# The three talents of a writer.



## ViKtoricus (Apr 15, 2014)

A. The ability to come up with something good.

B. The ability to write well (execution).

C. The ability to market your work.



Which of the above abilities do you think is the most important?


----------



## Apple Ice (Apr 15, 2014)

I think you're gonna be told all of them matter equally, there's so much more to writing, and the inevitable "I just write" followed by them ripping their shirt open and posing for a camera.

Although all are very important it can be said B is most important because even cliche plots and whatnot still do very well. Some even say originality is a myth and everyone gets their plots from somewhere else and ultimately everything's a rip off from something else. I personally think this is playing down their own un-originality, but I'm rambling.

For me personally, the first two. Marketing can be learned and you can have others to help you with it, whereas if the writings bad then all the marketing in the world can't make it good. Just my thoughts, anyway.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 15, 2014)

By far, B.

As Apple said, cliche plots and characters can still be entertaining to read when done well, and some people are not out there to market or publish. They write for themselves and themselves alone.


----------



## ViKtoricus (Apr 15, 2014)

Bishop said:


> and some people are not out there to market or publish. They write for themselves and themselves alone.



I don't consider those people to be true writers. I call them "people who have writing as a hobby."

True writers, in my opinion, are those who live and die by the pen.

There's a difference between a piece of paper with ink splotched all over it over a masterpiece. The former is worth its weight in lumber and ink, the latter is something that was read and appreciated by more than one person, thereby giving it tangible value.


----------



## egpenny (Apr 15, 2014)

You have just slapped a lot of people across the face with your opinion.  There is no such thing as a "true writer."  There those who write, for whatever reason, and those who don't write, again, for whatever reason. 
A lot of published writers started out as (as you call them) hobby writers and advanced on to become published.  
So calm down and quit insulting other writers.

My choice  on your list is B.  Anyone can have a good idea and not be able to write it out.  Marketing isn't a major factor in writing, that's for after you've written something.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 15, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> I don't consider those people to be true writers. I call them "people who have writing as a hobby."
> 
> True writers, in my opinion, are those who live and die by the pen.
> 
> There's a difference between a piece of paper with ink splotched all over it over a masterpiece. The former is worth its weight in lumber and ink, the latter is something that was read and appreciated by more than one person, thereby giving it tangible value.



That's incredibly narrow minded. 

Emily Dickinson is considered one of the greatest poetic minds of her generation, but 99% of her poems went entirely unpublished because she wrote them only for herself. Is she any less of a poet because she only had a handful actually published? No. There are dozens of classic writers whose work was published ONLY after their death, but their hobby is now an eternal part of human literature.

True writers write. That is the single defining characteristic of a writer. It can be good, bad, ugly. Doesn't matter. A writer writes. Be it a hobby or not, they are still true writers. Many people I know are writers who seek no publication, doing it only for the enjoyment of the craft. Some of them are fantastic writers and their work worth a lot more than just "lumber and ink" or 1s and 0s as it is in digital form. Try to be a bit more respectful, as a "hobby" as you put it can become a masterwork.


----------



## ViKtoricus (Apr 15, 2014)

Should I edit my post?

Sorry for being insensitive.


----------



## Ari (Apr 15, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> I don't consider those people to be true writers. I call them "people who have writing as a hobby."
> 
> True writers, in my opinion, are those who live and die by the pen.
> 
> There's a difference between a piece of paper with ink splotched all over it over a masterpiece. The former is worth its weight in lumber and ink, the latter is something that was read and appreciated by more than one person, thereby giving it tangible value.



Oww... >_<


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 15, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> I don't consider those people to be true writers. I call them "people who have writing as a hobby."
> 
> True writers, in my opinion, are those who live and die by the pen.
> 
> There's a difference between a piece of paper with ink splotched all over it over a masterpiece. The former is worth its weight in lumber and ink, the latter is something that was read and appreciated by more than one person, thereby giving it tangible value.



Hold up a sec, Vik.

You really can't express that both ways. 

I do not "live and die" by the pen. Therefore, I am not a "true writer".

However, there have been several people, and a few here, who have enjoyed my writing. Therefore, according to your statement, I AM a "true writer".

I am assuming you meant that a writer wasn't a "true writer" until they get published?


----------



## Folcro (Apr 16, 2014)

There are always exceptions, I'm sure, but it is often the case that those with ambition are the ones who pour more time into their craft, striving to perfect it, whereas those with a more casual approach tend to not excel barring an incomparable level of talent. I thin Vic is alluding to a general statistic and to an extent I would agree, even if I would word it slightly differently. And it is important to understand that, again, there are always exceptions. But that is implied, and I'm sure Vic is cognisant of it.

And B, by the way.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Apr 16, 2014)

Folcro said:


> There are always exceptions, I'm sure, but it is often the case that those with ambition are the ones who pour more time into their craft, striving to perfect it, whereas those with a more casual approach tend to not excel barring an incomparable level of talent. I thin Vic is alluding to a general statistic and to an extent I would agree, even if I would word it slightly differently. And it is important to understand that, again, there are always exceptions. But that is implied, and I'm sure Vic is cognisant of it.
> 
> And B, by the way.



Agreed.

+1


----------



## stormageddon (Apr 16, 2014)

I don't think any of them are important to a writer.

To an author, they all are, unless they find a publisher that does the marketing for them. But to me, a writer is simply someone who has a passion for writing, whether they're good or bad, and whether it's a hobby or a dream.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 16, 2014)

The first two are what I call the 'legs' of a writer; creativity and craftsmanship. They've of equal importance, IMO, and have infinite potential for improvement.

The third has nothing to do with writing.

On another note, a writer telling another writer that he isn't a true write is like a mother telling another mother that she isn't a true mother. If you've given birth to children, you are a mother; if you've given birth to words on a page, you are a writer.

The distinction can come with different words; when we say 'writer', we usually mean someone who writes stories; a storyteller. A writer who writes stories with the purpose of telling them is a storyteller. IMO, a writer who writes stories only for themselves is not a storyteller; they become a storyteller once they intend to tell them to other people.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Apr 16, 2014)

The first two are critical but equal, the third depends on why you are writing. If it is your intention to become rich by writing, the first two pale into insignificance and the third becomes dominant - Look at Dan Brown...


----------



## alanmt (Apr 16, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> and the inevitable "I just write" followed by them ripping their shirt open and posing for a camera.



I am so doing this some day.

B.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 16, 2014)

The most important is the ability to tell a story well. 

A writer can write as well, or better, than anyone on the planet. But if they can't tell a story that people _want_ to read, then they don't have jack. 

This idea that a writer has to mull over every word used, or how each sentence is written is utter non-sense. When it comes down to bare-bones, the story is the most important factor in writing. It took me a while to learn this. My attitude changed after reading some published stories that I thought were written sub-par, but told an excellent story. 

Writers that want to get published need to worry more about readers, rather than writers. Writers will pick apart every little thing that in the end amounts to nothing. Readers don't care how tight your sentences are, if you should have deleted the word "that" in this sentence, or that sentence. All they care about is the story.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 16, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> Writers that want to get published need to worry more about readers, rather than writers. Writers will pick apart every little thing that in the end amounts to nothing. Readers don't care how tight your sentences are, if you should have deleted the word "that" in this sentence, or that sentence. All they care about is the story.



Often a reader will say "something bothered me about this sentence or paragraph or chapter, but I can't put my finger on it," whereas a writer might be able to pinpoint the problem. A reader may not be able to identify what they do and do not like about a certain piece as well as a writer, but little things still affect the subconscious, and add up over time. I think going the extra mile taking care of such things as "deleting 'that'" when it should be deleted (better still, adapt the habit to never write it when it, hypothetically speaking, shouldn't be written) will find a writer being enjoyed a tiny bit more by his or her reader.

But I do agree that the story and general execution are certainly _more _important, these other matter s only marginally so, and not what will make the difference between a great work and a mediocre one.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 16, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> The most important is the ability to tell a story well.
> 
> A writer can write as well, or better, than anyone on the planet. But if they can't tell a story that people _want_ to read, then they don't have jack.
> 
> ...



This is correct if the writer plans to be average, or below. A great writer can get the reader interested in any story he chooses to tell simply by the way he tells it. As Mark twain once said: "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." 

Sure a good story helps, but it becomes less important as the writer's skill improves. Stories are easy. It's the writing that takes work.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 16, 2014)

Folcro said:


> Often a reader will say "something bothered me about this sentence or paragraph or chapter, but I can't put my finger on it," whereas a writer might be able to pinpoint the problem. A reader may not be able to identify what they do and do not like about a certain piece as well as a writer, but little things still affect the subconscious, and add up over time. I think going the extra mile taking care of such things as "deleting 'that'" when it should be deleted (better still, adapt the habit to never write it when it, hypothetically speaking, shouldn't be written) will find a writer being enjoyed a tiny bit more by his or her reader.



I've never come across a reader that's said this sentence or that paragraph bothered them when discussing published works. Now, if they're my beta reader, they'll mention it. But if they weren't editing something for me, they'd never pick it out. And I've read a ton of reviews from readers on websites. Very rarely do they ever mention anything about the writing. 

I'd say the proof lies in the countless best-selling author's novels. I'm currently reading James Patterson's novel Along Came A Spider. In that novel there are three paragraphs describing how breakfast is usually laid out on the table, and what everyone usually has. It was tiresome for me as a writer, but what does he care? He sells millions. Why? Because his story is so good that readers aren't nitpicking sentences, nor paragraphs. They're along for the ride. 

Stephen King should be another great example. I'd imagine most writers that read him re-write countless sentences in their head as they slog through his narrative. That doesn't seem to hurt sales. Never has. Not even in his earlier works.

Another great example is Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy. There was so much trivial B.S. in those novels that I almost didn't finish them. But, that didn't stop millions from reading it and enjoying it.

Probably the best one to mention here is Fifty Shades of Grey. From what I hear, it's as if a 13 year-old girl wrote the novel. That doesn't stop it from generating 98 million dollars. 

Here's an example of two authors that DO nitpick their work, and it brings them no greater reward: Amy Hempel and Chuck Palahniuk. Both are published, and both are pretty much only known by hardcore readers or writers, and yet they're not making what their more popular counterparts are making. 

Again, it comes back to the idea of impressing writers when each and every sentence is nitpicked to "perfection." Even Neil Gaiman said, "I can't justify every word I've written." And he shouldn't have to, just like amateur writers shouldn't worry that much. 

I could make a valid argument by posting a few pages from popular works on here to let the amateurs have a go at re-writing sentences and stating how this or that just doesn't work for them. It really doesn't matter if it doesn't work for writers, because it works for readers. And that's all publishers care about.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 16, 2014)

Terry D said:


> This is correct if the writer plans to be average, or below. A great writer can get the reader interested in any story he chooses to tell simply by the way he tells it. As Mark twain once said: "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."
> 
> Sure a good story helps, but it becomes less important as the writer's skill improves. Stories are easy. It's the writing that takes work.



I have to kindly disagree. A writer that can write well, but can't tell a story, won't have anything but a well written snooze fest.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 16, 2014)

Cadence said:


> On another note, a writer telling another writer that he isn't a true write is like a mother telling another mother that she isn't a true mother. If you've given birth to children, you are a mother; if you've given birth to words on a page, you are a writer.
> 
> The distinction can come with different words; when we say 'writer', we usually mean someone who writes stories; a storyteller. A writer who writes stories with the purpose of telling them is a storyteller. IMO, a writer who writes stories only for themselves is not a storyteller; they become a storyteller once they intend to tell them to other people.



I think the situation is more akin to a woman who watches over a child every once in a while and one who takes it upon herself to raise the child. Somewhere in between "babysitter" and "mother" there is a line, as there is between a "writer" and "one who writes." Personally, I don't care quite enough to draw this line myself; I'll judge you as a writer based upon your work, not your lifestyle or even your personal choices. Simple that way.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 16, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> ...and it brings them no greater reward...



I think there are far too many variables to say what determines the reward, or how much more popular these people could have been if the stars were changed. This is why I count my philosophy as, well, a philosophy. I wouldn't dare refer to it as a proven science nor pretend that I can prove it.

You examples are interesting, but as I have said, it makes a marginal difference.

Now personally, I generally don't like King (he wrote my favorite book, but deviated from his narrative style a bit in that one) and James Patterson, just... no. I'm not sure what it is exactly that makes these guys popular as I am not sure what makes Twilight so popular, but I know that the variables are innumerable.

And yes, 50 Shades of grey is written as of a 13 year old. Does that stop it from being popular? No. But is there anyone who would say that it is their favorite novel? Or a James Patterson novel? I think the enjoyment of the readers would have been amplified if such writers devoted more time and attention to their prose (and their stories). For some writers, this doesn't mean so much: a couple extra dollars or readers enjoying it a little bit more. But it does to others.

In a word, all of my favorite things have flaws. I love them just the same. But I won't hold silent because of this--- neither do I think that those who have produced these things should ignore the aspects of these works (few that they are) that they could have done better. All flaws, even things perceived as flaws, should be addressed: the little and the large.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 16, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> I have to kindly disagree. A writer that can write well, but can't tell a story, won't have anything but a well written snooze fest.



I doubt if there are any writers who can write well without being able to "tell a story". The 'telling' is the writing. My point is that almost everyone has a terrific plot idea (the story), but the execution of that idea is what is the most important. Far more so than the strength of the idea. Hemingway's_ The Old Man and the Sea_ is about a man in a boat fishing, not a 'knock-your-socks-off' concept, but the book is fantastic because of the way the story is told.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 16, 2014)

Folcro said:


> And yes, 50 Shades of grey is written as of a 13 year old. Does that stop it from being popular? No. But is there anyone who would say that it is their favorite novel? Or a James Patterson novel? I think the enjoyment of the readers would have been amplified if such writers devoted more time and attention to their prose (and their stories). For some writers, this doesn't mean so much: a couple extra dollars or readers enjoying it a little bit more. But it does to others.



Yes! There are! My sister-in-law is a HUGE James Patterson fan. She adores his stories, and has used the term "favorite" when referring to authors. King has the same fan base. 

The idea that readers would find more enjoyment if these writers would've spent 10 years nitpicking their novels until every line was perfect is non-sense. You might have enjoyed them more. But clearly that doesn't concern the other 1 million people reading and enjoying King and Patterson novels. 

Popularity aside, I think it says a lot when discussing the importance of good writing over good storytelling. 

Here's an example then of something not-so-popular. 

David Wong's John Dies at the End is a hilarious ride through some crazy stuff. It's decently written (if we're going to be snobs about it). But the writing takes a back seat because of his voice and the way he tells the story. 

One of my favorites, Phillip K. Dick, doesn't exactly write to the standards of most writers. But his stories are damn fine! 

Pay attention when you read. If you find yourself saying, "I would've wrote this sentence like this, or deleted this word, or cut that paragraph," then stop. Think about the fact that you're holding a published piece of work in your hands that clearly someone, maybe millions, found merit in. Doesn't that say something? To me, it does. It says that my idea of good writing clearly doesn't mean jack.


----------



## Sam (Apr 16, 2014)

The two aren't antithetical. Telling a riveting story is just as important as the mechanics used to tell the riveting story. Do readers care? Not all do, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make our work as perfect as it can be, if for no other reason than pride. Tom Clancy, rest his soul, was a salient example. He was a fantastic storyteller, but also a technically brilliant wordsmith. Combine the two and what you have is something to aspire to. At least, I aspire to it.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 16, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I doubt if there are any writers who can write well without being able to "tell a story". The 'telling' is the writing. My point is that almost everyone has a terrific plot idea (the story), but the execution of that idea is what is the most important. Far more so than the strength of the idea. Hemingway's_ The Old Man and the Sea_ is about a man in a boat fishing, not a 'knock-your-socks-off' concept, but the book is fantastic because of the way the story is told.



I've read some classics revered as staples of great writing that absolutely put me to sleep.


----------



## dither (Apr 16, 2014)

What a brilliant thread,  such luminaries pondering the imponderables.

Fascinating.

Appreciating your views tremendously.

dither


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 16, 2014)

Sam said:


> The two aren't antithetical. Telling a riveting story is just as important as the mechanics used to tell the riveting story. Do readers care? Not all do, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make our work as perfect as it can be, if for no other reason than pride. Tom Clancy, rest his soul, was a salient example. He was a fantastic storyteller, but also a technically brilliant wordsmith. Combine the two and what you have is something to aspire to. At least, I aspire to it.



Where does one draw the line in obsessing over their writing though? 

I know I could probably re-write each of my sentences until I'm blue in the face, but it wouldn't get me anywhere. 

When I say it's more about the storytelling, I'm picturing instances in my mind of someone nitpicking whether or not to use italics here, or there. Or whether or not to write a sentence this way or that way. Stand back and look at the big picture. Does it matter? Probably not.


----------



## Sam (Apr 16, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> Where does one draw the line in obsessing over their writing though?
> 
> I know I could probably re-write each of my sentences until I'm blue in the face, but it wouldn't get me anywhere.
> 
> When I say it's more about the storytelling, I'm picturing instances in my mind of someone nitpicking whether or not to use italics here, or there. Or whether or not to write a sentence this way or that way. Stand back and look at the big picture. Does it matter? Probably not.



It's less rewriting sentences 'til one is blue in the face, and more coming towards some kind of mastery of the language so that you can convey a story in a way that not only draws people in, but also ensures they won't lose their suspension of reality at the first incoherent sentence. A story is only as good as the medium through which it is conveyed. _Fifty Shades of Grey_, for instance, has been said to be an interesting story, but the writing is mediocre at best. It weakens the relationship between suspended reality and reality. When you are a writer, you don't want a reader having to go back to re-read a sentence. If they have to do it often enough, they may put down the novel for good.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 16, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> Yes! There are! My sister-in-law is a HUGE James Patterson fan. She adores his stories, and has used the term "favorite" when referring to authors. King has the same fan base.
> 
> The idea that readers would find more enjoyment if these writers would've spent 10 years nitpicking their novels until every line was perfect is non-sense. You might have enjoyed them more. But clearly that doesn't concern the other 1 million people reading and enjoying King and Patterson novels.
> 
> ...



It's not about being a literary snob (I'm a King fan, and enjoy Dan Brown too), and no one's said anything about nit-picking a book for ten years. It is about the simple fact that a story is better if told well, and readers can, and do, recognize well written stories. Our own LM competition is a case in point; there are interesting concepts every month which don't win because of lackluster execution. Effective stories are stories well told.

BTW. King is a master story-teller, and an excellent technician. Is he perfect? No. But people on both sides of this argument can use him as an example.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 16, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I doubt if there are any writers who can write well without being able to "tell a story". The 'telling' is the writing. .



*ahem* Jean Auel. Clan Of The Cave Bear was decently (if VERY long winded) written. But the style and the story didn't mesh well. For a lot of people, it worked. For me, it was awful. I think I may have mentioned my hatred for that book a few times.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 16, 2014)

C is the most important.  You can write garbage, but as long as you can market it, you'll be successful.  The other two might matter for those who write for writing's sake, but I personally won't consider myself a success until an authority (publisher) recognizes it.  Until then, I'm just the same as every other yahoo with a pen and a sheet of paper.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 16, 2014)

Sam said:


> When you are a writer, you don't want a reader having to go back to re-read a sentence. If they have to do it often enough, they may put down the novel for good.



Excellent point. I actually do put a book down if I have to go back to re read something more than a couple of times. 

One of the problems I have is that, when I was young, if there had been such a thing as A.D.D. I would have been diagnosed with it. 

So some of the "classics" or some works that are considered "well written"...well...let's say this. If a writer uses a sentence that covers more than two or so lines on a page, I wind up having to go back and re read it more often than not, 

hence my dislike of long winded writers and the reason I write the way I do. MS Word 07 had a little feature that told you the "reading level" of your writing. Mine wound up being pretty low. At first I was insulted. But then I realized that my work being "light" (as it's been called a couple of times here) or easy to read doesn't really bother me.

I can still tell a good story. My mechanics need a bit of work, though.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 16, 2014)

Sam said:


> It's less rewriting sentences 'til one is blue in the face, and more coming towards some kind of mastery of the language so that you can convey a story in a way that not only draws people in, but also ensures they won't lose their suspension of reality at the first incoherent sentence. A story is only as good as the medium through which it is conveyed. _Fifty Shades of Grey_, for instance, has been said to be an interesting story, but the writing is mediocre at best. It weakens the relationship between suspended reality and reality. When you are a writer, you don't want a reader having to go back to re-read a sentence. If they have to do it often enough, they may put down the novel for good.



Right. I agree that developing your writing skills is important. I'm not saying, "Hey kid! Go ahead, pick up that pen and just let 'er fly! It's all about the story!" 

What I'm trying to say is that sometimes it seems too many people focus too much on the technicality rather than the story telling, or even the writing in general. 

The only way I can discuss this point is through my own personal growth. Before I wrote my novel, all I did was worry about the technicality of writing. And all that produced were 600 word short stories, or failed attempts at longer stories or novels because I was never satisfied with my writing. 

I think it's important for beginning writers to know that those good writing skills will come with practice. But in the meantime, get to writing good stories that people want to at least read and critique.  

I suppose a good example to justify where I'm coming from is when someone posts in a thread, "How should I write this sentence?" and every single member on here gives their opinion on how that sentence should be structured. Seriously...write it how it feels natural to YOU. Everything can be tweaked, but there's a point of obsession that I see quite often on here. I'm guilty of it, too.



Terry D said:


> It's not about being a literary snob (I'm a King fan, and enjoy Dan Brown too), and no one's said anything about nit-picking a book for ten years. It is about the simple fact that a story is better if told well, and readers can, and do, recognize well written stories. Our own LM competition is a case in point; there are interesting concepts every month which don't win because of lackluster execution. Effective stories are stories well told.
> 
> BTW. King is a master story-teller, and an excellent technician. Is he perfect? No. But people on both sides of this argument can use him as an example.



I think King is a great point maker. You find him to be an excellent storyteller and technician. However, when I read something like IT, I can't stomach it for longer than 300 pages. So, when discussing what's important when learning how to write, how can anyone actually tell someone that this or that is far more important? 



Conclusion: Obviously everything in writing goes hand in hand.


----------



## Sam (Apr 16, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> Right. I agree that developing your writing skills is important. I'm not saying, "Hey kid! Go ahead, pick up that pen and just let 'er fly! It's all about the story!"
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that sometimes it seems too many people focus too much on the technicality rather than the story telling, or even the writing in general.
> 
> ...



I have _always _advocated the need for writers to stop worrying about every little thing and write the story, but I'm not talking about obsessing over whether to write in first or third, whether to show or tell, or any other largely insignificant 'problem' that writers obsess over. I'm talking about nuts and bolts. I'm talking about taking pride in your craft. The story is the most important aspect, for sure, but turn on the radio and listen to some high-pitched man squealing about his hobbyhorse, and then turn on the Discovery channel and listen to Morgan Freeman talking. Which sounds better? 

A good story is interesting and enjoyable. A good story written with aplomb is interesting, enjoyable, and *memorable. *


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 16, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> A. The ability to come up with something good.
> 
> B. The ability to write well (execution).
> 
> ...



Hah! Trick question! I choose answer:

D. The ability to finish your stories and submit them for publication.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 16, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> D. The ability to finish your stories



Now THAT, I agree with. It was by far the most rewarding feeling I've ever had as a creator of any art when I put the last punctuation on the last page of my first novel. That was when I really felt like I could call myself, at least on some level, a writer.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 16, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> Hah! Trick question! I choose answer:
> 
> D. The ability to finish your stories and submit them for publication.



I don't know, Kyle... I think there are writers out there who would have been far better off without that ability.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 17, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> C is the most important.  You can write garbage, but as long as you can market it, you'll be successful.



Disagree. Totally. Well, unless one believes readers are total idiots, or sheep. And if that's how one views readers, they probably will write garbage. But no amount of marketing will make it successful (unless you have a very low bar for success). Ever heard of the Edsel?


----------



## bookmasta (Apr 17, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Disagree. Totally. Well, unless one believes readers are total idiots, or sheep. And if that's how one views readers, they probably will write garbage. But no amount of marketing will make it successful (unless you have a very low bar for success). Ever heard of the Edsel?



Well, to be fair, marketing is key. I state Twilight and The Host as my case.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Apr 17, 2014)

Infuriating but true.


----------



## Sam (Apr 17, 2014)

Once more the superficiality of approximately ninety per cent of the world's population never ceases to astound me. That some would put marketing above the ability to tell a blockbuster story says it all. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: there are more important things in life than wealth and fame. When, oh when, will people lose the foetid stench of avarice that so consumes their every waking moment? 

I would gleefully choose to never write another word before I would sacrifice my creativity or literacy for marketability.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 17, 2014)

Sam, apparently you've really lost $ight of the *big* *picture*. $urely there'$ $omething to be _*gain*_ed by en$uring that your manu$cript i$ read by a$ many *million$* a$ po$$ible?


----------



## Sam (Apr 17, 2014)

Subtle, Kevin. 

Not if I have to sacrifice my integrity as an artist. People can pooh-pooh that if they want, and some might even choose to brand me an 'untrue' writer, but I don't care about fame or fortune or having my work read throughout the world. I care about _writing. _Until you understand the ineffable desire to write, to create, you may never understand my position. Some people love finishing stories. I love writing them. Whether they sell or meet with worldwide acclaim is an addendum. I won't shirk it if it comes my way, but I also won't sacrifice creativity and skilful writing to achieve it.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 17, 2014)

> I think the situation is more akin to a woman who watches over a child every once in a while and one who takes it upon herself to raise the child. Somewhere in between "babysitter" and "mother" there is a line, as there is between a "writer" and "one who writes."



As you implied, it's about purpose. A person who writes letters to their friends while on vacation isn't a 'writer', just as someone who thinks about the meaning of life isn't a philosopher. A mother who isn't raising her child may be that child's mother, but she isn't _mothering _them.

Consider it another way; sit a group of people around a campfire and tell them to tell stories. For a short period of time each, they become storytellers. Once each story ends, however, the person who was telling it loses that title; they are not storytellers beyond the time they are telling a story, as their purpose to tell stories ends when it is someone else's turn. Yet, if there is a novelist among the group, he is still a storyteller after he has told his story, because his overall purpose is to tell stories to people.

People write, but a writer is, IMO, someone whose purpose in life is to write, to any extent. Their quality of being a writer goes beyond their actual process of writing into something that defines them, not what they're doing.

But still, we should never tell someone they're not a writer; people should decide for themselves and themselves alone.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 17, 2014)

I love the conversation so far. So, forgive me for throwing rocks at the bee hive :

Walt Disney (quoted in my signature) became a household name because of his relentless drive for success and commercial viability. His aspirations led to the creation of icons that are still beloved by millions today. 

He didn't get to where he ended up simply by animating for himself—he wanted to go places with his craft, to reach a larger audience, to generate profits, out of both necessity, and ambition.

As Disney demonstrated, I don't believe a love for the craft and an eye for the business have to be mutually exclusive, nor at odds with each other.

Why not both?


----------



## Sam (Apr 17, 2014)

I never said it wasn't okay to aspire to both. I won't sacrifice one for the other, or make one to be more important than the other, because that goes against everything I stand for in relation to writing.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 17, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> Well, to be fair, marketing is key. I state Twilight and The Host as my case.



You honestly think marketing was the main reason Twilight made it big? You really, really think readers are that dumb, that they would make it a best seller simply because of the marketing? Because if you (or any other writer) believe readers will be that dumb, you'll either end up writing mediocre garbage (because, after all, you can sell readers _anything_) or pretentious garbage (meant for those elite intelligent readers). 

Marketing won't sell garbage. Marketing will help sell things that not everybody loves, but it won't sell garbage.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 17, 2014)

Why not just one? It all depends on how each individual defines success, doesn't it? Not everyone is motivated by popularity and financial gain. In fact for some it is a burden (i.e. Harper Lee). So, what is "most important" (a term far too vague to be taken very seriously) is going to vary from author to author. For some it will be a blend of all three traits--and many more--and for others it may be just one. I see many new authors here who seem to feel that their ideas are enough and forsake any real attempt at skilled writing. I also read well written pieces which don't have enough 'story' to engage me, but which obviously satisfy their authors. That's fine. We don't see very many of those who excel at marketing their work--too busy with contract signings, awards after parties, and yacht shopping I suppose--but there are quite a few threads devoted to questions about that function. There is nothing wrong with pursuing all three, but neither is it wrong to focus on the one which satisfies the individual.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 17, 2014)

Sam said:


> Subtle, Kevin.
> 
> Not if I have to sacrifice my integrity as an artist. People can pooh-pooh that if they want, and some might even choose to brand me an 'untrue' writer, but I don't care about fame or fortune or having my work read throughout the world. I care about _writing. _Until you understand the ineffable desire to write, to create, you may never understand my position. Some people love finishing stories. I love writing them. Whether they sell or meet with worldwide acclaim is an addendum. I won't shirk it if it comes my way, but I also won't sacrifice creativity and skilful writing to achieve it.



As much as I applaud the nobility of your stance, Sam....

In my position, if I had to write one piece of crap to sell a couple million copies and make enough money for my family to be comfortable, I'll gladly write that crap and worry about my artistic integrity with the next book.

I have no qualms about writing a Twilight/Fifty shades/Hunger Games thing if it helps get me to the point where my family is comfortable enough for me to write full time.

That is not to say that I will not put forth my best effort as far as making my work the best it can be.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 17, 2014)

You all act like these people set out to write garbage for money. I don't think that's the case. Twilight, Harry Potter, Fifty Shades of Gray, etcetera are no different than Christine, or Cujo, or any other Stephen King piece (since _every_ one of his stories makes it to film). They most likely sat down with a story in mind, wrote it, and then were lucky enough for a large publisher to offer them a contract, who ultimately pimped it to Hollywood production companies. 

I highly doubt J.K. Rowling expected to become a millionaire with her first Harry Potter novel.

And The Hunger Games is a complete rip off of Battle Royale...nuff said there, riding the coattails of a cult classic film/novel.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 17, 2014)

I never said they _started out_ with the intention of making money. That isn't MY intention either.

However, the fact that Fifty Shades and Twilight aren't very good isn't in dispute. They simply aren't. 

All I am saying is that if I were fortunate enough to write something mediocre that wound up selling millions, I would tuck my artistic integrity into my back pocket and laugh all the way to the bank.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 17, 2014)

> I highly doubt J.K. Rowling expected to become a millionaire with her first Harry Potter novel.



She did plan out the whole series before putting pen to paper on the story. At any rate, she knew she was in for the long haul.



> And The Hunger Games is a complete rip off of Battle Royale



Apparently, Collins knew nothing about it. Neither did most of her audience, especially her target audience.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 17, 2014)

Cadence said:


> She did plan out the whole series before putting pen to paper on the story. At any rate, she knew she was in for the long haul.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, Collins knew nothing about it. Neither did most of her audience, especially her target audience.



Have you seen or read Battle Royale? I know there's a chance of someone creating something similar...but they're very, very similar. Anyone can say anything; doesn't make it true. I saw an interview where she said people were telling her the stories were similar. She asked her agent if she should look into it before publishing and he told her not to worry about it. Wha?

Her target audience didn't know about it, but everyone knows controversy leads to some amount of success.


----------



## patskywriter (Apr 17, 2014)

I think that many of us just set out to tell a good story the best way we know how. Some writers are "better" than others, but even those writers some of us might look down our noses at somehow have the ability to hit their target audiences. I would call that "success." Even if I'd rather achieve it in a different manner I'd still say that those writers are successful; I feel no animosity toward them.  

Because I'm the publisher of a community paper, I always have to keep my readers in mind. After finishing each issue I _could_ sit back and say, "Good job," but I must immediately switch into marketing mode and promote what I've just done. Otherwise, who's going to read it? For me, writing and marketing go hand in hand. And the only thing I'll say about quality is that it is of the utmost importance to me. I've got to be happy with everything I put my name on, even if it's "just" an announcement about Little League Baseball tryouts.


----------



## Clove (Apr 17, 2014)

The issue with books like 50 Shades and Twilight, is that their 'value' depends on who is judging them. The literarti might not deem them as good writing but their horde of fans, if you asked them, would.To them, it's the type of _story_ they want to read. This whole 'story versus execution' debate always annoys me because we see in almost every facet of literature either extreme or various stages of a middle-ground, and to laud one quality over the other seems nothing but a personal exclamation of the type of literature we liked to read and write ourselves. (Let's not even get into the various definitions of what constitutes a 'good' story; I for one find omphaloskepsis fascinating.) 

The three talents picked out in this thread seem both arbitrary and vague. There's no point pitting them against each other because different audiences read for different things.


----------



## spartan928 (Apr 17, 2014)

Most important for what? These discussions about dissecting the substance and act of writing pop up all the time and I get it. The implication beneath the question is most often commercial and literary success. I see grains of truth in all these comments, but I have to believe that the real question to ask is why write at all? What's a writers passion, motivation and talent? I can't answer that for the OP or anyone else, and my opinion what "branch" of writing is more important than any other is moot. Why? Because I have to figure that out on my own. To me, it's something you just do and see how it carries you forward. All the passion and intrinsic ability one has comes from within and impacts where a writer focuses their time, energy and productivity. FE makes a great point, but beneath that point you see what he's really saying? This is where "I" have found my answers. This is where writing is taking "me". Opinions orbit around a personal point of view and motive for creating. Focusing on any of those things in itself will not lead to great writing or success. One could focus on generating good ideas forever and only kick out drab nonsense. Yet, others come up with great ideas seemingly without effort. I can't explain why that is, except that writing (for myself) is so much more art than anything. Yes, it's a craft too, I get it. But, beneath the craft is the experience that's nearly impossible to teach and spell out for others. I guess what I am suggesting is....take your passions where they lead you because that is the real ingredient which will determine success or failure, however you define it.


----------



## garza (Apr 17, 2014)

Most of my writing has been to make money. I also write for the pleasure of putting one word after another to see what effect can be created. I love the craft, and I love the cheques that have allowed me to pay the rent and buy the groceries for nearly 60 years without any need to find a job. If I were an 'artist' I might feel differently, but I'm not, so I don't. 

If you can write a novel of questionable literary value that sells a million copies between now and next Tuesday you have my best wishes. We'll wait a few generations for an objective view of your work. 

On the subject of future generations, Harry Potter will be required reading. Literary historians of a hundred years from now will write learned essays about the way J.K. Rowling captured the essence of politics, religion, and popular culture in the late 20th Century.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 17, 2014)

spartan928 said:


> Most important for what?



I took it to mean for each responder personally. Sometimes seeking the opinion of others can help a person form their own foundation to proceed. It's done wonders for me.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 17, 2014)

garza said:


> On the subject of future generations, Harry Potter will be required reading. Literary historians of a hundred years from now will write learned essays about the way J.K. Rowling captured the essence of politics, religion, and popular culture in the late 20th Century.



True, actually! _Harry Potter_ is already being taught at several university literature classes. _Twilight_ also! :encouragement:


----------



## ViKtoricus (Apr 17, 2014)

Sam said:


> Once more the superficiality of approximately ninety per cent of the world's population never ceases to astound me. That some would put marketing above the ability to tell a blockbuster story says it all. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: there are more important things in life than wealth and fame. When, oh when, will people lose the foetid stench of avarice that so consumes their every waking moment?
> 
> I would gleefully choose to never write another word before I would sacrifice my creativity or literacy for marketability.





Is this really what you honestly feel?

Are you really telling us you'd rather stay a dignified writer, rather than make millions of dollars?



I'm sorry but if writing crappy stories will make me more money than writing quality but unmarketable stories would, I'd write crappy stories.

But then again... writing isn't really my "passion." It's my outlet, yes, but not my passion.

I'd rather be the king of a monarch country than a famed writer. The only reason I write because I know I have potential as a writer. This has nothing to do with passion, dignity, love, and all that crap. Writing is simply just another engine for filling your name with greatness.

And in my opinion, everyone should see things that way. I'm simply not convinced that a person writes for the sake of writing. There will always (*always*) be that lingering desire deep down inside that urges you to do things for the betterment of your life. And this has nothing to do with "writing for the love of writing." Such a thing does not exist in my book.

A published author who comes up to me and says, "I write because I love to write. It has nothing to do with money," I will call him a liar.



There are a few exceptions, like, if you're Jesus Christ... Or Siddharta Gautama.


----------



## ViKtoricus (Apr 17, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> I love the conversation so far. So, forgive me for throwing rocks at the bee hive :
> 
> Walt Disney (quoted in my signature) became a household name because of his relentless drive for success and commercial viability. His aspirations led to the creation of icons that are still beloved by millions today.
> 
> ...



I agree to this wholeheartedly.


----------



## Sam (Apr 17, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> Is this really what you honestly feel?
> 
> Are you really telling us you'd rather stay a dignified writer, rather than make millions of dollars?
> 
> ...



You're young and possess the world view of a high-school teenager whose main purpose in life is to impress the pretty girl in any way he can in order to get into her pants. Your reason for writing is entirely superficial because you see it as nothing more than a means to an end, and because you're still young you believe that any world view that runs counter to your own is flawed and therefore erroneous by extension. At some point you came to the equally erroneous conclusion that anyone who writes must do so for acclaim and riches, and yet you can't speak for everyone. In point of fact, what you have done above is engage in something called 'association fallacy', a common mistake made by inexperienced debaters which asserts that something must be true because it shares an inherent quality with something else that is true, e.g. "John is a confidence trickster. John has black hair. All people with black hair are therefore confidence tricksters". _Quod erat demonstrandum. _

The world doesn't work the way you want it to work just because you want it to work that way. Contrary to what you believe, there are some people who don't care about money or fame. I have a reason for why I write. It's personal and I refuse to share it with the entire world, but rest assured that it has nothing to do with money. So, to answer your question, yes. That is what I honestly feel. I'd rather work at something which made me happy but paid a lot less than something else which made me miserable. What good is millions of dollars when you're dead inside? That's not living; it's merely existing.


----------



## ViKtoricus (Apr 17, 2014)

Sam said:


> The world doesn't work the way you want it to work just because you want it to work that way. Contrary to what you believe, there are some people who don't care about money or fame. I have a reason for why I write. It's personal and I refuse to share it with the entire world, but rest assured that it has nothing to do with money. So, to answer your question, yes. That is what I honestly feel. I'd rather work at something which made me happy but paid a lot less than something else which made me miserable. What good is millions of dollars when you're dead inside? That's not living; it's merely existing.





This is not a caveman society. We live in a civilization ruled by money, ESPECIALLY in capitalist USA.

Money is freedom, and freedom is happiness.


----------



## Sam (Apr 17, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> This is not a caveman society. We live in a civilization ruled by money, ESPECIALLY in capitalist USA.
> 
> Money is freedom, and freedom is happiness.



Freedom is not being a slave to unrealistic fantasies.


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 17, 2014)

Can I "Like" post #63 100 times?


----------



## FleshEater (Apr 17, 2014)

I assume no one told Vik about how little money, fame, and recognition there is in writing? Joe Hill should be a great example. Stephen King's own son!


----------



## Bilston Blue (Apr 18, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> I've read some classics revered as staples of great writing that absolutely put me to sleep.



Which says more about you as a reader than it ever will do about the writing in the book, regardless of the book being a classic or not. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, absolutely not, but that we all are different and have different tastes and the book that puts you to sleep might be the one to catch the imagination of the next person, to inspire them into creating something of their own, or even just to inspire them to read to their children. Just because there are books out there you find boring, doesn't mean they are stories told poorly or too slowly or too anything. It only means it wasn't for you. Art is completely subjective. It can never be anything else. It is created and then consumed and judged. But each person's judgement is valid in its own rights and for its own reasons. 

I think there's a need to be true to one's self when creating any kind of art, and the old cliche still stands true... I'm happy with what I've produced, and if anyone else likes it that's a bonus.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 18, 2014)

The reason I love to write but don't put money on the table actually has a lot to do with the psychology of a creative process such as writing. My experience of linking my work to the prospect of a monetary reward, and the alternative focus that drives me because of the negative impact thinking about money has on my work, is outlined well by the video below. I may have posted it before: it's business psychology, but writing for a living is, in the end, a business. 

If you really want to make money out of being a writer, you should stop thinking about money; at least, that's what Dan Pink advocates.

[video=youtube;u6XAPnuFjJc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc[/video]


----------



## Clove (Apr 18, 2014)

Cadence said:


> The reason I love to write but don't put money on the table actually has a lot to do with the psychology of a creative process such as writing. My experience of linking my work to the prospect of a monetary reward, and the alternative focus that drives me because of the negative impact thinking about money has on my work, is outlined well by the video below. I may have posted it before: it's business psychology, but writing for a living is, in the end, a business.
> 
> If you really want to make money out of being a writer, you should stop thinking about money; at least, that's what Dan Pink advocates.
> 
> [video=youtube;u6XAPnuFjJc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc[/video]



Unable to watch the video at the moment, but I think the importance money depends on the person. It's great that at the moment you do not need to think about the money, but I think for a lot of full-time writers, who are struggling to earn a living, money should always be on their minds. If through writing you pay the bills, feed the kids, whatnot, then that is just a good a motivation and impetus to finish your next article, or short story. As much as it would be great for everyone to trust in their writing ability in order to provide, the business world doesn't work like that. Just because you have written a great story does not mean it will be published, so the progression from quality to money is not as straightforward as I think we, as writers, would like to believe.


----------



## Folcro (Apr 18, 2014)

Money is not a priority of mine personally, though I understand (how could I not) the eagerness of others to make a good living on what they love to do; Neither would I give up doing what I believe is right in storytelling to appeal to the masses. As has been said many times before (including this thread) I write for myself, and for those who agree with me. That will amount to a tight audience. But I wand badly to reach as many of them as I can: those frustrated by the difficulty of finding what appeals to them beneath the mainstream. Doing so will bring me fame (albeit less than those like King) and fortune (see above), and this might be labelled as superficial. But once I have it, I don't think I'll need much more: to give to those with a common taste something I have the talent to give, and to be loved by them... if that makes sense.


----------



## J Anfinson (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm far more worried about being proud of what I've written than what I'll be paid for it, and of course it's my hope that others love it like I do.


----------



## Kepharel (Apr 18, 2014)

Gosh ViK...it's gonna be a lot quieter around here without you.  You've been banned...oh dear! Anyway, though you can't read this (?) I'm thinking of you, whatever your indiscretion, and hope you survive life's stormy seas and find safe harbour.  Peace of mind can't be bought don't you know... and imagination is free at source; money compromises and corrupts, even in art; hey! especially in art, it's a distraction, nothing more. Just takes a few years before the penny finally drops, I guess.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 19, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> A. The ability to come up with something good.



That's a qualitative judgement. (Based on opinion, in this case)



> B. The ability to write well (execution).



A quantitative judgement. (Measurable, with clearly defined criteria)



> C. The ability to market your work.



A quantitative judgement. (Measurable, with clearly defined criteria)




> Which of the above abilities do you think is the most important?



The request for a judgement based purely on the opinion of the respondent.


OK, now that these have been appropriately categorized, do you see the problem? For one, you can't compare "unlikes." So, "something good" can't be equally compared with "write well." I've read plenty of works that were written well, but still sucked... (Using "write well" in regards to general basic writing mechanics and other criteria including less quantitative, but still easily judged, abilities like plotting and the like) I've read plenty of books that were marketed well, but written poorly. I've read plenty of books that made a lot of money, but were neither... And, we all have our favorites that neither made much money or were virtually unknown in their first publishing. In short - What's the purpose of the poll when most of the questions are unrelated to each other?

If there are general attributes that one acknowledges as being important to a writer, I would say that writing well is one of them. However, it is not critical to the success of a title and has little effect on a writer's ability to "come up with something good." If one wishes to have the greatest advantage in producing a work that will be successful in whatever category one wishes to achieve within, then writing well is an essential talent.

In drawing from my experiences with interacting with writers on this forum, many can accomplish two out of three of the above criteria, with most frequently accomplishing them to varying degrees across their various writing projects. No book is ever the same. That's why we have so many of them.


----------



## Lytharicus (Apr 19, 2014)

I would say A and B. I assume that by coming up with something good that would include coming up with something that may be loosely based on other ideas that are already out there. It is very important to be able to get your ideas across to the reader, but if you don't have a plot you don't have anything to write. I would say that B is generally the harder to achieve, but I think A is equally important. You can have lots of fancy writing skills but if you don't have a story, or if has no direction, the book is over before you started.


----------



## bazz cargo (Apr 20, 2014)

When I first read this thread I thought to myself: 'Wot?'

The reasons writers write it many and various.

 Getting published is more of a lottery than a tribute to skill. 

If anyone wants to spend their life marketing a book, then get a job in marketing and get paid for it.

Then the penny dropped, admittedly through treacle. The question is, 'why do I write?' The answer, because I enjoy it. I can also daydream about gazzilions of sales and a film tie-in with merchandising.

Anyone can talk the game, it is the result that counts. If you have a book that is available for someone to purchase you have proof that you are not a writer, you are an author. and I salute anyone who can put that kind of effort in.:salut:


----------



## martinCHwriter (Apr 24, 2014)

my thoughts are in nowdays 3) is not so important anymore, 1) is the most important and it can make up for 2).


----------



## Greimour (Apr 24, 2014)

Lol. Martin, I don't think I ever replied to this thread... I didn't agree with the comment from the start:

A. The ability to come up with something good.

B. The ability to write well (execution).

C. The ability to market your work.

...

A writers three talents? Pfft... how about a writers traits, that will far outweigh 'talent'

A) Effort
B) Dedication
C) Passion
-sub sections A-
A1) Studying the craft
A2) Research for credible material
A3) Completing the Work in Progress
A4) Editing a complete work in progress
-subsections B-
B1) Making time where it was felt no time was there to be had.
B2) Missing out on sleep to continue writing.
B3) Accepting caffeine addiction as a cost to getting more work done.

***

Admittedly, I did half jest with some of the comments, but I could go on like that all day.
Traits, effort and time can make up for talents or lack thereof... and being an accomplished writer doesn't mean you had or even have those 'Talents'

- Excellent execution could be an accumulation of years of practice, that hardly qualifies it as a talent but a result of dedication, study and learning.

- The ability to come up with something good is hardly a talent... coming up with something mediocre and making it good on the other hand. Taking the mundane and making it interesting... that is something worth striving for and hard work and dedication will again make that possible. Talent can be something you are born with, hard work is a trait that I admire and do not envy though I strive to do. 
Prodigies on the other hand, claiming to do very little with excellent results - that's not something I admire, though it is enviable if it is indeed true - I still think hard works pays off better. I feel sympathy for the talented prodigy, do they get the same sense of pride and accomplishment from the seemingly little effort they put in to their work? I would much rather have the sense of accomplishment on completion than a paycheck for doing something I simply 'felt like' doing because I found it 'easy'

- Marketing work is also dedication, time and effort and often a huge learning process etc... I don't think that's a talent at all... just like any job, time and experience will make you better at it.


So, no I didn't agree with this from the start and never had any intention of replying to it. Decided I would now seeing as it is once again at the top of the 'recent activity' list. ^_^


----------

