good point. many a fine writer do not follow classic storylines... but pulp sells...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
Why do so many people assume that story is always synonymous with quality?
For me, great and admirable writing frequently has nothing to do with story. I can even think of great writers who had utter contempt for the idea of a coherent story. This is not to say that readers who privilege story are wrong to do so, but only that their consensus is not necessarily truth.
Re the idea that larger publishers are necessarily better indicators of quality than indie ones:
Indie publishers have the opportunity to offer less economically viable books than mainstream publishers who want the written equivalent of summer blockbusters (cf. the earlier reference to memoirs and self-help books by celebs -- most mainstream presses now publish those at the expense of carefully written novels by accomplished writers who are often never heard from again, which for me are far more important ( Nightwood, by Djuna Barnes, Replacement, by Tor Ulven)).
Indeed many a fine writer do not follow classic storylines.... but pulp sells... not convoluted stories though I prefer the later
At issue is the ratio of people who are trying to make money and/or a name for themselves and have no understanding of, nor patience for, achieving stylistic mastery -- people who will write fifteen unspeakably bad books as opposed to a single good one. In that sense, I'll have better luck downloading samples from a Dalkey Archives list than weeding through the Hinduism-vast slush pile that is Smashwords. |