I gather dust on this shelf in the corner of a disheveled closet. Dust, it seems, is my destiny in this life. I was once a vibrant thought, then a carefully orchestrated string of thoughts and words. Life was passed to me. And my goal in this world was to be read and read and read. No reading lights flow over my pages. Not even dust as my pages are closed to the world. I've never been given a chance to spark images and fuel the imagination. Never given a chance. Not a single chance. I must be content with the darkness, the lonliness, and the repetition of the only life I know, the unread words of my soul. ----------------------------------------------------------- It's a damn shame for someone to go to all the trouble of writing a book worthy of submittal and not take a chance. This is for all of you who have written something and let it die.

I could swear Chuck is the one that keeps saying he is not a writer, and yet, clearly, he writes passionately and with great heart. This does bring up the question, in my mind, of how many of us on this forum are writing for our own pleasure (and maybe that of friends) and how many are published, and how important is being published to you (if you have not yet experienced it). Is it a goal of all of us or not so very important? (I bring a prejudice to this question--I am not one of those that thinks it is particularly meaningful to have been published as far as it relates to talent....there are awful books finding their way to print and wonderful stories languishing as their authors search for an audience.) I am, I admit, in the hobby category. I write for myself and myself alone, and so would be destined to be the creator of dusty and unpublished manuscripts (they will make a happy bonfire one day). It has always seemed to me that writing is a very different function than selling and that is why agents have jobs, but to get an agent, one usually has to have been published and that seems a vicious cycle in itself. But I am only speculating. What about the rest of you?

Well, I don't plan to ever pursue writing as a serioius venture. I wrote what I did above because I KNOW there are people out there who have taken the hardest steps to getting something published (the writing) yet balked at the stage where one must take a chance on a rejection or acceptance. And that's a shame. A book has a "soul". As dialyn will note (sort of) when I get around to submitting my "library" entry.

Oh, cool...you are going to write an entry. I was afraid you were going to avoid "The Spirit of the Library" contest. Gives me something to look forward to. And, I think a book should have a soul...but I'm not sure they all do (depends on who wrote them). ;)

We all invest time in our craft, graphic or literary.The soul yearns to be aknowleged:It's the only way one can beat the mystery that occurs at death. We all hope that our work lives on despite our physical departure. I believe this is the hope Ooii was speaking about, the essence of a summer distilled into a glass. To write a book and never submitt it, is to leave the grapes to rot on the vine

"the essence of a summer distilled into a glass. To write a book and never submitt it, is to leave the grapes to rot on the vine " Ahhh, poetry and wisdom. All in one.

I write purely for the pleasure it brings me to put down on paper my thoughts and feelings. Only recently have I even started to share my works with others. Unlike tj's grapes of wrath... I feel that .. if I am never published.. for that matter, never even seen by another, my writing is an act of self gratification.

Great sentiment Chuck. Well said. However, there is something to be said for writing for the shear joy of writing. I did that for years, have whole notebooks full of tripe that I would never dream of publishing, but still enjoyed writing. I still look at them now and then to glean kernels for further development. I have technically been published. I had a technical paper published in the proceedings of an obscure journal two years ago. No money involved, but I must admit it was a real rush. I am currently writing the Wings3D User Manual, which should become public in the next week or two. It will be an OpenSource publication, so again, no money involved but at least it will be seen by the public at large and hopefully by more than my technical article. But basically I write for the joy of writing. I do hope to publish (for actual money) someday, and towards that end I have my sister editing a novel for me now. Its sequel is complete as well, but until I get the first one out the door I am letting it sit. Dialyn - they will make a happy bonfire one day Oh, I hope not! Even if you never publish, they would be cherished by your friends and family even after you are gone. My mother-in-law used to write little moral tales for my kids. She is gone now, but we still hold onto the stories she wrote. We also have the letters my dad wrote to my mom when he was overseas during WWII and they are precious to us. The written word can last forever as tjames alludes to. Tjames, I hate to show my ignorance but I miss your reference to Ooii. It is a beautiful metaphor however. jon

I am trying to understand but it's not in me, I guess. Maybe a lack of attention while I was growing up, I don't know. Warning! Dangerous and silly analogy approaching. "If a tree in a forest falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" I get some enjoyment out of taking a really nice photo. The same goes for my attempts at art or writing. Hardly any ever satisfy me completely. But I will admit to this: if art created by me is only seen by me, then is it art? (that's a funny question, I know.) Let me try again. Actors get a lot of money. So to professional athletes. But, having people smile, yell, weep, or otherwise affect them is a very nice feeling. I like it and I'll admit it. Even the overpaid professions I mentioned above like it. So, to me, creating the art is only part of the enjoyment. Having it appreciated is the other half. That's why I started this thread. Well, kind of.

I believe it was Van Gogh who only sold one painting in his lifetime and was dismissed by the critics of his time. That many of his paintings were left unseen by the public until after his death does not make them less art. The bulk of Emily Dickinson's poetry were left unread by the public until after her death. But they were still poems. While the applause may be nice, it doesn't make the writing (to the author) less valuable for the lack of an audience. The impulse to write should be such that you have no choice to do anything else, you do it whether or not anyone will read what you have written. Not all of us write to the public's taste. Being left unpublished is not, in my mind, a failure of effort. But that's just me.

I bounce back and forth on this. It's great to write if you enjoy writing. Arguably, it's the purest form of writing because you do it out of joy, nothing else. Your story is untampered by commercial interests and artistic compromises. At the same time, I look at some of the books I've read, some of the movies I've seen, and wonder what it would be like if those wonderful stories had not been published. If someone has a great story, do they have a "moral obligation" to publish them, to spread the joy and wonder and knowledge that they have created? And those stories that were rewritten to reach a wider audience, were those stories compromised by being forced into a generic mold or improved by being made more universal? If a mime falls in the woods, does it make a sound? ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

But I also see truly awful books being published and rise to the best seller list, and I wonder what that means to have wide public appreciation? Is the idea to get published at any cost, or is the point to create something that you feel is the best you can do, whether or not it is published? Do you write to the public taste to get recognition, or do you write to your own taste to have self-satisfaction that you have expressed what you needed to express? Do we have a greater moral obligation to please other people than to please ourselves? I'm just asking. I don't have any answers.

I honestly think that the most important part of creating any art is the experience of creating it. That experience is the only thing I think the artist can really call their own - your unique experience of creating something, although it may have similarities with others who partake in the same art, but that experience will always remain yours. I think whatever you create instantly belongs to everyone the moment it is released. I've often thought the need to release some piece of art is based solely on my ego's need to be stroked. But I've also heard it said that to keep one's creative ideas to ones self, is pure selfishness. This thread also makes me think of how odd it is that many of the people who have had the greatest affect on my views died before I was born - their books were published before I knew how to read. It is a kind of 'immortality' I guess. It's also kinda spooky when you think about someone reading your words after your gone.

And that's why they're called classics. Even though Robinson Crusoe was written long ago, the story constantly can be retold ...Castaway with Tom Hanks for example.

"Is the idea to get published at any cost, or is the point to create something that you feel is the best you can do, whether or not it is published? Do you write to the public taste to get recognition, or do you write to your own taste to have self-satisfaction that you have expressed what you needed to express? Do we have a greater moral obligation to please other people than to please ourselves?" I hope I wasn't misunderstood. I realize there are people who are like this. Like what dialyn has alluded to. I guess those people may chase notoriety more than art. But, I was speaking of a different kind of person. One who creates art and if others want it as it is, then fine. I would hope it would make them feel good that it touched others in some way. Even if it's only one other person. I wasn't advertising the bastardization of one's art for the sake of noteriety. Just suggesting an opportunity for it to breathe. Whether it be for money or for free.

I know that's not what you meant, Chuck. But I think some people (not anyone here that I know of) want to have been an writer rather than wanting to write. There is a difference between chasing fame and pursuing one's calling. The person whose book you read may want at some point to publish...I think most people would find that a pleasurable idea...but probably on his or her terms. If you look at what you write and you look at what it is being published and there is no nexus between the two, you wonder if it is possible to get published these days without following the latest fad. And yet art, written or otherwise, doesn't follow a fad...it breaks its own ground. It is the true north star that someone who is truly creative must follow. It's not that hard to be a hack writer, churning out words sold by the inch, but that not likely to be writing with the soul of which you were speaking.

I think you may have just agreed with several things, sprinkled here and there in this thread, that I have said (sorry for accidental rhyme). I'll attempt to recap/summarize: "Real" artists won't compromise thier work. "Other" artists write for their audience and (perhaps) not for themselves. (Or else "split the difference" so they can continue to do their art.) Additional pleasure by a "real" artist can be attained by acceptance and appreciation of their uncompromised work. I guess I'm not driven like some "mad hatter". I don't spend much time in my artistic endeavors. Sometimes, I have something that needs to be said and I try to spend some time making it. When I finish, I put it somewhere where someone else can see it. Whether it's my wife, co-workers, or, well, here at R'City. If they like it, it makes me feel good. If they don't, it just means "it" didn't "hit" them the way it did me. But, I certainly won't rip it up and discard it.

It's easier to be independent, don't you think, if you are offering something for free. If I published my stories on the web, I could write anything I like because no one would be paying me for the opportunity. Of course as soon as it is on the web, there is also nothing stopping someone from taking what I have written, refashioning it and selling it as their own. So do I want to write? To be read? To be paid for my effort? To have an audience? Or some combination. My guess is, that if I am correct that you were given a book to read in rough draft, that the person who offered it is closer than you think in their move toward wanting to be published. Finding an audience gets addictive...having one person read your story is only enough the first time but then you feel compelled (if encouraged) to share again. So I think, I guess, I could be wrong, that the person allowed you to read the book as a test run to get a sense of whether or not it had the possibility of appealing to wider audience, in preparation for making an effort toward publishing in earnest. Putting a rough draft in a reader's hands is only as painful as tearing out your heart, you know. Nothing much at stake except your life's work. Or am I wrong completely? It could be your own book your wrote of so evocatively.

Although I have self-published several books, my ultimate goal is not money, nor fame, nor notoriety. I write simply to express the condition of my heart, my only real purpose to try to make a difference in the world. Nothing is more important to me than expressing myself as a spiritual being, and bringing into the world the crystal clear reflection of the spirit I am intended to be..... Nothing is more important than simply being who I am.....

When a critic does the thing, Is it to change the piece to market or tbt to the author. Now in my critiques I like tbt that's why chat is important. If I get to know a little about the person writing the piece, then perhaps I can offer market + tbt( to be true to the author) I'm trying to learn what the market conditions are, and where to hit while the iron is hot. Perhaps my goal is not just to be a writer, but an agent for those seeking to gain acceptance for their passion. I'm not quite sure how to do this, but in looking at the "Writer's Market for 2002" and having received the rejection slips in the past ah see ah see. Don't hate me for this revelation. My critiques aren't to dismay but to encourage, and I'm only looking for the best in the artist and the art. * and there I am dialyn, an 811 for you and eveyone else that has the stuff. Chuck keep it up. Let me do my thing and if you suddenly start seeing more interest in your writing don't feel bad. Writer's and Artists want their work to be seen and read, and accepted, just as a politician wants votes.

tj, Dude! 811? "Chuck keep it up"? "rejection slips"? (you been submitting stuff, tj?) I know someone who has writen a nice book. I was asked to do a "tbt".

Everytime you make a change the artist will defend what they wrote. Everytime you sway towards the editor you're caving. Being true to what the author intended is a hard way to go believe me. There's a point where you feel like telling the editor what to do, but you don't want to lose the deal, and they have there ways of making your efforts airy...I'll keep exploring out there. Maybe I'll find space at a place with a face.

Being an editor is no easy job, and I think in these times of the quick print and fast output and big money deals that the job has largely been abdicated. Which is too bad because I can think of some okay published books that would have been improved if an editor had been around instead of the publisher catering to the giant ego of a famous but unpolished author. The writer is only one part of the creative process.....the words belong to the writer, the white space belongs to the reader and the white space is important in creating something meaningful. We can't write for any audience but ourselves without becoming self-conscious and pandering, but once the story is released into the world, it is finished by those who read it and bring their own thoughts and lives to what they read. A good editor helps the writer clarify what may be an obscured vision so that it is better communicated to the reader, who will complete the story for themselves. And what is the point of writing if not communication? I don't think someone is automatically brilliant and I am automatically stupid if I don't understand what someone has written...I'm thinking they didn't try very hard to reach me, they didn't care about me as an audience, and I don't have time for their obscurities. I don't think it is caving to seriously consider what an editor suggests....I take the comments I've received here and from friends with no offense and a great deal of gratitude. It's not easy to tell a friend, "you know, this isn't very clear," or "that doesn't seem right for the character." Of course the writer gets defensive...the work is the child of imagination and you want to protect it...but if you can get past being defensive, then it's possible to see that the editor, professional or amateur, is trying to tell you how better to reach your reader. On the other hand, not everyone who writes has any intention of being published. We have to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that we all write for different reasons. To some, being published and recognized as an author is an important goal. To others, that is unimportant and it is something else that drives us to write. I don't think one is better than the other. Being published does not make a person a better writer than someone who keeps their writing to themselves. That notion is ego talking, not talent. My respect goes to the person who writes every day and persists whatever else is involved in their goal....that is what I haven't been able to do.