It's definitely not like it used to be

[SamScribble]

If you sometimes think that the good old days were better, you might be right.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/02/bestseller-novel-to-bust-author-life

 

[HeyAll]

That's sad to read.

But they're right, the internet is killing jobs and income.

It doesn't appear that the interviewer asked any of those authors if they ever tried to sell ebooks (or whatever they're called)

The music industry was nervous when people started downloading, but now they've adapted and are selling their music online.

 

[PayDay]

That's sad to read.

But they're right, the internet is killing jobs and income.

It doesn't appear that the interviewer asked any of those authors if they ever tried to sell ebooks (or whatever they're called)

The music industry was nervous when people started downloading, but now they've adapted and are selling their music online.

Pure bullshit----^

The Internet has nothing to do with this. Ask that Rowling Lady.
The article almost goes out of it's way to make the insane claim that this writer's life is getting harder by blaming everything but his potentially bad writing and decades of bad politicians.

If you want to sell books, write well. Write what people want to read, or don't and hope they like it after your dead.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The problem, as it always is, are sacred cow writers with influential friends, and without popular appeal.

 

[robertreams]

you are completely full of bullshit. whether one's writting sells or not is purely a matter of marketing andalways has been. Same for music. Youhave no way to judge the talent of the millions and millions of writers you have never read because they didn't get published, therefore your argument is specious.

 

[TxRad]

you are completely full of bullshit. whether one's writting sells or not is purely a matter of marketing andalways has been. Same for music. Youhave no way to judge the talent of the millions and millions of writers you have never read because they didn't get published, therefore your argument is specious.

That is one thing in favor of the internet. People are now getting to read some of those millions of unpublished authors. How do they stack up? Only time will tell but does it have any bearing on how the published authors are seen and read? That is an even better question.

 

[lovecraft68]

What the internet has done is take the power of deciding what gets published away from a small group of people and given the readers a chance to read a much wider variety of e-books.

The big six does everything they can to use their clout to push indy authors off amazon and other sites.

Why? because it kills them that they can't decide who is and is not read and heaven forbid some everyday Joe/Jane makes some money to put food on their kids table. Don't those indie author's know that Stephen King needs more money?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

you are completely full of bullshit. whether one's writting sells or not is purely a matter of marketing andalways has been. Same for music. Youhave no way to judge the talent of the millions and millions of writers you have never read because they didn't get published, therefore your argument is specious.

Take your quarrel to Rod Serling.

 

[Handley_Page]

If you want to sell books, write well.

Sage advice and and broadly correct.
There is, as I see it, a snag here. There seem to be too many "opinions" between Word Proc and the printed page.
To quote that Guardian piece: " that catalogue of woes commonly shared among writers today: book review sections cutting back; publishing houses worrying about the future; marketing types calling the shots; "

In other words, it matter but little if you write well. there's too much between your output and the reader's eyes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've gotten so spoiled for reading, on the internet. Fitzgerald, for instance, reads stiff and uncomprehending to me compared with some of the brilliant young writers I read now.

Well actually, he always did. But that's another issue entirely.

 

[lovecraft68]

I've gotten so spoiled for reading, on the internet. Fitzgerald, for instance, reads stiff and uncomprehending to me compared with some of the brilliant young writers I read now.

Well actually, he always did. But that's another issue entirely.

So he's aroused while he reads?

 

[Handley_Page]

I've gotten so spoiled for reading, on the internet. Fitzgerald, for instance, reads stiff and uncomprehending to me compared with some of the brilliant young writers I read now.

Well actually, he always did. But that's another issue entirely.

I guess that's how the language changes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I guess that's how the language changes.

O Tempora! O Mores!

 

[PayDay]

Sage advice and and broadly correct.
There is, as I see it, a snag here. There seem to be too many "opinions" between Word Proc and the printed page.
To quote that Guardian piece: " that catalogue of woes commonly shared among writers today: book review sections cutting back; publishing houses worrying about the future; marketing types calling the shots; "

In other words, it matter but little if you write well. there's too much between your output and the reader's eyes.

Therefore the publishing houses are causing their own demise and writers are finding better outlets on their own?

 

[SamScribble]

I've gotten so spoiled for reading, on the internet. Fitzgerald, for instance, reads stiff and uncomprehending to me compared with some of the brilliant young writers I read now.

Well actually, he always did. But that's another issue entirely.

I'm starting to think that you can add Hemingway to that list - well, some Hemingway, anyway.

 

[Hypoxia]

In the Internet, nobody knows you're a poodle.

 

[Handley_Page]

In the Internet, nobody knows you're a poodle.

Woof, Woof

 

[Hypoxia]

Woof, Woof

Can't fool me! I heard your 'rang'tang accent behind that!

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I've gotten so spoiled for reading, on the internet. Fitzgerald, for instance, reads stiff and uncomprehending to me compared with some of the brilliant young writers I read now.

Well actually, he always did. But that's another issue entirely.

You are so fucking right. Fitzgerald... They give it to kids in high school. Why? Very stilted writing, and I don't really get that anything he said was significant, or important. I mean Harold Robbins frankly, says much the same stuff - only much better.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

The problem, as it always is, are sacred cow writers with influential friends, and without popular appeal.

Heheheehehehe. Right smack on the money, man!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You are so fucking right. Fitzgerald... They give it to kids in high school. Why? Very stilted writing, and I don't really get that anything he said was significant, or important. I mean Harold Robbins frankly, says much the same stuff - only much better.

I don't get Fitzgerald, either. John O'Hara did a better job of dissecting the 20s, and his characters are memorable. BUTTERFIELD 8 is a better read than GATSBY. Maxwell Perkins prolly knew he needed someone to compete with O'Hara, and signed up Hemingways protégé, Fitzgerald.

 

[robertreams]

Now there's a non-sequitur. What has Rod Serling to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[robertreams]

Another glorious quote from JBJ. Now it is Fitzgerald who does not measure up to his high standards. Perhaps the rest of use should merely bow and leave the room. It is true Fitzgersld may run a bit slow for todays multi-media minds, but certainly JBJ wishes he could write such wonderful sentences. Stilted? Have you read Fitzgerald? Long? Sure. Elaborate? Certainly. Correct? Absolutely. Stilted? In whose world?

I wonder if they are making still another Academy Award nominated film from one of your stories, JBJ?

They give it to High schoolers for two reasons. One, high schoolers care about relationships more than aything in their lives.

Two, teachers wish students could learn to write such beattifully constructed sentences.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sage advice and and broadly correct.
There is, as I see it, a snag here. There seem to be too many "opinions" between Word Proc and the printed page.
To quote that Guardian piece: " that catalogue of woes commonly shared among writers today: book review sections cutting back; publishing houses worrying about the future; marketing types calling the shots; "

In other words, it matter but little if you write well. there's too much between your output and the reader's eyes.

Indeed. Here's a list of F/SF classics that were rejected by publishers. Obviously those authors kept trying and got lucky in the end, but it's a roll of the dice; who's to say how many other could-have-been classics got rejected one time too many and never saw the light of day?

(And meanwhile "Eragon" gets a movie deal. There ain't no justice.)

 

[PennLady]

(And meanwhile "Eragon" gets a movie deal. There ain't no justice.)

There might be a little justice. The movie wasn't well-reviewed, IIRC, and I'm pretty sure there's no sequel in the works.