Are some writers too good for their readers?

maestrowork · Jan 10, 2008

This may be a potentially controversial topic...

Or not.

Anyway, do you think some writers (maybe including yourself) and their works are too good for their readers? Too complex? Too deep? Too layered? Too open for interpretation?

This is an opposite phenomenon to the one where the readers find hidden meanings/layers of which the writer wasn't even aware.

I'm asking because I recently had a discussion with some people on another board about a book and it seems to me a lot of people who have read it missed many of the layers and complexities the writer put into the story. No, I am not talking about obscure symbolism or hidden messages or even themes. I'm talking about subtexts, things being said without saying, character complexity, even narrative structures, etc. It seems to me, from the discussion, that a lot of the readers either didn't pay attention (the writers clearly put the information in there), or they chose to believe certain things despite what the writer wrote -- meaning, they've already made up their minds from the get-go.

Through the discussion, I got a little impatient and frustrated, muttering to myself on some occasions: "Why, aren't you just dim? It is so much deeper than that." I know, I know. It's not very nice, but I honestly am baffled that some people seem to have just skimped the surface and not really get the true meaning of the story, which isn't really "hidden." The writer was very clear about it -- I can even quote passages that the writer specifically wrote -- but some people may have ignored or missed them?

And when I mentioned them, these people snapped back and said, "I read the book, too. And that's how I interpreted it. So there." To which I started to say, "Well, apparently the writer is too good for you."

Or is it the writer's fault? That the writer didn't effectively communicate? That not enough time or effort are spent on explaining certain things? That the writer relied too much on the readers' intelligence to "get it"? Or is it just a matter of reading comprehension? Some people get all the details and think about what they read, and some simply skimp/quick-read to get the gist of the story?

So, when you write, what kind of readers do you write for? And how do you manage to communicate what you want, effectively, to those readers?

Bartholomew · Jan 10, 2008

Every time I reread a book, I notice subtle things I didn't notice before. I appreciate such subtlety, and try to use it often.

That said, my mantra (which I stole from my father) is "Never talk to someone when you can assume they're just as intelligent as you are." I would never dumb down my own writing because I feared my audience might be too dense to appreciate my artistry. Of course, my writing isn't very intellectual.

The sort of subtleties I offer are usually hidden layers in dialog, or else fairly unsubtle commentary in prose. But like I said, nothing I write is very intellectual, fiction-wise.

I believe that it is polite for the writer to take responsibility for misinterpretation, even when the reader is at blame. At the same time, I also believe that those who are truly obtuse will be fewer than those who actually read with an open mind. A reader may interpret something however he pleases; it is very rare that the writer will have an opportunity to say, "But that isn't what I meant!"

Just look at the Bible.

maestrowork · Jan 10, 2008

Bartholomew said:
I believe that it is polite for the writer to take responsibility for misinterpretation, even when the reader is at blame.

That's an interesting point. Why do you believe that is? And what should the writers do, or is there anything he could do? Maybe not necessarily dumbing down, but perhaps using more straightforward explanation, adjectives, etc. so there's absolutely no ambiguity? Or is ambiguity, open to interpretation, actually a virtue in literature (like you said, the Bible)?

L M Ashton · Jan 10, 2008

See, and I was thinking about the Bible as an excellent example. Never mind that everyone interprets what they read in the Bible differently from each other, but one person who reads the Bible over and over throughout their life will see different things each time. I think it's much less the author's "fault" and much more that a person will see something when they're ready for it. It all depends on where the reader is at that point in their life. What's the reader's history? What's their experience? Is the reader looking for answers to particular problems (not necessarily from that specific book, but just in life in general)? What are they bringing with them to the book? What are their built-in filters?

maestrowork · Jan 10, 2008

L M Ashton said:
See, and I was thinking about the Bible as an excellent example. Never mind that everyone interprets what they read in the Bible differently from each other, but one person who reads the Bible over and over throughout their life will see different things each time. I think it's much less the author's "fault" and much more that a person will see something when they're ready for it. It all depends on where the reader is at that point in their life. What's the reader's history? What's their experience? Is the reader looking for answers to particular problems (not necessarily from that specific book, but just in life in general)? What are they bringing with them to the book? What are their built-in filters?

Another good point. And how is that relevant from the writer's standpoint? Does it also matter where the writer is at the point when she writes it? Would she interpret her own work differently when she's older and perhaps somewhere else in her life? Or would it be more like: "That's what I meant when I wrote it and I wrote it exactly that way -- whether you see it or not. Just because I'm older now doesn't mean that has changed"?

Interesting.

HeronW · Jan 10, 2008

There are subtle meanings and overt ones that people miss all the time in every book, even when it seems 'obvious'.

Dr Seuss's 'Yurtle the Turtle' is about the little guy, Yurtle, opposing the head turtle who has more than a passing resemblance to Stalin.

I've had readers complain about the words I use, 'too big'? As a fantasy writer, I make words up, and I will explain them either directly or indirectly by association. I also use archaic terms for autheticity and give those meanings as well.

If readers read carelessly, it ain't my fault. If they take away meanings not intended, that's based on their life, their experiences, their likes, beliefs, personal mythos etc.

I do not and will not take responsibility for that.

cletus · Jan 10, 2008

For fiction, I think the writer's number one priority should be to entertain the reader. Anything else the reader picks up on is a bonus.

L M Ashton · Jan 10, 2008

maestrowork said:
Another good point. And how is that relevant from the writer's standpoint? Does it also matter where the writer is at the point when she writes it? Would she interpret her own work differently when she's older and perhaps somewhere else in her life? Or would it be more like: "That's what I meant when I wrote it and I wrote it exactly that way -- whether you see it or not. Just because I'm older now doesn't mean that has changed"?

Interesting.

I think, personally, that when I write, I'm not conscious of every subtext going into the story. The way I write, I'm just writing a story. Nothing more. Other people read it and see imagery and whatnot that I had no idea was there. If other people see something in it that I didn't intentionally put in, that's fine with me. But I'm neither going to take credit for that, nor be bothered by it. I'll probably just shrug and say, "It's a story. Who knows what else is in there?" As for interpreting something differently when I'm older - well, to me, that's an "Of course. How could it be otherwise?" But that's me. And my goldfish memory.

And thank you.

L M Ashton · Jan 10, 2008

cletus said:
For fiction, I think the writer's number one priority should be to entertain the reader. Anything else the reader picks up on is a bonus.

This, I completely agree with.

maestrowork · Jan 10, 2008

L M Ashton said:
I think, personally, that when I write, I'm not conscious of every subtext going into the story. The way I write, I'm just writing a story. Nothing more. Other people read it and see imagery and whatnot that I had no idea was there. If other people see something in it that I didn't intentionally put in, that's fine with me. But I'm neither going to take credit for that, nor be bothered by it. I'll probably just shrug and say, "It's a story. Who knows what else is in there?" As for interpreting something differently when I'm older - well, to me, that's an "Of course. How could it be otherwise?" But that's me. And my goldfish memory.

And thank you.

I am not talking about hidden messages or symbolism that you're not aware of. I am talking about things that you, the writer, actually deliberately wrote in (including subtexts that YOU, the writer, actually put in). Things that one only needs to pay attention to notice. That's why I made that distinction in my OP.

For example, if you write about two lovers killing each other because they couldn't live without one another -- that was your intent, and you actually wrote it that way (without blatantly saying so, of course), but your readers say, "Wow, I can't believe they killed each other because they're so jealous." What would you take from that as the writer? Would you try to argue: "Wait, they weren't jealous... where do you get that? They killed each other because they loved each other too much." Or do you chalk it up as your own failure -- failure to communicate?

brokenfingers · Jan 10, 2008

There are a lot of factors involved. It depends on the genre and who the target audience is.

If a person writes a cozy mystery for example, I doubt their audience is going to be looking for layers and subtext and hidden meanings etc. so it’s definitely the author’s own problem if they feel indignant that their readers don’t “get it.”

If a person writes literary, where complexity, structure and layering are matters of style – again, I don’t think an author can blame their readers for not “getting it.” A writer has to write for their audience. If a style is too unattainable, then it definitely isn’t the reader’s fault.

A reader has no obligation to read into every nuance the author chooses to include in their book. The majority of readers buy books to be entertained. They take away from a book as much as they need – no more, no less.

Now some readers may not see everything in a story but that happens all the time and shouldn’t diminish their own enjoyment of the book nor should it call for judgements upon them.

Ultimately, I don’t feel a writer is ever too good for their reader. Beyond their level of comprehension, maybe – but never too good. Vagueness and complexity have nothing to do with quality in my book.

brokenfingers · Jan 10, 2008

maestrowork said:
I am not talking about hidden messages or symbolism that you're not aware of. I am talking about things that you, the writer, actually deliberately wrote in (including subtexts that YOU, the writer, actually put in). Things that one only needs to pay attention to notice. That's why I made that distinction in my OP.

For example, if you write about two lovers killing each other because they couldn't live without one another -- that was your intent, and you actually wrote it that way (without blatantly saying so, of course), but your readers say, "Wow, I can't believe they killed each other because they're so jealous." What would you take from that as the writer? Would you try to argue: "Wait, they weren't jealous... where do you get that? They killed each other because they loved each other too much." Or do you chalk it up as your own failure -- failure to communicate?

I'd take that as a failure to communicate and know your audience.

maestrowork · Jan 10, 2008

brokenfingers said:
Now some readers may not see everything in a story but that happens all the time and shouldn’t diminish their own enjoyment of the book nor should it call for judgements upon them.

But is it the author's responsibility if 100 readers read and get it, but 5 miss something or interpret it some other way based on their own biases? Is the author accountable for those 5 people who don't get it? Is the author too good for those 5 readers?

Bartholomew · Jan 10, 2008

maestrowork said:
That's an interesting point. Why do you believe that is?

I think that it is the communicator's obligation to make himself understood. If I am translating for someone, and that person mis-speaks, he apologizes to me, and I--in turn--apologize to the person/people I am translating for (both because the speaker apologized, and because I shot an error out into the conversation.) If I were to, in any situation, put the blame of a miscommunication on the listener, I'd likely start a quarrel. Instead, I try to apologize and reiterate, even when I believe the listener or reader is being deliberately obtuse.

If someone misunderstands something I wrote or said, and makes this apparent to me, I have an opportunity to make myself clear. If I don't, I'm at fault. If the reader misunderstands and never makes an issue of it--well, maybe it's my fault and maybe it's the readers, but there's nothing to blame except the language itself---which the author was manipulating in an attempt at communication.

But is it the author's responsibility if 100 readers read and get it, but 5 miss something or interpret it some other way based on their own biases? Is the author accountable for those 5 people who don't get it? Is the author too good for those 5 readers?

Of course, there are ALWAYS exceptions. The reader could, for instance, be very sleepy when he reads something. That would be his fault, and is easily cleared up. He either rereads it, or is corrected by someone else. Or he goes on being confused, and was too lazy to try to resolve the problem.

Then there are the sticky situations where a reader is deliberately inserting their own ideas into the author's work. In cases like that, it is merely polite for the author not to start a quibble. Sometimes politeness just isn't called for.

Maybe not necessarily dumbing down, but perhaps using more straightforward explanation, adjectives, etc. so there's absolutely no ambiguity? Or is ambiguity, open to interpretation, actually a virtue in literature (like you said, the Bible)?

An author could, absolutely, make himself 100% clear. People would still misunderstand. But I, like many readers, do not want to be spoon-fed every single detail. I like reading a bit of dialogue and finding the intonation out for myself. I like discovering some subtle thing in a paragraph that is the tiniest hint at a character's motive. This stuff, naturally, can be lost to some readers. That's not a bad thing; it's just a thing.

Ambiguity is wonderful, if used correctly. It is a curse if it is accidental. The ambiguity of "Lady or the Tiger" is what makes that particular story a classic. The ambiguity of the bible has sparked wars.

Norman D Gutter · Jan 10, 2008

MW:

I've been thinking of an example of what I think you are saying, and I think I've come up with one. In Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October is a scene of two Soviets talking, military types. One is a high level Red army man, the other his aging sidekick. Clancy writes how the sidekick had disappointments in his younger personal life (wife and sons killed, I think). They discuss the Soviet military operation and the defection of the Red October commander, Marco Ramius. The scene ends and they part. This is the only scene the sidekick was in. The reader thinks, "Why the heck was that in there?", or maybe they just read through it and don't think about it, or think it is just a way to more fully describe what the Soviets are up to.

I read that in 1988, while living overseas and long before I ever dreamed of, much less began a writing career. One of our home office people from the USA brought it with him while on three weeks temporary duty, and loaned it to me when he was done. In the book the US agent with code name Cardinal is discussed by the CIA people, but he is not presented. I read that scene, went on to where the CIA discussed extracting Cardinal because he was in trouble. I suddenly thought, "Wait, that was Cardinal in that scene!" I went back and found it and read it, and sure enough was convinced the aging sidekick was Cardinal. Clancy never came out and said that in the book, but it was confirmed in his later book Cardinal of the Kremlin.

I shared this discovery with the guy who loaned me the book, and he said, "Huh?" He was not interested in finding a subplot or reading deeply enough to fully engage his mind. He just wanted to be entertained on the long flight and in the hotel room while away from his family. I felt good that I had discovered something he did not, and suppose a bit of superiority creeped into my mind.

Is this the sort of thing you are talking about?

NDG

THenry · Jan 10, 2008

It is the writer's responsibility to write a book people will read. If these people read the book and, presumably, enjoyed it without even understanding everything, then the writer met his responsibility. I have no problem with that.

The real question, to me, is whether a writer who creates an unassailable tower of complexity such that five people out of a hundred even reach the end has met his responsibility. Maybe that author has, for that market.

In other words, I still liked reading Ulysses even though most of the "unique" word choices I treated as typos.

scarletpeaches · Jan 10, 2008

Some people are just thick and should stick to picture books.

I've been accused of 'using big words' by people in my social circle so should I dumb down my vocabulary just to please them, or should they try to improve their vocabulary to give themselves a wider range of tools with which to communicate?

I don't believe in dumbing down at all - yes, it's the duty of an author to communicate effectively, but not at the cost of his own literacy. If someone doesn't 'get' what he's trying to say, sometimes yes it is the reader's fault. But then - are those the sorts of people you want as readers anyway? There are plenty more people out there who are willing to improve themselves.

Mediocrity, and people who are satisfied with superficiality really rip my nips, especially when it comes to literacy. If someone's that shallow I couldn't give a flying f*** what they think of my writing. Or anyone else's.

Sassee · Jan 10, 2008

Not everyone will get it. Not everyone will appreciate it. That's just a fact of life, and it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have experienced this first hand in my own writing. I will purposely put in a line of dialogue or narration that STRONGLY hints at what is to come later, only to have most of my friends (non-writers) miss it entirely. They either have to go back and read it again to see it, or I must point it out to them so they can see it, at which point they'll say "oooohhhh, I *did* see that!" and then they get all excited over discovering a new little detail.

In my own reading experiences, I come across that all the time. I have a tendency to read most of my books at least twice because I always find something new on the next go-around. It's like discovering a twenty dollar bill in the pocket of an old pair of jeans. It's fun!

IMO, the writer needs to understand that everything is up to interpretation, and they will not be able to get their point across just-so to every single reader. It's not anyone's fault. Not the author's for being vague, or the reader's for being obtuse. Not everyone's imagination works the same way. It just happens.

dolores haze · Jan 10, 2008

This discussion has me thinking of many different examples.

First example "Animal Farm" by George Orwell. I first read this as a very young child, and understood it as a very interesting farmyard tale. Reading it several years later, as a teenager who had studied the Russian Revolution, it was almost an entirely different book. My point is - the book worked on both levels. I didn't feel stupid for not having "got" the book on first reading.

Another example is "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov. I've read this book a multitude of times, and I get something new and different on each reading. Yet recently, an NYT book critic referred to it as "tediously multi-layered." The same thing that brings me back to this book, time and time again, left a professional book critic cold. I thought it was a bit weird, but I was OK with it.

I write children's stories, and always try to write with two levels in mind - a story that the children will get, plus references that the adult reading the story to the child will (maybe) get. For children's stories, knowing the child will want it to be read over and over, it's important to me to entertain and amuse the adult reader also.

I also write romance. On the surface it's a simple and oft-told tale of two people meeting and falling in love. Below the surface, it's rife with references, allusions, sub-themes, etc. The reader may get some of that, all of it, or none at all - it depends on the reader.

I'm OK with a reader not recognizing the layers in my work, but I don't know if I would be OK with being completely mis-interpreted. It might be my fault, or it might be the reader's fault. I guess if it was glaringly obvious to the majority of readers, and only one reader completely misinterpreted it, then I couldn't blame the writing. But if the majority of readers interpreted something completely opposite of what I intended, then it would be my fault for not writing better.

Interesting topic. I like to challenge myself in my reading, but I'm still stumped by Ulysses, and a few other books. I willing to admit that I lack the intelligence to "get" the work of certain authors.

Shadow_Ferret · Jan 10, 2008

maestrowork said:
things being said without saying

Wha?

I think I'm one of those readers. I don't read to discover myself, or have the book change me as a person, or to advance the human condition. I read for entertainment. So I probably don't even read the kinds of books you're refering to.

I'm a simple man who likes simple pleasures, including what I read, and now scarlet hates me.

Takvah · Jan 10, 2008

I remember being in an english class and how my professor begged us to explain why it was that one of the characters in a story suffered from a certain ailment. The look of disappointment on her face when she got nothing but blank stares really rattled me. I could see the wheels turning in her head. I could see her wondering why it was that she had sacrificed her life in the pursuit of teaching only to be confronted by the blank stares of a pack of mouth breathers so close to her retirement. As a rule I hated to participate in classroom discussions but something in me said, "Help this woman!" I raised my hand and said, "The sins of the father are being visited upon the son." I remember how her face lit up. I remember how she became invigorated. I remember how the class being clued in on this not so subtle nuance became at once involved in the story.

What I learned from this experience was that not all people are going to look at your work through the eyes of a philosopher. Some people will read what you've written and look no more deeply at it than that. It's why I firmly believe that if you have a point to make in what you're writing BE OBVIOUS ABOUT IT. I'm not saying insult the reader's intelligence, I'm saying don't obscure what matters about a story in ambiguity.

I don't think readers are necessarily stupid. I think that a lot of readers just lack a certain sophistication... or perhaps curiosity, that so-called "intellectuals" might inherently have. We must remember to write to our audience. Poets can get away with imagery and other "gimmicks" because their audience expects it, I don't think the same is true for novels. I like underlying messages in what I read. I like to take away bits of it that others might not. I think that's what makes reading and interpretation so special. Do I enjoy a book less because somebody else didn't get out of it what I did? No. Do I think that somebody that didn't get out of a book what I got out of it is an idiot? No.

scarletpeaches · Jan 10, 2008

God no, I can't tell you how much I disagree. If I'm beaten over the head with a big sign that says THIS IS A METAPHOR FOR JANE'S SEARCH FOR LOVE, it makes me feel patronised. I can understand that on my own, thank you.

Never, never, never talk down to the reader. The ones who don't get it won't care and the ones who do will feel patronised. Write to your own level.

Shadow_Ferret · Jan 10, 2008

scarletpeaches said:
Never, never, never talk down to the reader. The ones who don't get it won't care and the ones who do will feel patronised. Write to your own level.

I agree with this no matter what kind of story you're writing.

scarletpeaches · Jan 10, 2008

Wha...

The Ferret just agreed with me? :Jaw:

I need a lie down.

CaroGirl · Jan 10, 2008

As a novelist, I write to my "reader" but I have no control over who my reader might actually be. In my real life, as a technical writer, knowing my audience is part of the job. It's easy. This document goes to installers, this one is for administrators and that one is dumbed down for the stupid users. But with a novel, anyone can pick it up and read it. You have to write to the level that suits both you and your story. Only your nebulous and amorphous "readers" will be able to tell you if it works on any level.

Are some writers too good for their readers?

Fear the Death Ray

Comic guy

Fear the Death Ray

crazy spec fic writer

Fear the Death Ray

Down Under Fan

I'm a king bee

crazy spec fic writer

crazy spec fic writer

Fear the Death Ray

Walkin' That Road

Walkin' That Road

Fear the Death Ray

Comic guy

Engineer Sonneteer

Momma Wolf

international guttersnipe

Court Jester

Not a D list ego massager...

Court Jester

Living the dream