The last foothold for the untalented?

What do you mean by literary rubbish? Do you mean the stuff that sells, such as Davinci Code? Or writing on websites such as this? And, I've had a guitar for twenty years, still can't play it well, but still enjoy having a go (and still played in a couple of awful punk bands years ago) and why not. Is it not the same with writing?

Had a quick look, but not enough to know how cack it is. Is it a scam, then? And I liked the rhyming search engine. Put in "wrinkle". What is a "minkel"?

I'm with you, Poet J. I'm well aware that I have major flaws in my own writing, one of them possibly being in the art of putting a book together. However, many many books leave me cold within ten pages or so, and I know full well that I write better than a number of writers (I hate the word author) that we find in Waterstones or Borders. I don't intend that to come across as blowing smoke up my own arse. It's just that the majority of people who read my books make a point of approaching me or phoning me at all hours to say how they've laughed out loud at a certain passage, or they want to purchase more copies for friends. And these aren't all sychophants either, many have their own criticisms, stating how they feel I perhaps lost my way in certain chapters etc. But they're people I respect as writers and critics. I have a friend who used to write for Melody Maker, another who's a published writer in his own right, I've been invited to the launch of his third book, but they've all enjoyed my books. If I can keep people turning the pages and If I can raise a chuckle with my writing then I'm happy. So how come there is such dross in the major bookstores? How do these writers manage to get their books in front of the general public. How did J.K. Rowling make her self millions by re-writing the same story, albeit with slightly different twists, five times? How come millions of people fell for that one? The worrying thing is that we've all witnessed countless people who believe they're what the British (or American) public needs in the way of the next Pop Idol or X Factor, and it's blatantly obvious that they don't look the part, to say it kindly, and they can't sing. It must be the same with writers. There must be many people out there who really and truly believe they have incedible talent yet they're totally unable to string a sentence togeher.

Dan Brown illustrates the point perfectly, most people couldn't spot bad writing if it jumped up and down in front of them shouting 'I copied this description of the Louvre from a guide book'. Being a good critic is an essential part of being a good writer, only then can you catch and eliminate your own dross.

I have more confidence in my opinions of music, though: I wouldn't know a good poet if she bit me on the arse (so please don't try). The thing with music, in my opinion, is technical brilliance doesn't count for much. A techincally proficient heavy metal guitar solo leaves me cold, whereas a bunch of young scallies giving it all they've got may sound a bit shambolic but it will get to me. And crap sells - how long was the Bryan Adams chappie at number one, for crying out loud? Don't know if this applies to writing, but trying to be too "clever" doesn't work for me. And crap sells. Sales don't make you good. But they do make you rich.

Subjectivity, social class, culture, environment, politics, all these are players in a piece of art and the balance is sometimes what makes or breaks a piece. personally, I'm well aware of my countless flaws, but I crave the satisfaction I find in being creative. I wrote an mp3 last year which I considered utter crap but it's consistently occupied a number one position in the meditation and healing chart at the world's largest download site, download.com. It's the most popular download in that chart...but its star rating is average. It's the appeal of the suggested concept of the track rather than its content. There's no easy answer to such a debate.

Writing and acting are far more glamorous careers than Maths, and more enjoyable. We already know that 'creative' activites are supposed to be relaxing and fun. Maths, even if you're pretty good at it, is just one big stressathon. Also, the simple fact is that most people can write and act. How well they do it is another matter, but any educated person can literally put pen to paper, if they are so inclined, and an even greater number of people can recite lines from a page. Advanced mathematics, on the other hand, is extremely difficult for most people - impossible for many. So it's not really a very good comparison. In fact, most career comparisons to writing and art are pointless exercises in dull wit made by artists who mistakenly believe they're past the point of being regarded as crap. Why is there so much dross in bookshops? Because no one has, as of yet, come up with a convincing, demonstratable way of deciding whether a novel, or poem, is cobblers, mediocre, decent or excellent. Until they do, we all operate on instinct and gut reaction, and in this regard, we're all very different. If I were an editor, I'd have used ms's by Dan Brown or J. K. Rowling as scrap printer paper, but then I wouldn't have made myself a bundle, would I? On the other hand, I will maintain that as long as the publishing industry continues to put out (perhaps even rely on,) junk fiction, editors, agents and publishers have no right to whinge about 'talentless amateurs' sending them piles of crap. Because that's what's going to happen if you decide you're going to publish the odd one or two.

I think Maddam's point is key, critiquing other writing enables you to see what is good and bad about your own. But to suggest Dan Brown and JK Rowling are crap writers is to me a little pretensious. I am jealous to hell of their success, but their writing is not for me but then nor is Mills and Boon. Surely as fellow writers we should be pleased that new authors do break into the market, as for their runaway success well that is down to the sales, which means for all our talk they are doing something right. If anything we need to critic their work and look at what it is about their writing that sells - rather than moan that our talents are being overlooked. Juliet

The music industry is a prime example of sub-cultural influence defining quality of art. A quick glance at the political atmosphere of the mid-late sixties, late 70's and early-mid nineties gives you a good example of how much a role all these cutural factors play in ramping up creativity. Separated from their individual political climates, alot of the work wouldn't look half as appealing now as it did then.

Surely the whole point of writing is to communicate. No matter if it is News, Stories, Plays or anything else. I really can't bel;ieve that Shakespear or Dickens set out to write works of art. I am convinced they set out to communicate their thoughts, ideas and messages in the best way they could. They, luckily for them and us were able to do so in timeless style. So let's not rubbish others who have done the same let's try to emulate them and become writers of note ourselves. Some may even succeeed.

Given that Jon and I usually disagree on this subject, I'm surprised to find myself nodding my head at most of his post. I can only assume this is because he has come round to my way of thinking. Anyway, I'm going to press on writing my trash lit adventure story...

Ones ultimate talent at writing or music is irrelevant unless one intends to make a living at it. Mathematics have a clear defined set of rules and if one is capable of understanding those rules, their success would be defined on how well they applied that knowledge to something commercially viable such as teaching, chemistry, rocket-science. The same holds true for writing or music or any other art form. I love to play guitar, I love to write music, I’ve written over 4 cds worth of music, 2 books and perhaps 100 short stories. None of it is worth a penny in a consumer market, but as a result, I do better understand and appreciate something I Iove. I'm better at rocket science, so that is where I make my living. What defines “the best” in a particular field may differ. Art has more of a consumer outlet than calculating titration rates. I think people need to express themselves and art provides that outlet, so if you’re a bad poet or writer, it doesn’t matter. You do it for yourself first, and then if you’re good at it or can get better, you may have a means at your disposal to make a living.

I must admit to finding many of the classics hard work, but that's probably because when reading I don't want to be forced to work that hard at it. I think it was in "Kidnapped" that I was introduced to about 20 characters on the first page. I gave up after that. If I want to give myself brainace I'll study higher math. Basically it's the subject matter that sells, and it has to relate to the target audience. It's as simple as that. Nothing else. It doesn't have to be good writing. Indeed many writers work far too hard at their writing and it shows. I've always maintained this. To make money out of it, our writing has to fit into a tiny little nitch (is that a word?). Football hooligan, girlie book, travel comedy, true crime and so on. If your book isn't one of these then the publishers are unlikely to persuade the larger shops to stock it because they know what sells. If your book isn't one of these then people are unlikely to reach out, take it off the shelf and peruse it enough to make a buying decisions. Book shops are in business to make money, nothing else. The quality of writing has nothing to do with it. Bitter? Hell yes!

"Maddam" grr!

"Given that Jon and I usually disagree on this subject, I'm surprised to find myself nodding my head at most of his post. I can only assume this is because he has come round to my way of thinking..." ??? I must've accidentally edited out the part of my post where I said, 'Sell your soul for a killer first page - it'll drive the agents wild!' I think you try to write to your own standards and expecations, Tim, which is why you talk as if you're on a journey towards writing your first 'proper good' opus, even though you've got lots of great work behind you. Joe's the same. He's got enough poems to put out a collection that plenty of poetry readers would rate, but he wants to have written something that's up to his own standards. This is a different matter, I think, to writing something that someone will publish, and which readers will buy. When it comes down to it, if any of us were kidnapped by a bestselling author and forced to shadow-write their next novel, I don't think we'd have to do a particularly decent job to find our writing being plucked from the shelves at a fair old rate. But if you could see two versions of your future book - one which was critically lauded and popular, and one which was far more akin to what you're now aiming for - I think you'd continue on your path toward the latter.

sorry maddan a typo, stop growling. Juliet

Jude, I don't like country music other than Blue Grass. My music is primairly Jazz. I do venture into Heavy Metal - Electronic from time to time. I sold my truck. I now drive a Nissan Pathfinder.

Jude, I don't drink much beer. I do have a couple of bottles of wine each week. As for being manly, I gave that up when I became a grandfather. Fishing is a mainstay. Contrary to bottle-rockets belief, I don't have much of a gut either. I've packed on about 10 extra pounds over the winter, which will be gone by May. Mostly, I'm a boring old shit that makes pulitzer prize winning newspapers. Someday, if I'm lucky, I'll support my bad personal habits as a writer and/or photographer.

RD's also one of those rare people who is so *genuinely* smug and self-satisfied with everything he's achieved in life that he can jovially refer to himself as a 'boring old shit' and never worry that it might be true.

Hen, you know nothing. It's doubtful you'll ever improve.

Jeez. Now he's turned into Mississippi. It is, indeed, doubtful that I'll ever attain true wisdom if people can get to your age, having done so much, and still demonstrate irredeemable retardedness every time they put forward an opinion.

Hen…You’re such a little bitch. You could do much worse than having friends such as Mississippi. I consider the comparison an honor. Me thinks you're a little preoccupied with rebelling against older people and how much you hate them to understand anything beyond trying to impress little girls with your pink icing and powdered sugar covered dog shit. Fortunately, we’ll never meet. In the meantime, feel free to keep harping on about nothing. I’ll continue to bitch-slap you anytime you come near me.

Sorry to rewind right to the beginning but: "So why do people seem to think its okay to pointlessly churn out literary rubbish? It gives those of us who can write a bad reputation." I disagree. Bad writing has helped to give me quite a good reputation. If there wasn't any bad writing, just think how good you'd have to be to get recognised as being quite good. And if people enjoy writing badly or find it therapeutic, that I don't have a problem with that either. The problem is when bad writers start gnashing their teeth about their lack of recognition or claim that your magazine has rejected their work for reasons other than the fact you don't think it's very good. You need to have element of arrogance to go as far as thinking you're writing's worth someone spending their time reading it but once people have passed that point, both some humility and sense of perspective are handy - however good or bad the writing might be.

Some of the "bad writing" could come from youngsters. It's a little naive to compare your own standards to those around you, especially on the web.

"You could do much worse than having friends such as Mississippi." This is true. I could be friends with a jizz-dribbling, egomaniacal wannabe-funnyman like RD. I would then have to spend much of my time being regailed with anecdotes about his myriad qualifications, hobbies, career moves and eating habits, when I'm not being oh-so-wittily 'bitch-slapped' by the self-styled 'coolest grandad in rocket science lol rofl', or treated to a metaphorical rollercoaster ride of a sermon about how mightily amused he is by everyone else's inferiority. "Hi buddy, it's me, Radio Denver. I was just on ABCTales, and get this, they're like RATS to me. DUMB RATS, I tell you. Isn't that funny? I might go back on in a bit and tell them a bit about my life, what I do etc., but I might need a family member to back me up because, you know, one redneck dildo just cannot laugh hard enough, can he? Do you think they'd like a virtual tour of my yacht? I bet they would. Then I'll tell them what I think of alternative culture, and if anyone disagrees, I'll point out, to their discredit, that I took a course in *psychology*, so I know all about everything, right? God, I'm so cuttingly witty sometimes. It's like I'm on drugs, but my drug is being a total and utter twat, you know?" Fortunately, such a friendship is never going to happen. "Glamorous, yes but science - I'll take Life sciences because that's my field is just as much fun and comes more easily to me as writing. Oft I spen a Saturday on the seashore identifying seaweed and its relaxing and great!" Trouble is, most people don't find the idea remotely attractive. Science immediately suggests stressfulness to those not mathematically or logically gifted because they associate it with braininess. So while I'm sure it *can* be very relaxing and fun, it just doesn't have that image.

It doesn’t have to have that image. Identifying seaweed IS relaxing and fun, because it’s relaxing and fun to Jude. You may find writing posts like the one above relaxing and fun, but to others it may not have that image. Each to their own.

Come on, Karl. Try to be consistent. "Each to their own" is a radical U-turn away from "How did J.K. Rowling make her self millions by re-writing the same story, albeit with slightly different twists, five times? How come millions of people fell for that one?" Are we to presume that if Jude was a Rowling fan, you'd change your argument to, "J. K. Rowling IS a great writer, because she's a great writer to Jude"? Leaping to the defence of your friends is very noble, but it's best to wait til they've actually been attacked. All I was saying is that more people turn to creative arts to chill out partly because it's widely documented as being an easy way to destress. The same cannot be said of collecting seaweed, however much fun it is for some people. I daresay I could have fun collecting seaweed, but the fact is that science-related pursuits are just not as attractive to most people as creative pursuits. In any case, we started on Maths, and Maths is stress-hell to everyone except crazy freaks.

Well this is an interesting thread. Even the spats are quite amusing. Bottom line is maths is hard unless you have a particular bent towards it, saying that though, I can envisage the pleasure to be derived from being adept at mathematics. In terms of good writing and bad writing, i feel, it's my opinion, that writing can be good in terms of the effect of the writing on the author, and at the same time be bad in terms of appreciation by others. Are these two states diametrically opposed? no. It's all down to the random carousel of what happens when that writing emerges into the daylight. There are, of course, many many instances where the writing doesn't comply with either of these two simple nodes of good or bad, and then, once again, it all comes down to chance. The worst writing i've ever done has reaped me praise and material success in ways I could never have imagined. As for people boasting on the internet about their yacht and their newest car, that's just tawdry and shows a distinct lack of grace or insight.

What a great thread! Writing is different as everyone CAN do it, although most choose not to. Not everyone can paint, play a guitar or sing. Every time you write you give away something of yourself - and that's important. We need to tell people who we really are - and therefore, why we are important in this huge and deadening universe. It's also true that what is disregarded in one time is often appreciated in another. A song on an advert caught my attention the other week - so I looked it up on the internet. It turned out to be 'Just Another Diamond Day' by Vashti Bunyan. Never heard of her? Neither had I - even though it was recorded in 1970 and I thought I knew every recording artiste of that time - and had favourites of mine like Robin Williamson, Simon Nicol, Dave Swarbrick and others on it. In any case, I bought it - from amazon via the link on ABC - and it arrived this morning. It's beautiful. A lovely little hippy gem. So - keep writing - in thirty six years someone may discover your magnificent book.

Sub-culteral?

Jon, if you're looking to provoke me with your weak-minded insults you're wasting your time. Perhaps our illustrious leader would feel obliged to publicly rebuke you as he has others in instances like this, though I guess he won't. Whilst I'm here, perhaps someone could explain to me why I have to log in every time I change threads, I thought this site was supposed to be an improvement on past versions!

"What a great thread! Writing is different as everyone CAN do it, although most choose not to. Not everyone can paint, play a guitar or sing." Well, yeah but everyone can paint, sing and play the guitar badly too as long as the necessary bits of their body are in functioning order. I suppose painting and guitar playing are potentially a bit more expensive than writing, and bad singing and guitar playing are more of a direct annoyance to others. But I'd prefer it if more people understood that good writing - like good singing, painting or guitar playing - is difficult and does require a lot of practice. This might save a lot of heartache over failure to be published, appreciated etc. I don't really understand how writing differs from the other activities you mention.

"What a nice upbeat post TC and just what I needed to give my arrogance a kick." It often seems to be way of things that when Tony's nice and upbeat, I say he's wrong. On a more positive note, I should say that I'm fully supportive of under-recognised hippy music. David

I'm with Mississippi. It is really really annoying having to log in all the time. Can someone please sort it out? Joe

Yes, tis annoying we have to log in. If anyone's feeling creatively stifled, may I just point out that MARIO PAINT IS COMING TO THE NINTENDO DS!!!111 OMG That is all...

Tim, it has fuck all to do with being stifled, creatively or otherwise, but more to do with the fact that if not logged in the threads don't present themselves in their entirety. Most end somewhere several days ago although the forum list will show the latest post as being anything from 5secs to several hours previously. It makes the whole damned thing pointless. There's no continuity and it's impossible to take part in any meaningful way. Leaving a thread and returning to the forum list results in having to log in again and then a third time when entering another thread. It's not only tiresome but bloody ridiculous. I've mentioned this problem on several threads over the last couple of months but neither Tony nor Mark seem interested, they just keep telling everyone how great the site is. Having said all that I'd be quite happy if at least three idiots here were stifled permanently. (Names available on request)

Being that I'm probably one of the idiots you'd love to have stifled, Missi, I will now helpfully suggest that your web engine or ISP (or whatever they're called) is possibly the culprit for the login problem. I couldn't log in at all for about four months after the 'new' ABC site went up, while we had MS Explorer; I use an updated version of Explorer at work and I still have to 'refresh' every time I change pages. We changed to Mozilla here at home and hey presto! The access problems disappeared immediately. It's not something that Mark or Tony can do anything about, I don't think; they were very helpful when I was having access trouble but ultimately it was my computer that had the problem, not theirs. There is definitely such a thing as 'good writing' or 'good music', but it seems so subjective that it's almost pointless to try to analyse just -why- something is good or how it got to be that way. I mean, I really love the Harry Potter series despite the writing not being considered brilliant by the critics, simply because it's a well-told and engrossing story (rehashed several times). I've tried some of the so-called 'classics' and found them dry and dull by comparison. As to music, it seems even more difficult to pinpoint just why something is felt to be 'good' to some but not others. I -like- Bryan Adams, his early stuff before he went all soundtracky. I -know- his music is crap, but I like it, nonetheless, especially turned up really loud. My husband has a peculiar liking for Pat Metheney, and whilst I might appreciate that he is a popular modern jazz artist (or something like that) I still think the music is rubbish. I think Juliet OC has the right attitude; we should be happy for others' successes, even if at the same time we feel we could do 'better'. Maybe it should serve as an inspiration rather than as a vehicle for derision...?

I aint going to be happy for Bryan Adams' success until he finds a way to pay me back for the countless times I was forced to listen to that bloody Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves song.

"Jon, if you're looking to provoke me with your weak-minded insults you're wasting your time." I am wasting my time, but I wasn't looking to provoke you. RD came out with the old "You know nothing" remark, which is a longterm favourite of yours. That's all I was remarking on. It should be a feature on any Internet-Argument-Bingo-Card: http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060405.html

I doubt you could find sufficient references to 'know nothing' in my posts over the 5years I've been posting here to justify your remark pertaining to me, but then you've made similar mistakes in the past, haven't you. If you have a disagreement with RD that's your business, there's no need to bring me into it.