I've come to believe that the greatest challenge a writer has to face is not the long task of learning to apply words with precision, clarity, and force; nor is it the day-by-day sorting through experience, imagination, and dreams for story ideas; nor is it the life-long attempt to make any sense out of life.
The greatest challenge is to find readers.
This idea was reinforced last week when I spent several days poring through lists of people willing to review books, and then ebooks, and then self-published ebooks, and then erotic self-published ebooks that were also science fiction. I started on Wednesday, then looked up again to see that it was Friday. Now I understand the concept of missing time....
At the heart of the challenge, I suspect, is a fundamental difference between the way that most readers think, and that most writers work.
(This is hypothetical; I'm likely wrong. But it's a fun idea to kick around.)
I suspect that for most readers, reading is a repetitive pleasure. They read a story, they love it, and they would like to find a similar story to repeat the experience. Not only does that make sense, it's to be expected. If we try a bowl of squash soup and we love it, we are perfectly justified in hoping that the next bowl will be as good. At the very least, it should smell and taste a little bit like squash soup, and not very much like tumbleweed salad.
Repetition requires categorization, and again, that's to be expected. If we read a science fiction book and we love it, then we expect the next book we choose to have similar characteristics. As a result, readers, reviewers, publishers often have distinct ideas in mind about how a science fiction book might differ from a romance, or a mystery, or a guide to carp farms in Vanishing Point, Ontario.
Yet I suspect that for many writers, the circumstances are completely different.
Writing is often a way to make sense of life, and life is multiplicity. We live in a science fiction world of rapid technological change and looming planetary catastrophes. We live immersed in eroticism, in sexuality. We find ourselves confronted by mysteries, by puzzles, by nightmares and by joy. Life is a comedy, a tragedy, a thriller (and for anyone who tried to set the clock on an old-style vcr, a techno-thriller).
Because of this multiplicity, and because of this attempt by writers to capture a sense of how it feels to be alive, publishing categories are often less than helpful. By their nature, they impose repetition on something that wants to be vital and complex and free: an accurate impression of experience right now.
And again, not only does that make sense, it's to be expected. Art is a safe pathway into the unknown, a level catwalk over the abyss, an ideal way to plunge into risk, into darkness, into mystery, and to walk through the other side with all your bones intact.
In short, the needs of readers are often quite different from the needs of writers.
So perhaps, then, the challenge is not only to find readers; the challenge is to find readers who love safe pathways into strangeness, ambiguity, multiplicity; readers who love the melding, or the shattering, of categories.
56 comments:
I agree with what you propose about what writers need although I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of readers. I think that someone who truly loves to read is looking for someone to revolutionize their concept of what a good book is. I think that they are always looking for something better than what they just read. In order for something to be better, it must be different. Those who get stuck in the monotony of one subject miss out on all else that other books have to offer.
>>I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of readers.
Come to think of it, I don't either. At least, not always.
>>I think that they are always looking for something better than what they just read.
Given that I spend more time these days re-reading than reading, I can understand the value of returning to the same story. But I also consider that story a thing in itself, complete and whole. Why should I seek out another story like it, if I can return to the genuine item?
For that reason, yes, I agree with you: readers who seek out the same kind of story again and again are missing out on so much else.
(Yet at the same, as a thoroughly obsessive writer who keeps picking at the same old scars, I acknowledge that readers also have the right to be obsessive. It happens!)
>>readers who seek out the same kind of story again and again are missing out on so much else.
I somewhat agree with you on that point. I think that that idea can be applied universally. Like your food example, someone who never tries anything new and sticks to their beloved squash soup won't ever know what they are missing out on. But looked at another way, that person also doesn't risk ending up disappointed. So then why change when the going's good?
Mark, I think your ideas regarding writers wanting one thing, while readers wanting another seems completely sound. When I write something, I try to come up with original ideas every time. I want to explore my creativity. But when I read a novel, or a novel in a series, I like to stick to one kind of genre. I also disagree with Anonymous about his point that for something to be better, it has to be different. No one gets something right the first time. Everything is better with practice. This involves repetition and refinement of your ideas. For example, I am a big fan of Jim Butcher's Dresden Files and I have read all 14 at this point. I keep coming back to this series because though every novel has a different plot, there are plenty of nods to earlier books, and partial explanations for overarching story lines that keep you firmly rooted in the series. I believe that his later books are much better than the earlier ones in the series because over time he has began to master his craft as a writer, and I have appreciated his work more as a reader. Therefore, in the case of both a writer and a reader, in order for something to be better, it doesn't have to be different.
>>why change when the going's good?
That's a valid question. And for some people, it seems to be a perfectly valid way to read for pleasure.
I could answer you in two ways.
My cheap answer would be that my stories are not squash soup. But they're equally good. :)
A more thoughtful answer would be that some of the best stories and plays and poems that I've read, I discovered by accident. I never sought them out; they just happened to be there, on a library shelf, or tucked away in some twilit corner of a used bookstore.
I was drawn by the cover, or the title; I picked up the book, read a few pages, and I was hooked for life.
Many of these bore no connection to anything else I had read before, yet somehow, they seemed to fit with my personality, my needs, my doubts, my fears. Perhaps, on some level, I had been looking for them without realizing that I had been looking.
Scott wrote:
>>When I write something, I try to come up with original ideas every time. I want to explore my creativity. But when I read a novel, or a novel in a series, I like to stick to one kind of genre.
I suspect that, if writers are lucky, they can think like writers as they write, but think like readers as they read.
One of my great limitations is that I can't do this. (There was a time when I could, but I seem to have lost it.)
Nowadays, when I read fiction, I think like a writer -- even to the point where I start revising the sentences in my head.
I don't have this problem if I read essays, or plays, or poetry, and I read them with the same old pleasure with which I used to read fiction. Most of the time, as well, I can re-read an old favourite story with joy; only new fiction poses any challenge for me.
>>No one gets something right the first time. Everything is better with practice. This involves repetition and refinement of your ideas.
I agree!
The writers that I really enjoy tend to be obsessive. Quite often, they circle like vultures around a single set of ideas or settings or images. What they bring to each new story is a slightly different angle of circling. Does that make sense?
I recently stumbled on a C.S. Lewis quote that I believe effectively illustrates both your (Mark's) understanding of the value for returning to the same story, and Anonymous' point that readers also like to find books that are revolutionary.
Lewis states “It is a good rule after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between.”
I see this quote to mean that re-reading old books will allow the reader, and possibly even writer, to find a middle ground between reading the type of books he/she is obsessed with and venturing out into new genres. I believe the combination of both types of readings strengthens both the reader's understanding of different genres and the support for different writers.
Eric,
For my part, I don't really think in terms of old books or new books, for the simple reason that every book is new to somebody.
Some people have never read Les Chants de Maldoror, or E. T. A. Hoffmann, or Joseph Sheridan LeFanu, or A Voyage to Arcturus, but any modern reader who does will be in for a big surprise. These books and these writers will always be new, because of their imagination, their boldness, and their ability to be themselves.
Even if certain readers never touched a book of the 21st Century, they would still be confronted by the novelty of shelf after shelf of books worth reading, and more to the point, relevant to their lives.
So for me, the conflict is not between old and new, but between firm expectations of familiarity (a book just like any number of books read before, or a book very much like others in a particular field), and a willingness to go beyond that, into regions that are new for any particular reader.
What about readers who prefer a certain genre and then are introduced to stories featuring "multiplicity" through that genre? For example, a person who typically enjoys horror stories may be drawn to (and thoroughly enjoy) a story with elements of both horror and romance, as well as a historical setting. Is it really accurate to say that any reader ever sticks to one genre or "type" of story? In that same vein, is it possible to write a story of one genre without any elements of other genres?
Ashley,
>>What about readers who prefer a certain genre and then are introduced to stories featuring "multiplicity" through that genre?
They're lucky! :)
The only real drawback to this occurs when publishers (and then reviewers) take a hybrid that is new and liberating to the imagination, and then transform it into a marketing category with its own expectations and limitations. Then it becomes just another genre.
>>Is it really accurate to say that any reader ever sticks to one genre or "type" of story?
I suspect that many do (and back in my bookstore days, I talked with many readers who were just like that). But I would hope that many more are willing to look around, to see what's lurking just around the corner.
One of the challenges I've encountered is that many online reviewers can be very precise -- and very strict -- about what they consider suitable, and what they will reject. I would hope that their readers are more flexible.
>>In that same vein, is it possible to write a story of one genre without any elements of other genres?
I don't think it's possible, but I suspect that in many cases, the balance is weighted heavily on one side of the scale instead of the other.
But if writers are lucky (and by lucky I mean extremely popular or pretty much unknown), for them, genre becomes unimportant. They no longer write science fiction, or fantasy, or mystery, or romance. Instead, they write J. G. Ballard stories. Or Avram Davidson stories. Or R. A. Lafferty stories. Or M. John Harrison stories. And their readers follow their work not with genre expectations, but with author expectations.
(This can shift, of course. As writers develop, as they age, their concerns and their approaches often change with time. That's to be expected; but it also means that a reader might like a certain writer's work during one phase, but not during another. Their pathways diverge; they go off in their separate directions. This happens to me all the time; it's not a bad thing, but it does mean that certain books on the shelf will be read more often than others... and certain books will not be bought at all.)
I can truly understand what you are describing, as I experienced the same situation frequently; before moving to college, I played guitar in a band that would frequently play gigs around the city. By far the hardest part was finding people willing to listen to us play.
I certainly agree with you that the ideal reader is one who is not focused upon what he expects of the book - one is bound to find a book tiresome and uninteresting if they cannot shake the idea of what the book should be.
However, it seems that to ask of reader to enter into a book with no expectations of it regarding the classification seems that one is coming dangerously close to being thoughtless whilst reading the book, and one reads the book simply because it is there, later finishing it without the book having any impact.
It appears to me to be a thin line between a courageous reader, open to new conceptions of books, and a thoughtless reader, who couldn't tell you what it is they are reading or why.
Spencer,
Writers have it tough, but from what I've been told, musicians really have a hard time finding an audience -- which is bizarre, when you consider that music can be so immediate in its impact.
Then again, musical taste can be the most personal thing in the world, and we now have so many styles, so many different kinds of listeners. In that crowded world, it can be painfully hard to find the listeners for you that are obviously out there... but where?
>>It appears to me to be a thin line between a courageous reader, open to new conceptions of books, and a thoughtless reader, who couldn't tell you what it is they are reading or why.
I often think of Walter Kaufmann's argument that we can make decisions while keeping our eyes open. Decisions don't always have to be final, and if we find ourselves veering into unwanted territory, we can change our minds.
For my part, I've started more books than I've finished; up to a certain point, I'm willing to read with an open mind... but I'm not a masochist. When I have to bail out, I bail out.
I suppose that all we can ask of any thoughtful person is to give our songs, our symphonies, our paintings, our stories a try.
"Come on, just try it. Five minutes of your life."
I really enjoyed this article and it made me change my way of viewing books. I never thought about it before, but I completely agree that there is a difference between a reader and a writer. I was wondering if you have noticed a difference in how you read books now that you've become a writer?
I also found it interesting that you pointed out our need to categorize books into genres. This made me think of putting painters or other artists into genres (like modern or impressionism) when really they are trying to express themselves artistically. Being a writer, how do you find a balance between appeasing to a specific audience and expressing yourself artistically?
Rebecca,
>>I was wondering if you have noticed a difference in how you read books now that you've become a writer?
For the past twenty years, I've found it harder and harder to read fiction. I used to read a book a day; now I'm lucky if I can read a book a year.
On the other hand, I often like to re-read, to revisit stories that I've loved in the past. For some reason, I find it easier to do this, than to set out with stories I've never read before.
But that only applies to fiction. Non-fiction, essays, plays, lots and lots of poetry -- these I enjoy in the same old manner.
>>how do you find a balance between appeasing to a specific audience and expressing yourself artistically?
That's a hard question, because I really don't think in those terms.
I never think of a specific audience, I just do everything I can to write well for anyone able to read well.
As for art, I've no idea what art is. I find the concept nebulous; I can stretch out my fingers on every side, but find nothing there.
But I do think about craftsmanship. Structure, tempo, pacing, texture, tone, mood, the careful deployment of physical, visual, and background detail -- these are things real to me; I can grasp them and work with them.
But is it art? I dunno. :)
I completely understand what you mean about how the most difficult element of writing is actually finding readers. I enjoy writing, and would love to publish a novel someday. Objectively, I understand that self-publishing is an increasingly popular option for authors and that I may even self-publish someday. Yet when I head on to Amazon to purchase a new book, I often find myself scorning the self-published novels, even when they are very cheap or completely free on my kindle, in favor of a traditionally published novel. I guess that most of the time I don't want to take the chance that the self-published ebook will be full of distracting grammatical errors or be populated with unrealistic characters and bland dialogue. There is this idea that a book can't really be good until some publishing company says it's good, which I know is complete nonsense, but I find myself buying into it again and again anyway. I have been pleasantly surprised by self-published ebooks, and no doubt will be again, but when I'm in a bad mood or coming off of a very rough week, and I want something to read, I inevitably purchase a pricier publishing company-approved novel. When I most need to read as an escape from my life, I want to be sure that what I read will have certain conventions and themes that I already know I will like.
So I can see why readers fall into the same favored genre over and over again. There is a comfort in knowing I'll like a book even before I read it. When I need reading as my time to unwind from other stresses, why should I want to experiment and risk not being satisfied? Of course, by reading something completely different and unusual there's also the chance that I'll absolutely love it in a way that I can't love all the interchangeable novels I usually read. Moving outside of my usual genre is a risky endeavor, one that will either result in the feeling of much wasted time or else in the discovery of something new and wonderful. I feel like most readers fall somewhere along the spectrum of always wanting to take risks to never wanting to try something new.
I fully agree with your statement about readers liking repetition over something different or new. I know that I personally like to read books in the same category. Even within a category, I typically stick to one or two authors that I really enjoy. If a lot of readers are like me, then I can see how it can be challenging for writers to create stories that will attract a lot of readers. If all the writers were writing similar stories, then I'm sure that many readers would be put off by that genre or category. It seems to me that finding a balance between repetition and creativity is imperative which is what you were saying in this blog.
I think it depends on what kind of writer you are. If you write as a profession and rely on it for financials, then yes the main concern is finding the reader because people won’t read your stuff unless it fits their desires. However, for other writers it can be different. I write for fun. It is a way for me to get my thoughts on the page and form hypothetical situations that I personally enjoy. Even though I want other people to like my work, it is more for me than it is for them. Writing is a way for me to escape everyday life etc. and pretend I am something else through the narration and characters. This means that most writers, considering most are not professional, have most trouble finding the right words to take the thoughts from their head and get it on the page as a visual. But if I was you, then I think your entire post was spot on.
Joelle,
I doubt that self-publishing could work without sampling.
One of the advantages of Smashwords is that readers have the opportunity to look at the opening pages. In very little time, a writer's competence or incompetence becomes clear.
But even beyond competence, for me, an important element is prose: not only what the writers have to say, but how they say it; what they choose to emphasize: physical details, visual details, tone and mood.
No matter what we choose to read, we all prioritize certain elements over others. For some, the characters. For others, the plot. For me, a sense of place, a sense of mood, the brush of the wind on my face and the tingling of the frost in every breath: the sensuous details that make a story come to life.
There is a comfort in knowing I'll like a book even before I read it. When I need reading as my time to unwind from other stresses, why should I want to experiment and risk not being satisfied?
That's an excellent point. I believe that reading for pleasure should be a pleasure, and I'll admit that for many, one pleasure is the satisfaction of expectations.
Dan,
If a lot of readers are like me, then I can see how it can be challenging for writers to create stories that will attract a lot of readers.
At this point, I'd be happy with any readers at all. :D
But even more so, I would like to find critical readers: people who read for pleasure, but who also have a sense of what works for them, and what does not. Writing can be like shouting in an echo chamber: your own voice comes bouncing back to you, and it seems perfectly clear; but would others understand what the echo is saying?
Max,
I write for fun. It is a way for me to get my thoughts on the page and form hypothetical situations that I personally enjoy. Even though I want other people to like my work, it is more for me than it is for them.
I wish, I sincerely wish, that I could be like that.
I love writing. Even more, I love revising. But I always know, at the back of my mind, that someday I'm going to have to pull up my socks and start knocking on doors -- and that is the one aspect of writing that I never enjoy.
This means that most writers, considering most are not professional, have most trouble finding the right words to take the thoughts from their head and get it on the page as a visual.
For me, that was challenge for a long, long time. I had to train myself, and that took decades. Nowadays, finding the words comes easily. Not quickly, but easily.
Mr. Dillon: As a student, I love when the works I read "capture a sense of how it feels to be alive." I really enjoyed your blog post!
Just a quick question - in your post, you mentioned that it can be difficult to craft works that readers will enjoy (especially when they are coming into the experience with preconceived notions and ideas about what to expect). I was just wondering, as a writer, where do you draw the line between writing for the readers and writing for yourself? I imagine that being a writer is somewhat similar to being an artist - you want to create something that people will enjoy or question or think about, but ultimately it has to be your own form of expression. Where do you stand on this?
Thank you!
Sam L,
>> where do you draw the line between writing for the readers and writing for yourself?
I always write for myself, and then I revise for the reader.
I tend to be obsessive: ideas nag at me, imagery nags at me. In large part, this motivates me to write; otherwise I'd be happy to ride my bike or to read poetry or to watch old movies on dvd. Because I write not by choice but by compulsion, everything I write is for me.
After a story is done, I spend more time in revising than I spent in writing. Because I write stories that deal in ambiguity -- inexplicable things happen, characters fail to understand their own motivations, questions remain unanswered -- I want every other aspect of the story to be clear.
If a reader picks up one of my stories and never quite understands why certain things are going on, that's all right, that's intentional; the characters don't know, either.
But if a reader fails to understand what is going on, because my prose lacks clarity or precision, then I have a problem... and a responsibility to resolve it.
>> I imagine that being a writer is somewhat similar to being an artist - you want to create something that people will enjoy or question or think about, but ultimately it has to be your own form of expression. Where do you stand on this?
When I write, I never think about art. Never.
I know that art exists; I can sense it in the work of other people. But I find it hard to define and impossible to emulate.
Instead, I focus on something tangible, something that I can hold within my head and work with: craftsmanship.
I can work with structure, I can work with verbs and nouns and compound sentences. I can use everything I know about language and narrative to write with as much clarity, economy, and force as I am able to muster.
For me, that's challenge enough. Art has other people to haunt. :)
Mark,
I completely agree with your point that a writer—or a creative of any trade—reserves the right to break the genre norms as they see fit. However, I’m curious to hear what you make of my thoughts on these amalgamated genres that fascinate the writer but can challenge the reader. While I do believe there is copious difficulty finding readers, I believe the true challenge lies in channeling the passion, precision, and execution to break these expectations in a manner that not only creates a piece of work other people can grasp, but also generate an entirely new readership experience. So many times these boundaries are broken. However, they are done with lackluster passion, sloppy storytelling and a greater desire to break the boundary rather than inadvertently create a new genre out of sheer creativity. As a result, a piece of work that a writer may have poured a years worth of work into may subsequently result in a year’s worth of credit card debt. I believe there is an enormous population of readers who enjoy the shattering of categories. However, per my aforementioned positions, I believe many writers attempt to shatter a brick wall with a feather. But then again, I suppose it is this repetition that ultimately makes way for a truly special connection that fulfills the needs of the both the writer and the reader.
Tom,
If a writer with wild eyes and wild ideas wants to smash the wall between categories "just because," then I support that ambition. Sure, why not? We might end up with something brilliant.
Or, as you say, we might end up with
>> lackluster passion, sloppy storytelling and a greater desire to break the boundary rather than inadvertently create a new genre out of sheer creativity
Genius will find its own motivations and its own methods... but I am not a genius.
For that reason, I suspect that the safe reason for writers to break down the walls of genre is that they cannot tell their stories in any other way.
If that is the case, if a writer is burning with a story that must be told, then the sheer conviction of that burning might serve to justify the shattered walls. Readers would have no trouble with the result, because the result would be so obviously right.
It's certainly a complicated matter! Genres, while they can be limiting, serve many great purposes, one of which is to help your writing find readers. Certainly, commercial genres have limits and stigmas, but they also have loyal book-consuming fans. Authors will benefit by having their work placed in certain areas of the store, but may not benefit from having to limit their creative expression in ways to fit the mold. I can understand how this can be infuriating, but another thing that I am aware of is that readers do also enjoy the "weirdness and ambiguity" that comes with the world and making sense of life. Thus, it is important not to squeeze too much of the realness of life from a piece of writing, in the hopes of fitting into a genre. This is a delicate balance to strike, for sure!
I definitely agree with your claim that life is "multiplicity" and, as much as we might try, we can never go about our ways in perfectly systematic and predictable ways. Nothing in life fits into perfect categories, but I agree that as human beings we attempt to fit items, events, and experiences into categories in order to simplify the complexity of our lives. Given the inherent complexity, or "multiplicity" of life, people find relief in creating neat categories and making distinctions with little regard for the nuances and subtleties that exist. When it comes to books, however, I think that readers, instead, find pleasure in stories they find relatable. I think that readers probably, after reading different books, may forge a kind of system to categorize the books, but the experienced joy of reading, I believe, comes less from the lure of simple categories and more from the lure of relatability, which is ever-evolving with time.
As everyone has been saying, the greatest challenge for writers has become finding readers and I agree. Certainly, getting a work out there so that potential readers are aware of it, let alone grabbing their attention so that they actually pick it up and give it a chance is a massive challenge. Not to say in any way that I'm a published writer, but it seems as though there would be a temptation to write just for the reader in order to get their name out there. This brings to mind the music industry as you were discussing before. Even with our cultures love of music, most bands struggle to find listeners. Some bands decide that they're own idea of what music they want to be creating can wait. In order to get the ball rolling, they decide to ditch origninality and put out something people will eat up in the here and now instead of trying to pave the way for the future. Many people call these bands "sellouts" but with the current structure of the music industry, that seems to be the way a lot of musicians get their "in". Once they experience success, it's hard for them to refocus on thier original goals. It's difficult for the masses to digest something completely unfamiliar when what they already know and love is so familiar. I'd be interested to know if a similar predicament runs the publishing industry.
Michelle,
>> Genres, while they can be limiting, serve many great purposes, one of which is to help your writing find readers. Certainly, commercial genres have limits and stigmas, but they also have loyal book-consuming fans.
Well, as I've said:
J. G. Ballard wrote J. G. Ballard stories. R. A. Lafferty wrote R. A. Lafferty stories. Avram Davidson wrote Avram Davidson stories.
And whether I like it or not, I seem capable only of writing Mark Fuller Dillon stories. :D
Nate,
>> Once they experience success, it's hard for them to refocus on their original goals.
That's the great danger. Money can be persuasive. Attention can be persuasive.
In a way, I was lucky: I recognized at a very young age that I lacked the facility to crank things out according to genre expectations. Even if I'd had the skill, the results would have been phoney... and readers would have seen right through the fakery.
>> It's difficult for the masses to digest something completely unfamiliar when what they already know and love is so familiar.
This is what haunts me: nothing that I write is completely unfamiliar. Except for the tricky problem of categorization, I don't consider my stories inaccessible at all. Compared to the work of many writers I respect, mine is straightforward. Yet for some reason, now that the Rodens and John Pelan are no longer editing, my stories have trouble finding homes.
>> I'd be interested to know if a similar predicament runs the publishing industry.
All I can say is, I'm here, and the publishing industry is over there. I have no idea what's going on over there. :)
Mark, you caught me. I read a book and if I'm not loving it after the third page, I put it down. If I am loving it, I am likely finish it in a day and then go back and read it five times over. Then I hop on Amazon and search for similar titles until I find another story that sounds good and is in my "broke college student" price range. And the process begins again. I wouldn't say that I am not open to new things but rather I have found what I like and there are so many books out there similar to what I have already read then I might as well continue on the path that I am on. If I'm enjoying a certain type of story then I am likely to keep reading that type of story. Like you said before, I'm not likely to change to something new when I know the tried and true is still keeping me entertained.
Jill,
I can certainly see your point!
As an unknown writer, the one thing I can do is to invite readers to try up to that third page, and to choose for themselves.
That's what an ebook is for.
I think the hardest thing for me as a reader is reading with an open mind. I have found that it has become much harder to read and enjoy a book to its fullest when you are constantly comparing it to other texts you have read. Thus, intertextuality of other texts for me plays a critical part into how I read and whether or not I will like the book.
My question is then how do you as a reader allow yourself not to be influenced by another text? And how do you as a writer not feel the pressure to come up with something new and innovative that no one else has written about before?
Mark, as a writer are you influenced by other texts and how do you stay true to what you want to write about when there are so many things that could influence the way you write?
I can't help but also wonder how television and the media have changed readers. Through television we are given answers to questions so easily, however, when reading a novel you must hear the whole background story before you get to a clear understanding of the text itself. As readers of text we might have gotten too comfortable with getting the answers quickly without fully analyzing the complexity of the text.
In addition, could it also be possible that we are losing readers because of television. I in fact am guilty of this; finding it much more relaxing sometimes sitting in front of a television over reading a book.
Overall, I think that in this new technology crazed world makes it harder for writers and readers. Do you agree?
Charlotte,
>> Mark, as a writer are you influenced by other texts and how do you stay true to what you want to write about when there are so many things that could influence the way you write?
Every writer is influenced by other texts, but not necessarily in the ways that people might expect.
In the years I spent training myself to write, I learned quickly that other writers could not teach me what to write. For that reason, I base my stories largely on my own experience (this would include nightmares) and on the actual settings around me.
On the other hand, other writers could teach me how to write, and I'm very much aware of the degree to which my technique has been influenced by specific people.
For example, in the blog, I've mentioned Clark Ashton Smith, and what he taught me about description.
Another example would be R. A. Lafferty, who often used repeated phrases throughout a story, almost as motifs. I found, for my own purposes, that I could use this technique to provide structure in a story that otherwise might not have much of a plot.
In the end, that's what influence means for me: not so much what I write, but very much how I write.
>> I can't help but also wonder how television and the media have changed readers.
I've been lucky: I've lived without a TV since the early 1980s.
On the other hand, I do spend too much time on the Web; I would say, yes, it does indeed chew its way through valuable reading time.
After reading this piece, I began to think about what I consider to be the two basic goals that drive writing. One goal, as you suggest, is find readers, to touch someone with a story that can either provide a few hours of entertainment or potentially change a life. The second goal is for the author to express his or her own ideas. An author writes because he or she has something to say. I'm interested in how authors balance these two goals, how they choose between the words they want to share and the words the readers want to read. I personally think the second goal is more important because writing, to me, is a form of personal expression. Yet the first goal is still important; writing what readers want means an author touches the lives of more people.
My point, then, is that I think the greatest challenge of writing is to find a balance between these two drives.
Ryan,
>> I'm interested in how authors balance these two goals, how they choose between the words they want to share and the words the readers want to read.
I can't speak for anyone else; as I've said, I write for myself, I revise for the reader. If an attentive reader has to work through a sentence of mine twice to understand what I've written, then I am the one to blame.
>> I think the greatest challenge of writing is to find a balance between these two drives.
When readers begin to comment on my work, then I'll have a better idea of how I've met this challenge. Until then, who knows?
I really enjoyed reading this. To me, writing is becoming less about the author himself and now has to appeal more to readers and publishers. In a way I feel like other authors are sorta of 'selling out' part of their innovative story ideas in order to stick to one genre and the repetitive pleasure that readers and publishers want. I'd like to think this isn't entirely true.
At the same time, as a reader, I now I often seek stories in the same genre and stories with similar characteristics. For example, I enjoy mystery novels because I get to place myself in the shoes of the detective. I enjoy this connection and relation. I, and perhaps others as well, feel this connection could change if I read a mystery novel that mold with another genre that I'm not interested in like romance. The romance part of the story would distract me, the reader, from the mystery aspects that I really am interested in. And this may disrupt or ruin the story for me. People are not as comfortable with change or risk.
Your article does encourage me to seek the 'pathway to multiplicity' and I do hope there are chances for more innovation that reflects our multiplicity lifestyle.
I quite enjoyed this article. Thank you for sharing it. I did, however, have a few thoughts. I think your description of the writing process is very much on point-- one usually writes to make sense of the world around them. I think a lot of times though, one writes to enlighten those around them just as much as one is searching for self-enlightenment. That is to say, that a lot of writing is meant to hold up a mirror to society as much as it is to hold up a mirror to oneself and further understand our own intricacies. Therefore, I think a lot of writing is just as planned out and categorical as the reading you described. Writers are writing with a plan and a purpose.
Secondly, I think the reading process is often more complex. After finishing a good science fiction novel, for example, I do not go directly to my nearest bookstore to find a similar book. I need time to digest what I just read and make sense of it and during that time, I often find a completely different type of book to read (a biography for example). In that way, I think reading can be just as self-enlightening of a process as the writing you described. I also think a lot of times readers make an effort to reach outside of their comfort zones to find books different from the ones they have just finished. A lot of enjoyment from reading comes from the appealing writing styles more than it comes from being drawn to a specific category.
Thanks again! Hashem Zikry
I thought your passage relating the reading process to eating a favorite/first dish was spot on. I wonder, though, do you think that reading is more like the process of eating multiple different dishes as opposed to just one thing you found tasty. I would propose a soup is a genre of novel; the squash soup a particularly good one.
In addition, you might go further with the food analogy by talking about how writing is a lot like cooking. Each author is trying to make something each reader relates and is familiar to, yet tries tries to innovate or add ingredients that enhances, puzzles or even dazzles the reader/eater.
I found reading this a fascinating way to look at the relationship between readers and writers. I certainly agree that I value repetition in some aspects of the novels I read. Repetition provides readers with a sense of comfort, as if they feel they can trust the writer to guide them safely along the pathways of the story. As I spend a lot of time writing my own stories, I often think more as a writer does than as a reader when reading a novel. I love the feeling that I cannot trust the author or narrator, the feeling of ambiguity and suspicion. Figuring out the mechanisms that make stories like that work fascinates me. I will agree with you that I am almost always more likely to pick up a book in a familiar genre, with characters and story line that are similar to those I've read before. However, every time I pick up a book that seems familiar, I spend my time reading it hoping that it will do something radically different, that it is not nearly as familiar as I had believed it would be when I picked it up off the shelf. While I always enjoy books that are familiar, the safety of them gets old. I suppose that, in a sense, I seek out familiar stories with the hope that, upon reading it, I will discover that I can't trust anything to be familiar, that these "safe pathways" that you've mentioned don't truly exist. Novels that shatter the notion that every author can be trusted to do as you expect, that make the reader nervous, are the ones I always seem to enjoy the most.
I think that this idea of the discrepancy between the expectations of the creator and viewer of the art is one that can be seen over many different types of art. I am a college student who is a Visual Art minor and face this challenge across many different types of media. On one hand, people are looking for this repeated experience (as you pointed out) and emotion, but on the other hand, they are looking for a new way of portraying it so that they don't feel that they are being cheated out of the unique experience of the story. This is why some authors (Jodi Picoult comes to mind for me) are wildly successful at producing a plethora of novels with in the same genres--they know that this is what people want, and they are willing to use that to their advantage. In the visual art world, this can be seen by sticking to a certain style with in a medium. The viewer expects that every time you produce a new artwork, it will be vaguely reminiscent of the work you have produced in the past but they also demand that it isn't too similar to what you have produced before. In essence, they are asking you to be as creative as you want while staying with in the schema that they have constructed of what your art should look like. This is something that artists of all media struggle with everyday--the dual fear of being criticized for not being creative enough and of being criticized for being creative outside of the observer's comfort zone. I am glad that you brought this issue to my attention because I think that it is one that is widely applicable.
Hashem Zikry,
>> I think a lot of times though, one writes to enlighten those around them just as much as one is searching for self-enlightenment. That is to say, that a lot of writing is meant to hold up a mirror to society as much as it is to hold up a mirror to oneself and further understand our own intricacies. Therefore, I think a lot of writing is just as planned out and categorical as the reading you described. Writers are writing with a plan and a purpose.
Yes, absolutely.
>> A lot of enjoyment from reading comes from the appealing writing styles more than it comes from being drawn to a specific category.
Again, absolutely.
When I was younger, I had the false idea that I liked science fiction. Later on, I realized the truth: I liked J. G. Ballard. I liked Avram Davidson. I liked M. John Harrison. And so on.
Whenever these people wrote a different kind of fiction, or an essay, or an article, I loved their work just as much. What appealed to me was the voice, the tone, the point of view.
What they wrote about hardly mattered to me; how they wrote, how they perceived, how they expressed their feelings and ideas: these were the elements that mattered.
Mark, I have to agree with your point about readers desiring more of the same after finishing a book. I have often experienced this feeling myself. However, I find that what find the most enjoyable about a story as a reader are the relationships built between the characters. This allows me to benoy radically different stories from completely opposing genres even when read one directly after the other. As long as the characters are interesting and their relationships are well-developed, I feel fulfilled by the book (though an interesting plot never hurts). Maybe it's just me, but I think it entirely depends on what the reader is looking for in the story. In general though, I would have to agree with your initial point.
I believe that the mark of a truly great writer is someone who understands the differences between both writers and readers. The best literary work (and when we look at film and other forms of art) is usually a mix between creating the "safe pathway" that readers seek, while also allowing themselves to be satisfied by not strictly sticking to the categorized style that readers may enjoy. In a sense, they slightly change the formula, while still keeping the main contents the same.
Going back to your food analogy, I agree that writers need to give readers the same "bowl of squash soup" that they have come to expect. But for the sake of the writer and their creative drive, I think that they need to continuously change the soup by adding new and exciting ingredients. Ingredients that they feel they need to have the reader try and enjoy. Once a writer does this, I think that it begins to widen the range of what readers see as the same bowl.
When writers (and again other artists) can do this, I think makes them a lot more successful.
Becca P,
>> In the visual art world, this can be seen by sticking to a certain style with in a medium. The viewer expects that every time you produce a new artwork, it will be vaguely reminiscent of the work you have produced in the past but they also demand that it isn't too similar to what you have produced before. In essence, they are asking you to be as creative as you want while staying with in the schema that they have constructed of what your art should look like.
Last year I had the chance to see many Van Gogh paintings at the national gallery in Ottawa, and at one point I asked myself if the paintings could be as effective in a medium radically different from the oils and watercolours on the walls -- for example, in Photoshop.
And I thought, yes, they could... because what really mattered was the way he saw.
One of the challenges for a viewer is that, as the years go by, at different stages in their lives, artists often see in different ways, but not necessarily in ways that viewers might come to accept.
>> This is something that artists of all media struggle with everyday--the dual fear of being criticized for not being creative enough and of being criticized for being creative outside of the observer's comfort zone.
A struggle for the artists, a struggle for the viewers.
I think they call it life. :)
Kurt,
>> The best literary work (and when we look at film and other forms of art) is usually a mix between creating the "safe pathway" that readers seek, while also allowing themselves to be satisfied by not strictly sticking to the categorized style that readers may enjoy. In a sense, they slightly change the formula, while still keeping the main contents the same.
When J. G. Ballard published Empire of the Sun, it seemed at first glance a major break with his previous work: he was no longer writing about the future or about the present, but about Shanghai at the start of the second world war.
Right away, though, Empire of the Sun revealed itself as very much a Ballard book. The tone, the metaphors, the psychological landscapes, the clinically-detached, almost surgical point of view -- it was all Ballard.
As a result, people who would have never tried Crash or The Atrocity Exhibition found themselves immersed in a pure pool of Ballardean obsessions -- and if the ratings and reviews are accurate, they loved it.
That's the best example I know of "changing the soup by adding new and exciting ingredients": not only did it work, it worked without compromise.
I think you raise good points about the difference between writers and readers, but I think an even greater obstacle when looking to find readers is overcoming the stereotypes and biases attached to the genre you're writing about. For instance, if I were to use your e-book as an example, there is a definite social stigma attached to erotica, at least in American culture. While there is an existing audience for erotic science fiction, I feel like you could run into a wall when trying to expand your audience simply because it's a genre many people hold a negative bias towards. In other words I think while a reader's tendency towards the familiar can make it hard to find readers, an even bigger problem is, once they've left the comfort of the familiar, to get them to overcome their own preconceived notions about different genres. I don't know if you've experienced this at all with your work, hopefully you haven't.
Jack,
>> I don't know if you've experienced this at all with your work, hopefully you haven't.
I'll find out when the comments come in!
Even after all these years, even after Crash and Bug Jack Barron and The Female Man, science fiction still seems to have an uneasy relationship with eroticism. I'm not sure why.
I'd like to think that my approach to the matter is a lot gentler than what people can find in Ballard or Spinrad or Russ... or for that matter, in Delany or Disch. But until readers are willing to tell me where I stand, I have no way to know.
I like your assessment of readers, although it doesn’t quite apply to myself. I don’t swear by or even really have a preference for any particular genre. As unintelligent as it probably sounds, I prefer good books. I know “good” is an incredibly imprecise word, and I think it’s especially imprecise in the realm of describing one’s writing. But at least for me, there’s some abstract but very real difference between a piece that’s well written and one that is not. It just works, it just flows. And when that well written work manages to resonate with my own life in some way, despite the “multiplicity” of life, that’s when I know I’ve found some tasty soup. I don’t really care if it’s squash soup or chicken noodle or any particular type, as long as it’s tasty.
Your description of the experience of reading is way more applicable to my own experience of listening to music, in which I have far more distinct preferences and expectations. The only thing I can think about after finding a great song is to find a dozen others that sound just like it.
And as for your views on writing, I wish I could be as far along in the process to have my greatest problem lie in finding readers! My greatest challenge has always been to write something on the page without instantly hating whatever I’ve just written. I have so many ideas that sound great in my head, yet when I put them on paper, I end up wondering how I ever found them to be good ideas in the first place. Writing is an exercise in self-loathing for me. And yet I still love it, I think for your reason that it’s a way to make sense of life. I couldn’t agree more with that.
P.S.- I found the first few pages of All Roads Lead to Winter to be fascinating; I can’t wait to read on!
Tyler,
>> But at least for me, there’s some abstract but very real difference between a piece that’s well written and one that is not. It just works, it just flows.
In my view, writers have a limited number of recognizable ways to write badly, but an endless number of ways to write with competence.
This can lead to anxiety, because writers can develop their own styles, their own ways of writing, that are obviously not bad -- but are they good enough?
For me, that is the one essential question: am I good enough?
>> I wish I could be as far along in the process to have my greatest problem lie in finding readers!
If it's any consolation, I've been writing since 1974. I've wrestled with many limitations and I've had a lot practice... perhaps too much.
>> I can’t wait to read on!
Yes, I feel the same way. :)
From a modern standpoint, it makes sense that a writer's main concern would be to find readers. This is mainly due to the fact that today's definition of a writer is so intertwined with popularity and fame. However, if you take a look at history some of the greatest writers of all time wrote for very different reasons than to gain an audience. For example, John Keats wrote to cope with the many trials of his (rather depressing) life and Percy Shelley wanted to educate the world on how to find joy within oneself. The popularity of these Romantic poets mainly arose long after their deaths. Imagine if these writers had altered their works in order to cater to a specific audience, or had given in to contemporary criticism. We would be robbed of some of the greatest original insights and philosophies known to literature. If we take on this broader perspective, the writer's responsibility to find readers becomes obsolete. I think the main concern of every writer is to find a purpose in their work. There's no telling which readers, present or future, might benefit from this purpose. Therefore, I think it's the responsibility of any writer to write whatever they feel is purposeful, regardless of current relevance or potential readership.
Angela,
I agree with you in principle, but there is one small implication here that should be considered:
>> I think it's the responsibility of any writer to write whatever they feel is purposeful, regardless of current relevance or potential readership.
A writer might be brilliant, but the world might never see her.
Unless publishers are willing accept a new Keats, we will never know that he existed. Unless reviewers are willing to consider his work, we will never hear about it. Unless readers are willing to try his work, they will never find out what he has to offer.
It's all very well to say that writers have responsibilities; I agree. But if a brilliant work rots on a hard-drive, everyone loses.
Everyone.
Angela,
Another point.
While Keats and Shelley might not have been widely known during their lifetimes, they were not completely isolated: they were part of the romantic movement. They had others in their lives who understood the value of what they were doing, and that, in itself, is a kind of support.
Support of this kind might be scattered over a country, over a continent; it might be confined to the mail; but at the same time, its impact can be felt.
Clark Ashton Smith, for instance, was quite obscure, but he had supporters: he was admired by George Sterling, by Donald Wandrei, by H. P. Lovecraft, and they all agreed on principles.
J. G. Ballard was admired by other writers like Brian Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, and again, they agreed on principles.
Support might come in many forms, but in the end, what matters is that someone you can respect respects what you can do.
Hi Mark,
I completely agree with you. As a young writer and a college student, I often mind myself thinking about this dichotomy between being a reader and a writer. What I think is more interesting about your analysis,however, is that it can be applied to almost anything in our lives. The differences between the needs of a reader versus a writer are not at all unique to that situation. Consider for example the needs of a college professor and their students? Are their needs not too completely different? Is the tension that those different needs creates any different between the tensions of a writer and a reader. I guess what I am ultimately getting at is that I believe that your discussion of differing needs is not inherently unique to writers and readers. I believe that it is, in a way, part of life.
Josh G,
>> I guess what I am ultimately getting at is that I believe that your discussion of differing needs is not inherently unique to writers and readers.
Not unique, no; we all have our challenges and differing needs.
But I still want to contact those reviewers. :)
I agree with you in that finding readers is the hardest part of writing. I feel that sometimes writers take on an attitude of "I'll write what I want to write and the readers can find me." I know this is not necessarily what you are saying, but it has lead me to this train of thought: What should really define a great writer is their ability to seek out the reader. What makes a great writer is their ability to see and find the reading audience they want to target and then capture them with their writing. I do not mean to say that a horror author should suddenly start writing about wizardry because Harry Potter was such a success. But that they should see the horror genre audience and write with the intention of writing for these fans of the genre they specialize in. The needs of the reader should always be considered over the needs of the writers. A writer can not be considered a great writer until the readers deem him as such, otherwise every writer would merely label their literature as true art that the reader is not sophisticated enough to understand.
Addison M,
>> What should really define a great writer is their ability to seek out the reader. What makes a great writer is their ability to see and find the reading audience they want to target and then capture them with their writing.
There's a drawback to this approach: if everyone did this, the writers who have changed my life would have never existed; the most delightful and haunting and powerful stories I've read would have never been written.
In my view, the best way to seek out a reader is to write as clearly, as engagingly as you can, with as much self-discipline as you can muster, about things that really matter to you; and what's more, to allow your personality to come through the words. I believe that what readers most often respond to is not the gimmickry of genre, but a sense that the writer is interesting. (That doesn't have to mean likeable; I can think of many writers I'd never want to meet, but I still read their stories.)
Writers often give the impression of being whole people. Anyone who reads the science fiction of J. G. Ballard and then turns to Empire of the Sun will find the same writer on those pages. Anyone who reads the ghost stories of L. P. Hartley and then picks up The Go Between will find the same voice, the same imagery, the same obsessions. These are qualities that go far beyond genre.
Genre focuses on story, but story is only one aspect of fiction. Who is writing, and how: sometimes, these are more important.
Post a Comment