Message Board Topic For 8/13

[Comsie]

I would imagine, that a huge percentage of authors out there, would absolutely LOVE to be given the chance, the opportunity, to actually see their heartfelt words put into print, where people all around the globe could read them! I mean, that has got to be a huge rush for any artist. To be seen, and interpreted, and accepted, and understood. It would be for me. It's the greatest joy I have in writing all the stuff I do.

 

But the 'business' end of the equation isn't always as liberating as it appears to be. There are deadlines to be met, audiences to target, problems to avoid. Sometimes, taking 'poetry' and trying to break it down into the language of exact 'mathematics' can cause more frustration than pleasure. It's a matter of thinking from two completely different sides of the brain. Art doesn't follow logic and formula and structure. And business doesn't understand freedom, unpredictability, or taking risks by trying something different. The two sides clash every time.

 

The question is...could you compromise what you write and how you write it, in order to get pulished? This could be the beginning of something grand. A few compromises here and there, and eventually, you'll get the freedom to do exactly what you want to do. You'll get the message out there, and the love and respect you deserve as a artist.

 

But...what if those changes conflict with everything you're trying to do? What if your favorite scenes get cut, if the character ages have to change, if certain situations are altered to become more 'marketable' to the public? What if what they're asking you to change is so far in the other direction, that you can't let your true feelings flow out onto the page like you want to?

 

Whatever your choice, let us know what you think? And if you're a reader, would you want your favorite author to change their story just

to get published? Or are you against it? Give us your thoughts!

[Graeme]

Naturally, I'd love to be published, but realistically I don't expect it to happen. If I really wanted it, I'd have to work at it -- and there is a lot of work to be done before I'd get to the editing phase. Many publishers only take manuscripts from agents, which means you first have to find an agent that is willing to take the story.

 

Most of us write in a genre that is not where publishing houses tend to make a lot of money. This is an additional complication -- as the publishers will want to maximise the target audience to maximise their chance at profits. This gets to the heart of Comie's question -- how far would I go in making changes?

 

Honestly, it's hard to say. I'm not wedded to my words. As long as I think the story still holds up, I'm happy to make changes. The buzz of being in print would make it easy for me to say "yeah, I'll make that change". It is only if I think the story is no longer of good quality that I think I'd balk. I would prefer not to be published, rather than having a story published that I'm not happy to put my name against.

[seth]

I'm not an author by any stretch of the imagination. I'm simply a reader (and a huge fan of your stories, Com). Even though I'm not an author and don't write, I still kinda understand where this question is coming from. It impacts all types of art (and I do consider authoring fiction to be an art), especially music.

 

My feeling is that it's better to be heard with some compromises then to not be heard at all. Obviously there could be a lot of compromises given the nature of the subject that's commonly written here at GA. However, if making compromises allows you to get published, and perhaps give you the possibility of making a living dong something you love, then who's to stop you? Once you're an established author you can get more control over what you write/publish.

 

Personally, I'd say to all my favourite authors that if they had the chance to get published, go for it! It's a once in a life-time opportunity. Do your best to keep the message in your stories as best as possible and go from there.

 

I could very well be one of the few who think this way though.

[JamesSavik]

I say It Depends.

 

What do they want me to change? My characters? My underwear? My usage of the mysterious semi-colon?

 

If they want Bay Watch, then they've simply got the wrong guy.

[Conner]

I'm not an author either but I have had to deal with professional/personal ethics my entire career. I agree with James, it depends. You've been a little short on specifics but your observation (quoted below) does compel me to conclude the changes sought are substantial.

 

What if what they're asking you to change is so far in the other direction, that you can't let your true feelings flow out onto the page like you want to?

 

With your permission, let's use GFD as an example. It's a great example for me, because if I were a publisher, I'd gobble that story up quicker than you could say, "Just think of the movie rights!" But, of course, my marketing people would get on my case. So let's make a list of what they want to change (feel free to add):

 

-no gay sex

-only one gay couple allowed

-Justin must be straight and have a girlfriend

-don't make parents look/sound so bad

-no religion

-no politics

-no potential rape scenes

-no vampire party club

 

So that's a lot, needless to say. I would suggest that you look at what's left or, rather, what could you strengthen with what's left and decide if it's enough.

 

It's one thing to be a well respected and well read amateur author and say, "I will never compromise myself and my art for money." It's quite another to try and say that when you're looking at a publisher's fat advance cheque....and all the good stuff that may lay down the road.

 

Personnally, I'd go for the cheque.

 

Conner

[pietro]

ABSOLUTELY NOT, NEVER!

 

That said, if there were obviously technical errors or possibly libellous or plagiaristic content, then fair enough. However, a writer has to be true to themselves in what and how they write, otherwise they are not an author anymore, they are a copywriter

 

I know an aspiring author who submitted their manuscipt to various publishers, asking for comments if they declined the opportunity to publish. All the criticisms returned were completely different; even to the extent of one saying there was insuffucient dialogue and another saying there was too much dialogue and not enough 'scenery'.

 

Publishers do have a certain knowledge of what sells in their field, especially in terms of length and style, but they do not have any more ability to criticise story content than any other reader. Remember that almost every famous author that has offered a manuscript under a false name has been rejected. Even by their own publisher!

 

Personally I would never compromise, which is probably why I would never get published, but that might be because I don't actually write anymore

[Conner]

ABSOLUTELY NOT, NEVER!

 

That said, if there were obviously technical errors or possibly libellous or plagiaristic content, then fair enough. However, a writer has to be true to themselves in what and how they write, otherwise they are not an author anymore, they are a copywriter

.........

 

Personally I would never compromise, which is probably why I would never get published, but that might be because I don't actually write anymore

 

Frankly, I had to sit on my hands for a week so that I wouldn't totally flame what you had to say. Sadly, your opinion or principles on this issue have a certain dogma quality to it. I rarely entertain dogma. There's no exchange in dogma, no discussion, no debate. There's certainly no growth.

 

An author's job is to get published. Otherwise, what's the point? I don't believe creativity is an end onto itself. I am yet to meet any artist who doesn't care for acknowlement of their work. In fact, it's that very acknowledgement that inspires an artist to improve his art. Publication is the ultimate test of an author's work.

 

Conner

[pietro]

Frankly, I had to sit on my hands for a week so that I wouldn't totally flame what you had to say.

 

Conner

 

Hey, I'm entitled to my opinion, even if it is dogmatic.

 

My response was a personal observation, and I would certainly never, ever flame anyone for their views, except where religion or politics were involved

 

Seriously, I stand by my comment. If you are going to be swayed by anybody else's opinion as to the content of a story then you should at the least acknowledge them as the co-author because it is no longer your work.

 

That is fact, not dogma.

 

 

P

[Graeme]

Seriously, I stand by my comment. If you are going to be swayed by anybody else's opinion as to the content of a story then you should at the least acknowledge them as the co-author because it is no longer your work.

I have to politely disagree. Using the music industry as an example, many, if not most, songwriters acknowledge they've been influenced by other songwriters. They don't list those other songwriters as co-composers, though, because influence is not the same as actual writing.

 

I've had scenes cut from my stories because early readers think they slowed things down, were boring, or just plain pointless. I looked at what they said, and when I agreed, I cut the scenes. The final decision was still up to me.

 

I've added scenes to my stories because early readers thought something was missing, not explained well, or that a character needed to show more motivation for what they'd done. Again, I considered what they had to say, and when I agreed, I added something to the story. However, what I added were my words, not theirs, and it was my decision to add the extra information.

 

I've changed scenes because early readers thought something was unrealistic. Again, I consider what they have to say and if I agree, I will alter what I've written. I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on all fields of human experience, and if someone who knows more about something than I do points out a logical flaw, then I believe I need to fix it.

 

I've acknowledged the help those people have given me at the end of the chapters/stories, but I don't consider them to be co-authors, and I'd be surprised if they thought of themselves as co-authors.

 

They have provided input into the final work, but the work has been mine, not theirs. I'm the author and I thank them for their contributions towards making my stories better, but I have the final say on every word that goes into those stories.

 

Just my opinion....

[pietro]

...what if those changes conflict with everything you're trying to do? What if your favorite scenes get cut, if the character ages have to change, if certain situations are altered to become more 'marketable' to the public? What if what they're asking you to change is so far in the other direction, that you can't let your true feelings flow out onto the page like you want to?

 

 

I think that most of the responders here have not answered the question that was posed by Comsie, which is what I was doing.

 

Yes, of course it is alright to respond to criticism and feedback and make changes, but if you are prepared to accept the level of interference suggested in the above quote from the original question then I stand by my opinion - you are just a copywriter.

 

P

[Graeme]

I think that most of the responders here have not answered the question that was posed by Comsie, which is what I was doing.

 

Yes, of course it is alright to respond to criticism and feedback and make changes, but if you are prepared to accept the level of interference suggested in the above quote from the original question then I stand by my opinion - you are just a copywriter.

 

P

The problem with trying to respond is that the question is too vague. I would need to have a concrete example before I could say if I would accept or reject the alterations, and hence if I would accept or reject being published.

 

For example, the phrase "...what if those changes conflict with everything you're trying to do?". As an author, all I'm "trying to do" is to tell what is hopefully an entertaining story. I can't see how a change can conflict with that.

 

Favourite scene? A scene isn't a story. I've already cut scenes and I'll do it again. As long as I'm still happy to put my name against the final product, I don't see this as an issue.

 

Ages? I don't see that as a problem, unless it shifts the basic setting. For example, most high school students aren't twenty years old. If it doesn't cause logical problems, I don't see how changing the ages will matter.

 

Situations being altered to make it more marketable? Again, a lot depends on the detail. If I'm still happy that there is a good story at the end of the day, I can't see this being an issue. If I'm not happy to put my name against the story at the end, then I'd have to walk away.

 

"What if what they're asking you to change is so far in the other direction, that you can't let your true feelings flow out onto the page like you want to?" To be honest, I can't relate to this question. What is the "other direction" that is being talked about here? I don't write my true feelings -- I write the characters true feelings (hopefully). As I said, I can't relate to what this question is asking.

[Comsie]

I want to say that I really loved the discussion you guys had on this! I can definitely see what you're saying on both sides of the equation, and it's something I'm sure every artist deals with at one time or another. Some artists work to understand, other artists work to be understood by others. Some artists work to express, other artists work to share that expression. I guess it all depends.

 

Now, I've been writing stories online for almost ten years now (Geez! Has it been THAT long???), and I've been happy to share it all without profiting from it. Well...not financially, anyway. I definitely pull in a heavy profit from emails, love, and support, alone. But....would I want to change the way I write in order to actually be a published author and reach a much larger audience that could benefit from anything I have to say?

 

Yes, I would.

 

Now, before I explain that, let me say that everything I've written online so far, whether I'm totally 'happy' with it or not (I'm an unmercifully harsh self critic!), is exactly how i should be. I planned it out that way, wrote that way, and was often putting my true emotions into every word, depending on what I was going through at that particular time in my life. Would I change THOSE stories to get

published? No. If a 100 million dollar check came over my desk for rights to publish and make a movie of "GFD"...I would LOVE It!!! Until

they asked me to make all the changes one of you mentioned above. One gay couple? Justin is straight? No club scenes? No drinking? No parental abuse? No sex? No kids under 18? I wouldn't mind editing things down for time or to keep a story moving. I wouldn't mind cleaning up the language. I would even go so far as to maybe stick to the 'one gay couple' rule, if I had to. But "Gone From Daylight" is a story ABOUT being gay. About being outcast, and different, and unable to choose what you are. Hidden between the lines of that story is my entire life. Everything that I put into that epic has a meaning and a purpose, and if hey asked me to change so much that it would destroy the integrity of the story, then the answer is hell no. The message is much more important. I'd rather give the story away for free and change 'lives' than change the 'story' and give it away for money. That would be a waste. I'd be filthy rich, but I'd regret doing it.

 

However...the queston is...would I change my 'style' in order to get published. And I would. If they wanted an entirely NEW saga to market and publish and make movies out of, I could definitely deliver one. I could write straight characters, keep them above the age of 18, keep the sex down to a minimum (if I add it at all), and create something that would be a lot more 'market friendly', I'd do it in a heartbeat. But drastically changing something that I poured my heart and soul into, just to make it accessible to an audience that would just as well spit in my face if they knew what the story was really about? Screw them. If they wanna be 'fed' a formula, I can do that for cash. Hehehe, but the truest words I ever put down on paper are staying just the way they are. End of story.

 

[Krytan]

I think it depends on the writer and what he/she thinks of their story. If they wrote the story for profit, then by all means make the changes and publish the story and make your money.

 

But, if the writer poured their soul into a story and worked with it day in and day out to make it perfectly the way they want it to be expressed, could that writer then agree to have it chopped up, so that it becomes politically correct and therefore marketable?

 

I don't see how any artist can change their work of art, to make it acceptable to others, after they have given of themselves to the work. Could Michelangelo put a loincloth on "David"? It would change the art, and therefore not be the same piece any longer.

 

For a writer it wouldn't be the same story any longer. It wouldn't be their story any longer.

 

Although many writers sell their stories to movie companies, who change the story line so much it doesn't even resemble the original book. One of the latest I have seen is Eragon. The movie just barely resembles the book.