Would you rather write the funniest book the world has ever seen, or the saddest book the world has ever seen?
This entry was posted on Friday, August 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm and is filed under havers, writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
4 Responses to “A Question”
Ooooh. I am tempted to say the saddest, ’cause I _like_ sad books, and when you think of the most über books they are mostly sad.
But, then, writing a funny book could also be intrinsically satisfying. One would see people reading it on the tube and snorting in a very un-British manner, which would be amusing, no doubt. And one would still be in illustrious company, albeit of a slightly different genre. One’s name would be mentioned in revered tones along with Jane Shaw, Sellars & Yeatman, A A Milne and PG at dinner parties.
I think if I had to choose, though, I would probably still go for sad.
Funny, I think. I don’t do sad as well as I used to.
Funny, because I love funny books. But then there would be all this pressure to be funny all the time, like at parties and such, and what if you really don’t come across as funny in real life the way you do on the page? It would be so stressful… kind of like the way Theodore Geisel (the real Dr. Seuss) was reputedly rather shy, quiet, and not very fond of children, but everybody expected him to be The Cat in the Hat, especially the kids.
I think that I would rather go with a sad book just because they tend to age a lot better than books of a humorous nature. While the basics of humor tend to remain the same over a long period of time, the tales and jokes that are used will usually lose their impact relatively quickly compared with other genres.
I would prefer to have my great novel survive the ages as something which people can understand and still find relevent.