# Can you tell why the author wrote the book?



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

Some authors write for the money and it may be the way they make their living. Other authors write just because they like to and get enjoyment out of writing. They usually have day jobs or are retired.

The finished product seems to be the same on the surface. Maybe the one written for money even looks better and more polished since it is designed to sell. But inside it may actually be different?

So can you tell why the author wrote the book? Which type of book do you like best?

_[no self promotion outside the Book Bazaar. --Betsy]_


----------



## Cindy Borgne (Mar 21, 2011)

My main purchase decision is based on the first few chapters in the sample, however, I have to admit an eye catching cover will help get my attention. Overall, I'm not sure I could tell the difference. I would think focusing on the possible money would hinder the writing, but probably not in all cases. 

Also some authors write to send a specific message. I think it's okay as long as the book isn't overly preachy.


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

It's really not that simple of a division. Most authors are storytellers and writing novels is what gives us joy and a sense of purpose. Most novelists dream of making a living doing what we love. Once writing fiction becomes our livelihood, there is a certain pressure to keep writing because it pays the bills. But for most of us, we would be writing anyway. 

On the other hand, authors with popular series are under pressure from their fans and publishers to keep writing the series...often beyond when the author wants to. Those stories suffer and it's obvious the author is going through the motions for financial reasons. But those are the exceptions.
L.J.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 7, 2010)

Is there a reason an author cannot write, earn money from it, yet still enjoy writing? I am not sure that there is a clear line between writing to sell and writing because one enjoys it when it comes to what's available to read.

Someone that loves to write but never makes it available for others to view/read, it'd be easier to say.

With that in mind, I don't believe I could pick up a book/open an ebook and begin reading and determine:
This author wrote it with the primary intention of selling it
This author wrote it because he/she simply loves to write


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

I was very impressed with John Locke attitude toward his readers. He is very grateful to his readers and even answers all of their e-mail. I think he has the right idea. Making money is nice, but sharing your story with your readers is really what it is all about!

http://donovancreed.com/2011/05/why-i-personally-respond-to-my-readers/


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm very grateful for my readers as well. I hear from them every day and I respond to all. Almost every email I send out to readers begins with "Thank you" ...for contacting me, for reading my book, for noticing....
The reader/author relationship is personal.
L.J.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Franklin Eddy said:


> Some authors write for the money and it may be the way they make their living. Other authors write just because they like to and get enjoyment out of writing. They usually have day jobs or are retired.
> 
> The finished product seems to be the same on the surface. Maybe the one written for money even looks better and more polished since it is designed to sell. But inside it may actually be different?
> 
> So can you tell why the author wrote the book? Which type of book do you like best?


No and that is simplistic in the extreme.

Guess what, Shakespeare wrote for a living. So did Robert Burns and Mark Twain. Da Vinci made art for a living.

You are saying that most of the great art and writing is inferior because it was produced by people who did it for a living. I suggest re-thinking that theory.


----------



## Alle Meine Entchen (Dec 6, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> No and that is simplistic in the extreme.
> 
> Guess what, Shakespeare wrote for a living. So did Robert Burns and Mark Twain. Da Vinci made art for a living.
> 
> You are saying that most of the great art and writing is inferior because it was produced by people who did it for a living. I suggest re-thinking that theory.


Sometimes you can tell that the author wrote the book for money/peer pressure. It causes the books to be less of what drew you in. Look @ the Alex Cross series, the latest ones have def jumped the shark and James Patterson isn't even writing all the books that are published in his name now. He writes for a living, but what he writes now isn't quality.


----------



## ChristinaDaley (May 21, 2011)

I suppose some write their books to teach, others write to escape, others do it for a living, and still others have different reasons. I don't usually think about what motivates a writer to write the story he/she writes, whether for money or love or both, so long as I get a good story


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I don't care why an author wrote a book.


----------



## EliRey (Sep 8, 2010)

I love when you read a series and each book gets better and better. There you can tell the author wrote for the love of writing/story telling. However some series are just the opposite. You can tell the author is doing it just to prolong the the series (more $) and the last few are bad..in some cases horrible!


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Sometimes I think I can.  I remember reading Michael Crichton's "The Lost World", his sequel to "Jurassic Park" and thinking - this reads like a script - like something he threw together because he had a contract to fulfill and he just wants to get on to the movie.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

scarlet said:


> I don't care why an author wrote a book.


Ditto.

But if an author just released book 12 of a series and it has the exact same plot as the other 11, there's a good chance it was written for the money. *cough!* *Evanovich!* *cough*


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Alain Gomez said:


> But if an author just released book 12 of a series and it has the exact same plot as the other 11, there's a good chance it was written for the money. *


yeah, but i've stopped giving that author my money after book 3.


Spoiler



hopefully....


----------



## Flash Rex (May 31, 2011)

balaspa said:


> Sometimes I think I can. I remember reading Michael Crichton's "The Lost World", his sequel to "Jurassic Park" and thinking - this reads like a script - like something he threw together because he had a contract to fulfill and he just wants to get on to the movie.


I thought The Lost World book would have been a much better movie than the actual movie. It's one of the few times I recall being disappointed in the book and then even more disappointed in the movie.


----------



## kCopeseeley (Mar 15, 2011)

I don't know about just writing for money. As an author, I wouldn't want to comment on that.

BUT I think it's pretty clear Ayn Rand had a viewpoint to convey in _Atlas Shrugged_. The radio speech alone would tip anyone off.


----------



## Julie Christensen (Oct 13, 2010)

EliRey said:


> I love when you read a series and each book gets better and better. There you can tell the author wrote for the love of writing/story telling. However some series are just the opposite. You can tell the author is doing it just to prolong the the series (more $) and the last few are bad..in some cases horrible!


Can you name me a series where it didn't eventually turn into a hack job? With the exception of Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter, I can't think of a series that didn't turn into a transparent attempt to stay on the gravy train by writing the formula instead of the story.


----------



## apbschmitz (Apr 22, 2011)

I've written a lot of journalism for money, and written a few novels where I made a bit of money. But I don't think the question of payment (or, more often, lack thereof) is the important distinction. Sometimes unpredictable things happen when you're writing. You surprise yourself by creating something that you didn't really know was inside you. It can happen when you're writing for money, or it can happen when money is the last thing on your mind. Sometimes incidents of art occur despite your intentions or technical abilities. Those moments are the justification for everything else.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

It seems to me that trying to figure out if writer writes for love or money is like trying to figure out if a surgeon operates to make money or save lives. If the doctor stops saving lives, he's no longer a doctor no matter how much he wants money. If a writer stops loving writing, it's no longer worth reading, no matter how much the writer loves money.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Alle Meine Entchen said:


> Sometimes you can tell that the author wrote the book for money/peer pressure. It causes the books to be less of what drew you in. Look @ the Alex Cross series, the latest ones have def jumped the shark and James Patterson isn't even writing all the books that are published in his name now. He writes for a living, but what he writes now isn't quality.


Other than the fact that Patterson hires ghostwriters for a living rather than writing for a living, you are making, in my opinion, a couple of invalid assumptions.

You are assuming that someone who loves writing is good at it. Just because someone writes for the "love of it" does _not_ necessarily mean that they're good at it.

You are assuming that anyone who is concerned about putting food on the table is a hack. Just because a writer needs to make a living doesn't mean they're not a great writer. Most people class Dickens as a great writer, but you are saying he was a hack because he needed the money?

Edit: Now, in point of fact, writing is both a difficult and painful way to make a living. Darn few people get rich at writing and darn few people do it ONLY for the money. But being a professional at ANYTHING involves being paid. I don't apologize for expecting to be paid for my efforts.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

Julie Christensen said:


> Can you name me a series where it didn't eventually turn into a hack job? With the exception of Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter, I can't think of a series that didn't turn into a transparent attempt to stay on the gravy train by writing the formula instead of the story.


I would submit the Amelia Peabody series by Elizabeth Peters as one that improved with age.

There are also a few Star Wars series by Kevin J. Anderson that I quite enjoyed. He creates some great bad guys.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

I guess there's (authors) a lot out there that write in the hopes of fame and money but my vote is for the passionate writer...the _compelled_ writer. That's the work that sucks you in and allows escapism while reading. As an author, that is my greatest wish: for my reader to have a few moments to escape reality in a story that entertains. I'm writing because I'm compelled to, the characters are in my head, begging to get out...(wow, that sounds really strange; more of a metaphor, guys). Anyway, as a "fatalist" type of chick, I really believe that if your goal is driven by quality and passion, the other may come. But who really wants fame? Better to have affirmation through others' enjoyment of your work. Now _that_ is accomplishing something!


----------



## RobynB (Jan 4, 2011)

scarlet said:


> I don't care why an author wrote a book.





Alain Gomez said:


> Ditto.
> 
> But if an author just released book 12 of a series and it has the exact same plot as the other 11, there's a good chance it was written for the money. *cough!* *Evanovich!* *cough*


Double ditto. I don't care why, although if it's a memoir you can sometimes tell why they needed to share their story. Sometimes.


----------



## Anne Maven (Apr 18, 2011)

apbschmitz said:


> I've written a lot of journalism for money, and written a few novels where I made a bit of money. But I don't think the question of payment (or, more often, lack thereof) is the important distinction. Sometimes unpredictable things happen when you're writing. You surprise yourself by creating something that you didn't really know was inside you. It can happen when you're writing for money, or it can happen when money is the last thing on your mind. Sometimes incidents of art occur despite your intentions or technical abilities. Those moments are the justification for everything else.


I agree with apbschmitz. Not many I know write when they don't have an affinity for it. In fact, it is downright scary to some. I'm sure most writers write for the love of it. I wouldn't say that they don't write for money. It is the natural result of a book appealing to many. Then they write for the love of writing and money, which, to me, can't be such a bad thing.

There are books I've read, like Ayn Rand's books (radical views there) or Chitra Banerjee who did not have the masses in mind when she wrote. But their works are wonderful. It might be for the love of it, for money or simply to reach out and tell a story. Hopefully, to keep good authors motivated all three happen in harmony!


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

It's not about making money, really. For me the distinction is whether a book was written with deliberate calculation to sell it. And mainly for that reason. Of course every author (I think) wants to sell their books but if the ONLY motivation is to make a buck working from home, and no soul or skills are involved, it shows. Example - fake "British" cozy mysteries.
Sometimes, however, things are often not that simple. What would be Dickens' books like if he wasn't under such pressure to write so much?


----------



## Amyshojai (May 3, 2010)

Actually, James Patterson DOES write his books--or co-writes rather. My understanding is Mr Patterson creates the concept, works out the detailed outline (talking 100+ pages here!), the co-author--not a ghost writer--creates the first draft based on that, and Mr Patterson does final edits. 

I've heard him and a couple of his co-authors speak at conferences. *shrug*

I believe most authors start out at least with a passion for the subject because as others have said, it takes enormous effort and dedication to overcome the years of head-banging and rejection. Those who become best sellers end up with responsibilities that may temper some of that joy. The editors/publishers set the calendar and push the stellar authors to produce-produce-produce (heck, they're funding not just themselves but the agents, editors, copyeditors, PR folks, accountants et al). 

But I do know of authors who have turned down major bucks in order to write what they feel called to write. 

The $$ is important, no doubt, though!


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Other than the fact that Patterson hires ghostwriters for a living rather than writing for a living, you are making, in my opinion, a couple of invalid assumptions.
> 
> You are assuming that someone who loves writing is good at it. Just because someone writes for the "love of it" does _not_ necessarily mean that they're good at it.
> 
> You are assuming that anyone who is concerned about putting food on the table is a hack. Just because a writer needs to make a living doesn't mean they're not a great writer. Most people class Dickens as a great writer, but you are saying he was a hack because he needed the money?


It takes thousands of hours of practice to become good at anything, so chances are if you don't love what you do, you aren't going to put in those hours. This is especially true of an art like writing, where you have no certainty that you EVER will make money at it.

Then again, part of gaining expertise also means writing when you are *not* loving it. If you write for a living, you write every day, but you don't love it every day. There are a lot of people who love writing from time to time, but it doesn't mean they would love doing it every day.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Amyshojai said:


> Actually, James Patterson DOES write his books--or co-writes rather. My understanding is Mr Patterson creates the concept, works out the detailed outline (talking 100+ pages here!), the co-author--not a ghost writer--creates the first draft based on that, and Mr Patterson does final edits.


In the view of most writers, not doing any of the actual writing but just handing over a concept is NOT writing a novel. A 100 manuscript page outline is pretty flimsy as well. That's probably less than 25,000 words, more likely closer to 20,000.

No, that is not writing a novel.

Edit: I will give you that he puts the name of the ghostwriter on the cover but most peple still think he writes them. He doesn't. He and his employees defend the practice and say at conferences that the fact that he comes up with the concept makes him the author. As an author, I don't buy it. That obviously doesn't keep people from buying his novels. However, you might be interested in reading the reviews of "his"_ Toys _for example, where a lot of reviewers post wondering how he could write that badly. Yeah.

Incidentally, since I have a number of novels co-authored, this is a subject I know something about.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Julie Christensen said:


> Can you name me a series where it didn't eventually turn into a hack job? With the exception of Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter, I can't think of a series that didn't turn into a transparent attempt to stay on the gravy train by writing the formula instead of the story.


Let's see, of series that are more than 4 or 5 books, there's Pratchett's "Discworld" books, and...umm...well...I'll get back to later.



(Although to be fair, "Discworld" is not really a series, but a collection of related series and stand-alone books, so that Pratchett is not continually writing the same story for the same characters.)


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

As a general rule, you can't tell the ones writing for profit from the ones writing for the love of writing. And it shouldn't matter, as long as you like the book.

But, there are some experienced writers who are clearly phoning it in to milk every last dollar from their old series, and you can definitely tell, especially if you happen to know for a fact that the "author" is farming out the actual writing to ghostwriters.


----------



## jherrick (Apr 1, 2011)

I couldn't tell either way. But it seems an author will always have a particular audience in mind and envision those people buying a copy of the book. So if we can find that sweet spot between the commercial side and the heart side, no injustice done.   Regardless of their reason, authors and readers seem to invest an amount of trust in each other, almost like a relationship, and you can't beat a meaningful opportunity like that.


----------



## jherrick (Apr 1, 2011)

Amyshojai said:


> Actually, James Patterson DOES write his books--or co-writes rather. My understanding is Mr Patterson creates the concept, works out the detailed outline (talking 100+ pages here!), the co-author--not a ghost writer--creates the first draft based on that, and Mr Patterson does final edits.





JRTomlin said:


> A 100 manuscript page outline is pretty flimsy as well. That's probably less than 25,000 words, more likely closer to 20,000.


Thank you both! I've wondered how that worked. Actually, if he writes those detailed outlines, it's probably closer to a novel than it might appear at first glance. Not sure how anyone else delves into theirs, but I usually have about 50 outline pages (handwritten, yikes) and despite my intention to remain brief, I'll end up sketching out detailed specifics and blocks of dialogue that I'll use verbatim in the first draft for some sections. And I'll think, "Geez, I'm going to type some of this content all over again very soon."


----------



## NatalieCMarkey (May 24, 2011)

I love it when authors tie a book into a charity. That really shows the love and passion that they have for the topic.

This is what I did with my latest non-fiction, "Caring for Your Special Needs Dog." I feel so strongly about sharing practical, everyday advice and hope for families with these special dogs, that I'm giving a percentage of my profits to Texas A&M College of Veterinarian Medicine.

As for fiction, I like to think see great detail, especially in world-building. I'm a huge fan of Cassandra Clare and her "The Mortal Instruments" and "The Infernal Devices" series.' The level of detail that she uses to build her universe shows her passion for the craft and commitment to her fans. http://cassandraclare.com/cms/home

Craft books like Kristen Lamb's latest, "Are You There Blog? It's Me Writer," shows her dedication to helping writers navigate the crazy world of social media. http://kristenlamb.org/

Great topic!


----------



## Adam Kisiel (Jun 20, 2011)

I hate the authors that write for money. I think the best reason for writing the book is the one that made me write: I just could not find a book I needed. And then i started the research.


----------



## Nick Wastnage (Jun 16, 2011)

I heard Philip Roth in a radio interview recently. When he was asked if he thought of his audience or of the critics when he wrote, he answered to the effect, they're never cross my mind. He went on to say he writes solely for himself. So I guess if the voice of the author doesn't come across in a book, then he or she are writing to appeal to an audience. If it does have his or her voice, it's them, writing for themselves. For me, that makes for a better, more authentic read.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Why shouldn't authors write for money? People have to eat, after all, and if they are making money, that means they are writing books that people want to read. There has be be a balance between writing for the audience and writing for yourself. I am skeptical of anyone who says that they purely write for themselves, without any thought to the audience. And someone who only wrote for money probably wouldn't be good enough to sell books in the first place.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I have been able to tell from time to time.  Most of the time, however, this is not something that is worrying me too much. If the story is well told, I am there, regardless of the reasons.


----------



## The Big Glen (Jul 2, 2011)

One has to consider that if a writer writes for money, then the writer writes to please the largest number of readers, and if that’s true, then the product is a book designed to appease the largest number of people. That, unfortunately, is the usual metric with which many novels are judged by writers and readers. I say unfortunate because, as is the case with most arts, the most popular is usually the lowest common denominator. The point being that if James Paterson writes a book for money (or lets someone else writes his book for money), the book will excel at being a very James Paterson book. A nauseating thought, yes, but considered great by many. A book written for the author by the author tends to be hated, loathed, chided, and, most importantly, quite good. I don’t hate it when I can tell a writer wrote for the money… I hate it when readers like what the writer wrote for the money, as I hate readers who hate quality fiction (or works aspiring to such) for being well written. Don’t blame the politicians; blame the people who put them into office.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

No one hates a book for being well written. Some books simply have a more broad appeal than do other books. The reader is doing nothing but deciding for themselves what they like to read. There are some excellent books that do not have as broad an appeal, but that does not mean that books that do not have a broad appeal must be good books.

A book solely written to make money is probably going to be dreadful. A book solely written for the author without taking the reader into consideration is probably going to be dreadful. Throw out books written for money, you would throw out Shakespeare and Dickens. And don't forget all those artists who worked for their patrons.


----------



## The Big Glen (Jul 2, 2011)

Many people hate a book for being well written, explicitly for the sole reason that it is well written. 

Slog through any number of Amazon Customer Reviews of tried, trued classics of the English language, and you'll suffer a variety of "this is boring, this is too hard to read, this isn't good, it's just read by people who think they're smarter than me, who are experts to tell me what's what" comments made by individuals reacting indignantly to what their gut reaction tells them is a slight against their -- perhaps exclusively self-perceived -- limited cognitive capacity and artistic inattention. (Their responses are increasingly becoming socially pardoned in modern America, where, with selective screening, an individual can isolate him or herself from any media that doesn't confirm whatever opinion, no matter how absurd, he or she wishes to believe.) Consider this astounding statement I stumbled upon on the Nook Board: "Just finished reading this.  What a total, pretentious bore of a read. Nothing happens in this book... A fifth grader could have written the dialogue" This statement was in regards to Cormac McCarthy's "The Road", an acclaimed book that won the Pulitzer Prize, authored by a National Book Award winner who, as I understand it, is the leading American candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Now, there are many acceptable, intelligent reasons a person might not like the book (I listed some in my response), but this individual failed to name a single one, despite being so enraged by the novel that he or she actually felt compelled to start the thread attacking it. It's simple psychology: reader finds a novel too challenging, and as a result, a deep insecurity flames up as anger at the novel. Nobody likes to think something is above his or her personal taste, and dismisses things that blatantly are as "elitist" or, in the above commenter's claim, "pretentious". 

Which is silly, because nobody has exquisite taste in everything. When it comes to foodies discussing the culinary arts, I'm always the Philistine who can't be bothered about anything that can't be deep fried and dipped in blue cheese. But I don't hate sushi restaurants and wine bars because they highlight my own daft tastebuds, and I respect that my opinion on food matters, though perfectly within my right, are ill-informed. Movies? I like GM products that turn in to alien robots that beat on one another. But when 'The Dark Knight' doesn't get a Best Picture nomination, I don't hate the good movies that do, even when (as usual) they're well beyond my attention span and understanding.

Yet the reading world is abound with the very sort of people who do respond like that, particularly people who write books for money. Nicholas Sparks brings us right back to McCarthy and money. Sparks is a guy who managed to remove the trash from trashy romance novels, despite the trash being the only redeeming thing about romance novels. He actually wrote the book adaption to a Hannah Montana movie that he scripted! Now, that's fine, he makes his money, even if his books are dumb as chin drool. But when asked about McCarthy in an interview, he actually says this about 'Blood Meridian': '"Horrible. This is probably the most pulpy, overwrought, melodramatic cowboy vs. Indians story ever written."' Sparks then goes on to equate himself with Hemingway. Sparks is a reader who hates a novel because its well written, because he's well aware, somewhere down below, that he's a terrible reader, and not much better of a writer. But he does sell like crazy, which was the point I was making about authors who write for money: they will write to maximize money, and that intrinsically demands, to be honest, thoughtless entertainments. Except for the rarely hyped literary novel (like Franzen's 'Freedom'), there's precious money to be made writing anything that at least strives for aesthetic value. My angst is solely with those readers and writers who, instead of honestly accepting that they prefer exciting, entertaining, and easy reads (nothing wrong with that, either), actually attack and hate well written books that they can't be bothered to properly examine and or erroneously find insulting.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I've never heard of anyone who hated a novel for being well written. I don't even know that there has ever existed such a person. But even for the most highly regarded books, there will be people who don't like it. There may be myriad reasons not to like it, and little reason to assume that being well written was the reason. People have different tastes, that doesn't necessarily mean that their tastes are low.


----------



## SSantore (Jun 28, 2011)

Why is there a black mark in scarlet's post?


----------



## Carolyn J. Rose Mystery Writer (Aug 10, 2010)

I like a book where I can tell the author is writing for the love of it and has something to say about the world we live in through the world he or she creates. I don't like a book where the author's message/philosophy/rant is so heavy-handed that it overshadows plots and characters.


----------



## Nick Wastnage (Jun 16, 2011)

I believe authors have to find their voice. A voice they are comfortable and confident to write in. Once they've found it, they should stick to it and be authentic. They can't write to please everyone but they can continue to write to please their following.


----------



## Jonathan Dalar (Jul 15, 2011)

I can usually tell by the end of a book why the author wrote it.  Sometimes it's money.  Sometimes it's some agenda or another.  Sometimes it's just for the pure exhilaration of the story.  To me, the third kind is the best.  I don't want something that's been tailored to what the business side of things thinks will appeal to the largest number of readers.  I don't want to be fed commercialism.  And I don't want the author to nudge me into trying to agree with some special cause or agenda they've bought off on.  I think for myself, and so I like my books to give me the ability to continue to do that while reading them.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Adam Kisiel said:


> I hate the authors that write for money. I think the best reason for writing the book is the one that made me write: I just could not find a book I needed. And then i started the research.


[email protected] that Shakespeare! How DARE he write for money.

No one should EVER read or produce another of his plays. *eye roll*



The Big Glen said:


> One has to consider that if a writer writes for money, then the writer writes to please the largest number of readers, and if that's true, then the product is a book designed to appease the largest number of people. That, unfortunately, is the usual metric with which many novels are judged by writers and readers. I say unfortunate because, as is the case with most arts, the most popular is usually the lowest common denominator. The point being that if James Paterson writes a book for money (or lets someone else writes his book for money), the book will excel at being a very James Paterson book. A nauseating thought, yes, but considered great by many. A book written for the author by the author tends to be hated, loathed, chided, and, most importantly, quite good. I don't hate it when I can tell a writer wrote for the money&#8230; I hate it when readers like what the writer wrote for the money, as I hate readers who hate quality fiction (or works aspiring to such) for being well written. Don't blame the politicians; blame the people who put them into office.


When you have read and critiqued as much self-important, pretentious dreck written by authors "for themselves", MAYBE I'll believe that.

What politicians have to do with it I don't know. I don't know any who tell us what to write. Politicians AND finances affected what Shakespeare wrote--he wrote for money, stupid hack that he was. So did Dickens. So did Thackeray. So did Burns. Tsk.


----------



## Jonathan Dalar (Jul 15, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> When you have read and critiqued as much self-important, pretentious dreck written by authors "for themselves", MAYBE I'll believe that.


That's very true too. I think the best books are those the author writes for him- or herself, and then edits the story to be the best it can be for the audience. I think there's a slight, but very important difference between something written for money and something written for the audience.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

The Big Glen said:


> One has to consider that if a writer writes for money, then the writer writes to please the largest number of readers, and if that's true, then the product is a book designed to appease the largest number of people. That, unfortunately, is the usual metric with which many novels are judged by writers and readers. I say unfortunate because, as is the case with most arts, the most popular is usually the lowest common denominator. The point being that if James Paterson writes a book for money (or lets someone else writes his book for money), the book will excel at being a very James Paterson book. A nauseating thought, yes, but considered great by many. A book written for the author by the author tends to be hated, loathed, chided, and, most importantly, quite good. I don't hate it when I can tell a writer wrote for the money&#8230; I hate it when readers like what the writer wrote for the money, as I hate readers who hate quality fiction (or works aspiring to such) for being well written. Don't blame the politicians; blame the people who put them into office.


To say a writer writes for money is just another way of saying that a writer writes to bring happiness to other people; and to say a writer writes to please the maximum number of people is to say that a writer is trying to bring happiness to the most people possible.

Just saying. 

I admit, I am too selfish to write for the maximum number of people. I write to please myself, and a few other weirdos who love to explore fantasy worlds and alien planets as much as I do.


----------



## Nick Wastnage (Jun 16, 2011)

All the points about whether an author writes for money or to please him or herself are interesting and relevant. But often writers have a message in their books, be it social, political or topical. Then I think, providing the message comes through, you can tell why the author wrote the book.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

NogDog said:


> (Although to be fair, "Discworld" is not really a series, but a collection of related series and stand-alone books, so that Pratchett is not continually writing the same story for the same characters.)


Not to mention he retires or semi-retires characters in his various sub-series. A friend of mine is convinced that for years he'd been trying to figure out a way to kill off Granny Weatherwax because she'd become unbeatable, but he still had witch stories to tell. And so we have Tiffany Aching. If he'd been in it just for the money, we'd probably have 38 Rincewind books and two Rincewind prequels.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

There's another facet to this discussion, which is that writers are just people. And while they may want to get paid, or win acclaim, or just entertain themselves, they aren't necessarily Good! or Evil! or Generous! or Greedy! 

If a series seems too long or repetitive, and maybe it is, it may just be that that's what the writer likes, or planned, or enjoys writing. Maybe the writer doesn't want to give up a series, even though it may be played out. It's not greed or dullness behind the decision, just desire or comfort.

It's a less sexy or polarizing explanation, but probably rings true for some writers.


----------

