Do you really think about the reader?

Maybe it was just a different age back then. Because, well, information didn't work quite the same way as it does now. It wasn't quite the wild west of publishing but at the same time I don't think new writers were expected to be professionals in the same way. At least back then the process of submitting to agents was kinda long and arduous; if nothing else you had to physically create a manuscript, you had to type or hand write it and then edit it in that form which is not a whole lot of fun. You had to create copies of your manuscript, pay to send them off, go and visit agents in person. Yes, I'm sure literary agents still had to weed through a lot of crap but they weren't deluged by every monkey with a keyboard either. I think back then publishers and agents were more amenable to writers who claimed to just be writing for themselves, who were totally commercially unaware. Of course back then they were the only way to get out there, so they didn't mind writers relying on them to make money. These days, yeah not so much.

It puts me in mind of a story by Frank Zappa (who you absolutely should know, if you don't stop immediately and listen to his music); he said that back when his band were still trying to get signed the music executives were the fat old men with cigars who listened to his work and went "What the hell is this? I don't know. Let's put it out and see if people buy it." And then the hip young men took over. And they think they know what sells, they know what's cool and they know what the next big thing is. And those guys; they don't put out something if it's not what they think will sell. Back when Zappa was first making music you could get out there as someone who was just weird and different and odd. You could be an artist, you could just make what you wanted to make and someone would put it out. But today that's not really the case, in music or in writing.

Today it's expected that writers will be commercially aware, that while there are plenty of niches to fill and plenty of books being published you can't get away with saying to an agent that you just write for yourself. Whether or not you mean it, the idea of a writer who is commercially unaware is almost laughable today. Established writers can say "Well, this one I wrote for me", but not new ones. You can maybe get away with saying "I'm a huge horror fan, so I wrote the book I wanted to see". But I think anyone these days who says that they just aren't aware of the market is just lying.

 

I usually only worry about the reader in the editing stage. How I see it, the writing stage is where you get all your madness out onto the page, just letting loose and being crazy. Using the first draft (or second... or third... or whatever the last draft was) as a jumping-off point, I refine everything that I understand perfectly and just kind make it more digestible for someone who might not be able to isn't used to what I am in what they read. But even then, the reader does come near the end of completing a story, for me at least. As long as I personally am happy with the story in the end, I usually don't worry too much about the reader.

 

This is really an excellent summary of what's right and wrong with Rand's work. Like a lot of others of my age and economic background, I went from semi-idolizing her work to feeling rather strongly negative about it, but now, as a (wannabe) writer, it seems there are a whole new set of lessons to learn from it.

This is an excellent idea, and something I'm going to try. I've always heard the advice "Write the kind of book you'd like to read" but found that difficult. I tend to fall hard for authors who end up winning multiple awards and getting called nasty things like "finest (X genre) author of his/her generation." That's a mighty tough set of boots to fill, but just listing out the things that I do like, as topics or scenes or tropes or whatever, might help give me direction and also lead to me writing something that others would want to read while remaining true to my own "vision," whatever that might be.

 

It's hard to stick with Objectivism. It's an interesting concept on the face of it; functionally a sort of minarchist libertarianism except that it lacks humanity. I have a lot of sympathy for minimal government and being free to do what I want to do, that is pretty much what I want. But the details I must object to. The scorn for altruism in her philosophy is something I have to see as a problem, because that implies a "What am I getting out of this?" attitude to calling an ambulance for someone. Equally I have to disagree with their snooty attitude to anything she considers to be beneath her; particularly drugs but anything she termed hedonistic. By her definition you should rationally pursue your own happiness in all things, it just has to be the right kind of happiness. And that's... Nope. I'm getting off that train. Either we are libertarian or we are not; you can't have it both ways and sneer at those who find happiness in a different place to you and call them 'sub-human'. The idea of man as a heroic being is one that I do like, and one that I hope will come around again. Partially because of my affection for Nietzsche, but in general I like the concept. I think we should strive to be heroic. But the presumption of heroism? That's a bit much. And notably, when you live in the real world where other people don't think like this then you're going to be seen as a massive asshole. Sometimes you have to do a good thing with no expectation of reward, and sometimes it's ok to get fucked up. And for anyone to say that either of those things don't constitute rationally pursuing happiness is just stupid.

Anyway... It's certainly interesting to look at someone's life who really believed in this stuff. And we can learn a whole lot just from looking at where she had problems. It is very instructive to look at which parts of our society you kinda can't compromise on, and which parts you can get away with. If anything she proves that you really can write about whatever the hell you want. And it proves that you can eventually find an audience. The question really is whether you want to take ten years to find your audience or not.

 

I find that i have to. I’ve looked back at stories that I’ve written in my own voice and while they’re interesting to me, the way I speak is measured and deliberate due to my background in science. Where telling a story requires, emotion, eloquence, and unquantifiable metaphors to quickly set up plot, character, and environment. Something that has no place in science.

I try to compose a story like I compose music or paint. I try to send the receiver through a specific emotional ride. I tend to think about the emotional curve of my story when I get stuck on a plot and try to think of what should come next based on what I want the reader to feel next.

 

Interesting idea, but I would argue that life experience also shapes creativity. It provides the events and situations to which one's creative sense responds, and shapes the voice with which it responds. That life experience includes one's experiences as a writer. Moreover, all of that material and enthusiasm one brings to one's first book - it's not a consumable entity. The tank doesn't empty as you write. There are recurring themes, the things that we hold most dear. And there are new ideas that come along and reshape one's voice and rekindle one's enthusiasm. One's writing, one's creativity, should evolve over time. As Willie Nelson once said, "You keep playing, you're gonna get better. You should get better."

 

While staying out of the Debate Room, I think that there's quite a bit of validity to some of the arguments in The Fountainhead. Not that there's a single evil mastermind out to destroy art for art's sake, but there seem to be quite a few people who would smear shit on the Mona Lisa and claim they'd created something.

But that's not the writing point, and I should probably hush up or move to the aforementioned gladiator academy

 

Again, without getting too contentious; the problem is not that she's wrong as such, it's more that she has a different sense of morality which implies something of a problem if you don't instinctively agree with it. Her answer for what to do with the poor is basically "Let them starve" and you can see the logic in that to some degree but it's not the kind of idea that we can seriously entertain.

 

Ah, I was referring to The Fountainhead, which deals with the Perfect Artist vs the Forces of Evil (people whose art she doesn't like), not Atlas Shrugged, which is the Perfect Businessman vs. the Forces of Evil (businessmen who aren't geniuses).

But anyway, bedtime for this Bonzo.

 

I agree with this. There is a reason masterpieces tend to be made in later years of an artists career.

Those four mop-top kids on Ed Sullivan could not have written Sargeant Peppers.

Young, sane Vincent could not have painted Starry Night.

1918 Tolkien could not have written the Lord of the Rings.

Great ideas seem to be endless for creative people. I don’t have less to work with each time I create something. In the time it takes to finish something, I’ve already absorbed more new stuff than I’ve used. And not that you can’t reuse assets in the first place.

 

I think that you're right to some degree in that creativity doesn't diminish with repeated trips to the coal face. But equally you are limited by the works that you've created before because you can't just tell that exact story again. There's more latitude in writing to riff around a successful formula, that's true, but once I've written my book that pushes really hard about this subject I can't just write another book in that same area. Even if that first book wasn't published I don't want to just re-write the same idea.

The sophomore slump is a real thing in creative arts. It doesn't come because you're less creative, it comes because you suddenly are in a different phase of your life. Going from being a starving artist to being someone in a more stable life is a big deal. Even if you were already in a fairly stable life, you're suddenly living your dream. And it does change things.

 

There's just as many creatives who do their best work right at the start. Maybe not masterpieces, but still their best work nevertheless.

The thing about masterpieces is that they are paragons of the practical craft of creation. What matters in such works is technique more then emotionality. The works of Yngwie Malmsteen are without a shadow of a doubt masterpieces, especially Concerto Suite For Electric Guitar And Orchestra. But they aren't tunes you can hum along to, you know? The guy is a genuine virtuoso, one of the guitar gods, but man he can't write a good song. His works are still towering displays of technical prowess and there is something impressive and laudable about that. They are masterpieces, and yet not truly great music.

I'll grant you that artists definitely should be improving with time and honing their craft. But there is more to creation than just craft. How many writers have we seen on these forums who have great craft but who never get published?

 

I think about the reader in an abstract way when figuring out the plot. As in, "What genre does this fit into? Would that audience find this believable? Would they find it interesting?" If yes, then keep going, if not, find something else. When writing I don't think about anything but how the story is unfolding in my head.
When editing, I think about whether or not an agent/editor/publisher would like it. "Is it fresh? Is it relevant? Is it sellable?"

 

I am either writing for myself, or I want to be read and enjoyed by others. If it is the latter then I must always consider the reader. Their are few that take the time to read these days and endless selections from them to choose from. If I do not consider them they will recognize it immediately and respond in kind. Pacing, level of interest in characters and storylines, the ease of visualization, believable story arc; these are all things that I seek reader approval of. I have a group of test readers who tell me how I am doing, because I really have no clue of the quality of my efforts until someone else confirms it for me. Happy writing! Mark Lemohr

 

It depends on what I'm writing, and how marketable I want it to be. Some writers thrive on praise and connection to the reader, and strive to entertain first. I'm more the kind of writer whose intentions vary with with each project.

My non-fiction stuff, I may start with an idea I'm interested in, but after the idea, the reader (and often their demographics) is top of mind because I want them to understand the information.

The short story I entered in the January contest? That was strictly for me, as a challenge to myself to see if I could write a short story. If readers came along with me for the ride and liked it, they liked it, and if they didn't they didn't. It was a "throw it at the wall to see if it sticks" experience, because my intention was to learn.

The novel I'm writing is somewhere in between. Some aspects of it are very much with the reader in mind, and others are "Let me see if I can get away with this." It straddles two genres, so when it's finished I will have to decide how traditionally marketable I want it to be, or whether I want to self-publish. For this project, it's not yet time for that decision, because I'm trying out new things and figuring it all out as I go. My next novel will probably have the "how marketable do I want this to be" decision made before I write it.

Blog posts and Progress Journal updates? Those are mostly for me.

That said, writing is not my first passion, nor my first career choice. If it was, I would be much more business focused and reader-centric.

 

I try. Takes a bit to try and create something that feels fresh and not stale. Bit challenging really.
Hardest part being the balancing act of all the parts coming together in such a way that they will
hopefully enjoy all the elements and how they mesh. It is an escape from reality, but should have
some grounding to it, otherwise it is just cliche fluff.

It has been said: Write the books you would want to read.

So I try and write the stories I find engaging and entertaining,
and hope that there will be others out there that will enjoy my
flavor in the wash of things. No fancy formulaic stuff here.

 

It's like having a constraint. Making the work enjoyable to population X (where X could be 'mystery fans' or 'middle school age boys') is like having a budgetary challenge or word limit. It makes your writing more focused and bumps up the quality.

When I was very young, I wanted to be an architect, because it's an art form that collides with the real world restrictions of, "It has to not fall down and kill the occupants," and "It needs to make the occupants feel the right way, such as relaxed if it's a residential structure or energized if it's a worksite," and "Needs to cost less than $ dollars," and even "Needs to make the local politician in charge happy."

Adding those restraints made the finished product a multidimensional work of art beyond relatively easy to achieve unbounded personal whimsy.

 

Oh boy, some Fran Zappa evangelizing! He's not for everyone, but he is for me.

As a musician, writer and FZ enthusiast, I have lived by this quote since I first heard it many, many moon units ago.
I don't create anything for anyone but myself. This may sound selfish, but the way I see it is that I have to be interested in a creation before I preserve it in whatever medium I choose. If I write a song, I write it for me first. If I write lyrics, I write them for me. If I write a novel, I write it for me. The creation stage is all about me.

Of course, I am beyond caring about the financial and accolades of others. I'm a lost cause. I do art, music and writing because my entire being is made to do it whether anyone likes it or not and I can't stop the creative process. It's going to happen anyway. Critics be damned! <insert the laugh of a mad scientist>

However, in the production stage, it's all about the viewer, listener or reader. How can I take this creation and form it and make it fit into the standard that is pleasing and entertaining to the average consumer? There are always standards in all forms of publication. In music, you have certain audio rules that need to be adhered to or it will just sound bad and no matter how artistic it is, it will not be listenable. In writing, there are the rules of grammar among many others. With me, sometimes what I create just doesn't fit, but that's art and one can take it or leave it.

That said, when I write, the story comes out first, no matter what. Then I go back into it and try to see it all from the readers standpoint, and the standpoint of the English teacher who will be grading it. I make revisions to make it readable and enjoyable, but my story will come out regardless.

If I were to be asked, I would advise anyone to pour out their heart on whatever they are working on. Don't worry about a thing. Just do it. Then once it's out there try to get it to fit into the standard packaging. If parts don't fit, take them out or leave them. Maybe you'll be better remembered for those things that didn't fit the standard mold.

 

I'm not lying about anything, and I think there is a difference between not actively thinking about potential readers while writing and being unaware of the market which you seem to fail to see. And when I started this thread I wasn't thinking this question had a right answer. I just wondered about how other writers addressed this issue. No one in publishing I have ever worked with seemed to care at all how commercially aware of things I was or if I wrote something for myself or for whatever reason. These aren't things that have come up ever when I've sold my writing. And I don't really think there is much of a difference between what established and newer writers can get away with. I'm not trying to get away with anything when I write without thinking about readers, and I don't think it's hurt me. And I certainly don't think it means I am unaware of anything.

 

Dude; you missed my point by so much that you just made the same point as me to tell me I'm wrong.

 

I don't think so. You seem to be speaking in absolutes to some degree here and I am definitely not doing that. I think you can get away with saying you only write for yourself where you seem to think that you can't do that and be successful. I don't think our reasons for writing make us any better or worse of a writer. I feel like the last thing I think about is the reader when I'm writing. I guess that's just how I work. You obviously work and feel very differently. And that's fine. I'm not looking to call you out on anything or say you're wrong. Just a different approach, I guess.

 

Sometimes I do, so then I remind myself that not everyone in the world will be the reader. Ultimately I need to do what I want because I write for me above all else. How I feel about it is, if they like my book, yay; if they don't, they can move along. I don't want to be confused with people thinking I'm one of those people who completely don't care about the reader though. I'll take criticism, and if people make a good enough case I might change whatever it is they're telling me isn't good. But, I won't change it to something I don't like.

 

I am a gratification junkie. My buzz comes when someone looks at me with wide eyes and tells me they were standing inside my story. Secondly, I do like it when I read something I wrote and believe that I have conveyed an idea in a palatable manner. It is in those moments that I accept that I might actually be a real writer. I have always wanted to achieve this, so this provides me with gratification as well.

 

This. Exactly this is how I feel about my novel. I think I feel this way because in other fields--music is the most obvious example--I've seen creators completely go with what the audience wants or by what the "writing by committee" team wants and lose their own part of it, to the point where the end result isn't even recognizable as their work anymore. Then the writer is successful but miserable because it's not really theirs. So it's definitely a balance...a delicate one. That's why I try to set my intention for the project at the beginning: is this for me, or for them, and how far am I willing to go for it to be theirs?

 

I like your honesty. That's the whole key, I think: being honest about what you, as the writer, want to get out of it.

Question (asked sincerely, not in any sort of snarky way): As a "gratification junkie" as you put it, how do you feel when they like something you weren't happy with, or that you feel wasn't your best? That's the biggest struggle for me. It's so hard not to say "No no no! That one isn't the good one!" In theory, you always want to put out nothing but your very best, but sometimes it's only "your best considering the tight deadline" or "your best considering the writing gods were giving you a hard time."