Can a mediocre writer become a successful genre writer?

unfortunately yes

>>9201670
A bad writer can. The only thing it takes to be successful is sales and most people buy shit. This, mixed with the fact that the publishing industry is filled with self fellating faggots, means most good writers are doomed to be unsuccessful.

>>9201670
Yes. With genre, the plots are the main thing so if someone can nail those the rest has a good chance of falling into place regardless of writing quality.

However, a successful 'literary' fiction writer always makes a terrible genre fiction writer. Yet still they try.

File: glory.jpg (89KB, 856x654px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 856x654px

>>9201670
'Successful genre writer' can almost be defined as 'mediocre writer finds a niche'.
Look at Ayn Rand and Frank Herbert. The definition of 'mediocre' yet they built a career and damn near a cult out of publishing Science Fiction.

>>9201670
Write sci-fi or YA novels

File: darkelftrilogy.gif (83KB, 616x253px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 616x253px

>>9201861
>With genre, the plots

No, the setting and content. Plot is important no matter what unless you are a pretentious po-mo faggot. But for somone who wants to read a book about dragons, cowboys, spies, or aliens, its much more effective to build a setting, put a character in danger within the setting, and then make a cool cover.

Pic related

>>9201670
If they have good ideas

File: Bella-Thorne-Feet-2570512.jpg (292KB, 1226x2180px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1226x2180px

>>9201670
Yes You just need to find a niche and fill a novel with its cliches, like ready player one.

>>9202417
>Right out of college had a job with a copy editing company. Sweet gig: I worked from home correcting the spelling and grammar of everything from novels to technical manuals to D&D rulebooks
>Had never read anything by R.A. Salvatore but knew he was a New York Times bestseller
>Get assigned to copy edit a game rulebook with him and the game writers, get some emails from him
>His emails were so poorly spelled and the grammar was so bad they were sub-literate. I assumed I was being pranked. Then I got his manuscripts.
>Was told he usually went through a few drafts and did an initial copy edit himself: it was still like reading something written by a 5th grader. I couldn't believe that he was using a word processor with spell checking.
>Boss tells me 'just fix it the best you can - his editor will do her magic and send it back to you for final copy edit'.
>Work my ass off, get it to editor, then it comes back - it is effectively a different book. Do a quick but solid edit, get it confirmed and approved, off to galley.
>He sends me an email. Takes me two full minutes to decipher that it is a thank you.
That was essentially when I stopped reading any genre fiction.

>>9201670
Write hard sci-fi, you can get away with a lack of decent character writing if you can pull off engaging explanations of orbital mechanics, ship operation and combat. The less sexy, the better.

>>9201670
Never doubt that a mediocre writer can become a successful genre writer; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

t. Margaret Mead

>>9201670
yeah genre writing is mostly about knowing the formula and the publishing process so if you're reasonably smart you can bullshit it assuming that you're not, like HORRIBLY shitty as a writer

>>9202399
Ayne rand yes but Frank?

>>9201670
I'd like to mediocre her successful, if you know what I mean.

business idea: write cheap but successful genre fiction to fund my true writing passions.

>>9206694
Tom Holt tried this, but he fucked up because his genre fiction was better than his literary stuff

File: Ayn Rand 04.jpg (78KB, 800x538px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x538px

>>9202399
Rand might be a mediocre writer, but she is not a mediocre thinker.

>>9207445
She's both. . .

>>9207445
Say what you want about Rand and her politics, but she was an undeniable hypocritical cunt. Fuck her.

>>9207445

She is very mediocre in every aspect of her life, actually

>>9207457
>>9207484
Name a novelist who gives a better philosophy of self, in relation to the collective, within the context of a Capitalist society.

File: 220px-DarknessAtNoon.jpg (23KB, 220x321px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 220x321px

>>9207524
I can name hundreds of better novelists who do not rely on 60+ pages of direct character exposition multiple times throughout a work to get the point that they have not already hammered home. And there have been numerous dystopian anti-communist works.

Not to mention that her philosophy suffers from unrealistic heroic "supermen", complete lack of support for the disabled, the orphan, and frankly the normal dude that gets laid off and starves while his leader escapes to a billionaires paradise.

Also, as >>9207479 said, she took social security, which is laughable.

>>9207576
>have not already
have already

File: Ayn Rand 03.jpg (44KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 720x405px

>>9207576
Atlas Shrugged is not merely a dystopian anti-communist work. It is a philosophy of self specifically targeted to the American citizen and a scathingly accurate criticism of many political and civilian attitudes within the United States.

Her novel does not suffer from heroic supermen - I think you've missed her intention. Her novel presents mythic, two-dimensional archetypes intended to represent an ideal, or the antithesis of an ideal.

Her background is in history and philosophy, after all.

I'm not interested in whether she lived up to her ideology. I'm interested in the object, not the subject. Literary analysis does not deal in personal critiques, and neither does an analysis of her thought.

So, is "Darkness at Noon," your rebuttal? I'm not familiar with it, but I'm open to reading it if you consider a superior philosophy, specifically aiming for the Capitalist individual, to Rand's.

File: Ayn Rand 00.jpg (811KB, 1200x1512px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 1200x1512px

>>9207616
>>9207576

I would like to amend one thing. If I restrict you to a Capitalist context, that is too restricting and would also suggest you were correct in attributing her influence to being assigned to a niche, rather than to any depth of insight.

That said, I'll take a recommendation which you consider a superior philosophy of the individual, or an individual in relation to the collective. This is a far more massive category.

I do agree with you on one of your criticisms of Atlas Shrugged. The 40-page pontificating rant near the end was undeniably weak and asymmetric.

That, and other reasons, is why I acknowledge her weakness as a writer. I still consider her a great thinker however, and one of the foremost of her sex and time.

>>9204387
The Dune books are a mess! Stilted dialog, paper-thin characters, awful pacing, idiot plots, etc.

>>9207445
As a writer, Rand was a mediocre novelist.
As a philosopher, Rand was a mediocre novelist

>>9206694
t. Iain Banks

>>9207524
Hilaire Belloc
Chesterton
McNab
Waugh
Dorothy Day
O'Connor

top of my head

File: noonecares.gif (39KB, 285x200px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 285x200px

>>9207616
Rand never, ever formally presented a philosophy. Oh, she *talked* about one a great deal, but she failed to actually present one. Piekoff tried to formalize her thought into a philosophy, and failed.
>Literary analysis does not deal in personal critiques
Which is why /lit/ rejected this
>>9207445
Rand is a mediocre writer, at best.
Literary critique = done

>>9201685
>... and that's why I can't get a book deal!

File: Ayn Rand 01.jpg (3MB, 2311x3235px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2311x3235px

>>9207746
Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged clearly present a philosophy of the individual in plain English. A formalization is superfluous because it is literally presented in simplified concepts and two-dimensional form - which is far more accessible (and this was her intention).

Your critique is anything but done.Where is the structural and symbolic analysis? Where is the analysis of her portrayal of the ideal in archetypal mythic form? Calling it "mediocre" is not a critique. A critique is an unbiased rational analysis, which at its end, shows that the work stood or fell on its own.

A personal critique is not what Atlas Shrugged is. It is an ethico-logical critique - which is impersonal by definition.

>>9207732
Which novels of each? Emphasis on novels - I want to see superior thought on a similar subject as Rand's in novel form, as I'm already aware there are raw philosophic texts which dwarf her own.

File: The-God-That-Failed.jpg (11KB, 184x275px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 184x275px

>>9207891
>>9207877

Really pushing the goal posts back. If we are talking about purely anti-communal works where the author awkwardly inserts philosophical exposition into a narrative, then yes there is a degree of uniqueness (NOT QUALITY) to Rand's work.

That said, Orwell, Koestler, and Belloc all do essentially the same thing, but with subtlety and intelligence.

Rand's failings in plot, prose, novel structure, and cohesiveness of argument also stand.

>A formalization is superfluous because it is literally presented in simplified concepts and two-dimensional form - which is far more accessible (and this was her intention).

While I appreciate your apologetics, this just screams "damage control".

>>9207877
>Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged clearly present a philosophy of the individual in plain English
Hardly. The head of the Objectivist Institute (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) in his book 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' Peikoff flat-out states that Rand never fully described her philosophy in one place, including in her fiction.
Who am I to believe? My own eyes *and* the leading scholar of Rand, or you?
>Calling it "mediocre" is not a critique.
I suggest you consult a dictionary.
.............
Typical Randroid response - deny everything and make ridiculous, unsupported assertions to move the goalposts.

>>9207877
Why didn't she try to formalize her "philosophy"?

File: pleb 2.jpg (8KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x197px

>>9207891
>Unfamiliar with the works of those writers

>>9208015
Because of the huge logical and practical holes, and the fact that she would reject christian charity as slave mentality most likely.

>>9208015
The short answer - she knew better than to try.
The long answer - the more formally Objectivism is presented to more glaring the core errors of thought at the heart of the concept become. Just the book 'The Objectivist Ethics' is enough to cripple Objectivism by doing nothing more than summarizing Rand's points.

>>9207445

top kek

Rand refused to read other philosophers or engage in debate about philosophy. Just, here's my shit. Take it or your out of my ugly middle aged sex-club.

Compare her writing and thinking with contemporary Hannah Arendt. It's not even the same league.

File: nuts.jpg (30KB, 571x516px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 571x516px

>>9206694

You can count on one hand the number of people who make a living from writing fiction, genre or otherwise.

This plan is the equivalent of, "I'm going to buy scratch off tickets to fund my day to day expenses until I win the big jackpot."

File: Ayn Rand 02.jpg (421KB, 791x1024px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 791x1024px

>>9207977
Orwell does lead Rand in subtlety, but not by much, and in intelligence - I would not be so sure.

I'm not familiar with the other two authors and will have to familiarize myself with their works.

Rand's plot(s) work(s) fine, her prose is, indeed, weak (she's too attached to her imagery, and, therefore, becomes highly repetitious, among other things), and there is literally nothing wrong with the structure. It isn't particularly innovative, but it is solid.

We could speak of the argument for a long time, so I'll let it go, but perhaps you have a point.

Though I would not call her a mediocre thinker, I could not call her a great one either when so many legitimate criticisms can be thrown at her finished product.

I can see how that could have come off as apologetics - it really isn't. Her target audience is genuinely the masses. This is easily derived from the work itself, as well as her own statements on the nature of her work. If her intended reader is the common man, does the estranging nature of a formal philosophy really suit the purpose of reaching them? I would say that the flat nature of myth and allegory are the most accessible to the broad audience. This is the power of Aesop's Fables, the Holy Bible, Shakespeare, and the Greek Tragedians. Considering Rand's background, I think this is the most rational induction from the text.

Anyway, I'll read those authors with an open mind. I have no depth of attachment to Rand which necessitates her superiority to other writers, but I don't think she gets enough credit from you, or most readers.

>>9208015
I already answered that, but I elaborate on it in this post. >>9208074

>>9208010
Your idea of a critique, then, is shallow in the extreme. You would not cut it in an academic circle.

>>9208016
I could say the same of you on many subjects, I'm sure.

>>9208061
Rand had a degree in philosophy and history. She read all the major philosophers, and, likely, many minor ones as well - though she was under the false impression she only owed a debt for her own ideology to Aristotle.

>>9208074
Read Belloc's Servile State

F. Scott Fitzgerald?

Wrote one great zeitgeist novel and two other decent ones (Tender is the Night and The Beautiful and the Damned). Everything else was pretty poor.

>>9208093
Will do. I appreciate the suggestion.

File: The-Road-to-Serfdom-First-Edition1.jpg (14KB, 250x397px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x397px

>>9207616

>>9201670
Some cucks on /r/eroticauthors are making a few $k a month writing shitty erotica

>>9202445
You made me laugh, thank you anon.

File: sissy.jpg (96KB, 624x700px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 624x700px

>>9208084
Goalpost moving, again.
/lit/ is not academe, but everything is written.
It is easy to see that the initial response was *an admission that Rand is a mediocre writer* that then twists and turns until it is a weak ad hominem on a simple statement.
All to hide the fact that you didn't know what the word 'critique' really means.
Pathetic.

how hard is to get published as a genre fantasy writer?

>>9207616
>Literary analysis does not deal in personal critiques, and neither does an analysis of her thought.

kek

>>9207616
>the Capitalist individual
Well.
That is all that needs to be read.

>>9201670
Yeah....

It happens all the time.

File: Proust.jpg (139KB, 666x1001px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 666x1001px

>>9208264
You can't see it, but I'm smiling. This is the least rational response I've received on /lit/ in some time.

Humorous.

>>9208324
So all that needs to be read is all of it - save two words?

Lol.