“I'd rather alienate every last reader than not do exactly what I want.” · 9:36pm Mar 1st, 2014
So says M. John Harrison[1], giving us an opening gambit in a subject I've been thinking about lately: Writing for an audience. Let's call it pro-writer. It's a good opening. Simple. Spiky. And it invites immediate criticism:
Writing just for yourself is frivolous, selfish, pretentious, produces drivel like self-inserts or crazy political-sociobiology theories masquerading as space opera. All these, let's suppose, come from pro-writer's loyal opposition, pro-audience.
I think this is a false dichotomy. (Hell, I think nearly everything is a false dichotomy. Just bear with me, okay?)
Let's start with a bit of writerly psychology. As far as I can tell, from perusing this website, from reading or listening to professional authors, from sitting around and analysing my own motives in lieu of going out and having a life, there are two traits that nearly all writers share. (Think you're an exception? Fair enough. Congratulations. Gold star, and you can go home early.)
One: All writers have something they want to write about. Something they find cool. Spaceships blowing up or ponies kissing or deep insights about the human condition constructed with a counterpoint of prolepsis and analepsis. There can be multiple things, they can change over time, &c. Whatever.
Two: All writers are needy. We want to be told our stuff is good. Even when we're protesting a lack of constructive criticism, we like praise (hint hint, guys). Dislike and disinterest often sting, even if only a little.
In this sense, both pro-writer and pro-audience positions are justified. We write for ourselves to some degree, and we all want to be praised.
But here's the kicker (and here on in I speak only of my own experiences as examples): these don't need to be opposed. A couple of times someone has criticised a story of mine for failing to be other than what it is. When I see such comments, all I can do is shrug. If someone doesn't like my shipping story for not being a scary enough, say, there's not a lot I can do. (Caveat, caveat, there's always a caveat – there's still the question: Did I miscommunicate the nature of the piece?) Similarly, much as I want praise, I want it from people who are interested by what I'm writing and think I'm doing it well.
This works from a reader's perspective too. It's usually evident when a writer is passionate about what they're doing, and that passion is infectious. Steven Brust's Cool Stuff Theory[2] is that reader enjoyment comes from agreeing with the writer on what's cool. I like that, but I think we can go one further: As a reader, I find a writer's passion can rub off on me, even if it's about something I'm not interested in. This isn't universally true – some things are gonna turn some people off, no matter what. Even so, passion can do an awful lot.
In short, you define your audience by writing what you want to write. And if you build an audience by writing something you don't care about – how useful is that audience gonna be when it comes to the stuff you're genuinely interested in?
There are plenty of wrinkles to this superficially neat solution of course. There may not be the same audience for everything you write. My interests are pretty divergent – I've written both horror and shipping with modest success. There's little audience overlap for those. Or, more troublesome, there may not be the same audience for various elements in the same story. I like character-heavy feels and I like endings that avoid tidy resolution. Lots of people, especially those raised on a diet of commercial F&SF, will come for the former and dislike the latter. By including both, I'm risking pissing off a lot of readers.
So there's still the question: Do you abandon some elements you want to write about so others will get a larger audience? And it's a personal question – answer it however you like.
Which brings us back to Harrison. His stance is still uncompromising, and it's produced some work that could never have come about if he were willing to pander. But it's certainly not the only way to do things.
[1] http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/intmjh.htm
[2] http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20030203/brust.shtml
I totally agree with this.
The problem I see most often, though, is when there's dissonance between the size and/or quality of the audience the author wants versus the audience interested in the writing they like. Either the author is disappointed that a serious literary work is being ignored by the masses, or the author is upset that they're known for catering to the masses rather than writing literary works. At this point, it tends to devolve into name calling by the author directed at the audience or critical community.
When the author finally accepts that he can't change the audience, that's when they have to decide what's more important for them, the audience or the work they want to do. Because some stories are always going to have a smaller audience, and some stories are always going to be considered "trashy," so if an author falls at one end of those extremes, they're probably going to need to accept what they get, or change what they write.
I... have to run into the office to grade 130-odd exams.
But I'm with 1885252 ; I really couldn't agree more. This has come up in conversation for me a few times lately, because I do try to be conscious of what will sell well for the Feature Box. (I'm less conscious of what will sell well to EQD, but that's largely because what sells best to EQD is just plain good writing.) That sort of concern doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with my writing choices, though, despite it always floating around in my mind. I've definitely seen an author or two get a short, sharp shock when they tried to flip from publishing feature bait to publishing what they wanted to write, though. Personally, I don't think it makes much sense to write purely for attention. It seems like, when you do so, you find that the attention doesn't actually transfer to the projects you love.
One thing that does kind of nag at me, though, is this:
I know I've got Trait #2, and in spades. I'm always desperate for more feedback. I'm putting all the work into building stories for people, but I get to see such a small part of their reaction to those stories. (Guys, y'all gotta leave more feedback when you read things! We're all desperate, literally desperate, to know what you think.)
But Trait #1... I'm not sure. It seems like I must have it, because I've got the writing bug and it seems like it's a poor investment of time for the amount of feedback you get in return. But I honestly don't know what I want to write about. I know, within some epsilon-span, what I actually do write about, but that's not quite the same thing.
The following is not a rhetorical question: if y'all know what I like to write about, please tell me. 'cause I'm not at all sure I've figured it out.
Interesting stuff. I agree that it's a false dichotomy! But I also agree that writing for yourself has its problems. One of mine is that I have vastly broad interests. I've written everything from apocalyptic grimdark stuff where everyone dies to fluffy comedy about sexual shenanigans. (And that's just in the ponyfic, not even getting into my non-pony works.) I feel like it cripples me when it comes to building a readership, because any given reader is likely to enjoy only one or two of my pieces. I think I probably got the most followers out of my AU epic, but as far as I can tell none of those people have favorited or commented on anything else I've written.
I wish there was a solution to this, but I feel like my writing quality would suffer if I tried to limit myself to just one sub-genre of ponyfic. And it seems like a shame to dump stories that I really want to tell just because they don't fit some particular theme.
It's an imperfect world, I guess! But it does give one something to talk about. I find other people's differing approaches to be interesting.
1885488
I wonder if that really is always true. I KNOW it's true of me! As long as it's not the dreaded "Why didn't you write more of your unfinished epic instead of this?" at least, I would rather get criticism than silence. But is it still true of the people who get hundreds of comments on their stories, still?
Oh my yes. Disinterest in particular, often seems to be the worst. It often seems most would rather a negative bit of interest than none at all, myself included.
1885252
Ah, yes. There is that. It wouldn't be totally unfair to say the internet has ushered in the golden age of the tantrum. (Why can't I have everything I want whenever I want it? Time to throw a wobbler.)
Thinking about it, there's a massive gulf between "If you don't like this, that's too bad -- but I'm not gonna change it" and "If you don't like this, you're wrong/stupid/pretentious/aesthetically barren" -- but since they look so similar, the former is at risk of guilt by association.
Then, of course, there's the whole issue of silly protectionism between self-defined serious and populist camps, which deserves multiple essays on its own.
1885488
Be careful about you interpret #1. It's very broad. There's no reason you can't want to write about something different for every piece you write (as 1885491 demonstrates).
And there's no reason you have to know beforehand what you want to write about -- if you're leaning on intuition, then it probably won't be obvious beforehand. I've learnt a lot in this past year of writing -- not just about writing, but about my own areas of interest.
And, finally, a story can be about something that's not definable in terms other than the story itself; stories can go places where essays can't reach.
1885491
Oh, aye. Having wide interests can be a right pain. I think in the title quote, Harrison was talking about reactions to Climbers, which is a literary novel with no fantastical elements, when he came to prominence (sort of) as a New Wave writer.
On the other hand, China Mieville has made quite the career out of doing something different for every book. The same was true, to a lesser degree, of Iain Banks. So it's certainly doable. Somehow.
1885894 I dunno. I have mostly read Bank's Culture novels (and a scattering of other stuff, but mostly those.) And although his plots vary, he does seem fond of certain themes. In particular I feel like everything of his I've read has, on some level, been about exploring what motivates and drives people to do what they do. Which is pretty broad, but it does still feel like a theme to me. Maybe I just need to read some more of his stuff.
1885690
See, now I feel obliged to reply even though I have nothing to add but agreement.
Though -- reactions from readers who have misunderstood what I'm getting at aren't fun to receive either. In both cases, I suppose it's a failure to communicate.
1885894
I don't know if you caught this one last week... a beautiful case of "people aren't reading what I write and it's not my fault," though she decided to direct it at another author rather than the audience... though she does work in a swipe about adults who read Harry Potter needing to find something "more challenging to grown-up minds."
Real literature is just FiMfiction with a bigger platform to be an idiot.
1885930
That's very true, though on the flip side, it can be enormously satisfying to receive comments to really do "get it".
1885894
This actually reminds my of an author on this site, who I ended up unfollowing because he had gone from "If you don't like this, that's too bad -- but I'm not gonna change it", to "If you don't like this, you're wrong/stupid/pretentious/aesthetically barren" in many respects. He had the Harrison stance going very strong, which served him well at the start, but as his stories began devolving into nearly constant author tracts, he used that same stance to justify continuing to do so, and would insult those who did not agree, or would criticize his storytelling. The shame is that he was a really good author, I think, and his stories were very enjoyable until they stopped being in any way subtle.
As a side note, I think I just murdered the comma with that last bit.
1886046
I know, we're talking about that little JK Rowling anecdote elsewhere, but it warrants a mention here, too.
Wow. Just wow.
My attitude? Nobody ever gets attention they don't deserve. You may not like the attention they get, but that's usually more a matter of you disliking what other people's taste.
There's not a thing in this world where, at the end of the day, being better isn't all you need to do to get more attention than other people.
1886229
I'm not sure I'm parsing this correctly. Are you saying that a writer who is better will always get more attention? That's what it sounds like to me, but I may be reading it wrong. So maybe you are saying that a writer who is better will not always get more attention?
Because I've seen an awful lot of instances of the latter, authors whose stuff I really adore who get comparatively little attention. (I mean if we're talking about Harry Potter, I find Rowling to be vaguely competent with the occasional great idea, while in comparison Ian Banks is more or less a genius, but which of those two gets more attention?)
So if that's what you mean, I agree with you. Otherwise I kind of don't.
1886703
I mean all else being equal, the better product always wins. JK Rowling and Iain Banks went for very different audiences. I go for a different audience than, say, Shortskirtsandexplosions. But if I were able to publish the same sort of stuff he publishes, at the same rate he publishes, with similar marketing, and kick out higher-quality products, I'd get more attention than he would (eventually, once the hurdle of achieving parity was cleared).
It's not an incredibly useful comparison to make, no, but my point is that all else being equal, the better quality product wins. It's very rare for all else to be equal, but when it's not, it points you in good directions for how someone has established an audience already.
1887035 I don't think it's so much "rare" that all things are equal, as "pretty much doesn't happen." There's always something. There's always the bit of luck one person gets and another doesn't. The little extra bit of networking. Something.
1885912
That's a fair point. He had certain preoccupations that kept coming back. I was thinking of the alternation between literary and SF novels -- two categories that are generally quite wary of one another. But yeah, there are still unifying links.
1886046
Gods, that's depressing and funny in equal measure. It wouldn't be so bad if the sulking wasn't obviously cloaked in altruism, but jeez ...
1886057
If anything comes close to objectively terrible storytelling, author tracts do.
1886229
Not sure how to interpret this, given the double negative. But given its literal interpretation -- being better at something always gets you more attention -- I don't think I like it. Sounds like an inversion of the original pretension, which is just as bad.
I also suspect its meaningless. I don't see any way to define better without resorting to circularity or adherence to arbitrary standards, both of which are cheating.
1888072
Fine, fine, none of y'all like my adages.
It's not so much meant as a literal interpretation of reality, anyway. It's just what I try to tell myself whenever I might wind up feeling negative toward something that gets a lot of attention. I like things that motivate me to try to do a better job with my own work.
1888089
Hah, sorry. Habit from four years of
clownphilosopher school.Keeping your confidence is important. Since I'm totally fanboying over M. John Harrison right now, he gets another quote to explain how I feel about this: The benchmark is what you can do, not the tick you get for it.
The reaction I try to cultivate when reading Banks and Harrison, or on here Skywriter and the kin, isn't "Oh jeez, I want to be that popular", it's "Oh jeez, I want to do that".