I have not read Twilight either, though I hear it is entertaining. I'm just not into Vampires, Zombies, werewolves, and such. However, I do believe that even a nonreader, (heaven forbid), can learn to enjoy reading if they find a genre that tweaks their interest.
My brother-in-law, for example, has never read a book for the sheer pleasure of it. I sent him my book and he is now a convert. Blessed be ... there is hope after all.
And, I am pleased to announce that he is reading my second book and can't wait for the next one to come out.
Can I get an Amen ...brothers and sisters?

Mr. Pessimistic wrote:

Peggy_Butler wrote:

Granted, I do not think he is a god of authors by any means... but the question that bugs me the most is why did he bother? I mean shes trying, but she has a long road to cross before she ever gets into his level of accomplishment as an author.

Because any true artist should take offense at crap being published to appease the mass market sheep. I play original music. I cannot tell you how many times and how many people have told me I am 'wasting my time' by doing original music and that I should be doing cover songs. Cover bands make money at bars, but ya know...sometimes people want to create. There is a drive to be original and creative that trumps money.

What people fail to realize is that if there was no original music, there would be no cover bands. So I am all for truely creative people who toil over what they produce to make it the best it can be speaking out against crap that just sells books.

Our society is becoming stagnant and un-original in so many ways. We have very little to offer the future at this point. We are contributing garbage to future history.

Well I certainly agree with some of your conjectures but there is a bit of resentment here that really needs some exploration. First of all, you say "True Artist" and smash cover bands. I ask you Mr. Pessimistic" define true art? I mean I know you feel frustration because you are trying to produce what you feel is quality, but have you considered what "you" consider quality (or art) may not be what others do? Who is right here? Also, what is original? Did you invent your chords and rifts? As I recall, a lot of legendary rockers are credited with having invented particular styles... Do you solely rely on your own or do you produce a style uniquely your own invention?

What I am getting at is, what is true art? what is that and do others agree? Is there anything truley original? Personally I doubt it. Not because you are a bad musician, I would love to hear your music.. so I am not slamming here.. You are just making some broad generalizations. Many people hate country music.. tell that to Hank Williams Senior. Many people hate rock... Tell that to Mick Jagger. Many people hate rap.. Tell that to insane clown posse. Many people hate modern art... tell that to andy warhol... My point being its individual taste. And all of those style have been copied, and copied well by some. its called influences.

Tell me how many musicians there would be if the music industry was not about money and the "sheep" as you use the term, that buy it.. Its what motivates so many to keep trying. If there was no money to be gained then we would all be sitting on grandmas back porch listing to uncle Bob play his banjo.

The dream is to write something that gains you reward. The reward that most of us seek is money. If you are immune here, I give you many kudos and food stamps for your success.

When a artist resents the mass market, it is probably the end to their career of money, so if you make no money, play your music, then I am sure you are a success already and deserve a salute.

I guess the best way to put is this, in my own photos, if I take a blurry photo, many will see it as a blurry photo. But, what if I wanted it to be blurry for the effect? Thats art... but many will not see that. If iI chose to produce it, good, its my craft.. but mainstream wise, I have to accept that it is not most peoples cup of tea.

Thrillwriter wrote:I have not read Twilight either, though I hear it is entertaining. I'm just not into Vampires, Zombies, werewolves, and such. However, I do believe that even a nonreader, (heaven forbid), can learn to enjoy reading if they find a genre that tweaks their interest.
My brother-in-law, for example, has never read a book for the sheer pleasure of it. I sent him my book and he is now a convert. Blessed be ... there is hope after all.
And, I am pleased to announce that he is reading my second book and can't wait for the next one to come out.
Can I get an Amen ...brothers and sisters?

I gave my son a copy of twilight. He is 12 and not much of a reader. He was thrilled to receive the book and is reading it. I do not know if he is reading it because he is wanting to read, or because it is popular, but the point being, he is reading and thats the joy. I agree with you and hope your brother in-law continues his journey.

Trish wrote:So is it a crappy book because it's bad writing or is it a crappy book simply because it's popular? I really don't know, as I've said I haven't read it. I would hope they learn they like reading in general. It's got to be better than reading nothing ever. Real life is very harsh right now. I can't say I blame anyone for just wanting a little pure entertainment.

Amen!

book wrote:I think there is a certain resentment to the pop authors in the same way there is in the music industry - as soon as someone writes for the purposes of the mass market they are berated by the independent press and other artists who in some ways I am sure are jealous of their progress. The cream of the crop are the Dylans, the Coldplays (though I don't put them in the same bracket) who manage to combine critical success with sales. Stephen King is one such author...I'm not sure he's wrong in saying Stephanie Myer isn't one myself!

Well you can not put someone into the superstar category until they have got there... If she can produce books like Stephen King, and achieves his level... then yes she is a great... Until then... who knows, I just wish I had her royalty checks

A crappy writer had a story that appealed to a large audience? I can dig it. Art is whatever evokes emotion in a person, right? I own a painting done by an elephant, it's marvelous!

Interbane wrote:A crappy writer had a story that appealed to a large audience? I can dig it. Art is whatever evokes emotion in a person, right? I own a painting done by an elephant, it's marvelous!

and that elephant led to a mass adoration.. my point exactly

Peggy_Butler wrote:

book wrote:I think there is a certain resentment to the pop authors in the same way there is in the music industry - as soon as someone writes for the purposes of the mass market they are berated by the independent press and other artists who in some ways I am sure are jealous of their progress. The cream of the crop are the Dylans, the Coldplays (though I don't put them in the same bracket) who manage to combine critical success with sales. Stephen King is one such author...I'm not sure he's wrong in saying Stephanie Myer isn't one myself!

Well you can not put someone into the superstar category until they have got there... If she can produce books like Stephen King, and achieves his level... then yes she is a great... Until then... who knows, I just wish I had her royalty checks

I will answer this and your post to me with one paragraph.

So we judge greatness by a level of sales success? To me, this is not art...original...or worth while. Our society is about the dollar and the music industry creates bands to mooch off a certain feel at the moment. It is crap. It is self gratification and not a true exploration of what the creative process is about. The industries exploit 'artists' and then do away with them. This is not what I am about.

So is the issue with music producers and publishers or is it with the artist? I personally think something is art when an artist says it is. Whether or not anyone else thinks it's good or bad is irrelevant. Charles Dickens was enormously successful in his day, not unlike the success level of Meyers. There are probably writers with better technical skill than Dickens too. So is Dickens' work for the lowest common denominator? I'm not saying there isn't bad art out there, but it's bad to me. I don't need anyone else to have my standards of what is good. If something is popular maybe it's just very well written and it resonates with people. Need good art be obscure and only appreciated by a few?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there might be a little sexism in King's comment too (although I don't think it's on purpose). When Harry Potter first came out, the author used her initials to disguise her gender so as to not bias male readers. I wonder if Stephanie Meyers would be slammed so hard if she was only known as S. Meyers. Generally speaking as a society we tend to be more critical of successful women than successful men.

Mr. Pessimistic wrote:

Peggy_Butler wrote:

book wrote:I think there is a certain resentment to the pop authors in the same way there is in the music industry - as soon as someone writes for the purposes of the mass market they are berated by the independent press and other artists who in some ways I am sure are jealous of their progress. The cream of the crop are the Dylans, the Coldplays (though I don't put them in the same bracket) who manage to combine critical success with sales. Stephen King is one such author...I'm not sure he's wrong in saying Stephanie Myer isn't one myself!

Well you can not put someone into the superstar category until they have got there... If she can produce books like Stephen King, and achieves his level... then yes she is a great... Until then... who knows, I just wish I had her royalty checks

I will answer this and your post to me with one paragraph.

So we judge greatness by a level of sales success? To me, this is not art...original...or worth while. Our society is about the dollar and the music industry creates bands to mooch off a certain feel at the moment. It is crap. It is self gratification and not a true exploration of what the creative process is about. The industries exploit 'artists' and then do away with them. This is not what I am about.

If you were to ask a Buddhist monk what defines greatness, you would probably be told to look with-in. True greatness is an individual accomplishment of self. However, if you ask "mainstream" what is success, then you are looking at money. All Societies are based on money. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but to say Bonnie Raitt only plays to make money, or Elvis only sung to be rich, is not very open minded.

I have a lot of poetry that I have written over the years, I have no desire to share it, not because it is not good, but because it is personal to me. It is my prose, my thoughts, and my own accomplishment. There-fore my own greatness.

And who doesn't exploit? Do not companies exploit their employees? I think it would be a challenge to find one single sector of any society that does not exploit in some manner