I did a masterclass course on writing commercial fiction with James Patterson. My number 1 take home lesson from that was that he obsessively outlines. He spends a long time on the outline, which is broken down chapter by chapter, almost scene by scene. This level of detail allows him to see plot holes, but also hand work on to his co-writers if he wants to.
While I was doing my Italian degree at University (in Montreal) I remember how all my teachers looked down on Elena Ferrante’s success, claiming that she followed some “commercial success formula”. I challenged them and said, “describe that formula to me please and I’d love to see you replicate it”. They have not taken me on my challenge so far… I don’t think Ferrante set out to be commercially successful, but her (seemingly simplistic) writing clearly resonates with many. I think this is the example I’d love to follow. Write something truthful that matters to me, and hope that it resonates. If I try to be commercial, I think I’d be lost. But that’s just me… I pass no judgement on those who can do it. Good for them!
Caroline, im with you 100%! But I think especially in academia there is a tendency to look down on « simplistic » writing. Simple doesn’t mean unintelligent, or without merit. Often, actually, « simple » is without all the fluff and show-off, drilling down to the truth of things. I admire Ferrante, but I don’t think I will try to write like her, because I can’t. I can only write like Imola :) Having said that, a year ago I wrote a book about an affair that has gone wrong that employs text messages as dialogue. It was entirely unplanned, and unlike anything I had written. It couldn’t be more « simplistic », but it does it intentionally, as I wanted to examine the language of online dating. And I still can’t decide if this book is good, or absolute crap (this is what I think on the worst days). It could be a classical case of a writer’s insecurity, but I suspect it has also something to do with its simplistic language.
It's not that Patterson doesn't have talent (he won an Edgar for his novel "The Thomas Berryman Number") but he is overexposed. And maybe relies too much on his cowriters...
But volume doesn't always equal quality. Some of the greatest writers who ever lived only published a comparatively small amount of work, but they are still thought of fondly.
I did a masterclass course on writing commercial fiction with James Patterson. My number 1 take home lesson from that was that he obsessively outlines. He spends a long time on the outline, which is broken down chapter by chapter, almost scene by scene. This level of detail allows him to see plot holes, but also hand work on to his co-writers if he wants to.
While I was doing my Italian degree at University (in Montreal) I remember how all my teachers looked down on Elena Ferrante’s success, claiming that she followed some “commercial success formula”. I challenged them and said, “describe that formula to me please and I’d love to see you replicate it”. They have not taken me on my challenge so far… I don’t think Ferrante set out to be commercially successful, but her (seemingly simplistic) writing clearly resonates with many. I think this is the example I’d love to follow. Write something truthful that matters to me, and hope that it resonates. If I try to be commercial, I think I’d be lost. But that’s just me… I pass no judgement on those who can do it. Good for them!
Caroline, im with you 100%! But I think especially in academia there is a tendency to look down on « simplistic » writing. Simple doesn’t mean unintelligent, or without merit. Often, actually, « simple » is without all the fluff and show-off, drilling down to the truth of things. I admire Ferrante, but I don’t think I will try to write like her, because I can’t. I can only write like Imola :) Having said that, a year ago I wrote a book about an affair that has gone wrong that employs text messages as dialogue. It was entirely unplanned, and unlike anything I had written. It couldn’t be more « simplistic », but it does it intentionally, as I wanted to examine the language of online dating. And I still can’t decide if this book is good, or absolute crap (this is what I think on the worst days). It could be a classical case of a writer’s insecurity, but I suspect it has also something to do with its simplistic language.
It's not that Patterson doesn't have talent (he won an Edgar for his novel "The Thomas Berryman Number") but he is overexposed. And maybe relies too much on his cowriters...
But volume doesn't always equal quality. Some of the greatest writers who ever lived only published a comparatively small amount of work, but they are still thought of fondly.