Yeah, that's why you gotta write more than one book. You need the commercial successes and also the world shapers if you want to have a successful career, at least, that's how I judge success.
Ideally your magnum opus would do both, but a magnum opus can't really be evaluated as a magnum opus until.... your career is over or you are dead. There's always room for improvement.
:sigh: I think any of us would be delighted with either outcome.
But I have plans for that 50 million, I have to build monumental temples to go with my Holy Book. Starting a religion isn't cheap.
Both.
I would use the money to build Castle Grayskull, or if I got the chance under almost any circumstance. Right out on the north end of town where they have all those nice horse farms you can see from the high way, complete with heroic sized He-Man and Skeletor locked in sword combat statue.
As an aside Avery everytime you switch pictures you look like a different person I know in real life. First few times I thought you must be someone I know messing with me.
Is it too soon to derail this?
Let's talk about the role money plays in changing the world. And also the people in our world who are capable of changing things. Who is more in a position to change the world? A politician (not likely I'd say), a writer, an inventor?
What does changing the world even mean? When was the last time the world really changed?
The government legalized spying on its people, over one million people went to war. A countries dictator was overthrown, an entire religion became an enemy, gas prices sky rocketed, Just to name a few.
Sorry, if I am overly sensitive. Having gone to war because of this has made me really defensive about it. Just go with it.
actually, as far as who is in the best POSITION to change the world, I believe you left out the richest 1%, and the heads of the mega-corporations. if they someday chose to do so. but that paints a frightening picture, that I'd rather not think about.
in lieu of all that money, which I don't believe is crucial to change, I think it could just be a matter of people looking outward instead of in. giving of themselves in some unselfish way.
one would think the politician would be best suited, supposedly serving as our 'collective voice', but I agree, that's not likely. and so, it falls upon the writer. words can be powerful, indeed, in bringing about change.
we should form a new party, 'the Lit'.
It really is funny that people still believe the politicians are going to change things. No position in government is not bought now. Look how much money they spend on advertising and who is paying the bill. You think they won't want some privledges for making it happen for them. It's just a scam now to give people the illusion of hope. The illusion that change is coming. "Just four more years and then we can get someone in there that will change our lives."
You want change, go do it yourself. The government isn't going to do it.
Bit of a loaded question don't you think. If its a book that is so monumentally powerful that it actually helps to "Shape the World" why is the trade off a measily $50 million? Maddonas Florida mansion cost her $29 Mil and decent sized Super Yacht cost a good $20 Mil leaving you to scrape by on a poultry $10 Mil !
Oh and i voted for shape the world. :0)
@Avery- i have my moments. seems so simple, really. but that is a choice. I think its important to highlight that. and a choice many people aren't willing to make.
@JD- I'm with you on the whole 'illusion of hope' thing. I wonder if they believe they're fooling us.
I think you guys are looking at things in very over simplified manor. The richest 1% are NOT some secret block of folks who agree on things, neither are politicians, the heads of major MNCs, or any other group with more then 2 or 3 people. And 2 or 3 people who agree are rare.
You know how we can't ever agree on anything on the boards? Some of us want to do A and some want to do the exact opposite Z, and bunch are in between? Imagine if you gave each one of us a billion dollars. We'd be rich and not get a thing done that wasn't personal. Sure we might start a business, or a charity, or whatever. But that $50 Million you gave for gun control? Some other guy just gave $50 million for the protection of the 2nd Amendment (for those outside America the 2nd Amendment is the part of the United States Constitution that legally ensures Americans have the right to own guns).
There are tons of people doing everything that you guys have listed. To really change things you have to do something we never even think about it is so rare. You have to get people to agree on something.
The problem with Changing the World is that each single person has a different idea about it. And they're basically all wrong.
Hitler wanted to change the world, Charles Manson wanted to change the world. They even thought they were being unselfish, in a way.
There's something awesome about 'The World': it changes itself in a manner that escapes humans' will. Some call it God, I call it Chaos. It's what Orwell, Huxley, Dick and many others taught us. Every time we try to change the world, the world changes us. In tragic ways, and the sad thing is that we never learn from that. Of course we want to feel powerful against Chaos, we strive to survive, but look what we got for wanting our lives more comfortable and longer: pollution, garbage everywhere, wars and poverty - don't let me start on that.
I'm not saying that humanity should stop trying to have a nice life. I'm saying, let's do it in a smart way. It takes a long time, if we survive as a species.
I still go for the money. Because of deserving it. With inspiring works.
I wish I could think like that. But I cannot repay my family for all they've done for me with a changed world, because they're gonna be dead by that day, if it'll ever come. And I'd rather give my dear ones a decent old age by writing a good book than by working in a shitty call center, calling people who don't want to be called all day.
This supposed 'magical book' wouldn't necessarily have to be a work that the world, as a whole, immediately loves and adores. But what if its a book that speaks to that one, very influential person out there (let's say, Oprah!), It plants an idea. A fire is ignited. A movement begins. The movement snowballs. Certainly, this has potential, no?
Here's my example: Catcher in the Rye. People love catcher in the Rye, they're all like "you should read it," and so they do. But catcher in the rye is a book about how it's alright to be a self involved, smug, superior jackass. And so I think that Salinger could probably take credit for an uptick in the self involved smug jackass population.
But, liturature exists as a tool to help us think about real life problems. So you aren't going to get a direct influence from it. You don't see a bill to legalize LSD called "The Electric Kool Aid Act," and if that's the sort of effect you want then, lol you are in the wrong field, it is unlikely that a book will have that sort of influence. If you want direct influence on your society then I reccomend that you start trying out for Reality TV.
But, while changing the ways that people think about things is a smaller sort of change, it is infinitely more pervasive. It's a long process, but changing the way people think about things is the first step.
Why can't we list Holy Books? What makes the Bible not count? It's a fucking book, written by men, that influenced the way people think. It's like the Roussou's Social Contract or Aristotle's Ethics, or do they not count either?
Any book Ayn Rand ever wrote served to pave the way for the popularization of von Hayek and other neoliberal deregulators. They have a very real effect on the country you live in. She wrote the Tax Code, she wrote the arguments we have about the tax code, it just took a while for her changes to take effect.
No book written in most of our lifetimes has had the time yet to make such a change.
Note that I asked about "works of fiction," not books such as Origin of the Species. Religious books don't count because I was asking about books such as novels or short story collections (although many people may consider religious texts works of fiction).
Rand and Salinger may or may not have made fifty million off the books that you mentioned, but they definitely made a lot of money. A book cannot change the world without selling tons of copies. Since a book can't change the world without making a lot of money, I feel this question is invalid. It would be better if it asked which of these things is more important to a person. Why must we choose one of the things but not the other? And I would be unable to answer the question unless I specifically knew what "changing the world" were referring to. There are many ways to change the world that would not appeal to me.
I would think of it more as Catcher in the Rye versus Twilight success. Catcher in the Rye has latest generation after generation as being influential as a piece of literature. I don't think Salinger made a fortune with it and he really didn't want to or he wouldn't have left the writing game so quickly after only three books. I think he understood that if he kept going he would become a product and didn't want to do that. I would rather make a decent living writing but I don't even know if I would want it to be my primary means of income, there is a reason I didn't major in English. Being a psychologist, I think I will have more of an opportunity to get to understand human nature by working with people. I think good writers always have another career because if he are just a writer sitting around and thinking about writing all the time, eventually it seems like you will just go crazy (I know this from being unemployed, I thought hey I will be really productive now, bullshit, I just ate chips and watched bad TV) because I think all human beings need a routine or some sort and exposure to social stimuli in order to create. Unless you are independantly wealthy and can travel the world. Although I will admit when I do get old enough for retirement age, I will probably do what Joyce Carol Oates does and just write on a schedule every day from like 8-2, go jogging or to the park or something and then come back home and write some more. When you get to a certain age and have gained enough wisdom I think just writing is enough. That opens up a deeper philosophical question of can an artist create in a void?
Being a Twilight sort of writer where you are a huge success because you tap into a trend and a bunch of silly movies are created from that trend, you make money but honestly does anyone really think anyone will give a shit about these books in 20 years? I really don't think they will last the test of time. The Harry Potter books will because there are deeper themes to them under the surface. Twilight is just glorfied romance novels and they aren't even written well. So while she may be rich and successful, I don't think Meyer really matters in the long run to stand the test of time. I could be wrong, in some horrible dystopic future maybe her writing will be considered literary because people's intelligence has devolved to the point of retardation.
In this horrible possible future, imagine Grandma's with tattoos that say TEAM EDWARD being buried by their grandchildren who are TEAM JACOB. Shivers.
@Bradley--although you have to admit, in our ridiculously fickle social stratosphere, that's not so out of the question, how many albums sell millions of copies and no one really gives a shit about them in a few years or movies for example?? Movies can make 50 million dollars and in ten years be considered pieces of shit and end up in the bargain bin. I think our culture eats up a lot of shit and then disregards it just as quickly.
Joseph, I think we all want money, we all want the Stephen King dream of being vastly successful and knowing that we have created a legacy. King's legacy will last even if the snobs don't respect him as a literary writer, he will definitely be remembered long after his death because of his immense imagination and body of work and he lives quite comfortably. Although I do think King is an anomaly, most writers get successful with a few books and then disappear for years at a time. Even the great writers. I think the deeper question is: would you rather be a writer who writes one book in his lifetime that is successful long after your death and remembered (you live in moderate successful but still have to maintain a regular job)? Or write a shitload of books that make you a rich man but they are formuliac pieces of crap that no one cares about when you are six feet under. Yes, James Patterson I am looking at you.
It can be argued that Twilight is more influential than Catcher in the Rye. The book may be as influential has Harry Potter, although perhaps it is more influential on writers.
@Bradley--although you have to admit, in our ridiculously fickle social stratosphere, that's not so out of the question, how many albums sell millions of copies and no one really gives a shit about them in a few years or movies for example?? Movies can make 50 million dollars and in ten years be considered pieces of shit and end up in the bargain bin. I think our culture eats up a lot of shit and then disregards it just as quickly.
Books such as this may be read significantly less after five years pass, but they will still be read.
