Roundtable: Commercial Writing

Jeffrey Ford

I remember being on a panel a couple years after getting into the field where the paticipants were making the case that to be a real pro writer, you had to focus almost solely on the marketplace.  They had a kind of macho attitude toward this.  The funny thing was, I was publishing more fiction and making more money at the time than most of these two-fisted pros, which was by no means a financial killing.  The bullshit about how to be a pro was never thicker than it is now.  More advice on the internet than you can shake a stick at.  Here’s some advice that should probably also be ignored (I’ve never really cared what other people do in this respect), but new fiction writers would be smarter to keep their own council, be wary of those who write more advice blog posts than they do fiction, and make their own mistakes and learn from them.

Guy Gavriel Kay

Can put that one on the bulletin board!

Have been thinking about Sam Johnson and ‘no man but a blockhead’, etc.

Is it just possible that in terms of art he’s … wrong?

Jeffrey Ford

Guy:  I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.  Sam was right in that you always want to try to make money on what you write.  Even Leonardo got paid for what he did, but he wasn’t trying to do a Giotto knock-off.

Guy Gavriel Kay

Well, he PUT it as exclusive, Jeff. Viz.: if you have any motive other than money you are a blockhead. Hyperbole, and he might have meant it, but there are few more often quoted passages. I think it tends to be used (and some earlier comments are saying this) to justify being guided (only) by commerce. Certainly not exclusive to my mind either, to write as well as you can and hope that as many people as possible think it is good. Don Coles, the (very fine) poet, writes: ‘Uttermost joy need not be/Dissembled, this has been judged /Pretty good by many…’

And you know who was making money with society art when the Impressionists were in the Salon de Refuses. Actually, we tend NOT to know … almost all forgotten.

Gardner Dozois

Almost all the attempts by SF writers to “break out” by writing near-future technothrillers, and I can think of quite a few, have been failures in the marketplace.  Some have actually hurt the reputation of the author by making their former core SF audience shy away from their next book, turned off by the technothriller, and it’s taken them some while to lure them back.

I suppose the big exception here is William Gibson, who has been moderately successful writing near-future technothrillers–but my guess is that that’s what Bill WANTS to write, not an attempt to “break out” by cashing in on a hot commercial trend.

As long as you’re writing WHAT YOU WANT TO WRITE, and not writing what you think you SHOULD be writing for commercial reasons, then, no, it’s not cynicism as far as I’m concerned.

Jeffrey Ford

There’s also that reality in the writing life where “you gotta do what you gotta do to keep body and soul together.”  Arguments for the artistic pursuit of writing fall apart in the face of that reality — ie. kids, the mortgage, groceries.  One of my favorite fiction writers, Liz Hand, I know has done work for the Star Wars franchise and a number of film adaptations.  I really liked her Bride of Frankenstein book she did for Dark Horse.  This never seems to dissuade her from writing wholly original and amazing novels, like Mortal Love or Generation Loss.  Being able to switch gears like this, I find pretty remarkable.  I think much easier said than done.