| Author | Message | ||
     Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
My own 10 Rules for Writing Fiction: http://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?p=40552#post40552 Partly tongue in cheek, but not entirely, of course... | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
Been told off for insulting Margaret Atwood. Whoops! | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.169.163.57 |
And consider yourself told off for insulting the modern female Dickens too!  | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Attwood is indeed a fine writer. There's not much wrong with Doyle or Winterson either... | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
I dare say there will be even more tellings off for me in the coming hours! | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
'The Handmaid's Tale' & 'Oryx And Crake' are two of the finest sci-fi novels of the modern era imho. I believe both will be remembered in future generations in the same manner as 'Brave New World' or '1984'. The fact that she is a literary snob does not detract one iota from her very great talent. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
My anti-Atwood pre-emptive strike failed to strike its target. I retreat amid the firing of fierce At-illery... Atwood or Flakwood, I ask myself as I crash and burn! | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Even she has admitted that Oryx and Crake is scifi. I'm not sure if she's admitted to handmaid's tale yet. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Rhys, your takedown of the Guardian "ten rules for writers" lists is the third one I've seen. I don't know why there is such animosity for such lists. Surely they are helpful for at least some beginning writers? And isn't it at least somewhat interesting to discover what popular writers find appealing/abhorrent in fiction? | ||
| Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts) Username: Tom_alaerts Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.78.35.185 |
I've browsed Atwood's novels in shops, reading the first few pages, and I always found them incredibly "putdownable"... | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Many people say that about the Landlord. Tastes differ on these matters. personally I've really enjoyed what I've read of hers. Sarah Waters on the other hand... I thought was melodramatic tosh. There is a place for hot lesbian sex in fiction, but it usually needs pictures. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 188.147.84.19 |
Rhys - I'm a big Atwood fan, but I can imagine that some people might not like her work. Though I'm more inclined to think it's less her technical ability as a writer, and more the thematic quality. I've read some of your work, Rhys, and I admit you have a lot of talent, so from a writer's point of view I, for one, would find it more 'comfortable' if you could explain more clearly what it is that you don't like about her work. Everyone's entitled to like and dislike anything they so choose, but coming from a writer I sometimes think they are subject to giving more detailed critiques.  | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 80.4.12.3 |
Thanks Frank! The answer to your question is that I've never actually read any Margaret Atwood. My remarks were uttered in a spirit of unfairness and hypocrisy. I'm currently in practise, you see. I want a Medal in Unfairness to add to my sash. Many people with opinions I respect admire and extol Atwood. I am clearly therefore wrong in my estimation of her and I apologise accordingly; at least I would if such an apology didn't run the risk of scuppering my Unfairness Medal chances! | ||
| Steve Bacon (Stevebacon) Username: Stevebacon Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 90.204.111.236 |
The Little Stranger is the only book by Sarah Waters that I've read, but I thought it was very enjoyable. Not a lesbian in sight, too, from what I could discern. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
My 10 rules for writing fiction 1 - work harder at it than I do 2 - make sure you have enough material to fulfil the specification 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I wonder why I'm not a published writer | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Robert Heinlein's "Five Rules for Success in Writing" First: You must write. Second: You must finish what you write. Third: You must refrain from rewriting except to editorial order. Fourth: You must place it on the market. Fifth: You must keep it on the market until sold. According to a lovely anecdote by Harry Turtledove, "They are the best - and simplest - (utterly characteristic of Heinlein to do both at once) writing rules I have ever found and if one of my readers takes them as seriously as I did, I'll have paid some of that favour forward." | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.252 |
"Success in Writing" is different from "Writing". It is fair enough to bring 'Success' into the subject heading of this thread (as Stephen does for the first time) but perhaps we need to define 'Success'. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I imagine any writer would like to be able to earn a living at it, for their own sake and that of their loved ones, which is how I would define overall "Success". Artistic success is something entirely different. I'd point to Franz Kafka as an example of towering artstic success which went sadly unrecognised (even by himself) while he was alive. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.255.213 |
I agree, Des. In poetry alone, if "success" always equals money in large amounts, even barely enough to "be able to earn a living at it," then there are virtually no successful poets to be found ever. Are great poets of a lesser class than great writers, simply because the world dictates they'll be certain to be incapable of making a living at poetry?... | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.252 |
I agree there are at least two aspects as you describe - aspects that sometimes overlap. But one would possibly need to write a different set of rules for every point on that spectrum of the meaning of 'success in writing'. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.252 |
My last post was in answer to Stephen. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
But what about the amateur writer (for want of a better term) who's happy to stay as such? For example, I know I'll never make a living out of writing (I used to dream of doing so when I was younger, but I'm more realistic nowadays). So my own measure of "success" is (a) seeing something I've written in print/on screen, albeit unpaid for, and (b) getting a great sense of self-satisfaction and enjoyment out of it. So, in my opinion, "success" is when you achieve what ever it is you're aiming at - and that will be different for all sorts of writers. We can't all be Stephen King or JK Rowling and earn millions (and I don't think I'd want to be anyway!) | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Ooops, we're all posting at once! I'll go back and read what you've posted since I started typing the above - and see if what I've said now makes any sense at all.  | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
I have posted my thoughts here: http://www.solarisbooks.com/ |