…and now i can like you even more, gib. You are human and you accept that in yourself…probably more so than I do at times. But remember, even though it is wonderful to see the leaves as they blow in the wind, better to be the tree, the strong tree, gib. It’s ever so nice to flow and to fly like a leaf in the sky, but also to plant ourselves on 'terra firma". (Is that the expression lol?)
.
IF you referring to MY asking you that, I don’t think I was necessarily asking you about your self-esteem when I asked “what do you think of you”? But perhaps I am wrong here. Can one necessarily ask another about what they think of their self without bringing self-esteem into it? I’m not sure.
.
Now, that’s the leaf speaking, my friend. But we are all, or most of us are, except perhaps for a chosen few, the leaf at times.
.
I think it’s important to realize when we are feeling vulnerable - it’s part of being human. If we refuse to see that in ourselves, at least in my opinion, then we are weaker than we think we are. But we also have to protect ourselves sometimes from our own vulnerability. So, perhaps we have to recognize and acknowledge our vulnerability but then allow it to flow away. We are as the ocean - we are flow and we are ebb. lol Look at the phoenix, a perfect example of vulnerability. But then he rises up again from the ashes.
When we compare ourselves to others - naturally, we might come crashing down. Everyone has grown up differently, has different life experiences, different losses, tragedy, lacks. So why compare ourselves to others? We all also have different patterns within our brains which have formed as a result of our different life experiences. It takes time to change those patterns.
And how do we, in actuality, know that “those” people are not feeling as vulnerable or fearful as we are, at times. They made just hide it better or flow through it better.
Does this mean that you are questioning your ethics? That’s a good thing. I’m not sure what mediocre empathy for others is? In order for us to feel "empathetic, at least to my way of thinking, I think we have to have had a similar experience to another’s. Compassion is another thing. And then there is just gross sentimentality which doesn’t help anyone.
I see a lot of honestly within this post of yours and I like that. I like you even more now because of that. You were always someone I felt good about when responding to your posts. You’re an honest man. But please do allow yourself to see yourself as more than what you appear to. Then you will appear. Step out on that limb, gib. We all need to learn to observe and to separate the negative emotions from the “real” us.
That’s an interesting insight–an inverse correlation between potential and likelihood of achieving that potential.
I feel that’s true, but at the same time, I don’t feel like the prohibiting forces are things to fight against. For example, one of the prohibiting forces are my children. I know that sounds bad, but that’s why I said it’s not something to fight against. I love my children dearly, and they deserve special attention and my concerted efforts and energies, but it happens to be a fact that this entails less time and energy devoted to pursuing my potentials. I’m currently working on a book which, if it weren’t for my children, I’d probably be done by now and currently focusing on marketing and making it into a business. But not only is this process a slow one, but I don’t think I’ll ever be able to market my book–even when it’s done–for the money I would otherwise be able to spend on marketing has to be invested in my children and their future (not to mention a wife who has her own concerns about our financial situation). But you see that this is not something that I should react to by saying “Screw you guys! I want to reach my full potential as an author and recognized philosopher, and I’m going to pursue that!” These are my children, my wife. I’m not complaining about them–I love them dearly–but it is a fact: they are a prohibiting force in my reaching this particular potential.
No, I wouldn’t do that–but it’s not the risks, it’s the responsibilities I currently bear.
Arc,
You don’t accept my humanity?.. jk, I know what you meant.
No, I wasn’t referring to you. I was speaking generically.
Yes, this is the leafy me speaking. But what would I say if I spoke as the tree? Would I guestimate my “average” self-esteem over time and say “my self-esteem is this”?
True dat.
Just to be clear, I’m not comparing myself to others; when I say that “the world and people around me weigh in on my self-esteem”, I mean literally that they say things to me or treat me in such a way that doesn’t paint a flattering picture of me in my mind. Not that I get this treatment any more than anyone else, just that these are the challenges to my self-esteem.
Sometimes I think that may be true. I wear my heart on my sleeve, but I know not a lot of people do, or do as much, and I know a lot of people couldn’t do it for lack of enough self-awareness. A lot of people just confabulate, or say what they feel they’re supposed to say–we’re supposed to say we have high self-esteem, right?–almost as a knee jerk reaction.
Yes, the only way to feel empathy for others is to have had similar experiences ourselves–in a sense, it requires selfishness, a relating back to me.
I think what I’m trying to say here is that I’m “average”.
Can we explore this notion more? I sense some difficulties with it.
Gib, it’s my fault for expecting you to read my mind, but by quality I don’t mean base forms of success such as your aspiration to be a writer for hire. While certainly there’re exceptions and it’s not all-inclusive, selling one’s writing is an indicator of low quality. While your children may make it so it takes longer to obtain that type of employment, they also seem like they may be the only reason that goal isn’t completely unworthy of yourself. One of potential’s presumed responsibilities are either used as an excuse to avoid risks and the extreme pain involved in actualizing their potential, or those responsibilities should be considered to be that person’s potential.
It’s what I call a deferment, and I imagine most everyone of quality and potential who had children in history had at one time to decide whether they would make that deferment or not. The indecisiveness and mistakes associated with this are one of the major themes in fiction. To avoid complications, I’ll speak of one with the assumption that he managed to decisively make this deferment. So his deferment would become entirely his potential. His success wouldn’t initially be measured in the quality that his children eventually obtain, but in his actions to help them reach that potential. The dynamics involving risk remain the same.
A parent who has hypothetically managed to completely defer his quality to his children can be one who fears risks. In which case, his children would be guaranteed to only have some degree of help from him in obtaining high quality. Or he can be one who has little fear. In which case, it would be virtuously an all or nothing as far as how much he helps his children obtain quality. Sometimes the risk would involve the continuation of his life or the equivalent, because without him, they wouldn’t have his help. But, then sometimes it involves matters that affect the continuation of his children’s life or the equivalent, because he has much power over that. We all know of the parent going hungry so his children can live, but a less prevalent example is where a parent - usually 'unconsciously or instinctively - must decide how much to push his children. A child that is not pushed may live a long happy life if circumstances remain stable, but he will never fulfill his potential. A child that is pushed has a much better chance of obtaining potential, but he also may become so upset over the pressure that he does anything but obtain his potential.
Speaking to son’s and fathers. The subject becomes even more complex when we keep in mind that a son who sees his father as one who has deferred, is a son who will either see deferment as the ideal life, or as something to be hated. If the former then all chances of his quality being high are gone, but if the latter then his chances are high, but of course a side effect would be that he wouldn’t respect his father. Then this issue is just one of many complications I have yet to completely learn or understand.
I didn’t expect that. Becoming an author is low quality??? What’s your standard for low and high quality, Stuart?
I don’t completely understand what you’re talking about, but it sounds like you’re saying I have deferred my potential onto my children. I couldn’t achieve what I wanted for myself, so I’ll invest in my children instead, hoping that by pushing them to strive for their own potential, their success will be my success.
All forms of communication must be judged by their content, not their means. To take the time to write what could be called a complete work, rather than just a correspondence such as we’re doing here or an essay, is likely a quality thing to do. But, if it was written with the expectations to sell it, then the quality would already be suspect before reading it. Then in itself to sell ones creative works reflects a lack of respect for them and is an affront to quality.
Unfortunately, I don’t have an explicit standard yet. It helps to learn and define what is natural as a basis for one’s standard. Then the standard for what is natural, is in itself also difficult to obtain. There’s nothing natural about the act of selling goods and services, but, that it needs to be done in modern society is unquestionable. I buy what I need, and at times more and sell what I no longer need. I also sell my labor, but I would be very hesitant to sell my creativity. I know that some disagree, but for me it seems that my creativity is very limited, while the degree of labor I can do is almost unlimited. So when I sell my labor, I’m selling that which is of low value to me comparatively to my creativity.
If you can make an argument as to how your creative work can be written with selling it in mind without it being corrupted, then I’d like to hear it.
I don’t know that it’s my responsibility to explain this. That money corrupts all that is good out of any activity hardly seems to be controversial to most people, so long as it’s spoken of as a general topic rather than specifically addressing a form of corruption they may take part in. Here’s a somewhat ironic example of how uncontroversial this idea is; there’re several books published each year that focus on the very issue of corruption over money, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the central element to most of them.
Nonetheless, I’ll make the argument.
You may doubt that money corrupts the process, but if you’re writing in part to make money, then it goes without saying that money is involved with the process. Meaning creative expression isn’t entirely its own motivation.
It’s easy for anyone, even if they never took the idea of making money writing seriously, to let their writing be shaped by the desire for others to be willing to read it, try it, read it through, and even like it. That isn’t the worst form of corruption assuming they have standards as to which audience they wish to impress. Though usually that is not the case whether they would admit to it or not; most would let their writing be shaped by what they assume to be the desires and preferences of the most common people. But, if they insist on not letting a motivation to sell it affect their work then should they deny having virtually no standards as to their audience, then there’s a reasonable chance they’re being honest. But, when one writes to sell they are already admitting that they the only strict standard they have for their audience is their ability and willingness to pay.
So while the work you hope to sell may be written by you to some extent without regard to money or non-creative expectations, and while you may have standards as to who you hope to impress, it’s implicit that some of your regard is based simply on who you expect to pay for it.
If it were to be for sell based on a simple conception of marketing - where, for example, there was a catalogue that was all inclusive for authors, containing sample works, which simply each contained a preview - then it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as the reality of the market, which is where the emphases on the part of the publishers is to use ‘creative’ advertising to sell the book. With such advertising practices the books advertise-ability takes precedent over all other aspects.
Well, I’ll put this in perspective for you. When I originally wrote this, it was motivated purely out of a creative drive. I had no intention of selling it. At a certain point, however, I start to think “hmm, this might have selling potential,” so I pursued publishing. But the work had been done by then, it was complete. So I don’t think in the creation of the book, monetary considerations entered into the picture.
Now, that’s not to say the work hasn’t gone through revisions since then. Indeed, some of them are necessary as the book needs to go through an editing process. And of course, in order to make it marketable, you need to adapt it to suite your target audience. So it has gone through certain changes since then, but I think the bulk of the work remains the same as when I completed it before I had any intention of publishing it.
But don’t you think a willingness to pay comes along with a specific area of interest? I mean, a book on the philosophy of consciousness is not going to appeal to someone looking for a book on how to start a business. I seriously doubt it appeals to the common person, and this is something I knew in the early stages of this venture: I knew I had to target a very narrow margin of readers. What I wanted from the beginning was to sell to readers who are interested in what I have to say, not to readers who want to read something I don’t care about myself but am willing to write anyway because I know that’s where the money is. I don’t even think I have the capacity for that.
I think there’s serious limits to this and I don’t think it necessarily impinges on the quality of the work. Marketers will not, for example, advertise my book as a guide to loosing wait and picking up chicks when in reality–surprise!–it’s a book on consciousness!
But there are certain sacrifices I had to make which, to my tastes, seemed like a diminishing of quality. editors will do that to you. They say “You know, you should really phrase it this way, not that way,” and you say “Really? Do I have to? Aw, man!” But there’s a couple things to say about this: 1) it’s not so much a loss of quality as it is an exchange of one quality for another. I diminish the quality, from my perspective, of how the text reads for an increased quality of appeal to my target audience, and 2) quality is relative (remember?), and the whole point of the editing process hinges on this–what may seem like high quality writing to the author may not be received that way to the reader.
You made much effort to persuade me that you’re an exception to the rule. Maybe you are, but would you object to my assumption that you basically implied that you agree that selling one’s work is usually a base action?
Yes, I would object. The closest I came to agreeing that selling one’s work is usually a base action is that by going through the editing process, I have to cut and slash at my original text and make it into something different–and it’s not that different–but that this, or the act of selling, makes it a base action is still coming out of left field for me. Sounds to me like you think selling one’s creative work is tantamount to “selling out”.
Is there any example, historic or modern, of anyone who made a significant amount of money selling their creative goods who didn’t sell out?
I anticipate you’ll mention that you are unlikely or have no intention of making the type of money that it would seem would be necessary to entail selling out - but how do you know; I wouldn’t put it past you to become a best selling author, in fact I wouldn’t put it past anyone whose literate and has some connections? If you would honestly be able to set limits to how much you’ll compromise your creativity with the threat of making millions looming over your shoulders, then you are beyond me - I can’t stop a snowball from becoming an avalanche, all I can do is avoid not only making snowballs, but having to do with snow altogether.
This discussion leads back to when I was basically saying that responsibilities aren’t likely what are keeping you from making money, such as through selling creative works, but are likely a large part of the reason you would decide you should sell your creative works. I’m trying to simply state things the way I see them, not make criticisms. And if they can’t help but come across as criticisms, they aren’t done so with the implication that you should do anything differently or make different plans in any regard.
The problem with that paradigm, Stuart, is that you’re inevitably left to judge art not by its quality but by the level of poverty the artist lives in.
Does this mean that you do not have any (copies) works of art, in the broad sense of that term including Music and literature, that you both love and which were created by people who sold them/made Money for them?
Would one be Selling out if one bartered?
Does this mean giving away art is the only way to retain integrity while having an audiance?
And at what Point moving from what is generally formally called an art - painting, composing, etc. - does this effect take Place?
Carpentry.
Folk arts.
Creativity in therapies
Child rearing.
Essay Writing.
It’s not a matter of how much money I intend to make, or where I draw the line between keeping my integrity as a writer and selling my soul for a few bucks–it’s a matter of whether or not I agree with you, whether or not selling one’s artistic creations counts as selling out.
I’m human just like everyone else, Stuart, so I won’t deny that there’s probably a threshold beyond which I would compromise my work quite a bit for a sufficient amount of money, but it wouldn’t just be the money. I would have to have some kind of guarantee that the money would come in–no risks, no strings attached–and that the compromise I would have to make would be “doable”… but I’m not there yet.
You mean, make money to support my children. That has been one of the excuses I’ve used to pursue my goals, but the fact of the matter is, my chances of being a real success at this are abysmal.
Don’t sweat it, Stuart, you’re giving me exact what I asked for. I may disagree with what you’re saying, but I’m not offended.
While you no doubt caught on to the idea that I don’t necessarily consider poverty to be a vice, I’ll mention that it isn’t necessarily a virtue either. I don’t have a complete theory of how nobility and money intertwine, but basically I would say that for one to approach nobility or higher quality they would only sell that which is no better than what they’re receiving. We’ve all heard the term priceless, which is full of paradoxes, but to an extent money is a base possession in any quantity, making the exchange for it of something that is not base – such as for example one’s creative works so long as they happen to not be base – is always a bad bargain. Although, I’ll mention that being how shrewd people are, chances are when money is exchanged for creativity, it’s actually a fair bargain; base for base.
I’m not ignoring the fact that one has to live in the world to be able to create in the world and that usually means that one has to spend much time and energy on making money. There are many scenarios I can imagine where one of quality would find that they must temporarily write to sell because of other jobs are lacking or entail too little money and/or far too many hours. But, in the modern developed world the vast majority of people, should they understand the inverse dynamics of quality and marketability, would never have sufficient reason to want to sell their work at all.
The goal of an artist, who wishes to be other than a mundane repetition of who is already out there, shouldn’t even be to create a product, whether they sell it or give it away, it should be to transform himself and/or the world. What we would call completed works of art, whether they be a book, a painting, etc., are only a means not an end. I think most artists who aren’t within the corrupting influence of an art community, or obsessed with the prevalent idea of art as a profession, but are left to their own thoughts, understands, on some level their relation to the world and their art as I described it. - But, once commoditizing their work comes into the picture that vague understanding is lost. And to get it back again one must go the hard way; though direct philosophy and in sense learn to spell-out that once intuitive understanding.
I find that I’m no longer impressed by anything I read that was written - then sold - in the last 50-60 years. As I said there are exceptions, and so while it seems obvious that the average modern first worlder wouldn’t meet those exceptions, it doesn’t say as much about the past. I could only speculate as to why various people in the past who made a living selling their goods, still made work I appreciated.
Basically, while the image of the starving artistic can be admirable, and I image through out history there have been many artist with little money making quality works, or letting their art influence the world in a less easily defined way, the fact is that when looking back over 100 years ago the quality that has survived under a name often came from those in the aristocracy. I doubt many of the great musicians of the 1800s were not aristocrats. That they take what they did not personally earn, money and their title, is not a bad reflection on their quality, only a mute one. But, it is a sign of quality in itself for those that chose greatness over the leisure that was readily available to them.
The internet, is of course where I find contemporary quality, and where the starving artist thrives. But, for one to make much money in some non-creative regard doesn’t necessarily rule them out.
There’s not a solid line between bartering and selling, but in some senses bartering is ideal. To be in a community, whether it be spatially defined or ideologically, and to serve an artistic function for the other members and thereby be provided with room and board in a sense, seems to be the elusive ideal for an artist.
Firstly, there’s problems with the idea of an audience. Not all artists should think in those terms. Many would find an audience essential, especially performers such as actors and musicians. But, those people are often more entertainers than artists and while I wouldn’t make a case against entertainers as a whole, it seems clear that they perform a societal function more than produce art.
A quality person only directs his work to the general public to a certain extent. His real concerns should be with his equals and betters. There is irony for one who is capable of appealing to large groups of people; while it would be true he has something over them - call it quality perhaps - by pandering to them he’s not elevating that quality.
One needs not give away art, especially if it’s hard to replicate. But, when it comes to modern art which can usually just be posted for free on the internet, the issue of giving it away becomes mute. The more relevant questions for the modern day are: Firstly, if it would be good for the readers to have indiscriminate access to it (an issue Gib spoke of earlier in this thread), secondly, would it put the artist at risk posting it openly, and finally, the issue becomes not so much who has access to the work, but who has access to the author. An author need not give his time away indiscriminately to ‘followers’, but would do himself more service by being selective with whom he speaks. Some people criticize art forms that become too art-community oriented and less conscientious of the public, but I actually think that is ideal for the ‘art-communities’ that are not money oriented.
Money is always corrupting, so if one wishes for more than mediocrity they would take whatever subject matter they’re interested in as far from money issues as they can. Carpentry for example is usually considered only a trade, where one may use some creativity and enjoy their work, but really can’t take the practice to new heights. Usually as a part of team, carpenters and engineers may find innovative ways to work with wood, but if for money, such as if the team were a business, then the innovations would be one of marketability, with quality hardly factoring in. For a carpenter to make quality art through his carpentry he would definitely not want to do it for money - certainly those who make custom made pieces of furniture then sell them at an auction, could be considered artists, but unlikely quality ones. It’s more like they would be artisans; those who replicate the artistic innovations of others.
Then think about computer technology, 99.9% of which has been done in the name of money since the beginning. While the advancement is rapid, I would argue that quality is very rare. Though obviously some of those who create independent software or hardware, may be doing brilliant, but mostly known, things.
Have their been works that you do respect that have not been sold? IOW how do you know that the Selling is the issue? Not Infinite Jest? Not Being and Nothingness?
I hadn’t noticed a class issue in the works I like. Who are the great novelists for you?
Can you link me to someone online not sold that you Think is better than Infinite Jest? Or Paul Auster’s New York Trilogy? Milan Kundera? (trying to hit a few styles) Perhaps The Wind up Bird Chronicle?
I guess to me a painter wants someone else to see their work, a writer to have a reader other than him or herself. It’s not that they must sit there trying to please them. I Think one can put all that aside, but it seems many incredible works that were sold are present in fiction and painting. Of course, it is hard to compare with those that were never sold, since many of those do not reach us, but then even many that do not reach us still were made in part for an audiance.
Sure, though it’s been hard to reach those without Selling. The internet does make it more possible, but still, you have to sift through so much shit. Of course I am sure that talented people were not allowed into the market by poor editors and gallery owners, but over time, the making public of art weeds out a lot and one can find greatness, at least I Think I have.
Then we are all corrupted. I am not sure a novel by someone pure would be interesting.
I haven’t read much of DFW, maybe it’s an exception. Then I really have to wonder if Sartre really expected to sell many copies of BN for the work itself. I believe when he was writing at least the rough draft, he was far from thinking about money, afterwards, yes he did get corrupted, and the book sold for ‘the wrong reasons’. I respect much of what I read in in forums, I would rather read from a book, but I find most to be a waste compared to online reading.
I don’t know that their are any great novelist if the best novelists’ works were to be compared to the great poets of the last three thousand years. I used to read a lot of fiction indiscriminately, so I’m far from an expert on the better fiction. The best seems undoubtedly early 1900s and before. From what I can recall right now, having not thought much about it in a while, I would say that Hardy, Twain, Eliot are very good, but not great.
I was speaking broadly about creative writing, where the best is likely to be difficult to classify as a simply a novel or philosophy, etc. I haven’t been overly interested in fiction in a while, for the reason that in the last five years I found most fiction to be written by people with a very poor understanding of philosophy. The fact is that I’m as interested in finding the answer to your question as you are - until just recently I couldn’t really conceive of what philosophical undercurrent would be in a good novel, now that I know, I’d like to know if they’re out there. I liked Kundera when I read 5-6 of his books years ago, I don’t remember enough about them to be certain, but I doubt I would be happy to settle at his level of quality. I can be almost certain that what I’m looking for would never get published as books have typically been before the internet, even if the author had connections and tried.
More and more I’m beginning to realize that an artist who would meet my new, higher expectations of quality would either have to create art with the knowledge that it may never be noticed or create it in conjunction with others, in a give and take process, where the direct effects of various artists are shared and any possible indirect effects that may affect many people in some way are never accredited to the artists. Basically, just getting far away from common notions of what it means to be an artist.
I guess there is something to the simple fact that if a work is replicated enough times, then it will over time reach enough people that the hoped-for people would notice it, but I just don’t believe in that process as I once did.
I’ve only been active on the internet in any significant intellectual or creative way for a year and a half. In that time, searches through search engines has only revealed to me one forum, ilp, for which I have been able to find other works on other forums or simple websites, based on the word of mouth of people who I found I respect due to their own work through there posts. It’s a maze I navigate, where I have to use some intuition as to who to read in the first place, and then I have to take the time to understand them so as to know which referrals they give, directly or indirectly, to take. I would say I made good progress for the amount of time I’ve been seriously pursing it.
I was being very context oriented with that statement. I’m not really concerned about some undefined purity in a person or work, I just want to know if the work is about the work and nothing that is entirely outside the scope of the work, such as money would generally be.
Gib, about your avatars, and I want you to know I say this in good humor. If we leave aside avatars that are meant to be overly ludicrous or obscene, and are made with little thought, I find your avatars to be the absolute least appealing. Obviously an effect on the viewer is partially your goal, but I don’t know if you quite mean to have the specific difficult to describe effect that your avatars seem, to me at least, to have. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe you have a talent.
I said I’d get back to that later. I’m guessing that the only thing stopping you from having extreme financial success through your writing is a generally unconscious desire for the type of quality that cannot be created with financial success on the horizon. I should simply, ironically, say don’t sell yourself short. I said before anyone who is literate and with connections can be successful in this shallow way, but I believe you have more potential than most at that. I really wouldn’t just say this to anyone who asked me what I thought of their potential for financial success should they put aside aspirations for a certain type of quality. Your unique in this way. But also, keep in mind, that I also don’t consider what I’m saying to you to be a compliment in the least.
Well, it isn’t, but did you mean to put “avatars” in the plural: “I find your avatars to be the absolute least appealing.”?
In any case, it’s supposed to be a joke. If you think it has a “specific difficult to describe effect” that isn’t just humor, I’d sure love to know what that is.
Well sure. There’s nothing unconscious about that. Statistically speaking, the chances of success in publishing are generally quite dismal–for anyone. Add to that the fact that I’m writing non-fiction (which usually sells less than fiction) and I’m writing in a genre of fiction which is really quite unpopular (philosophy) and even the kind of philosophy I’m writing (idealist metaphysics) is unpopular amongst philosophers. So yeah, my chances are infinitesimal.
As I said, if my aims were purely to make money (which they aren’t), I’d write something completely unlike what I actually wrote–how to make cash quick, for example–that would sell for sure. And I don’t even think I’d know how to write a book like that (what do I know about making quick cash? I’m writing a philosophy book for Christ’s sake!).
Stuart, I don’t think I’m an exception to what you’re saying. I think you’re view on publishing and selling one’s creative works are wrong. True, some modifications will have to be made in order to make it easier to sell, but I think these modification are usually minimal. I think most successful authors out there meant to say what they published–the changes they had to make being minimal. I think there are very few who actually completely revamp their work for the sake of money such that it ends up being something totally unrecognizable from what it was originally.
I didn’t expect that. Becoming an author is low quality??? What’s your standard for low and high quality, Stuart?