Bell curve of quality

[Op_Cit]

sincerely_helene's other thread brings to mind a personal peeve of mind and I thought I'd ask if anyone else sees this trend.

With every published author I have come across there seemes a bell curve of quality in their works. From their initial publications the quality will rise until they reach a level of acceptance and then I find in every case the quality dropping, and sometimes rapidly.

Talking with people I know, I they seem to fall into two categories on the subject: dedicated fans and more dispassionate consumers. The dedicated fans never seem to see a drop in quality (of their favorite authors) while the others just shrug and move on to the next up and coming author.

Obviously, when the publisher offers them megabucks for a sequel never planned, one finds it hard to blame the authors, but the idealist in me still feels regret.

It could also be a little of the starving artist incentive being removed. I find the authors where the decline is most gradual seem to be those who did not make a primary living from writing. Then there are the types that reinvent themselves branching into different areas...

Anyway, I'm just wondering what others' thoughts are on the subject: Agree? Disagree? Different take on it all? What the heck is OC on about now?

 

[sincerely_helene]

sincerely_helene's other thread brings to mind a personal peeve of mind and I thought I'd ask if anyone else sees this trend.

With every published author I have come across there seemes a bell curve of quality in their works. From their initial publications the quality will rise until they reach a level of acceptance and then I find in every case the quality dropping, and sometimes rapidly.

Talking with people I know, I they seem to fall into two categories on the subject: dedicated fans and more dispassionate consumers. The dedicated fans never seem to see a drop in quality (of their favorite authors) while the others just shrug and move on to the next up and coming author.

Obviously, when the publisher offers them megabucks for a sequel never planned, one finds it hard to blame the authors, but the idealist in me still feels regret.

It could also be a little of the starving artist incentive being removed. I find the authors where the decline is most gradual seem to be those who did not make a primary living from writing. Then there are the types that reinvent themselves branching into different areas...

Anyway, I'm just wondering what others' thoughts are on the subject: Agree? Disagree? Different take on it all? What the heck is OC on about now?

An excellent topic for conversation, (and I'm not just saying that 'cause my name was in the first line.)

Perhaps it has something to do with increased productivity levels being more effective in a market based enviroment, or maybe the boost of self-confidence from a fan base just allows for easier creative flow and false sense of security. I notice the same thing with art work; one can easily create in 3 mins what it takes me weeks to do. I sometimes resent that they don't appreciate just how special that is.

I am fortunete in that I am able to peruse my work from the perspective of an outside source, and quickly pick up my flaws. I think that has helped me evolve, so I hope that helps answer your second query.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

You're right op_cit, but can't you say the same for other artists, composers, painters and such.

With popularity comes a straitjacket imposed by the demands of publishers and public. I've read quite a few reviews of books by well-known writers that have bombed that said, 'X has bravely tried to step away from what her public ecpect from her'.

I'm all for authors earning fortunes but it does come with the price of becoming formulaic and productive. My unfinished and unpublishable novel can wander where it likes without any time pressure. A Grisham or a King is bound by having to produce, say 5 books in 6 years.

I wouldn't mind the rewards, but I see why quality suffers.

What's the old song quote, 'Don't judge a book by it's cover', but we do. I'm as bad as everyone else. Without enough time to browse the shelves, at airports or in bookstores, I tend to buy by author name. Woe betide them if they've gone 'off-plot'.

 

[Op_Cit]

What's the old song quote, 'Don't judge a book by it's cover', but we do. I'm as bad as everyone else. Without enough time to browse the shelves, at airports or in bookstores, I tend to buy by author name. Woe betide them if they've gone 'off-plot'.

I wouldn't mind off-plot if the quality is there.

One of my favorites used to by Orson Card. He amazed me because his works always seemed to be extremely different from each other. At times I'd start reading and thinking "Oh, no, what the heck is this going to be..." and then he'd suck me in, take me someplace different, and impress me.

But I found that he went over the top and down the backside several years back, and I was very disappointed.

 

[impressive]

sincerely_helene's other thread brings to mind a personal peeve of mind and I thought I'd ask if anyone else sees this trend.

With every published author I have come across there seemes a bell curve of quality in their works. From their initial publications the quality will rise until they reach a level of acceptance and then I find in every case the quality dropping, and sometimes rapidly.

I'm not -- by any stretch of the imagination -- comparable to a successful published author, but when I receive accolades for my work, it creates MORE pressure to meet (or exceed) those standards the next time -- to live up to the rep, so to speak. Instead of creating a false sense of security -- I get a (false?) sense of insecurity. Still, I'd rather have that than become complacent.

 

[Pure]

If you've even gotten to like a new restaurant and kept going over the years as it becomes known and popular, you see the same thing.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

If you've even gotten to like a new restaurant and kept going over the years as it becomes known and popular, you see the same thing.

Exactly, familiarity breeds contempt - both on the provider and the consumer.

 

[raphy]

Off an on. Depends which author you're talking about.

The only four that I can really comment on are the four that I personally read a lot of - Terry Pratchett, Lois McMaster Bujold, William Gibson and Alastair MacLean.

Of those four, I would say that Gibson is the one who most exhibits that curve - But after such an explosive entry with his first three novels, I think it would have been hard to go anywhere but down. For most Gibson fans, his first three novels, the sprawl series, are his finest achievements and he'll never do anything any better than those.

I didn't see the curve in Bujold * at first*. Her Vorkosigan saga books are all of an equally high quality - And indeed, the penultimate one, A Civil Campaign is, in my opinion, the best thing she's ever written. However, when she quit writing that series and moved into fantasy, I found that I enjoyed her work less and less. She became more descriptive, less plot and story focused. In essence, she turned into Anne Rice. Now, that's all well and good if you like Anne Rice. Personally, I think she spends too much time describing and not enough time telling me what's going to happen next. Would that mean that the quality of Bujold's work declined? Maybe, maybe not. It probably simply means that she started writing in a different style, and it was a style that didn't appeal to me as much as her earlier work.

MacLean and Pratchett, of course, are formulaic writers. But it's a formula they know that their fans love. I wouldn't say that I thought that the quality of their writing declined, but it's a hard call to make.

I've enjoyed all of MacLean's and Pratchett's works equally. Has their writing quality declined? Maybe. Maybe I'm no position to judge, because I love the formula that they write to so much, that I'm going to enjoy reading the novels, regardless.

But at the end of the day, isn't that the final judge of the quality of a writer's work? Put very simply - Did you enjoy their novel?

The same can be said for music artists. You could say that Guns 'n Roses never did anything better than their first album, Appetite for Destruction, whereas Queen were significantly consistent throughout their career, with their final few recordings being as good, if not better, than their initial ones.

When all's said and done - The quality of a work of creativity is very hard to judge. One can, of course, simply look at technical quality - For a writer, is the grammar correct - For a musician, are they actually playing their instruments correctly.

But the quality of creativity is significantly harder to qualitively assess.

And I think that the old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is never more true than now. The only yardstick by which we can measure a creative work is - "Did you enjoy it?"

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Interesting.

Let's face it, some people just have one book/hit song/great painting in them. Other authors are able to crank out pretty much the same stuff by the yard, and that's why we love them. Edgar Rice Burroughs comes to mind, or, on the other end of the spectrum, Joyce Carol Oates or Patrick O'Brian. They give us the same general style and themes, but the plots and situations are different enough to make us happy.

Because I think that's what you're asking for. You want the author to do what he did last time, but make it different. That's more likely to happen in genre fiction than in something like Sci Fi, which is all over the place.

But most authors, I think, have only a few themes or ideas they come back to time and time again, and they run the risk of either boring their readers by staying the same or losing them by getting too novel.

---dr.M.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Good point, Dr. M. It's a real tightrope between the overly familiar and the reader-base-destroying total departures.

Damnit. This writing thing is starting to look like work. Do you think I should just chuck it in?

 

[Guy Delphine]

Off an on. Depends which author you're talking about.

The only four that I can really comment on are the four that I personally read a lot of - Terry Pratchett, Lois McMaster Bujold, William Gibson and Alastair MacLean.

Of those four, I would say that Gibson is the one who most exhibits that curve - But after such an explosive entry with his first three novels, I think it would have been hard to go anywhere but down. For most Gibson fans, his first three novels, the sprawl series, are his finest achievements and he'll never do anything any better than those.

It's an interesting point, I loved Gibson's first 3(although Virtual Light was pretty good i seem to remember). I remember someone droning on about a particular artist in the news at the moment, that he was on a downward slope since Thriller... (in more ways than one)
Unfortunately, in my work, i don't think i've ever ascended the slope, it's just been a flat plane of crapness since when i began

 

[hmmnmm]

This topic brings to mind the plight of musical artists which has already been mentioned.
How long a list do you want?
Of course the artists seldom say anything like, "yeah I suck now. But I'm making lots of money!" They seem to find a way to defend themselves, "I don't want to be consigned to one way or one style, I have to keep moving..." sometimes they make it believable and you try to listen to the later stuff with more sympathy, but it is sympathy necessarily forced, which cannot be true sympathy. And you don't want to say to yourself, "god these guys suck now"

 

[yui]

Damnit. This writing thing is starting to look like work. Do you think I should just chuck it in?

NONONONONONONONO!