Bottom line, if you suck at writing and have a fan base of haters or write low-quality slop that people somehow enjoy, I am so jealous of you. But even if you aren't on the map, if you can have fun and love the haters, there's no difference in publishing good or bad fiction.
I read Ender's Game. Good book. One of the chapters is "And then they ran." Kinda cool style there.
Well, prose is art, so we can all dunk on "bad prose" but at the end of the day, it's just not your taste. Is somebody liked that dude's stories, great. Not everyone will, no matter who you are or what you write. A lot of people hated on Twilight, even Stephen King did, but at the end of the day, she outsold him ten to one, ha!
The Eye of Argon is an awful but necessarily amazing story in the history of fantasy literature that evokes what can only be described as terrible but entertaining writing. How does yours compare? What can we learn from it?
Wow, I'm really intrigued by this story. I've never heard of it before, but I love the absolute creativity and lack of critical caring. Kind of freeing. On Amazon it's rated 4.7 stars. Even if for reasons of comedy, I think that's great. I would call it fun art. It's great.
How does my writing compare? Hard to say. I don't write sloppily like that, and I'm very consistent and good at keeping continuity in my writing. However, as I write more and more, I find myself caring less and less about what readers think, and I'm enjoying what I write these years more than before. I can be pretty goofy in my writing, and at times, I even make up words based on breaking grammar or changing etymology. I do like shlock, because I'm a big fan of pulp writing.
I wouldn't say my writing is very comparable at all, however. My first novel I ever wrote is actually pretty decent. So not similar at all, but there's aspects of the freeness of the writing that I can appreciate.
I'm going to read it.
