From the amazon reviews of her book: "I could not finish this book. When the author burst into sobs yet again in the middle of prayer, or a conversation, or walking down the street, or (more likely) on the floor of yet another bathroom, I gave up. This is the type of person you meet at a cocktail party and RUN in the other direction after a few minutes when she starts spewing out all her problems at you with no end in sight."
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote the best treatise on writing (and by extension, creative expression) I think I've ever read. Here are some excerpts - I believe its worthwile reading the entire essay many times:
"I often hear people say, “I’m not good enough yet to be published.” That’s quite possible. Probable, even. All I’m saying is: Let someone else decide that. Magazines, editors, agents – they all employ young people making $22,000 a year whose job it is to read through piles of manuscripts and send you back letters telling you that you aren’t good enough yet: LET THEM DO IT. Don’t pre-reject yourself. That’s their job, not yours. Your job is only to write your heart out, and let destiny take care of the rest."
"There are heaps of books out there on How To Get Published. Often people find the information in these books contradictory. My feeling is -- of COURSE the information is contradictory. Because, frankly, nobody knows anything. Nobody can tell you how to succeed at writing (even if they write a book called “How To Succeed At Writing”) because there is no WAY; there are, instead, many ways. Everyone I know who managed to become a writer did it differently – sometimes radically differently. "
I really wanted to dislike that essay - I was annoyed at how she treated writing like a sacred task - but it was good and definitely worth the few minutes it took to read. Thanks for the link!
That book features something I don't think I've ever seen on amazon: All three top (front page) reviews are one-starred. Not that amazon reviewers are perfect, but that's pretty rare for a book by a "genius".
I've seen that before twice: in both cases, it meant that it steps on someone's or some group's ego or politics, and then there's no small brigade of internet trolls sent out to deliver Amazon justice.
I gave a one-star review to Sarah Lacy's book on Web 2.0. It wasn't politics as much as truly shoddy journalism. She attributed thoughts and opinions to me without actually asking what I thought on the subject (she was basically fed info from digg PR). My negative review probably looked like a PR thing, when in fact it was a personal reaction to plain old shoddy work.
Maybe the book is too long for the point she tries to make. I think we are starting to need a shorter format for this kind of books; some of these ideas can be really useful, but they couldn't ever fill an entire book (another example: Gladwell's books, which can have an interesting point -even if it's a conjecture-, but they are too long for the ideas they try to tell).
Comments
From the amazon reviews of her book: "I could not finish this book. When the author burst into sobs yet again in the middle of prayer, or a conversation, or walking down the street, or (more likely) on the floor of yet another bathroom, I gave up. This is the type of person you meet at a cocktail party and RUN in the other direction after a few minutes when she starts spewing out all her problems at you with no end in sight."
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote the best treatise on writing (and by extension, creative expression) I think I've ever read. Here are some excerpts - I believe its worthwile reading the entire essay many times:
"I often hear people say, “I’m not good enough yet to be published.” That’s quite possible. Probable, even. All I’m saying is: Let someone else decide that. Magazines, editors, agents – they all employ young people making $22,000 a year whose job it is to read through piles of manuscripts and send you back letters telling you that you aren’t good enough yet: LET THEM DO IT. Don’t pre-reject yourself. That’s their job, not yours. Your job is only to write your heart out, and let destiny take care of the rest."
"There are heaps of books out there on How To Get Published. Often people find the information in these books contradictory. My feeling is -- of COURSE the information is contradictory. Because, frankly, nobody knows anything. Nobody can tell you how to succeed at writing (even if they write a book called “How To Succeed At Writing”) because there is no WAY; there are, instead, many ways. Everyone I know who managed to become a writer did it differently – sometimes radically differently. "
http://www.elizabethgilbert.com/writing.htm Submitting essay link for what it's worth..
I really wanted to dislike that essay - I was annoyed at how she treated writing like a sacred task - but it was good and definitely worth the few minutes it took to read. Thanks for the link!
That book features something I don't think I've ever seen on amazon: All three top (front page) reviews are one-starred. Not that amazon reviewers are perfect, but that's pretty rare for a book by a "genius".
I've seen that before twice: in both cases, it meant that it steps on someone's or some group's ego or politics, and then there's no small brigade of internet trolls sent out to deliver Amazon justice.
I've never seen that in fiction, though.
I gave a one-star review to Sarah Lacy's book on Web 2.0. It wasn't politics as much as truly shoddy journalism. She attributed thoughts and opinions to me without actually asking what I thought on the subject (she was basically fed info from digg PR). My negative review probably looked like a PR thing, when in fact it was a personal reaction to plain old shoddy work.
Maybe the book is too long for the point she tries to make. I think we are starting to need a shorter format for this kind of books; some of these ideas can be really useful, but they couldn't ever fill an entire book (another example: Gladwell's books, which can have an interesting point -even if it's a conjecture-, but they are too long for the ideas they try to tell).