I grew up on Roald Dahl's non-kiddie stuff (the horror stories, the... less than fluffy things), and first read Terry Pratchett's
Wyrd Sisters at the age of eleven or so. Might explain a few things. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
At the moment, I like popular fantasy fiction less and less --
Sword of Truth is going down the drain with repetitive plots and thinly veiled political preaching (on top of preaching about everything else). Harry Potter is a fun, light read, but hardly the masterpiece the hype makes it out to be; the latest volume, I think, also leaves something to be desired.
A Song of Ice and Fire, though, is easily one of my favourites. I'll also soon be re-reading
Dune (yay political intrigue -- "a plot within a plot within a plot"), which my beta-reader fairly worships. I'm slowly edging toward science fiction.
On other things: the "I write for myself" thing has always puzzled me. IMO, if you put up your work for public consumption, it is implicit that
you want feedback. If you wrote for yourself, you'd have kept your writing
to yourself. This is especially true for professionally published writing: to put it bluntly and harshly, you're writing something to
sell. And you don't get to choose your audience; anything in public view is fair game and subject to all type of criticism. The public is about as loving and caring as a rusty iron maiden, and editors are not obliged to be humane or even remotely nice. (I've read someone else's rejection slip that doesn't say much aside from -- paraphrased -- "your writing is frankly infantile." You think I'm harsh? Meet disgruntled editors who have to read hundreds of submitted manuscripts from hopeful aspiring writers.)
I'm also -- no offense -- leery around anyone who claims that his/her writing is "art" and is therefore, somehow, not subject to criticism. Common excuses include, "But you can't possibly understand what I'm trying to convey!" or "But this is my style -- if I listen to your critiques, I'd become a mindless conformist drone!" Nope. E.E. Cummings you are not; win a Pulitzer Prize or something first and maybe your argument will have merits. If your writing is unclear, or makes me want to fall asleep, or simply awfully written, it doesn't matter if you think it's art or some sacred magnum opus. Doesn't matter if you think you're sending out some profound message. You're just being pretentious. It's also a little naive to think that every writer writes for the pleasure or love of the craft; many fanpoodles want attention and ego-stroking. At the first sign of negative criticism, they'll scream "You are so MEAN!" or "You have no life!" Don't believe me? Pay FF.net a visit.
A recent author temper tantrum on a community I frequent reminds me of something. The author was screaming that she had a dislocated hip when she wrote her story -- which was being torn apart -- and that she has a "ruined" physical condition, as well as the fact that she had put
so much heart into writing the thing in question. Fun was had by all, because
nobody gives a fig. The majority of readers won't care if you poured your soul into writing something, or your puppy died, or your relative committed suicide (cry me a river, and drown in it, please) -- what they will judge is what you have written and put up for their view. The conditions under which you worked don't matter. Only the end product does. No more, no less.
(Note: I'm not addressing anyone in particular; this is just a rant directed at the people who have behaved as indicated in my post, ala the whining fanbrats on FF.net, the self-righteous "artists" I've often run into, et all.)
