z

Young Writers Society


How do writers write Masterpeices'?



User avatar
111 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 12486
Reviews: 111
Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:37 pm
View Likes
rawrafied says...



Lucrezia wrote:Obviously the Hunger Games is twisted in its own way, but not in anything I find interesting personally.


Yeah, but the only interesting/twisted part of Hunger Games is the part ripped off from Battle Royale, and even that is considered a Japanese version of Lord of the Flies.

And on this note, I feel this brings up a good topic. What are we using to define a 'Masterpiece'? A book that's been passed down for many generations, made the bestseller list, or has won many accolades?

Personally, I don't really read anything on the bestseller list. The only exception is John Green, but I consider his works dignified, guilty pleasures. xD However, after going over older works and comparing them to other works of their time, even some of the classics aren't as phenomenal as we were made to believe growing up. :\ Though, then again, sometimes it works the opposite way, where history is what makes the novel.

I dunno, I think the only way to answer this is with the age-old quote: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
  





Random avatar


Gender: Female
Points: 17243
Reviews: 328
Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:53 am
View Likes
deleted30 says...



rawrafied wrote:And on this note, I feel this brings up a good topic. What are we using to define a 'Masterpiece'? A book that's been passed down for many generations, made the bestseller list, or has won many accolades?


I consider a masterpiece something that has an amazing, creative story and well-developed characters that are so complex and layered they seem real. I also consider a masterpiece something that has withstood the test of time, a book that's been around for years and years and people still adore and rave about. Books like Les Misérables and The Great Gatsby come to mind—classics.

But the definition of "masterpiece," or "classic," or even "good," changes with every person. I like horror books, mystery and suspense, and realistic—others may like fantasy and sci-fi.

There's not one exact thing that warrants a masterpiece, I don't think. Not one that everyone agrees on. *shrugs*
Last edited by deleted30 on Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
  





User avatar
110 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 6441
Reviews: 110
Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:38 am
View Likes
Gardevite says...



The term 'masterpiece' is sssooo subjective though! Like I would regard Wuthering Heights as a great literature masterpiece; others hate it. It has amazing qualities- it's character driven, and very compelling for a story with such a simple plot- but it also has some bad elements, like Emily Brontë's overuse of commas and exclamation marks.

In writing, judging what is and isn't a masterpiece is too tough. Style, narrative, tone, genre, characters, setting, length etc. Are all things we have nubbed down to personal preference. My masterpiece might not be your masterpiece, and all that jazz.

(and I hated the writing in Hunger Games! Eww first person-present tense mixed with a horrifyingly empty vocabulary! Eww! That entire series is plot and nothing else.)
Formerly Hightop


Garde's Reviews
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:25 am
View Likes
Rosendorn says...



The term "masterpiece" is usually defined as something that has "stood the test of time".

Aka, the work is ridiculously popular.

Writing quality, story quality, characters... don't actually matter when you're looking at the definition of the term "masterpiece". Your bookshelf is probably full of books you consider masterfully crafted, wonderful, relatable, all these adjectives, but the likelihood these books will be considered masterpieces in fifty years is slim.

Masterpieces are often, honestly, the most frequently read work in the time period it was released in. Lord of the Rings was ridiculously popular, so is Harry Potter, so was Pride and Prejudice. Heck, even Shakespeare's plays were considered entertainment for the poor. The reason we study Shakespeare and none of his contemporaries are because his plays sold more than their's.

This doesn't necessarily mean they're "good", persay. Read Shakespeare with somebody who understands all the sexual innuendoes within them, and prepare to be stunned. (An example: "get thee to a nunnery" means the exact opposite of becoming a nun) That's why his plays sold. They were funny, racy, and full of terrible insults. Yes there are metaphors analyzed to death, but his work wasn't particularly original, or even much better than the other plays at the time (plays were the main form of entertainment, so a lot of people wrote them). Shakespeare was simply more popular for longer. We can't know if he meant for his plays to be really deep. We figure he was a guy who made his living off plays, therefore he wasn't exactly setting out to write something "literary". He wanted something that sold.

After awhile, a certain feedback loop is produced. A work is old therefore it must be popular, so people read it simply for the fact it's a "masterpiece", which keeps its popularity up, which keeps it in the masterpiece list, which means it continues standing the test of time.

The irony is that most masterpieces were pulp fiction at the time they were published. They were the type of entertainment people wanted, therefore people read the work in droves. Yet, now, we see them as high class literary works of utter brilliance. In a sense, they are. The person wrote something that resonated over an extended period of time. But in another, they very much are not. The person wrote something that people wanted, often in order to pay the bills.

Tl;dr "how do you produce a masterpiece?" You produce a work that has appeal to a large number of people, get it published, and have that large number of people read it, and have people continue to read it for a few decades.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





Random avatar


Gender: Female
Points: 17243
Reviews: 328
Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:03 am
deleted30 says...



Rosey Unicorn wrote:The term "masterpiece" is usually defined as something that has "stood the test of time".

Aka, the work is ridiculously popular.

Writing quality, story quality, characters... don't actually matter when you're looking at the definition of the term "masterpiece". Your bookshelf is probably full of books you consider masterfully crafted, wonderful, relatable, all these adjectives, but the likelihood these books will be considered masterpieces in fifty years is slim.

Masterpieces are often, honestly, the most frequently read work in the time period it was released in. Lord of the Rings was ridiculously popular, so is Harry Potter, so was Pride and Prejudice. Heck, even Shakespeare's plays were considered entertainment for the poor. The reason we study Shakespeare and none of his contemporaries are because his plays sold more than their's.

This doesn't necessarily mean they're "good", persay. Read Shakespeare with somebody who understands all the sexual innuendoes within them, and prepare to be stunned. (An example: "get thee to a nunnery" means the exact opposite of becoming a nun) That's why his plays sold. They were funny, racy, and full of terrible insults. Yes there are metaphors analyzed to death, but his work wasn't particularly original, or even much better than the other plays at the time (plays were the main form of entertainment, so a lot of people wrote them). Shakespeare was simply more popular for longer. We can't know if he meant for his plays to be really deep. We figure he was a gy who made his living off plays, therefore he wasn't exactly setting out to write something "literary". He wanted something that sold.

After awhile, a certain feedback loop is produced. A work is old therefore it must be popular, so people read it simply for the fact it's a "masterpiece", which keeps its popularity up, which keeps it in the masterpiece list, which means it continues standing the test of time.

The irony is that most masterpieces were pulp fiction at the time they were published. They were the type of entertainment people wanted, therefore people read the work in droves. Yet, now, we see them as high class literary works of utter brilliance. In a sense, they are. The person wrote something that resonated. But in another, they very much are not. The person wrote something that people wanted, often in order to pay the bills.

Tl;dr "how do you produce a masterpiece?" You produce a work that has appeal to a large number of people, get it published, and have that large number of people read it, and have people continue to read it for a few decades.


I agree one hundred percent. I hate it when people who aren't even very familiar with Shakespeare's work call him a "genius" and act like he was a god... I mean, come on. Unless you've actually explored his writing, I don't know how you can exalt him and his work.

The only reason they say that is because of what they've heard. As you said, Shakespeare was popular, and nowadays people regard him as a masterful writer. But if you're solely basing your praise off what you've heard from others, then you could call any popular or well-liked book a masterpiece. You could even believe Stephanie Meyer's a genius and utterly amazing since her books have received a good deal of buzz. Something being popular does not inherently make it good, and it's impossible to judge whether a work is or is not good unless you've explored it yourself.

Masterpieces are subjective—as subjective as asking someone what their favorite book is. I love Silence of the Lambs and regard that as a masterpiece, but if you ask someone else, they might scoff and call it trash. People's tastes are different. It's natural.

In fact, I think the Twilight books are a great example of that. They're hugely popular, and have spawned movies, sold tons of copies, and amassed a devoted fan base. Yet many people loathe and deride them, and you'd be hard pressed to find a literary critic willing to call them masterpieces.

That's just the way art is. Subjective.
Last edited by deleted30 on Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:09 am
Rosendorn says...



Shakespeare did have one astounding contribution to English which makes him a slightly different example than, say, Twilight. Shakespeare literally invented a few thousand new words (and by "invented" I mean they do not show up in works until they show up in his).

My favourite definition of English is: "It's germanic and French with Latin grammar rules and Shakespearian chatspeak."

Considering he invented between 1,500 and 10,000 words, this isn't too far from the truth.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





Random avatar


Gender: Female
Points: 17243
Reviews: 328
Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:16 am
deleted30 says...



Rosey Unicorn wrote:Shakespeare did have one astounding contribution to English which makes him a slightly different example than, say, Twilight. Shakespeare literally invented a few thousand new words (and by "invented" I mean they do not show up in works until they show up in his).

My favourite definition of English is: "It's germanic and French with Latin grammar rules and Shakespearian chatspeak."

Considering he invented between 1,500 and 10,000 words, this isn't too far from the truth.


Well, obviously Shakespeare is different than Twilight in many, many ways. XD I do think a lot of his works are inspiring in their themes and they're certainly fascinating, but (and perhaps this is a bit blasphemous for me to say) I think he is somewhat overrated—or at least overexposed. Of course, it could just be the inner hipster in me that doesn't like anything too mainstream or talked about.

There are plenty of other writers—both contemporary and historical—who fail to receive recognition for their amazing bodies of work, because people choose to read, study, and exalt the same group of long-dead Western authors over and over and over again (Shakespeare being just one example). What a shame that is.

Okay, mini rant about Shakespeare over. :smt003

*walks off*
Last edited by deleted30 on Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:47 am, edited 4 times in total.
  





User avatar
212 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Male
Points: 13620
Reviews: 212
Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:25 am
birk says...



Of course, it could just be the inner hipster in me


I'm pretty sure liking Shakespeare would constitute as being hipster, not the other way around. ;)
"I never saved anything for the swim back."


Do not mistake coincidence for fate. - Mr Eko

they're selling razor blades and mirrors in the street
  





Random avatar


Gender: Female
Points: 17243
Reviews: 328
Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:29 am
deleted30 says...



Birkhoff wrote:
Of course, it could just be the inner hipster in me


I'm pretty sure liking Shakespeare would constitute as being hipster, not the other way around. ;)


Lol, would it? I normally try to avoid hipsters, but the ones I know hate any author that's too well-liked... I guess Shakespeare might be the exception, though.

Man, I really have to stop stalking this thread. >.<

*walks off for real this time*
  





Random avatar


Gender: None specified
Points: 340
Reviews: 4
Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:02 am
dhyan says...



Lucrezia, you dont have to leave lol. Actually I find the points you've all raised quite interesting. The masterpiece term has actually lost it's meaning. It's just become a tag. So I guess it is difficult to entitle any specific work to it.

To revive the masterpiece term, what would you expect it to be?

What specifc elements would make it so?

How should we determine a masterpiece?

I know these questions have been partially answered but, maybe I'll learn a bit more...
Writing to change myself.

That will change the world.
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Sat Mar 08, 2014 12:45 am
Rosendorn says...



Masterpieces are still around just fine. Google "Masterpieces of literature" to get a bunch of lists. They're just extremely difficult to define. Writing quality is subjective, hence why masterpieces aren't defined by writing quality and instead popularity.

However, we can tell what makes things popular. Not by any means a tried and true list, but it's a start.

The elements of a masterpiece tend to be:

1- Luck, that you published at the right time

2- Relatable emotion. The characters have to feel like people, go through hardships, good times, experience friendships, relationships, life, death, and people have to be able to connect to it.

3- Relatable archetypes. Basically, themes that people enjoy and can revisit at any time period.

You have to work past being locked in modern day setting and instead take something fairly universal.

Also, a word of advice if you are setting out to write a "masterpiece": don't. Not a single work now deemed a masterpiece was written with the sole purpose of being a masterpiece. Authors wrote these stories because they wanted to tell these stories. They wrote to pay the bills. They wrote because a story was bursting in their skin and begging to be let out.

Writers who write for fame lack the one thing that makes good writing: their soul on a page. If you try too hard, readers can tell. Trust me on this. If you are writing to have a famous book that is taught in classrooms fifty years down the line, stop. Fame is difficult. Fame is the result of lots of hard work. Getting your first book published can take years, and involves lots of rewriting, lots of editing, and lots of heartache. You won't necessarily have your first, second, third or even tenth book sell that well.

Write because you want to. Because you have a story to tell. Because you want to change somebody's life because of something you wrote.

Never write for fame.

If you do, it will drain you.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





Random avatar


Gender: None specified
Points: 340
Reviews: 4
Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:29 am
dhyan says...



Do people actually read masterpieces repeatedly?

If they don't does it make a difference if they call it a masterpiece or a ordinary piece?

I'm sure there is something that makes it so special. Something we will always get back to.
Writing to change myself.

That will change the world.
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:20 am
Rosendorn says...



Like I keep saying, masterpieces are works that have stood the test of time.

Therefore, yes! People do read masterpieces repeatedly. It does make a difference if they call a work a masterpiece, because masterpieces do have a definition.

If you'll read my post above, you'll see why masterpiece are masterpieces. They have hit something in the public consciousness that makes people relate to them a hundred or more years later. That is difficult to do, and that is why they are called masterpieces.

They have somehow broken out of their time period and tapped into emotions deeper than the present time.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





Random avatar


Gender: None specified
Points: 340
Reviews: 4
Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:55 am
View Likes
dhyan says...



Opps, :$ I read the post above.

But, probably missed you intention. Just wanted to keep the topic running.

Its obvious now that masterpieces cannot be intentionally created. Especially if we consider it as writing that has passed the test of time and has reached a wide audience. But as lucrezia said at the beginning, it takes a lot of organised practice, probably years or even decades. As one grows, knowledge of all spheres develops. We are then given the vision to see the world from different perspectives. We started admiring whats around us. Maybe we take a step into realizing what life is or what it can be, when suddenly all those experiences merge into one great writing piece. That piece is an essence of all that we have experienced through out our living. That, i say is a masterpiece, at least for the writer, regardless of it being accepted by the generations to come.
Writing to change myself.

That will change the world.
  








The mind of man is capable of anything - because everything is in it, all the past as well as all the future.
— Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness