Come and introduce yourself in the Welcome Forum – we’re all dying to meet you! :)
Litopia
We’re delighted you’re here! You’re just a few clicks away from joining the ‘net’s oldest community for writers… and certainly the friendliest. Click the “Register” button to create a free account. See you in the Colony!
-
Clichés & Tropes! Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em! Share your opinion in the latest Craft Chat, live now until Saturday
Discuss#2
- Thread starter Marc Joan
- Start date
- Status
I write for readers. I wouldn't have quit the day job if I wasn't serious about it. But then, I'm not an Artist (with a capital A). I liken it to potters--there are fabulous potters who make beautiful functional pieces that are designed to be bought and used. There are also potters who make teapots in the shape of clocks, animals, and impressionist paintings--teapots that are not actually useful for holding tea, and that most people would never consider actually purchasing, but which express some deep meaning for the potter. You might call the first potter a 'crafter' and the second an 'artist', but you would never consider one potter more serious about pottery than the other--they're just different expressions of the craft. I'm the potter who makes bowls and mugs.
I suppose if one doesn't care whether what one writes actually sells, one can sit there all day long and write for every reason except their readers. But if you're trying to sell your work, you'd be a fool not to write with your target audience in mind. What a high-handed, silly statement. Maybe he was joking?
Will Self is known for his pithy gnomish observations on writing. I think what he means is that he doesn't consider what's trendy in writing, be it superheroes, shape-shifting lovers or BDSM, but writes stories that appeal to him. He doesn't sell out by remaining true to his own creativity.
Incidentally, I saw an interview with him, where he was asked what object he would save if his house was on fire. He chose his computer, not for its value or stored writing, but for the spell-checker which he'd spent 15 years perfecting. I thought this flippant at first, but considering how often I have to click 'Add to Dictionary' on my spell-checker I understand his priorities.
Incidentally, I saw an interview with him, where he was asked what object he would save if his house was on fire. He chose his computer, not for its value or stored writing, but for the spell-checker which he'd spent 15 years perfecting. I thought this flippant at first, but considering how often I have to click 'Add to Dictionary' on my spell-checker I understand his priorities.
Yes, I saw that, Room 101. Will Self would be quite happy writing in a cave, with no audience. He writes for the love of his art.
Of course, but there are loads of painters who paint for the joy of painting, or musicians. Equally, some writers just write for personal satisfaction. Sometimes it ain't all about the wonga.
Soory, not making myself clear. What I'm trying to say is that he can get all of the satisfaction of writing without going through the pain of publishing. He could just write, enjoy the catharsis or whatever, and put the MS in a drawer. Or indeed, burn it. If he really didn't care about being read -- i.e. if the act of writing was sufficient in itself -- why would he publish what he writes? The act of publishing seems to imply the published work is intended to be read.
Well, I suppose he writes what he likes, then, if it gets published he's happy. I haven't read much of his stuff, so can't really say how he writes or what motivates him. I don't think there is one size fits all for motivation to write and to publish.
I'm all for writing what makes me happy, but I'm not doing this to appear artistic, or to make some name for myself as this mysterious creature who toils away for the sake of creativity. And I certainly don't feel as if I sold out because I write what I do. The genre I've always been most drawn to writing is romance. I don't follow trends. If I did, I wouldn't be working full time outside the home. If I wrote the way others do - authors I know, and who write for the same house I do - I'd be cranking out the same book over and over again, and only changing the names and a few details. They make the big bucks. I've been told to do that if I want to make the big bucks, too.
But there are still ways to write what makes you happy, and doesn't make you feel like a hack at the same time, yet also allows you to stay true to readers' tastes and the market's needs. That is also part of this process, and is part of being a professional in the way you treat this business. It's called knowing your audience and your market.
The fact that I choose *not* to cater to the group of readers who don't mind (or perhaps, don't even notice they're doing it?) reading the same book over and over again isn't because I consider myself above it, or because I think I'm better than that. It's because I'd go stark raving mad if I couldn't write something different. Something unique. Something no one else has done, or at least has not done in the same way I did. Once upon a time, that used to mean something. It still does, to me at least.
Maybe his comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek or something along those lines. What do I know? Never heard of the dude before this thread, so forgive me if I stepped out of line by commenting on what he said.
But there are still ways to write what makes you happy, and doesn't make you feel like a hack at the same time, yet also allows you to stay true to readers' tastes and the market's needs. That is also part of this process, and is part of being a professional in the way you treat this business. It's called knowing your audience and your market.
The fact that I choose *not* to cater to the group of readers who don't mind (or perhaps, don't even notice they're doing it?) reading the same book over and over again isn't because I consider myself above it, or because I think I'm better than that. It's because I'd go stark raving mad if I couldn't write something different. Something unique. Something no one else has done, or at least has not done in the same way I did. Once upon a time, that used to mean something. It still does, to me at least.
Maybe his comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek or something along those lines. What do I know? Never heard of the dude before this thread, so forgive me if I stepped out of line by commenting on what he said.
You weren't out of line! I don't know if he really meant it, or whether he was seeking a reaction, or whether we're missing a nuance because we don't know the context of his comment -- but I can't help thinking that anybody who tries to make a living from writing must be writing 'for readers', at some level. But each to his own.
And (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think Marc would have put that quote up, with the instruction, discuss, if he didn't want some juicy back-and-forth.
I write for the pleasure of writing and part of that pleasure is being read. Who wants to be the tree that falls in the forest when no one hears?
But I'm not serious, as in SERIOUS about writing. Flippancy is one of my defining characteristics and part of what keeps me sane. Don't others feel this way?
You're presuming that at least some of the contributors to this forum are sane. Seems a bit presumptious.
Having suffered through one of Will Self's books I can categorically confirm that he doesn't write for readers.
Seriously, though, this is what he does - and Martin Amis. Every time they've got a new book coming out they make some "outrageous" sneering comment that earns them column inches in the Guardian and shifts their new book. No time for them at all.
And there are those who do. Michail Bulgakow wrote "Master and Margarita" without any intention of publishing it. First of all he was smart enough to know that the soviets would never allow it, but besides that, he just didn't believe that anyone would read his shit. His wife managed to get it published after his death, a heavily censored version at first. And now? It's acknowledged as one of the most notable novels of the XX century. I can't recall a writer who would burn his books, but Shuman did that with his notes (granted, he was mentally unstable).
If we are looking at a reader purely as a customer, to whom a defined, processed product has to be delivered, then I don't do that and I don't think I could. But that doesn't mean that I do not write for readers. The biggest joy, next to being happy with your story, is when someone else is happy reading it. This feeling when I get a positive response from another Litopian after posting a chapter in The Houses
I do write for people but not to sell them something, rather to connect with them. It's like searching for soul-mates, really, for someone who also understands.What I don't like about this quote is the slightly patronizing tone. "I will tell you who a real writer is". Well, who are you to tell me/anybody that?
Last edited:
- Status