Begger's Banquet

Are you writing stories for yourself? For others?

Is your goal to be published?

Is your goal to entertain, enlighten or engage people? or is writing a more cathartic experience?

I look forward to your insights

Yet again, bringing to YA an offline debate from my writers group.

We had a big discussion the other day over publishability - in essence what makes this up. I had written a story that I was fond of, but two of my group tore into it. Their criticisms did not revolve around the story, characters or how it was written - in fact they both thought it was pretty decent - but whether anyone could publish it. They kept reiterating that "editors won't like this." or "said magazine will turn this down." You see, I like mixing up genre conventions and their point was editors will typically turn down (genre) works that bend or break conventions. And I can see their point to certain degree. Pick up "The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction" or "Neo-opsis" or "Asimov" or "Black Gate" and you'll see that each publishes relatively the same authors or the same style of story.

So that leads to my question - If publishing is the ultimate goal, do you compromise your ideals so you can "break the glass ceiling" or do you keep slogging away and hope that one day someone will deem your work "as is" worthy of publishing?

We've all heard the adage, but what do you think it actually means? Is it a call to write from your own personal experiences/emotions or observations? Or is it meant more philosophically? Can it mean write what you know to be true; be honest with yourself and your creation? And to further muddy the debate, could it be a combination/variation of the two?

Onec again, I'm eager for your opinions.

Part 2 of the offline writers group debate being brought to YA - What impact do you think political correctness should have a writing. In my group, a huge row grew out of this. One of the writers character was decidedly not PC and spoke in some pretty offensive language. Some of my group wanted the writer to tone it down some, be she argued back that this was her character - how and when he was raised created him. To alter it, would be paramount to revisionist history and decidedly not true to her character. She also argued it would fundamentally change her story.

What's your opinion? Has PC grown to a point where we cannot write these types of cahracters anymore? Should we be more worried about offended others or being factually correct or true to our characters? If we set a piece in the very early 20th century, are we being offensive by writing characters who are sexist, racist, etc or should we temper the story to fit our 21st century ideals?

Again, looking forward to your comments

Bringing to YA another of my offline debates from my writers group - when it comes to prose, is there an inherit duty of a writer to promote the writing as an artform? Can art and entertainment coincide within the same piece? Or is it impossible to reconcile the two? Should a piece that, while well written, is purely meant to entertain its readers be said to be one without artistic merit? And finally, when a piece is crafted for solely entertainment purposes, should it be held to as high as standard as something that is considered more artistic?

I greatly look forward to your thoughts

An answerer in one of my earlier questions wrote something that made me pause. Do you think it impossible for a male writer to have a fully alive female lead character/POV and vice versa? Can a person who is not of the same race, sex, creed, culture, etc as their main character effectively and completely tell their story? Will there be nuances missed and if so, does it really matter in the larger picture?

I believe talent, writing skill, empathy and imagination should be enough, but I'm curious as to how everyone else feels.

Had a long interesting discussion last night with some people. Method writing is similar to method acting - this is basically a submersion tactic. It takes the notion of "write what you know" to another degree. You cannot write about, say a Preacher, unless you live/understand that life completely - so you live with them, follow their footsteps, etc. It also preaches you cannot write an emotion, let's pick rage, unless you intimately know rage. Or you cannot write a love story unless you have truly been in love, etc, etc. Do you feel this way as well? Can imagination, empathy and good command of language be enough?

In your opinion of course ... not including active players with less than 10 years in the league ... why is he the greatest, what are/were his merits, what were/are his contributions to the game and what do you think prevented him from raising the cup?

We all have them - the little tics, the nerves, the things we do before, during or after writing - the situations that make use feel we will be cursed if they come true (or cursed if they do not).

Literature is positively packed with great characters. Suspending disbelief for a moment, if you could meet any literary character from any story, who would it be and why? If you could ask them just one question, what would it be?

Okay, let play armchair General Managers. Using the salary cap of $59,000,000 draft a team of current, active NHL players (AHL and European club players are eligible as well) - 4 forward lines, 6 d-men, 2 goalies and extra roster spots. Who would you stock your team with?

Due to George Steinbrenner recent passing (RIP), who would you say is the best and worst owners and why. Who had great potential, but ended up disappointing and vice versa.

Not looking for a Dave Semenko type who were just know for fighting. I'm thinking of a enforcer who could score, pass and skate as well as rack up the penalty minutes and protect the team

from the prime of their career, naturally and why ...

BQ - which star from the past would least likely be able to adapt to today's game and why

or if not, has one ever come close (3 out of the 4, for instance). Answer doesn't have to be from the modern era.