A Reader's Rights vs. A Writer's Perogative

[WittyandorIronic]

So, I had a favorite series. This series of 12 or so books started off great. The plot, world, characters, and style were all fresh and riveting. I ate the books up, buying them in hardback most often, and rolled through them one after another. Books 1-4 were GREAT. Books 5-7 were...well, not as great. But everyone has a bad day, or decade, so whatever. I disliked where the character was headed, but as it is a long series I thought she might pull through. Books 8 & 9 just plain sucked. The writing was bad, the plot had holes large enough to throw a hardback book through, and the main character had been corrupted. She had started out as someone you could relate to, cheer for, and admire, and in the latter half of the series she turned hard, ugly, and just plain weird. Book 10 I glanced at in the store, realized it was more crap, and never looked back.

The more I thought about it, the more disturbed I was. As a reader who invested emotion, time and money, I felt cheated.

As a writer, I felt robbed! This author had created a new and exciting world, and then destroyed it. Her characters hadn't "evolved", they had devolved. There were parts of the last books that I could point at and honestly say was some of the laziest, most unimaginative crap I had ever seen, and I almost felt slighted. I felt as if she was a fraud. I felt like she was throwing away the success I coveted!

So now to my point. lol.

Do authors have an obligation to their readers? Where is the line of that obligation, and how would you, as a writer, feel about crossing it? If the characters and story were begging to go one way, and your fans another, who would you follow?

As much as I dislike this author for the direction she chose, I feel a little guilty for all my negativity when I think about my own creations, and how hard it would be to not follow where the story led me.

[scarletpeaches]

I think I know who you're talking about and the author is in grave danger of disappearing up her own arse.

[Lyra Jean]

Inquiring minds want to know. Who is this author?

[scarletpeaches]

Laurell K Hamilton, I'd bet.

[Sage]

In my opinion, it should be a little of both. As a writer, you should enjoy the novel yourself, but you also have a responsibility to the readers. You don't have to cater to the way they expect the story to go--that might disappoint them too--but you should try your best to give them something they'll enjoy as much as you do. If the readers have already invested themselves into the 'verse you created, you don't want to change the characters so drastically that they wouldn't recognize the new from the original. Yes, change and growth are good, and it's nice to have consequences from previous books, but the readers fell in love with the original characters. And certainly you want to make sure that the plot holes are filled in, even if you already have an established fan base. It is your responsibility to write the best book you can, for yourself and your readers.

[WittyandorIronic]

SP is correct. lol. I didn't mention her only because I didn't want this to be a thread about all the things I think she disastorously did wrong (though they are legion), but more about who "owns" the success of a book, and has responsibility for that success. The obvious answer is shared, between author and readers, and I like what Sage said about responsibility to write the best book you can.

[Gillhoughly]

I'm sure it's LKH, too.

But when it comes down to it--she's stated this at panel talks at conventions--she owns the character and can do what she likes with it.

And people keep buying the books.

I think they're the ones who don't know where to find good Internet porn.

You don't have to buy the books. You don't have to read them.

Chances are excellent she's not going to change her formula since it's making her money. She doesn't owe anyone anything. She kicks out the words, but isn't twisting any arms to get people to read them. Since sales are good the publisher will keep buying from her and screw the quality.

But make this work for you.

When I read a wildly popular writer I figured out pretty quick that regardless of sales and praise from fans that the work was a load of crap. I threw the book across the room and declared "I can do better than THAT."

Then I did.

[scarletpeaches]

I have to say this, then I'll leave off the slamming of LKH.

She said in her blog recently that if Agatha Christie loved Poirot as much as she loves Anita and Merry, she would never have written Curtain, would never have done to him what she did. Ever.

And if Doyle had loved Holmes the way she loves Anita and Merry, he would never have killed him off and he only brought him back for the money it earned him. He clearly didn't love Holmes; Holmes wasn't real to him the way Anita Blake is to LKH.

So it's not only the bad writing but the astounding arrogance of the woman, speaking about Christie and Doyle in that way, claiming she loves her characters more than they loved theirs, that makes me want to throttle her.

[Birol]

At NASFic, last summer, I attended a panel and they provided another perspective on these things. When an author becomes successful, they suddenly are under a lot of pressure. Not only are the fans waiting for the next book, but several people's jobs and careers are dependent on them not only producing, but producing regularly. Oftentimes, the editors don't want the writer to move too far from the patterns, or formula, that has worked in the past. Additionally, there are more severe time constraints placed on the writer. They are expected to produce a first draft of a salable novel in four months, while editing the previous novel, looking at the galleys for a third, responding to fans, networking, etc. On top of regular life, it doesn't always leave a lot of room for writers to perform at their peak level of creativity.

Being successful can be a double-edged sword and a case of be careful what you wish for.

[brokenfingers]

I initially thought you were talking about Robert Jordan (until I saw the "she" part), as his series suffered from almost the same exact problem.

[Gillhoughly]

Hm. I've got a (modestly) popular series character and a few fans who hang on my every word for it.

But if I worried about what they thought about this or that thing that happens to my hero I'd never write another word again.

I learned that from an actor friend. He's got a fanatical female following who swoon and squee every time he raises an eyebrow. I asked him if that ever influenced his work. He said, "I never think about that, I focus on the character, otherwise nothing happens."

You can agree or disagree with what another writer does, but ultimately you focus on your own words and figure out what works best for you.

What works best for me is to entertain myself and afterwards hope other people find those words entertaining as well.

[WittyandorIronic]

*snipped*

When I read a wildly popular writer I figured out pretty quick that regardless of sales and praise from fans that the work was a load of crap. I threw the book across the room and declared "I can do better than THAT."

Then I did.

Agreed, and doing so. lol. I shamelessly admit that one of my strong motivations for writing is the poor state of novels I sometimes see. Not only can I write better, but apparently I must do so to get the books I want. lol. Of course I have only felt that strongely on occasion.

Conversely I have come across books and been blinded by the talent, and wanted to climb deep into a non-writing hole.

She doesn't owe anyone anything.

This is what I guess I am asking. Does she owe her fans something? As a reader, I say yes. It is my time, emotion, and money she is after.
I am a strong believer in ethical consumerism. I don't buy what I dislike or disagree with, and I lavishly (when able) buy what I do believe in. That means buying brand new hardcovers. So, I guess in a way you are right. She doesn't owe anyone anything, but no effort + abandoning her fans = career demise. And while I am sure she is fine now, and will be for some time, eventually it will bite her in the ass.

On my bad days as a reader & a writer I feel as follows:
If she isn't writing for her fans than who the hell is she writing for? Herself? Fine, then stop publishing crap, and leave another book shelf slot open to the rest of us. I know that sounds harsh, but that is what I am driving at. If your goal is to be published, to have a fan base, to gain their loyalty to KEEP you published, aren't you responsible to them?

Hmmm... I am torn over this issue, and have been for some time. lol. I feel passionately that she shouldn't get away with literary homicide. At the same time I feel strongly that my own stories will be written the way they and I decree, and screw everyone else!

[ishtar'sgate]

Do authors have an obligation to their readers? Where is the line of that obligation, and how would you, as a writer, feel about crossing it? If the characters and story were begging to go one way, and your fans another, who would you follow?


I suspect the author has tired of her subject and should have moved on to something else. Probably had obligations to her publisher, though. Not sure authors have an obligation to their readers but if they want to keep their readers they need to take that into consideration when veering away from what their fans have come to expect. As a writer I'd think long and hard before altering a series and sending it off in another direction. I know how much I hate that when I follow a series. It usually puts me off the author altogether and I never read anything else they write.
Linnea

[astonwest]

SP is correct. lol. I didn't mention her only because I didn't want this to be a thread about all the things I think she disastorously did wrong (though they are legion), but more about who "owns" the success of a book, and has responsibility for that success.Guess I should have held off on my PM until I read through the whole thread.

I would have figured it was Patricia Cornwell and her Scarpetta series...

Even though I'm not anywhere near as popular as these folks, I often find myself at the mercy of readers who want certain things to happen. A good example is the desire for them to see a romance happen between my main character (in the series) and the female lead in many of my novels. Not to say that won't ever happen, but people get impatient. :)

As a writer, I have a reason for every thing I do in my work...so, I'd vote for a writer's choice over the desire of a reader...

[arodriguez]

the author owes nothing. You have to follow the story. You have t o go with what feels right. The minute you start writing something because you think it will impress people, BAM! you are toasted like an armadillo in iraq.
Haven't read LKH yet, did read Robert Jordan. I was disappointed at times of certain..addditions..to the book, however i loved the first half of teh series so much, i NEEDED to know what his ending was. Would have still bought the last one, just because i had to know.

[maestrowork]

That's why I don't write series based on characters (unless there's a definitive arc such as the Harry Potter series -- once you're done, you're done). If I were successful, I wouldn't want that kind of pressure and obligation to pump out sub-par work just to satisfy the publisher's demand. Suddenly you become a product line, but novels are not potato chips -- not to me anyway. I know there are authors who put out the same stories (just change the characters and the settings) and their readers will still buy. I don't aspire to be that kind of authors.

[Birol]

Agreed, and doing so. lol. I shamelessly admit that one of my strong motivations for writing is the poor state of novels I sometimes see. Not only can I write better, but apparently I must do so to get the books I want.

This is what I guess I am asking. Does she owe her fans something? As a reader, I say yes. It is my time, emotion, and money she is after.

Would you look at what you just said? You claim that one of the main reasons you write is for yourself. That's what writing to "get the books [you] want" amounts to.

Yet, then you don't even take a breath before you state that the writer is obligated to give the reader what they want.

I don't buy what I dislike or disagree with, and I lavishly (when able) buy what I do believe in.

When it comes to books, this is true of most readers.

On my bad days as a reader & a writer I feel as follows:
If she isn't writing for her fans than who the hell is she writing for? Herself? Fine, then stop publishing crap, and leave another book shelf slot open to the rest of us. I know that sounds harsh, but that is what I am driving at. If your goal is to be published, to have a fan base, to gain their loyalty to KEEP you published, aren't you responsible to them?

Given that you've stated you're writing because you don't like the other books you read, you'd best remember this. If you make it, there will come a time when another, younger, hungrier writer whines "Why don't they step aside for me if all they're going to do is publish crap?"

You'll never please everyone. There will always be someone who thinks that your writing sucks and doesn't deserve to be published.

[WittyandorIronic]

These are both my quotes:

As much as I dislike this author for the direction she chose, I feel a little guilty for all my negativity when I think about my own creations, and how hard it would be to not follow where the story led me.


Hmmm... I am torn over this issue, and have been for some time. lol. I feel passionately that she shouldn't get away with literary homicide. At the same time I feel strongly that my own stories will be written the way they and I decree, and screw everyone else!


I think I have explicately stated I am torn between both sides of the concept, and understand that my reader's side demands are hard met by my own writer's side convictions. Hence the solicitation of other's views. If that wasn't clear before, hopefully it is now.

[maestrowork]

I think writers and readers are not mutually exclusive. The best writers are also readers. We can't just write for ourselves without regard to our audiences. At the same time, we can't write just to please -- and no, we can't please everyone anyway. I've always believed that a good writer must be able to be true to him- or herself but at the same time, understand the market. When there's a disconnect, there's a problem.

[Gillhoughly]

WittyandorIronic

Again, she doesn't owe her fans anything. There's enough out there who still love her stuff and they'll keep her income nice and healthy for decades to come.

But you need not contribute to it.

I will read a bloody awful bad book that I hate ONLY to figure out what NOT to do in my own writing.

I will also read a fantastic, I totally LOVE this writer's book to figure out what won me over and how to do it myself.

Since there's plenty of the god-awful crap around, may I please introduce you to a series worthy of your time and affection? (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/105-2625133-1822008?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Jim+butcher) Nine books and counting and they just keep getting better.

(No--it's not mine, though I wish I'd thought of it first. And I'm not mentioning my stuff as I can get more done on this forum by keeping my massive ego from spouting off about this thing or that thing. Or even that *other* thing over there.)

[swvaughn]

Ooh, I guessed LKH and I haven't even read any of her stuff . . . I didn't hear about it until people were already starting to complain that it had degenerated into the type of story I'm really not interested in. Probably a shame--perhaps I should consider reading the first few, give it a chance.

And I've always felt Anne Rice guilty of the same thing with the Vampire Chronicles. Oh, how I used to love Lestat, before he wept (and wept and wept and wept). But she made a very strident point of defending what she did to her characters on Amazon for all the world to see. So, we can safely cast her vote on the side of authors not writing for reader sensitivities.

I'm on the fence, myself. At this point I'd welcome the opportunity to even have some readers for which to make the decision, so I'm leaning toward pleasing them more. It will be terribly hypocritical of me to change my mind in the future. It's a tough tightrope to walk, and I'm trying to get a decent pole to hold now so I don't fall off. :D

[sunna]

Not being published, I don't have the perspective I'd sure like to have on this subject; but as a reader I know I got frustrated with LKH and a few others and just stopped buying the books, which is the only comment I feel I need to make to an author about where they've gone with a series.

I don't feel like an author owes me anything as a reader, beyond writing the best novel they can write. Where they take a series, how their characters develop, and into what (i.e., badass vampire hunter to badly drawn nympho with an endlessly growing arsenal of invincible superpowers), is totally their business, and I'll trust them to do it well and with something in mind at every plot twist. As a writer, that's all I feel I (would) owe fans of a series I wrote: my best effort for every book. When it's clearly not a best effort - or, hell, even a half-hearted attempt to spell correctly, stay true to the characters you created and tie up your plots into something cohesive, I'll bitch for a bit and just move on to the next thing, as I would expect readers to do if it were my book they hated. As for reader input into characters, relationships, and plot lines - I doubt I'd ignore it, particularly if I got the same feedback from a bunch of people, but my vision of where the series was going would definitely come first.


Of course, put in the light of a four-month time frame (thanks for posting that Birol, I had absolutely no idea - eek!), writing anything at all sounds daunting, to say the least.

[CheshireCat]

On my bad days as a reader & a writer I feel as follows:
If she isn't writing for her fans than who the hell is she writing for? Herself? Fine, then stop publishing crap, and leave another book shelf slot open to the rest of us. I know that sounds harsh, but that is what I am driving at. If your goal is to be published, to have a fan base, to gain their loyalty to KEEP you published, aren't you responsible to them?


One, she's writing for herself, following her own creative vision, however much you or other readers may not agree with where that's taking her and her characters. Two, no writer intentionally publishes crap, however much some aspiring writers and some readers would like to believe that. And three, if she were to stop publishing tomorrow, "the rest of us" probably wouldn't have a chance of occupying her place on the publisher's list because that would go to someone a hell of a lot closer than any beginner to bringing in the kinds of sales numbers she does on a regular basis.

Hmmm... I am torn over this issue, and have been for some time. lol. I feel passionately that she shouldn't get away with literary homicide. At the same time I feel strongly that my own stories will be written the way they and I decree, and screw everyone else!

If you don't like her work, don't like the direction the series has taken, then stop buying and reading the books. Or, if you're disgusted but still want to know how the series goes, add insult to injury, and buy the books used.

The author owes the reader her best efforts to entertain -- and that's all.

Look, I've bailed on numerous authors and even more series, some early on and some after years of loyalty. I don't blame the authors for the fact that they lost me; they were following their creative vision, and it isn't their fault that my vision diverged from theirs. They have to be true to their work just as I'm true to mine.

Period.

That said, as a writer I paid attention to why I bailed on various authors and series. I saw no need to explain any of it to them, or to visit online review sites or forums and bitch about it -- I just took mental note. Over the years, I've figured out what I really, really don't like to happen with favorite characters and storylines.

And when I'm working on my own stuff, I keep that in mind. No, I don't change my work; the truth is that I'm extremely unlikely to do any of the things I hate because I hate them. Probably wouldn't have done them anyway, but now I'm conscious of why. And now, if I come to a creative crossroads with a character or storyline, I think about what I'm about to do, and if it's something I'm reasonably sure most readers aren't going to like because I'm not happy about it myself, I try to find a way to make it more palatable for all of us.

But at the end of the day, all I owe to my readers are my best efforts. Which is exactly what I owe to myself.

[Simple Living]

The more I thought about it, the more disturbed I was. As a reader who invested emotion, time and money, I felt cheated.

As a writer, I felt robbed! This author had created a new and exciting world, and then destroyed it. Her characters hadn't "evolved", they had devolved. There were parts of the last books that I could point at and honestly say was some of the laziest, most unimaginative crap I had ever seen, and I almost felt slighted. I felt as if she was a fraud. I felt like she was throwing away the success I coveted!

As a reader, you have every right to feel cheated. No matter what your reason is. Even if others don't feel the same way. You felt cheated.

As a writer, why would you feel robbed? Why would anyone's writing make you, as a writer, feel robbed? I'm not seeing this side of your argument. What you described feeling as a writer are still, in my opinion, valid feelings for feeling cheated as a reader.

Do authors have an obligation to their readers? Where is the line of that obligation, and how would you, as a writer, feel about crossing it? If the characters and story were begging to go one way, and your fans another, who would you follow?

You'll get varying opinions here, but yes, I feel that authors do have an obligation to their readers when it comes to doing a series. It's the readers who put authors where they are. All the talent and creativity writers possess means nothing if they don't have readers to buy their books and appreciate them. Readers tend to follow authors in their journeys. They can make or break an author. There's a responsibility that comes with that in writing a series.

Writers can write whatever they want. Every book can be different. Writers need to be true to themselves. But, when it comes to a series, the readers deserve careful consideration.

As much as I dislike this author for the direction she chose, I feel a little guilty for all my negativity when I think about my own creations, and how hard it would be to not follow where the story led me.

Maybe the guilt comes from knowing that you might be over-reacting just a bit? Personally, I find that to be the case when I do the same thing. Just remember how hard it is to be a writer. Then, imagine how much harder it is to be an author. You want to please everyone, but, as in life, it's impossible. The best you can do as an author is to please yourself, your publisher and then, hopefully, your readers!

[Simple Living]

I think writers and readers are not mutually exclusive. The best writers are also readers. We can't just write for ourselves without regard to our audiences. At the same time, we can't write just to please -- and no, we can't please everyone anyway. I've always believed that a good writer must be able to be true to him- or herself but at the same time, understand the market. When there's a disconnect, there's a problem.

This is exactly why it's more difficult to be an author than it is to be a writer.

[Toothpaste]

I understand and agree with what you are saying Cheshire, but I worry that possibly some may get the wrong impressions from your statement. That it may reaffirm a sense of entitlement, "I will not compromise my art." As if somehow editing and thinking about an audience was such a compromise.

As an author, chances are you have an inherit understanding of how to write for an audience, and in fact enjoy doing just that. It might not even be something you consciously think about. However there are authors out there who simply write their own little world. They want to write whatever they want, without any care at all if anyone ever reads it. Golden words and all that. These authors are rarely published authors in my opinion. Or if they are it is through a vanity press of some kind. But I know such people exist. I have met them. I know the original question was posted regarding a published author, and that you were defending them (and on excellent grounds), but I think there is an important larger discussion here, and that is that art simply cannot be created in a vacuum.

I am a newly published author. And I am quickly learning what it is like to get negative reviews. They hurt, but I am discovering that they don't sting as much as I thought they would because I know that the story I wrote is what I wanted to produce and I wouldn't change anything now. However the positive reviews far outweigh the bad, and this helps. Not just for the ego (I mean it is good for the ego too) but because to be honest, if everyone disliked my work, I would have to sit back and take stock. I write my book how I want to true, my sense of humour definitely does not appeal to everyone, nor do people always understand magical realism (the genre I work in - yup even in a kid's book), at the same time I have put the effort in to make sure my story is clear to my readers, that it moves at a decent pace, and that it isn't self indulgent. To the best of my ability of course (and with the help of some brilliant editors).

Why desire to be published if not to be read by others?

The audience matters. Otherwise why are you trying to get published? But at the same time, you matter, otherwise why are you trying to get published.

[Simple Living]

I am a newly published author. And I am quickly learning what it is like to get negative reviews. They hurt, but I am discovering that they don't sting as much as I thought they would because I know that the story I wrote is what I wanted to produce and I wouldn't change anything now. However the positive reviews far outweigh the bad, and this helps.

This is what it means for writers to develop a thick skin. It's absolutely necessary for the next point you make...

Not just for the ego (I mean it is good for the ego too)

Although everyone is subject to egos, (a trap, pitfall) a mature writer will use the positive reviews to encourage them and increase their confidence. There's a huge difference between ego and confidence. Your comments show that you're maturing as a writer.

if everyone disliked my work, I would have to sit back and take stock.

Exactly. That's when the writer has to decide what's more important to them -- writing exactly what they want regardless of anyone, and possibly everyone's, criticisms, or compromising a bit to satisfy your readers. Compromise, in the arts, is not always a bad, self-demeaning thing.

The audience matters. Otherwise why are you trying to get published? But at the same time, you matter, otherwise why are you trying to get published.

Exactly. This is why compromise must exist. It's called choosing your battles. Some are not worth fighting because the loss would cost too much.

[CheshireCat]

As an author, chances are you have an inherit understanding of how to write for an audience, and in fact enjoy doing just that. It might not even be something you consciously think about.

Believe me, I've put plenty of conscious thought into the matter over the years. I don't write "for" an audience simply because that audience is composed of hundreds of thousands of people I will never be able to sit down and talk to. And even if I could, I strongly, strongly feel that it's vital for any author to listen to the single creative voice/vision inside his or her head.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a sense of entitlement. (Though, to be fair, I do believe the creator of a work should be entitled to control it, to have the last word as it were, in every creative sense.) It has nothing to do with art, IMO. It has to do with creating something that didn't exist before. And for that creation to be successful, for it to work as it's intended to work, it needs to be guided by a single creative mind.

That's my opinion. Mind you, once a work is complete, is out of the author's head and in a tangible form for others to enjoy (or not), whether it's publishable, marketable, or successful is going to depend on the views and opinions of others, beginning with agents and editors.

Do you change your work if an agent or editor insists those changes will make the work more marketable? That's up to you. The most successful writers, IMO, are those who have learned to listen to those presumably experienced and informed voices and to incorporate suggestions and changes in their own way so as to keep the work their own.

The biggest mistake I see many new writers make is doing exactly what's suggested or "required" by agents and editors rather than learning to listen and interpret what's being said. They "fix" the problems, but aren't true to their own creative vision in so doing.

However there are authors out there who simply write their own little world. They want to write whatever they want, without any care at all if anyone ever reads it. Golden words and all that. These authors are rarely published authors in my opinion. Or if they are it is through a vanity press of some kind. But I know such people exist. I have met them.

Well, as you say, most of those writers are never going to be traditionally published. And if how they write makes them happy, who am I to quibble?

It's the difference between writing only for oneself and writing firstly for oneself.

I know the original question was posted regarding a published author, and that you were defending them (and on excellent grounds), but I think there is an important larger discussion here, and that is that art simply cannot be created in a vacuum.


Well, first, I believe that if you exist in this world, you are never in a vacuum. Our work is influenced and informed by every experience we've ever had and by everything that goes on around us. So even if no one else ever reads a word we write, those words were not created in a vacuum.

Can our work be created without an audience other than ourselves? Of course it can. And if we choose to offer that work to the marketplace, the audience, we can do so having created it firstly for ourselves.

Whether it's successful depends on how much of that marketplace, that audience, happens to be pleased and entertained by the work.

...because to be honest, if everyone disliked my work, I would have to sit back and take stock.But you can never know if "everyone" dislikes your work. You can know if reviews become largely negative, and you can know if your sales numbers drop, but both things are only ever going to represent a percentage of your audience.

The rest of them, nameless and faceless, tell you nothing except that they continue to buy your books.

Say your first book sells 100,000 copies, and you read 100 reviews about that book. You have no idea what 99,900 of your readers think about your book. Now suppose that your second book also sells 100,000 copies. To the same readers? Some of the same, sure. Some new. But you have no way of knowing for certain, except from the tiny percentage who will write to you or review both books in some venue you can access, if you don't have a whole different set of readers for that second book.

You could make yourself crazy trying to write "for" that audience. It's always shifting, losing people, gaining new people, subject to the same societal influences and life experiences you are yourself. And over time, you'll hear from some of them -- but not nearly a majority of them.

Which is why any successful writer, IMO, writes for him or herself first -- and shrugs off praise the same way they shrug off criticism, because each is the view of only one person, one mind, one reader.

And if the audience begins to disappear in the real, tangible terms of declining sales -- then you, as a successful writer, look at the market, at what's selling, and say to yourself, "I can write my own version of that." And try. And maybe succeed.

But whatever you write, it better be your own version, your own creative voice, in charge. Because not only can you not please everybody else, you can never know exactly how many people you are pleasing.

My opinion.

[blackpen]

I definitely see your point, but I don't think any author intentionally churns out crap knowing full well that it is crap. Also, an author should stay true to what he/she thinks works well, they're the ones who know their characters the best. Can you imagine what would have happened if J.K. Rowling had listened to a bulk of her fans? Ginny would have ended up with Tom Riddle, Hermione the Muggle-born would have ended up with Draco the purist bigot, and Severus Snape would have had regular sex with Harry.

OK, I'm prob the only person here who still reads HP fanfic.

[Simple Living]

OK, I'm prob the only person here who still reads HP fanfic.

Ugh-o! I would rather have my book reproduced illegally and lose a million dollars on it than have fan fiction created about my book. Personally, I think fan fiction should be illegal.

[WittyandorIronic]

I definitely see your point, but I don't think any author intentionally churns out crap knowing full well that it is crap. Also, an author should stay true to what he/she thinks works well, they're the ones who know their characters the best. Can you imagine what would have happened if J.K. Rowling had listened to a bulk of her fans? Ginny would have ended up with Tom Riddle, Hermione the Muggle-born would have ended up with Draco the purist bigot, and Severus Snape would have had regular sex with Harry.

OK, I'm prob the only person here who still reads HP fanfic.

I just want to say this is especially funny, as this is pretty much what happened. Though it never even crossed my mind before (and is doubtful, considering the large amount of negative reviews and anti-fans) maybe she started letting fan-ficers write her books.
lmao.

LKH is one of the only series I have seen that has fan-fic written specifically to NOT have sex in it. eh.

I think everyone brings up good points, and I especially agree with an author writing for themselves first. Especially because it implies also considering the readership, even if it is farther down the line.

I also think that it being a series is a big part. One bad book from an author is salvagable, but series fans are rabid and unforgiving. Including myself. lol.

[wayndom]

This is what I guess I am asking. Does she owe her fans something? As a reader, I say yes. It is my time, emotion, and money she is after.

As a reader, you can say yes, but you can't sue the author for not delivering what you wanted, so I'm not sure what you get out of this insistence.

Of course all writers want your money and good writers want your time, emotion and respect, but if you're wasting your time on an author, it's up to you to stop reading her. (Man, this is sounding like advice to a person in an abusive relationship -- "Take responsibility for your own safety and get the hell out!")

I was so disgusted by Anne Rice's The Mummy that I never read another word by her (although I still list Interview as one of my favorite novels, and regard it as a true classic -- defined as a book that will be read an enjoyed 100 years or more after the author's death).

I was so put off by Stephen King's self-indulgence in IT that I never read another word of his fiction (though I recently read and enjoyed On Writing).

If you keep going back to a writer you no longer enjoy, you have only yourself to blame. Perhaps you should be asking what you "owe" to yourself as a book buyer and reader...

[Birol]

Ugh-o! I would rather have my book reproduced illegally and lose a million dollars on it than have fan fiction created about my book. Personally, I think fan fiction should be illegal.

Actually, it is, the same as driving 60 mph in a 55 mph zone is illegal. Fanfiction violates copyright. What each writer has to ask is, "Is it worth it to pursue the violation?"

[gp101]

Great topic. I don't read series (no particular reason),but I've found similar troubling questions about certain authors in non-serialized books. That is, their earlier works grabbed me by the pants and I'd purchase their next book expecting a similar ride (not the same story, mind you), but at a certain point, their novels just lose their luster to me.

I think because of these authors, I appreciate even more those who can continuously entertain me through the years, who seldomly dissapoint, yet, seem to not churn out cookie-cutter predicatable stories, or who alter their writing so drastically that it turns into something I hadn't bargained for. Change can be good, but it's definitely a case-by-case type of thing.

I sometimes wonder if the authors who fail to entertain me yet again have become bored with their genre or style; though some writers are successful at multiple genres. Or maybe, their success has turned writing into the type of job where there is no more fun, the fun they felt when they initially started--but it's a paycheck so they must write something. Maybe the business of writing just changes certain writers' attitudes towards the writing itself. Kind of like a pornstar who no longer enjoys sex with her real-life partner because she does it for work. Some of them fake it for the money, while others still enjoy it, can't get enough.

[Toothpaste]

Cheshire I was going to go through your post line by line until I realised it would be a silly exercise as I agree with all the points you make. I thought you would be able to see from my other post that I agreed with your other one too.

My point was simple, you are right. But I think that you are coming at this answer assuming writers have the same knowledge and innate abilities as you do. When I said I think you write unconsciously for an audience what I meant was, yes you write whatever you want to and think you don't care what anyone thinks, but you are still able to write a coherent story that other people can understand. Just being able to write a coherent paragraph suggests to me you care that other people are going to read your work. I'm sure grammar etc is important to you.

I am not talking about trying to please people, or write a bestseller. But to write, and want to have it published, means you want someone to read it. And to me that is important.

I thought I already explained how my writing is very much what I want to write, how my humour does not please all, how my "magical realism" alienates some people. But what I want to write is also Middle grade fiction. And so you better believe I'm not going to write a sex scene into it. But I guess that's pandering to my audience isn't it?

I think you should know what genre (even if the genre is there is no genre) you are writing, and what type of people you imagine will read your book. If you think it will be three people who live in a pink house, then that still is an audience. I just do not believe you write a book without giving a thought to your audience. And if all you are doing it for is yourself, honestly, that's your choice. Me, I like to take stock of something more than just me. I want to make sure what I want to come across actually registers on the page to someone else. I mean, surely you've talked with those authors out there who need to explain what they meant by something in their work, to everyone. Obviously it's the audience's fault for not understanding his/her brilliant prose.

Okay, so it is impossible to write in a vacuum (they are tiny and dusty and dark), we are influenced by things around us of course. I meant that it is possible to write in a way that is isolated and self indulgent.

I think a good author writes how they want to, what they want to, and raises the bar and does not pander to the lowest common denominator. But a great author also has respect for his/her audience and knows that there is a difference between wanting to get across a good idea, and actually making that register to an audience.

My opinion.

[CheshireCat]

I thought I already explained how my writing is very much what I want to write, how my humour does not please all, how my "magical realism" alienates some people. But what I want to write is also Middle grade fiction. And so you better believe I'm not going to write a sex scene into it. But I guess that's pandering to my audience isn't it?

There's a huge difference between "pandering" to an audience and writing for a specific, targeted audience -- and we both know it. You choose to test the boundaries of one aspect of that audience, their tolerance for something as alien to their everyday lives as magical realism, while at the same time making the choice not to test the boundaries of accepted sexual content for that audience.

You make those choices to suit yourself and to better fit the market in which you wish to sell your work. Which is as it should be.

I don't think we disagree that any writer who wishes to sell in the marketplace gives some consideration to that market when placing their work, and some thought to the audience most likely to enjoy the work.

My point was simple, you are right. But I think that you are coming at this answer assuming writers have the same knowledge and innate abilities as you do. When I said I think you write unconsciously for an audience what I meant was, yes you write whatever you want to and think you don't care what anyone thinks, but you are still able to write a coherent story that other people can understand. Just being able to write a coherent paragraph suggests to me you care that other people are going to read your work. I'm sure grammar etc is important to you.

And the above makes me believe we are coming at this differently, because you seem to be talking about writing skill whereas I've been talking about creative intent. Of course skill is necessary; if you're writing for more than an audience of yourself, then possessing the skills and tools to convey your story to the reader is all-important.

As I understood it, though, the OP was asking what a writer owed to his or her audience, specifically referencing a long-running series she felt had -- derailed, for want of a better word.

And my contention is that in such a case the author owes her audience the best story she can tell, but she does not owe it to them to follow any creative vision other than her own.

:Shrug:

As you say, I don't think we disagree.

[Toothpaste]

We are definitely on the same page. And I agree, your answer was more specific to the OP's question, mine was more dealing with some of the broader points.

I find I often have the most interesting debates with people I actually agree with. :)

[Gillhoughly]

LKH is one of the only series I have seen that has fan-fic written specifically to NOT have sex in it. eh.


:dies laughing: :roll:

Fanfic is a whole 'nother thread, though.

Try this one about the Star Wars ficcer who put HER version up for sale on freakin' Amazon.

I'm amazed that the LucasFilm lawyers left her some skin.

Here's Uncle Jim's post on it from a thread on fanfic called "Originality Lunched?"

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=580051&postcount=278

[maestrowork]

Basically the more in tune you personally are with the reading public, the more universal and marketable your work will be -- because individually you're connected with your target audiences (e.g. SF/F writer who knows what SF/F readers are reading because he is one) Often when a writer who "writes for himself" does wrong is when he veers too far into his own world and he thinks everybody feels that way about literary work. He has an idea of what "writerly" means -- often the prose becomes stilted or purple, the characters are too over the top and unrealistic, or the plot is all over the place because he believes more is more. A seasoned writer learns all that by trial and error (what works, what doesn't), readers' response and rejections, etc. We really can't just write in a vacuum if we want someone else besides our mothers read our works.

As for the OP's points and questions, I think that's the inherent problem with series based on popular characters. It works better in the beginning because everything is new and fresh, and readers are more willing to go along the ride just to see what is in store for the characters. However, later on, I think people start to envision HOW their favorite characters should become (and out come the fanfics), and when that vision doesn't coincide with the author's, they get turned off. I think there's a danger when the author doesn't listen or care about what the fans want, but at the same time, there's a danger when the author listens too much and completely forsakes her own vision. There has to be some kind of happy medium.

[benbradley]

Is it me, or is it getting hot in here?

I just googled "contract with the reader" because I remembered some famous writer somewhere used that phrase. I found it as a quote on 'another writing forum' - it was Orson Scott Card in "Characters and Viewpoint." But I'm not sure if this is the same thing the OP means. Whatever Card meant, he was referring to consistency (or something important having to do with fulfilling reader expectations) within one novel.

[a_sharp]

What strikes me about this issue is the huge dilemma posed for a writer who elects, for whatever reason, to start a series in the first place. Once you go down that road, you will be presented with these issues--unless nobody reads your first one.

There are a great many successful writers who create the same story time and again but with nuances and fresh characters that make them seem unique. Behind the choice to write a series is the author's "contract" to stick with a single character with no end in sight. Some are smart and exploit the series attraction with an end in sight--Ludlum's Bourne "series" of three and of course LOTR and HP.

I like this thread because it warns me to avoid any kind of series. I don't think any future writing success I may have should be so open-ended that it begs serial continuation. For others that may not be the case, but anyone considering a series should give serious thought to the notion that they may be married to it longer than they wish.

[HourglassMemory]

J.K Rowling, in an interview, said she got a letter from a concerned mother telling her to tone down the evil and harshness in the books and she replied "I'm not writing to make your children comfortable."
You do have to draw a line, but you have a story to tell so stick with it.
If people don't like it, s**t for them.
Even Rowling isn't writing in a vaccum. In book six when a character is always forgetting Ron's name, he calls him Rupert once, which is the name of the actor playing Ron in the films.
It's little things that don't hurt the story.
God forbid if you change your ideas because of some uncreative remark like "Tone down the evil."
Say "NO!!!!!" as politely as you can.

[maestrowork]

LOL. When a reader told me she wasn't comfortable because my characters swore too much, I said "thank you for your opinion." Then I told myself "you know, my characters do swear, and if you have a problem with that, read something else." ;)

[Shadow_Ferret]

I write the stories I want to read. I'm writing a series and I'm into the second book now. The series isn't sold yet. I have no audience. I am the audience. I'm writing to enterain myself with the hopes that it will entertain others. When I do sell the books (I'll probably be on the third book before anyone ever reads them), having a real audience won't change who I'm writing for. I don't think it should change how I'm writing them.

I was a huge LKH fan when she started the Anita Blake series. I kept reading until they became too uncomfortable to read. I'm disappointed the direction she's taking the books, but it is her choice. And if she can still be hugely popular writing her version of paranormal porn, so be it. I can't fault her for that, I can only move on and read someone else who doesn't make me uncomfortable.

[Liam Jackson]

Ah, the VPP. (Violence/Profanity Police.) One of my favorite groups, bless their pointed little heads.

Just wait until they threaten to kidnap your poodle (which I don't own) or have you excommunicated from a church. (To which I don't belong.)

.

[JohnDavidPaxton]

I'd like to think there is a contract between the writer and the reader, no matter which role I'm playing.

Something simple, Vonnegutesque, like "I promise to try and entertain you, no insult your intelligence and weave this piece to the best of my ability and you promise to try and not roll your eyes too much." And when I feel an author isn't giving me their best? That they just let something happen, or allowed a giant plothole in? Well, I'm typically done with them at the first occurrence.

As for writing for your audience? I'd like to think that people want to make their readers happy. That they have that in mind. But I really have no way to lean on that one. Just rather a hope.

[maestrowork]

I strongly believe there's a contract between the writer and the reader. How that contract is defined, however, is another matter and there's no one size fits all. And there is NO WAY you can make every reader happy.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I guess I view the contract this way.

I'll write my story to the best of my ability. If you like it great, if you don't, too bad.

[JohnDavidPaxton]

I strongly believe there's a contract between the writer and the reader. How that contract is defined, however, is another matter and there's no one size fits all. And there is NO WAY you can make every reader happy.

Very true. You can't make everyone happy in anything.

But I'm not so much for the end result as the thought process. I hope that people produce work that they want their fans to enjoy, crafted to that purpose. Should it be the only intent? No. But I don't enjoy hearing stories at a party where the speaker is only talking for the pleasure it gives them while the audience wishes evil things upon them. Why should it be any different in a book or a series?

I want the author to want to take me on a ride that will be enjoyable for me. In the end, unless you're showing your work to the sum total of no-one, isn't that the goal?

[Pike]

I just fell into this and felt way over my head, but...

I hope that I can get out enough work and get that popular that people are arguing over what I should write or how I should write. That would be one hell of a compliment. I was a big fan of the Anita series because it was something different: big guns, wild monsters, and a whole lot of freaky violence. Then it started to turn into porno which turned me off. Funny, coming form a guy who grew up on a healthy diet of porno, but that's a discussion better left with my therapist.

I think the point here is much like any media out there, if you don't like it, then watch, listen, read something else. I don't say this as a harsh, knuckle-rap to the forehead but an obvious statement. I read up until Narcissus in Chains and left from there. I miss Anita hunting creatrues that are way too powerful for her to tackle and Edward stomping into a gun fight with a bazooka. That was just fun. But now, LKH is into some spicy stuff and there are tons of people reading it. More power to her for evoling into a different genre and keeping a strong following. As I said earlier, I hope I can attain that level of notority.

Witty, I did feel slighted by her shift but went on to read other authors and works. How about movies? Are you a fan of the Bond films? Liked them all? Or music? I followed Duran Duran back in the eighties but haven't much liked their recent stuff. Artists grow and change for fear of stagniating and becoming complacent. If they created the same old thing over and over again then why would we run out to pick it up when we had multiple copies already at home? It sucks but change is inevitable. But, I'd love to see one more Anita book that fell back into her old ways - legs crossed, full of frustration, and every gunshot a bitter sweet release for it. Them was the days.

Pike