Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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.
|
That depends on how you define popular - there certainly can be very obscure sub-genres that a traditional publisher won't even consider. For a very small percentage of all readers that read that particular sub-genre, it can be a popular book even if it is not mainstream popular.
And I agree, an editor with enough power over the writer changes how the book reads like. And if that is how the writer is supposed to feel like, then please don't allow them ever to have too much freedom later on.
As for Tom Clancy, I am not sure if The Bear And The Dragon counts as a book he wrote all himself (no co-writing) and more freedom from editing, but that is a very nice book as well, IMPO. The ones with Jack Ryan, Jr. I have not read yet - those would be the ones he didn't write alone, right?