Hi,

I'm in the fantasy group. I'd like to agree with Terry's comments re Josh Weldon - love the dialogue.

Some genres are more equal than others? No, I don't think so.

I wrote my first novel because it was the book I was burning to write and it turns out that fantasy is - possibly - the best fit genre for what I was trying to do. If pushed I'd describe it as a Romance tale.

Now I'd describe myself as a speculative fiction writer but it came as something of a surprise and, having written a novel of 115,000 words, I am somewhat infuriated by my failure to get anything longer than 1000 words into print. Actually, that's not true, 2500, 'it's a bit long' but you get the idea?

It is easy to get oversensitive about genre - I've had comments like 'is it chick lit' which were not intended as a compliment but equally, the fantasy writers' bugbear, 'Of course I don't usually read that kind of thing' and my ex writing tutor - 'well, we don't do much fantasy here.'

Anyway I'd love to get comments from outside the fantasy group on my work - surely there are some great writers on this site doing excellent work in a variety of genres and we all benefit from that?

Sarah

Keris,

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.

To take up your point about popularity: I don't accept, what you appear to be saying, that the more popular a book, song, film, whatever, is, the better it is. If so, then Emmerdale, EastEnders, etc, must be the best written, acted and directed television in the UK. As for Robbie Williams—without getting too silly about it, I don't really see how anyone who's serious about song-writing could say his lyrics are better than, say, Leonard Cohen's, just because he sells more records. Ditto that J K Rowling must be a better writer than Shakespeare or, closer to our age, Philip Pullman.

But the main point here is not comparing writer with writer, sales with sales, it's the question of what kind of writer does each of us want to be? There's nothing wrong with being a commercial writer, as long as that's what you consciously choose to be. But the path to being one is different in many respects to that of the writer who primarily wants to be say something. Commercial writers, for example, see publishing primarily as a business, and they produce the products that such a business requires. They don't, as a rule, write anything that isn't commissioned first. And they do as little re-writing as possible. I know two successful commercial writers who pretty much only write one draft, with some revisions (but the initial shape and content remains the same). Whereas someone who's trying to say something new or different, in an exemplary way, will probably need to produce many drafts before getting it right.

Similarly, Robbie Williams' song-writing is inextricably tied in with his commercial contracts: a certain product is expected, and a certain product is produced. There is no comparison here with, say, Kathryn Tickell. She grew up in a family of musicians, playing the Northumbrian pipes (hardly rock n' roll!), and teaches folk music to young people in Newcastle simply because she loves the music and wants to see it thrive. Her own music is a combination of songs she's learned and her own compositions. I saw her recently in concert (the audience could have fitted in Robbie William's snuff box), and one of the songs she played was a long piece, based on a tape recording she'd made of her mother speaking about her childhood in the wild countryside of Northumberland. I found it moving, uplifting and magical. But I don't expect many people will be playing it at their wedding. Yes, it's only personal taste but I find Robbie Williams' actual songs to be embarrassingly shallow, while Kathryn Tickell's music is based in the kinds of emotional themes and connections that never change.

Terry

P.S. I might have to back out of this thread soon, despite this being an enjoyable discussion. Apologies if I do; I just have a lot of work on at the moment.

To address Sarah's point, I think we all like to get comments from everywhere, but there are certain genre-specific techniques which have to be considered to avoid comments boiling down to, "why don't you try not writing it in this genre".

Hi Terry,

Thanks for clarifying what you meant about who can or can't join the YA group. I'm sure new members will continue to benefit from your critiques (which I'll continue to read, by the way, because I find they often contain messages that I can apply to my own work).

I don't think Keris meant that the more 'popular' something is the better it is, but that you can't, or shouldn't, simply say 'it isn't good' when it IS so popular.


Myrtle

Thanks, Myrtle - that's precisely what I meant, as Terry well knows.

Gosh. How I wish I wasn't so stupid and could both enjoy proper literature and real music. Ah well ..

Keris x

<Added>

P.S. Terry, have you ever listened to a whole Robbie Williams song or do you limit yourself to the first ten seconds? ;)

Keris,

I have to say you do have a tendency to twist what I've said into something you find easier to have a go at, e.g.

You're welcome to your feelings, but they're wrong. Why else would chick lit be so popular? (As the great Robbie Williams sings, 'You can't argue with popularity. Well, you could, but you'd be wrong") Or is it because us little ladies are too stupid to understand we should be reading (and writing) the "good stuff"? I read plenty of "good stuff" during my English Literature degree and yet here I am.

I don't recall using such derogatory descriptions such as 'little ladies' or implying that chick lit writers are stupid. I also didn't equate 'good stuff' with what gets studied on Eng Lit degree courses. I would also never tell anyone that they're feelings are wrong. How can they be? A feeling is a feeling.

Similarly,

Terry, have you ever listened to a whole Robbie Williams song or do you limit yourself to the first ten seconds?

is very presumptuous. In fact, we have several Robbie Williams albums in our house. And I have listened to them all (not always through choice, it has to be said). He's got a pleasant voice and obvious charisma, but the sentiment behind the songs leaves me cold, i.e. they mostly seem to be just about him, or more precisely his cheeky chappie but at the same time sensitive and artistically tortured image.

Similarly,

Thanks, Myrtle - that's precisely what I meant, as Terry well knows.

Well, I may be a bit stupid, but that's not what I meant at all. I genuinely believed you were saying that the reason I was wrong to say chick lit was short on 'good stuff' was because it's so popular, i.e. that good stuff equates to popularity. If that's not what you're saying, I apologise.

And at the risk of sounding like Melvyn Bragg with indigestion, I'm also not going to let you get away with this sarcastic comment:

Gosh. How I wish I wasn't so stupid and could both enjoy proper literature and real music. Ah well ..

I did not say you were stupid or that what I like is 'proper' literature or music; or that what you like isn't. This is not an open way to argue a point, Keris—because it puts me in the position of having to defend myself and look like some anal retentive dinosaur (which could be a good plot for a mass market fantasy blockbuster, now I think about it . . .).

Terry


<Added>

One quote box in wrong place; apologies: 'Thanks, Myrtle . . . ' should be in quotes, and the para after it not.

Wise words, Bege, and I agree with everything you've said. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone on this site, but the main reason I stopped contributing to the forums in a major way was because it's so time-consuming and doesn't often really get anywhere. It's entirely my fault that I got involved with this thread, and I agree that it's now time to call it a day, at least from my end. However, if anyone wants to follow up any particular points, please do write to me by WWmail. One last thing: I hadn't realised no site expert ever critiques the chick lit group's work. I'd be willing to do so on request (cycle helmet back on!).

Terry

comments can often be misconstrued as more sarcastic/mean/venomous

Exactly, Bege. I was being intentionally facetious, Terry, but I thought it would be obvious I was trying to be funny. Apparently I didn't succeed. Saying your feelings are wrong was obviously (to me) a joke!

I don't recall using such derogatory descriptions such as 'little ladies' or implying that chick lit writers are stupid.

No, you didn't use that description, but I do think that's exactly what you have implied. Maybe that's just me.

On the Robbie front, that was a joke too - you know, because you said you've read the first 10 pages of a lot of chick lit books?

I genuinely believed you were saying that the reason I was wrong to say chick lit was short on 'good stuff' was because it's so popular, i.e. that good stuff equates to popularity. If that's not what you're saying, I apologise.

That's not what I was saying and I apologise too.

Now this whole discussion is reminding me of You've Got Mail. Terry do you think one day we'll meet and fall in love?

Keris x

Bege is right - and anything that reminds anyone of You've Got Mail should be stopped immediately.

Myrtle

Of course it's a shame no site experts comment on our work, but as has been pointed out, there's no rule about what experts should and shouldn't comment on - they're people like the rest of us with their own interests, and if they don't happen to include chick lit then I don't see why they should have to read it.

Except that ... when chick lit members have uploaded work in other groups - e.g. Novel writing - site experts have commented and yet never in the chick lit group which suggests a chick lit prejudice. Which, of course, is fine (I suppose ..) but part of the selling point for this site is surely expert comment and when an entire group is left out of that it seems a little unfair.

Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean ... yada yada

K x

Terry, it's very kind of you, but you don't really want to critique chick lit, do you? I mean, be honest now!

I don't think the Site Experts wander into Children's either. Think of the children! Maybe what we need are some new experts...are Marian Keyes and Julia Donaldson up to much at the moment??

Keris,

Just for you, I'll admit a sneaking liking for romcoms. In our house, we have to alternate between action/comedy movies and romcoms. I always sit through the romcoms with a manly sneer on my face but then have to excuse myself at the crucial moment, obstenibly to creosote the fence but really to have a quiet blub.

Luisa,

Didn't I critique something of yours once? As a freelance editor, I work on all sorts of fiction, and outside of regular clients, can't tell what's going to turn up next. Probably the most difficult kind for me to deal with is 'comedy fantasy', an oxymoron if ever there was one. But, yes, to come clean, I guess I would have trouble knowing what to say about pure (if that's the right word) chick lit. But the offer's there, time allowing.

Terry

<Added>

Oi Myrtle! I've just had a quick look at the people in the Children's Group and am pretty sure I've critqued something by just about every one of them.

Think of the children!

LOL
I'll gloss over your anti-You've Got Mail comment

A while ago I did check a bunch of other groups to see if anyone was as neglected as us, I didn't realise children's was too. It's not ideal, is it? But I suppose that's more understandable - writing for children is a very specific skill.

are Marian Keyes and Julia Donaldson up to much at the moment??

God, could you imagine?! It would be nice to get someone for each though.

Where do we stand on inviting people, anyone know?

K x

Terry, yes, of course you did - thank you! But I didn't get the impression you approved of my chosen genre...

I know everyone would appreciate your input - I was thinking of your itchy-toothed suffering here.

Liking romcoms is a step in the right direction, of course!

Luisa