Does a writer have any artistic freedom left...?
Posted by: Gajdzin on 26 April 2014
I'm just back from a meeting with my publisher. They said: "yes, we'd love for you to write another novel, as long as it takes place in Japan."
A little background: my first novel's action was in Japan and it was a bestseller here. The next one was happening in Singapore, then 2 in Japan. Now every reader thinks of me as a writer who writes books "about Japan". In my humble opinion I have never written a book ABOUT Japan. It's just a geographical place for the action. But that's how I got labelled. And I hate that label. I see myself as a writer of novels that talk about people, their stories, their emotions and experiences. A book is either good or bad and who cares if its action is in Japan or Wisbech, Cambridgeshire.
On the other hand I understand my publisher. They invest a lot of money in a book and they need to see some profit. They know my fans want to read about Japan, which is why my fifth novel, that had very little to do with Asia, was a bit of a flop - only 5000 copies sold in the first half year, and they printed 10000, hoping for much higher sales.
Should I sell out and write what the publisher (and, apparently, the readers) want to read about?
OK, I know it's a weird topic for a Naim forum 
But I found so much good advice here (albeit on somewhat different matters) that who knows, maybe someone will open my mind...?
of course he isn't that way, like pretty much anyone in the world who chose to live among humans instead of, say, a forest... you see, man wants to be wanted, not free.
Brecht's Mother Courage.
- good literature piece, btw.
a reader of Brecht is more likely to learn how to think, than a reader of something like Harry Potter.
ah that is the book's title spelled correctly. Harry Potter, not 'Gary Potter'.
nah not at all.
i've not a slightest idea, and why should i?
Really it is an important point.
We could start by sharing Poland between Germany, Russia and Austro-Hungary, just like the old days, while we are at it.
Surely every free thinking person has a view on the sense of such an idea?
ATB from George
hmm, let me see... actually i hate all that Halloween stuff, for example.
well, dressing up in funny clothes and having weird sex should in itself be enough to attract idiots of all sorts.
Char Wallah: does Putin put up with witchcraft in Russia, I wonder?
to my knowledge, not any longer; witches and healers are refused licensing these days.
of course he isn't that way, like pretty much anyone in the world who chose to live among humans instead of, say, a forest... you see, man wants to be wanted, not free.
That's adorable! So Bashar and Vladimir and Robert and Kim Jong-Un just want to be wanted. All those oppressed women in Afghanistan and Pakistan would rather be wanted by their menfolk and the religious fanatics of the Taliban. So nobody wants to be free or to be treated as a human being, they just want their leaders, their bosses to like them. I never knew. Thanks very much for putting me straight.
no, these already feel like want to be free, but its too late...
leave the Taliban out of it. Afganistan had nothing to do with them until the 1990s, so do not distort the facts.
exactly.
that rings true... what is more surprising how the West has adopted a Bolshevik version of 1917 events and their reasons and attitude concerning the tsar and his family.
exactly.
Looks like i'm the odd one out - yet again.
I couldn't give a sh*t whether Cameron or my boss likes me or not.
And I certainly wouldn't compromise my views on right v wrong or any other matter, just to get one or both to like me !
maybe that's because your own wife is your boss already?
nah not at all.
i've not a slightest idea, and why should i?
Really it is an important point.
We could start by sharing Poland between Germany, Russia and Austro-Hungary, just like the old days, while we are at it.
Surely every free thinking person has a view on the sense of such an idea?
ATB from George
Dear Sharik,
Perhaps you missed my post earlier. Also, perhaps you would be so kind as to address the question that I put?
ATB from George
honestly, i didn't quite get what that question was asking... because its yet too early that a 'free thinking person' was among us here, us totally blinkered individuals.
The original Question to which I refer is that you do not seem to have a view on returning modern Russia to the old borders of Imperial Tzarist Russia. I think that implies a lack of thought whether you are from Russia or not.
So I posed the possibility that Russia also might well like to occupy half of Poland again, perhaps allowing Germany and Austro-Hungary to occupy the rest.
Russia has alway been viewed as a great and threatening Bear by its smaller neighbours in Scandinavia, the Baltic States and Finland, let alone by other countries. It is a point that has significance for freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
ATB from George
Never mind about the former Soviet states for a minute George J, would you say we have more, or less, freedoms in the U.K. as we did, say, 20 or 30 years ago?
I would say, "six of one and half a dozen of the other".
Or, 6 of 1 and 6 of another.
Jason
Never mind about the former Soviet states for a minute George J, would you say we have more, or less, freedoms in the U.K. as we did, say, 20 or 30 years ago?
Less ...
We are far more watched than then. I am sure that every email or communication via the internet has the potential to be eavesdropped. The phone was always subject to tapping in certain circumstances.
CCTV is everywhere in the urban setting ...
Since the 1970s the Secret Services are working as much on watching the UK population as watching the actions of foreign powers. Spying has changed.
Labour under Blair was keen to allow the Police a much longer period of interrogation before a charge must be brought or the suspect released.
Yes I think we are less free than in past times.
Does this matter? I think it does, but most completely harmless people probably accept it if it means that we don't have terrorist bombs being let off in public place and so forth.
On balance the possibility for mayhem wrought by terrorists has allowed central government to tighten up on surveillance with the silent acquiescence of most people. I am sure that there is balance to be found, but as it is all necessarily shrouded in secrecy, it is impossible to know just what is going on.
I have no firm knowledge of this. It is only my opinion as things go along.
ATB from George
Definitely more of Brave New World than Orwell's 1984, I think.
Strangely there is also the control freakery that is apparent in Huxley's book as well with a a persistent increase in nanny statism. Today's Television is the soma that Huxley describes!
I find this immensely irritating!
I do not use or even own a TV, and never will again. A dreadful and polluted medium in the main.
ATB from George
I was given a broken copy in hardback [of BNW] with some pages missing. It was to me a terrifying read in all honesty, but read very quickly only a couple of years ago. I read 1984 and Animal Farm in three days as a thirteen year old without really realising the significance at the time. I thought them fanciful storiesm a long way from reality. As you get older you realise the wise warnings inherent in the Orwell, but I found Huxley impossibly dis-comforting as it seemed so prescient of what is actually happening.
ATB from George
Originally Posted by George J: returning modern Russia to the old borders of Imperial Tzarist Russia
that is impossible.
Originally Posted by George J: Russia has alway been viewed as a great and threatening Bear
by West media.
At the time of writing this post, Dr Mark was identified as the previous last poster, about 9 or 10 minutes ago.
No sign of Dr Mark after Sharik's post 3 hours ago.
I have noticed this sort of discrepancy before. Is this Hoopless at work again ?
Originally Posted by George J: returning modern Russia to the old borders of Imperial Tzarist Russia
that is impossible.
Originally Posted by George J: Russia has alway been viewed as a great and threatening Bear
by West media.
The Western Presstitute media is a propaganda machine that even Goebbels would admire. And nowhere is it more apparent than in its treatment and coverage of Russia. Purely government mouthpiece. Putin is not an angel, but he would have been irresponsible to let his Black Sea fleet become isolated as it would have been after the Western back peaceful protest violent coup.
For over 20 years Russia has watched NATO encroach ever closer gobbling up former Warsaw Pact countries, and now as an arm of the US neo-con warmongers, appears to want to re-erect the Iron Curtain and foment the Cold War, only this time right on Russia's border. Can you imagine if Russia tried the same thing in South America? The Western press' caterwauling would be ceaseless. And now they have the unmitigated balls to accuse Russia of the same thing the West (read USA) did in Kiev.
We don't like anyone who resists our banking and corporate cabal. Ukraine will be the Slavic Greece in short order - heavily indebted to the banks and raped of its resources...which is exactly what the West would love to do to Russia.
Again, Putin is not a saint, or even a good guy, but let's face it; who has more innocent civilian kills to his credit over the last 5 years; Putin or Obama? The latter is a war criminal (as were his predecessors, whom heObama has pre-exonerated by Executive Pardon) and should be thought of as nothing more than a murderer.
Putin expanding Russia to Soviet or Tsarist levels is nothing more than Western media bullsh*t to justify the illegal actions of the USA & NATO.
The Western Presstitute media is a propaganda machine that even Goebbels would admire. And nowhere is it more apparent than in its treatment and coverage of Russia. Purely government mouthpiece. Putin is not an angel, but he would have been irresponsible to let his Black Sea fleet become isolated as it would have been after the Western back peaceful protest violent coup.
For over 20 years Russia has watched NATO encroach ever closer gobbling up former Warsaw Pact countries, and now as an arm of the US neo-con warmongers, appears to want to re-erect the Iron Curtain and foment the Cold War, only this time right on Russia's border. Can you imagine if Russia tried the same thing in South America? The Western press' caterwauling would be ceaseless. And now they have the unmitigated balls to accuse Russia of the same thing the West (read USA) did in Kiev.
We don't like anyone who resists our banking and corporate cabal. Ukraine will be the Slavic Greece in short order - heavily indebted to the banks and raped of its resources...which is exactly what the West would love to do to Russia.
Again, Putin is not a saint, or even a good guy, but let's face it; who has more innocent civilian kills to his credit over the last 5 years; Putin or Obama? The latter is a war criminal (as were his predecessors, whom heObama has pre-exonerated by Executive Pardon) and should be thought of as nothing more than a murderer.
Putin expanding Russia to Soviet or Tsarist levels is nothing more than Western media bullsh*t to justify the illegal actions of the USA & NATO.
agreed.
Never mind about the former Soviet states for a minute George J, would you say we have more, or less, freedoms in the U.K. as we did, say, 20 or 30 years ago?
As Jason says, it's half and half. There is more surveillance of the average UK Joe than ever before. Yet the corollary of that is information is more accessible to the citizen than ever before. This means that politicians and corporations are more accountable - IF we choose to make them so.
And there is another crucial improvement - those who are different (gays, people of different races or ethnicities etc) are more free to go about their business and live their lives AS HUMAN BEINGS without fear of intimidation. That's not to say things are perfect here, but they are better than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
Originally Posted by George J: returning modern Russia to the old borders of Imperial Tzarist Russia
that is impossible.
Originally Posted by George J: Russia has alway been viewed as a great and threatening Bear
by West media.
The Western Presstitute media is a propaganda machine that even Goebbels would admire. And nowhere is it more apparent than in its treatment and coverage of Russia. Purely government mouthpiece. Putin is not an angel, but he would have been irresponsible to let his Black Sea fleet become isolated as it would have been after the Western back peaceful protest violent coup.
For over 20 years Russia has watched NATO encroach ever closer gobbling up former Warsaw Pact countries, and now as an arm of the US neo-con warmongers, appears to want to re-erect the Iron Curtain and foment the Cold War, only this time right on Russia's border. Can you imagine if Russia tried the same thing in South America? The Western press' caterwauling would be ceaseless. And now they have the unmitigated balls to accuse Russia of the same thing the West (read USA) did in Kiev.
We don't like anyone who resists our banking and corporate cabal. Ukraine will be the Slavic Greece in short order - heavily indebted to the banks and raped of its resources...which is exactly what the West would love to do to Russia.
Again, Putin is not a saint, or even a good guy, but let's face it; who has more innocent civilian kills to his credit over the last 5 years; Putin or Obama? The latter is a war criminal (as were his predecessors, whom heObama has pre-exonerated by Executive Pardon) and should be thought of as nothing more than a murderer.
Putin expanding Russia to Soviet or Tsarist levels is nothing more than Western media bullsh*t to justify the illegal actions of the USA & NATO.
Sorry Doc, but I cannot understand why an intelligent man such as yourself can come out with such utter garbage. NATO/"the West" are by no means angels, or even particularly a force for universal good, but that is no reason not to condemn Putin (and his supporters and lickspittles) as a dangerous and expansionist despot.
I was given a broken copy in hardback [of BNW] with some pages missing. It was to me a terrifying read in all honesty, but read very quickly only a couple of years ago. I read 1984 and Animal Farm in three days as a thirteen year old without really realising the significance at the time. I thought them fanciful storiesm a long way from reality. As you get older you realise the wise warnings inherent in the Orwell, but I found Huxley impossibly dis-comforting as it seemed so prescient of what is actually happening.
ATB from George
George, a comparison between 1984 and Brave New World is a 50-year literary tradition. As a work of art, 1984 is superior to BNW because Orwell is a much better writer than Huxley - in fact, with the possible exception of Joyce, Orwell is the greatest writer of English prose of the 20th century. My reading of Huxley is that he was a far-sighted technocrat (his imaginings of mass-media and cloning are remarkably prescient) who was informed by a very Edwardian (religious?) sentimentality.
Many critics have said that in Orwell's novel, books are banned or rewritten, and totalitarianism comes about through the rule of fear, disinformation/censorship and the constant rewriting of history; in Huxley's "brave new world", there is no need for censorship because the population is so content/desensitised via drugs, sex, consumerism (as it was understood in 1931), mass media and the provision of pleasure that there is no need to ban books - nobody has need or desire of them. This is true, and Huxley is in some ways a prophet of our current society.
(Although I have to say I disagree with you about TV being "soma" - as someone who hasn't owned, by his own admission, a telly for years, how can you pass judgement on TV in 2014? A lot of it is garbage, to be sure, but a lot of it is both great - Mad Men, The Bridge, Line of Duty - and discomforting - yesterday's Panorama investigation into the scandalous abuse of the elderly in care homes, which looks as if it may have far-reaching consequences).
Having read many of Huxley's books, I get the feeling that he blamed the world portrayed in BNW on democracy, libertarianism and the pursuit of freedom. In this way he is - in my eyes at least - condemned as a reactionary.
Whereas Orwell, whose acuity was as crystalline, unsparing and as unsentimental as his prose, created a world so horrific, so possible, that it will stand as a warning to all men, for all time. It is the most important book written in the 20th century and one of the most important ever written.
One last point: Huxley's book was written before the Stalinist purges, WW2 propaganda, and the horrors of the Holocaust. Orwell's was written after. Both books are warnings rather than prophecies, but I know which of the two warnings we must listen to most closely.