Quote:
Originally Posted by DaringNovelist
Um, you do know that nearly all of the greatest writers learned their skills by starting with "the pulp model" don you? Just as painters and dancers and musicians have to spend years at sketches and scales and such. Furthermore, when you have an audience, you must practice in public. You must perform. That's what the pulps are for us. It's like an actor who takes a job as a carnival barker to work on his ability to project and engage the crowd.
I really hate to says this (because I went to grad school in creative writing and I have done my share of it) but the reason "literary writing" is unpopular these days is because most modern literary writers are just not very good. Because they neglect learning their skills in favor of personal expression.
There was a young and brilliant violinist who told Itzak Stern that she didn't want to be a "mere virtuoso" (that is someone who played flashy, crowd-pleasing works), and the old man told her quite bluntly - "Before you can be more than a virtuoso, first you have to BE a virtuoso." In other words, the skills come first.
And I'm sorry, but your model implies that art is a commodity, and it just isn't. Never has been, even in cash-free societies. Supply and demand is and has always been irrelevant.
Camille
|
My model merely implies that if you want to make money then you have to treat your craft as a business, nothing more. I'm not talking about art at all. There is no art at all in what I'm proposing, only quick and dirty craft. Supply and demand means a very great deal in economics, unless you're implying that in business you can ignore this fundamental economic theory?