Musing on Elvis

Over at The Kill Zone, James Scott Bell has an essay up called "Shake Rattle and Write" where he compares writing originality to the 50's Elvis. http://killzoneauthors.blogspot.com/2009/08/shake-rattle-and-write.html

While I agree with Mr. Bell on the originality angle of his essay, I don't particularly agree with the Colonel Parker selling angle. All of Elvis' originality seemed to fly out the window when he became the product. It was no longer about the song but about Elvis.

It's the same with those big time writers like King, Patterson, and a half dozen others. It's "Have you read the latest King/Patterson/Whoever book?" Not, "Wow, you have to read this book!". Slap a famous name on the cover and you can sell all the words, good or bad, that pour out of their keyboards. When you focus on the artist, you're focusing on personalities not stories. Sales, not wonderful words.

I think writers have to choose whether they want to be the star or if they want their words to be the stars. It's like making the choice between being a major movie star or a character actor. As the character actor, no one will remember your name but they will remember what you brought to the story.

And yes, it's a hard choice because the world kneels down to worship fame and fortune and it wouldn't be human not to want a piece of that. But I wonder, do you think Elvis would have been happier without all the fame and fortune? Those early songs, so full of originality, will never be forgotten, while the later ones are already a fleeting memory.

What do you want from your writing? Do you want the fame and fortune of a King or do you want a story that will endure forever on its own merit, with your name a vague afterthought?