Why isn't anyone here famous yet?

[Countess]

I have been to a great many writing sites online, and I can in all earnestness say online-literature has the best-of-breed in the writing department. The various authors on this site are brimming with talent (excluding myself; I just pretend to have talent and have fooled a considerable number of people), so I fail to comprehend WHY publishers, power-players, etc are not drawing from the rich resources on this site.

Throughout history authors and artists have traditionally gathered together to share and support each other, ie: Byron/Shelly and ? (forgot the third),Virginia Woolf/Bloomsbury group. Almost always they spurred each other on to greatness, and were successful. Yet, in today's world, it seems the mediocre and the kitchy collectives are getting more attention from the publishing community. I can think of one site filled with poet-tasters and amateurs that seems to be tied in with the publishing industry.

I just don't understand it. I try to wrap my head around this grevious insult and, well, great sin (yes, I am going to go so far as to call publishing writers of cute, kitchy plot-driven stories at the expense of those whose work touches the human heart and thus helps transform the world a GREAT AND GREVIOUS SIN against humanity ) and don't understand it. I won't name names on this site because I risk leaving people out (because I don't have time to list every single person who has exemplified talent - there are too many!) but lets just say several regulars come to mind at the thought - I can list five off the bat.

Anywho - can someone explain this paradox to me?

[Niamh]

I think there are a few people who have been published floating around here but as for myself...i'm working on it!

[Turk]

Who says everyone is not famous? I am famous as the famousest person you know.

[EAP]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Turk]

Well, not funny. I am serious. Think about it. She is from Moldovia. What's the population of Moldovia? 37.

And only my relatives are more than 37 people.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I have been to a great many writing sites online, and I can in all earnestness say online-literature has the best-of-breed in the writing department. The various authors on this site are brimming with talent (excluding myself; I just pretend to have talent and have fooled a considerable number of people), so I fail to comprehend WHY publishers, power-players, etc are not drawing from the rich resources on this site.

Throughout history authors and artists have traditionally gathered together to share and support each other, ie: Byron/Shelly and ? (forgot the third),Virginia Woolf/Bloomsbury group. Almost always they spurred each other on to greatness, and were successful. Yet, in today's world, it seems the mediocre and the kitchy collectives are getting more attention from the publishing community. I can think of one site filled with poet-tasters and amateurs that seems to be tied in with the publishing industry.

I just don't understand it. I try to wrap my head around this grevious insult and, well, great sin (yes, I am going to go so far as to call publishing writers of cute, kitchy plot-driven stories at the expense of those whose work touches the human heart and thus helps transform the world a GREAT AND GREVIOUS SIN against humanity ) and don't understand it. I won't name names on this site because I risk leaving people out (because I don't have time to list every single person who has exemplified talent - there are too many!) but lets just say several regulars come to mind at the thought - I can list five off the bat.

Anywho - can someone explain this paradox to me?

This is a puzzle to me as, among others, I've noticed

T.S. Eliot
Cormac McCarthy
Stephen King
Walter de la Mare
Thomas Pynchon

to name a few, all employing pseudonyms, of course. Joyce Carol Oates was going to post just as soon as she had finished her novel of the week.

[EAP]

Could you please explain what you are trying to say in simpler words?

Thank you.

[Niamh]

i'm with EAP on this one...what????

[PrinceMyshkin]

i'm with EAP on this one...what????

My apologies to both of you. That was an attempt to make a joke.

[kiobe]

I have been to a great many writing sites online, and I can in all earnestness say online-literature has the best-of-breed in the writing department. The various authors on this site are brimming with talent (excluding myself; I just pretend to have talent and have fooled a considerable number of people), so I fail to comprehend WHY publishers, power-players, etc are not drawing from the rich resources on this site.

Throughout history authors and artists have traditionally gathered together to share and support each other, ie: Byron/Shelly and ? (forgot the third),Virginia Woolf/Bloomsbury group. Almost always they spurred each other on to greatness, and were successful. Yet, in today's world, it seems the mediocre and the kitchy collectives are getting more attention from the publishing community. I can think of one site filled with poet-tasters and amateurs that seems to be tied in with the publishing industry.

I just don't understand it. I try to wrap my head around this grevious insult and, well, great sin (yes, I am going to go so far as to call publishing writers of cute, kitchy plot-driven stories at the expense of those whose work touches the human heart and thus helps transform the world a GREAT AND GREVIOUS SIN against humanity ) and don't understand it. I won't name names on this site because I risk leaving people out (because I don't have time to list every single person who has exemplified talent - there are too many!) but lets just say several regulars come to mind at the thought - I can list five off the bat.

Anywho - can someone explain this paradox to me?


To me, fame is the worst possible outcome of any gift. If world popularity is what a person seeks, then the person should look inward to find exactly what is important. There is a paradox here. the best writer toiling in anonimity, seeking fame and fortune must sell out to please the masses, but to what end. Fame is a mirage.

[Moira]

My apologies to both of you. That was an attempt to make a joke.

And a good one ....:lol: :lol:

[papayahed]

To me, fame is the worst possible outcome of any gift. If world popularity is what a person seeks, then the person should look inward to find exactly what is important. There is a paradox here. the best writer toiling in anonimity, seeking fame and fortune must sell out to please the masses, but to what end. Fame is a mirage.

I'd rather be labeled a sell out and sit in a nice house then toil for my art and live in a shack.

Don't all artists want their products out there for all to see and enjoy? Isn't that what creating is all about? To touch and inspire others?

[Nossa]

I'd rather be labeled a sell out and sit in a nice house then toil for my art and live in a shack.

Don't all artists want their products out there for all to see and enjoy? Isn't that what creating is all about? To touch and inspire others?

I totally agree. What's the use of writing if it doesn't reach to people? It's the same as writing to yourself in a closed room, hoping the someday you'll be a writer. Once you're a writer..you don't like it?!
I agree that some writers now only write what pleases the masses, no matter what they think and stand for, but that's not the case all the time.
I'd rather be 'famous' and heard..I'd rather be 'famous' and make a simple different in people's lives...than write to myself..and not making any use of what I think is a talent I have.

[Countess]

My apologies to both of you. That was an attempt to make a joke.

You were refering to people's handles, right? I think I got it (people here have chosen pseudonyms of famous authors for themselves as their userid).



Don't all artists want their products out there for all to see and enjoy? Isn't that what creating is all about? To touch and inspire others?

Well, this is the only reason I ever sought publication (although I've stopped seeking it. I can't handle rejection.) For me, it's wanting to touch people on a massive scale. That's why I believe certain individuals here should have recognized that goal, because their work consistently achieves this aim. That's why I can't understand it.

[Scheherazade]

Why are we talking about the 'masses' as if they were aliens and pleasing them would be a 'sell out'? Aren't we the 'masses'? We are the public that buy the books and read, are we not? What would be so outrageously wrong with satisfying our expectations?

[Nossa]

Why are we talking about the 'masses' as if they were aliens and pleasing them would be a 'sell out'? Aren't we the 'masses'? We are the public that buy the books and read, are we not? What would be so outrageously wrong with satisfying our expectations?

Well, the way I see it, it's not a bad thing to please the masses. But sometimes, some authors just tend to 'go with the flow' no matter what thet believe in, hoping that they'l be famous and rich. That's what I see wrong about JUST pleasing the masses. You need to both please the people you're writing for, and also feel satisfied about what you wrote, in the sense that you feel that it sent out the message you had in mind. I guess this is what some people take as a disadvantage about fame, that some people just...lose vision.

[SleepyWitch]

Well, this is the only reason I ever sought publication (although I've stopped seeking it. I can't handle rejection.) For me, it's wanting to touch people on a massive scale. That's why I believe certain individuals here should have recognized that goal, because their work consistently achieves this aim. That's why I can't understand it.

poor old Countess, you're too idealistic for your own good :)

if the so-called "masses" don't want to be enlightened or have their heart touched etc, leave them to their own devices. you're not their mummey (i don't mean 'you' personally but writers in general):D

[AimusSage]

Why are we talking about the 'masses' as if they were aliens and pleasing them would be a 'sell out'? Aren't we the 'masses'? We are the public that buy the books and read, are we not? What would be so outrageously wrong with satisfying our expectations?
You may not be aware of this, but "the masses" are really aliens! They're a band from Mars that plays traditional Martian music.

On-Topic:
To answer the original question, let's look at the publishers perspective.
Why should a publisher take a risk with an unknown author when there are already so many published authors out there that earn him money?

Yes there are many answers to this question, all of them valid, but in business, the answer that get the best net result at the end of the year will take the price.

There is a lot more to the workings of the publishing business, but the simple fact is that the world of today is very different from how it was even 5 years ago.

Fame is not what it used to be, Time magazine had it right when they made 'us' person of the year.

[Moira]

You were refering to people's handles, right? I think I got it (people here have chosen pseudonyms of famous authors for themselves as their userid).


I think he meant that there are many talented poeple around here, that he compared to famous authors ......... even if here they are using pseudonyms (such us their own names/ avatars:)).
This is what i understood from his post and he has put it so well .....
Am i right Prince M?

[kiobe]

I'd rather be labeled a sell out and sit in a nice house then toil for my art and live in a shack.

Don't all artists want their products out there for all to see and enjoy? Isn't that what creating is all about? To touch and inspire others?

Sure, but exactly what part of sitting in a nice house have to do with people enjoying your art? Are you toiling for your art or are your toiling to be recognised and rewarded?


I totally agree. What's the use of writing if it doesn't reach to people? It's the same as writing to yourself in a closed room, hoping the someday you'll be a writer. Once you're a writer..you don't like it?!
I agree that some writers now only write what pleases the masses, no matter what they think and stand for, but that's not the case all the time.
I'd rather be 'famous' and heard..I'd rather be 'famous' and make a simple different in people's lives...than write to myself..and not making any use of what I think is a talent I have.

If fame is what you seek then there are many other ways to achieve that end. There are a lot of excelent writers, bloggers, poets etc... that reach people and move them with thier messages that aren't "famous". You can be a complete hack, but as long as you are on TV you are famous and rich. Is that what you, (and by "you" I mean figuritively you,not you personally) want?


Why are we talking about the 'masses' as if they were aliens and pleasing them would be a 'sell out'? Aren't we the 'masses'? We are the public that buy the books and read, are we not? What would be so outrageously wrong with satisfying our expectations?

There's absolutly nothing wrong with writing to please the masses or in a pursuit of wealth. Fame is the thing with which I have a problem. Adulation stems from a desire to be noticed, not a desire to write and it gets polluted by it.

[Nossa]

If fame is what you seek then there are many other ways to achieve that end. There are a lot of excelent writers, bloggers, poets etc... that reach people and move them with thier messages that aren't "famous". You can be a complete hack, but as long as you are on TV you are famous and rich. Is that what you, (and by "you" I mean figuritively you,not you personally) want?

I understand what you mean, and I agree to a certain extent.
The word "famous" doesn't have to mean that you're Shakesperean famous. It means, to me, that you can reach to people. That you have, even on a small scale, a readers base that you adress. I know that there are some people who appear on TV and are 'famous' in that sesne, they are not talented nor have the ability to touch and inspire others.
What I mean in my post is that, being famous isn't a bad thing. The idea of being known (and consequently heard), even to a small number of readers, is why we write in the first place. We already know what we're writing about, we don't need to have it on a peice of paper. We write because we aim at making others hear and understand what we have to say. At least this is the objective of writing at all for me.

[kiobe]

I understand what you mean, and I agree to a certain extent.
The word "famous" doesn't have to mean that you're Shakesperean famous. It means, to me, that you can reach to people. That you have, even on a small scale, a readers base that you adress. I know that there are some people who appear on TV and are 'famous' in that sesne, they are not talented nor have the ability to touch and inspire others.
What I mean in my post is that, being famous isn't a bad thing. The idea of being known (and consequently heard), even to a small number of readers, is why we write in the first place. We already know what we're writing about, we don't need to have it on a peice of paper. We write because we aim at making others hear and understand what we have to say. At least this is the objective of writing at all for me.

So, is fame having your name known all over the world, or is it that people know your face all over the world, whether or not they know what you do for a living.

[papayahed]

Sure, but exactly what part of sitting in a nice house have to do with people enjoying your art? Are you toiling for your art or are your toiling to be recognised and rewarded?

The chances of me getting paid for my art greatly increases with the number of people who see it and the better the house I can afford. The more people who see my art the more famous I become. I don't see a problem. We put art out there to be seen.

Are you saying I should want to live in anonimity and poorness to be a true artist?

[kiobe]

As a side note, writing, like any artistic endevour is subjective. Ok, what sells and, why? If you look at the best sellers list any week of the year you will find a cornucopia of styles and genres. whether or not you will like the same book that a literary professor likes may have more to do with history than it does simple enjoyment. My family has been deeply involved in the art world for more than seventy years. There are plenty of artists that are famous but never seen anymore in today's world, like Dufy. But to understand why Dufy is an important artist you must understand art history and the events that led to the fauvist movement. One the other hand, today's artists like Susan Rios that sell like crazy are pure crap from a technical perspective. I like to refer to her work as toilet paper mostly because it won't be around longer than one very dense generation. Unfortunitly it paves the way for more mass produced crap that appeals to the uneducated masses, and is exaserbated by the US school districts droping art and art appreciation from thier available classes. There is a reason that the painting below is a beautiful work of art, and it's not just because it's pleasing to the eye.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/kiobe/raphael_schoolathens.jpg

[The Atheist]

What an excellent thread!

Thanks, Countess, for bringing it up. I speak as one who seeks to have his voice heard and words seen in as many places as possible. I blog, I write, I fiction, I report and while I have zero books published to date, I have managed a wide readership through national newspaper columns, the internet and radio & tv.

That in no way makes me "famous". (I'm working on it, though!)


I have been to a great many writing sites online, and I can in all earnestness say online-literature has the best-of-breed in the writing department. The various authors on this site are brimming with talent (excluding myself; I just pretend to have talent and have fooled a considerable number of people), so I fail to comprehend WHY publishers, power-players, etc are not drawing from the rich resources on this site.

How do you know they aren't?

It's a free forum and there are always hundreds of guests and browsers here. Who's to say one of them doesn't mention some genius who's been seen in here to a friend. That friend happens to be married to a publisher who just decides to check it out one morning and voila, a star is born!

Think about those uber-popular blog sites, YouTube videos and e mails. Why do some propogate and thrive, while the enormous majority drops out of sight? I admit, this doesn't make them good, and again, some of the most appalling garbage sits alongside gems, the like of which take your breath away. I recently went to YouTubes all time favourites and found exactly that juxtaposition in the top 10 - something I couldn't figure how anyone had thought it was clever, one spot up from the most enetertaining 3 minutes I've yet seen.


I just don't understand it. I try to wrap my head around this grevious insult and, well, great sin (yes, I am going to go so far as to call publishing writers of cute, kitchy plot-driven stories at the expense of those whose work touches the human heart and thus helps transform the world a GREAT AND GREVIOUS SIN against humanity ) and don't understand it. I won't name names on this site because I risk leaving people out (because I don't have time to list every single person who has exemplified talent - there are too many!) but lets just say several regulars come to mind at the thought - I can list five off the bat.

Anywho - can someone explain this paradox to me?

What? That people like money?

It's no secret that there is a large sector of book buyers who will buy "romance" novels where the plot could have been written by a Ministry of Truth computer. Dear old Barbara Cartland wrote about 5000 of them on her own. "Western" novels where the only necessary ingredients are passion and death; etc., ad nauseum. In fact I can end this one effectively in two words! Clive Cussler! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Different people have different tastes. That's why we live in a world which supports both MacDonald's and these places (http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2090.cfm).

I often pass the comment that literature is a little like art - ya likes what ya likes. Who is the arbiter of what is good and bad? Some of most heinously-boring and utter garbage I've read has come out of book awards finalists, while some of the most brilliant has come from them as well. Meat/poison.

Can't blame publishers for selling what sells. That said, with 6 billion+ people around, if a book is good enough, it will sell enough.


To me, fame is the worst possible outcome of any gift. If world popularity is what a person seeks, then the person should look inward to find exactly what is important. There is a paradox here. the best writer toiling in anonimity, seeking fame and fortune must sell out to please the masses, but to what end. Fame is a mirage.

Gordon Comstock.

In case you don't get that reference, and you may not as Keep the Aspidistra Flying is not one of Orwell's most-popular books. Please have a look at it. The main character, Gordon Comstock feels exactly as you describe - that anything worthwhile cannot be popular. That is the paradox; if it's worthwhile, it will be popular. Do you think Chaucer, Swift, Bacon & Shakespeare were the only popular writers of their time? Why have they survived and others not?

Class is permanent.

Orwell has another way of looking at it, too: insanity is being a minority of one. If the worth is calculated solely on the basis of the writer's subjective opinion, it's not actually that likely to be very good.

Just think. Had any published author felt the way you posit, no books of value would ever have been published. Self-defeating, no paradox.

I agree that fame has no intrinsic value, but neither does it have an intrinsic negative value.


There's absolutly nothing wrong with writing to please the masses or in a pursuit of wealth. Fame is the thing with which I have a problem. Adulation stems from a desire to be noticed, not a desire to write and it gets polluted by it.

Exactly that. The worst kind seems to stem from a number of people who are famous for...., well....., being famous!

A particular young woman with the surname of a famous hotel chain is an excellent example.

[kiobe]

The chances of me getting paid for my art greatly increases with the number of people who see it and the better the house I can afford. The more people who see my art the more famous I become. I don't see a problem. We put art out there to be seen.




Are you saying I should want to live in anonimity and poorness to be a true artist?

No, but an artist must be prolific. You must paint and paint and paint. You can't have a show with 7 paintings every three years. Although an artists beginings are usually in complete anonimity, but to break out you must understand the industry and paint from your heart and put yourself out there.

You have two completely separate ideas here. You can make a very very good living selling your art without becoming famous. Ever heard of Duane Alt? No? He is a very acomplished artist, very wealthy, very anonymous. You will not become 'famous' by people seeing your art, that's not how it works. If it's fame you seek, get on a reality show. If you want to be known as an artist, paint! Paint every day! Put no less than 12 shows together each year, and paint from your heart, not your wallet


The chances of me getting paid for my art greatly increases with the number of people who see it and the better the house I can afford. The more people who see my art the more famous I become. I don't see a problem. We put art out there to be seen.

Are you saying I should want to live in anonimity and poorness to be a true artist?


What an excellent thread!

Thanks, Countess, for bringing it up. I speak as one who seeks to have his voice heard and words seen in as many places as possible. I blog, I write, I fiction, I report and while I have zero books published to date, I have managed a wide readership through national newspaper columns, the internet and radio & tv.

That in no way makes me "famous". (I'm working on it, though!)



How do you know they aren't?

It's a free forum and there are always hundreds of guests and browsers here. Who's to say one of them doesn't mention some genius who's been seen in here to a friend. That friend happens to be married to a publisher who just decides to check it out one morning and voila, a star is born!

Think about those uber-popular blog sites, YouTube videos and e mails. Why do some propogate and thrive, while the enormous majority drops out of sight? I admit, this doesn't make them good, and again, some of the most appalling garbage sits alongside gems, the like of which take your breath away. I recently went to YouTubes all time favourites and found exactly that juxtaposition in the top 10 - something I couldn't figure how anyone had thought it was clever, one spot up from the most enetertaining 3 minutes I've yet seen.



What? That people like money?

It's no secret that there is a large sector of book buyers who will buy "romance" novels where the plot could have been written by a Ministry of Truth computer. Dear old Barbara Cartland wrote about 5000 of them on her own. "Western" novels where the only necessary ingredients are passion and death; etc., ad nauseum. In fact I can end this one effectively in two words! Clive Cussler! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Different people have different tastes. That's why we live in a world which supports both MacDonald's and these places (http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2090.cfm).

I often pass the comment that literature is a little like art - ya likes what ya likes. Who is the arbiter of what is good and bad? Some of most heinously-boring and utter garbage I've read has come out of book awards finalists, while some of the most brilliant has come from them as well. Meat/poison.

Can't blame publishers for selling what sells. That said, with 6 billion+ people around, if a book is good enough, it will sell enough.



Gordon Comstock.

In case you don't get that reference, and you may not as Keep the Aspidistra Flying is not one of Orwell's most-popular books. Please have a look at it. The main character, Gordon Comstock feels exactly as you describe - that anything worthwhile cannot be popular. That is the paradox; if it's worthwhile, it will be popular. Do you think Chaucer, Swift, Bacon & Shakespeare were the only popular writers of their time? Why have they survived and others not?

Class is permanent.

Orwell has another way of looking at it, too: insanity is being a minority of one. If the worth is calculated solely on the basis of the writer's subjective opinion, it's not actually that likely to be very good.

Just think. Had any published author felt the way you posit, no books of value would ever have been published. Self-defeating, no paradox.

I agree that fame has no intrinsic value, but neither does it have an intrinsic negative value.



Exactly that. The worst kind seems to stem from a number of people who are famous for...., well....., being famous!

A particular young woman with the surname of a famous hotel chain is an excellent example.

Thanks, I'll read that this summer.

[The Atheist]

As a side note, writing, like any artistic endevour is subjective.

Grrr, ya beat me to it!

[kiobe]

sorry mate.;)

[Nossa]

So, is fame having your name known all over the world, or is it that people know your face all over the world, whether or not they know what you do for a living.

Being famous is having this charisma and ability of reaching to people, touching thier lives, ways of thinking and enriching thier knowledge. You don't have to be known all over the world for that...people don't have to recognize you in the street for that. If you're famous and people don't know what the heck you're doing for living, then you're not famous, in my opinion.
Being famous should be for something that you do that affects people, once this happens, then fame is a consequesnce. In this context, I believe fame isn't a bad thing, since it can be used as a useful tool, to get your message across. It's a nice thing if you're writing something and sharing it with your family, friends and people in your street. You may touch some people with it even. But it's a whole different thing when you have a wider readers base, then your message could reach more and more people. Therefore, being famous can come in handy when you wanna be heard, on a wider scale.
Hope you got what I mean.

[kiobe]

Being famous is having this charisma and ability of reaching to people, touching thier lives, ways of thinking and enriching thier knowledge. You don't have to be known all over the world for that...people don't have to recognize you in the street for that. If you're famous and people don't know what the heck you're doing for living, then you're not famous, in my opinion.
Being famous should be for something that you do that affects people, once this happens, then fame is a consequesnce. In this context, I believe fame isn't a bad thing, since it can be used as a useful tool, to get your message across. It's a nice thing if you're writing something and sharing it with your family, friends and people in your street. You may touch some people with it even. But it's a whole different thing when you have a wider readers base, then your message could reach more and more people. Therefore, being famous can come in handy when you wanna be heard, on a wider scale.
Hope you got what I mean.

I think the problem is that your definition of fame is different than that which is found in the dictionary, which is what I am trying to adhere to. The state of being well known.

[Nossa]

I think the problem is that your definition of fame is different than that which is found in the dictionary, which is what I am trying to adhere to. The state of being well known.

Maybe you're right. But what I'm trying to say here is that Fame, per se, isn't a bad thing. Yes sometimes it's overrated, but when it comes to writing, being famous is merely an acknowledgment that you inspired and touched all those who know you. It depends on how you get your message to the people. And I know that there are many authors who are not famous, but inspire people all the time, and it is true. But this doesn't mean that just cuz you're famous you're a hypocrite or that you don't have the talent or that you did nothing good other than showing on TV. Being "well-known" helped many people in getting thier ideas, good and bad, to the masses. The impact you'd have when you're well-known is far more bigger than when you're not famous. That's all what I'm trying to say here.

[kiobe]

Maybe you're right. But what I'm trying to say here is that Fame, per se, isn't a bad thing. Yes sometimes it's overrated, but when it comes to writing, being famous is merely an acknowledgment that you inspired and touched all those who know you. It depends on how you get your message to the people. And I know that there are many authors who are not famous, but inspire people all the time, and it is true. But this doesn't mean that just cuz you're famous you're a hypocrite or that you don't have the talent or that you did nothing good other than showing on TV. Being "well-known" helped many people in getting thier ideas, good and bad, to the masses. The impact you'd have when you're well-known is far more bigger than when you're not famous. That's all what I'm trying to say here.

I understand what you are saying and for the most part I agree. But I have to separate the fame from the helping people part. Yes, a more popular author will reach more people because the publishers will push that author and those books. The publishers do this for one reason. Monitary return. They have a business to run and must show a profit or risk going out of business. Lets take a test. Write down, in your reply to me, 10 authors. Five of them must be hugely popular, known the world around and be contemporary and famous. The five others must be authors that you respect for thier purity of writing and through thier books have given a great gift to the world even if it's just a local writer, known only by a few.

[Nossa]

I understand what you are saying and for the most part I agree. But I have to separate the fame from the helping people part. Yes, a more popular author will reach more people because the publishers will push that author and those books. The publishers do this for one reason. Monitary return. They have a business to run and must show a profit or risk going out of business. Lets take a test. Write down, in your reply to me, 10 authors. Five of them must be hugely popular, known the world around and be contemporary and famous. The five others must be authors that you respect for thier purity of writing and through thier books have given a great gift to the world even if it's just a local writer, known only by a few.

I DO agree with what you say. The thing is, I don't believe that we should generalize the idea of how Fame can ruin one's purity and integrity. I mean it surely can..but not in all the cases. I know that for the publishers it's a matter of business, and they wanna push the author who's gonna get them the most money. That's, per se, isn't a good thing. Since some authors are good for nothing if you ask me. But the good ones, can take advatage of the large distribution of thier books.
Now, about the list, I'm more of a classical person, meaning that I love classical writings, or at least that's what I've been reading for the most part, so I guess that most of the people I read to, are ones that we'll probably agree on thier integrity, since they're not present in this age, which has the problem we're discussing.. But I can tell you that, for instance, in my local newspaper that I read everyday, I love reading certain articles for writers who aren't as famous as other writers, and I read novels and literary works for some authors who are not as famous as for instance Naguib Mahfouz, but sometimes even more appealing. If you want some names I can tell you Yusuf Al Siba'i, Ehsan Abdel Kodous, Yusuf Idrees...and others.
Being famous doesn't guarantee being talented, or being good, I understand and 100% agree on it. BUT being famous with having a talent, can def. guarantee the success needed and even deserved.
So..bottom line is, I'm pro being famous, as long as you have a certain message you're convinced with and you're trying to get across. And I'm pro being famous as long as you mantain your purity and vision. I'm pro being famous as long as you can inspire and touch people in a positive way, regardless the financial outcome. And I'm pro giving those unknown authors, who continue to inspire people all the time, to give them the chance of being famous, so that this talent they have will reach even more and more people.

[Scheherazade]

I do not understand the notion/assumption that famous writers would lack 'purity of writing', 'integrity' etc. While I agree that being famous does not necessarily mean being talented as a writer, I also do not think that it automatically rules it out.

[kiobe]

I DO agree with what you say. The thing is, I don't believe that we should generalize the idea of how Fame can ruin one's purity and integrity. I mean it surely can..but not in all the cases. I know that for the publishers it's a matter of business, and they wanna push the author who's gonna get them the most money. That's, per se, isn't a good thing. Since some authors are good for nothing if you ask me. But the good ones, can take advatage of the large distribution of thier books.
Now, about the list, I'm more of a classical person, meaning that I love classical writings, or at least that's what I've been reading for the most part, so I guess that most of the people I read to, are ones that we'll probably agree on thier integrity, since they're not present in this age, which has the problem we're discussing.. But I can tell you that, for instance, in my local newspaper that I read everyday, I love reading certain articles for writers who aren't as famous as other writers, and I read novels and literary works for some authors who are not as famous as for instance Naguib Mahfouz, but sometimes even more appealing. If you want some names I can tell you Yusuf Al Siba'i, Ehsan Abdel Kodous, Yusuf Idrees...and others.
Being famous doesn't guarantee being talented, or being good, I understand and 100% agree on it. BUT being famous with having a talent, can def. guarantee the success needed and even deserved.
So..bottom line is, I'm pro being famous, as long as you have a certain message you're convinced with and you're trying to get across. And I'm pro being famous as long as you mantain your purity and vision. I'm pro being famous as long as you can inspire and touch people in a positive way, regardless the financial outcome. And I'm pro giving those unknown authors, who continue to inspire people all the time, to give them the chance of being famous, so that this talent they have will reach even more and more people.
The point I am trying to make will be pointless unless you complete the two catagories of authors.

I do not understand the notion/assumption that famous writers would lack 'purity of writing', 'integrity' etc. While I agree that being famous does not necessarily mean being talented as a writer, I also do not think that it automatically rules it out.

You too are missing my point. A desire to be 'famous' has absolutly nothing to do with the desire to be a good writer. They are separate. If fame is a byproduct of excelence then so be it. If the published item is a byproduct of that persons fame then the writing is a mirage. People that sit down at thier typewriters in the hope of being a famous writer are writing only for self adulation and as I said before, if it's 'fame' you seek get on a reality show. If you want to be a writer, write from your heart, not your ego.

[Nossa]

The point I am trying to make will be pointless unless you complete the two catagories of authors.


Okay then..let me think.
1. John Grisham
2. Naguib Mahfouz
3. Paulo Coehllo
4. Gibran Khalil Gibran
5. Dan Brown

Now the other five: mainly are gonna be Egyptians.

6. Farouk Guida ( A great Egyptian poet and thinker, sadly not known as some others who are far less talented than he is)
7. Nazek Al Mala'ka ( A great Iraqi poet, also only known by those who maybe study poetry, or REALLY search for the good poets)
8. Farouk Shousha ( a poet, one of the best linguists in Arabic)
9. Mahmoud Hassan Ismail (an Egyptian poet)
10. Salam A. Salama ( a great thinker, whom I regulary read his articles in my local newspaper)

You asked me about ten. I'm pretty mush positive that you've never heard of the last 5...and many people IN egypt never heard of them either. I know I couldn't give you any international names in those five, cuz my knowledge in english literature is still based on what I study, and the recommedations of others.

[kiobe]

Okay then..let me think.
1. John Grisham
2. Naguib Mahfouz
3. Paulo Coehllo
4. Gibran Khalil Gibran
5. Dan Brown

Now the other five: mainly are gonna be Egyptians.

6. Farouk Guida ( A great Egyptian poet and thinker, sadly not known as some others who are far less talented than he is)
7. Nazek Al Mala'ka ( A great Iraqi poet, also only known by those who maybe study poetry, or REALLY search for the good poets)
8. Farouk Shousha ( a poet, one of the best linguists in Arabic)
9. Mahmoud Hassan Ismail (an Egyptian poet)
10. Salam A. Salama ( a great thinker, whom I regulary read his articles in my local newspaper)

You asked me about ten. I'm pretty mush positive that you've never heard of the last 5...and many people IN egypt never heard of them either. I know I couldn't give you any international names in those five, cuz my knowledge in english literature is still based on what I study, and the recommedations of others.

Ok, great list. Now, how many writers in the lower list deserve to be in the upper list? Ya know, how many deserve to be world renound, and which authors in the upper list would you toss out to make room for the additions? Let's see your new list.

[Nossa]

lol...you're making things hard here..but lets see..
My new list would be the following

1. Nazek Al Mala'ka
2. Farouk Shousha
3. Gibran Khalil Gibran
4. Paulo Coehllo
5. Farouk Guida

You can make the reat of the list. But I believe that these five should be known world wide, cuz they deserve to inspire more and more people.

[kiobe]

lol...you're making things hard here..but lets see..
My new list would be the following

1. Nazek Al Mala'ka
2. Farouk Shousha
3. Gibran Khalil Gibran
4. Paulo Coehllo
5. Farouk Guida

You can make the reat of the list. But I believe that these five should be known world wide, cuz they deserve to inspire more and more people.

Ok, beautiful. Your are a very honest person.

When Khalil Gibran wrote 'The Prophet' do you think FAME was on his mind or was he writing a book to live your life by? I'm sure the popularity of his book pleased him or was it the fame that please him?

Farouk Shousha learned the holy Quraan as a young person. Where in the Quraan does it tell of ataining fame and do you think that fame pushed him to be a great poet or the deep love of stories through poetry?

In 1982 Coelho published his first book, Hell Archives, which failed to make any kind of impact. In 1985 he contributed to the Practical Manual of Vampirism, although he later tried to take it off the shelves, since he considered it “of bad quality”. This makes me believe that Paulo would rather his books be of a higher quality wether or not they are popular and lead to fame.

Great writers are just that, great writers. The desire for fame is a personality disorder that will make people do things that they would not normally do to acheve that end. But after everyone has finished asking you for your autograph, exactly what body of work have you left behind. Empty junk like Grisham or beautiful works of art and skill by authors like the last list you made?

[papayahed]

I'm wasn't argueing the fame for fame's sake part and I'm not argueing that some people are famous that shouldn't be and visa versa.

This is your original statement:


To me, fame is the worst possible outcome of any gift. If world popularity is what a person seeks, then the person should look inward to find exactly what is important. There is a paradox here. the best writer toiling in anonimity, seeking fame and fortune must sell out to please the masses, but to what end. Fame is a mirage.

As I've said before as an artist I want everybody to see my art. The urge to create comes from inside, I don't see the point of creating a work to have it sit under a tarp for nobody to see.

[kiobe]

I'm wasn't argueing the fame for fame's sake part and I'm not argueing that some people are famous that shouldn't be and visa versa.

This is your original statement:



As I've said before as an artist I want everybody to see my art. The urge to create comes from inside, I don't see the point of creating a work to have it sit under a tarp for nobody to see.

The urge comes from within. The urge for what? To create, right? Do you create for you, or do you create so others can see you are creative?

[papayahed]

The urge comes from within. The urge for what? To create, right? Do you create for you, or do you create so others can see you are creative?

I create for me. At the same time if I had my choice I'd rather be famous for my art then not. I really don't see how wanting to become famous diminishes my motives for creating.

Just like anything else. I go to work everyday, for the most part I like what I do, it's exciting when I solve problems. Should I go in tomorrow and say "Ya know I love what I do and I would do it without a paycheck please stop paying me and all those awards I've recieved and Atta- Girls, take those out of my file too"

All other fields can strive for success and not be labeled sell outs when they achieve it why shouldn't artists. I do what I do and if I can look at myself in the mirror and be proud of what I created I don't care who calls me a sell out because I know what I've done.

[Nossa]

Ok, beautiful. Your are a very honest person.

When Khalil Gibran wrote 'The Prophet' do you think FAME was on his mind or was he writing a book to live your life by? I'm sure the popularity of his book pleased him or was it the fame that please him?

Farouk Shousha learned the holy Quraan as a young person. Where in the Quraan does it tell of ataining fame and do you think that fame pushed him to be a great poet or the deep love of stories through poetry?

In 1982 Coelho published his first book, Hell Archives, which failed to make any kind of impact. In 1985 he contributed to the Practical Manual of Vampirism, although he later tried to take it off the shelves, since he considered it “of bad quality”. This makes me believe that Paulo would rather his books be of a higher quality wether or not they are popular and lead to fame.

Great writers are just that, great writers. The desire for fame is a personality disorder that will make people do things that they would not normally do to acheve that end. But after everyone has finished asking you for your autograph, exactly what body of work have you left behind. Empty junk like Grisham or beautiful works of art and skill by authors like the last list you made?

Okay..I totally agree on what you just said. But my point doesn't oppose what you're trying to convey here. I 'hate' people who write just for the sake of getting famous, or who write crap, and when it gets famous, they're happy cuz they're famous, and they care if thier writings did a good or a bad influence, I totally agree that great writers write for the sake of writing, write for the sake of this sublime and elevated job of inspiring and leaving a mark in this idiotic world. What I'm saying doesn't oppose this, but I'm talking about how Fame, if it comes, can be of great helpto the author. Imagine if Shousha was known all over the world..or at least well known in his own country Egypt..imagine the huge impact he would have had on the youth, the youth who knows NOTHING about thier mother language, but brag all over the place about knowing English, French and other languages. I'm not pro writing for the sake of being famous, but when a writer IS famous and well known, this doesn't mean that this writer isn't a good writer, and isn't a great writer. Coehllo is a well known author, yes he didn't have this in mind when he wrote his works, but it came consequently cuz people saw how great and talented writer he was, and therefore his greatness and talent could reach many people. I really hope you understand that I'm NOT opposing you...but I have a different idea here that you don't seem to see.
And I'm really glad that you're familiar with Farouk Shousha..you gave me hope..lol

[kiobe]

Okay..I totally agree on what you just said. But my point doesn't oppose what you're trying to convey here. I 'hate' people who write just for the sake of getting famous, or who write crap, and when it gets famous, they're happy cuz they're famous, and they care if thier writings did a good or a bad influence, I totally agree that great writers write for the sake of writing, write for the sake of this sublime and elevated job of inspiring and leaving a mark in this idiotic world. What I'm saying doesn't oppose this, but I'm talking about how Fame, if it comes, can be of great helpto the author. Imagine if Shousha was known all over the world..or at least well known in his own country Egypt..imagine the huge impact he would have had on the youth, the youth who knows NOTHING about thier mother language, but brag all over the place about knowing English, French and other languages. I'm not pro writing for the sake of being famous, but when a writer IS famous and well known, this doesn't mean that this writer isn't a good writer, and isn't a great writer. Coehllo is a well known author, yes he didn't have this in mind when he wrote his works, but it came consequently cuz people saw how great and talented writer he was, and therefore his greatness and talent could reach many people. I really hope you understand that I'm NOT opposing you...but I have a different idea here that you don't seem to see.
And I'm really glad that you're familiar with Farouk Shousha..you gave me hope..lol

Yes!!! We are totally simpatico. I have a buddy in Egypt and you have one in Oregon.


I create for me. At the same time if I had my choice I'd rather be famous for my art then not. I really don't see how wanting to become famous diminishes my motives for creating.

Just like anything else. I go to work everyday, for the most part I like what I do, it's exciting when I solve problems. Should I go in tomorrow and say "Ya know I love what I do and I would do it without a paycheck please stop paying me and all those awards I've recieved and Atta- Girls, take those out of my file too"

All other fields can strive for success and not be labeled sell outs when they achieve it why shouldn't artists. I do what I do and if I can look at myself in the mirror and be proud of what I created I don't care who calls me a sell out because I know what I've done.

well no one is calling you a sell out. Did you study art history?

[papayahed]

well no one is calling you a sell out.


To me, fame is the worst possible outcome of any gift. If world popularity is what a person seeks, then the person should look inward to find exactly what is important. There is a paradox here. the best writer toiling in anonimity, seeking fame and fortune must sell out to please the masses, but to what end. Fame is a mirage.


Did you study art history?

I don't understand why that would matter?

[kiobe]

I don't understand why that would matter?


Fauvism was a brief but important art movement that followed the Post-Impressionist era. Fauvism was partly undertaken to explore new elements of art that had not been embraced by the Impressionists or Post-Impressionists. The most significant members of the movement included Henri Matisse, Maurice Vlamnick, and Andre Derain. The Fauvists implemented new ideas into their canvases. Each part of their paintings had loud colors, new primitive elements, and wild ideas. Although the movement only lasted four years, their exploration of new artistic value would change the direction of modern art forever.

They did this, not for fame, not to be noticed, but because they were sick and tired of of it all. Like when you want to just stand up and scream, "I can't take this anymore", at Thanksgiving dinner. The fauvists were wild and crazy painters revolting against the previous impressionists and post impressionists painters. it wasn't done for fame and God knows it wasn't done to make money, it came out like lava from a volcano. Organic. To paraphrase a line from a book by Roald Dahl," you are not going to give that up for something as common as money, they print more of it everyday".

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w312/kiobe/matisse13.jpg
Matisse. 'The conversation'

Ya know after reading the thread title again maybe it should read, "Is anyone here published yet"?

[Isagel]

This is a puzzle to me as, among others, I've noticed

T.S. Eliot
Cormac McCarthy
Stephen King
Walter de la Mare
Thomas Pynchon

to name a few, all employing pseudonyms, of course. Joyce Carol Oates was going to post just as soon as she had finished her novel of the week.

I liked you joke.

I actually got published once. I wrote an article about the effects of paclitaxel-carboplatins effect on episodic memory. No, you will not find that in a library near you. My professor claimed that it wasn´t the dullest thing he had ever read, but definitely a contender.

[Countess]

So many profound comments here...I may post more later after I ruminate upon it.

Ultimately, I don't want to be famous; I don't want my name ringing throughout the land - I want my work to be famous. I
want Jules Vercini ringing throughout the land. I want English majors writing essay papers in college on the juxtaposition of Christianity with sexuality, on what defines sexuality (was Jules gay, straight, bi? Depending on definition, it could be argued successfully all 3 ways), on the influence and the control the media has in the lives of both the subject and the audience, on whether Jules was a reformed narcissist or not (again, it could be argued 2 ways), on the philosophy of Jules - what was the theological construct? I want people to read "Tribute to two brews on a Bad Day in Hell" and "The Elf/A Requiem" and realize that juxtapositioned next to each other they represent the maniacal highs and maniacal lows of Bipolar Disorder. I want them to be touched by the notion that love can truly overcome all when two polar opposite people get stuck in an Elevator and death looks certain...

That is what I want, and I need to know that when I have disappeared off this earth, that Jules won't disappear into the netherregions of cyberspace - that somehow, he will live forever. And so will the poems and plays I wrote. That's why I say I'd give it away for free, and would happy enough if they'd simply list me as a "contributor" rather than the actual author. It's not about money; it's not about fame.


In the artist of all kinds I think one can detect an inherent dilemma, which belongs to the co-existence of two trends, the urgent need to communicate and the still more urgent need not to be found....the motives given for artistic work—to communicate and to conceal the self—are but two possible motives which any person may have for creating. These two motives are, however, particularly appropriate to the Four, the artistic temperament among the personality types. Fours are in search of their identities, and art is the foremost means they have of finding themselves, as well as their way of reporting to the world what they have discovered.


That's why.



if the so-called "masses" don't want to be enlightened or have their heart touched etc, leave them to their own devices. you're not their mummey

ROTFLMAO! Thanks for the laugh. <snort>

[kiobe]

Good thread idea Countess.

[papayahed]

They did this, not for fame, not to be noticed, but because they were sick and tired of of it all. Like when you want to just stand up and scream, "I can't take this anymore", at Thanksgiving dinner. The fauvists were wild and crazy painters revolting against the previous impressionists and post impressionists painters. it wasn't done for fame and God knows it wasn't done to make money, it came out like lava from a volcano. Organic. To paraphrase a line from a book by Roald Dahl," you are not going to give that up for something as common as money, they print more of it everyday".



How can you say they didn't do it for fame or to be noticed when they had three showings in three years?

[Countess]

They did this, not for fame, not to be noticed, but because they were sick and tired of of it all. Like when you want to just stand up and scream, "I can't take this anymore", at Thanksgiving dinner.

I think I would have enjoyed hanging out with these guys. :lol: