Franklin Foer Quotes

I bristle at the implication that only with the help of a Big Six editor does a novel lose its self-indulgent aspects. Before the advent of self-publishing, there were plenty of self-indulgent novels on the shelves.

Going back to my film education, I always have that voice in my head that's always screaming, 'Sell out!' And that's good: you want that, because it keeps you on your toes, and it's important to remember what's actually important.

One thing I don't want to feel is marketplace pressure, so I'm really glad I enjoy teaching because I can rely on that for a salary. I think it would be such a different game if I had to write a book that has to sell well.

Quality isn't about where the money came from or which company gets to put their name on the thing. What matters is who made the movie and why they made it.

I've never done work for money ever. If your choices are based on grosses and the film doesn't do well, what does that mean? It leaves you with nothing.

I'm just going to write my books and do my work and release it. Let the world decide what it is, and if it's any good or not.

I have never been assigned a game, I have never made a game I didn't want to make. I've never done anything just to make somebody some money.

You're supposed to be a control freak when you're an artist. That's the whole point of having a vision: Why have one if you're not going to protect it?

I don't think you can really make television based on what you think audiences want. You can only make stories that you like, because you have to watch it so many times.

Sure, you can do something frothy and ridiculous, but you should probably be confident that it's going to be a sure-fire hit. Then it's sensible, because it enables you to make smaller movies. But if you make something frothy and ridiculous that doesn't work, it's not worth it.

I fundamentally believe that your words have so much credibility if you're not taking money upfront. I feel really comfortable pushing actors and pushing executives and pushing marketing people when we're not going to benefit financially unless the movie works. I feel like that makes the playing field so much more level.

For while agents and editors often misunderstand their market and sometimes reject good or even great works, they do prevent a vast quantity of truly execrable writing from being published.

We wanted to wait until the music felt right. We didn't want to do it, just to do it. We didn't want to do it for money, I guess, is the thing that would have just bummed me out so much.

It's very important that you never depend on money to fulfill your creative vision. If you do that, you're doomed to fail.

I don't see Hollywood as the big enemy, because this is where the money is, and not all of the companies are doing studio movies. I'm not tempted to sell out. If I'm going to become well known, I want it to be for something I'm proud of.

The problem is some of our riskier films just don't make as much money. But if you only make films that will just be commercially successful, then you can also sink yourself as a studio.

Self-publishing provides more freedom and control, but it also provides more risk. Publishing provides more credibility and promotion, but your vision can also get lost in the bureaucratic machinery of the business. It's a tough decision to make.

I have seen too many men wilt and go silly under a little light, and then they continue to write and get published, turning out pure crap under a name that has become a bad habit. The next poem is all that counts. You can't stand on past poems.

A lot of people are like, "How are you going to re-do it?" I'm not worried about what people are going to say because you know people are gonna be like, "It doesn't sound like this... It sounds like this." I'm just going to make music that I know I'm supposed to make.

It is no discredit to Walt Whitman that he wrote Leaves of Grass, only that he did not burn it afterwards.

I've never written one note or word of music simply because I think it will make money.

I look for good directors mainly because if you do enough of movies where there's not a real creative vision behind it, you start to turn into a robot and you want to jump off a bridge.

You want to make a little money, and sometimes you want to play some really great parts. Sometimes they don't always coincide, or co-exist. Sometimes you've got to do good parts for no money and... You know, I sometimes can't do movies just for the money. I really can't. I mean, I've tried. Believe me, I'd love to just take the money and run. That might just be part of the equation, but there has to be something there. You have to be somewhat creatively satisfied.

It's my belief that you should never show your work to anyone in the publishing world until it shines like a diamond. Rough drafts don't shine, as a rule. Mine certainly didn't. That's why I was rejected for years and years.

I just like good stories. I like really interesting scripts, I love really great filmmakers. And I'm open to all genres and all stories. But, there's certain ones that attract me, and I don't really sort of look at what I think is going to be successful, I look at more so, you know, is this what I want to do regardless of what everybody else thinks?