# Reading Problems



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 30, 2015)

Hey all and Long time no see,

So here's my latest dilemma.  I cannot seem to find anything to read.  Lately I have no tolerance at all for the typical commercial paperback genre fiction.  I am striving to find prose of a more artistic nature - something lyrical.  But when I turn to writers whose prose I admire, I am bored to death because there just doesn't seem to be any story there.  Tried reading 'Dubliners' by James Joyce and the writing is just beautiful but it seems that I go page after page and nothing ever happens.

Turned to Gabriel Garcia Marquez.  One Hundred Years of Solitude - I'm not really a fan of the Magical Realism genre and again, there just doesn't seem to be any conflict and nothing seems to happen.

I've more or less read all that I can of the classics.  

My modern heroes like Cormac McCarthy and Larry McMurtry are either crazy (the former) or so genre specific (the latter) as to be of little help in influencing my writing style.

Not that I am not getting a lot out of reading Marquez.  Since I live in and write about Latin America I will be giving my current WIP a whole new twist thanks to reading him.  

Do you ever just run out of something to read?  

Any book suggestions ... particularly genre neutral .... literary fiction or contemporary fiction?

Thanks,

David Gordon Burke


----------



## stevesh (Oct 30, 2015)

Just my two cents worth, but I don't think it really matters. It's the reading that's important. Right now, I'm working my way through the King James Bible, re-reading _To Kill a Mockingbird_, and reading two (not bad) suspense novels from authors I've never heard of that I found for free on the Nook website (there are over one-and-a-half million free titles at B&N). I don't think reading James Joyce rather than Stephen King will make anyone a better writer.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Oct 30, 2015)

Hello David

I don't know much about contemporary literary fiction - most of my reading is thrillers since this is my genre. I tried some Ian Banks but I can be miserable enough on my own without any help from him.

Have you thought about short stories - those by the pros?

If you haven't already done so, check out Steinbeck's _The Long Valley_ and Stephen King's _Skeleton Crew_ (the original) or maybe anything by Ray Bradbury. Since you're familiar with _The Dubliners_, have a read of _Portrait of the Artist_. (These two should prepare you for _Ulysses_ but this might be a step too far; it's up to you.) Or maybe Somerset Maugham or even Poe? Granted these have been around for a while but the writing still sparkles.

And people sometimes snicker about Zane Grey but from my limited reading, his work sparkles, too.

Anyhow - just my suggestions (and I didn't had much luck with _One Hundred Year_s).

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## JustRob (Oct 30, 2015)

I was trying to get my head around the concept of literary fiction. I was under the impression that all fiction was literature and hence literary but the term seems to have acquired a somewhat snobbish nature to it. Having investigated, mainly because I suspected that my writing was aimed in that direction without realising it, I understand that the lack of a significant plot or even ending is characteristic of the genre. It seems to be based on the idea that the journey is more important than the destination and therefore the reader has to be transported by first class writing to make that journey more enjoyable even though it leads nowhere. 

I too have become tired of popular literature. I find it about as interesting as a train journey through endless open fields of crops. That said I don't indulge in reading literary fiction. There should be a middle way. Maybe that's what I'm trying to achieve myself. One of the chapters in my novel is actually entitled "Nothing happens", hardly an encouraging prospect for a reader.

Answer to your question. Yes, I read hardly anything published nowadays. If I want to spend time being inspired or entertained I write. That way I can criticise the author for all his shortcomings and get positive results from doing it. Published stories are dead bodies in comparison. That's why I like this website. The stuff here is still living and breathing and hasn't been deep frozen by a publisher yet.

@Riis  Is your Ian Banks the Iain Banks who wrote science fiction as Iain M Banks or someone else? I've read some of the stories by the latter incarnation of Iain and enjoyed them, but maybe his other stuff was tempered by the fact that he only really wanted to write science fiction.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 30, 2015)

I don't think I've ever become bored with fiction, genre or literary. I've become bored with a particular genre, or a particular author, but fiction overall? 

I was reading mysteries for a great while, but recently I picked up my father's old Louis Lamour books. I find much to criticize in them, from a 'writerly' stance, but the stories are enjoyable, just the same. But I'm reading them more for enjoyment than for learning. I've always learned from reading, but it's through osmosis, not study. Turning novels into text books (ie, 'how can this help my own writing?') seems to me the quickest way to destroy one's love of reading.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 30, 2015)

stevesh said:


> I don't think reading James Joyce rather than Stephen King will make anyone a better writer.



From King one could learn a lot about story structure.  While an utter pile of tripe and nonsense, his book 'IT' is a masterpiece in how it is all laid out - how the two main timelines converge at the end.  But can you really learn much about lyrical, flowing, beautiful prose from Mr. King?  Well, he has his moments but it is very much layman's English, as is much of the pulp, paperback fiction out there today.

My greatest pet peeve is the fiction that reads like a one hour television episode.  Something happens.  Then something else.  Later something else happens.  End.  Little more than a series of events.  Much like the series 24.  On a good day a bit of character developement.  Theme, symbolism, subplot and subtext etc. are just not there.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 30, 2015)

JustRob said:


> I was trying to get my head around the concept of literary fiction. I was under the impression that all fiction was literature and hence literary but the term seems to have acquired a somewhat snobbish nature to it.



I guess if you are writing commercial pulp fiction then a book that doesn't fall into a particular genre would irk you if and when it has some success.  The Story of Edgar Sawtell, The Art of Racing in the Rain, The Life of Pi, Cold Mountain etc.  They really don't fit into any particular genre and hence I'd put them into the Literary Fiction category.  Stuff does happen in the stories but I'd definitely set them apart for their quality of prose.  

One man's snob is another man's master.  I figure if you aren't aiming for mastery (obviously an impossible goal but one can dream) then you are probably taking your cues from people like James Patterson and his ilk.  So you are aiming for bucks instead of something a little higher .... call it quality, art or whatever.  

Rather be a snob than a hack.  Right now I'm a hack.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Riptide (Oct 30, 2015)

As I Lay Dying by Faulkner is a good one if you haven't read it. You should just jump into some Shakespearean classes to learn the ins and out of all his plays. They're lyrical, character driven, artsy. Some absurdist plays are heavy with symbolism. Hard to understand sure, but crafted well in the least. Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 30, 2015)

When I want contemporary, I go to ABE.com and order up another back issue of BASS (Best American Short Stories.) Gives me hope, and many authors to follow up on.


----------



## JustRob (Oct 30, 2015)

I used the term "snobbish" precisely I think, meaning a pretence at mastery rather than actual mastery. Real masters don't need to pretend. I think our county library has a general fiction category for things that don't fall easily into any genre. My own writing has a compendium of genres enbedded within it but readers seem to see the science fiction as prominent. I'm not sure why when everything else as well as the science is fiction. Even the mathematics is fiction I think, but that is a pretty weird genre, mathematics fiction. 

I had to look James Patterson up, not being very good at remembering names. For me "New York Times Best Seller" means it'll be like one of those chinese meals that leave you just as hungry afterwards. I regard that "accolade" as a portent of doom. What is it about readers in New York? Is life so boring there? I really hadn't realised that.

You are clearly ahead of me on this literary fiction trail, so I'll bow out. That's the totally weird thing. At school my housemaster told me that I should read more, meaning not just the factual textbooks that I found so thrilling. I never did much though throughout my life as to me reality is brilliant already. That's why writing a novel came as a total shock to me and having a somewhat strict professor of English Literature tell me that it was good and he was looking forward to the next just knocked me over. That's how I concluded that it must be something unusual if the only person to like it was a man who doted on the real classics, the undeniable literary fiction, and tried to ram them into the minds of very average students. We correspond frequently and he is an American, but clearly not a New Yorker in his reading habits. So where does that place what I write?


----------



## kellypeace (Oct 30, 2015)

I really suggest "From the Corner of His Eye" by Dean Koontz. I couldn't stop reading it!


----------



## Bilston Blue (Oct 30, 2015)

I'm with PP. I often go to Abe (thanks for putting me on to that PP) and pick up cheap 2nd hand copies of Glimmer Train Stories. 

Other really good non-genre stuff that springs to mind, that I've read recently, would include Julian Barnes's _The Sense of An Ending_ and his great satire _England, England_; Sarah Blake's _The Postmistress_, and DF Wallace's collections _Brief Interviews With Hideous Men_ and _Girl With Curious Hair_, which includes his wonderful novella, _Westward the Course of Empire Makes Its Way._


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 30, 2015)

I always considered literary fiction to merely be those stories which were more centered on character than plot, making it no better or worse than genre fiction. And I sincerely hope this doesn't degrade into "oh those so-called writers who do it for money!" versus "the masters who care about the art" or any such artificialities to justify individual tastes.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 30, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I always considered literary fiction to merely be those stories which were more centered on character than plot, making it no better or worse than genre fiction. And I sincerely hope this doesn't degrade into "oh those so-called writers who do it for money!" versus "the masters who care about the art" or any such artificialities to justify individual tastes.



No, I won't go the money vs. art and talent route with the arguement.  It is what it is.  I would only go so far as to say that the bane of any artist, whether it be literature, film, music or whatever is success.  Patterson being the extreme of end of the scale.  History is full of artists whose work went to hell when they gave up artistic concerns for economic.  

James Patterson's books are so much better than 'The Life of Pi' Said NO ONE.  EVER.  

Wiki claims "*Literary fiction is a term principally used for certain fictional works that hold literary merit. In other words, they are works that offer deliberate social commentary, political criticism, or focus on the individual to explore some part of the human condition."  

Another Definition - *Think of literary fiction as a manifesto of sorts—it’s driven by the ideas, themes, and concerns of the novelist, often producing a narrative that is at times controversial.
The style of prose is emphasized in literary fiction, whereas a writer of mainstream fiction will often forego stylistic writing in order to get to the meat of the story. The plot isn’t the main focus in literary fiction; rather, the history, social issues, and character developments that are a part of the story take precedence.
*
*There are other ways to look at it.  I will mention this concerning your statement 





> I always considered literary fiction to merely be those stories which were more centered on character than plot, making it no better or worse than genre fiction.



Plot is characters - Characters is plot.  Without one you don't have the other.  IMHO.  The same could be said for a lot of other elements.  Everyone has a 'theme' or two lingering in their psyche.  And irony and conflict and a pile of other elements that I often find lacking from 'SOME' (not all) genre fiction.  I'll have to disagree ... a book without character developement is worse, (or maybe not as satisfying would be a better way to put it) whether it be genre or not.  Isn't some kind of growth expected of the characters?  

“Plot is people. Human emotions and desires founded on the realities of life, working at cross purposes, getting hotter and fiercer as they strike against each other until finally there’s an explosion—that’s Plot.”
—Leigh Brackett, WD  (Sci-fi writer ... wrote the screenplay for 'The Empire Strikes Back)

David Gordon Burke
Final point.  Someone suggested Dean Koontz novels.  I have always found Mr. Koontz's novels to be head and shoulders superior to Stephen King's.  And consistently so.  Haven't read one yet that was a total stinker.  Cannot say the same for King.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 30, 2015)

Try Anthony Doerr, Jennifer Egan, and Wells Tower. Solid literary fiction authors (all award-winners) with an emphasis on crisp, dextrous prose. Might be what you're looking for. :encouragement:


----------



## Pluralized (Oct 30, 2015)

Try Skagboys by Irvine Welsh. Irreverent, ridiculous story about a junkie with the most beautiful, sometimes horrible, heart. The modality is a shift out of the ordinary, but I promise the momentum is there and you'll know in the first ten pages if it's for you. Shook me from a slump, is why I'm suggesting it, and I think Welsh's work is still underrated. Try the intro free: *Skagboys*


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 30, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Plot is characters - Characters is plot.  Without one you don't have the other.



I didn't say there was no plot - I said the _emphasis _was on the characters. Past that, definitions vary (although Wiki is one source I wouldn't really want to quote as an authority  ). Frankly, I've never found discussions of literary versus genre to be very useful unless one is looking for an agent.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Oct 31, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> One man's snob is another man's master.  I figure if you aren't aiming for mastery (obviously an impossible goal but one can dream) then you are probably taking your cues from people like James Patterson and his ilk.  So you are aiming for bucks instead of something a little higher .... call it quality, art or whatever.
> 
> Rather be a snob than a hack.  Right now I'm a hack.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



So...lemme make sure I am getting this right. Just because I want to write something that a lot of people want to read, and because I want to write it in a way that's easy to digest, I am going to remain a "hack"? 

I actually have to write nice, pretty prose that is up to some ephemeral standard of what is "literary", that a few people will read but most will bypass, to be considered any good?

Well, hell. Why should I keep bothering to write tripe in my Open Office documents then?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Oct 31, 2015)

kellypeace said:


> I really suggest "From the Corner of His Eye" by Dean Koontz. I couldn't stop reading it!



Koontz sells FAR too many books to be considered "literary" fiction.

But, he is one of my favorites  anyway.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Oct 31, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Final point.  Someone suggested Dean Koontz novels.  I have always found Mr. Koontz's novels to be head and shoulders superior to Stephen King's.  And consistently so.  Haven't read one yet that was a total stinker.  Cannot say the same for King.



Want a Koontz "stinker?" Try Intensity. That one was just bad. Lol


----------



## bazz cargo (Oct 31, 2015)

Paul Gallico is interesting. Really good with people. Mrs Arris is a classic. 

I like Moby Dick. Just sayin...


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 31, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> So...lemme make sure I am getting this right. Just because I want to write something that a lot of people want to read, and because I want to write it in a way that's easy to digest, I am going to remain a "hack"?



Obviously there is no answer to that question.  
To each his own but these days sales and sucess equal quality (to most people and in the media) regardless of what you are selling.  
What is your definition of 'A lot of people?'  Equally, what do you mean by 'Easy to digest?'  Sadly, both 'The Kite Runner' and 'Twilight' are easy to digest.  While the Kite Runner probably sold a few million in a slow climb over the period of two or three years, Twilight sold many, many more times that almost overnight.  And let's be honest, a writer could make a pretty good living selling a whole lot less than either of those novels.  So how much is a lot?  

As obvious as it seems, most artistic people never realize the truth of creating something.  
Let's take Stephen King as an example.
King's literary influences were Lovecraft, Poe and a ream of pulp fiction writers in the Horror genre.  He gorged himself on all kinds of Horror and Sci-fi.  
So along comes the next generation.
Two young writers have ambitions to become the next Stephen King.
One copies King and the other reads Lovecraft, Poe and a ream of other pulp fiction writers in the Horror genre, past and present.  He gorgs himself on all kinds of Horror and Sci-fi.
Can you see where this is going?  
What is HACK to one person is acceptable to another.  There is very little doubt between an original work and a copy.  
I have yet to read a commercial paperback writer whose prose and stories really move me.  At least not since I was a kid.  Yeah, I read a lot of books and thought they were pretty good but let's face it, I was also listening to KISS in those days so obviously I was full of it to the brim.

Sure, a lot of the novels I have read in the last 20 years or so have been good, entertaining and like an episode of friends or a box of popcorn, filled me and my time for the moment.  But not really memorable.  

Again, the obvious is that there is no hard, fast rule.  But for a writer, as in all things in life, the higher you set the bar, the better chance that you will have a wonderful result, regardless of whether you achieve your goals 100%.  It just seems to me that if you set the bar on a James Patterson level, you are likely to trip over it.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 31, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I didn't say there was no plot - I said the _emphasis _was on the characters. Past that, definitions vary (although Wiki is one source I wouldn't really want to quote as an authority  ). Frankly, I've never found discussions of literary versus genre to be very useful unless one is looking for an agent.



I took your statement to mean that a. Literary has more character development - b. genre has less.  In some cases true.  Hence the quote.  
As for the value of a discussion of literary vs. genre, every year there are more and more genres out there.  It's a marketing ploy and in a sense is what drives the literary genre - if it cannot be pigeon-holed into a particular genre, it must be literary fiction.  

But there is a place where a lot of Literary is Genre and vice versa.  

My issue with genre (or pulp or commercial or paperback if one of those terms is less snobby or offensive) is as follows.
1.  If the formula is so played out that I can see it, I'm out of here.  Does it ever occur to anyone that now that every person on the planet know that you have to have a catchy first sentence that creates a quirky question that hooks the reader, that it is no longer a valid ploy to get the readers interest?  God knows it makes me want to lose my lunch.  
2.  Same goes for the Inciting Incident.  
3.  Same goes for the first paragraph and first page advise given in all those writers classes.
4.  Genre tends to read the same ... book after book.  I dare you.  Pick up 3 James Patterson books and look at each one.  Cookie Cutter fiction.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 31, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Koontz sells FAR too many books to be considered "literary" fiction.
> 
> But, he is one of my favorites  anyway.



I don't think that number is what decides the issue (although I tend to agree)

Strangely, I searched Literary Fiction and his name came up.  This may be due to the fact that while he mostly writes in a couple of genres, he has written a bunch of books that aren't easily categorized.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 1, 2015)

Koontz has an incredible vocabulary and can be very poetic at times. I love him for some of his works (like Odd Thomas) and hate him for others.*cough* 77 Shadow Street *cough* 

Something I just read that I thought was wonderful was William Peter Blatty's memoir, called _I'll Tell Them I Remember You_. It was funny and masterfully told. I don't typically read memoirs, but it grabbed me and held me. You might try it.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 1, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I don't think that number is what decides the issue (although I tend to agree)
> 
> Strangely, I searched Literary Fiction and his name came up.  This may be due to the fact that while he mostly writes in a couple of genres, he has written a bunch of books that aren't easily categorized.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



That could very well be the case. Some of his books just don't fit into a specific genre box.

 Clive Cussler is one that I would put into the 'cookie cutter' formula.

But, on the other hand, Terry Brooks writes to a formula as well. 

Both writers create well written  stories. I think Brooks crafts a better story through better writing, but that is just my opinion. But as good as Terry Brooks is, he isn't considered a Literary writer because of the genre he works in and the style he uses.

I find that rather silly.

According to what was said earlier, since Mastery is impossible, Terry Brooks is nothing more than a hack because he writes within a genre that isn't Literary Fiction.

That is patently absurd.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 1, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I took your statement to mean that a. Literary has more character development - b. genre has less.



I'm not necessarily talking about character developement, but the characters themselves. 

For example, the New Yorker loves literary fiction. I've read those short stories and been more or less engaged (the sense of moving ahead to see when something actually happens) - but at the end, I more often than not find myself wondering what it was all about. It's almost as if the plot itself were merely a giant McGuffin.

Genre fiction definitely can have great character development, but there is a definite plot as well. And in many books, across genres, character development takes a far back seat to the plot.

But the degree of emphasis on character versus plot, taken to the far ends of the spectrum, tend to be literary versus genre, IMO.



David Gordon Burke said:


> As for the value of a discussion of literary vs. genre, every year there are more and more genres out there.  It's a marketing ploy and in a sense is what drives the literary genre - if it cannot be pigeon-holed into a particular genre, it must be literary fiction.



Well, one has to be careful not to mix up genre with marketing divides, of course. YA, for example, is not really a genre - it's a marketing "sector". One can have YA in a variety of genres; they're just written with a particular age group in mind.



David Gordon Burke said:


> My issue with genre (or pulp or commercial or paperback if one of those terms is less snobby or offensive) is as follows.
> 
> 1.  If the formula is so played out that I can see it, I'm out of here.



Well, of course there's a "formula" in genres - that's what makes a Western different from a Romance (although, of course, there can be elements of both). The idea is not to be formulaic (retell exactly the same story, just with different characters/setting). 



David Gordon Burke said:


> Does it ever occur to anyone that now that every person on the planet know that you have to have a catchy first sentence that creates a quirky question that hooks the reader, that it is no longer a valid ploy to get the readers interest?  God knows it makes me want to lose my lunch.
> 
> 2.  Same goes for the Inciting Incident.
> 
> 3.  Same goes for the first paragraph and first page advise given in all those writers classes.



Well, that's basically a disagreement about how to write, not about genre. And as far as I know, the writing advice you note is something that's invalid on the surface - but when one actually gets into discussion about them, the value comes out in full force. Kinda like saying "Don't use adverbs" is a bit dumb, but discussing it in depth, one learns when to use them and when something else would be better. Taking advice at face value is typically the wrong thing to do. It's the discussion generated that's valuable - unfortunately, too many writers don't want to make that much effort.



David Gordon Burke said:


> 4.  Genre tends to read the same ... book after book.  I dare you.  Pick up 3 James Patterson books and look at each one.  Cookie Cutter fiction.



One author [you don't like] does not a genre make.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 1, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Well, that's basically a disagreement about how to write, not about genre.



Really?  I tend to see genre or those books that aren't able to transcend their genre, as a bunch of writers who more often than not conform to a story formula including that first sentence, paragraph, page, three act arc blah, blah, blah.  It's about as predictable as a Horror movie monster that pops up again, not quite dead in the last 2 minutes of the movie.  And it can be a cowboy or a police detective or a serial killer or a love-struck-single in the drudgery of the publishing world (fashion world, legal world etc.) in Manhattan.  

But I do see your point.  Sadly, most writers who are marketing themselves with their GENRE as a selling point are also writing this way.  



> Well, of course there's a "formula" in genres - that's what makes a Western different from a Romance



Here is where we need to distinguish between 'formula' and 'elements' or 'setting.'  Read Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry.  In all honesty, the first page is pretty dull.  Even the first full chapter.  Nothing really happens, there is no conflict at all.  Just beautiful prose and great, funny, ironic characters.  The inciting incident (which again is just so dull ... an old Ranger buddy from 10 years back rides into town with news of the beauty of Montana) doesn't come for 30 or 40 pages and is hardly recognizable as an incident until you see how the story progresses.  It's not a slap in the face 'HEY YOU, DUMMY, THIS IS THE INCITING INCIDENT' as if one couldn't figure it out on their own.  

From there the story could have taken half a dozen different turns.  If the Romance between Gus and Clara had been played up it could have been a Romance.  It could have gone into the politics of the day and have been a historical piece.  But it followed some expected Western elements and is a Great (possibly the greatest) western novel.  And while I'm sure some university graduate could analyse the whole thing and tell me that it fits 100% into the first sentence, paragraph, page, three act arc blah, blah, blah formula, it didn't read that way.  

Like Stephen King mentions in 'On Writing' ... writing is like magic.  Let's just leave it by saying that when I can see how the trick is done, I'm closing the book and cranking up Netflix.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 1, 2015)

Most writers can see the "tricks" _because _they're also writers. It takes some of the magic out of reading unless you're willing to put your writer's hat on the mantel. I myself find myself getting way too picky about things - and that's with writers I really enjoy. So I've taught myself that no writer is going to be all things to all people. I do not blame the genre for the failings of some of the writers within. I lose out on a lot of good reading that way.


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 1, 2015)

God knows how much of the literary scene is dictated by snobbery and pretence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sedaris

In my opinion, very funny and poignant.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 1, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Most writers can see the "tricks" _because _they're also writers. It takes some of the magic out of reading unless you're willing to put your writer's hat on the mantel. I myself find myself getting way too picky about things - and that's with writers I really enjoy. So I've taught myself that no writer is going to be all things to all people. I do not blame the genre for the failings of some of the writers within. I lose out on a lot of good reading that way.



Forgive me in advance if this statement is somewhat egotisical but long before I wrote word one, I could recognize the patterns and tricks that are oh so common to pulp fiction.  (I'm not going to continue to call it genre fiction for the remainder of this convo ... I clearly stated that SOME genre fiction is guilty of this sin so let's stop muddying the water there)  

I have no idea how many books I have read in my life.  Beyond thousands.  My goodreads account has about 350 and those are the books I have read within the last few years.  

I'm not about to continue to read dreck ... I know there are great and original works out there.  Just have to find them.
As for Magic ... I don't think that Magic follows, ever followed or ever will follow a formula laid out by some Agent with dollar signs in their eyes.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 1, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> As for Magic ... I don't think that Magic follows, ever followed or ever will follow a formula laid out by some Agent with dollar signs in their eyes.



Ah yes, the Evil Capitalists!  :greedy_dollars:  Horrible how people want to put bread on the ol' table, isn't it?

But you know, in all the discussions and chats I've had with published authors, on various forums and via blogs, not one of them has complained about their agent dictating how their stories should be written, or about editors demanding changes. The dictators must be sneaky little buggers, hiding out where only the Chosen Few can see them...  :roll:


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 3, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Ah yes, the Evil Capitalists!  :greedy_dollars:  Horrible how people want to put bread on the ol' table, isn't it?
> 
> But you know, in all the discussions and chats I've had with published authors, on various forums and via blogs, not one of them has complained about their agent dictating how their stories should be written, or about editors demanding changes. The dictators must be sneaky little buggers, hiding out where only the Chosen Few can see them...  :roll:




Obviously, the point here is that the formula I am talking about (Which everyone is familiar with and is promoted by every how to book or within all possible conversations on how to write) is an economic consideration.  It has next to nothing to do with creating quality work ... it has to do with creating 'saleable' work.  It is a formula that is meant to get an agent to read as far as page 2 or 3 before deciding if it is a story worth publishing.  This based on the agent's belief that the average book consumer is as dumb as a stump and must be spoon fed from the first sylable.  Sadly, a self perpetuating belief as the dumbed down fiction creates the habits of the readers, don't you think?

If at the moment of writing your only consideration is to create ART, it will probably not be ART.  If at the moment of writing, your only consideration is creating something saleable, it definitely won't be ART.  It might be saleable.  It all depends on what you want to create.  

And while we are at it, AH YES, THE EVIL CAPITALISTS.  I for one believe in some kind of ethic.  James Patterson's ethic is to be so damn greedy as to completely corrupt the art form he reaps 400 million from each year ... thus ruining the chances of so many others to make a living in the business.  This is not putting bread on the table.  

David Gordon Burke


----------

