A couple weeks ago, I posted The Ten Commandments of Writing.
Today, I plan to bend (although...hopefully not break?) the 3rd Commandment.
The 3rd Commandment:
Respect the writers who came before you, even those you do not like
This week's Weekend Writing Discussion? If you were going to break the 3rd Commandment, who would be the writer to make you do it...and why?
The one writer who causes me to bend the 3rd Commandment more than any other writer is Augusten Burroughs. You might know him from his memoir Running With Scissors. Or from his memoir Dry. Or from his memoir Magical Thinking. Or from his memoir Possible Side Effects. Or from his memoir Wolf At The Table. Or from his memoir You Better Not Cry: Stories for Christmas.
The guy is forty-five years old. That's six memoirs. Mostly about his childhood.
Now, I aim not to break the 3rd Commandment here - after all, I respect the guy for the sole fact that he gets people reading (and, as I've said before on this website: In a world where books must compete with television and movies and video games and internet, it is worth celebrating and respecting any writers who nudge people toward books...no matter what these writers write).
But here is my problem with Burroughs and his memoirs:
Really? Your life has been so interesting that you've had enough material for six memoirs? You've been so tragically mistreated that people should read about you again and again and again?
Look at Dave Eggers. He had a fascinating life story to tell. He told it in A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. And then he began to employ his writing talents in the creation beautiful fiction.
Burroughs, on the other hand, wrote a novel as his first book. It didn't do well. And so he wrote his memoir. After it did well, he wrote another. And another. And another. It's like those authors who uncover a character that helps them sell books, and so they use that character over and over again. Except...Burroughs's character is himself. In real life. It is absurd to imagine he is doing anything by Book 4 or 5 but either A) Sensationalizing his life, or B) Wasting the reader's time by imagining himself to be a far more interesting and important subject than he is.
The funny thing is, I've heard he's a very good writer.
But I wouldn't know. I have never picked up one of his books. Literally - I have never even touched one. Because of Reason Number Two...
His name is Christopher Robison. Not Augusten Burroughs.
Now, he has come up with some sort of story for why he chose the last name Burroughs. Maybe the story is truthful. But I cannot get away from the fact that his writing has been compared to the writing of William S. Burroughs. I should say, has been widely compared to the writing of William S. Burroughs.
Really? You're going to change your last name so your books will sit alongside those written by an author to whom your style will be compared?
It would be as if I chose to use "JM Hemingway" as my pseudonym. Or if someone penned fantasy works and used the name "Jeremy Tolkien."
The whole "memoir x6" thing makes me dislike the guy's approach, but I can still respect him for the fact that he causes people to read.
The whole "last name" thing? It makes it difficult for me to have any respect for him at all.
Respect the writers who came before you, even those you do not like
I'm trying. I'm trying really hard...
How about it, Dear Writer? Who is the one writer (or...who are the "one" writers) who makes it difficult for you to uphold the 3rd Commandment?
This is a safe zone. Spill...
Weekend reading, in case you missed it:
This week's other posts...
Thoughts On The All Ice Cream Diet
(And The Intellectual Obesity Epidemic)
You Can Avoid Killing Dogs
By Reading Every Day
Play nice and share with others
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Posts
If Chelsea Handler can write 3 memoirs so far...
ReplyDeleteI don't know either Burroughs or their work, so I can't chime in on that. I often have hate-envy for people who write fabulous books.
But where I really lose respect for other writers is when they have an annual contract to write a book, and instead of saying "sorry folks, I just can't keep up. I don't have a story in me this year...," they phone it in. They re-hash a story they've already told, do sloppy research, crappy editing. It's like the writer/publisher are saying, "Hey these fools will buy anything with the name -- on it, so who cares if it's any good or not. To me that's disrespectful to the art of writing and not worthy of my respect.
Melissa - That's an excellent point! And the crazy thing is, it takes so long for publishers or writers to lose money off that ploy, as the public will consume a book because of the name (look at James Patterson and his mountainous score of "co-writes"). At least...this works for a while. Eventually, however, such writers lose credibility...and once that happens, it's tough to gain it back. Very good point indeed.
ReplyDeleteJordan,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with the 3rd commandment buuuut, every once in awhile, someone comes along that just digs a little bit. And I'm not talking about the many books that are "written" by one movie star or the next.
I might get frowned at for bringing her into this, but a certain author of "The Twilight Saga" just burns me up occasionally. Yes, I've read all of them. And, yes, I commend her for getting people reading. However, the quality of the writing leaves something to be desired (you can only use the word "swiftly" so many times before you start wondering if you've picked up Superman's autobiography or not.) The only reason I find this so irritating is that I've heard it referred to as great literature. Really? The idea was good, and a.. eh em...marketable one at that, but great literature it ain't.
Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but I thought I'd vent. Better now.
Paige - Ahhh, I guess it is natural for that one to show up. I can especially see the Annoyance Level bubbling right out of the pot if she herself considers it great (or even good) literature. Which, given the success of the books, is likely. The only thing I truly know about her or those books is that they have been roundly dismissed by those who appreciate/know literature as being tawdry and poorly-written.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere on the sidebar on this website (under the heading "tops") is a link to a post about, "If you write silly puff novels, keep your opinions to yourself." This post presents the ultimate example of a writer who values their work too highly because of high sales. If Stephanie Meyer happens to view her books in a similar light, I can certainly understand the (ahem) slight annoyance and utter absence of respect.
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for directing me to that post. I can rest easier knowing now that Nicholas Sparks is actually the sappy twit that I always imagined him to be. That being said, I had an afterthought about my previous comments.
While I was making a sandwich, I started feeling the guilt that almost unfailingly accompanies breaking the 3rd commandment. My inner critic ran along the lines of "Well, you've never been published, so you really think YOU could do much better?".
I felt the slightest bit of guilt until I remembered one thing. It really IS about trying to do it better. If writers, as a community don't occasionally criticize others work, published or not, then we can never really grow or look towards the next great work. Respect should always be a big part of criticism but we shouldn't feel guilty right? Right?...:)
Funny, I don't have any fiction writers that I love to hate. I have plenty that I don't care to read, but it's a matter of taste that doesn't inspire instant hatred.
ReplyDeleteThere are several non-fiction writers whose claims are so completely unsupported by solid evidence that they would be better placed in the fiction section. Al Gore, Ann Coulter, etc. Nothing makes me crazier than wobbly claims supported by massaged numbers.
One writer's name who causes me to see red, Terry Goodkind. I shake my fist at the computer screen as I type the words. The guy writes fantasy, but all the while he claims he does not write fantasy. His work is something all the more superior. He also has gone as far to say that he's changed the medium of the novel. I'm not really sure what that means.
ReplyDeleteHe's created a series called the "Sword of Truth." After the fourth or fifth book in the series I quit reading. One, the series is nearly 15 books. Second, About every fifth scene a woman is getting raped, or Goodkind is living out his fetishes through his character. Third, after picking up Robert Jordan, and falling in love with "The Wheel of Time," I noticed that Goodkind's story was eerily similar to Mr. Jordan's. I meant eery to the point that he blatantly ripped of its ideas, concept, and story. He just through in some S&M, and gave the characters different names. Fourth, his writing is juvenile. I mean, for real, I know five year olds who can come up with better prose than Goodkind.
Finally, for someone who claims to have changed the novel, and did something completely original with his debut "Wizard's First Rule," the villain turned out to be the heroes dad. I mean, good Lord(!), has he never seen "Empire Strikes Back?" Does he not remember one of the most classic lines in move history, "Luke, I am your father."
I can't take Goodkind serious. I'm glad that he gets people to read, but I usually take the opportunity to refer them to Robert Jordan and "The Wheel of Time."
The first author I ever got angry with personally is Auel. I bought her Shelters of Stone book when it first came out because all over the internet were promises that her next book would be out soon, from her, her publisher, etc. Fast forward 2011, her next book in the series is still not out. It may or may not come out this year, but if it does, I'll be waiting to pick up my copy from the library, not buying it.
ReplyDeleteI think if the author/publisher makes promises to the readers, they should make sure to keep them. Readers remember that kind of thing.
Given one of my recent posts, I'm sure you can predict my response. I can't stand reality stars turned "authors." I've decided to give Snooki a break - I haven't been exceptionally nice to her lately, and I'm sure she didn't appreciate my sarcasm when her book failed to make the top 150 in its debut week (oh sorry, did you hear me snicker?). I'm going to focus on someone different.
ReplyDeleteWhen I taught, I had an issue with the hype over Lauren Conrad's (The Hills/Laguna Beach) debut YA novel. Why? Well, for one, she didn't write it. Yes, she participated, but that's not the same thing. Offering input does not make someone an author anymore than adding cream to my coffee makes me a barista. See, as teachers, we spend a lot of time educating kids on plagiarism. And while I'm aware that ghostwriting and plagiarism are entirely different concepts, to me they have enough similarities. Either way, the person credited with the work is not the actual author. Kids don’t get that – they see it as a loophole, and that is what they strive for – not the real deal. If someone wants to pick it up for a pleasure read, go ahead. But no, you can't use it for your book report, and no, it's not going on the list for Reading Olympics. Deal with it.
I get angry when these people take themselves seriously. (Okay, I said I wouldn't, but it kills me that Snooki's Twitter profile states she's an author. Really? REALLY? With a straight face, Snooki?) But I get angrier when kids receive the false perception that (a) anyone can write a book, (b) writing can't be that difficult, and (c) writing is not to be taken seriously. These reality stars are not real stars - they're not actors discovered for talent. They are buffoons who get paid a helluva salary to party, drink, and get arrested on television. It doesn't work that way for real writers. And, because they are reality stars, what you see is who they really are. If there were clips out there of these people sitting at a computer, struggling, cursing, and researching, then I'd say okay. They are doing this correctly. But we know that isn't the case. Adults are smart enough to realize this; kids, however, are easily misled. Personally, I'd rather have the ghostwriter sign my copy, if I actually had a copy to be signed. At least he/she wrote the darn thing.
Alright, banter over. But it felt good to get that out. Now I can write in peace.
Janet Evanovich. The first four Stephanie Plum novels were hilarious, and plot-driven. And then 5-14 got worse and worse until they were nothing but phoned-in dreck (8 was okay). Yes, it's funny, but it's the same thing rehashed from book to book. No character development.
ReplyDeleteI stopped reading around 12. She has lost a lot of fans.
Agreed with mark. Goodkind makes me want to stab books. The only other author that comes close is Pullman, but I cut him some slack, at least he can write prose that doesn't make me vomit in my mouth. A friend always wants me to read Goodkind. After 5 of the books, I have to tell him NO.
ReplyDeleteOMIGOD NICHOLAS SPARKS! I never had a problem with him until he compared himself to Hemingway. And then! When asked his favorite book, he cites himself. I will be nice and not go into any more detail. Just read the article if you've never seen it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-03-11-lastsong11_CV_N.htm
I'm seeing a pattern here. We don't like authors with big heads, and we don't like ones that don't branch out into new ideas. I truly hope that if I ever have the good fortune to become published that I won't fall into those traps. It's pretty easy to do.
ReplyDeleteIn response to, Scooter. It doesn't really bother me if a author puts a fresh spin on an old idea. I don't expect every book I read to branch out into uncharted territory. There's nothing new under the sun. However, in Goodkind's case, he didn't put any fresh spins on what he ripped off of Robert Jordan. He just sexed it up.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Wheel of Time" there's an important group of people called the Aiel. Jordan based these people off Native Americans, and the Bene Gesserit of Frank Herebert's "Dune." Jordan put enough of his own spin on the Aiel that he wasn't stealing from Herbert, but paying honor to him.
I guess Terry Goodkind figured if he put the women based on the Aiel is skin tight red leather, and gave them whips, he was doing enough to set them apart from the Aiel. Sorry, no.
Also, don't say you're revolutionizing the novel when you're writing is so full of the cliches, and tropes of fantasy. That's like James Cameron saying he's revolutionizing cinema with "Avatar." But all he did was set "Dances With Wolves" in space.
I found this today. For me, it's the equivalent of the Nicholas Sparks article.
ReplyDeletehttp://holykaw.alltop.com/twilight-is-now-required-reading-for-honours