NationStates Jolt Archive

What makes a best selling novel? I've always wondered that because it seems like some novels take off, and are successful, while other seem to well, pretty much fail. I've been wondering about it because I may try to write a novel, which will probably fail, but why not.

So, what is in a successful novel?

What makes a best selling novel? I've always wondered that because it seems like some novels take off, and are successful, while other seem to well, pretty much fail. I've been wondering about it because I may try to write a novel, which will probably fail, but why not.

So, what is in a successful novel?If we knew, do you think we'd still have day jobs?

So, what is in a successful novel?
the ability to attract and hold the reader's interest.

sometimes that ability can be given by elements not in the novel.

take Satanic Verses. it was a dull book. people who did read it said had the author not been condemned and the bounty put on his head in that particular fashion, the book would've never made the Best Sellers List.

If we knew, do you think we'd still have day jobs?

More to the point, do you think we'd tell you and have more competition?

a good pr campaign.

Skill with language. Not something you're going to learn overnight.

talking to rich toffs at the right locations wearing fancy clothes, and being driven around by a chauffer called larry.

Skill with language. Not something you're going to learn overnight.

No - it's pretty conclusive that that's not one of the requirements, actually.

Otherwise JK Rowling, Stephen King, and Tom Harris would be flipping burgers.

Skill with language. Not something you're going to learn overnight.Untrue. Crazy (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_(Roman)) was a piece of crap where writing was concerned (as in sentence structure). Still a best seller.

Sex.;)

Sex.;)

The romance novel (IE porn for women) generally do earn higher revenue.

I'm not saying its good literature, but if you want something to sell regardless of quality or effort...

No - it's pretty conclusive that that's not one of the requirements, actually.

Otherwise JK Rowling, Stephen King, and Tom Harris would be flipping burgers.
...all of whom have skill with language. They may not be Great Writers, but they communicate stories well enough that people continue buying their stuff.

I'm not saying its good literature, but if you want something to sell regardless of quality or effort...

I just find them funny. "She moans as she touches his staff....filling every inch of her body with ecstasy."

I dunno why but I read some of these novels in the book stiore, and I always burst out laughing.

Maybe I'm just immature?

...all of whom have skill with language. They may not be Great Writers, but they communicate stories well enough that people continue buying their stuff.

There's no 'may not be great writers'. :)

As to why people keep buying their material, it's not necessarily about 'communicating stories' well, skillfully, or anything else. Stephen King's main selling point is that he is Stephen King - it's fame, not skill, that sells his book. JK Rowling caught a zeitgeist, and now trades off name in much the same way that King does. Harris is actually a pretty horrible writer, but he has some good ideas.

So - skill or facility with language are pretty much irrelevent. The absolute best assurance of getting published... is fame - no matter how fleeting. (And no matter what for).

There's no 'may not be great writers'. :)

Well...yeah, I've go to concede that.

As to why people keep buying their material, it's not necessarily about 'communicating stories' well, skillfully, or anything else. Stephen King's main selling point is that he is Stephen King - it's fame, not skill, that sells his book. JK Rowling caught a zeitgeist, and now trades off name in much the same way that King does. Harris is actually a pretty horrible writer, but he has some good ideas.

So - skill or facility with language are pretty much irrelevent. The absolute best assurance of getting published... is fame - no matter how fleeting. (And no matter what for).
I'm sure Stephen King would not be nearly as successful if he weren't Stephen King. Plenty of lesser-known writers are just as good if not better, and they don't sell nearly as much. But he does have his fans, as does Rowling (including myself) and Harris. People would not continue buying books by these people if they didn't enjoy their books.

What makes a best selling novel? I've always wondered that because it seems like some novels take off, and are successful, while other seem to well, pretty much fail. I've been wondering about it because I may try to write a novel, which will probably fail, but why not.

So, what is in a successful novel?

I would like to write a novel too. I have started, on a few occasions. But I always fail at it because I can't keep cohesiveness.

Well...yeah, I've go to concede that.


:)


I'm sure Stephen King would not be nearly as successful if he weren't Stephen King. Plenty of lesser-known writers are just as good if not better, and they don't sell nearly as much. But he does have his fans, as does Rowling (including myself) and Harris. People would not continue buying books by these people if they didn't enjoy their books.

Ah, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying I don't like them... well, I don't like Stephen King, but I like JK Rowling well enough, and I can put-up with Harris - but liking them isn't necessarily anything to do with them being good or gifted.

Rowling and Harris, especially, have good ideas... and perhaps more importantly - ideas that SELL.

Stephen King had some good ideas back in the day, but he's kind of turned into the Rolling Stones... he's just doing the same three chords over and over for the last twenty years.

No - it's pretty conclusive that that's not one of the requirements, actually.

Otherwise JK Rowling, Stephen King, and Tom Harris would be flipping burgers.

Well, there's at least some minimum level of competency that you would need if you weren't a celebrity - a basic understanding of grammar and usage that you'd want to read up on if you were Wilgrove (as an aspiring writer, of course).

But yeah, if your sole aim was to be published, you could probably buy a rubric and do a paint-by-numbers treatment of some popular theme. But even then you'd be competing with a thousand other hacks, and you might need a bit of skill to distinguish yourself from the herd.

What makes a best selling novel? I've always wondered that because it seems like some novels take off, and are successful, while other seem to well, pretty much fail. I've been wondering about it because I may try to write a novel, which will probably fail, but why not.

So, what is in a successful novel?
compelling characters.

what kind of book are you thinking about writing?

Ah, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying I don't like them... well, I don't like Stephen King, but I like JK Rowling well enough, and I can put-up with Harris - but liking them isn't necessarily anything to do with them being good or gifted.

Rowling and Harris, especially, have good ideas... and perhaps more importantly - ideas that SELL.

But even good ideas aren't worth much unless you have the ability to communicate them through writing. I think of there being different levels of being a good writer. First there's the mechanical level, being able to write complete sentences, spell words write, etc. Anyone published is at least this far. Then there's the ability to write clearly. This is the level necessary to write an okay newspaper article; nothing Pulitzer worthy, but informative. I'd say writers such as King or Harris are here: they have good ideas, and can explain them. Then there's the level of truly great writers, where the words themselves become as important as the literal information being conveyed. The people read in English Lit classes are here (usually). While the last category is certainly the best, the ones before are not necessarily bad.

What makes a best selling novel? I've always wondered that because it seems like some novels take off, and are successful, while other seem to well, pretty much fail. I've been wondering about it because I may try to write a novel, which will probably fail, but why not.

So, what is in a successful novel?

I will try to give a helpful reply now;).

To me, the most important thing in a typical novel is probably believabillity. It has to be plausible. Note that I am a big fan of science fiction and fantasy literature, so what I mean is not that your story has to be something that could actually happen, but that it is internally consistant and makes sense in the context of its own reality. If it does not, it probably won't seem real to the reader, and if it doesn't seem real to the reader, it probably won't engage them (at least if the reader is me).

Also, be careful about writing yourself into a corner, where their is no plausible solution to the plot. And you might want to try rellying on character development rather than gimmicks to resolve a story. For what not to do, you can watch most Star Trek episodes made in the last 20 years.:p

Ultimately, you should do your reseach, and if you can at least try to roughly plan out your story ahead of time, so that you don't fall into a trap where you have to rely on a contrived gimmick to resolve the story at the last moment. Also, read a lot of good literature yourself.

Oh wait, you wanted to know how to write a successful book, as opposed to a good one?;)

compelling characters.

what kind of book are you thinking about writing?

I've seen a lot of Fantasy book that has knights in shining armor, and most of those knights are the one that you see in the Crusade, The Knights Templar, or the Knight of the Cross etc. Well, I'm working on a fantasy book that I titled "Knights of the Star". It's about five Knights who live in medieval Germany, and the knights are practitioner of Witchcraft. The medieval period being what it is, they live out in the woods by themselves, but are often called upon by Lords of surrounding castles for help, secretly though.

Good idea?

I'm still working on the character, but each Knight will specialize in a specific force of nature. One will be a Knight of Fire, another a Knight of Wind. The eldest one will be Knight of Spirit. He's basically like Master Splinter of TNMT.

I've seen a lot of Fantasy book that has knights in shining armor, and most of those knights are the one that you see in the Crusade, The Knights Templar, or the Knight of the Cross etc. Well, I'm working on a fantasy book that I titled "Knights of the Star". It's about five Knights who live in medieval Germany, and the knights are practitioner of Witchcraft. The medieval period being what it is, they live out in the woods by themselves, but are often called upon by Lords of surrounding castles for help, secretly though.

Good idea?

I'm still working on the character, but each Knight will specialize in a specific force of nature. One will be a Knight of Fire, another a Knight of Wind. The eldest one will be Knight of Spirit. He's basically like Master Splinter of TNMT.
its as good a plot as any.

if you can make them compelling characters that seem real, it will work as a book (understanding that you need problems for them to solve, that whole tension thing, proper story arc, good subplots, blah blah blah)

then you have the problem of getting it published. many good manuscripts are passed over.

then you have the problem of making sure it sells. many good books go unnoticed by the general public.

its as good a plot as any.

if you can make them compelling characters that seem real, it will work as a book (understanding that you need problems for them to solve, that whole tension thing, proper story arc, good subplots, blah blah blah)

then you have the problem of getting it published. many good manuscripts are passed over.

then you have the problem of making sure it sells. many good books go unnoticed by the general public.

Indeed. I would add one thing I usually like is a villain that is more amoral ala Alan Rickman then pure evil. Some of the best stories usually involve villains that are great characters.

I would not suggest manuscript submitting. Many publishers automatically reject them for legal reasons. Some require a literary agent. I have hear the dummies people will listen to you unless you have an agent talking. Not checked it out myself. Some are more interested in an outline.

One thing to keep is patience. It's a long process frequent with rejections. If your book has merit and you have telling you it has possibility; keep trying.

Heck you might try a few people here. They have read most things and if you can win a couple over, you might have something. :)

Indeed. I would add one thing I usually like is a villain that is more amoral ala Alan Rickman then pure evil. Some of the best stories usually involve villains that are great characters.

I would not suggest manuscript submitting. Many publishers automatically reject them for legal reasons. Some require a literary agent. I have hear the dummies people will listen to you unless you have an agent talking. Not checked it out myself. Some are more interested in an outline.

One thing to keep is patience. It's a long process frequent with rejections. If your book has merit and you have telling you it has possibility; keep trying.

Heck you might try a few people here. They have read most things and if you can win a couple over, you might have something. :)
yeah a good strong complicated villain who has reasons to be evil--or isnt evil but is just on the other side--takes a book from being OK to being really good.

Indeed. I would add one thing I usually like is a villain that is more amoral ala Alan Rickman then pure evil. Some of the best stories usually involve villains that are great characters.

I would not suggest manuscript submitting. Many publishers automatically reject them for legal reasons. Some require a literary agent. I have hear the dummies people will listen to you unless you have an agent talking. Not checked it out myself. Some are more interested in an outline.

One thing to keep is patience. It's a long process frequent with rejections. If your book has merit and you have telling you it has possibility; keep trying.

Heck you might try a few people here. They have read most things and if you can win a couple over, you might have something. :)

Well I'll write a few chapters and I'll let the interested party here read it, and if they like it, I'll know I have something. :)

I love it when I write stories, I can actually see it play out in my head as I'm typing it, which is weird but nice.

Most of the novelists I've talked to say that you should try to get some short fiction (or poetry or articles, whatever) published before trying to find an agent/publisher. That way you've got something to refer to in your intro letter to set you apart from the millions of bored housewives and precocious teenagers out there.
It also helps to refer to a book or two that the agent/publisher produced in the past and draw an (insightful) comparison between the published story and yours. Say something like, "I read Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie, and feel that my book would be in a similar vein because it, too, is really fucking long."

Of course, that advice can only help you get the book into stores. There is nothing you can do to guarantee success. That depends on people buying your book, which either happens or not with no input from you.

Most of the novelists I've talked to say that you should try to get some short fiction (or poetry or articles, whatever) published before trying to find an agent/publisher. That way you've got something to refer to in your intro letter to set you apart from the millions of bored housewives and precocious teenagers out there.
It also helps to refer to a book or two that the agent/publisher produced in the past and draw an (insightful) comparison between the published story and yours. Say something like, "I read Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie, and feel that my book would be in a similar vein because it, too, is really fucking long."

Of course, that advice can only help you get the book into stores. There is nothing you can do to guarantee success. That depends on people buying your book, which either happens or not with no input from you.
well that last part is patently untrue.

there are many things that an enterprising author might do to help with sales.

ever hear of jacqueline susann?

Skill with language. Not something you're going to learn overnight.

I presume you haven't read Harry Potter then?

A variety of factors contribute to the financial success of a novel, rarely is it it's erudite language; hence why J.K. Rowling ever sells a book.

I presume you haven't read Harry Potter then?

A variety of factors contribute to the financial success of a novel, [sic] rarely is it [sic] it's [sic] erudite [sic] language; hence why J.K. Rowling ever sells a book.
'Skills with language' does not equate to 'using big words': to write in clear and comprehensible English is just as much, if not more, of a skill than to compensate by rubbing oneself furiously against a thesaurus at every juncture. Furthermore, Rowling's language is erudite: it is civil, not crude.

This applies to non-fiction as well as fiction: see, for example, the work of Howard Becker.

I presume you haven't read Harry Potter then?

A variety of factors contribute to the financial success of a novel, rarely is it it's erudite language; hence why J.K. Rowling ever sells a book.

1. No, I haven't read any of the Harrys Potter.
2. I already clarified (fine, equivocated) a few posts later that I consider a some minimum level of competency with language to be the sole hard-and-fast *requirement* (in cases where you aren't a celebrity) in selling a story to a general audience. Your choice of theme might dictate whether you can become the next J.K. Rowling or not, but you'll need to be intimately familiar with language in every case just to be noticed.

The characters, if you're not interested in their lives then you're unlikely to read the book.

It's actually not that hard to get published, it's cheap enough these days that you can do it yourself,

I would actually start with a blog-type short story about a set of characters, write short stories about them everyday. If you're lucky enough to build a fanbase, you can then leverage that to sell a book based of the everyday stories.

A really interesting development in Japan has been mo-vels, the author sends a sentence to an sms group, which contributes to a growing story every day until the novel is complete, something like 5 of the top 10 bestselling books this year were based off these, similar to how Charles Dickens wrote his novels as monthly installments in a magazine.

I've seen a lot of Fantasy book that has knights in shining armor, and most of those knights are the one that you see in the Crusade, The Knights Templar, or the Knight of the Cross etc. Well, I'm working on a fantasy book that I titled "Knights of the Star". It's about five Knights who live in medieval Germany, and the knights are practitioner of Witchcraft. The medieval period being what it is, they live out in the woods by themselves, but are often called upon by Lords of surrounding castles for help, secretly though.

Good idea?

I'm still working on the character, but each Knight will specialize in a specific force of nature. One will be a Knight of Fire, another a Knight of Wind. The eldest one will be Knight of Spirit. He's basically like Master Splinter of TNMT.Knights tend to have estates and rarely live out in the woods. There's the entire issue of armor, horses, weapons, and taking care of them that get's really hard in a forest environment. Even with witchcraft.
Also, there wasn't really a Germany around at that time (depending on what medieval time period you're dealing with, this could be a number of different things), and whatever you do, don't look up German words to include in dialog or anything; German was very, very different from what it is now, and spelling was deregulated.

I think it has something to do with fame. Authors like Stephen King can churn out crap on an assembly line and sell 40 million copies because of thier name.

It also has to do with skill. A Good writer will get noticed eventually, and his book will become a best seller.

It has to do with Public Relations, the right publisher can sell anything.

And lastly, plain dumb luck.

Knights tend to have estates and rarely live out in the woods. There's the entire issue of armor, horses, weapons, and taking care of them that get's really hard in a forest environment. Even with witchcraft.
Also, there wasn't really a Germany around at that time (depending on what medieval time period you're dealing with, this could be a number of different things), and whatever you do, don't look up German words to include in dialog or anything; German was very, very different from what it is now, and spelling was deregulated.

This is basically what I was going to say. Unless we mean something VERY different by 'knight' (i.e. something more like 'thug in leather armour', the idea of a group of knights sitting around in the bushes is just a launch-point for a Monty Python sketch.

This is basically what I was going to say. Unless we mean something VERY different by 'knight' (i.e. something more like 'thug in leather armour', the idea of a group of knights sitting around in the bushes is just a launch-point for a Monty Python sketch.

Yeah, they'd be more like mercenaries probably.

But even good ideas aren't worth much unless you have the ability to communicate them through writing. I think of there being different levels of being a good writer. First there's the mechanical level, being able to write complete sentences, spell words write, etc. Anyone published is at least this far. Then there's the ability to write clearly. This is the level necessary to write an okay newspaper article; nothing Pulitzer worthy, but informative. I'd say writers such as King or Harris are here: they have good ideas, and can explain them. Then there's the level of truly great writers, where the words themselves become as important as the literal information being conveyed. The people read in English Lit classes are here (usually). While the last category is certainly the best, the ones before are not necessarily bad.

The mechanical level is unimportant.

If you can get someone convinced by your spiel or by the hidden diamond in the rough, your publisher will polish your work like you wouldn't believe. It's a matter of who is on your side. If they're not interested in your product, it needs to be fairly shiny to even hit their desks... if you've got something they want (like - you're looking like the next JK Rowling) they'll sift through shit. They'll even get other people to do your re-write work.

Thomas Harris lacks basic facility with the English language - try reading something like "Hannibal" and look at how often he commits basic mistakes, like changing tense halfway through a sentence.

A lot of authors lack reasonable skills in spelling, grammar, etc - which SHOULD be unforgivable in the days of the spellchecker.... but publishers don't consider it a big deal, because proofreaders can tidy up a lot of such mistakes.

(As an incidental - I used to collect 'uncorrected proofs' - you should see how some texts compare to their final version).

Ideas are ten a penny. Everyone has ideas. Execution - in any form of writing - is what people write cheques for.

Ideas are ten a penny. Everyone has ideas. Execution - in any form of writing - is what people write cheques for.

No, what they're really paying for is one of two things - a lump of text (which they believe the ideas are IN), or a good 'voice', which is nothing to do with technical attributes, or, necessarily, ideas.

The absolute best thing you could do to sell a manuscript - is make the right friends... publisher, other author, agent... someone who will champion you. Everything else is negotiable.

Me.

No, what they're really paying for is one of two things - a lump of text (which they believe the ideas are IN), or a good 'voice', which is nothing to do with technical attributes, or, necessarily, ideas.

The absolute best thing you could do to sell a manuscript - is make the right friends... publisher, other author, agent... someone who will champion you. Everything else is negotiable.

People usually champion those who they believe in. And I agree that people pay for a lump of text which contains some ideas but I would definitely slot that in the 'execution' category.

Good idea?

No.

What makes a best selling novel? I've always wondered that because it seems like some novels take off, and are successful, while other seem to well, pretty much fail. I've been wondering about it because I may try to write a novel, which will probably fail, but why not.

So, what is in a successful novel?

Lowest common denominator, with a story that's new to the majority of people.
Also, it has to include : Love, Death and the development from one character from slightly odd into something most readers can identify with.

To make somthing sell well it is necessary to appeal to a group of people who want what the product gives, best selling novels tend to find a large audience who want the product - every year there is a plethora of crime novels some may be good others bad but as people want these kind of storys they will buy them.

Knights tend to have estates and rarely live out in the woods. There's the entire issue of armor, horses, weapons, and taking care of them that get's really hard in a forest environment. Even with witchcraft.
Also, there wasn't really a Germany around at that time (depending on what medieval time period you're dealing with, this could be a number of different things), and whatever you do, don't look up German words to include in dialog or anything; German was very, very different from what it is now, and spelling was deregulated.
They could be knights errant, meaning that they have no lands of their own and are, basically, thugs for hire who somehow manage to avoid being tagged as bandits.

As for all the equipment, they can be rather low on that and/or, as was not uncommon, they could have mostly inherited gear or stolen gear. Perhaps, in the fiction, some of that could be augmented with the odd bit here and there won in tournaments, by which they market their reputations and skills to get knightsmanship jobs, or gear that was given them as payment for knightsmanship jobs.

The lore of chivalry aside, knights really weren't much more than thugs in leather armor.

EDIT: But I agree, the living in the woods thing and having people come looking for them for help is too farfetched. They'd be living in a village at least, or maybe at a monastery, some place with resources. And they would be far more likely to go looking for work/volunteering their services, than have rulers come looking for them, unless they were officially/secretly in the employ of a governing power (in which case, they'd probably have a roof over their heads).

The mechanical level is unimportant.

If you can get someone convinced by your spiel or by the hidden diamond in the rough, your publisher will polish your work like you wouldn't believe. It's a matter of who is on your side. If they're not interested in your product, it needs to be fairly shiny to even hit their desks... if you've got something they want (like - you're looking like the next JK Rowling) they'll sift through shit. They'll even get other people to do your re-write work.

Thomas Harris lacks basic facility with the English language - try reading something like "Hannibal" and look at how often he commits basic mistakes, like changing tense halfway through a sentence.

A lot of authors lack reasonable skills in spelling, grammar, etc - which SHOULD be unforgivable in the days of the spellchecker.... but publishers don't consider it a big deal, because proofreaders can tidy up a lot of such mistakes.

(As an incidental - I used to collect 'uncorrected proofs' - you should see how some texts compare to their final version).

Would you consider someone like Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club and others) to have bad writing skills? His style is very much like a stream of consciousness and often doesn't follow standard grammar, but is very readable and the stories are great.

They could be knights errant, meaning that they have no lands of their own and are, basically, thugs for hire who somehow manage to avoid being tagged as bandits.

As for all the equipment, they can be rather low on that and/or, as was not uncommon, they could have mostly inherited gear or stolen gear. Perhaps, in the fiction, some of that could be augmented with the odd bit here and there won in tournaments, by which they market their reputations and skills to get knightsmanship jobs, or gear that was given them as payment for knightsmanship jobs.

The lore of chivalry aside, knights really weren't much more than thugs in leather armor.

EDIT: But I agree, the living in the woods thing and having people come looking for them for help is too farfetched. They'd be living in a village at least, or maybe at a monastery, some place with resources. And they would be far more likely to go looking for work/volunteering their services, than have rulers come looking for them, unless they were officially/secretly in the employ of a governing power (in which case, they'd probably have a roof over their heads).
id take a look at a novel with characters like that.

As to the OP:

I'd advise you to just write the story you want to. Don't even worry about whether it makes historical sense or not, just write it to the very best of your ability. Just make the best, most entertaining story you possibly can -- if it's good, it's flaws will be worked out in the process. Then shop it around relentlessly. Whether a book becomes a bestseller is not really tied to the quality of the work. It's more dependent on three things:

> Perseverance. Never take "no" for an answer. Just toss the rejections on the growing pile and keep sending out that manuscript until you get a deal.

> Marketing. When you do get a deal -- or before that, if you're really enterprising -- advertise, advertise, advertise. No matter how good your book might be, no one will buy it if they never hear about it. Publishing houses notoriously do not publicize new books much unless the author is an established name. It is often up to the writers themselves to get the word out about their work.

> Luck. And this you cannot control -- the vagaries of fashion, the luck of the draw on editors, etc. But it ties in to Perseverance, as the more you keep at it, the more chance you get of hitting a lucky patch.

id take a look at a novel with characters like that.
Maybe I'll write it. WILGROVE, the race is on. :D


(I'm kidding. I wouldn't poach another's idea.)

Knights tend to have estates and rarely live out in the woods. There's the entire issue of armor, horses, weapons, and taking care of them that get's really hard in a forest environment. Even with witchcraft.
Also, there wasn't really a Germany around at that time (depending on what medieval time period you're dealing with, this could be a number of different things), and whatever you do, don't look up German words to include in dialog or anything; German was very, very different from what it is now, and spelling was deregulated.

Thanks for the tip. I'll give y'all my train of thought on the whole idea.

I have them out in the woods hiding because Witches were persecuted back in the Middle Ages, so they have to be in hiding or else they'll be turned in and killed for praticing Witchcraft.

They're not Knights in the traditional sense, more like, mercenary.

As for why I chose Germany, well, England and the UK seems kinda played out to me, and I want it to take place in somewhere beside England or the UK.

Yeah, they'd be more like mercenaries probably.

Exactly

No.

Care to elaborate on the no?

They could be knights errant, meaning that they have no lands of their own and are, basically, thugs for hire who somehow manage to avoid being tagged as bandits.

As for all the equipment, they can be rather low on that and/or, as was not uncommon, they could have mostly inherited gear or stolen gear. Perhaps, in the fiction, some of that could be augmented with the odd bit here and there won in tournaments, by which they market their reputations and skills to get knightsmanship jobs, or gear that was given them as payment for knightsmanship jobs.

The lore of chivalry aside, knights really weren't much more than thugs in leather armor.

EDIT: But I agree, the living in the woods thing and having people come looking for them for help is too farfetched. They'd be living in a village at least, or maybe at a monastery, some place with resources. And they would be far more likely to go looking for work/volunteering their services, than have rulers come looking for them, unless they were officially/secretly in the employ of a governing power (in which case, they'd probably have a roof over their heads).

Hmm, I'll probably change it to village then, along with a few other things. I have been toying with the idea of a messenger falcon, a falcon that brings them back messages, I wonder if that'd still be too far fetched.

I do want to keep the element of secrecy though, because Witchcraft was still a crime in the Middle Ages.

Thanks for the tip. I'll give y'all my train of thought on the whole idea.

I have them out in the woods hiding because Witches were persecuted back in the Middle Ages, so they have to be in hiding or else they'll be turned in and killed for praticing Witchcraft.

They're not Knights in the traditional sense, more like, mercenary.

As for why I chose Germany, well, England and the UK seems kinda played out to me, and I want it to take place in somewhere beside England or the UK.



Exactly



Care to elaborate on the no?



Hmm, I'll probably change it to village then, along with a few other things. I have been toying with the idea of a messenger falcon, a falcon that brings them back messages, I wonder if that'd still be too far fetched.

I do want to keep the element of secrecy though, because Witchcraft was still a crime in the Middle Ages.

If you want secrecy because they are witches, there isn't any reason why THEY need to be hidden - just their rituals. Which adds possibility to the storyline in another way - if you're juggling village-living with witchcraft-in-secret, you can introduce tension just from that dichotomy. After all - every time they leave the village together to celebrate, they're at risk of being happened-across... even accidentally.

Hmm, I'll probably change it to village then, along with a few other things. I have been toying with the idea of a messenger falcon, a falcon that brings them back messages, I wonder if that'd still be too far fetched.

I do want to keep the element of secrecy though, because Witchcraft was still a crime in the Middle Ages.
You could make them secret practitioners of the craft, and then there could be drama about suspicion about them among their enemies, whether any of their employers know their secret, etc.

Also, if by "Witchcraft" you mean what Wiccans practice, please keep in mind that that did not exist in the Middle Ages. If you want to write a Wicca-inspired historical fantasy (kind of a Wicca-medieval take on steampunk), then you don't need to worry about that, but if you want to set your story in a realistic medieval world, it would be a serious problem.

The most important thing is the setting. If you are writing a fantasy novel then you need to create a fantasy realm that is both wonderous and plausable at the same time.
Not to blow my own trumpet here but when I was writing Lord Of the Rings I made sure there was a lot of back story for Middle-earth all the way to its creation. You can never have too much backstory.

A good, fast paced story + relatable Characters + 2 pints of Wit = best selling novel, lol

Not to blow my own trumpet here but when I was writing Lord Of the Rings I made sure there was a lot of back story for Middle-earth all the way to its creation. You can never have too much backstory.

heh, almost as amusing as General Zod

What makes a best selling novel? I've always wondered that because it seems like some novels take off, and are successful, while other seem to well, pretty much fail. I've been wondering about it because I may try to write a novel, which will probably fail, but why not.

So, what is in a successful novel?

One that makes a lot of money. :D

It mustn't suck too much, nor be too pretentious.

This is basically what I was going to say. Unless we mean something VERY different by 'knight' (i.e. something more like 'thug in leather armour', the idea of a group of knights sitting around in the bushes is just a launch-point for a Monty Python sketch.Well, since it is "Germany" we're talking about, "thug in armor" could well mean "knight". There were a bunch of knights that went broke and took to banditry to support themselves. "Robber barons" (in German: Raubritter) they were called.

If you're looking for advice Is fairly good I've found (http://jvj.com/onwriting.html#page1)

In general, there's no one reason, different people buy books for different reasons. Sometimes it's for excellent language, sometimes it's the right idea at the right time. Sometimes it's plain luck.

Put a Swastika on the cover though. It apparently increases the sales of it by about a third.

'Skills with language' does not equate to 'using big words': to write in clear and comprehensible English is just as much, if not more, of a skill than to compensate by rubbing oneself furiously against a thesaurus at every juncture. Furthermore, Rowling's language is erudite: it is civil, not crude.

This applies to non-fiction as well as fiction: see, for example, the work of Howard Becker.

It really isn't though, is it? Stephen Fry is eminently more readable, and better written, as is Terry Pratchett, and neither riddle their books with plotholes and inconsistencies.

J.K. Rowling does not have superior writing skills any more than Rick Astley has superior musical skills. Some things just catch on.

Rowling's success lies in repackaging fantasy archetypes in a simple plot-driven narrative so that children could easily understand and relate to it. And marketing.

Stephen King had some good ideas back in the day, but he's kind of turned into the Rolling Stones... he's just doing the same three chords over and over for the last twenty years.

Well, three out of four (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThreeChordsAndTheTruth) isn't bad.

So you wanna know how to write for dollars.....Easy as pie. And take heed in these immortal wrods of wisdom "THERE IS NOTHING MORE POWERFUL, THAN AN IDEA WHOS TIME HAS COME".

Nuff said.

And please writing is a gift, if you have it you should not be thinking whether it will sell or not, but if it is that which concerns you start writing Gay Porn that sells like hotcakes globally.

And please writing is a gift, if you have it you should not be thinking whether it will sell or not, but if it is that which concerns you start writing Gay Porn that sells like hotcakes globally.

I hadn't realized the porn industry employed many writers. Most of the porn I've watched has been relatively short on plot and character development.

I hadn't realized the porn industry employed many writers. Most of the porn I've watched has been relatively short on plot and character development.

Heh and besides writting is not a gift but a skill that can be learnt, just like any other skill.

Heh and besides writting is not a gift but a skill that can be learnt, just like any other skill.

Good writting is a gift. Regular writting, though, can be done by anyone. Point in case, Paris Hilton has a book.

i really don't see how many other idiots get sucked into anything, as even remotely any sort of measure of its being worth a dam. 'best selling' as a marketing gimic is really assinign. SPREAD the wealth, don't narrow it. individuals are diverse, and the greatest gratification for anyone, precisely because of that, will always be a niche, thus mass popularity tends if anything, to indicate you WON'T find it there.

Good writting is a gift. Regular writting, though, can be done by anyone. Point in case, Paris Hilton has a book.

Nope it's a skill that can be learnt like any other. Think of this, is a good writer born with the ability to write, or do they leran it like the rest of us?

The best writers are just more practiced, like the best musicains, the best actors, the best athletes and the list goes on.

Nope it's a skill that can be learnt like any other. Think of this, is a good writer born with the ability to write, or do they leran it like the rest of us?

The best writers are just more practiced, like the best musicains, the best actors, the best athletes and the list goes on.It's something of both, really. Talented individuals generally don't need as much practice as those that have to work to reach similar levels. On the other hand, there will always be some that will never reach beyond a certain level through mere training. Talent isn't trainable, while skill is.

Nope it's a skill that can be learnt like any other. Think of this, is a good writer born with the ability to write, or do they leran it like the rest of us?

Shakespeare actually had a quill in the womb, much to the displeasure of his mother and the shock of her midwife.

Nope it's a skill that can be learnt like any other. Think of this, is a good writer born with the ability to write, or do they leran it like the rest of us?

The best writers are just more practiced, like the best musicains, the best actors, the best athletes and the list goes on.

"talent" consists of two parts, yes learning competence in a craft is one of them, but the specific inclinations of the soul one is born with, is the driving motivation to persue it.

someone else's level of talent also means nothing to one's self, if it isn't specific to the inclinations of one's own soul, to what gratifys it.

(which why popularity as any kind of measure of worth is such an abslute and complete falacy!)

"talent" consists of two parts, yes learning competence in a craft is one of them, but the specific inclinations of the soul one is born with, is the driving motivation to persue it.

someone else's level of talent also means nothing to one's self, if it isn't specific to the inclinations of one's own soul, to what gratifys it.

(which why popularity as any kind of measure of worth is such an abslute and complete falacy!)

Popularity as a measure of worth is fallacious because most people are idiots with no taste whatsoever. Most people don't even read books--being popular requires writing for someone who would rather be watching television.

It's something of both, really. Talented individuals generally don't need as much practice as those that have to work to reach similar levels. On the other hand, there will always be some that will never reach beyond a certain level through mere training. Talent isn't trainable, while skill is.

I disagree, there is no evidane that such a thing as inborn talent exsits. Yes of course some people may never learn some skills, but I belive that every one of us can be as proficient in writting as the best selling authors.

"talent" consists of two parts, yes learning competence in a craft is one of them, but the specific inclinations of the soul one is born with, is the driving motivation to persue it.

someone else's level of talent also means nothing to one's self, if it isn't specific to the inclinations of one's own soul, to what gratifys it.

(which why popularity as any kind of measure of worth is such an abslute and complete falacy!)

I would have thought that popularity, is the only valid measure of an artists worth.

I disagree, there is no evidane that such a thing as inborn talent exsits. Yes of course some people may never learn some skills, but I belive that every one of us can be as proficient in writting as the best selling authors.
CAN be is one thing. DOES is another. and the difference, more often then not, is the intrinsic inclination of one's own unique and inhierent nature. being born with a particular nature, doesn't mean being born with a particular skill, but it does mean being born with the drive to aquire that skill, that persuit of it is intrisic to one's gratification.

"talent" and popularity, ARE two entirely seperate (and frequently unrelated) topics!

If you're looking for advice Is fairly good I've found (http://jvj.com/onwriting.html#page1)

In general, there's no one reason, different people buy books for different reasons. Sometimes it's for excellent language, sometimes it's the right idea at the right time. Sometimes it's plain luck.

Put a Swastika on the cover though. It apparently increases the sales of it by about a third.
the word "naked" in the title also increases sales.

so i suggest calling this medieval knight witchery book

the naked swastika

I disagree, there is no evidane that such a thing as inborn talent exsits. Yes of course some people may never learn some skills, but I belive that every one of us can be as proficient in writting as the best selling authors.

The talent to write a good, cohecent story that engages the reader is NOT something you learn to do at a writting class. You may learn the skill to write a story, but not a good one that would garner you the title of acclaimed author. That's a talent you're born with.

I would have thought that popularity, is the only valid measure of an artists worth.

That means the American porn industry has almost twice the artistic value of the regular film industry. Is Larry Flynt a better artist than Stanley Kubrick?

I would have thought that popularity, is the only valid measure of an artists worth.
Are you telling us that you have no taste and no ability to form opinions or preferances of your own?

Because if you think that popularity is the only valid measure of an artist's worth, then you would have to rely on the opinions of others to tell you whether you like something or not. Do you do that? Or do you read something and decide for yourself whether you like it or not, regardless of what others say about it?

The fact, is the "worth" of an artist exists solely in the mind of the reader/viewer/audience -- each individual one of them assigns a relative value to each individual artist. If some artists are assigned a "worth" that is reflected by experts raising them to a level of importance in history, that is only because those experts decided that those particular artists had a strong influence on other artists. But that does not imply that they were "popular" artists, only influential within the closed club of working artists.

Also popularity waxes and wanes with fashion. A writer like Charles Dickens can be wildly popular in some decades and hardly mentioned in others -- but those ups and downs do not affect his "worth," whatever it may be, in terms of his skill, the content of his stories, his influence on other writers, etc.

CAN be is one thing. DOES is another. and the difference, more often then not, is the intrinsic inclination of one's own unique and inhierent nature. being born with a particular nature, doesn't mean being born with a particular skill, but it does mean being born with the drive to aquire that skill, that persuit of it is intrisic to one's gratification.

"talent" and popularity, ARE two entirely seperate (and frequently unrelated) topics!

Are you then reducing 'talent' down to the drive to get good at something?

The talent to write a good, cohecent story that engages the reader is NOT something you learn to do at a writting class. You may learn the skill to write a story, but not a good one that would garner you the title of acclaimed author. That's a talent you're born with.

Nope I strongly disagree. From where does this talent come, what are it's parts? All of the skills required to write a good story can certianly be learned in a writting class.

Are you telling us that you have no taste and no ability to form opinions or preferances of your own?

Because if you think that popularity is the only valid measure of an artist's worth, then you would have to rely on the opinions of others to tell you whether you like something or not. Do you do that? Or do you read something and decide for yourself whether you like it or not, regardless of what others say about it?

The fact, is the "worth" of an artist exists solely in the mind of the reader/viewer/audience -- each individual one of them assigns a relative value to each individual artist. If some artists are assigned a "worth" that is reflected by experts raising them to a level of importance in history, that is only because those experts decided that those particular artists had a strong influence on other artists. But that does not imply that they were "popular" artists, only influential within the closed club of working artists.

Also popularity waxes and wanes with fashion. A writer like Charles Dickens can be wildly popular in some decades and hardly mentioned in others -- but those ups and downs do not affect his "worth," whatever it may be, in terms of his skill, the content of his stories, his influence on other writers, etc.
popularity in novels is a terrible guide for how good the book is. look at the crap that stays on the best seller list!

how long was "the davinci code" on there? its a terrible book!

its not the only crap book thats been on the best seller list but it makes my point so ill stop here.

I am with Peeps here - not everything that is popular is great, but everything that is great is popular.

That means the American porn industry has almost twice the artistic value of the regular film industry. Is Larry Flynt a better artist than Stanley Kubrick?

if what you say is true, then according to public opinion I would have to say yes!:D

That means the American porn industry has almost twice the artistic value of the regular film industry. Is Larry Flynt a better artist than Stanley Kubrick?

So Doctor Strangelove wasn't a porn film? That is a damn misleading title.

Nope I strongly disagree. From where does this talent come, what are it's parts? All of the skills required to write a good story can certianly be learned in a writting class.
This talent comes from factories in Taiwan, and its parts consist of a series of interlocking gears that you wind up. They used to be made of brass, but nowadays it's mostly plastic.

What the hell are you talking about?

Talent is an individual variation of brain function, just like any other aptitude that varies from one person to another. Some people just come out with a greater aptitude for language, for music, for imagination, for athletics, etc, than others, just like some people come out more aggressive or more timid, more emotional or less so, more outgoing or more introverted, etc.

Even with all other things being equal -- training, practice, career opportunities -- some people are going to be better at telling stories than others, some people are going to produce better music than others, some people are going to be better dancers than others, some are going to be better lawyers than others, some are going to be better accountants than others, better doctors than others, better criminals than others, better Olympic athletes than others, etc.

I repeat, this is completely regardless of training, practice, career opportunities, support, etc. There will always be an individual variation that is inherent to the person.

To deny this is just silly. You can see it happening all around you every day, everywhere.

EDIT: Oh, and "writing" is spelled with one "t".

Are you telling us that you have no taste and no ability to form opinions or preferances of your own?

Because if you think that popularity is the only valid measure of an artist's worth, then you would have to rely on the opinions of others to tell you whether you like something or not. Do you do that? Or do you read something and decide for yourself whether you like it or not, regardless of what others say about it?

The fact, is the "worth" of an artist exists solely in the mind of the reader/viewer/audience -- each individual one of them assigns a relative value to each individual artist. If some artists are assigned a "worth" that is reflected by experts raising them to a level of importance in history, that is only because those experts decided that those particular artists had a strong influence on other artists. But that does not imply that they were "popular" artists, only influential within the closed club of working artists.

Also popularity waxes and wanes with fashion. A writer like Charles Dickens can be wildly popular in some decades and hardly mentioned in others -- but those ups and downs do not affect his "worth," whatever it may be, in terms of his skill, the content of his stories, his influence on other writers, etc.

I fail to see how you reach that conclusion?

Of course I have a sense of what I like, but if that is not in accorance with the rest of the art loving populous then rightly so my tatses would be considered not mainstream.

Art being subjective as it is, an authour on the best selling lists must be better at the job than one who is not.

popularity in novels is a terrible guide for how good the book is. look at the crap that stays on the best seller list!

how long was "the davinci code" on there? its a terrible book!

its not the only crap book thats been on the best seller list but it makes my point so ill stop here.
I agree. I said it in my first post, whether a book becomes a best seller or not has little or nothing to do with the quality of it. It is a matter of marketing, luck, and passing fashion.

I am with Peeps here - not everything that is popular is great, but everything that is great is popular.
Nonsense. It is a classic occurrence that an artist/writer/musician never sees popularity during his lifetime and is considered a hack by his contemporaries, only to be labeled "great" by later generations. Does that mean the person's work wasn't "great" when he made it but it somehow became "great" after he was dead? And if, later on, his popularity wanes again, does that mean his work magically turns into crap? No, all it means is that tastes change over time. There are countless poets, writers, musicians, artists, who are considered "great" by experts and fellow practitioners of their art, but who are virtually unknown to the general public. Just like there are scientists, engineers, designers, etc, considered "great" by those in the know about those fields, but whose names are never mentioned in schools or history books, etc.

Popularity and greatness are two completely separate things that only sometimes overlap, just like good book and best selling book are two different things that only sometimes overlap.

This talent comes from factories in Taiwan, and its parts consist of a series of interlocking gears that you wind up. They used to be made of brass, but nowadays it's mostly plastic.

What the hell are you talking about?

Talent is an individual variation of brain function, just like any other aptitude that varies from one person to another. Some people just come out with a greater aptitude for language, for music, for imagination, for athletics, etc, than others, just like some people come out more aggressive or more timid, more emotional or less so, more outgoing or more introverted, etc.

Even with all other things being equal -- training, practice, career opportunities -- some people are going to be better at telling stories than others, some people are going to produce better music than others, some people are going to be better dancers than others, some are going to be better lawyers than others, some are going to be better accountants than others, better doctors than others, better criminals than others, better Olympic athletes than others, etc.

I repeat, this is completely regardless of training, practice, career opportunities, support, etc. There will always be an individual variation that is inherent to the person.

To deny this is just silly. You can see it happening all around you every day, everywhere.

EDIT: Oh, and "writing" is spelled with one "t".

What I'm on about is particular to the 'talent' of writting a good story. Ask what are the parts that make up a good story. Well developed charectors, a good plot, a style of writting that is clear and easy to read, to name a few.

All of this can be learnt, it takes no talent at all to learn any of this. Also all that you have named above can be learnt or practiced. There is no inate abliity that makes one superior than another in any of these fields except hard work and practice.

If you think otherwise, give me an example?

I fail to see how you reach that conclusion?

Of course I have a sense of what I like, but if that is not in accorance with the rest of the art loving populous then rightly so my tatses would be considered not mainstream.

Art being subjective as it is, an authour on the best selling lists must be better at the job than one who is not.
I am not surprised that you fail to see how I reached my conclusion after you read a post in which I explained how I reached my conclusion, considering that you don't even make an attempt to explain the "reasoning" behind your position on the matter.

Your conclusion that, if a guy is on the bestseller list, he must be a better writer than one who isn't, is not supported by observable reality. If you have information not available or obvious to the rest of the world, or if you have a progression of logical reasoning that leads you to your conclusion, you should lay it out for us.

Art is subjective, and that's why we can rely on the opinions of other people who buy books to tell us whether a writer is good or not, is not a good argument on its face. Rather, on its face, it is self-contradictory nonsense, so if you have some way to show that it makes sense, I'd love to see it.

I fail to see how you reach that conclusion?

Of course I have a sense of what I like, but if that is not in accorance with the rest of the art loving populous then rightly so my tatses would be considered not mainstream.

Art being subjective as it is, an authour on the best selling lists must be better at the job than one who is not.

Only if you consider the artist's societal role to be purely commercial. Only if you believe that cultural value is the same as market value. I for one am uneasy with such wholesale commoditization of culture, such that one might say that the value of a given painting is equivalent to 10.7 kg of cocaine.

I am not surprised that you fail to see how I reached my conclusion after you read a post in which I explained how I reached my conclusion, considering that you don't even make an attempt to explain the "reasoning" behind your position on the matter.

Your conclusion that, if a guy is on the bestseller list, he must be a better writer than one who isn't, is not supported by observable reality. If you have information not available or obvious to the rest of the world, or if you have a progression of logical reasoning that leads you to your conclusion, you should lay it out for us.

Art is subjective, and that's why we can rely on the opinions of other people who buy books to tell us whether a writer is good or not, is not a good argument on its face. Rather, on its face, it is self-contradictory nonsense, so if you have some way to show that it makes sense, I'd love to see it.


A best seller list is only short term popularity - if something is still popular after several centuries (say Robinson Crusoe) then it is great, even if at the time there were things that were more popular but that now are just no longer read.

Are you then reducing 'talent' down to the drive to get good at something?

its not a matter of reduction. if its based on ones intrinsic nature, that is what it is.

What I'm on about is particular to the 'talent' of writting a good story. Ask what are the parts that make up a good story. Well developed charectors, a good plot, a style of writting that is clear and easy to read, to name a few.

All of this can be learnt, it takes no talent at all to learn any of this. Also all that you have named above can be learnt or practiced. There is no inate abliity that makes one superior than another in any of these fields except hard work and practice.

If you think otherwise, give me an example?
All right, let's compare books based on the parts of a story:

Example #1: The Dick and Jane books. They are classics. They have been used for decades to teach children to read. They contain all the essentials of a story -- characters that their readers can identify with, cohesive plots that progress from beginning through middle to end, and a style that is clear and easy to read ("See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!").

Example #2: Anna Karenina. Also a classic, although it is reserved for those who have already learned how to read -- an advanced level book, if you will. It contains characters that readers can identify with -- the betrayed heroine, the ruthless villain, etc. It has a cohesive plot that progresses from beginning through middle to end. It has a style that is clear and, if you have learned to read, it is easy to read (not quite "See Anna lie down in front of the train. Die, Anna, die for love!" but good enough).

Unless you are going to claim that Dick and Jane and Anna Karenina are on the same level of literary quality and took the same skills to write so that the people who wrote the Dick and Jane books could just as easily have written Anna Karenina (and if you do that, then I will just laugh at you), then these two examples clearly show that merely containing the necessary parts of a good story is not the measure of whether a book is "good" or not.

I am not surprised that you fail to see how I reached my conclusion after you read a post in which I explained how I reached my conclusion, considering that you don't even make an attempt to explain the "reasoning" behind your position on the matter.

Your conclusion that, if a guy is on the bestseller list, he must be a better writer than one who isn't, is not supported by observable reality. If you have information not available or obvious to the rest of the world, or if you have a progression of logical reasoning that leads you to your conclusion, you should lay it out for us.

Art is subjective, and that's why we can rely on the opinions of other people who buy books to tell us whether a writer is good or not, is not a good argument on its face. Rather, on its face, it is self-contradictory nonsense, so if you have some way to show that it makes sense, I'd love to see it.

Nope, what we have been talking about is worth. Consider Tracey Emin's 'tent' what a pile of crap that was, so says I but how much is that piece of work worth?

Art is only worth what somebody would pay for it. If a crap piece of work has it's price inflated by people, then it's worth increases and subseqently so does the artists 'worth'

Wheter that work is good or bad, is subjective and so we'll never reach a consensus, but if enough people say that work is worth ex amount of dollars then that becomes it's actual worth, and thus the populartiy of an artist or her work is the only valid measure of their worth.

Only if you consider the artist's societal role to be purely commercial. Only if you believe that cultural value is the same as market value. I for one am uneasy with such wholesale commoditization of culture, such that one might say that the value of a given painting is equivalent to 10.7 kg of cocaine.

Heh a fair point, but let me ask you, how many artists produce art as social commentry alone, and how many do so to make some money?

its not a matter of reduction. if its based on ones intrinsic nature, that is what it is.

Okay so you are saying that talent is the intrinsic nature to sweat and work hard to get good at something?

Then how is that any differant from saying there is no such thing as inherent talent, only hard work and practice?

A best seller list is only short term popularity - if something is still popular after several centuries (say Robinson Crusoe) then it is great, even if at the time there were things that were more popular but that now are just no longer read.
You are still ignoring the fact that even the most classic authors who have been widely recognized as "great" over several generations (like Shakespeare) have had times when they were ignored, even denigrated, based on fashion. You are also ignoring the fact that writers like, say, Homer can be universally recognized as "great" yet read by virtually no one, indicating that they have no actual popularity anymore. Yet they retain their greatness, whatever that might mean. On that basis, I am saying that popularity is not the measure of greatness.

Nope, what we have been talking about is worth. Consider Tracey Emin's 'tent' what a pile of crap that was, so says I but how much is that piece of work worth?

Art is only worth what somebody would pay for it. If a crap piece of work has it's price inflated by people, then it's worth increases and subseqently so does the artists 'worth'

Wheter that work is good or bad, is subjective and so we'll never reach a consensus, but if enough people say that work is worth ex amount of dollars then that becomes it's actual worth, and thus the populartiy of an artist or her work is the only valid measure of their worth.
So then, when you say "worth" you're not talking about cultural impact or influence? Rather you just mean dollar value in a given market?

In that case the "worth" of a book is approximately $25US in hardcover and $10US in paperback, regardless of who wrote it or whether it's a bestseller or not.

Heh a fair point, but let me ask you, how many artists produce art as social commentry alone, and how many do so to make some money?
Very, very few artists produce art to make money. I mean like maybe just a few thousand out of all the millions working in the artistic fields in any given year. It's not really a paying profession nowadays.

You are still ignoring the fact that even the most classic authors who have been widely recognized as "great" over several generations (like Shakespeare) have had times when they were ignored, even denigrated, based on fashion. You are also ignoring the fact that writers like, say, Homer can be universally recognized as "great" yet read by virtually no one, indicating that they have no actual popularity anymore. Yet they retain their greatness, whatever that might mean. On that basis, I am saying that popularity is not the measure of greatness.

I would say it is cumulative popularity, but popularity nonetheless that makes something great. In the end if people don't like it is forgotten forever. Homer may be read by very few people nowadays (though enough of us still do) and over the generations it has clocked up a massive number of readers to keep it going. The Da Vinci code will not be read by successive generations as it is in the words of Stephen Fry "arse gravy" - so although it may have had a blip of popularity (but so did Valley of the Dolls but who reads that now - certainly fewer people than read Homer) that doesn't make it great it has to gather new readers in every generation for that.

Nope, what we have been talking about is worth. Consider Tracey Emin's 'tent' what a pile of crap that was, so says I but how much is that piece of work worth?

Art is only worth what somebody would pay for it. If a crap piece of work has it's price inflated by people, then it's worth increases and subseqently so does the artists 'worth'

Wheter that work is good or bad, is subjective and so we'll never reach a consensus, but if enough people say that work is worth ex amount of dollars then that becomes it's actual worth, and thus the populartiy of an artist or her work is the only valid measure of their worth.
well there are 2 schools of artistic worth that an artist must pick between to strive for.

there is the popular culture worth full of big eyed girls, crying clowns and bucolic cottages at dusk. you can make good money at it as long as you dont mind tayloring your art to "what sells"

and there is the be-true-to-your-art school where you try to make something so original and so expressive of your inner self that it blows away the connoisseur art world.

kinda like the wine biz if you think about it.

Okay so you are saying that talent is the intrinsic nature to sweat and work hard to get good at something?

Then how is that any differant from saying there is no such thing as inherent talent, only hard work and practice?
No, talent is the individual variation in the ease and quality of a given person's output of work. Two people can study an artistic craft such as writing equally. Of the two, the one with talent is going to produce work of high quality more consistently than the one lacking talent because mere technique alone is not enough. Mere technique alone can still allow substandard work (flat characters, boring plots) to get through. Also the one with talent is going to be better able to tweak the techniques, break the rules but still produce quality work in such a way as to advance the art by creating new techniques. The one who lacks talent must rely completely on the learned techniques to produce the work and, thus, is discouraged from being an innovator. That is the observable difference that individual talent makes.

Heh a fair point, but let me ask you, how many artists produce art as social commentry alone, and how many do so to make some money?

The fact that Monet and Uwe Boll both tried to make money doesn't make their work equivalent in value. Nor is Salieri's music better than Motzart's because he was wealthier.

I would say it is cumulative popularity, but popularity nonetheless that makes something great. In the end if people don't like it is forgotten forever. Homer may be read by very few people nowadays (though enough of us still do) and over the generations it has clocked up a massive number of readers to keep it going. The Da Vinci code will not be read by successive generations as it is in the words of Stephen Fry "arse gravy" - so although it may have had a blip of popularity (but so did Valley of the Dolls but who reads that now - certainly fewer people than read Homer) that doesn't make it great it has to gather new readers in every generation for that.
I think you are stretching the definition of "popular" too much. I dispute any use of the word that would tend paint Homer as a popular writer in the 21st century.

REAL "worth" is NEITHER cultural impact, NOR little green pieces of paper, but the personal gratification of creating and exploring. that's why i keep saying real art is what you DO, not some kind of spectator event.

All right, let's compare books based on the parts of a story:

Example #1: The Dick and Jane books. They are classics. They have been used for decades to teach children to read. They contain all the essentials of a story -- characters that their readers can identify with, cohesive plots that progress from beginning through middle to end, and a style that is clear and easy to read ("See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!").

Example #2: Anna Karenina. Also a classic, although it is reserved for those who have already learned how to read -- an advanced level book, if you will. It contains characters that readers can identify with -- the betrayed heroine, the ruthless villain, etc. It has a cohesive plot that progresses from beginning through middle to end. It has a style that is clear and, if you have learned to read, it is easy to read (not quite "See Anna lie down in front of the train. Die, Anna, die for love!" but good enough).

Unless you are going to claim that Dick and Jane and Anna Karenina are on the same level of literary quality and took the same skills to write so that the people who wrote the Dick and Jane books could just as easily have written Anna Karenina (and if you do that, then I will just laugh at you), then these two examples clearly show that merely containing the necessary parts of a good story is not the measure of whether a book is "good" or not.

And if you are about to tell me this is purely down to some inate ability and not about writting for a differant aduiance, then I shall laugh at you.

Nope I strongly disagree. From where does this talent come, what are it's parts? All of the skills required to write a good story can certianly be learned in a writting class.

Nope, they cannot be learned at a writing class, Peep. I'm sorry to disagree. I took those classes, and I remember that some of my peers couldn't write anything worth shyte, even after the professor gave them all the tools. So it is an inate talent, not something you learn from taking a class.

And if you are about to tell me this is purely down to some inate ability and not about writting for a differant aduiance, then I shall laugh at you.
Go ahead and laugh. You can be wrong and laugh at the same time. I'm still waiting for your supporting explanation of how you arrived at this "point" you are so adamant about.

Also, I'm feeling a strong urge to stab you with that extra "t". It's spelled "WRITING".

If you're going to insist that the key to good writing is all in the craft of it, you should at least make enough of an effort at the craft to spell the name of it correctly.

(By the way, it's also spelled "audience". Just fyi.)

I think you are stretching the definition of "popular" too much. I dispute any use of the word that would tend paint Homer as a popular writer in the 21st century.

I said popular, not popular in the 20th century

I said popular, not popular in the 20th century
I know you said that. And I said I think you are stretching the word too much, as in using it inappropriately.

Go ahead and laugh. You can be wrong and laugh at the same time. I'm still waiting for your supporting explanation of how you arrived at this "point" you are so adamant about.

Also, I'm feeling a strong urge to stab you with that extra "t". It's spelled "WRITING".

If you're going to insist that the key to good writing is all in the craft of it, you should at least make enough of an effort at the craft to spell the name of it correctly.

(By the way, it's also spelled "audience". Just fyi.)

Perhaps he is referring to the composition of "writs," as in judicial orders. That would explain a lot of the difference in opinion.

I recall reading a commentary by Neal Stephenson on this topic. He pointed out that popular fiction is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, artists had to rely on the patronage of a wealthy person or institution.

What I'm on about is particular to the 'talent' of writting a good story. Ask what are the parts that make up a good story. Well developed charectors, a good plot, a style of writting that is clear and easy to read, to name a few.


What? Where can you learn all of this? Every writing course in the UK & the United States would go bust if there was a place that could actually teach you that.

Nope, they cannot be learned at a writing class, Peep. I'm sorry to disagree. I took those classes, and I remember that some of my peers couldn't write anything worth shyte, even after the professor gave them all the tools. So it is an inate talent, not something you learn from taking a class.
there are many many things you can learn in class.

technical things like sentence structure and paragraphs.

the ability to make a compelling story cannot be taught but it can be improved over time by practice. just like any other innate talent must be used in order to get really good at it.

I know you said that. And I said I think you are stretching the word too much, as in using it inappropriately.

My dictionary doesn't mention popularity having a time limit. Personally I just don't see how the worth of a book can be measured except by people enjoying reading it - and that is essentially popularity as far as I am concerned. I don't go much for the idea that 'great art' is what we are told by critics is great art.

that something can stay popular for centuries, even millinea, only proves that people can stay idiots for centuries, even millinea.

but i do have to aggree that publishers profit margins have no direct relationship to what i find personally gratifying.

My dictionary doesn't mention popularity having a time limit. Personally I just don't see how the worth of a book can be measured except by people enjoying reading it - and that is essentially popularity as far as I am concerned. I don't go much for the idea that 'great art' is what we are told by critics is great art.

You are abusing semantics. "Popular" has a special meaning when it comes to art. By definition it refers to contemporary works with mass appeal. Chaucer is not a popular author just because I still have to read him for class. Stephen King is a popular author.

You are abusing semantics. "Popular" has a special meaning when it comes to art. Chaucer is not a popular author just because I still have to read him for class. Stephen King is a popular author.

Perhaps you can suggest an alternative word for "lots of people have liked this"?

there are many many things you can learn in class.

technical things like sentence structure and paragraphs.

the ability to make a compelling story cannot be taught but it can be improved over time by practice. just like any other innate talent must be used in order to get really good at it.

Improve, yes, but the talent for writing is not something you learn from a class. You're born with it. And by that I mean writing like the great authors like Emily Brönte or Charles Dickens.

Perhaps he is referring to the composition of "writs," as in judicial orders. That would explain a lot of the difference in opinion.
I believe writs are produced by writing, so no luck for him there, either. ;)

I recall reading a commentary by Neal Stephenson on this topic. He pointed out that popular fiction is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, artists had to rely on the patronage of a wealthy person or institution.
I would agree. It has always been a rare phenomenon for any writer, poet or artist to make enough at their work to support themselves solely by it. In the past, patrons who were fans of the artist would help support them so they could produce work without having to worry about making rent payments. In the even more distant past, such patrons were actually employers who would maintain staffs of "in-house" artists, writers, poets to produce work to order.

Back in, say, da Vinci's day, unless you landed a position with such a patron, you could paint on your own time, but you'd be paying your bills by mixing pigments in someone else's portrait shop. As recently as the 1960s, if you didn't fall in with a Peggy Guggenheim to pressure all her friends into paying outrageous prices for your work, you'd be paying your bills by cab driving or waiting tables.

The days of Medicis and Guggenheims are over now, and the vast majority of even bestselling writers and artists have "day jobs" cover their living expenses. But even so, the number of Rembrandts -- artists who became so popular that they worked full time, independently, and lived relatively well on just their art-based work -- has always been discouragingly low. Even many of the impressionists, often seen as the first commercially successful fine artists, are examples of this. Most of them were either dirt poor, or they were independently wealthy like Manet, or they had day jobs like Degas.

Even in the days of the great masters, art as a profession was really a public service profession that required not-for-profit support.

My dictionary doesn't mention popularity having a time limit. Personally I just don't see how the worth of a book can be measured except by people enjoying reading it - and that is essentially popularity as far as I am concerned. I don't go much for the idea that 'great art' is what we are told by critics is great art.
I refer you to Braaainss' explanation for how the term is being misused.

Perhaps you can suggest an alternative word for "lots of people have liked this"?
"Classics" is a term generally used to describe works that have survived the test of time in terms of recognized quality. Homer is a classic. That indicates that his quality and importance survive, even if his popularity does not.

"Popular" indicates that lots of people like it NOW.

"Classic" indicates that lots of people have liked it over a very long period of time, regardless of how many might like it right now.

Improve, yes, but the talent for writing is not something you learn from a class. You're born with it. And by that I mean writing like the great authors like Emily Brönte or Charles Dickens.
i think you are right.

but i dont think that anyone knows that they have the talent until they put in enough work to get past the "i can put together a good paragraph" stage.

Improve, yes, but the talent for writing is not something you learn from a class. You're born with it. And by that I mean writing like the great authors like Emily Brönte or Charles Dickens.

the only thing anyone is "born with" is intrinsic inclinations, and those generally, i highly suspect, are the resault of whatever their preferences happened to have been when they died in their previous lives.

being able to actually DO anything with those intrinsic inclinations, still has to be learned.
(believe me, i was born with lots of intrinsic inclinations, and had to learn that the hard way, as i rather suspect every "great" anything, along with most of the rest of us, has had to as well!)

i think you are right.

but i dont think that anyone knows that they have the talent until they put in enough work to get past the "i can put together a good paragraph" stage.

Just like the idea of writing can be influenced by authors one has the preference for reading. I know that happened to me. But I, in no way, can claim I'm a writer.

the only thing anyone is "born with" is intrinsic inclinations, and those generally, i highly suspect, are the resault of whatever their preferences happened to have been when they died in their previous lives.

being able to actually DO anything with those intrinsic inclinations, still has to be learned.

That isn't contested. Writing class can help those with the talent improve. Ashmoria covered it. But a writing class can, in no way, make a person a good writer. That's why I say one is born with that talent.

So then, when you say "worth" you're not talking about cultural impact or influence? Rather you just mean dollar value in a given market?

In that case the "worth" of a book is approximately $25US in hardcover and $10US in paperback, regardless of who wrote it or whether it's a bestseller or not.

Yes that is what I assumed when the word worth was used.

Very, very few artists produce art to make money. I mean like maybe just a few thousand out of all the millions working in the artistic fields in any given year. It's not really a paying profession nowadays.

Okay so very few make any money, but I'm willing to bet that all wish they could sell more.

Case in point I'm freindly with a fair few comic artists and I don't know a single one of them that does not endevour to make sure their work is more widely known, and saught after, not for any egotistical reasosns(although of course ego plays a part) but for monetary gain.

We have at least one comic artist here on NSG I wonder if he produces for love, for noiterity, for social comment, or for the hope of making it his sole paying profesion?

i think you are right.

but i dont think that anyone knows that they have the talent until they put in enough work to get past the "i can put together a good paragraph" stage.
Malcolm Gladwell (author of "Blink") has a new book out, "Outliers," which is supposed to be about how success happens. I heard an interview with him, in which he talked about one of the theories in the book, which is that mastery of a craft or art or science does not occur until a person has put in a certain amount of practice, averaging about 10,000 hours (or 8 to 10 years). According to this theory (which I don't think is his own), that's how long it takes for craft and talent to meld in such a way that the world will recognize a person as a master of whatever it is they are doing. It's an interesting notion.

No, talent is the individual variation in the ease and quality of a given person's output of work. Two people can study an artistic craft such as writing equally. Of the two, the one with talent is going to produce work of high quality more consistently than the one lacking talent because mere technique alone is not enough. Mere technique alone can still allow substandard work (flat characters, boring plots) to get through. Also the one with talent is going to be better able to tweak the techniques, break the rules but still produce quality work in such a way as to advance the art by creating new techniques. The one who lacks talent must rely completely on the learned techniques to produce the work and, thus, is discouraged from being an innovator. That is the observable difference that individual talent makes.


Again that only shows that you belive that such a thing as inate talent exsists. It does not show how your stance is correct.

If we look at your example another way. Of the two the one that better grasps the concepts and is able to use them quciker than his stable mate, is he actualy better?

Given enough time could his mate not catchup on the quality of his work?

Are you then saying that this 'talent' is merely a greater understanding of the skills required or that he was a faster learner?

Breaking the rules, is a valid point though, but answered by a better understanding of the art or the craft.

Like cooking a good curry, when you start you whack in too much spice, or mix and match and put too many differant spices and flavours in. As you learn and practice, your palate gets better until you reach both a better understanding of the art and craft of the curry and cooking in general.

Those rule breakers are setting new rules, but this is not down to inate 'talent'. It is because of more practice.

Practice anything for long enough, and epithiany is reached, a greater understanding of the subject blooms in the mind, the rules are internalised, and this to the outsider looks like inate talent, but really there is no such thing.

Malcolm Gladwell (author of "Blink") has a new book out, "Outliers," which is supposed to be about how success happens. I heard an interview with him, in which he talked about one of the theories in the book, which is that mastery of a craft or art or science does not occur until a person has put in a certain amount of practice, averaging about 10,000 hours (or 8 to 10 years). According to this theory (which I don't think is his own), that's how long it takes for craft and talent to meld in such a way that the world will recognize a person as a master of whatever it is they are doing. It's an interesting notion.
thats a hella lot of writing before you know that you do, in fact, SUCK.

which surely can happen. and then what do you do?

The fact that Monet and Uwe Boll both tried to make money doesn't make their work equivalent in value. Nor is Salieri's music better than Motzart's because he was wealthier.

What do you mean by value?

Malcolm Gladwell (author of "Blink") has a new book out, "Outliers," which is supposed to be about how success happens. I heard an interview with him, in which he talked about one of the theories in the book, which is that mastery of a craft or art or science does not occur until a person has put in a certain amount of practice, averaging about 10,000 hours (or 8 to 10 years). According to this theory (which I don't think is his own), that's how long it takes for craft and talent to meld in such a way that the world will recognize a person as a master of whatever it is they are doing. It's an interesting notion.

I agree with that, as I posted a while ago:
A wise man once told me that you can become an expert in anything if you give it ten years. And I think there is a lot of truth to that. The caveat is that expertise is different from talent. Ten years hard work does not mean that you will become a best selling author.

Who says we cover the same topics over and over? :D

Again that only shows that you belive that such a thing as inate talent exsists. It does not show how your stance is correct.

There's plenty of evidence to show that innate aptitude exists. The differences between the work of Einstein and Joe the Plumber cannot be reduced to environmental stimuli alone.

Yes that is what I assumed when the word worth was used.
Then we have been talking at cross purposes, because you are the only person in the thread who made that assumption. In general, the term "worth" applied to the arts indicates the perceived value of cultural influence or impact, not dollar value at sale.

So, regardless of the fact that you can get a copy of Hamlet for less than $10, the "worth" of Hamlet is considered to be far greater than that.

Okay so very few make any money, but I'm willing to bet that all wish they could sell more.

Case in point I'm freindly with a fair few comic artists and I don't know a single one of them that does not endevour to make sure their work is more widely known, and saught after, not for any egotistical reasosns(although of course ego plays a part) but for monetary gain.

We have at least one comic artist here on NSG I wonder if he produces for love, for noiterity, for social comment, or for the hope of making it his sole paying profesion?
I suspect your friends are lying to you. I have been a working artist for nearly 30 years, and I have met more artists and writers and performers than I would have cared to, had I had the choice. I do not know any, nor know of any, who did not do the particular work they did, first, just because they love it, because the doing of it is personally fulfilling to them in some way, or satisfies some inner drive; second, because they dream of fame, ego-tripping on fantasies of being recognized as some kind of genius at something; and then and only then, third, the tantalizing lure of the remote possibility of "making it big" financially, of getting that Stephen King money. It's not an "or" proposition.

What do you mean by value?

Social and cultural value. Just because it can't be quantified like monetary value doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

well there are 2 schools of artistic worth that an artist must pick between to strive for.

there is the popular culture worth full of big eyed girls, crying clowns and bucolic cottages at dusk. you can make good money at it as long as you dont mind tayloring your art to "what sells"

and there is the be-true-to-your-art school where you try to make something so original and so expressive of your inner self that it blows away the connoisseur art world.

kinda like the wine biz if you think about it.

Then the second kind of worth(which I guess we have been talking about all along(heh)) exists only in the mind of the artist, and those who care about such things.

In other words it's not real, it's not a real commodity, it's an expression of the artists feeling as valid as any other humans feelings on whatever matter the artist is talking about. It's real vaule is zero.

thats a hella lot of writing before you know that you do, in fact, SUCK.

which surely can happen. and then what do you do?
Shoot yourself, I guess.

I agree with that, as I posted a while ago:


Who says we cover the same topics over and over? :D
Oh, you got there before me, did you? Wait... *rummages in purse*... Here's nickel as your prize. Enjoy. :p

Shoot yourself, I guess.

That's what Ernest Hemingway did.

Shoot yourself, I guess.
oh

maybe i shouldnt take up writing.

Then the second kind of worth(which I guess we have been talking about all along(heh)) exists only in the mind of the artist, and those who care about such things.

In other words it's not real, it's not a real commodity, it's an expression of the artists feeling as valid as any other humans feelings on whatever matter the artist is talking about. It's real vaule is zero.
oh

what a ......financially driven...opinion.

Oh, you got there before me, did you? Wait... *rummages in purse*... Here's nickel as your prize. Enjoy. :p

I love you and I must dry-hump you. Witty woman!:fluffle:

Again that only shows that you belive that such a thing as inate talent exsists. It does not show how your stance is correct.

If we look at your example another way. Of the two the one that better grasps the concepts and is able to use them quciker than his stable mate, is he actualy better?

Given enough time could his mate not catchup on the quality of his work?

Are you then saying that this 'talent' is merely a greater understanding of the skills required or that he was a faster learner?

Breaking the rules, is a valid point though, but answered by a better understanding of the art or the craft.

Like cooking a good curry, when you start you whack in too much spice, or mix and match and put too many differant spices and flavours in. As you learn and practice, your palate gets better until you reach both a better understanding of the art and craft of the curry and cooking in general.

Those rule breakers are setting new rules, but this is not down to inate 'talent'. It is because of more practice.

Practice anything for long enough, and epithiany is reached, a greater understanding of the subject blooms in the mind, the rules are internalised, and this to the outsider looks like inate talent, but really there is no such thing.
I'm sorry but this is bullshit. Real world examples of a demonstrable effect of talent that has no source except individual variation inherent within people exist all around us, and have been cited in this very thread, with supporting explanations as to how they show what we say they show.

You respond with nothing but what-if's. At this point your entire argument consists of little more than "Okay, that could be true, but what if it isn't? Then I'd be right." You are still not giving us a foundation for the sense of your argument at all.

Then the second kind of worth(which I guess we have been talking about all along(heh)) exists only in the mind of the artist, and those who care about such things.

In other words it's not real, it's not a real commodity, it's an expression of the artists feeling as valid as any other humans feelings on whatever matter the artist is talking about. It's real vaule is zero.
No, it's in the mind of the audience for the art.

Nope, they cannot be learned at a writing class, Peep. I'm sorry to disagree. I took those classes, and I remember that some of my peers couldn't write anything worth shyte, even after the professor gave them all the tools. So it is an inate talent, not something you learn from taking a class.

Sorry mate, I think you are wrong on this one. Did these people give up after or did they carry on? If the latter what is the quality of their work now?

Practice, practice, practice it's not easy to get great at something, and the time scale is measured in years, or decades. Not gained over a class, but many and much practice. I am, as many of you know, dyslexic. Now read my words and look for the spelling mistakes, and the transposed letters, and yes I'm sure you'll find some, not even half as many 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.

Not because some inate ability but beacuse of practice. I have been bashing away at a keyboard now for some 20 odd years, I can now see some of my mistakes where 20 years ago I just could not. Familiarity with words has brought this about, I have not suddenly become non dyslexic. I'll repeat it once more for you all.

Practice!:D

Go ahead and laugh. You can be wrong and laugh at the same time. I'm still waiting for your supporting explanation of how you arrived at this "point" you are so adamant about.

Also, I'm feeling a strong urge to stab you with that extra "t". It's spelled "WRITING".

If you're going to insist that the key to good writing is all in the craft of it, you should at least make enough of an effort at the craft to spell the name of it correctly.

(By the way, it's also spelled "audience". Just fyi.)

Meh dyslexic *shrug* don't let it worry you, you know what I mean, it don't worry me none.:wink:

Sorry mate, I think you are wrong on this one. Did these people give up after or did they carry on? If the latter what is the quality of their work now?

Practice, practice, practice it's not easy to get great at something, and the time scale is measured in years, or decades. Not gained over a class, but many and much practice. I am, as many of you know, dyslexic. Now read my words and look for the spelling mistakes, and the transposed letters, and yes I'm sure you'll find some, not even half as many 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.

Not because some inate ability but beacuse of practice. I have been bashing away at a keyboard now for some 20 odd years, I can now see some of my mistakes where 20 years ago I just could not. Familiarity with words has brought this about, I have not suddenly become non dyslexic. I'll repeat it once more for you all.

Practice!:D

Some people can hit you with great writing in their teens.. what marks them out from the 40-something who has been trying for years and years and years and has no intention of giving up?

Sorry mate, I think you are wrong on this one. Did these people give up after or did they carry on? If the latter what is the quality of their work now?

Practice, practice, practice it's not easy to get great at something, and the time scale is measured in years, or decades. Not gained over a class, but many and much practice. I am, as many of you know, dyslexic. Now read my words and look for the spelling mistakes, and the transposed letters, and yes I'm sure you'll find some, not even half as many 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.

Not because some inate ability but beacuse of practice. I have been bashing away at a keyboard now for some 20 odd years, I can now see some of my mistakes where 20 years ago I just could not. Familiarity with words has brought this about, I have not suddenly become non dyslexic. I'll repeat it once more for you all.

Practice!:D

Peeps, honey, your equating dyslexia and the subsequent practice you undertook to write correctly with the ability to write a good story/novel. They're not the same. They both may involve improvement and, yes, if you're practicing at a class, redundantly, it involves practice. But writing a good novel, a good story is not something one learns. Passable, maybe, good, nope.

Classes do not teach you that, they may give you the skill to write coherently, but that does not, in any way, make you a writer. It makes you someone who can write and express an idea. A wirter, far from it.

there are many many things you can learn in class.

technical things like sentence structure and paragraphs.

the ability to make a compelling story cannot be taught but it can be improved over time by practice. just like any other innate talent must be used in order to get really good at it.

Yes indeed.:D

Improve, yes, but the talent for writing is not something you learn from a class. You're born with it. And by that I mean writing like the great authors like Emily Brönte or Charles Dickens.

No you're not born with much except the capacity to learn.

Can you point out one person born with the ability to write?

How did Charles Dickens arrive at his talent? Was the very first story he ever wrote great, or was it his practice that turned him great?

the only thing anyone is "born with" is intrinsic inclinations, and those generally, i highly suspect, are the resault of whatever their preferences happened to have been when they died in their previous lives.

being able to actually DO anything with those intrinsic inclinations, still has to be learned.
(believe me, i was born with lots of intrinsic inclinations, and had to learn that the hard way, as i rather suspect every "great" anything, along with most of the rest of us, has had to as well!)

I was born with the intrinsic inclination to climb trees, is this then a talent of mine?

That isn't contested. Writing class can help those with the talent improve. Ashmoria covered it. But a writing class can, in no way, make a person a good writer. That's why I say one is born with that talent.

then we are saying basically the same thing. its just that how you are saying it, which may be the more common, carries that implication that someone can be born with a skill without having to develop it to make it useful.

at least it does in the american english that is unfortunately the only language i am in any depth familiar with.

perhapse these implications are different in other languages, as seems highly probable that they are.

There's plenty of evidence to show that innate aptitude exists. The differences between the work of Einstein and Joe the Plumber cannot be reduced to environmental stimuli alone.

Inate aptitude, sure I can agree with that. If I have longer legs than my brother chances are that I will be able to run faster than him(alas the opposite is true, which is why I frequently had to ambush the lil bugger).

What was Alberts background, what was his education level, was he always intersted in physics, did he have his head in physics since he was a little boy? The same questions can be asked of Joe the plummer.

Then we have been talking at cross purposes, because you are the only person in the thread who made that assumption. In general, the term "worth" applied to the arts indicates the perceived value of cultural influence or impact, not dollar value at sale.

So, regardless of the fact that you can get a copy of Hamlet for less than $10, the "worth" of Hamlet is considered to be far greater than that.


I suspect your friends are lying to you. I have been a working artist for nearly 30 years, and I have met more artists and writers and performers than I would have cared to, had I had the choice. I do not know any, nor know of any, who did not do the particular work they did, first, just because they love it, because the doing of it is personally fulfilling to them in some way, or satisfies some inner drive; second, because they dream of fame, ego-tripping on fantasies of being recognized as some kind of genius at something; and then and only then, third, the tantalizing lure of the remote possibility of "making it big" financially, of getting that Stephen King money. It's not an "or" proposition.


Then I bow to your superior knowledge. Bet you'd still like to sell more of your art though huh huh!:D

No you're not born with much except the capacity to learn.

Can you point out one person born with the ability to write?

How did Charles Dickens arrive at his talent? Was the very first story he ever wrote great, or was it his practice that turned him great?

What I would like to know is, do you think writing a compelling book like, say, David Copperfield or, let us go back a bit, Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy or, more contemporary (and I'm sorry for those who dislike it) Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, is something a writing class and practice can teach?

I do not deny that practice makes perfection. But Charles Dickens was born with the talent for writing. No class, no teacher, no little guide can teach one that. And no amoutn of practice on my part could make me write an amazing story like Charlotte Brönte's Jane Eyre.

No you're not born with much except the capacity to learn.

Can you point out one person born with the ability to write?

How did Charles Dickens arrive at his talent? Was the very first story he ever wrote great, or was it his practice that turned him great?

People have different natural abilities. No matter how much I practice, I will not be able to bat .300 in major league baseball. No matter how much he practices, Alex Rodriguez will not beat my standardized test scores. Don't you think if I had the choice, I would have chosen to become good at baseball instead?

People have different natural abilities. No matter how much I practice, I will not be able to bat .300 in major league baseball. No matter how much he practices, Alex Rodriguez will not beat my standardized test scores. Don't you think if I had the choice, I would have chosen to become good at baseball instead?

^This.

oh

what a ......financially driven...opinion.

No no no, you misunderstand me. I'm somewhat of a nilhist when it comes to humanity and it's whiley ways.

Yes of course something can have value outside of the monetary, but such values are always subjective and so generaly not worth the paper it's not printed on, and lasts for only as long as there are people around to remember it.

I value my wife, but when I'm dead that value goes with me, so in a very real way this value is worthless. It is currency that must be spent now.

I'm sorry but this is bullshit. Real world examples of a demonstrable effect of talent that has no source except individual variation inherent within people exist all around us, and have been cited in this very thread, with supporting explanations as to how they show what we say they show.

You respond with nothing but what-if's. At this point your entire argument consists of little more than "Okay, that could be true, but what if it isn't? Then I'd be right." You are still not giving us a foundation for the sense of your argument at all.


What if's? I counted one in that post. Did you not read my curry cooking bit then?

The foundation for my argument is simply that given enough practice anyone of us could excel in whatever it is we chose to do. The only exception is due to physical differances.

We can talk about great writers, but we'll end up diagreeing on what make a writer great. So then if what makes an artist great is subjective, and it certianly is, then what is this inate talent that some writer appear to have and some do not.

You call it talent, I see it for that which it is, practice.

List for me if you will the skills required to make a writer great, and then show me which of these skills cannot be learned or practiced until of a high enough standard to be called great. If you can do that, then I may admit such a thing as inate talent exists.

No, it's in the mind of the audience for the art.

Now I know you are scanning my posts.

Did you not see this:

'exists only in the mind of the artist, and those who care about such things.'?

The foundation for my argument is simply that given enough practice anyone of us could excel in whatever it is we chose to do. The only exception is due to physical differances.


Physical differences including brain chemistry. Which can affect everything, including your musical skills, mathematical skills, your co-ordination skills etc...

Some people can hit you with great writing in their teens.. what marks them out from the 40-something who has been trying for years and years and years and has no intention of giving up?

Can you name one? Somebody greater then me(can't remember who) said something along the lines of, it takes 40 years to write a great novel. I belive they were talking about the lifes experiance nesicary in order to produce such a thing, not the actual time spent writting it.

Although I'll concede some people in their 20's make excelent writers and these are the same people that have lusted after it ever since they can remember so, yes I dare say their weekends have been spent in pracitce rather then drinking with their buddies.

Then I bow to your superior knowledge. Bet you'd still like to sell more of your art though huh huh!:D
It is utterly irrelevant to what I was saying. The only reason I would like to sell more of my art is so that I wouldn't have to spend 40 hours a week doing something else. If I could get a patron or rich husband, I'd go that route, too, to make my art/writing my main activity. But even though, for 30 years, I have been dependent on day jobs, I still do art and writing. I do it because I love the process of doing it. I would do it, even if it never left my house, was never seen by anyone. And even though I occasionally make a sale, I don't get lasting satisfaction from the money. What gives me that glow of feeling successful is not money but recognition, good reviews, fan mail. I work for fame, not money. Money, to me, is only a tool so I can keep chasing the fame.

EDIT: In fact, my REAL dream of wealth (lottery dream) is not to have to think about money at all. I don't want to have to worry about earning a living because I just want to do what I want to do, creatively, without worrying about whether it might be profitable.

Also, by your references to dyslexia, it seems that you are confusing the physical action of writing with the product of writing, which itself is also called "writing." This is a mistake on your part. Technically, you don't have to physically write words to be a writer, in the sense of being an author. Plenty of authors who cannot write physically due to blindness or other physical disability, dictate their work to secretaries who do the physical writing for them. In such a case, it is not the practiced skill of the one who writes the words that matters. Rather it is the innate talent plus the practiced grammatical language skill of the one who dictates the work.

The only way to have a best-selling book is to have a top-notch PR. Jane Eyre is the literary equivalent of Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rigs), yet their PR team somehow managed to have it declared a classic (WTF!?).

Now I know you are scanning my posts.

Did you not see this:

'exists only in the mind of the artist, and those who care about such things.'?
I took "those who care about such things" to mean experts like critics or academics.

Because if you mean the audience, then in the case of a popular, bestselling writer, "those who care about such things" would count in the millions, and they would be the ones generating the money you think is so important to an artist's worth, and yeah, that would be something we would have to care about then, by your own argument, wouldn't it?

You think I'm just scanning your posts? Maybe you should try reading your own writing more closely, too.

Peeps, honey, your equating dyslexia and the subsequent practice you undertook to write correctly with the ability to write a good story/novel. They're not the same. They both may involve improvement and, yes, if you're practicing at a class, redundantly, it involves practice. But writing a good novel, a good story is not something one learns. Passable, maybe, good, nope.

Classes do not teach you that, they may give you the skill to write coherently, but that does not, in any way, make you a writer. It makes you someone who can write and express an idea. A wirter, far from it.


No man, I used that merley as an example of what practice does for you.

Your point above is well taken though, and you are right, what makes you a writer is the doing. The more you do the better you get, or the more practice you have the better at it you become, enough practice and people will call you great one day.

Can you name one? Somebody greater then me(can't remember who) said something along the lines of, it takes 40 years to write a great novel. I belive they were talking about the lifes experiance nesicary in order to produce such a thing, not the actual time spent writting it.

Although I'll concede some people in their 20's make excelent writers and these are the same people that have lusted after it ever since they can remember so, yes I dare say their weekends have been spent in pracitce rather then drinking with their buddies.
More baseless supposition on your part. You don't know what writers do in their spare time.

The 40 years "rule" (not literally a rule) is, as you surmise, merely a reference to the need for personal maturity to write a "deep" story, but in fact, there have been writers who have achieved literary art younger than that -- such as Shakespeare and Chris Marlowe.

And for the other arts, good work at young age, though still rare, is less rare than in writing. Mozart is just one example. Acting, dance and athletics see quality at young ages even more often. Perhaps this is because of the way the brain functions for music and physical movement work, as opposed for how they work for language or visual arts.

People have different natural abilities. No matter how much I practice, I will not be able to bat .300 in major league baseball. No matter how much he practices, Alex Rodriguez will not beat my standardized test scores. Don't you think if I had the choice, I would have chosen to become good at baseball instead?

Yes people do have differant natural abilities, based on physical differances. Artistic endevours, and specificaly writing, well anybody can become great at that, just by practice. Unless of course you can show me a great writer that has not put in the practice?

Physical differences including brain chemistry. Which can affect everything, including your musical skills, mathematical skills, your co-ordination skills etc...

Well this is were it gets a little murky. When I left school with out a maths exam grade, coz really I was shit at it, I went to work in a butchers shop. 6 years of shop work 6 days a week was all it took me for my maths to vastly improve.

Unless there is something dreadfully wrong in the brain, I do extend this 'practice = talent' to education also.

One year now I have been learning the guitar, and my 'ear' has also improved.

I dare say if I wanted to take up juggling, my hand eye co-ordination would get better.

Them brain training games, whats the point of them if your brain just don't work like that, if practice does not improve your skills, why I wonder do so many people use them?

Yes people do have differant natural abilities, based on physical differances. Artistic endevours, and specificaly writing, well anybody can become great at that, just by practice. Unless of course you can show me a great writer that has not put in the practice?
Even better would be for you to show us an example of a great writer who started out cringingly awful but became great by dint of practice.

Then it would be great for you to account for how practice made perfect for that person, but not for all the other dedicated writers who started out awful and remained awful their entire lives in spite of disciplined daily practice.

We have already explained several times how talent and practice intersect to produce great artists/writers. Our argument does not play down the importance of practice, but it asserts that the presence of talent will make a difference between writers who put in equal practice.

Your argument disputes the existence of talent. So it is up to you to show us how the differences between the work quality among equally dedicated writers is not due to a difference in talent.

Well this is were it gets a little murky. When I left school with out a maths exam grade, coz really I was shit at it, I went to work in a butchers shop. 6 years of shop work 6 days a week was all it took me for my maths to vastly improve.

Unless there is something dreadfully wrong in the brain, I do extend this 'practice = talent' to education also.

One year now I have been learning the guitar, and my 'ear' has also improved.

I dare say if I wanted to take up juggling, my hand eye co-ordination would get better.

Them brain training games, whats the point of them if your brain just don't work like that, if practice does not improve your skills, why I wonder do so many people use them?
You are making an unfounded assumption here. In school, you practiced math and failed. In work, you practiced math and succeeded.

What makes you think you were practicing math at work but not practicing it in school? I mean, maybe you were -- maybe you skipped every math class -- but you said you were shit at it, which suggests that you were trying to do it. Otherwise, how would you know you were shit at it?

If that is the case, then it seems far more likely to me that you, in fact, DID NOT lack an innate aptitude for math. You just had bad math teachers in school, or the curriculum was set up in a way that did not mesh with the way your brain processes information. The work environment of the butcher shop obviously suited you better, and you were able to learn there what your teachers failed to teach you in school.

EDIT: As a counter example: My brain just does not work like that. I literally have no aptitude for math. I never have. I am smart and always scored in the top five or better percentile in every class category except math, where I was always just barely passing. I worked hard at it, under great pressure from teachers and family, for many years. I have reduced very good math teachers to near tearful frustration because they just could not understand why I could not do the calculations, even though I understood the principles. In regular life, I can manage money and time just fine -- I can even project complex project budgets and schedules and be right down to the dollar and the day. But I don't do it by using math, at least not consciously. I have no idea how I do it. To me, it feels like just having a sense of proportion. If you ask me to do the math on my own budgets, I will screw it up, though my guesstimates will be accurate to the dollar. It has been that way my whole life. Twenty years of school practice plus another 25 years of life practice have never made any difference. It never gave me an ability I did not have before.

Also, by your references to dyslexia, it seems that you are confusing the physical action of writing with the product of writing, which itself is also called "writing." This is a mistake on your part. Technically, you don't have to physically write words to be a writer, in the sense of being an author. Plenty of authors who cannot write physically due to blindness or other physical disability, dictate their work to secretaries who do the physical writing for them. In such a case, it is not the practiced skill of the one who writes the words that matters. Rather it is the innate talent plus the practiced grammatical language skill of the one who dictates the work.


Again I don't see where you got that at all? Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need more practice? Joke BTW don't go postal on me now.

The point about my dyslexcia was to highlight that practice, even in the face of adversity, and belive me, it has not been easy for me, can and does bring about improvment.

You have also fell into the trap of thinking dyslexcia is about the physical act of writting. Well okay it sorta is, but it is not really.

It is all about the problems with getting what I see in my head onto the page in the same way as it appears in my head, and dechipering what is on the page so that it appears in my head as it is on the page. It is a problem with the way in which the brain interpets certian sense data. So getting back to your blind man example, I could also use a scribe to write my words, and yet without the practice of crafting the story in my head, I would still be shit at it.

I took "those who care about such things" to mean experts like critics or academics.

Because if you mean the audience, then in the case of a popular, bestselling writer, "those who care about such things" would count in the millions, and they would be the ones generating the money you think is so important to an artist's worth, and yeah, that would be something we would have to care about then, by your own argument, wouldn't it?

You think I'm just scanning your posts? Maybe you should try reading your own writing more closely, too.

Meh so we are both guilty of misinterpreting each others words, but you notice when you pulled my up on that word 'worth' I just took it that I had been wrong all along and did not ask you to double check your own writing!

You cheeky sod!

But getting back on track, personal issues aside.


Sorry by my own argument? Now I just don't get the point you are trying to make here?

If a best selling athour is worth millions because of the sales of his books, then he has great monetry worth, and also great subjective artistic worth. If though I do not read him, for whatever reasons, then his worth to me is nil.

This is as I have said though my subjective opionon of his worth, which in itself is quite worthless, so explain to me why we have to care, using my own argument against me?

Even better would be for you to show us an example of a great writer who started out cringingly awful but became great by dint of practice.

Then it would be great for you to account for how practice made perfect for that person, but not for all the other dedicated writers who started out awful and remained awful their entire lives in spite of disciplined daily practice.

We have already explained several times how talent and practice intersect to produce great artists/writers. Our argument does not play down the importance of practice, but it asserts that the presence of talent will make a difference between writers who put in equal practice.

Your argument disputes the existence of talent. So it is up to you to show us how the differences between the work quality among equally dedicated writers is not due to a difference in talent.

So that's a refusal then? Okay how about if somebody defines for me what you mean by the word talent?

You are making an unfounded assumption here. In school, you practiced math and failed. In work, you practiced math and succeeded.

What makes you think you were practicing math at work but not practicing it in school? I mean, maybe you were -- maybe you skipped every math class -- but you said you were shit at it, which suggests that you were trying to do it. Otherwise, how would you know you were shit at it?

If that is the case, then it seems far more likely to me that you, in fact, DID NOT lack an innate aptitude for math. You just had bad math teachers in school, or the curriculum was set up in a way that did not mesh with the way your brain processes information. The work environment of the butcher shop obviously suited you better, and you were able to learn there what your teachers failed to teach you in school.

EDIT: As a counter example: My brain just does not work like that. I literally have no aptitude for math. I never have. I am smart and always scored in the top five or better percentile in every class category except math, where I was always just barely passing. I worked hard at it, under great pressure from teachers and family, for many years. I have reduced very good math teachers to near tearful frustration because they just could not understand why I could not do the calculations, even though I understood the principles. In regular life, I can manage money and time just fine -- I can even project complex project budgets and schedules and be right down to the dollar and the day. But I don't do it by using math, at least not consciously. I have no idea how I do it. To me, it feels like just having a sense of proportion. If you ask me to do the math on my own budgets, I will screw it up, though my guesstimates will be accurate to the dollar. It has been that way my whole life. Twenty years of school practice plus another 25 years of life practice have never made any difference. It never gave me an ability I did not have before.

What is actulay unfound assumption is you thinking you know the minute detials of my life. How can it be unfounded when a man makes a statement based on his lifes experiance? It is founded on my life, on things that I have expericaned, you cannot know anything about that other that what I choose to tell you and thus your own assumption about it IS unfounded.

To clarify though. I am dyslexic, it caused my shcooing to be preety poor all over.

Then I left school, and just had to get on with life. Menatly I have no apptitude for much of anything, I have to work hard to find ways of getting the data into me head in the corrct way, and then maintaining it, so no I have no natural aptitude for maths, nor english, nor science.

What happend though is I got a job where I had to use(read practice) my maths, and it got better.

I thought that was clear, now explain this unfound assumption malarky to me?

Meh so we are both guilty of misinterpreting each others words, but you notice when you pulled my up on that word 'worth' I just took it that I had been wrong all along and did not ask you to double check your own writing!

You cheeky sod!

But getting back on track, personal issues aside.


Sorry by my own argument? Now I just don't get the point you are trying to make here?

If a best selling athour is worth millions because of the sales of his books, then he has great monetry worth, and also great subjective artistic worth. If though I do not read him, for whatever reasons, then his worth to me is nil.

This is as I have said though my subjective opionon of his worth, which in itself is quite worthless, so explain to me why we have to care, using my own argument against me?
I'm getting really annoyed with you.

"By your own argument": You said the cultural impact "worth" of art is so subjective that it only exists in the mind of the artists and "those who care about such things" and who cares about that?

When I countered by saying that the cultural impact "worth" of art actually exists in the mind of the audience for art, you claimed that's what you meant by "those who care about such things" whose opinion you said we don't have to care about.

I countered that by saying that, if you were talking about the audience for art, who are the same people who generate the money you set such store by, then you can't also say that their view of cultural impact "worth" is so subjective that we don't have to care about it.

Do you get where you went wrong now?

You made this argument in an attempt to show how your monetary value "worth" is more valid than our cultural impact "worth," but you failed because you can't say millions of people's opinions are valid for one purpose but not the other. If they generate your much vaunted millions of dollars because they feel subjectively that the work has cultural value to them, then the cultural impact "worth" assessment is valid by your own argument, which gives value to the volume of people who buy something. Why they buy it does matter.

Further, if you are going to state that vast popularity is an indicator that something has BOTH artistic value and monetary value (an assertion I would dispute, but let's run with it for this point), then you can't legitimately still claim that artistic value (which the same as cultural impact worth) is a less valid or less important measure of worth than financial return.

You are also still totally ignoring the difference in the two kinds of worth that I pointed out earlier, namely that Hamlet can be purchased for $7.95, but its value to western culture must be considered greater than that amount on the basis of the influence it has had on other writers, other arts, and on the art-consuming public over a very long period of time.

No man, I used that merley as an example of what practice does for you.

Your point above is well taken though, and you are right, what makes you a writer is the doing. The more you do the better you get, or the more practice you have the better at it you become, enough practice and people will call you great one day.

Yes, practice does help those with the talent for writing to improve. But practice does not make a person a writer. You're born with the talent to write or not. As simple as that.:wink:

So that's a refusal then? Okay how about if somebody defines for me what you mean by the word talent?

What is actulay unfound assumption is you thinking you know the minute detials of my life. How can it be unfounded when a man makes a statement based on his lifes experiance? It is founded on my life, on things that I have expericaned, you cannot know anything about that other that what I choose to tell you and thus your own assumption about it IS unfounded.

To clarify though. I am dyslexic, it caused my shcooing to be preety poor all over.

Then I left school, and just had to get on with life. Menatly I have no apptitude for much of anything, I have to work hard to find ways of getting the data into me head in the corrct way, and then maintaining it, so no I have no natural aptitude for maths, nor english, nor science.

What happend though is I got a job where I had to use(read practice) my maths, and it got better.

I thought that was clear, now explain this unfound assumption malarky to me?
No. I refuse to answer either of these posts because, for crying out loud, these questions have already been answered more than once in the course of this thread.

I will apologize in advance for what I am about to say, but: If you are using your dyslexia as an excuse for failing to keep track of the discussion, then get someone to read the thread to you, rather than make us type the same words over and over to no apparent purpose.

I'll be honest and tell you that I personally suspect the only reason you have to ask these questions at this point is that you have not even tried to read what others have been saying. I really think you are just so in love with your theory that there's no such thing as innate talent, that you are not even really giving a hearing to those who argue against you on this point.

I base this on the fact that your posts are repetitive and that, when asked for your reasoning and justifications of your argument, you first ignore, then resist, then answer, and then resist responding to counter arguments or challenges. And on the fact that you are playing gotcha with isolated phrases from people's posts rather than giving attention to the whole of them (for example, I told you exactly what assumption I thought you were making and why I thought you were making it). It doesn't strike me as someone unable to read the posts, just someone unwilling to be challenged on his pet theory.

What is actulay unfound assumption is you thinking you know the minute detials of my life. How can it be unfounded when a man makes a statement based on his lifes experiance? It is founded on my life, on things that I have expericaned, you cannot know anything about that other that what I choose to tell you and thus your own assumption about it IS unfounded.

To clarify though. I am dyslexic, it caused my shcooing to be preety poor all over.

Then I left school, and just had to get on with life. Menatly I have no apptitude for much of anything, I have to work hard to find ways of getting the data into me head in the corrct way, and then maintaining it, so no I have no natural aptitude for maths, nor english, nor science.

What happend though is I got a job where I had to use(read practice) my maths, and it got better.

I thought that was clear, now explain this unfound assumption malarky to me?
I don't know why we're arguing about this, when there's a huge body of research on the topic.

People. Have. Innate. Differences. In. Ability.

Not everyone has the capacity to become a grandmaster in chess, or write a great novel, or paint a masterpiece. I wouldn't discourage anyone from taking up those activities, since I think they have value in and of themselves. You don't need to be Dostoevsky to enjoy writing a poem or telling a bedtime story to a child. But it's best not to have illusions.

Nope it's a skill that can be learnt like any other. Think of this, is a good writer born with the ability to write, or do they leran it like the rest of us?

The best writers are just more practiced, like the best musicains, the best actors, the best athletes and the list goes on.

Sorry, but so much New Labour egalitarian banal tripe. You deny the role of talent at your peril. Every talent and ability requires honing and cultivation, but fundamentally, some possess an ability to write that others simply do not.

I believe Peepelonia's posts have more truth than the other guys posts.

(Edit: Wilgrove I read somewhere it take three to four years to write a novel, i think that would include researching and rewrites though not sure if you have an idea run with bro see where it goes)

Can I just pop a thought in here?

People are talking as if there is are two possibilities - natural born talent and sitting down at a desk at practicing. Sorry if that's a misrepresentation.

I've noticed that a hugely disproportionate number of screenwriters were big comic book fans at a relatively early age. One would obviously take that and speculate that this gave them a foundation in visual story telling on which to build.

That's an example of something outside of what we'd normally call practice and outside of one's control but something that isn't there at birth. It fits in quite well with the things Gladwell - who was mentioned earlier - says.

Sorry mate, I think you are wrong on this one. Did these people give up after or did they carry on? If the latter what is the quality of their work now?

Practice, practice, practice it's not easy to get great at something, and the time scale is measured in years, or decades. Not gained over a class, but many and much practice. I am, as many of you know, dyslexic. Now read my words and look for the spelling mistakes, and the transposed letters, and yes I'm sure you'll find some, not even half as many 10 years ago, or 20 years ago.

Not because some inate ability but beacuse of practice. I have been bashing away at a keyboard now for some 20 odd years, I can now see some of my mistakes where 20 years ago I just could not. Familiarity with words has brought this about, I have not suddenly become non dyslexic. I'll repeat it once more for you all.

Practice!:D

Apparently, you are confusing 'being a writer' with 'being able to spell'.

I mentioned earlier that I used to collect uncorrected proofs - trust me, being able to spell isn't even a necessity for published authors.

Can you name one?

I don't know about greatness, but Eragon is a reasonably accomplished work, certainly holding it's place in genre above... say... 75% of the material, and yet it's written by an author who was (I believe) 15 at the time.

It's not Tolkein. It's not even Robert Jordan. But, it's on the same list.

Now, look at how much stuff DOESN"T get published (most work is rejected, I saw the figure 80% somewhere, and I think that was being optimistic) - look at how much time someone like Jordan or Tolkein spent mastering their art... Paolini must have something in common with those other writers, but it's NOT the years of experience that made their works such polished gems.

There must be something innate.

I'm getting really annoyed with you.

"By your own argument": You said the cultural impact "worth" of art is so subjective that it only exists in the mind of the artists and "those who care about such things" and who cares about that?

When I countered by saying that the cultural impact "worth" of art actually exists in the mind of the audience for art, you claimed that's what you meant by "those who care about such things" whose opinion you said we don't have to care about.

I countered that by saying that, if you were talking about the audience for art, who are the same people who generate the money you set such store by, then you can't also say that their view of cultural impact "worth" is so subjective that we don't have to care about it.

Do you get where you went wrong now?

You made this argument in an attempt to show how your monetary value "worth" is more valid than our cultural impact "worth," but you failed because you can't say millions of people's opinions are valid for one purpose but not the other. If they generate your much vaunted millions of dollars because they feel subjectively that the work has cultural value to them, then the cultural impact "worth" assessment is valid by your own argument, which gives value to the volume of people who buy something. Why they buy it does matter.

Further, if you are going to state that vast popularity is an indicator that something has BOTH artistic value and monetary value (an assertion I would dispute, but let's run with it for this point), then you can't legitimately still claim that artistic value (which the same as cultural impact worth) is a less valid or less important measure of worth than financial return.

You are also still totally ignoring the difference in the two kinds of worth that I pointed out earlier, namely that Hamlet can be purchased for $7.95, but its value to western culture must be considered greater than that amount on the basis of the influence it has had on other writers, other arts, and on the art-consuming public over a very long period of time.


Chill man!

First of what you qouted me as saying is correct I did indeed say:

'art is so subjective that it only exists in the mind of the artists and "those who care about such things'

I did not then exclaim 'and who cares about that', that is you reading stuff into my words that are just not there.

What I mean by that phrase 'and those who care about such things' is just what is plainly writen there.

Those who care about such things, the target audiance, the critics, anybody in fact cares about such things.

I said this not for the reason you suppose, in fact I have already said that I mistook the way in which we were using the word 'worth' thinking monetary value, and after realising this stoped with that line.

So if you are getting really anoyed by me, then I suggest you have the wrong end of the stick, and are getting yourself anoyed over something you imagined I said.

Unless of course you can show me the post in which I said 'and who cares about them'?

Sorry, but so much New Labour egalitarian banal tripe. You deny the role of talent at your peril. Every talent and ability requires honing and cultivation, but fundamentally, some possess an ability to write that others simply do not.

Some people find doing and understanding some things easyer than others yes that is true. Is this then what you would call talent?

You see I would say that talent is an inbuilt ability that just is there, with no training you have it, with no learning you have it.

This is of course ridiculous, everthing that we are able to do we have picked up in some way.

A man with fingers that fly and are able to bend in every direction would make a great guitarist, this is not talent though, this is a phyiscal advantage for playing the guitar.

As to more cerebral pursuits, nobody is born with the ability to write a great story without having to first learn the rules of writen language, so then where does this talent come from?

Chill man!

First of what you qouted me as saying is correct I did indeed say:

'art is so subjective that it only exists in the mind of the artists and "those who care about such things'

I did not then exclaim 'and who cares about that', that is you reading stuff into my words that are just not there.

What I mean by that phrase 'and those who care about such things' is just what is plainly writen there.

Those who care about such things, the target audiance, the critics, anybody in fact cares about such things.

I said this not for the reason you suppose, in fact I have already said that I mistook the way in which we were using the word 'worth' thinking monetary value, and after realising this stoped with that line.

So if you are getting really anoyed by me, then I suggest you have the wrong end of the stick, and are getting yourself anoyed over something you imagined I said.

Unless of course you can show me the post in which I said 'and who cares about them'?
You in fact did not say the words "who cares about that". But you did say:
Then the second kind of worth(which I guess we have been talking about all along(heh)) exists only in the mind of the artist, and those who care about such things.

In other words it's not real, it's not a real commodity, it's an expression of the artists feeling as valid as any other humans feelings on whatever matter the artist is talking about. It's real vaule is zero.
Which pretty clearly expresses a dismissive attitude. So although I took the liberty of condensing your post into fewer words, I do not apologize for and will not retract my characterization of your comments.

In addition, your contention that cultural impact worth is not real and has no real value is false, as the real value of cultural impact has already been explained by myself and Braaainsss more than once. The impact is real and observable, therefore the relative value of the impact is also real.

Further, all value only exists in people's minds. Regardless of real world impact or real world prices, the value of that impact and the amount of those prices is assigned arbitrarily by how people think and feel about the artwork. Your own argument admits as much when you apply a monetary value to art, which is nothing more than what people are willing to pay for something -- i.e. a value they assign to it in their own minds, the measure of their desire for it. So your judgment that, if cultural impact worth only exists in people's minds then it has no real value, means that monetary worth also has no real value because it also exists only in people's minds, in what they are willing to pay to own a book or a painting.

Thus your attempt to say that cultural impact worth is not real and therefore not as valid a measure of art than monetary value, fails.

You in fact did not say the words "who cares about that". But you did say:<snip>


Ahhh progress. Yes I did say that.

I guess though you missed my follow up post #160 on page 11, where I explained why I say this.

If you note I also added the bit about it being as valid as any others feelings on the matter.

As to my saying cultural impact worth is not real and therefore not as valid a measure of art than monetary value, well I said no such thing nor did I mean any such thing. I'll repeat myself and say that I got hold of the wrong end of the stick when I equated 'worth' with money, you can thus disregard any of my comments on that subject.