This is the sort of thing my brain thinks of before caffeine:
If you could have one book published--but only one book--and that book would 100% for sure be published, and you would 100% for sure have moderate success (a good advance, book tour, signings and readings--but we're not talking JK Rowling here), BUT after this happened you would 100% for sure never publish again (you can write all you want--just not be published)...would you do that instead of staying in the rat race of publication and trying to break out with your own chops, knowing the chances? Which would be better--guaranteed one perfect slam dunk, or just the chance to stay in the game and hope the ball comes your way?
(PS: I know forms of this question have circulated around the intarwebs before...but it is a really interesting thing--at least now, when I still haven't had caffeine--and I'd be very interested in knowing your thoughts)
So...which would you do?
10 comments:
this is a hard question. Though I don't write ONLY For the chace of publication, I just know that I am going to write no matter what. The thought of never having the chance of being published again after being published once sounds like it would be crushing for me because I KNOW I would continue to write and have the frustration of nothing else seeing the light of day.
However . . . I would also rather have one great book published rather than pumping out a load of crap.
Really hard question. On the one hand, I'd rather publish well ONCE than miss the mark book after book for my whole life.
On the other hand, this question sounds like "Do you want guaranteed mediocrity, or a no-guarantees chance at true success?" In any great story, the hero picks the latter.
Sorry, I rebel against your premise. For someone very conservative I have a quite rebellious nature. I want success! Every time. I may be dreaming, but hey, my word for the year is hope.
The first options sounds boring. Where's the challenge?
Not only that, but If I wanted secular success regardless of anything, I'd just drop my religion. Hey, ma, everybody's doing it.
I'd choose the slim chance of great success over a guaranteed mediocre experience. The struggle is good for me.
I guess I like those little consistent rewards because I would totally stay in the game. Things may seem bleak at times, but then a great review comes in or some kid tells me he loved my book and it makes my world. Maybe this is a problem with ego, but it's me.
I would stay in that rat race, thank you. One book and my fun is over? I don't think so. I write to share, and if I knew I couldn't share anymore - on a grand scale (or small grand scale, I guess), then I think the magic of writing would be over for me.
These are all really great answers. I'm not sure where I stand--I just really wanted to see the opinions on this one.
I am totally like Christy in that I do not want to know that I'd be pumping out crap for the rest of my career. And while I'd like to think I'd be in for the good fight, sometimes I don't know... I think in the end I strive to be most like PJ: value what you have, and let the little successes count more.
I know I am in the minority, but I think I would take the guaranteed slam dunk. I assume when you say "moderate success" that this book would be around for a long time? I love the idea of producing a classic. Something that will live on after i am gone.
Corey--I can totally see where you are coming from. In fact, I lean that way heavily. Here's the thing--if I could be guaranteed moderate success but no more publication, I think I might be OK with that...because I could still write, even without publication.
Post a Comment