Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
Or rather they are not all that talented to begin with and only create a good book with the help of an editor. Is that not called "Tom Clancy desease"? I do not understand what the fuss is about there - I rather would have liked if the heavily edited books in the beginning would have been left with greater freedom for Tom Clancy to write as he did in the end. But it has to appeal to the masses, otherwise it is a useless book for the publisher, right? The publishers are not interested in creating good books, only interested in books that will sell to the most possible readers at the highest possible cost.
|
For the most part, good books are popular. I thought that Clancy's early books were much better than his later books, even if we are just talking about the ones that he actually wrote rather than "co-wrote". IMPO, The Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising were two of his better books.
It's interesting to read what some writers say about the back and forth with their editor. There is a lot more of it than many here are willing to acknowledge. Heck, even writers such as Larry Correia and Michael J. Sullivan, both of whom made their start as independents, talk about how much their writing is improved by having an editor. I know it doesn't fit the narrative, but creative writing involves a lot of write, edit, re-write, re-edit.