# Four Novels, a pile of stories and money pit.



## MJ Preston (Apr 4, 2018)

I am now writing my fourth novel and I am at that point of love hate. There are moments when I ask myself, "Why do I do this?" Sometimes I consider hanging it up and saying, "The hell with it." 

Think about it.

Why spend two years on a project only to have it diluted by romance vampires, yet another 1000 zombie apocalypses, or books targeting woman interested in BDSM? 

Why? 
Why put myself through the stress? 
Why invest myself in these projects that often take up to two years with very little monetary gain? 

This is the part where most of us artists get defensive and say it's not really about the money, it's about the art. And there is a kernel of truth in that statement, but working for nothing sucks brothers and sisters. 

There is no bigger validation for an artist than to sell it for a price. That might make me a sellout, but an honest sellout at its worst. If 1000,000 people by your book, that probably means that over half of them will actually read your work. Wouldn't it be cool to have 500,000 readers?

That is what makes it worthwhile. To know that people are listening to your storytelling and all is not in vain.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 4, 2018)

I'm not sure if there was a discussion topic buried in there or if it was just a vent, but either way here's some thoughts...

Beyond a certain level with the publishing circus, feeling validation starts to wear off, at least in my opinion. 

Yes, writers crave the oxygen of critical and commercial success, but I can honestly say for myself it was a bell curve. It peaked, actually, not with my first book but my second. My first was minimally successful. While it did okay I was (am) skeptical by nature and feared that was as good as it got and I had still underachieved - nothing was good enough. Enough that I feared getting dumped off a cliff. 

Fortunately there was no dumping and I got a still small, but bigger, advance on #2. That second novel was a total monster to write because of pressure (that of my own making) but when the first handful of reviews came in on it I finally felt that validation thing. Big time.

Cut to now and I don't really read reviews much anymore. I just don't. It's true that validation is important and so is money (for those of us with families especially) but I don't actually write for readers (plural) anymore. I write for ONE reader and that is my wife. She knows the smell of bullshit, the taste of try-hard and the sight of snake-oil well enough that by only paying attention to writing things I know she would enjoy I am able to still consistently please those few oddballs who like my work without having to actually think about them - and by extension the second-rate crap they might be reading instead of me!


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 4, 2018)

I feel your pain. Am currently finishing my 8th or 9th book, have had some successes and some failures, made some money, but really I ain't gettin' rich.

But I ask myself that same question every morning at 0400 when I start writing*; why in the hell am I doing this?
The answer is that I'm not doing it for this...this obscurity, I am doing it because I believe I can achieve this dream and do much more with my writing than dime-store novels.

Truthfully, my goals in writing are fairly simple. Aside from writing a NYT best seller, I wanna be able to write full time. See, the deal is that you can write anywhere...so I wanna write from the summit on Rincon Peak, or the waterfall in the Grahams. I already have the laptop and even built a portable solar-power station that fits in my pack.  To hell with the posery of writing in Starbux!
I wanna be able to camp out for a living, and get paid while I'm doing it.



*except on mornings after a late night of sin & gluttony.


----------



## Cephus (Apr 4, 2018)

Pretty much the same as others have said.  If you're writing for fame and fortune, you're  doing it wrong.  I write, not  because I want to see my books on a shelf (I don't care), not because I want to be recognized (I don't), not because I want to make money (I already have that with my day job), I write because I can't help it.  The stories keep coming whether I write them down or not.

The only person you should be writing for is you.  Because you want to do it and get enjoyment out of it.  That goes for someone who has never published before or Stephen King.  External validation can't be your motivation.  Money can't be your motivation.  You write because that's what you do.


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 4, 2018)

You write because it's in you to write. Sux being an artist sometimes.

Now, the rest of writing isn't about the books, but about the marketing of the books.  Do you really think that sparkly vampires sold solely on the merits of the book?  Even great books like Dune had marketing folks out there pushing for it. So, as a self-publisher, you (and I) are the marketing department for the books we create.  That's a job in and of itself.

Are you on http://www.kboards.com/?  It's a good place to chop up marketing info and work on how to get your book above the ocean of others and get seen by the public.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 4, 2018)

I know writers write what they want to because they decide to. However, is having a marketable work that follows trends a desirable way to write a novel for people who have been frustrated in their own opinions?


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 4, 2018)

Theglasshouse said:


> I know writers write what they want to because they decide to. However, is having a marketable work that follows trends a desirable way to write a novel for people who have been frustrated in their own opinions?


Sure, if you goal is to make money, follow the trends.

To me, that seems a little joyless.  But, you never know, if it gets too rough I just make take that route.


----------



## GhostScore (Apr 4, 2018)

Unless your writing is outstanding, or your story jaw-dropping, *don't* follow trends. 

You're just one wanna-get-rich-quick-author among the hundreds, or thousands, of wanna-get-rich-quick-authors trying the same thing. Just go on Amazon for books, or into a bookstore, and check out a popular genre/topic; then consider the countless authors you've never heard of & seriously question if you'd buy from them instead of someone known in the field. 


Really. Don't think bestsellers lucked onto a multi-million copy seller with their first book. Takes effort. Even "no-names" at the time like EL James had a fan base to promote their work.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 4, 2018)

But supposedly following what people like might tend to help you write before wasting time, and could help you decide what to write before you write a novel. You need some research. I am not saying to write cliches or what has been done before. But to accept the reality of what is selling and why you could benefit from writing in the genre of the people who do sell well. Because that is not the message but to listen and respect the reader, and the publisher, and understand at least why a work succeeded for you. Maybe it's a work you liked. But never thought off writing in that genre. You write what you like, and keep an eye for what experimentation could probably offer you in writing. This last bit of thinking kind of sounds like what a person does anyways. They experiment by creating a work they haven't the final draft in mind. I don't think it would stifle or hurt the person's creativity. Because what this does is help you in case they have read similar work. You want to have an audience as a writer. (that is you don't write for yourself only, taking in mind the interests of people)

Just my opinion.

Of course, you can still write out of passion, and that is just a good choice too.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 4, 2018)

Cephus said:


> Pretty much the same as others have said.  If you're writing for fame and fortune, you're  doing it wrong.  I write, not  because I want to see my books on a shelf (I don't care), not because I want to be recognized (I don't), not because I want to make money (I already have that with my day job), I write because I can't help it.  The stories keep coming whether I write them down or not.
> 
> The only person you should be writing for is you.  Because you want to do it and get enjoyment out of it.  That goes for someone who has never published before or Stephen King.  External validation can't be your motivation.  Money can't be your motivation.  You write because that's what you do.




Nah.

This all may be true for you, but it certainly isn't true for everyone. I'm not doing something wrong just because I'm not doing it the same way you do.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 4, 2018)

I want to be on the cover of Rolling Stones magazine.
Gonna buy five copies for my mother.


----------



## Sam (Apr 4, 2018)

The concept of validation is a curious human foible. 

I rarely watch TV these days, but I spent the Easter weekend with a couple of friends who had recorded some manner of award show a couple weeks beforehand and wanted to watch it during their time off. Their house, their rules, so I resigned myself to viewing it with them. What I saw was a bunch of people laughing at unfunny jokes written by unfunnier people, patting each other on the back, and trying (but failing) to appear humble in receipt of their golden trophies. It was a sort of self-congratulatory circle jerk of the high-minded and pretentious elite attempting to stay relevant for another 15 minutes. These people did anything and everything to jump on the latest bandwagon, fad-wagon, and trending topic in modern society in a vain attempt to appeal to whatever the hell demographic the viewers happened to fall into. Not a single one of them had an original thought. Not one of them said anything different than the spiel spewed by the person who preceded them. My friends laughed, guffawed, and only fell short of giving them a standing ovation. 

In my house, I don't watch these things as a rule, and anyone with an IQ in triple digits shouldn't either. I've had farts that sounded more original than the crap these people were talking. And yet my friends cheered. And yet millions of people watched and cheered as well. What does that tell us? That people are morons? No, it tells us that stupid people gravitate to stupid things. If I'm going to seek validation, I'll seek it from people who are either my equal or my better. There are many such people on this site, which means there are even more people out there as well. I don't care if teenagers and middle-age women with a BDSM fetish don't like my work. Those people are irrelevant to me. Identify your target audience and listen to them. Don't be disheartened by the occasional turd that sells like gold. 

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 4, 2018)

Sam said:


> The concept of validation is a curious human foible.
> 
> I rarely watch TV these days, but I spent the Easter weekend with a couple of friends who had recorded some manner of award show a couple weeks beforehand and wanted to watch it during their time off. Their house, their rules, so I resigned myself to viewing it with them. What I saw was a bunch of people laughing at unfunny jokes written by unfunnier people, patting each other on the back, and trying (but failing) to appear humble in receipt of their golden trophies. It was a sort of self-congratulatory circle jerk of the high-minded and pretentious elite attempting to stay relevant for another 15 minutes. These people did anything and everything to jump on the latest bandwagon, fad-wagon, and trending topic in modern society in a vain attempt to appeal to whatever the hell demographic the viewers happened to fall into. Not a single one of them had an original thought. Not one of them said anything different than the spiel spewed by the person who preceded them. My friends laughed, guffawed, and only fell short of giving them a standing ovation.
> 
> ...



Why are you friends with people you feel are so far beneath you?


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 4, 2018)

Sam said:


> The concept of validation is a curious human foible.
> 
> I rarely watch TV these days, but I spent the Easter weekend with a couple of friends who had recorded some manner of award show a couple weeks beforehand and wanted to watch it during their time off. Their house, their rules, so I resigned myself to viewing it with them. What I saw was a bunch of people laughing at unfunny jokes written by unfunnier people, patting each other on the back, and trying (but failing) to appear humble in receipt of their golden trophies. It was a sort of self-congratulatory circle jerk of the high-minded and pretentious elite attempting to stay relevant for another 15 minutes. These people did anything and everything to jump on the latest bandwagon, fad-wagon, and trending topic in modern society in a vain attempt to appeal to whatever the hell demographic the viewers happened to fall into. Not a single one of them had an original thought. Not one of them said anything different than the spiel spewed by the person who preceded them. My friends laughed, guffawed, and only fell short of giving them a standing ovation.
> 
> ...



Ah, award shows. 

I do understand a little bit why people watch them. Especially "the kids". I am getting on in years now, but I still remember the days of being so insecure and in awe of anything that was _cooler than me _that when it came to a certain musician (I was a rock 'n' roll kid myself) or other person I deemed iconic I would have probably eaten dog food if Joe Strummer had said it tasted good. I would sure as hell have watched the Grammy's if my musical tastes had aligned with theirs and they had acts like that attending. The fact that they didn't and I never really watched them was merely an accident. it was the only time you really got to see actors or musicians outside of their material unless they happened to show up on a show you were allowed to watch. So I get why the demand is there. 

As to whether they should exist and be watched, I am in sort of two minds. The problem seems to be less about the format and more about what the format has become. The Grammy's is godawful, the Emmy's cringeworthy, and the Oscars hideously flawed, but the idea behind something like the Nobel Prize, say, always struck me as an honorable one. The idea that every so often a bunch of scientists whose work sustains the world as we know it might receive a slither of mainstream public attention of the sort normally reserved for Beyonce or whatever (though still much less of course) I don't feel that's necessarily a bad thing in _theory. 

_I feel similarly about the Hugo/Stoker Awards. I have not attended a literary awards before and don't plan to, but I can't begrudge these things as ideas. I wouldn't even mind the Oscars if it celebrated a wider range of material and didn't manifest more as a millionaires gala with champagne politics more than a celebration of real cinema. 

I share your view on why it is adults, fully-formed and developed and entitled-to-vote and operate vehicles, watch things like the Oscars being immensely sad and telling of our culture. And, like you, I have little interest in appealing to those people. The older I get the more I realize just how limited most people's ability is to grasp ideas beyond the most basic levels. All one needs to do is turn on their TV or look at what's playing on the big screen at the local multiplex or read a James Patterson/EL James/Dan Brown novel to see that most people can only handle art that is extremely simplistic.

 I'm no Thomas Pynchon myself, but I do aspire to write above a middle school level, so yeah, totally agree that not all opinions are created equal.


----------



## Sam (Apr 4, 2018)

They're not beneath me. 

They are in many ways more intelligent than me, which is why it was a shock to see them watching that show, hence my comment about triple-digit IQs.

Just goes to show you that intelligent people can like stupid things with the same fervour with which they like clever things, and that intelligent people aren't immune to making assumptions.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 4, 2018)

The triple digit IQ is so I can lure in the [paying] masses of sheeple with my witty writing. Manipulating idiots is harder than you may suspect.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 5, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> The triple digit IQ is so I can lure in the [paying] masses of sheeple with my witty writing. Manipulating idiots is harder than you may suspect.



Most literate adults have a triple digit IQ.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 5, 2018)

Sam said:


> They're not beneath me.
> 
> They are in many ways more intelligent than me, which is why it was a shock to see them watching that show, hence my comment about triple-digit IQs.
> 
> Just goes to show you that intelligent people can like stupid things with the same fervour with which they like clever things, and that intelligent people aren't immune to making assumptions.





You used your award show experience an an anecdote to support your conclusion that "stupid people gravitate to stupid things", so it didn't seem like a huge leap to assume you meant your friends were stupid people. But as you've clarified that these _aren't_ stupid people, I guess your conclusion would actually be that smart people sometimes enjoy stupid things? Which is more interesting, really, isn't it?

Why do smart people enjoy things that don't challenge their intellects? Is it because their emotions are involved and the buzz from that is satisfying in itself? Is it an interest in belonging to some sort of mass event, a feeling of connection to people they don't know and will never meet? Why do your smart friends find humour in things you don't find at all funny? It's not about intellect, so it's about...?

I like puzzling through questions like that - good fodder for characterization, right?


----------



## Darkkin (Apr 5, 2018)

Sam said:


> They're not beneath me.
> 
> They are in many ways more intelligent than me, which is why it was a shock to see them watching that show, hence my comment about triple-digit IQs.
> 
> Just goes to show you that intelligent people can like stupid things with the same fervour with which they like clever things, and that intelligent people aren't immune to making assumptions.



The reason smart people like stupid things...Escape.  A few minutes where one can release one's focus and indulge in something mindless.  One prime example, the guilty pleasure recipe writers of the romance genre.  Just like graphic novels and manga, you might be surprised by who reads it.  And consider, have there been times when you don't want to think for a little while.  The brain thrives on stimulation, but like anything else it can become fatigued, which is why mindless, lowering distractions are essential.  It allows the brain to flex and process the stimuli that has been shoved into it.

As to manipulating sheeple...Consider that people who struggle to understand new concepts or refuse to accept new ideas can and will out stubborn the smartest minds.  It is why willful ignorance is painful.  People who have been given the ability to think, but choose not to for any reason.  The guy who yells loudest is always right for them.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 5, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Why do smart people enjoy things that don't challenge their intellects? Is it because their emotions are involved and the buzz from that is satisfying in itself? Is it an interest in belonging to some sort of mass event, a feeling of connection to people they don't know and will never meet? Why do your smart friends find humour in things you don't find at all funny? It's not about intellect, so it's about...?



I think it's fairly easy and not especially controversial question. It's because laziness does not care how smart or stupid you are.

I mean that in the nicest possible way. Who here reads the back of the cereal box from time to time? Or finds themselves ogling a billboard? Or watching, I don't know, American Idol or The Apprentice? I know I do, and I think I'm smart. 

I sure love reading Marquez, Proust, Sartre et al but that doesn't mean I won't occasionally read something extremely simple or even "trashy" instead (I mentioned my guilty pleasure of a Lena Dunham autobiography before and there's no coming back...), I prefer to get my news from NPR or Politico but that doesn't mean I won't sometimes flip over to Fox News Radio and listen to some blow-hard-bunny talk to morons on Open Phone Friday, or listen to Coast To Coast AM late at night where some fool is talking about the government being lizard people. It's absurd, but I will on occasion listen with genuine interest.

Why? I don't know. It isn't because I'm a schizophrenic. Nor is it because I don't genuinely lose my ability to judge quality. I know reality TV is fake nonsense and isn't benefiting me as a human being. But sometimes I don't want to think that much. I believe that's a big reason why a lot of people of all stripes love sports. We know when we watch a soccer game we aren't actually going to see anything that is beyond the abilities, repeated for years, of 22 men kicking a ball. Nobody is going to go anywhere outside the field or kick the ball to Mars. The ball will travel and that is all. But there is an element of easy drama to it and cheap thrill and sometimes we need that.

 I try to steer clear of the TV because it really is that bad but in general I try not to judge too harshly those who find themselves somewhat suckered in. For one thing, it doesn't make me any smarter to watch stupid people be stupid. For another, we all have some form of lower pleasure we enjoy. Anybody who acts like they don't switch their brain off and indulge in some pointless distraction for at least a few minutes every day is probably lying.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 5, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> Most literate adults have a triple digit IQ.



Incorrect!
50% of the people you meet have an IQ of 100 or less. 100 is the median. Every generation we improve collectively by approx 2 points...but they adjust the weighting so that 100 remains the median.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 5, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Incorrect!
> 50% of the people you meet have an IQ of 100 or less. 100 is the median. Every generation we improve collectively by approx 2 points...but they adjust the weighting so that 100 remains the median.



So if 100, a triple digit number, is the median number of all adults regardless of literacy and we subtract the small percentage of those adults who are unable to read, the majority of the leftover pool would presumably be of a higher IQ and therefore the median would be in triple digits, right? 

Just being a smart ass. :tongue2:


----------



## Cephus (Apr 6, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> So if 100, a triple digit number, is the median number of all adults regardless of literacy and we subtract the small percentage of those adults who are unable to read, the majority of the leftover pool would presumably be of a higher IQ and therefore the median would be in triple digits, right?
> 
> Just being a smart ass. :tongue2:



By definition, if 100 is the median, half of all people are going to be below that median and half will be at or above.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 6, 2018)

Cephus said:


> By definition, if 100 is the median, half of all people are going to be below that median and half will be at or above.



Yes but the median of society includes literate and illiterate adults, right? Not all adults are readers, are they? Assuming readers tend to have a higher IQ than non-readers (they do) if you only take readers into account the median IQ is over 100 even if its only by a tiny amount.

Look I was only being silly...


----------



## Bayview (Apr 6, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> I think it's fairly easy and not especially controversial question. It's because laziness does not care how smart or stupid you are.
> 
> I mean that in the nicest possible way. Who here reads the back of the cereal box from time to time? Or finds themselves ogling a billboard? Or watching, I don't know, American Idol or The Apprentice? I know I do, and I think I'm smart.
> 
> ...




You go from "I think it's fairly easy" to "Why? I don't know." - I feel like the second one is more interesting!

I mean, sure, sometimes we don't actively seek out intellectually challenging material because it would be an effort both to find it and to read it - I buy the "laziness" reason for that.

But the intelligent people watching the award show had apparently gone out of their way to seek it out. They had a guest in their home who wasn't interested but they watched it anyway, so they must have WANTED to see it. They apparently watched with great enthusiasm and emotional involvement. As you say, other intelligent people watch sports. They actively seek sporting events out, become huge fans, spend a lot of money and time on "their" teams... it doesn't feel like laziness to me.

Neither teenagers nor women (whether middle-aged or otherwise) are stupid, as a class. Lots of intelligent women enjoyed _50 Shades_. I don't think the BDSM connection is the main draw - there have been novels with BDSM in them for a long time, there's obviously lots of material available on the internet and elsewhere, etc. What was it about _this book_ that appealed? Was it just _easier _to read it? Maybe. Partly.

But I feel like there's something more at work. Is there a desire to be part of a community? Is there an emotional need to be part of a zeitgeist moment? I don't follow sports at ALL, but if I somehow find myself at a game, I get sucked into the cheering almost immediately and start to genuinely _care_ about the outcome. Why? I don't know.

But I think as writers, it's probably useful for us to _respect_ the human tendency to care about things there's no rational reason to care about. If we're writing fiction, we probably want readers to get emotionally invested in our characters, even though we expect our readers to know the characters aren't real. Why did I cry when Ol' Yeller died? I was pretty young, but I was old enough to know the story was fiction, and the dog wasn't real. But I cried anyway (INCONSOLABLY).

Maybe partly because even at that age I was able to make the connection between fictional deaths and real deaths. Ol' Yeller wasn't real, but other dogs are, and they die. The kid wasn't real, but other kids are, and they go through tragedies. Vicarious emotions? Sure, maybe.

We've all heard the same applied to sports, I'm sure. They're a substitute for actual battle, etc.

Awards shows? I don't know, but I imagine people who get really into them are probably pretty interested in the celebrities themselves? They've probably read a bit about their real lives/personalities and then used their imaginations to fill in the gaps so they feel as if they know them, at least as well as we know characters in a book. So cheering for their successes makes as much sense as being happy when characters in a book get what we think they deserve. But because watching an award show is a shared experience, we get into that emotional feedback loop like at a sporting event where our emotions are amplified because they're shared...

I have no concrete answers. But I think both "stupid" and "lazy" are a bit too simple.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 6, 2018)

Bayview said:


> You go from "I think it's fairly easy" to "Why? I don't know." - I feel like the second one is more interesting!
> 
> I mean, sure, sometimes we don't actively seek out intellectually challenging material because it would be an effort both to find it and to read it - I buy the "laziness" reason for that.
> 
> ...



I think it's fairly easy to recognize mental laziness as a human condition responsible for much of our behavior. Explaining why it occurs, its evolutionary purpose, is a lot harder. 

I am also not ascribing this as an explanation for everybody, merely those who would otherwise pursue more highbrow material. You mention knowing intelligent people who like 50 Shades. I have to tell you, I don't know many. Perhaps it's because you have a larger sample size or perhaps its a difference in how you gauge intelligence versus how I do, but I have to tell you I do not know a single woman (or man) who otherwise knew good writing from bad who genuinely enjoyed that book. 

On the other hand, I know plenty of intelligent women who did _read_ it - hell, I read some of it when my wife's friend left it on our coffee table - but at no point did I feel true enjoyment or any kind of _draw. W_hich is why I maintain intelligent people dabbling in that stuff is an idle thumbs kind of thing more than anything.

I also need to make it clear I am not coming at this from a point of view of respect/disrespect whatsoever. A human being can be emotional about whatever they want to. Emotional attachment is one thing that are beyond criticism, in my opinion. For instance, I (privately) think its pretty stupid when intelligent people I know pay hundreds of dollars they can't really afford to have their dead dog or cat cremated. I think that kind of animal-in-place-of-a-child mentality in general is strange and kind of creepy (I love my dog, but he's a dog and I don't treat him as a child). At the same time, I don't feel that those kinds of differences in how certain people feel about certain parts of their reality makes them less emotionally stable.

 It's how one deals with the actual substance of their attachment that I find more problematic, and when it crosses over from the realm of private emotion into behavior that I start to have issues. My mother frequently weeps at the National Anthem and I think that's sort of ridiculous, but I don't think less of her for it because I know she just happens to romanticize that stuff just as I do, I don't know, the character of Frankenstein. On the other hand, the people who  allow  patriotic jingoism to dictate how they live, think and vote are guilty of laziness of thought in my book and qualify firmly in the stupid category.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 6, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> I am also not ascribing this as an explanation for everybody, merely those who would otherwise pursue more highbrow material. You mention knowing intelligent people who like 50 Shades. I have to tell you, I don't know many. Perhaps it's because you have a larger sample size or perhaps its a difference in how you gauge intelligence versus how I do, but I have to tell you I do not know a single woman (or man) who otherwise knew good writing from bad who genuinely enjoyed that book.



I know lawyers, teachers, doctors, and other professionals who enjoyed 50 Shades. Profession isn't an exact correlation with intelligence, but I'd say these people are all well-above average. But I don't think any of them are interested in writing fiction or critiquing fiction. I wonder if we're looking at a difference between intelligence and intellectualism, or intelligence and artistic interest?


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 6, 2018)

What is life without a little guilty pleasure? That's the operative word - pleasure.

Stupidity is subjective. My dad has an IQ of 165 and is a raging Trump supporter. Why? Supporting Trump gives him pleasure, and that is a very fundamental human drive (as advertisers, politicians, sociopaths and writers know  )


----------



## MJ Preston (Apr 6, 2018)

Thanks, for the responses all. This was simply a rant. 
I'm still writing and will continue to do so until they pull that keyboard from my cold dead hands.
:ChainGunSmiley:


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 6, 2018)

I was waiting for BV to kick some sand in BS's face.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 6, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I wonder if we're looking at a difference between intelligence and intellectualism, or intelligence and artistic interest?



I'm going to qualify what I am about to say by saying it is 100% opinion (of course) and not to be universally applied in absence of sufficient evidence....

My father was, until he retired, a high-flying lawyer for a multinational corporation. He earned a six figure salary with a master's degree and at the age of 73 has never read a single fiction book in his life. The best movie of all time in his opinion is American Pie (yes the nineties rom-com) and he has no developed views on any subject nor much knowledge. Ask him what the capital of, say, Switzerland is and he could not tell you. Not because he had never been told or had the opportunity to learn, it just wasn't in his brain.

His intelligence is based on an extremely narrow field and is couple with a higher than average work ethic and likely a reasonable (though in no way spectacular) IQ. Is he intelligent? Most tests would come back and say yes, at least of average or slightly above average standing. Certainly it's not a lack of sophistication or knowledge on its own that makes him unintelligent in my opinion, since that could just as easily be an access or educational problem. The reason I still would not call him intelligent is because he has very little _curiosity_. No drive. His response would be "don't know, don't need to know, nobody needs to know" to pretty much anything he finds to be unnecessarily challenging.

I think there are a lot of people like that in many professional fields. And that is where I guess I have a different view than you, because I don't think competence in a professional role speaks to intelligence so much as it does productivity and hard work. I think productivity and work ethic is the main driver in success. There are plenty of people of mediocre intellect at high position to which one would generally assume high competency and, yes, intelligence. Just look at who's the US President right now...

So yeah, not only do I think profession is a poor indicator of intelligence (at least as it relates to taste in art and culture) but I would actually go the other way in many cases. Many (not all of course) of teachers, lawyers, etc use their smarts so rigorously in the workplace that the last thing they probably want to do is go home and read Dostoevsky. They want to go home and vegetate in front of American Ninja Warrior, at least some days. 

And that's okay, honestly. That's pretty typical and very understandable. But it is nonetheless a form of laziness (laziness - "the quality of being unwilling to use energy"). One might find it an unkind description, sure, but I don't know a better one...?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 6, 2018)

Four pages of commentary on a rant! Have things here sunk that low? No one can come up with an actual topic of discussion?


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 6, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> No one can come up with an actual topic of discussion?



Go ahead and start one, Jack?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 6, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> Go ahead and start one, Jack?



About to post one.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 7, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> I'm going to qualify what I am about to say by saying it is 100% opinion (of course) and not to be universally applied in absence of sufficient evidence....
> 
> My father was, until he retired, a high-flying lawyer for a multinational corporation. He earned a six figure salary with a master's degree and at the age of 73 has never read a single fiction book in his life. The best movie of all time in his opinion is American Pie (yes the nineties rom-com) and he has no developed views on any subject nor much knowledge. Ask him what the capital of, say, Switzerland is and he could not tell you. Not because he had never been told or had the opportunity to learn, it just wasn't in his brain.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I think you're using "intelligence" as I would use "intellectual". I see intelligence as being the potential, intellectual as the interest in exercising that potential as an ends itself rather than a means to an end. I don't think there's much relationship at all between intelligence and being intellectual (lots of "smart" people who don't want to exercise their brains, lots of less intelligent people who do).

I guess I don't like the word laziness because I see it as a character flaw... I think I'd find the idea easier to accept if it were termed as "exhaustion", at least in those situations you're mentioning about professionals who don't go home and stretch their brains because their brains have been stretched all day. We wouldn't call an athlete lazy because she rested after a workout, right?

I still don't understand the energy "smart" people expend on following sports, celebrities, etc., though. People who can quote the statistics of every player on a favoured team, or the details of a celebrity's life, have clearly expended some form of energy on gaining their knowledge. Neither laziness nor exhaustion seems like a reasonable explanation for that sort of thing. They just... care about something I don't care about. Their interests are different from mine. They probably can't understand why I'd go on a writers' forum and yip about writing all the time....


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 8, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Yeah, I think you're using "intelligence" as I would use "intellectual". I see intelligence as being the potential, intellectual as the interest in exercising that potential as an ends itself rather than a means to an end. I don't think there's much relationship at all between intelligence and being intellectual (lots of "smart" people who don't want to exercise their brains, lots of less intelligent people who do).
> 
> I guess I don't like the word laziness because I see it as a character flaw... I think I'd find the idea easier to accept if it were termed as "exhaustion", at least in those situations you're mentioning about professionals who don't go home and stretch their brains because their brains have been stretched all day. We wouldn't call an athlete lazy because she rested after a workout, right?
> 
> I still don't understand the energy "smart" people expend on following sports, celebrities, etc., though. People who can quote the statistics of every player on a favoured team, or the details of a celebrity's life, have clearly expended some form of energy on gaining their knowledge. Neither laziness nor exhaustion seems like a reasonable explanation for that sort of thing. They just... care about something I don't care about. Their interests are different from mine. They probably can't understand why I'd go on a writers' forum and yip about writing all the time....



Regurgitation of facts is not intelligence, though many think they are the same.

An intelligent person can know little about something, which is the major flaw in IQ tests. Those tests are checking knowledge.

Intelligence is the ability to learn. And to be able to apply what is learned.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 8, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Regurgitation of facts is not intelligence, though many think they are the same.
> 
> An intelligent person can know little about something, which is the major flaw in IQ tests. Those tests are checking knowledge.
> 
> Intelligence is the ability to learn. And to be able to apply what is learned.



IQ tests tend to check more than knowledge (they're intended, at least, to measure cognitive ability), but otherwise I think we're on the same page.

I said "I see intelligence as being the potential" and you say "intelligence is the ability to learn", so... Do you think intelligence is separate from intellectualism? Do you think intelligent people are more or less likely than unintelligent people to care about sports or award shows or other meaningless events?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 8, 2018)

Bayview said:


> IQ tests tend to check more than knowledge (they're intended, at least, to measure cognitive ability), but otherwise I think we're on the same page.
> 
> I said "I see intelligence as being the potential" and you say "intelligence is the ability to learn", so... Do you think intelligence is separate from intellectualism? Do you think intelligent people are more or less likely than unintelligent people to care about sports or award shows or other meaningless events?



How does one actually test cognitive ability? 

If I create a test to do that, with a list of facts, and give it to you to see what conclusion you draw from the facts, I have an answer that I deem correct. If you draw a different conclusion, no matter how valid, it is scored as incorrect.

So tests are flawed. That can't be prevented.

To address your other question, "meaningless" is subjective. Presumably the award show or sports info has meaning to some. Just because I don't see, or acknowledge, the meaning does not prevent its existence. 

 Are those people who enjoy sports or awards shows all unintelligent? It would be foolish to draw such a conclusion. My opinion, naturally. Yours may vary.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 8, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> How does one actually test cognitive ability?
> 
> If I create a test to do that, with a list of facts, and give it to you to see what conclusion you draw from the facts, I have an answer that I deem correct. If you draw a different conclusion, no matter how valid, it is scored as incorrect.
> 
> ...



Well, the tests I'm familiar with tend to break things down into a variety of domains. They don't use the phrase IQ, generally, but they do give a measure of overall cognitive ability based around a median of 100, so... IQ. You can get more information at https://www.canadiantestcentre.com/pdfs/understanding_Insight2011.pdf if you're interested.

And of course the tests aren't perfect. They're just a ballpark.

But we're getting pretty far off topic, probably?

And then for the rest, I agree with you. Just because we don't see the meaning in these events doesn't mean there _is_ no meaning. They matter to people, for some reason, and I don't think that reason has anything to do with intelligence (no matter how we measure or define that word).

So are people who care about sports or award shows just intellectually lazy, or is there something else going on? I've suggested a few possibilities in previous posts (the need for emotional connections, etc.) but I'd be happy to hear your ideas as well.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 8, 2018)

IQ tests are only accurate up to about 130 or so.  Beyond 140 they only *estimate *your IQ.  

I've never put a lot of stock into IQ tests because they only measure specific criteria.  There are many ways that a person could be genius.  Paul McCartney's IQ was once measured at 137, yet there is no disputing that the man is a musical genius.  Tis a limitation of the test.  I knew a guy once who counted on his fingers, but the guy's genius was that he could _sell anything to anyone_.  He could figure people out so fast, that he could sell snow to Eskimos.  He made so much money selling cars that he used to take the entire month of July off to go fishing, and while he was gone he would still sell between 10-14 cars.  Imagine that; he sold more than a dozen cars and he wasn't even there.  But the IQ test does not measure that aptitude.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 8, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> IQ tests are only accurate up to about 130 or so.  Beyond 140 they only *estimate *your IQ.
> 
> I've never put a lot of stock into IQ tests because they only measure specific criteria.  There are many ways that a person could be genius.  Paul McCartney's IQ was once measured at 137, yet there is no disputing that the man is a musical genius.  Tis a limitation of the test.  I knew a guy once who counted on his fingers, but the guy's genius was that he could _sell anything to anyone_.  He could figure people out so fast, that he could sell snow to Eskimos.  He made so much money selling cars that he used to take the entire month of July off to go fishing, and while he was gone he would still sell between 10-14 cars.  Imagine that; he sold more than a dozen cars and he wasn't even there.  But the IQ test does not measure that aptitude.



I agree, I think it's definitely a mistake to equate IQ with any sense of human worth of overall skills or much of anything beyond what it purports to measure, which is cognitive ability. It doesn't even connect all that well to academic achievement - people with high IQs can struggle at school if they have learning disabilities or poor work skills, and people with lower IQs can do well at school if they get support and work hard.

Lots of very successful, happy, wonderful people wouldn't score particularly high on an IQ test.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 8, 2018)

True dat!


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 9, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I agree, I think it's definitely a mistake to equate IQ with any sense of human worth of overall skills or much of anything beyond what it purports to measure, which is cognitive ability. It doesn't even connect all that well to academic achievement - people with high IQs can struggle at school if they have learning disabilities or poor work skills, and people with lower IQs can do well at school if they get support and work hard.
> 
> Lots of very successful, happy, wonderful people wouldn't score particularly high on an IQ test.



The last time I encountered an IQ test was at a university I visited for a day. The test was actually run simultaneous with something called an EQ test which supposedly measured _e__motional intelligence_. The 'IQ' rating at the end was actually blended from the two and was not, of course, called an IQ. I don't remember the abbreviation that was used for the blended score, I did not take either, but it was supposed to be far more accurate as a reading of somebody's cognitive skills.

Based on that and reading various things it seems that the scientific consensus is increasingly in agreement with your position that IQ is not an indicator of intelligence. One thing I always resented about them is that they seem to be biased in favor of finding the answer _quickly _instead of testing out different possibilities, imagining different solutions, etc.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 9, 2018)

My understanding of IQ tests is that they test knowledge far more than cognitive ability.

If I recall correctly, early IQ tests divided the correct number of questions right by age, making your IQ drop as you get older, even if you get the same number of questions right. So they were very flawed.

IQ tests have evolved, so to speak, from those early tests. But I'm not convinced they have improved sufficiently to actually test cognitive ability.

I'm not very familiar with EQ (emotional quotient) tests. I've taken a couple for fun (online), but I doubt those are really accurate.  

I have taken personality tests. They are different from the EQ test, but sort of similar.

Just remember that intention does not always translate to actuality.


----------



## GhostScore (Apr 9, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> I'm going to qualify what I am about to say by saying it is 100% opinion (of course) and not to be universally applied in absence of sufficient evidence....
> 
> My father was, until he retired, a high-flying lawyer for a multinational corporation. He earned a six figure salary with a master's degree and at the age of 73 has never read a single fiction book in his life. The best movie of all time in his opinion is American Pie (yes the nineties rom-com) and he has no developed views on any subject nor much knowledge. Ask him what the capital of, say, Switzerland is and he could not tell you. Not because he had never been told or had the opportunity to learn, it just wasn't in his brain.
> 
> ...



No offense but law is like many other book-based careers, including teaching, etc., you don't need to be intelligent you just have to be well-studied. You refer to his intelligence being narrow he was just well-studied in law; rather indicative by his lack of curiosity (most legitimately intelligent people are always curious, wanting to learn more & more). I've had doctors driving behind me in and their _comprehension _(a good indicator of intelligence) of tail-gating, red lights, etc. would imply they're actually _not_ that intelligent. 

Careers that measure actual intelligence would be things like engineering where the spatial reasoning, what scientists deem as one of the real intelligence factors and why IQ tests were debunked as inaccurate measures of intelligence around 2014-16, is taxed.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 9, 2018)

GhostScore said:


> No offense but law is like many other book-based careers, including teaching, etc., you don't need to be intelligent you just have to be well-studied. You refer to his intelligence being narrow he was just well-studied in law; rather indicative by his lack of curiosity (most legitimately intelligent people are always curious, wanting to learn more & more). I've had doctors driving behind me in and their _comprehension _(a good indicator of intelligence) of tail-gating, red lights, etc. would imply they're actually _not_ that intelligent.
> 
> Careers that measure actual intelligence would be things like engineering where the spatial reasoning, what scientists deem as one of the real intelligence factors and why IQ tests were debunked as inaccurate measures of intelligence around 2014-16, is taxed.



You're basically saying what I said but making it a semantic argument over the use of the word intelligent.


----------



## Bodes (May 21, 2018)

I write because I enjoy it and it's fun to feel passionate about something. I also want validation, like you, so that I don't feel like such amuck sitting down to write for hours at a time, only to finish a book that no one would even take a second look at. Wanting to be published doesn't mean you're not a writer or meant to do this.

I think part of the fear and want for validation comes from the fact that it is very very difficult to self-asses your own work. Personally, I alternate frequently between thinking I'm a semi-okay writer with decent ideas and a terrible writer who should just stop trying. From reading others posts on writing forums, I know I'm not alone in that. Being published is like affirmation for writers that they aren't wasting their time doing something that they're terrible at.

You keep doing you.


----------

