Write What You Love

I've seen at least one professional writer mention that he writes what he thinks will sell.  To him, it isn't important whether or not he likes the story.  He simply writes what he believes editors will publish.  And he's had success in doing so.

To me, taking that approach to writing isn't any different than any other kind of production job.  My full-time job is producing code.  I didn't start the company; I create code based on the company's needs.  It can be challenging and rewarding, and I do my best to write solid code.  But I'm not going in every day developing whatever software comes to mind.

Assuming we have technical skills to go along with a clear perception of exactly what editors (and possibly readers) want, we could do just that: produce stories to fit the market.  But I would argue this isn't good for the soul.  Is your chief aim publication at all cost, even creating the kinds of stories you don't enjoy?

I've said many times that writers shouldn't be upset if they can't get a story published that they wrote solely for themselves; after all, they've already reached their target audience.  But if all we do is write for others with nothing for ourselves, how much are our hearts really in it? 

I primarily write fantasy and science fiction.  But suppose I perceive a need for a genre I don't read or enjoy.  Further suppose that I meet a magazine editor in this genre, and she asks me to write a short story to fill a current gap in an upcoming issue.  Should I do it?  After all, if she likes it, it's a publishing credit and a live check.  Being paid to write is a wonderful thing.  But at what cost?  I would be taking time away from something else I could create, something dear to my heart.  Granted, I may instead produce a story that no one purchases.  Is that a better use of my time?

There is no right or wrong answer as to what a writer spends time on.  Remove writer and substitute artist.  Sometimes, one simply has to pay the bills, and if it's not writing code, it might be writing words.  I understand that, too.  I don't know all of Beethoven's back-story, but this seems like it might be the difference between his 8th and 9th symphonies.  The 8th was written to match many of his contemporaries, and it feels dated and not like him; perhaps he was just trying to generate income.  Then there's the 9th, which is nothing short of genius.

I'm curious where other writers stand on this issue.  It might be different for those who have other vocations as primary income versus people who rely solely on writing. 

For me, at least for now, I only write what I love.  I'm passionate about the stories that come to my mind, and even if I can't get some of them published, I can at least look back on them fondly.

Writing High Fantasy

I have several subscriptions to magazines publishing fantasy, and I'm noticing that high fantasy stories are in the minority. As a writer of high fantasy, I want to encourage speculative writers not to abandon this sub-genre in hopes that the grass is greener elsewhere. Join our happy throng, if only occasionally.

High fantasy, sometimes termed epic fantasy, encompasses a variety of stories. Certainly anything labeled as epic should include a plot that affects many nations, if not the entirety of the world. High fantasy by itself, however, may not necessarily reach to epic proportions (though it often does), but it will take place in another world or another time, where legendary beasts are commonplace and civilization has not yet reached the industrial age. I think of it as storybook fantasy. Usually there are heroes and villains, and in this sub-genre, there is a higher probability that characters on either side are very clearly heroes or villains. This is simply a high-level (no pun intended) definition for those who may not be as familiar with the term, but feel free to post any additional thoughts on how you would define high fantasy if you think it is worth noting.

There seems to be a negative connotation with writing high fantasy presently. Certainly there are the traps of becoming clichéd, especially if a story at all resembles the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Another strike against high fantasy is that many inexperienced writers who try writing fantasy find themselves beginning with high fantasy, often because it was the first sub-genre they were exposed to. Since there is a plethora of high fantasy material written at an elementary level, there is the tendency to stereotype all high fantasy stories as unprofessional (or worse).

What high fantasy needs is a steady flow of excellent writing. There are a number of great writers who are experimenting with speculative stories that so closely resemble literary (real-life) fiction that only a hint of the fantastic exists. If we all move in such a direction, however, we are giving up on something great simply because a few voices say that high fantasy has already been done and cannot be done well again. Perhaps we've allowed others to shame us from writing how we should.

Consider the following analogy: all fantasy writers, regardless of sub-genre, are part of a massive army. We occupy the city of High Fantasy and have defended it well for generations. Now we've gathered so much strength that our soldiers pour forth and converge on new cities, including Magic Realism on the border of Literary Land. So many have departed to new challenges that unless some stout soldiers return, High Fantasy will collapse under any invading force. It is a war we should not lose, but the invaders are coming, and few choose to stand in the gaps left by the great heroes of yonder year. I am unwilling to surrender our city. Who will stand with me?