'hack
writer' (and lots of folks at the time agreed) but still, he'd have
been a great guy to slurp a beer with too.
So, who's a hack writer you'd like to have a beer with?
ing
Alan Hope
That's not what the question says.
>Gimme the hack.
An inverse snob is still a snob, Penrose. Maybe the hack wouldn't want
to have a beer with you. Nobody likes being patronised.
Alan Hope
>> Gimme the hack.
For while. He was a bit of a lush, you know.
>So, who's a hack writer you'd like to have a beer with?
I can think of half a dozen literary authors I'd be delighted to have
a beer with, starting with Mario Vargas Llosa, whose The Bad Girl I'm
reading right now. I don't understand why someone whose gifts extend
to writing about fundamental and profound subjects would necessarily
have to be an egghead. I don't think I'd fancy Rushdie much, but it
would have been a pleasure to hang out with Bertie Russell, or Mozart,
or Schubert, or Shakespeare. Imagine bumping into Annie Proulx at a
roadhouse, or buying a cocktail for Margaret Atwood.
I guess I just don't get this "prose so elevated" thing Penrose has.
Who is he referring to? Has he ever read any literary fiction? Does
anyone have trouble understanding Milan Kundera or Saul Bellow?
$Zero
> Bill Penrose goes:
>
> >On Nov 26, 10:14 am, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> BUT, I'd have to not *feel* I was a terrible hack. I'd have to love
> >> what I was doing and feel good about it. Wouldn't care if others
> >> thought I was a hack.
> >Using electionese, if you sat down to have a beer with someone, would
> >you rather it be a hack writer, or an acclaimed writer of literary
> >fiction who writes prose so elevated and intellectual no one can
> >understand it.
>
> That's not what the question says.
question? what question?
ba'dum, chsh!
> >Gimme the hack.
>
> An inverse snob is still a snob, Penrose.
yeah, kinda like those black racists.
oh, wait...
> Maybe the hack wouldn't want
> to have a beer with you.
"That's not what the question says."
> Nobody likes being patronised.
oops, sorry 'bout that.
anyway, how's your essay coming along?
don't you want your $100 and the t-shirt?
surely, an aspiring hack like yourself could get at least two beers
with that $100, no?
i mean, think of the acclaim alone.
whoa.
or don't you think your essay would be the best one submitted?
-$Zero...
born before blackberries
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/cac5a4ccaf6bc9c4
Alan Hope
>or don't you think your essay would be the best one submitted?
The best one of one?
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >or don't you think your essay would be the best one submitted?
>
> The best one of one?
a writer like yourself needs odds like that.
so anyway, if those stats keep up, it's a lock and you get the $100
and the shirt.
that's gotta be worth at least two beers, right?
or just one?
can you get a single beer for less than $100 that is acceptable in
quality to someone of your lofty elevated taste and acclaim?
-$Zero...
now where else can you get this level of witty sarcasm, huh?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/65305116ed1ae734
Alan Hope
>can you get a single beer for less than $100 that is acceptable in
>quality to someone of your lofty elevated taste and acclaim?
What is it about clever people that gets snivelling little bed-wetters
like you shitting themselves so?
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >can you get a single beer for less than $100 that is acceptable in
> >quality to someone of your lofty elevated taste and acclaim?
>
> What is it about clever people that gets snivelling little bed-wetters
> like you shitting themselves so?
their utter lack of wit, and heart, and soul?
i have no idea.
i'm far too blessed in those regards to be able to empathize.
-$Zero...
a writer like yourself needs odds like that.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1ae52a3fe968ca39
Ejucaided Redneck
> If I remember right, Ejucaided Redneck once wrote in this group about
> meeting Jim Harrison for a beer.
Not "a beer," but rather a whole buncha drinks.
And for the little it's worth, I've had the opportunity --via book fairs
and similar events-- to slosh it up with a number of "brand name"
writers, of both the literary and "hack" variety.
Given a choice, I'd rather drink with the literati: they both write and
tell better stories, and in my limited experience, have a much and
deeper sense of humor.
> Harrison's definitely 'literary'. Based on ER's recommendation, I
bought a couple
> of Harrison's books and loved them -- would sit down for a beer with
> the guy anytime.
"The English Major," his latest, is a fine read.
> So, who's a hack writer you'd like to have a beer with?
Grace Metalious, before she started drinking herself to death, if it
were possible. She --and the publisher who had the cojones to publish
her-- had an extraordinary --and much under-rated-- impact on American
lit.
--
If you want to send a message, go to Western Union.
If you want to preach, find a pulpit. If you want to
advocate social reform, stand for public office. But
if you want to write fiction, tell a story.
-- Harry Crews
--
http://bobsloansampler.com/
Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
$Zero
> ing wrote:
>
> > If I remember right, Ejucaided Redneck once wrote in this group about
> > meeting Jim Harrison for a beer.
>
> Not "a beer," but rather a whole buncha drinks.
any of them cost over a $100 a drink?
> And for the little it's worth, I've had the opportunity --via book fairs
> and similar events-- to slosh it up with a number of "brand name"
> writers, of both the literary and "hack" variety.
do they generally get along with each other, or not?
got any good stories about that?
a hack and a lit walk into a bar.
> Given a choice, I'd rather drink with the literati: they both write and
> tell better stories, and in my limited experience, have a much and
> deeper sense of humor.
a hack and a lit walk into a bar.
the hack orders a beer and the lit takes a sip.
and the metaphors begin to fall apart!
so the hack calls his agent and fires him.
the lit, puzzled, whips out his pen and begins to write on a pack of
matches which he curiously dips into the beer after filling it up with
words.
and then another pack of matches.
and then another.
and another,
until there are no more blank matchbooks in the whole joint.
it is then that the metaphors are fully restored and the two part
ways.
never to contact each other again.
a case of irreconcilable similarities.
one of them exits with a pack of unsmokable cigarettes and the other
with a profoundly amusing punchline.
> > Harrison's definitely 'literary'. Based on ER's recommendation,
> > I bought a couple
> > of Harrison's books and loved them -- would sit down for a beer with
> > the guy anytime.
>
> "The English Major," his latest, is a fine read.
>
> > So, who's a hack writer you'd like to have a beer with?
>
> Grace Metalious, before she started drinking herself to death, if it
> were possible. She --and the publisher who had the cojones to publish
> her-- had an extraordinary --and much under-rated-- impact on American
> lit.
so, Bob, it's nice to see that you and your sig file are back for a
spell.
and you are cordially invited to submit an essay over at
pettyminds.com
there's a $100 and a t-shirt in it for the best submission.
the only rule is that you must use the same title as everyone else.
> --
> If you want to send a message, go to Western Union.
> If you want to preach, find a pulpit. If you want to
> advocate social reform, stand for public office. But
> if you want to write fiction, tell a story.
> -- Harry Crews
tell a story entitled:
petty minds, petty cash.
> --http://bobsloansampler.com/
> Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
> MISSING MOUNTAINS:http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
-$Zero...
it's a creativity thinger.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/48d1a8eb5eeb675d
Bill Penrose
> I guess I just don't get this "prose so elevated" thing Penrose has.
> Who is he referring to? Has he ever read any literary fiction? Does
> anyone have trouble understanding Milan Kundera or Saul Bellow?
I understand Bellow just fine, but he bores me. No accounting for
taste, I guess.
DB
Bill Penrose
> An inverse snob is still a snob, Penrose. Maybe the hack wouldn't want
> to have a beer with you. Nobody likes being patronised.
Maybe it's a matter of definition. This is what I call 'literary
fiction', as opposed to, say, 'mainstream fiction'.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200107/myers
(trust this link still works)
And a hack writes mainly for money, not for 'art' or academic
prestige.
DB
Bill Penrose
> On Nov 27, 3:11 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An inverse snob is still a snob, Penrose. Maybe the hack wouldn't want
> > to have a beer with you. Nobody likes being patronised.
> And a hack writes mainly for money, not for 'art' or academic
> prestige.
BTW, is it snobbery to *prefer* having a beer with one sort of person
over another. If I were trapped on a desert island with Saul Bellow
and a case of beer, well....
I guess it would smell pretty bad.
DB
Alan Hope
>On Nov 27, 3:11 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> An inverse snob is still a snob, Penrose. Maybe the hack wouldn't want
>> to have a beer with you. Nobody likes being patronised.
>Maybe it's a matter of definition. This is what I call 'literary
>fiction', as opposed to, say, 'mainstream fiction'.
>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200107/myers
>(trust this link still works)
It would be trivially easy to do precisely the opposite to what Myers
did, and choose some literary authors whose work was cherry-picked to
find sparkling, blinding, enchanting sentences. It would be easier
still to find popular authors and extract pages and pages of clunky
prose.
Here's a follow-up on the reaction to Myers:
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/myers-bauerlein-1860
>And a hack writes mainly for money, not for 'art' or academic
>prestige.
There's a world of possibility in that "mainly".
Alan Hope
You haven't said anything about what sort of person you'd have a beer
with, only what sort of fiction he writes.
Bill Penrose
> Here's a follow-up on the reaction to Myers:http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/myers-bauerlein-1860
I hardly expected Myers' broadside to go unanswered. Another
definition of 'literary fiction', drawn from Myers, is that it is all
about the writing. You are supposed to admire the author's magical
ability with words, whether there is a story behind them or not.
I'm inclined to follow Stephen King's advice, that writing should be
invisible, that the goal is to create a story that will involve a
reader and not distract with tortured sentence constructions and
obscure references.
DB
Skipper
<5ac44a1a-b646-4809...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Penrose <danger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bingo.
ing
> ing goes:
>
>
> >If I was you, I might've put a period at the end of 'fiction'. If I
> >remember right, Ejucaided Redneck once wrote in this group about
> >meeting Jim Harrison for a beer. Not all literary fiction writers
> >write prose so elevated no one can understand it. Harrison's
> >definitely 'literary'. Based on ER's recommendation, I bought a couple
> >of Harrison's books and loved them -- would sit down for a beer with
> >the guy anytime.
> >OTOH, Raymond Chandler often referred to himself as a 'hack
> >writer' (and lots of folks at the time agreed) but still, he'd have
> >been a great guy to slurp a beer with too.
>
> For while. He was a bit of a lush, you know.
Yeah, I know. I read a biography of him, back in the 80's by Frank
McShane. Probably one of the most memorable bios ever. He married a
woman about 20 years older than he was, waited till his mom died to do
it. I think he must've had 'mama' issues. Anyway, most of his
contemporaries were lushes too - think Dash Hammett, or instance.
Still, would've been neat to share a quaff with him, if you could find
him in a sober moment.
>
> >So, who's a hack writer you'd like to have a beer with?
>
> I can think of half a dozen literary authors I'd be delighted to have
> a beer with, starting with Mario Vargas Llosa, whose The Bad Girl I'm
> reading right now. I don't understand why someone whose gifts extend
> to writing about fundamental and profound subjects would necessarily
> have to be an egghead. I don't think I'd fancy Rushdie much,
Rushdie seemed a bit of a snob to me. I met him once at a book
signing, that book that the Ayatollah banned. We stood at the bar
together, drinking red wine. Mordecai Richler was there too, it was
around the time Barney's Version came out. I really liked Mordecai and
loved that particular book. Tried to read Rushdie's book and just
couldn't plough through it. We share the same birthday, him and me --
same day, not year.
> but it
> would have been a pleasure to hang out with Bertie Russell, or Mozart,
> or Schubert, or Shakespeare. Imagine bumping into Annie Proulx at a
> roadhouse, or buying a cocktail for Margaret Atwood.
Oh, Annie Proulx! I'd love to hear her research stories about The
Shipping News. Margaret Atwood - god, she has this droning nasal
voice and CBC has her on the air a lot. Still, the dry but elevated
sense of humour would be interesting. I actually preferred Margaret
Laurence and through a mutual friend, got to have lunch with her at
her place in Lakefield. Mid 70's this was. Thrill of a lifetime.
> I guess I just don't get this "prose so elevated" thing Penrose has.
> Who is he referring to? Has he ever read any literary fiction?
I dunno, he hasn't said.
> Does
> anyone have trouble understanding Milan Kundera or Saul Bellow?
Not if you read with your soul open. But there's another name! Saul
Bellow. Too late now, I know -- but Augie March and Henderson and
Humboldt and Herzog - just imagine listening to him talk about those
characters and how he dreamed them up, where they sprang from. It'd
be pure heaven.
ing
Bill Penrose
> Oh, Annie Proulx! I'd love to hear her research stories about The
> Shipping News.
She owned property on the Great Northern Peninsula and spent a few
summers there. It was entertaining to hear Newfoundlanders' reactions
to 'The Shipping News'. We no longer lived there when it was
published, but we maintained regular contacts with our old friends for
two decades.
There was no middle ground. Many loved the book merely because it was
about Newfoundland. Possibly a majority loathed it, largely because it
was written by a non-Newfie, who clearly had no business writing about
Newfoundland (a common sentiment there).
I went on to try to read Proulx's other works, which seemed to revolve
around gay cowboys, and I just sort of bogged down.
DB
ing
>
> > If I remember right, Ejucaided Redneck once wrote in this group about
> > meeting Jim Harrison for a beer.
>
> Not "a beer," but rather a whole buncha drinks.
What a treat it must've been! Heard him read when he came here - he
was impressive.
>
> And for the little it's worth, I've had the opportunity --via book fairs
> and similar events-- to slosh it up with a number of "brand name"
> writers, of both the literary and "hack" variety.
>
> Given a choice, I'd rather drink with the literati: they both write and
> tell better stories, and in my limited experience, have a much and
> deeper sense of humor.
It's the 'telling better stories' that'd make me choose the same way.
I think the deeper sense of humour comes from the psychological (that
might be the wrong word) probing into themselves and others that's
required in order to write truer.
It'd be awesome to sit down with Obama - find out how he probed so
deeply to write his own books. Specially the first one. The honesty
of that book blew me away.
>
> > Harrison's definitely 'literary'. Based on ER's recommendation, I
> bought a couple
> > of Harrison's books and loved them -- would sit down for a beer with
> > the guy anytime.
>
> "The English Major," his latest, is a fine read.
I'll check it out. Thanks.
>
> > So, who's a hack writer you'd like to have a beer with?
>
> Grace Metalious, before she started drinking herself to death, if it
> were possible. She --and the publisher who had the cojones to publish
> her-- had an extraordinary --and much under-rated-- impact on American
> lit.
Despite Peyton Place, I ever thought of her as a hack writer. Maybe
'cause I was too envious and god knows, I was - of her talent anyway.
OTOH, I can't think of any hack writer (aside from Chandler) I'd like
to sit down with -- maybe Stephen King, though lots of folks don't
think of him as a hack writer. Am just not personally fond of King's
books, they seem to follow too much of a recipe - still, would love to
actually witness, in person, how his mind works.
Have a happy thanksgiving ER!
ing
Bill Penrose
He gave a very ineresting interview on he Amazon authors videos, if
they're still available. Kind of a literary Youtube. And of course,
he's pretty forthcoming about his early career and the workings of his
brain in his 'On Writing'.
DB
boots
Is it possible to write magical prose that is invisible?
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
Alan Hope
The best prose is invisible, until you feel it grab you by the throat
and figure out what's there.
Stephen King may hold that writing should be invisible, but he
certainly doesn't put it into practice.
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Nov 27, 9:34 am, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ing wrote:
>>
>> > If I remember right, Ejucaided Redneck once wrote in this group about
>> > meeting Jim Harrison for a beer.
>>
>> Not "a beer," but rather a whole buncha drinks.
>
> What a treat it must've been! Heard him read when he came here - he
> was impressive.
It was inadvertent. He'd done a reading at a university, and the
English Department sponsored a "reception" for him at a local hotel.
Friend of mine was on the faculty, though not in that department, so
they wouldn't let either of us in the reception, so we adjourned to the
hotel bar.
Turned around after about fifteen minutes and Harrison was at my elbow.
"What're you doing out here with us?" I asked. "Aren't you supposed
to be in there with the elite."
"They don't have my brand of vodka," he said.
And he spent most of the evening in the bar, periodically going back to
the reception for five or ten minutes.
Couple years later, having told me he never does book-blurbs, he blurbed
my first novel.
> It'd be awesome to sit down with Obama - find out how he probed so
> deeply to write his own books. Specially the first one. The honesty
> of that book blew me away.
It's been something over thirty years since I admired a President-elect.
Obama has impressed me no end.
>> "The English Major," his latest, is a fine read.
> I'll check it out. Thanks.
It's a very funny book. There have been flashes of humor in his other
work, of course, but TEM is the first of his novels that seemed
deliberately so.
> OTOH, I can't think of any hack writer (aside from Chandler) I'd like
> to sit down with
Elmore Leonard used to be a "hack writer," cranking out pulp westerns.
I'd like to sit down with him sometime.
Robert B. Parker is considered "hack" by lots of people, but I like his
stuff. Wish he'd attempt a "serious" novel though.
John Sandford's another guy I wish would try for a serious non-series book.
> Have a happy thanksgiving ER!
Did that. We skipped turkey -- we do those three or four times a year
anyway-- and instead I grilled a pair of two inch ribeyes on the Weber
(charcoal, not gas) and Sparky did the rest. NPR featured a great
recipe for green beans the other day and that was probably the best
thing on the table.
Washed it all down with several white russians.
Before that we split the season's first firewood, though so far we
haven't had to light any of it off. Prob'ly do some more of that later
this afternoon.
Good deal: just she and me --and the beasties-- alone all day. Phone
didn't even ring.
--
In three words I can sum up
everything I've learned about life:
it goes on.
-- Robert Frost
Towse
> Elmore Leonard used to be a "hack writer," cranking out pulp westerns.
> I'd like to sit down with him sometime.
Turned eighty-three last month. Better get crackin'.
> Robert B. Parker is considered "hack" by lots of people, but I like his
> stuff. Wish he'd attempt a "serious" novel though.
>
> John Sandford's another guy I wish would try for a serious non-series book.
He used to post here once upon a time. Back in the halcyon years of yore.
> --
> In three words I can sum up
> everything I've learned about life:
> it goes on.
> -- Robert Frost
Liked this.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>Skipper <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>><5ac44a1a-b646-4809...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Bill Penrose <danger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 10:19 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Here's a follow-up on the reaction to
>>>> > Myers:http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/myers-bauerlein-1860
>>>>
>>>> I hardly expected Myers' broadside to go unanswered. Another
>>>> definition of 'literary fiction', drawn from Myers, is that it is all
>>>> about the writing. You are supposed to admire the author's magical
>>>> ability with words, whether there is a story behind them or not.
>>>>
>>>> I'm inclined to follow Stephen King's advice, that writing should be
>>>> invisible, that the goal is to create a story that will involve a
>>>> reader and not distract with tortured sentence constructions and
>>>> obscure references.
>>>>
>>>> DB
>>>
>>>Bingo.
>>
>>Is it possible to write magical prose that is invisible?
>
>The best prose is invisible, until you feel it grab you by the throat
>and figure out what's there.
And if you finish the last page and feel only shaken, knowing that you
have been changed in some fundamental way, never having realized it
was happening until after the fact? That is when I would say the
author has Written, with a capital.
>Stephen King may hold that writing should be invisible, but he
>certainly doesn't put it into practice.
It's been years since I read any of his work. What I remember
primarily is that he tended to choose Evil as a stage without using it
only as a vehicle pointing out the existence of Good. Memories are
often false, but never without cause.
There is a fairly vast spectrum of readers and some will find a piece
"invisibly written" while others, needing to stop often or skip over
new words, will find it both visible and pretentious.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>boots goes:
>>>Skipper <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>>>>In article
>>>><5ac44a1a-b646-4809...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Bill Penrose <danger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 27, 10:19 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Here's a follow-up on the reaction to
>>>>> > Myers:http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/myers-bauerlein-1860
>>>>> I hardly expected Myers' broadside to go unanswered. Another
>>>>> definition of 'literary fiction', drawn from Myers, is that it is all
>>>>> about the writing. You are supposed to admire the author's magical
>>>>> ability with words, whether there is a story behind them or not.
>>>>> I'm inclined to follow Stephen King's advice, that writing should be
>>>>> invisible, that the goal is to create a story that will involve a
>>>>> reader and not distract with tortured sentence constructions and
>>>>> obscure references.
>>>>Bingo.
>>>Is it possible to write magical prose that is invisible?
>>The best prose is invisible, until you feel it grab you by the throat
>>and figure out what's there.
>And if you finish the last page and feel only shaken, knowing that you
>have been changed in some fundamental way, never having realized it
>was happening until after the fact? That is when I would say the
>author has Written, with a capital.
And When, with a capital, has that ever happened?
I'm not that sort of reader. I tend to always know what's going on
behind the curtain.
>>Stephen King may hold that writing should be invisible, but he
>>certainly doesn't put it into practice.
>It's been years since I read any of his work. What I remember
>primarily is that he tended to choose Evil as a stage without using it
>only as a vehicle pointing out the existence of Good. Memories are
>often false, but never without cause.
That has nothing to do with his writing.
>There is a fairly vast spectrum of readers and some will find a piece
>"invisibly written" while others, needing to stop often or skip over
>new words, will find it both visible and pretentious.
Well, I don't mind telling you exactly what I think is wrong if you'd
care to choose a passage. His writing is clunky. It's not a lack of
comprehension to say so.
boots
I seem to have a vague recollection of experiencing it. But, if it
has never happened to me, or never happened to anyone for that matter,
does that mean the moon isn't worth jumping over because we know we'll
be fortunate to clear the barnyard fence?
>I'm not that sort of reader. I tend to always know what's going on
>behind the curtain.
I think I can relate to that. Difficulty getting lost in a book
because you're busy analyzing the technique sort of thing?
Unfortunate that no author has been able to captivate you, if that's
what you're saying.
>>>Stephen King may hold that writing should be invisible, but he
>>>certainly doesn't put it into practice.
>
>>It's been years since I read any of his work. What I remember
>>primarily is that he tended to choose Evil as a stage without using it
>>only as a vehicle pointing out the existence of Good. Memories are
>>often false, but never without cause.
>
>That has nothing to do with his writing.
You've just given me to think you a grammarian and technician who
analyzes the surface and calls that the writing. If one defines the
wording as the writing then I guess it does have nothing to do with
his writing. On the other hand if one views the writing as the
overall effect of what is written, I'd take an entirely different view
from what you've just said.
>>There is a fairly vast spectrum of readers and some will find a piece
>>"invisibly written" while others, needing to stop often or skip over
>>new words, will find it both visible and pretentious.
>
>Well, I don't mind telling you exactly what I think is wrong if you'd
>care to choose a passage.
Thanks, but I have no desire to spring to King's defense by choosing a
passage.
> His writing is clunky.
I agree, and no doubt its technical aspects are clunky too.
> It's not a lack of comprehension to say so.
I wasn't aiming my comment about reader variations at you
specifically, just bringing it up as one more hurdle that needs to be
jumped on that hiking trip to the moon.
Since the moon is not conveniently and readily attainable though, we
might as well put our feet up and switch on the teevee, or piss around
here in mw to no effect, right? I mean, if we're doomed to failure
anyway why bother with the attempt. A fellow'd have to be mad to
waste his time that way.
I find these moonless periods very forlorn, there's nothing much to
bark at except Mrs Boots and she doesn't like me barking at her, gets
fairly grouchy over it in fact. Weather's usually worse when the moon
is dark, too (at least that's been my observation).
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/vphase.html
Bill Penrose
> Well, I don't mind telling you exactly what I think is wrong if you'd
> care to choose a passage. His writing is clunky. It's not a lack of
> comprehension to say so.
That's entirely subjective. You or I could look at a passage from
almost any author and say this or that is 'wrong'. But the functional
test is still, do I get lost in the story to the point where I don't
notice, or care, if he missed the subjunctive voice or shifted point
of view or misspelled 'meralgia parasthetica'?
DB
Alan Hope
The difference is, I can tell you why it's clunky while you're being
"lost in the story" like some kind of imbecile.
serenebabe
Yeah, I was thinking that defining the terms would make for more
productive conversations. That's what I was thinking of when I thought
of the label "hack." Writing not because of the love of writing, or
"needing to tell a story," or some other lofty change the world kind of
goals, but as a job.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 11/25
serenebabe
said of Stephen King's writing:
<...>
> Well, I don't mind telling you exactly what I think is wrong if you'd
> care to choose a passage. His writing is clunky. It's not a lack of
> comprehension to say so.
Unless you're a 16 year old stoned out of your mind and someone reads
you that "and he ate his own leg" short story when stranded on a beach.
I think that was King's story.
serenebabe
Would you agree that you could substitute "why I find it clunky" for
"why it's clunky" and the sentence would be accurate?
Towse
Writers who depend on the lucre they earn from their writing treat their
writing as a job. They must. I think your definition of hack is
unproductive.
The dilettantes who don't need to put food on the table, who have the
lucre or the trust fund or the working spouse to just write because they
"need to tell a story" or "want to change the world" may be hack writers.
Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
serenebabe
I totally agree, points well made.
But, how do you define "hack" then?
I mean, maybe we'd have to go back to the beginning of the thread. But,
it does seem like hack v. literary (was that the comparison) is so
vague, it's hard to really discuss.
Bill Penrose
> The difference is, I can tell you why it's clunky while you're being
> "lost in the story" like some kind of imbecile.
So you're in favor of technically perfect prose that no one will
read?
DB
Bill Penrose
> Would you agree that you could substitute "why I find it clunky" for
> "why it's clunky" and the sentence would be accurate?
I doubt it. 'Why I find it clunky' is subjective, so he doesn't have
to support his opinions, and that's perfectly okay. I might find it
great stuff. But that's an argument that can't be won, or lost.
DB
Alan Hope
Alan Hope
Alan Hope
>Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
paying job.
You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
inspiration.
$Zero
> Towse goes:
>
> >Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>
> The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
> paying job.
>
> You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
> inspiration.
why?
Gawd.
-$Zero...
i am NOT a contrarian!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8defef870a434222
$Zero
> On Nov 30, 5:55 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Towse goes:
>
> > >Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>
> > The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
> > paying job.
oops. i forgot to mention how idiotic THAT statement was.
perhaps you'd like to expand upon how something can be a job without
being a paying job, FFS.
you might even enlighten yourself in the process attempting to
describe such a thing.
lucky you.
> > You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
> > inspiration.
>
> why?
seriously, you are one odd dude.
were you imprisoned as a child?
Alan Hope
>perhaps you'd like to expand upon how something can be a job without
>being a paying job, FFS.
Be like trying to explain colour to a blind man.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >perhaps you'd like to expand upon how something can be a job without
> >being a paying job, FFS.
>
> Be like trying to explain colour to a blind man.
you can stop waving the white flag, now, Alan.
i accept your total surrender.
-$Zero...
want to get rich? oversleep. quit your job. burn your bridges.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/70089b1572ed1330
Towse
A hack is someone who tosses words together with the =sole= goal of
making fistfuls of dollars. Books to order. You want a ripoff of REDWALL
only with anthropomorphic hamsters? I can write that. You want BONNIE
AND CLYDE set on one of the moons of Jupiter? I can write that. How many
words do you need? When do you need them?
The Stratemeyer Syndicate with its boilerplate stories, fleshed out (but
never beyond the detailed outline) by anonymous writers writing as
Carolyn Keene, Laura Lee Hope, Franklin W. Dixon, Victor Appleton and
others is the epitome of hack writing.
<http://www.trussel.com/books/strat.htm>
Towse
> Towse goes:
>
>> Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>
> The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
> paying job.
>
> You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
> inspiration.
Aye, but those who wait around for their muse and only write after their
inspiration arrives are not necessarily hack writers.
boots
Being a hack isn't just a matter of being a whore, it's also a matter
of being a bad lay.
boots
>Towse goes:
>
>>Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>
>The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
>paying job.
Perhaps "the writers Hope likes best" do that. Perhaps "the best
writers Hope has read" do that. Perhaps though "the best" do not do
that. As you've written it, the statement is bollocks.
>You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
>inspiration.
Like "true love" inspiration is most often sought but not found. To
conclude that because it is most often not found means that it does
not exist would be most unlogical and probably also incorrect.
serenebabe
Huh. So it's preferable in this case to make statements that must be defended?
serenebabe
You don't think "finding it clunky" is a subjective experience?
serenebabe
> Bill Penrose goes:
>
>> On Nov 30, 2:00 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The difference is, I can tell you why it's clunky while you're being
>>> "lost in the story" like some kind of imbecile.
>
>> So you're in favor of technically perfect prose that no one will
>> read?
>
> People do read it.
Would you two give some examples of technically perfect prose?
Prose that's not technically perfect but is a blast to read, I recognize.
serenebabe
<...>
Ah, while I realize this will be fodder for those who love to
copy-paste my statements... I read this definition and find absolutely
no problem with it. That is, I'm happy to be a hack. Sometimes I prefer
it. Give me an assignment, tell me how long, what kind of voice, what
level of research (or none), give me a deadline. Perfect.
serenebabe
> Towse goes:
>
>> Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>
> The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
> paying job.
>
> You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
> inspiration.
"Faff!"
This place is so great for collecting fun words.
Kerfuffle.
PJ
> On 2008-11-30 17:52:23 -0500, Bill Penrose <danger...@gmail.com> said:
>> On Nov 30, 3:33 pm, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Would you agree that you could substitute "why I find it clunky" for
>>> "why it's clunky" and the sentence would be accurate?
>>
>> I doubt it. 'Why I find it clunky' is subjective, so he doesn't have
>> to support his opinions, and that's perfectly okay. I might find it
>> great stuff. But that's an argument that can't be won, or lost.
>
> Huh. So it's preferable in this case to make statements that must be
> defended?
I once said to Stan that rather than stating something as fact, such as
with a subjective topic, that a speaker should preface the statement
with "In my opinion." Stan's answer back to me was, "If I'm stating it,
it's obviously my opinion."
I liked that.
~ ~ ~
PJ
boots
Yes, but the fact it's your opinion doesn't keep the fuckwits from
attempting to jump your ass for it.
Maybe that's okay, a little fuckwit for breakfast beats the monotony
of cereal.
serenebabe
That's how I am, too. I assume (trust) it's obvious anything I say can
only be my own opinion.
In this case, though, (Alan responded in a different message), "why
it's clunky" apparently does not equal "why I find it clunky." I think
it does, but (in the other message) Alan said they don't mean the same
thing.
Alan Hope
>In this case, though, (Alan responded in a different message), "why
>it's clunky" apparently does not equal "why I find it clunky." I think
>it does, but (in the other message) Alan said they don't mean the same
>thing.
They're not the same thing. It's clunky for specific reasons, which
I've said I'll be happy to point out. Some people will disagree it's
clunky, for the simple reason that they're unable to discern clunky
from not-clunky, that they have as much of a tin ear as King. That
doesn't make me wrong.
Alan Hope
Alan Hope
>On 2008-11-30 17:53:30 -0500, Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Bill Penrose goes:
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2:00 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The difference is, I can tell you why it's clunky while you're being
>>>> "lost in the story" like some kind of imbecile.
>>
>>> So you're in favor of technically perfect prose that no one will
>>> read?
>>
>> People do read it.
>
>Would you two give some examples of technically perfect prose?
>
>Prose that's not technically perfect but is a blast to read, I recognize.
I rather doubt you do.
Alan Hope
What a load of fucking nonsense you talk, day after day.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Towse goes:
>>
>>> Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>>
>> The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
>> paying job.
>>
>> You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
>> inspiration.
>
>Aye, but those who wait around for their muse and only write after their
>inspiration arrives are not necessarily hack writers.
Well no, they could hardly be hacks, who have to get up and ride the
moment a passenger arrives.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Towse goes:
>>
>>>Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>>
>>The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
>>paying job.
>
>Perhaps "the writers Hope likes best" do that. Perhaps "the best
>writers Hope has read" do that. Perhaps though "the best" do not do
>that. As you've written it, the statement is bollocks.
Well then, prove me wrong.
>>You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
>>inspiration.
>Like "true love" inspiration is most often sought but not found. To
>conclude that because it is most often not found means that it does
>not exist would be most unlogical and probably also incorrect.
Who said it doesn't exist?
boots
No, it doesn't make you wrong, and I wish someone would post some bit
that you could dissect for the group's edification.
boots
It's rather amazing how consistently correct I can be for what you
consider all the wrong reasons isn't it. Now stop trying to hump my
leg, I'm not your owner.
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Towse goes:
>>>
>>>>Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>>>
>>>The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
>>>paying job.
>>
>>Perhaps "the writers Hope likes best" do that. Perhaps "the best
>>writers Hope has read" do that. Perhaps though "the best" do not do
>>that. As you've written it, the statement is bollocks.
>
>Well then, prove me wrong.
What would I get for that, would my penis be greatly enlarged? You
dumb fucker, you've failed to define "best", you've failed to define
"job", in fact you've failed to do anything except run your arrogant
gob.
>>>You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around looking for
>>>inspiration.
>
>>Like "true love" inspiration is most often sought but not found. To
>>conclude that because it is most often not found means that it does
>>not exist would be most unlogical and probably also incorrect.
>
>Who said it doesn't exist?
Prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.
serenebabe
I find your arrogance entirely entertaining.
serenebabe
Ditto.
serenebabe
It's my guess that most prose is not technically perfect.
Would someone in here give an example of prose that's technically
perfect? (Or even close to it?)
serenebabe
That went right over my head.
Wah?
Alan Hope
It's where the word comes from. A hackney carriage was a carriage for
hire, as opposed to one in private ownership.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>boots goes:
>>
>>>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Towse goes:
>>>>
>>>>>Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily !hacks.
>>>>
>>>>The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as a
>>>>paying job.
>>>
>>>Perhaps "the writers Hope likes best" do that. Perhaps "the best
>>>writers Hope has read" do that. Perhaps though "the best" do not do
>>>that. As you've written it, the statement is bollocks.
>>
>>Well then, prove me wrong.
>
>What would I get for that,
So you have nothing. Step aside, please.
Towse
> On 2008-12-01 13:07:12 -0500, Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Towse goes:
>>
>>>> Towse goes:
>>>>
>>>>> Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not necessarily
>>>>> !hacks.
>>>>
>>>> The best writers treat writing as a job, though not necessarily as
>>>> a paying job.
>>>>
>>>> for inspiration.
>>>
>>> Aye, but those who wait around for their muse and only write after
>>> their inspiration arrives are not necessarily hack writers.
>>
>> Well no, they could hardly be hacks, who have to get up and ride the
>> moment a passenger arrives.
>
> That went right over my head.
>
> Wah?
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hack>
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
boots
Check some of the shitassed witters in Vanity Fair, as I recall
they're pretty good to a grammarian's sleeping ear.
boots
Look up the other meanings of "hack". Pay attention to the archaic
meanings.
boots
gekko
> serenebabe wrote:
> > On 2008-12-01 13:07:12 -0500, Alan Hope
> > <usenet....@gmail.com> said:
> >
> >> Towse goes:
> >>
> >>> Alan Hope wrote:
> >>>> Towse goes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Those who don't treat their writing as a job are not
> >>>>> necessarily !hacks.
> >>>>
> >>>> The best writers treat writing as a job, though not
> >>>> necessarily as a paying job.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're better steering clear of the ones who faff around
> >>>> looking for inspiration.
> >>>
> >>> Aye, but those who wait around for their muse and only write
> >>> after their inspiration arrives are not necessarily hack
> >>> writers.
> >>
> >> Well no, they could hardly be hacks, who have to get up and
> >> ride the moment a passenger arrives.
> >
> > That went right over my head.
> >
> > Wah?
>
> <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hack>
>
Sorry. Can't get Bill the Cat outta my head now.
yeah, yeah, I know he used a different sound, but still.
--
gekko
Chocolate is nature’s way of making up for Mondays.
banerjee...@gmail.com
> "You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and
> future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you
> can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee
> that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can
> always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.
Omar Khayyam says:
" ...take the cash, and let the credit go
Nor heed the beating of the distant drum."
or something like that.
> "Which do you choose?"
Who was given the choice?
> [from Nathan Bransford's blog: <http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/>
> where a quick spin through 180+ comments shows a tilt toward rich hack]