The time period in which it was written has more to do with it then anything else I think. It took so long to print books and get them to places that had people that could both afford them and read them. Its a whole different world now with books online, and instant notification and distribution to thousands of places all around the world.
As per your question I would rather make an enduring monument to my greatness then a POS that gave me money.
Remembered generations after you're dead for being revolutionary. As opposed to Twilight, which will probably be forgotten over the next 5, 10 years tops. Substance > Money any day of the week.
What happens in the very unlikely event that Twilight is successful after Stephanie Meyer's death? I'd say Dracula. If you're going to do something, you might as well do it well.
I'd rather have a combination of both to be honest. I'd want a novel, or series of novels, that would bring fame and money while I'm alive. But then, they would be cited as classics after my death. While fame would mean nothing to me once I'm dead, I'd still die happy knowing that what I created would be remembered as a breakthrough classic of my time!
I would much rather write something that will leave people remembering my name when I'm dead, rather than a piece of crap pop-culture fan-fiction reject that will be forgotten or remembered only with hatred and disgust.
I would probably want Twilight's success and I'll explain why.
You see, if I write a shit-tacular book while I'm alive and make a ton of money over the course of my life, I could use that money to promote some works that will (hopefully) be good. Not all sources of income are glamorous, but I would honestly do whatever I could to gain money to fuel my hopes and dreams. If that means sending out a disgraceful piece of trash, well, let's hope that my next attempt at it wont be so awful.
I don't care one bit about wealth. I care about integrity, and I care about making a lasting impact. Both are things Twilight does not possess, and therefore, I choose Dracula.
I think everyone who selects 'Dracula' needs to remember they wouldn't be aware of the impact they would have. I imagine creating a brilliant and complex piece of art only for it not to be acknowledged is hugely frustrating.
I would opt for 'Twilight' being poor having to work in a job I hate sucks.
Having said that working in admin to fund a masters degree in film that won't lead anywhere makes me feel like I am in a 'Dracula' type situation. I am not saying I am a genius like Bram Stoker, more just frustrated I have a skill set that is of little use and I don't have the oppurtunity to apply in my every day life.
i'd go with dracula. why? because i have self-respect; and no amount of money can buy me that ^^
tigermilk said:
I think everyone who selects 'Dracula' needs to remember they wouldn't be aware of the impact they would have. I imagine creating a brilliant and complex piece of art only for it not to be acknowledged is hugely frustrating.
I would opt for 'Twilight' being poor having to work in a job I hate sucks.
Having said that working in admin to fund a masters degree in film that won't lead anywhere makes me feel like I am in a 'Dracula' type situation. I am not saying I am a genius like Bram Stoker, more just frustrated I have a skill set that is of little use and I don't have the oppurtunity to apply in my every day life.
i am aware that my dracula won't have much of an impact whilst i live. but i'm finished writing it, i can look into the mirror, standing tall and say: i am not a sell-out, and i did something i, in my eyes, deem worthy of having been made.
how can that be frustrating?
and if it were frustrating to you we obviously have different sets of values ^^
you say you have a job you hate and have a skill-set you cannot put to use. why do you not create your own luck? and if you cannot meet the requirements for that now, for example the money to move, or the age to legally do whatever the hell you want, work towards that first, and then move along to step two.
at this point, i'd like to refer to the courage wolf ^^
[link]http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=598158&stc=1&d=1235109582[/link]
ruedyn said:
I'm more of a painter than anything else, so I kind of HAVE to be dracula. Nobody worships a turgid piece of shit painting.
Dracula is regarded as one of the great novels of the Victorian Horror Genre, the classic vampire tale praised by many and copied by more.
Twilight is a turgid piece of crap that has made Stephanie Meyer one of the most famous and rich authors of the day. It is praised by the die hard fans and no one else.
The crucial difference? Dracula made very little money and sold very few copies during its original release. It was only after Bram Stoker's death that it began to gain anywhere near the following it had. Twilight has made Stephanie Meyer rich and famous right now.
Which would you rather have? A work of yours (music, essay, game, book, film, zoetrope, whatever) becomes famous only after you're dead, but is either unheard of or outright shunned while you're alive, or write an utterly awful piece of crap that makes you large wads of cash and fame while you're alive?
I'd rather have Twilight to be frank. If I knew that writing some utterly terrible book would make me famous and rich tomorrow, I'd write it in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even care if it gathered the sort of hatedom that Twilight has.
The reason I use Twilight and Dracula is because they are both books featuring vampires, and that fit my argument suprisingly well. There is no other reason for this choice.
I would not trade dignity for fame, nor fortune. Writing for me is about the story, not the money. Very few writers make bank off their books until well into their careers and even then do not break the rich barrier. Most of them make enough to live comfortably, and that is a goal worthy of achieving, especially if you're not sacrificing what makes you a writer just to make money. But in this day and age, staying true to one's art seems to be the wrong choice in at least a vocal majority's eyes because it "doesn't make you rich". Well, a rich man takes nothing to the grave, but a man who accomplishes much leaves a legacy behind that can span centuries.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
