Writing is hard work.
It doesn't matter if you do it for a site like BC, or for magazines, or just in your journal; writing is VERY hard work. It takes passion, it takes practice, and it takes the guts to put your words out into the world for other people to see.
Writing isn't a one-sided endeavor, though. When you write something and release it into the world, there is always someone else who is just as important to the success or failure of your work as you, the writer, are.
The reader.
Writing for the purposes of sharing that work with others is a kind of symbiosis. The writer provides the written work, and in return the reader supplies the writer with compensation for their contribution, whether that be in the form of money, feedback, or simply their pleasure when they indulge in reading. Both parts, a writer and an audience, are needed for a work to truly succeed.
As such, writers, no matter how seriously or not-so-seriously they take their craft, have a certain obligation to their readers. The question is: what obligation is that?
To me, there are two things that a writer is promising their readers when they write.
----1. By sharing their story, a writer is informing the audience they supply their work to that they wish for that audience to partake of the story, and even, in cases such as BC, participate in the growth of that story in some way, whether that be through comments that could improve or change the story or just letting the author know that people are there, reading.
----2. As part of that sharing, they are also making a commitment to taking their readers' hearts and minds into account with the work they provide. They are, in a way, committing themselves to growing as an author so that they can continue to entertain their readers with new, better work as time goes on.
These are both very important things, because they're both about the understanding that, once you've shared your work with others, it's no longer just YOUR work. Once you've taken it upon yourself to let others experience your world, you've also indelibly affected them on an emotional and mental level, even if it is only in a minor way. As such, there's a part of your story that leaves your ownership and becomes part of every person who's read it in some small way.
I always preach to people that one should write for themselves, not for others, which I still hold true. Having said that, if you're GOING to share with others... it's your job to understand the commitment you're making to them.
An author who works to improve their craft and understand their audience is an author who will get better response and more long-term commitment from their readers. That author will have a better experience when writing, whether for a large or small audience, because they will understand the give and take required.
An author who feels that what they've provided people is some kind of gift and immune to criticism or even condemnation is an author who needs to reevaluate their understanding of what they're doing. For every person who takes the time to read your work and respond to it, you have unavoidably affected them. If the affect is to cause anger or upset, then whether you agree or not, it is your job to learn why, and to either change to fix their issues, or accept their issues as part of sharing your story.
What do you think? Do you agree with my writing ideals? Or do you have a different set of "rules" you follow in terms of considering your commitment as a writer (or reader!) to others? I'd love to see people's thoughts on this.
Melanie E.
Comments
I am no writer, scratch that,
I am no writer, scratch that, I am no author. And, or is that But?, I don't agree. Not on the whole.
An author, imho, should write what s/he likes, feels, and thinks, regardless of what any reader has to say about it, with the exception that any comment by a reader might influence the story, when such comment, in the opinion of the author, would add to the whole.
This is of course more true, or applicable, when it involves serials that are published in parts, so that the story might evolve in a different way as the author envisioned at the start. Nevertheless, the author has no obligation to any ol' reader, other than maybe finish it.
That is something, I think, every author should ask hirself: When I take on this endeavour, will I be able to finish it?
No author is entirely immune to criticism or/and condemnation, is my opinion, but yes, each one should realize that what they write and publish will affect others, and not always in a good way. But you, the author, should not feel all responsible, other than what's humanly possible, and I feel that the simple act of sharing your hard work should award you a modicum of leeway.
I agree with you on that authors worth their salt will improve when better understanding their audience, but it shouldn't become a goal, and must not turn into a relation based on guilt or enforced consensus, as I feel you're partly addressing here.
Readers must be aware of what they are stepping into, and I think that if we agree that we all have the right to disagree, the best that can happen is that we'll learn something new, and the worst that we simply don't like the story.
Caveat Emptor, as they say, and as long as authors have the ability to categorize their work, and leave warning about any work that could offend or shock readers, I would think that enough.
My 0.02 kind regards,
Jo-Anne
Subject matter isn't so much in question here.
It's more about the presentation of that subject matter.
If you present a world that gives the readers questions, it is your obligation, as a writer, to either provide answers to those questions or give the readers the clues they need to answer them themselves.
If you provide a story that readers like the concept of but criticize for spelling or punctuation, it is your job as a writer to find a way to correct these things so that those readers who have shown support for your concept can continue to enjoy it.
If you have a great plot but fall short on description, and it leaves readers wanting to know more, it is your obligation to understand why they have difficulty grasping what you've written and find ways to cope with that.
The story you tell is YOUR story; how you tell it, though, is where your obligation to the readers comes up.
It's about making yourself a BETTER writer, not changing what you write. An audience for one's subject matter will almost inevitably find it, but getting them to stay requires work, and a dedication to mastering the craft of storytelling.
Melanie E.
Sorry, but I still don't
Sorry, but I still don't agree. You might try to garner more acceptance from presenting your story in accepted ways, with proper spelling, punctuation, use of capitals, etc. But that's using your tools to the max, it's not an obligation to the readers.
And the author might just have decided to differentiate on purpose. Still it's not an English grammar test.
Overall I stick with the opinion that it's entirely the author's choice.
Kind regards,
Jo-Anne
An author's choice? Sure.
That doesn't mean it's a good choice to make.
Writing isn't the same as art or music, where breaking established stylistic conventions is a way of creating your own personal space in a world of formality. Writing is a medium where the stylistic trappings are there to allow you to convey your message as clearly as you can. If your goal isn't to convey a clear idea or message to your audience, then why are you writing? And if your idea IS to convey a clear idea or message, then doing so in a way that is easy for readers to understand is the best way.
Are there exceptions? Sure! Mark Twain wrote with a lot of slang and regional dialect in books like Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer. But, those were exceptions with REASON behind them. It wasn't him misspelling words because he felt he was above spellchecking, or using incorrect sentence structure because he felt the rules of writing were a waste of time.
Breaking the rules is all well and good, but only when you break them out of choice, not ignorance. It's a writer's job to understand WHY writing in certain ways is convention. Style? That comes with practice and understanding which rules can and should be broken, and why. It doesn't come from neglect, which is what refusing to learn to spell, punctuate, and correctly organize a story and ideas is.
The point of being a writer is to communicate. Therefore, it IS a writer's obligation to do so as clearly as they can. That's why the tools are THERE, not because it's handy, but because they're NEEDED to clearly convey a message. An idea has no merit if it isn't cohesive enough to reach its audience.
Melanie E.
Knowing your audience
It takes a lot to develop characters and most of the writers here are weak on that point. I used to have a little list of things to describe about each character, but somewhere along the line it got lost. And, for a long time I have resisted writing more TG stories because I wanted to sell more broadly. Imagine my utter shock when I told my authors group that I was going to remove TG content from my stories so they could sell to the general public, and they told me not to do it. This is a group of about 8 men and women who are members of the Mormon Church!
The writers who I believe stand out as professionals are few and I was going to name them, but I won't.
I actually like writing TG stories but have been embarrassed to show them to the public. How wrong could I be?
Gwen
I would venture that the
I would venture that the _only_ thing that the author 'owes' their audience is the same thing that they owe themselves. To do their best to present a good story.
Yes, unless you're the Morpheus Collective (or Isaac Asimov), writing is hard work, and can take a very long time to complete a story; you still owe it to yourself to complete the story, and show it off. Keep in mind that for all artists, the purpose of art is to generate a reaction from the audience. Notice that I didn't say a _good_ reaction. Some artists go for the nastiest reactions they can get, and there have been a few that have ended up with prices on their head. (Salman Rushdi - who wasn't trying for one.)
Machiavelli, for example, was writing for an audience of one - Lorenzo di Medici - and wrote one of the nastiest pieces of political aggrandisement ever seen. (The Prince) One suggestion was that he was trying to get his job back as a political advisor.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Writing is not a democratic process
An author should produce complete stories, using good English, minimising spelling and grammatical errors.
Preferably, the stories should be of interest to at least one reader but that is not essential.
Authors may note the preferences of certain readers, but writing is not a democratic process. Authors might take instruction from the characters in their story, but never from their readers, as that will surely make their stories move away from individuality and towards the bland.
Authors should put aside their work before publishing for a long enough period that they can divorce themselves from their work. Only then can they read it as another reader might read it. They should draft and redraft their work until it is as good as can be.
Preferably, writing should be enjoyable, rather than hard work.