I've heard this talked about before on AW, but I don't think there's been a particular thread about it.
When we talk about published books or publishing in general, it's hard to prevent our experience as writers from influencing our opinions. For example, with books like The Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter, the reader in us may say "that was a fun read," while the writer in us may be screaming from the prose for one reason or another. Those titles are just ones that have come up often. Obviously, our opinions will differ among us all, but I'm sure we've all had that experience with some book--at least one time.
Similarly, we must have all had the experience that we've picked up a book, tried reading it, and threw it across the room for some reason, thinking "how did this EVER get published?" How much of that is coming from the reader in us? From the writer in us? Surely nonwriters must have had the same experience sometime, too, but is it any different for them?
I've often seen our criticisms of published books excused as "jealousy" or by saying "well someone must like it, because it's published, so it's not actually bad" or similar such things. While the former is a possibility and the second one is true to an extent because, well, it is published, does that invalidate our opinions that a book is "bad"? Is it the reader in us or the writer in us that believes it bad? Which is more valid? Can a book be bad if someone, somewhere likes it, and if so, who has the right to make that call?
Maybe I'm being confusing now.
So I guess I'm asking: do our opinions of published books and the publishing industry in general have any different weight (more, less, none?) than the general population? Do you enjoy books differently as a writer than you did as a reader? If a writer says a book is "bad" does it mean something different than if a reader says a book is "bad"?
Do you read different books to enjoy as a "reader" than you do as a "writer"? Or do you not differentiate? Do you think either is better than the other?
How do you think any of this impacts the way we seek publication?
The essence of this post is--how do you reconcile the writer in you with the reader in you?
Those are a lot of questions, but I'm just wondering what others think about their inner "reader" v. their inner "writer." I have some of my own ideas to the answers of these questions, but I'll post those later. I'd like to see what other people think about this. I'm just curious, because a few of the recent threads have brought up interesting criticisms and defenses of published books and the publishing industry, and it got me wondering how we look at such things differently as writers than readers.
When we talk about published books or publishing in general, it's hard to prevent our experience as writers from influencing our opinions. For example, with books like The Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter, the reader in us may say "that was a fun read," while the writer in us may be screaming from the prose for one reason or another. Those titles are just ones that have come up often. Obviously, our opinions will differ among us all, but I'm sure we've all had that experience with some book--at least one time.
Similarly, we must have all had the experience that we've picked up a book, tried reading it, and threw it across the room for some reason, thinking "how did this EVER get published?" How much of that is coming from the reader in us? From the writer in us? Surely nonwriters must have had the same experience sometime, too, but is it any different for them?
I've often seen our criticisms of published books excused as "jealousy" or by saying "well someone must like it, because it's published, so it's not actually bad" or similar such things. While the former is a possibility and the second one is true to an extent because, well, it is published, does that invalidate our opinions that a book is "bad"? Is it the reader in us or the writer in us that believes it bad? Which is more valid? Can a book be bad if someone, somewhere likes it, and if so, who has the right to make that call?
Maybe I'm being confusing now.
So I guess I'm asking: do our opinions of published books and the publishing industry in general have any different weight (more, less, none?) than the general population? Do you enjoy books differently as a writer than you did as a reader? If a writer says a book is "bad" does it mean something different than if a reader says a book is "bad"?
Do you read different books to enjoy as a "reader" than you do as a "writer"? Or do you not differentiate? Do you think either is better than the other?
How do you think any of this impacts the way we seek publication?
The essence of this post is--how do you reconcile the writer in you with the reader in you?
Those are a lot of questions, but I'm just wondering what others think about their inner "reader" v. their inner "writer." I have some of my own ideas to the answers of these questions, but I'll post those later. I'd like to see what other people think about this. I'm just curious, because a few of the recent threads have brought up interesting criticisms and defenses of published books and the publishing industry, and it got me wondering how we look at such things differently as writers than readers.