Artistic excellence versus Commercial success. Are they mutually exclusive, or can a writer have both? Does having one necessarily diminish the other? If you had to choose, which would it be?
I suppose the question is arising for me right now because of some of the reading I've done (or had to do) recently. I coach the one-act play for the school where I work, and every year I have to choose a script. Many of them are so bad I wonder how the playwright has the cajones to ask for payment. A couple in particular stand out for rehashing the same plot, setting and characters and changing the names and a few other details. These writers turn out predictable story lines, stale characters and meaningless dialogue and are getting paid for it. I have an inner dialogue that says, "I could do better than this!" followed by, "Ah, but you haven't now, have you?" I am working on it.
The second instance was the fifth novel in a fiction series I've been reading over the last several years. The first book included a clever premise, snappy dialogue and entertaining characters. This last one feels like the author slapped it together the night before deadline so she could pick up her paycheck.
So, turn down the big bucks for my artistic integrity or compromise my artistic integrity for the big bucks? Luckily or unluckily, I'm not in any danger of having to make that decision, since neither critics nor agents nor publishers are showing the slightest interest in me or my book. And as a writer I'm not capable of aiming for one or the other, creative merit or commercial viability. I can only make it something I like, and try to respond gracefully to constructive criticism. If critics someday like it, great. If it eventually sells well, that's great too. I can only write what I can write.
No comments:
Post a Comment