Dracula, obviously. True, Twilight has money and fans, but it's such a turgid piece of shit I'd rather stick with a good story instead of that stinker...
I agree why can't it be both? Make a bunch of cash on drivel and have a really good book that was overlooked until your death. But honestly this is why I can't right in the back of my head I am afraid of people judging me, that and anything I try hard on makes sense to me as I am writing it but reads like the ravings of a mad man. Maybe I should try to get something published someone will assume I knew what I was doing.Abandon4093 said:I'd like both to be honest. But I would go for substance and merit over cheap success.
I'd rather have something I did be called a classic after I died than a vapid waste of space while I was alive. But I'd still rather have it known as a classic while I live.
I'm sorry, but Twilight isn't about vampires, clearly. It's obvious to me that they must be FAIRIES.MelasZepheos said:-Honey, I Shrunk The Quote-
Yeah, it's a bit scary if you actually read it. I read Twilight just to see what all the fuss was about and... was promptly rather creeped. And Dracula has been one of my favorite novels since I was around 16. (Funnily enough, this was when Twilight was first getting big.)DustyDrB said:Oh, I didn't know Twilight was like that. I haven't read it. I haven't read Dracula either, though. I've never been into vampires.LiberalSquirrel said:It's not that I don't want to write anything without some so-called "deeper artistic merit." I like purely entertaining works (and money) just as much as the next girl. It's just that I don't agree with a lot of underlying themes in Twilight. The major one being the "it's okay, and in fact very romantic, if your boyfriend watches you while you sleep, controls a good part of your life, follows you everywhere without your knowledge, and makes it so that you feel like killing yourself if he ever leaves you." Thus, if I wrote something like that, and marketed it as some great love story in order make myself some money, I'd be ashamed.DustyDrB said:You'd really feel ashamed? There's nothing wrong with writing vapid works meant purely for entertainment. I think providing someone a world to lose themselves in for few moments is a noble thing, no matter the lack of artistic merit or thematic depth.LiberalSquirrel said:I saw this thread title and immediately thought, "Oh, it's okay Mr. Stoker, they don't really mean to compare your awesome novel to Twilight." And, lo and behold, the thread proves me right.
Thank you. =)
Back on topic, I would far prefer to write something that is actually deep and meaningful, even if it is only recognized after my lifetime. I think I'd feel a bit ashamed of myself as a writer if I ever churned out something like Twilight for a quick buck.
And I like money.
fuck yes, i thought i was the only one that played legacy of kain or read hellsing. those are true vampires indeed. this world needs the anti twilight to come out after breaking dawn 2 has come out. if they make a new vampire movie that's good soon enough, it might be able to blot out this horrible era of fairies with vampire complexesFalloutJack said:I'm sorry, but Twilight isn't about vampires, clearly. It's obvious to me that they must be FAIRIES.MelasZepheos said:-Honey, I Shrunk The Quote-
I don't just vote Dracula. I vote any vampire that doesn't sparkle. Alucard in Hellsing, Castlevania, Legacy of Kain, Nosferatu (AKA Max Shrek), Bela Legosi, etc. Hell, Blade gets my vote.
Plenty of actors go between indie films and big Hollywood movies, don't see any reason authors can't do the same. Make up a pen name if you need to.StBishop said:I picked Twilight. I would use the money to better human kind in the way that (I think) art never can. Through Science!