Writing on empty

[crich70]

Originally Posted by linelle

Something perverse can happen: artists can labor in obscurity in their lifetimes and all but starve, and generations after they die, their work is worth a fortune. It is loved and fought over. That is the most interesting thing about the starving artist to me.

What happens?

Part of that is that their critics die off I think. You see the same with science. A theory isn't accepted because it is true so much as that it's opponents (usually with their own theories) die and the next generation is more open minded. Another part is how things work in the time in which they lived. Mozart wrote for patrons for example. Once he was paid the one time for a given composition that was it. He didn't get any more money for that particular piece. In the past (a couple hundred yrs back) a lot of people couldn't read so the market for the written word was smaller. Plus many books were published serially in newspapers back then long before they went into book form, and no doubt the critics back then thought that so and so author was a hack who would soon be forgotten. Dickens was one writer who made his living that way for a while. The author of Varney the Vampire wrote about Varney that way. And true genius often isn't acknowledged when the person is still with us. Sad really.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by crich70

Part of that is that their critics die off ....

Good!

[GeoffC]

Oo . Kenny, how could you ....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Oo . Kenny, how could you ....

I'm Evil!

[linelle]

Originally Posted by crich70

Part of that is that their critics die off I think. And true genius often isn't acknowledged when the person is still with us.

Critics often operate with their own agendas and self-interest (how can I look good in print/on the air?) This is why they are often wrong. To be good, a critic needs a certain selflessness -- a willingness to enter into the world of the book, movie, etc.

Dickens was also hugely popular at the time, which made his talent suspect. Christmas Carol was first adapted for the stage 2 months after it was published, and you know what's happened since then.

I heard an audiobook version of Christmas Carol last year, and thought, that is how to enjoy Dickens.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by linelle

Critics often operate with their own agendas and self-interest (how can I look good in print/on the air?) This is why they are often wrong. To be good, a critic needs a certain selflessness -- a willingness to enter into the world of the book, movie, etc.

Dickens was also hugely popular at the time, which made his talent suspect. Christmas Carol was first adapted for the stage 2 months after it was published, and you know what's happened since then.

I heard an audiobook version of Christmas Carol last year, and thought, that is how to enjoy Dickens.

Yep, and the 1st movie version was made some 103 yrs ago back in 1910.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by crich70

And true genius often isn't acknowledged when the person is still with us.

Ooooh shit....

"All I have to do, is die... die, die die.... die-hie-ie-hie-ie"
-- Everly Brothers

Originally Posted by linelle

Dickens was also hugely popular at the time, which made his talent suspect. Christmas Carol was first adapted for the stage 2 months after it was published, and you know what's happened since then.

Yes, a version with Patrick Steward was made... and IMHO, together with the 1984 version, it's one of the best.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes, a version with Patrick Steward was made... and IMHO, together with the 1984 version, it's one of the best.

No, the muppet version was the best. Nothing else comes close

[badgerboy]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

No, the muppet version was the best. Nothing else comes close

The Treasure Island one was quite fun too. The Wizard of Oz was not, however.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by badgerboy

The Treasure Island one was quite fun too. The Wizard of Oz was not, however.

I remember taking a young friend to see the Treasure Island one (his 1st time at the movies). The screen was lit up, but was still blank as the movie had yet to start and he said, "they forgot to plug it in!"

[pendragginp]

All right, that's hilarious

[chris_eriksson]

Originally Posted by linelle

Something perverse can happen: artists can labor in obscurity in their lifetimes and all but starve, and generations after they die, their work is worth a fortune. It is loved and fought over. That is the most interesting thing about the starving artist to me.

What happens?

"Moby Dick" was a flop until Hollywood got it.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by chris_eriksson

"Moby Dick" was a flop until Hollywood got it.

As I recall Ray Bradbury of "The Martian Chronicles" fame wrote the screenplay for the version made in the 1950's. Of course they also cast the roles well too.