# Accepting Some People Won't Like Your Writing



## Philip Overby (Dec 23, 2013)

(Note: I put this in Writing Questions because it has to do with style or writing topics)

I'm going to throw out three names:

1. J.R.R. Tolkien
2. George R.R. Martin
3. J.K. Rowling

I would say these three names are probably the biggest in the fantasy genre (although it could be argued that Rowling is YA or some such). However, I find that even though these names are huge, some people simply don't like them. Either it's their characters or too much description or whatever. 

So as writers, we want to get as many readers as possible, right? Does that mean we have to avoid writing about certain topics or certain styles because it may bother certain people or alienate readers?

One thing I hope to accept myself in 2014 is that not everyone is going to like my writing. So I'm going to attempt to be more daring and not box myself into what is expected of me as a fantasy writer. Hopefully, this will lead me in the right direction instead of worrying my writing isn't good enough or some people won't like it, it will encourage me to follow my vision and do the best with what I have.

So how about all of you? Some questions:

1. Do you just accept that some people won't like your writing and forge on with your vision or do you strive to write in a way to reach the widest audience possible, perhaps sacrificing what you truly want to write? 

2. You can of course have both, but how would you go about achieving this?


----------



## Ireth (Dec 24, 2013)

I write according to my vision, and don't really care if people don't like it or not. I know that no matter how many changes I make to suit someone else's tastes, there's still going to be someone out there who doesn't like it, so I might as well do what I want.


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Dec 24, 2013)

I can't imagine sacrificing what I want to write to try and please the masses. It's impossible to please everyone and I honestly believe the passion comes out of writing when you stop doing it to create your own work of art and start doing it the way you think you're "supposed" to. I write to entertain myself. Always had movies playing in my head and felt they would work out well on paper. I'll try to publish them, but if they're unloved by others, that wouldn't make me hate them. They'd still be mine. They'd still be my babies, and while I'm willing to accept criticism from others I could never rewrite an entire story the way someone tells me to. One reason I've never liked writing prompts is because it isn't my own. It didn't sprang from my own mind. It's something _someone else_ told me to write on and, that being said, the passion isn't there. I've always written for myself. Probably always will. I have tons of stories that I don't plan on sharing to anyone; they're just for me. The art is in what the artist can create, not what pleases the majority.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 24, 2013)

One thing about the authors you listed is that they all have their own unique styles. It seems to me that most if not all of the most successful authors do. If every work of fiction was just a generic attempt at the largest audience, there would be no favorite authors, no favorite books. One would be just as good as the next because they'd all be largely the same in how they're written. It's a mistake to go down that path. Stay out of boxes. They're limiting by definition, and the tops tend to be rather low.

That's not to say that you can't sell some stories if you take a generic, run of the mill approach to your writing. But if you want readers to be eagerly waiting for Phil's next book, then you have to give them something that is uniquely Phil. Otherwise, why wait for your book? Might as well just get the next book that comes out by whoever, since it will have no more or less to recommend itself than what you've written from your box.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 24, 2013)

I write from my heart. I tell the stories I'm passionate about. The weirder, the better.


----------



## JRFLynn (Dec 24, 2013)

Sometimes I think to myself "I must be crazy, who in their right mind would think this is good?" It almost killed my drive to be an author, but not anymore! I'm gonna right as simplistic as I like, with as many rhymes as I want, and if people can't stomach it then oh well. Hopefully, the bad press will intrigue some daredevils. There's a story inside dying to get out, and it has a unique voice of its own. I've been writing mostly for myself these many years, and it's pretty liberating and fun being as quirky as can be. I figure, there has to be one soul in this wide world that will also find it a joy as I do.


----------



## CupofJoe (Dec 24, 2013)

Yes. Someone somewhere will not like what we write...
If you try to go for success, then you are doomed to failure.
We should try to write what we want. Write it as well as we can and be proud of what we release in to the world.
I think it was 80s pop star Gary Numan that when asked what it was like to have 2million album sales [in the UK] said "all the proves is that 55million people don't like me"


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 24, 2013)

I do care what other people think about my stories and I do let it affect my writing. If I didn't, why would I bother spending time here asking for feedback and trying to improve my writing?

My main goal is to give readers a pleasant reading experience (note: it's NOT telling my stories although that's an integral part of it) and to do that I need to understand what makes readers tick. I can't just sit around writing in a vacuum for myself without caring what anyone thinks. I tried that and while I did have great fun doing it, the stuff I wrote... well, let's say there's room for improvement.

That said, I'm well aware that I can't please everyone and that there are people who won't like my work, no matter how good I manage to get it. It's something I'll have to live with, but that doesn't mean I don't care if people don't like it. I'm writing to entertain people and if my writing doesn't entertain someone I need to understand why. If it's because they don't like what I'm doing then that's fine, but if it's because I'm doing something wrong or doing something badly, then I need to know why so I can change and improve.

My method for trying to reach as wide an audience as possible is to try and improve my technical skill and to understand how people read and process text. If my writing is technically bad it will distract readers from the story and give them a bad reading experience so I try to make it the best it can be. Through understanding how people read I can adapt my thinking and my word-choices to push the right buttons at the right times and that way improve someone's reading experience.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 24, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> 1. Do you just accept that some people won't like your writing and forge on with your vision or do you strive to write in a way to reach the widest audience possible, perhaps sacrificing what you truly want to write?



Honestly, I usually think of it in a different way. I always assume there will be people that will like what I write. I know there will be people that won't like what I write, and I know what I write isn't perfect, far from it. It's kind of glass half full instead of half empty sort of thinking.

I mean why worry about something that's beyond your control. There will always be people who dislike your work. Even critically acclaimed books have their critics.

I think of it like drinks. The drink that pleases the most people and that most people have nothing bad to say about is water. Compare that to writing. Do you want to be the water of writing or the Redbull. (On a side note, I hate Redbull, but a lot of people like it.)

I'm reminded of a story I heard about when Stephen King was confronted by a critic. His response was something to the effect of 2 million people disagree. I can live with that. 




Phil the Drill said:


> 2. You can of course have both, but how would you go about achieving this?



IMHO, I'm of the philosophy of write what's in your heart and let the chips fall. Whether someone likes your work or doesn't is out of your control. People will dislike your work for the silliest of reasons. You want to reach the most people, write the truth how you see it and write from the heart. That's all you can do.


----------



## Nagash (Dec 24, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> So as writers, we want to get as many readers as possible, right? Does that mean we have to avoid writing about certain topics or certain styles because it may bother certain people or alienate readers?



Actually I'm not so sure... At some point you have to choose between writing for success, and writing for the pleasure of unveiling your imagination upon the public world. And that means that you'll have to choose between giving people what they want, or giving them what you want. While in the beginning these two things can coincide, as you go along - in my opinion at least - you'll find yourself having to do more and more concessions if you want to attract as many people as possible. Inevitably, passion and success drive in different ways. 

Of course, its a reasonably safe assumption to say that some writers did achieve success while following their passion and not some sad commercial strategy - or at least, the concessions they had to make didn't crash into their initial project. Obviously G.R.R. met some success in the beginning, but the TV series did help a notch widening the fandom. J.K. Rowling had the movies backing up the success of her books at some point in her strive. Of these three authors, Tolkien was the one who suffered the most to get his books published, and had to face several strong and assassin critiques once the Lord of The Rings was published. In many ways, Tolkien was uncompromising, and fought for his work. Of course, public recognition showed up after a while, but it didn't sparked immediately.

I for one believe people should write what they believe they should write - they should write the stories pulsing in their hearts. While it may be tough success-speaking in the beginning - or not, if you're lucky and talented - things may always turn up for you. Tolkien is a living proof of it.

And that's an example anyone should be proud to follow.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 24, 2013)

I did a thread about this once. I'd like to reframe my earlier statement:

_If you believe that you have to choose between writing what you want and writing what people will read, that belief will never make your writing better._

It may not make it worse. It may be that whatever you choose will be what you would have written anyway. But under no circumstances will it result in a better story than you could have written, and it can result in a worse story if you

a): think you need to ignore what readers want, and write something no one else cares about, or

b): think you need to ignore what you want, and write something that obviously lacks investment.

I'm a porn writer. When I wanted to write about sin and forgiveness, I wrote hot demon sex, and I fitted it to a plot about sin and forgiveness. When I wanted to write about freedom and safety, I wrote TG and catgirls, and I fitted it to a plot about freedom and safety. When I wanted to write about the psychology of incest . . . well, you can guess what I wrote then. I write things that a porn audience will want to read, and I write things that I want to write, and I don't think there's any contradiction in that.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 24, 2013)

Hi,

I'm always firmly of the opinion that you should write for yourself first. It's not for any noble reason, it's simply who I am. To write a topic I don't enjoy (or know) like romance which is hot right now, I'd have to sacrifice some of who I am and then I probably wouldn't write as well as I do anyway. Some people can cover multiple genres, points of view and writing styles, but I'm not one of them. I write what I know and love, and hopefully make the best fist of it I can. Then I publish.

Write for yourself, publish for others.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Rullenzar (Dec 24, 2013)

No great deed, invention, theory, came about by sticking to what's safe. The memorable and the best come from thinking outside the box at all costs. 
When the world believed the earth was flat, One man risked his life to prove that it wasn't. 
When the world believed flying was a figment of the imagination, two brothers used physics to create airplanes. 
When (your name here) believed writing to please audiences was the way to go, (your name here) stumbled on an idea that changed his/her writing from mundane into masterpieces.


----------



## Nagash (Dec 24, 2013)

Well that was inspiring. Cheers.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 24, 2013)

It seems to me that the greatest joy I experience as a writer is when someone reads my work and likes it.  I would think that not many people on this board truly don't care if others like their work.

However, it is absolutely impossible to create anything that literally everybody will love.  What I consider the greatest masterpiece ever written, Ankari might consider complete crap.  A book that I wouldn't consider touching with a ten foot pole might be Steerpike's all time favorite.

Trying to please everyone seems like a stupid endeavor.

The way I reconcile wanting my writing to be liked but realizing it's not possible to have everyone like it is to try to write the best that I can.  I continually ask myself, "What can I do better?"


----------



## TWErvin2 (Dec 24, 2013)

I try to write the best stories I can--those that I would like to find on the shelf if I hadn't written them myself.

I accept that my writing and stories aren't for everyone. Fantasy and SF don't appeal to many readers. Although I write in 3rd person limited on occasion (with short stories mainly) all of my novels have been in First Person POV. Many readers don't care for that. So, even before I put my work out there, there is a large portion of readers that won't even consider reading my works.

I think that a big concern is that people do read published works and write bad reviews, sometimes inaccurate reviews--at least as the author sees them.

It's part of the territory when putting your work out there. Not an easy part or always an enjoyable part.

Trying to please everyone will make a story weaker. I've seen it when writers try to please every crit partner that reads and comments on their work. It will do the same if a writer tries to avoid every pitfall that might otherwise turn away a potential reader (or segment of readers). What the novel or story will bend up being is a watered-down mushy piece of toast, that very few will find appetizing.

Everyone may not like plum preserves and margarine on wheat toast, but there is a segment that might...if it's cooked just right with the proper proportion of margarine and preserves.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 24, 2013)

There was an anecdote in a blog post by Dean Wesley Smith a couple of years ago that I will never forget. 

He was describing a writing group that he and his wife, writer Kristine Kathryn Rusch, were in where Kris had written a story that everyone had read and liked. I believe they all told her it was sweet and nice. After they left the meeting and Kris was visibly frustrated by the response Dean asked her why and she told him that it was supposed to be a horror story. 

I think the point of the anecdote was to demonstrate that it's not necessarily a good thing to have everyone like your story. In this case, the entire group's reaction to the story was the opposite of the writer's intent. Thus even though everyone liked it, it was a failed story and needed to be completely rewritten from scratch. 

Dean went on to espouse the idea that a really great story will never receive a uniform response from an audience. No great work has ever been universally well received. He proposed that the ideal response is to have an audience's reaction split roughly 50/50 between those who love it and those who hate it. The idea being that you don't ever want to just have a lukewarm "we all liked it" response. You want your work to make people get passionate and emotional in their reaction because the point of story is to reach out to the audience's emotions. And even a passionately negative response is higher praise than a lukewarm positive response. 

I've found that point of view to be extremely helpful to me. Because I admit, the more I go among writers and readers on the internet the more keenly aware of how many people there are who almost certainly won't like what I write (and I suspect I would hate what they write as well). I seem to have highly different ideas about what constitutes a good story than the majority, including most people on this site. But I also know that there are other people like me out there. We may not be the majority, we may be a small group. Or we may be larger than I think and just quieter. Either way, a it seems to me a good goal to try and get the other side to passionately dislike my stories because then my stories will have been more likely to be passionately embraced by readers like me.


----------



## writeshiek33 (Dec 24, 2013)

i write as the story comes and worry about readers when time comes there will be someone


----------



## Chessie (Dec 24, 2013)

Mythopoet, a helpful perspective indeed. Thank you for sharing that.

Svrtnsse, I think we can all agree that having our writing skill sharpened is important as well. I will forever be a scholar of the craft. But when it comes down to the ideas I'm writing about, the sky is the limit. I like writing tragedies mostly. Put them into a fantasy setting and that excites me. Not everyone who reads my work likes those ideas. 

I think each of us has a vision for our writing and a personal twist on the fantasy genre. Staying true to that is hard but powerful. I can't imagine writing about something that doesn't interest me for 300 pages.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 24, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> He proposed that the ideal response is to have an audience's reaction split roughly 50/50 between those who love it and those who hate it. The idea being that you don't ever want to just have a lukewarm "we all liked it" response. You want your work to make people get passionate and emotional in their reaction because the point of story is to reach out to the audience's emotions. And even a passionately negative response is higher praise than a lukewarm positive response.



I went to see _Tangled_ in theaters, accompanied by someone who'd been abused as a child. She immediately connected to the Mother Gothel plotline--for her, it was a great movie. I just sat through it without understanding--for me, it was a lukewarm movie. Should the goal really have been to make me dislike the movie?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 24, 2013)

Second post for an opposite opinion: I think I understand what most of the folks in this thread are arguing against. Damon Lindelof has an article about how he might try to write a movie about John Henry, and how it would be adapted across various drafts of the script. He'd start it as a relatively low-key story, with John Henry and the inventor of the steam hammer as former friends driven apart by differing views, and over about three drafts, it would turn into a superhero movie, because that's what happens when executives make changes to try to appeal to a wider audience. I think that if you try to change _the kind of story you're telling_ to appeal to a wider audience, you risk no longer having anything meaningful or interesting to say.


----------



## Bansidhe (Dec 24, 2013)

The important thing to remember is that, like all writers of all levels everywhere, these same fantasy authors you mention have their strengths and weaknesses, just as you or I do. The very best thing you can do is write as yourself, and hone your craft. There is already a Tolkien, Martin, and Rowling in the world--just as there is only one you. The book world needs YOUR voice, not a poor simulation of existing author. Don't worry about what everyone else is doing--especially when you consider that it could take years to see your work in print. Even if you sold your book to a publisher today, it will still be 18-24 months before it hits the shelves, and the market can drastically change by then. 

Also, opinions on books are entirely subjective. So you are better served to write good, well-crafted story in your own unique voice, and to strive to craft a better story the next time, and the after that, etc.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 24, 2013)

Hi,

Just to add, I think the problem Feo mentions is one that's more endemic to trade published authors than to indies. Notsaying indies don't also bow to pressure, but the number of people I've read on various fora who've been trade pubbed and felt that their books needed wholesale change is astounding. I think that's the power relationship in action. The agent, editor and publisher all have their own ideas of what should be in a book to make it sell, and they wield a lout of clout. For the true indie if he sticks to his guns, he dictates what happens, and the editor (I assume) simply goes along with it or gets ignored.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## JRFLynn (Dec 24, 2013)

I may have been a bit caffeine-happy before, I do think writing well is crucial. Like Samurai with Bushido, writers should always be honing their skills. It bothers me, though, when editors want to gut a story (like _The Last Stand_) for the sake of making it "palatable" for the general public. Something strange and off the wall may often be overlooked because it scares publishers and what their perceived _formula_ for success is. Yet, there are so many great books out there that are craaazay and famous for that very reason. Writing a well crafted story is the goal, but does it have to be aimed at pleasing the public or should an author's inspiration take precedence? Personally, I think inspiration comes first, the audience will find you..._at least, that's my hope_. 

One thing that cannot be avoided, however, are _bad_ reviews. I once read it's better not to look at them, for your own sanity's sake. As others have said, even the best books have haters. _Twilight_ is a good example, though some would debate whether it's among the "best". Regardless, it caters to a wide and diverse audience. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but the author was certainly inspired and she's better off despite what anyone says. As writers/authors obviously we all crave success, and our motives for why we spin tales are just as diverse. For me, I want to share my story how I've envisioned it, for better or worse. LOL, I'll probably do a happy dance too every time someone likes it, but very few reader critiques actually have any worthwhile feedback that will help you improve as a writer. Only time and perseverance can do that.


----------



## Guy (Dec 24, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> or do you strive to write in a way to reach the widest audience possible, perhaps sacrificing what you truly want to write?


"Truly" is the key word there. Some things are negotiable and on these I'm open to suggestion, but if the piece in question is something I _truly_ want to say, no compromise. Never.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Dec 24, 2013)

We accepted a long time ago that not everyone is going to like our books, but that's largely due to the fact that we tackle some very controversial subject matter.  There are readers out there who will not like our characters for their sexualities or their views on marriage and family, or for how we question good and evil or deal with trauma and redemption.  There are also readers who won't like that we write in 3rd person, or that we write dark urban fantasy romance, or the million other reasons readers don't pick up a book.

But I'm also going to come right out and say we're going to fight for the best audience we can get.  We love writing, and we want to make a real professional go at it and do wonderful things like eat and pay the mortgage.  We study the market and know who we are writing for even as we write the stories we are compelled to write, because it's how an entertainment business is run.  We're rolling the dice, but we're not blowing bubbles into the wind.  We know we're pushing the edge of the market, but we think it's an edge that's ready to be pushed.  We're still telling the stories only we can tell, the stories our characters press us to write, but we're doing it with our eyes open, because we want to succeed.

So, no, of course there will be readers who won't like our work.  But we're hoping that there will be enough who will.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 27, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> I went to see _Tangled_ in theaters, accompanied by someone who'd been abused as a child. She immediately connected to the Mother Gothel plotline--for her, it was a great movie. I just sat through it without understanding--for me, it was a lukewarm movie. Should the goal really have been to make me dislike the movie?



I would never propose to state what the goal should be for any story teller other than myself. I realize that my wording was a bit absolute in that post, which was a mistake. Dean was talking about his viewpoint and I was talking about how that viewpoint helped me to develop my own view point. Dean is always careful to stress that every writer is different and I strongly believe that as well.


----------



## danr62 (Dec 27, 2013)

Let me throw out a marketing term into this discussion:

Target market.

Fantasy, as a genre, is very wide and diverse. It's one of the smaller genres, but even so it is split up into several sub-genres. If you love to write Urban Fantasy, then your target market is people who love UF. Actually, your target market is much more refined than that. There's romantic UF, dark UF, YA UF, comdedic UF (maybe), whatever. Your target market is those people most likely to read what you like to write.

Write for them, figure out how to write the best story you can _for your target market_. Don't worry about anyone else. There will be some crossover, but the best way to get crossover readers is to write something that your core audience will rave about and recommend to their friends who maybe like to read Epic Fantasy and have never tried a UF book.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 27, 2013)

A few thoughts....

First, each of us needs to understand that, in terms of preference & taste, none of us is so entirely unique or original. That's a good thing. It means there are people in the world just like you, people who want to read the same types of stories and characters you do. Therefore, I say "write the story you'd want to read." There is undoubtedly an audience, comprised of readers similar to you. 

Secondly, I talk a lot about writing with honesty & it applies here as well. Yes, it has a lot to do with keeping true to character actions & the avoidance of manipulating the natural behaviors of story elements...

...doom should not jam. The avalanche stopping in its tracks a few feet above the cowering village behaves not only unnaturally but unethically."
- Nabokov

Yet, maintaining honesty in writing also applies to vision. If you're pandering to a certain audience & not writing the story you'd wish to read, you're going to create a diluted, weakened product. If you're writing honestly, with a passion for the story you'd want to read, you're bound to create something that speaks on a visceral level to a certain audience. That is a powerful effect. Those are the readers that form a fan base, the rabid devourers of an artists work that may propel the artist to broader commercial success. 

Like other elements of craft, I believe that writing with honesty is a learned behavior. It's hard to sustain honest writing for the span of an entire novel. In my opinion, it's part of an artist's maturity....the free expression of a truthful vision without regard to another wants and preferences. That, to me, is the basest power of art. 

Make your art speak powerfully to others by remaining honest to your writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 27, 2013)

When this topic first opened, I think I sided more with the thoughts that T.Allen expressed above.  I've been thinking about it a lot lately, though, and I'm not sure that I haven't changed my mind to an extent.

As a beginning writer, you need all the help you can get just to finish .  If you choose to write something for any reason other than that you're passionate about it, I think it decreases the chances you'll ever even complete it.

At some point, however, you get past the beginning stages.  You stop having to force yourself to write every day.  You finish what you start.  (Note: this is all "presumably" for me, 'cause I'm certainly not there yet!)

At that point, what you write, if your goal is to be a successful writer in terms of money, should be influenced by what will sell more than by any other criteria.  Perhaps that means going through all your ideas and only choosing to write the most commercially viable ones, or, perhaps, that means choosing to write what the audience wants even if you don't care for it all that much.

It seems to me that one difference between being a professional and being an amateur is that you do what needs doing instead of just what you want to do.



> If you're pandering to a certain audience & not writing the story you'd wish to read, you're going to create a diluted, weakened product. If you're writing honestly, with a passion for the story you'd want to read, you're bound to create something that speaks on a visceral level to a certain audience.



I'm not sure I buy this.  If you analyze a market and truly understand what that market wants, there's no mystery in figuring out how to produce what they want.  If you're a good writer, you can write anything well if you work at it hard enough.  Granted, if you're not professional enough to truly put in the required effort to do so, yes, you will turn out crap.



> Make your art speak powerfully to others by remaining honest to your writing.



I'm am not an artist and have no desire to become one.  I simply want to tell stories.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 27, 2013)

Of those three originally mentioned... I like Rowling the best.  tolkein, for me... is the insomniac's answer.  I can't get more than eight pages done before I'm awoken by the book falling onto my face.  GRRM isn't someone i've read a lot, but mostly because I began his book only to discover finishing it would be quite a commitment to finish it.  At the time, I wasn't interested in making that commitment, and unfortunately, I haven't picked it up again.

Is that to say I don't see value in the books I don't prefer?  Absolutely not.  I think I finished LOTR in a few months... but Goblet of Fire, I read pretty much straight through for three days.

Each author has their own style, and I think picking these particular examples was a very good comparison, Phil.  Where I found the chapter with Tom Bombadil wholly uninteresting and forgettable (except for the lingering feelings of annoyance I wasted time reading it), I loved the deatils of the elf hats and stockings Hermione knitted...even though it didn't make it into the movies  

Taste is one thing, but also one factor for me is time.  I write fantasy, somewhere between epic and romantic, but what do I tend to read?

It depends.  Mostly, I like books I can finish in a day.  I grab a historical romance or a small paperback crime drama.  I tend to read less fantasy because complex worls and trilogies take a larger commitment from me and I tend to read a few chapters and set the book down to cook dinner or pick kids up from school.. and then they sit for weeks gathering dust.  I forget where I was, or what's going on, or don't remember how the world works, and I just get disinterested.  Sad, but true.  So, when I am sick or know I've got a lazy week ahead of me, I select one of the longer, more involved books on my shelf.  For those times I'm just looking to kill an afternoon... I grab a 200-page easy book to keep it lighter.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 27, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> If you're a good writer, you can write anything well if you work at it hard enough.  Granted, if you're not professional enough to truly put in the required effort to do so, yes, you will turn out crap.



Writing well & writing something powerfully engaging are not necessarily the same thing. Powerful writing leaves fans clamoring for the next installment. Good writing alone, does not.  

There are many good writers in the world. How many of those can claim a rabid fan base, eagerly awaiting their next release & discussing characters and expectations on forums?   

Not many....  



BWFoster78 said:


> I'm am not an artist and have no desire to become one.  I simply want to tell stories.



The telling of stories is an art form. Some do it better than others.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 27, 2013)

> Writing well & writing something powerfully engaging are not necessarily the same thing. Powerful writing leaves fans clamoring for the next installment. Good writing alone, does not.
> 
> There are many good writers in the world. How many of those can claim a rabid fan base, eagerly awaiting their next release & discussing characters and expectations on forums?
> 
> Not many....



I'm not sure of your argument here.

I would assume that most writers choose subjects about which they are passionate, and few achieve the kind of fan base you're talking about.  I don't think that anyone would claim that being passionate about your material is a guarantee for monetary success.

Good writing...  Crap, even bad writing...  that meets what an audience wants is likely to sell.  If an author wants to make a living writing, I'm thinking that listening to the audience is probably a wise thing.



> The telling of stories is an art form.



I don't see it as such.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 27, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> It seems to me that one difference between being a professional and being an amateur is that you do what needs doing instead of just what you want to do.



Yes and no.

I've done a lot of DJ:ing in my life. I was never famous for it and I didn't make money off of it, but I did it regularly for nearly ten years. When I started out my intent was to play the music I loved and help other people discover the greatness and wonder of underground electronic dance music. 
That didn't work out at all. People weren't interested in getting to know the things I wanted to show them. They wanted to hear the chart hits and the classics and the things they recognised from when they were seventeen and life was wonderful. I resisted for a while and tried sticking to my guns, but an empty dancefloor is a boring dancefloor - no matter how good the music is.
I gave up and started playing what they wanted to hear. People started showing up and the dancefloor was no longer empty. People had a good time and I had a good time. Now and then I mixed in one of my own personal favourites; something hard and dark and obscure, just for kicks. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn't.
Over the years, I got pretty good. I got a decent sense of the floor and I got a good feel of what would work and what wouldn't. I could tell when it was time to put on a monster hit (and which one) and when it was okay to go with a filler

in short: I'd gone from playing for myself to playing for the audience.

The next step from there, which I never took, would have been to try and profile myself. If I could pull in a crowd on a night because people knew that when I was DJ:ing it would be a good party that was a start. It's not the goal though. What I really wanted was for people to come dance to my music - not just get drunk and sing along to Summer of '69.

It's good when the crowd shouts and when they wave their hands in the air to the music you're playing, but it's even better when they're doing it to a track you love that you've picked out yourself and that you know they've never heard before. That's when I felt I really added something of my own to the mix. 

There are some DJs out there who get to the stage where people come to hear them because they're interested in their music. These are the big names, the superstars, the ones that get to travel the world to play other people's music. Then there are those like me, who provide the soundtrack for a great party, but who really aren't more than glorified mixtapes.

I think a parallel can be drawn to writing. You can start out following your artistic vision, but if no one knows who you are no one's going to bother. You may find a small, enthusiastic, audience, but you won't go beyond that. However, if you hone your skills and adapt your stories you can make a name for yourself to a broader audience. People will recognise your name and will know you provide a decent read. You'll be a safe bet.
It's when you've reached that point you can go back to doing whatever you feel like. It's at that point you can have success following your artistic vision. That's when you can take the step up from being a decent solid writer to becoming a bestselling world-famous author.

So, yes, you're right about the difference between a professional and an amateur. But I think that the next step beyond being "just" a professional, requires you to strike out into unknown territory and explore different ideas.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 27, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't think that anyone would claim that being passionate about your material is a guarantee for monetary success.


I agree. However, those writers who achieve monetary success don't do so for money. They have stories to tell. They do so in a way that resonates.

If monetary success is a consideration, the vast majority of us would be better served picking up a second job at minimum wage. You'd earn far more scratch by the hour.



BWFoster78 said:


> Good writing...  Crap, even bad writing...  that meets what an audience wants is likely to sell.  If an author wants to make a living writing, I'm thinking that listening to the audience is probably a wise thing.


You're talking about writers that follow a trend. I'm talking about those setting the trends.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 27, 2013)

> So, yes, you're right about the difference between a professional and an amateur. But I think that the next step beyond being "just" a professional, requires you to strike out into unknown territory and explore different ideas.



I'd be quite happy to make it to the "just" a professional stage at this point...


----------



## Graylorne (Dec 27, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm not sure I buy this.  If you analyze a market and truly understand what that market wants, there's no mystery in figuring out how to produce what they want.  If you're a good writer, you can write anything well if you work at it hard enough.  Granted, if you're not professional enough to truly put in the required effort to do so, yes, you will turn out crap.



I will disagree with this, Brian. This morning (my time) I wrote some comments in Novels & Stories about Raymond E Feist. He is most decidedly a professional fantasy author. Still there is a noticeable difference between his first twelve books and the rest. To me it was as if the fun had gone out of it for him. Perhaps I'm totally wrong, but I feel he stopped writing what he liked and began writing what paid the bills. Anyhow, for me it wasn't _Feist_ anymore. 
I believe that if you don't write with your heart, you lose quality. A novel is not a manual, it's a part of yourself.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 27, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'd be quite happy to make it to the "just" a professional stage at this point...



In fairness, I would too, but once I get there (which I aim to), I'll do my best to go beyond it.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 27, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> It seems to me that one difference between being a professional and being an amateur is that you do what needs doing instead of just what you want to do.


 
The distinction doesn't make sense because what needs doing is dependent on the story you want to tell. I don't understand the seemingly irresistable urge to make your approach or subjective view an objective measure of what is professional or good, but that's all this is.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 27, 2013)

> If monetary success is a consideration, the vast majority of us would be better served picking up a second job at minimum wage. You'd earn far more scratch by the hour.



I disagree.

a) People are succeeding at writing.  Self publishing and the internet gives us easy access to production and getting our work into the marketplace.

b) The upside is huge.  A single hit that is made into a movie is like winning the lottery.  Even if you don't reach that level, a book a year and a solid fan base can trump any minimum wage job.  Better, the money keeps coming in when you stop writing.



> You're talking about writers that follow a trend. I'm talking about those setting the trends.



That's an erroneous assumption on your part.  I simply said that you should consider what the audience wants.  Do you do that by copying what someone else has done or doing research on your own?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 27, 2013)

Graylorne said:


> I will disagree with this, Brian. This morning (my time) I wrote some comments in Novels & Stories about Raymond E Feist. He is most decidedly a professional fantasy author. Still there is a noticeable difference between his first twelve books and the rest. To me it was as if the fun had gone out of it for him. Perhaps I'm totally wrong, but I feel he stopped writing what he liked and began writing what paid the bills. Anyhow, for me it wasn't _Feist_ anymore.
> I believe that if you don't write with your heart, you lose quality. A novel is not a manual, it's a part of yourself.



In the beginning of a career, you seek to become the best you can.  If you're lucky, you achieve a level of success.  At some point, you come to a realization that, no matter what you write, people will buy it just because it has your name on it.  The temptation is to then just put out random crap.

I understand the temptation and hope I never succumb to it. (though I hope I get to the point where it is, in fact, a realistic temptation  )

That seems to be what you're describing, though.  To me, that has nothing to do with heart and everything about becoming complacent.  That is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about using the market to determine your next option.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 27, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> The distinction doesn't make sense because what needs doing is dependent on the story you want to tell. I don't understand the seemingly irresistable urge to make your approach or subjective view an objective measure of what is professional or good, but that's all this is.



And I don't understand the seemingly irresistable urge to pull a statement completely out of context, but that's all this is.

In the context of the original post, I was trying to explain that, if you want to support yourself with your writing, it's probably advisable to give a lot of consideration to what is commercially viable.  The statement that was pulled completely out of context was not meant to speak to what is "professional or good."


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 27, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> a) People are succeeding at writing.  Self publishing and the internet gives us easy access to production and getting our work into the marketplace.
> 
> b) The upside is huge.  A single hit that is made into a movie is like winning the lottery.  Even if you don't reach that level, a book a year and a solid fan base can trump any minimum wage job.  Better, the money keeps coming in when you stop writing.


You'll notice I wrote "vast majority".  Also, I was referring to money as a motivator.   



BWFoster78 said:


> That's an erroneous assumption on your part.  I simply said that you should consider what the audience wants.  Do you do that by copying what someone else has done or doing research on your own?


Can you give an example of this type of research? How are you determining what an audience wants if not by looking at what other authors have done successfully?  If that is how you're doing it, you are following a trend.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 27, 2013)

T.Allen,

Re that last part: surveys, readings blogs frequented by your target audience, etc.  Just as with any other marketing, find out what they like and dislike, hot buttons, etc.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 27, 2013)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Does that mean if you had an idea that you were really excited about, maybe a new twist or something that has an original feel, you wouldn't write that story unless it was supported in surveys, blogs, and marketing research?

To me that seems like an over the top following of trends.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 27, 2013)

I think the original three authors are another perfect example of where this thread has gone.  

Tolkein... was he intending to make money?  Who was his target audience?  When did he become really popular?

How about GRRM?  I mean... that's a whole different kettle of worms, there.  Who did he aim to please when he began... and who does he please now?  How many current "readers" are simply watchers who fell in love with the concept?

What about Rowling?  What were her original plans for Harry Potter and the gang?  Did she stick with her guns or change her concepts to fit what an audience demanded?  


I mean... there are really wonderful examples just in these three authors... whom everyone knows about.  Tolkein, GRRM, and Rowling.  Perfect examples for this discussion.


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 27, 2013)

I don't think I could ever write anything without passion. People who write any kind of crud just for the money are opportunistic hacks whom I respect very little. That said, there is still the problem of political correctness. I don't advocate that writers should sacrifice their visions just to please the PC crowd, but it can still be painful to have your reputation soiled by accusations of malice, oppression, or whatever. But that's a topic we've debated at length in other threads.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 27, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> I don't think I could ever write anything without passion. People who write any kind of crud just for the money are opportunistic hacks whom I respect very little. That said, there is still the problem of political correctness. I don't advocate that writers should sacrifice their visions just to please the PC crowd, but it can still be painful to have your reputation soiled by accusations of malice, oppression, or whatever. But that's a topic we've debated at length in other threads.



I couldn't imagine reading anything written with political correctness in mind and thinking it was good. 

What I've read from Brian's posts is that he is concerned with what people will like, while you seem concerned about what people won't like. The very idea of worrying what other people think (on either end of the spectrum) when you're writing, astounds me. In my opinion, that's exactly the opposite of writing with truth. Sooner or later you have to give up caring what your friends will think, or if that girl down the hall will think you're a creep, or if your mother will cry and think you depraved. It's not you, it's characters and a story, a story meant to entertain. Fact is, the most interesting bits of stories, and their characters, are often some of the worst aspects of the human condition.

Maybe it's just me, but I think the ability to write with full fledged honesty is a hallmark of a great writer. It's not the only one of course, but without the ability to write a tale, unconcerned with how people might view a character (or subject matter), would there be anything to read that really moves, stories that strike a deep chord within?

I don't think there would be...

Now, certainly there are plenty of good stories that can entertain, and only entertain. It's a valid goal to do just that and no more. Presently, I'd be happy with that, but once that goal is obtained, I think I'll want to have more impact than entertainment alone. I used to think entertaining was enough. I'm not certain that's true anymore. Time will tell.

And yes, you could probably play to a current market forever and sell books. I doubt however, you'd ever produce anything jaw-dropping or inspirational. I'd rather shoot for a visceral reaction to my stories, even if it's considered an outlier, than to just hope to be part of a crowd. And to be concerned about political correctness, well as much as I understand the thought process, I think it comes from a lack of maturity. I don't mean that as an insult at all. I used to be that way. Now, I'm writing for myself...not writing in the hopes another will approve. In the end, I think it's far stronger. 

My advice: Write as if you're the only person who will ever read it. Then put it out there for everyone.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 27, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> My advice: Write as if you're the only person who will ever read it. Then put it out there for everyone.



For content, yes. For technique, no.
I'm assuming, that as far as this discussion is concerned we're really only talking about content.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 27, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> For content, yes. For technique, no.
> I'm assuming, that as far as this discussion is concerned we're really only talking about content.



Correct. I wasn't referring to elements of technique, structure, or anything else of the like....merely content.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 27, 2013)

What exactly does content mean? If a story has the same archetypes but a different structure, does it have the same content? How about if it has the same structure, but stars completely different archetypes?

I've said previously that you should give your readers what they want, but I'm not sure what exactly the word is for what they want. I guess you could say "setpieces," but that's not quite it. What I mean is, if you're writing an action adventure story, you might write epic battles, or you might write one-on-one duels, or you might write a character who just outruns and outthinks threats, but you're going to have some form of action. And if you're writing a romance, it may be between a sheltered youth and a mysterious outlander, or between a spoiled noble and a cocky thief, or even between two longtime friends who're put into a position to want something more, but you'll eventually have them kiss. You have to give your readers something to enjoy before you give them something to think about.

There's only one other thing I'd like to talk about, and that's political correctness. I'd take off the political--I just care about correctness. Like, a lot of porn writers absolutely _despise_ Christians. If they write all their Christian characters as horrible people, I don't care, because Christians can be horrible, too. But if they derail the story to rant about how Christians are horrible people*, I get miffed, because I've known Christians who weren't horrible people. 

On the flipside, I once read a comedy novel by a Christian author, largely devoted to mocking fundamentalist Christians. In the end, the atheist protagonists converted to Christianity for very flimsy reasons. Again, I was miffed, because that didn't make sense in the context of their previous development and felt like it only happened because the author wanted his characters to end the story thinking like he did. The author wasn't honest and accurate in his portrayal of how his characters might grow and change, and the story inevitably suffered for it.

*This is not the dumbest rant I've seen interrupt a porn story.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Dec 27, 2013)

(Replying to Phil's original post…)

Me? I want to do a bit of both. What I mean is this: I LOVE to experiment, and I consistently strive to end a chapter or short story in a way that I hope is unpredictable or not easily predictable.

As for caring what the audience thinks: I do. I can't satisfy everyone, but Phil, in your September daily prompt contest, I felt like I had a new character (Addison Lane) whose story needs to be told. I don't know if she would've been the MC of my next piece or not, but from your reactions, I saw that her words more or less hit the page as I hoped they would.

My point: I write the story I want to tell, and if people like it, the story's worth telling.



About research… call it laziness, but in the time it takes to do effective research, I can write several chapters. If boy wizards are the rave, I'm doomed to fail.

Bob "R.A." Salvatore's advice to me: "Shut up and write." I think I know where he stands on market research. Of his own success he said he simply told the right story at the right time.



As for JRRT, GRRM and JK Rowling…

JRRT - Well, what is there to say? Required reading for school,and I was glad of it.

GRRM - I watched the show, hated season 3 ending mid-book, so now I'm reading. If HBO stops making the show, I like to books better. I'm glad the show got me into the books! If Martin based his work on market research, his characters would probably live longer. If publishers held Martin to the same standards to which not-yet-proven authors are held, his characters would probably live longer.

JK Rowling - Boy wizards ain't my thing. So there you have it: not everyone likes the works of the most successful author ever. I prefer girl barbarians over boy wizards. What's the market for that? I don't know. I know what I like and don't like. If there's a formula to maximize book sales [boy wizard] + [clever puns] x [7 novels] but what I do well is more like [girl barbarian] + [ridiculous plot] x [as many short stories as I can write] - [uses of the f-word to make my wife happy], I'm better off writing about the girl barbarian. I simply can't write a boy wizard and enjoy it.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 27, 2013)

DISCLAIMER: I'm drunk and I haven't quite thought this through so take it with an enormous pinch of salt. I just like the simplicity of the definition.



Feo Takahari said:


> What exactly does content mean? If a story has the same archetypes but a different structure, does it have the same content? How about if it has the same structure, but stars completely different archetypes?



Content is the part of the story that remains the same regardless of author or medium. Everything else is presentation (technique).


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 28, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I couldn't imagine reading anything written with political correctness in mind and thinking it was good.
> 
> What I've read from Brian's posts is that he is concerned with what people will like, while you seem concerned about what people won't like. The very idea of worrying what other people think (on either end of the spectrum) when you're writing, astounds me. In my opinion, that's exactly the opposite of writing with truth. Sooner or later you have to give up caring what your friends will think, or if that girl down the hall will think you're a creep, or if your mother will cry and think you depraved. It's not you, it's characters and a story, a story meant to entertain. Fact is, the most interesting bits of stories, and their characters, are often some of the worst aspects of the human condition.
> 
> ...


I want to agree with you here, and I know I've ranted way too much about political correctness on these forums, but it's a personal issue for me precisely because I don't want to alienate the people I care about. If I come across as sexist, I'll lose all my female friends. If I come across as racist, I'll lose all my African and Afro-Diasporan friends. Just recently I had to break ties with a militant Afro-American feminist who used to be one of my best friends ever, and it was a painful experience which continues to haunt me to this day. I don't _want_ to be politically correct, but I have even less desire to offend those who come closest to providing support for me.


----------



## Philip Overby (Dec 28, 2013)

I noticed I haven't really weighed in since I posted this initially and it's interesting there are so many views (as I expected) on this topic. While I don't think pleasing everyone should be the ultimate goal, you as a writer (and a person) have to decide on who you want to please. Will it be yourself? Will it be a publisher? Will it be family or friends you don't want to alienate? I'm not always of the belief that you have to "write for yourself" but if you don't, it shines through in the writing. I love writing, so much so that I've done writing I'm not proud of in order to make money at what I love doing. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd say there are probably dozens if not hundreds of pro writers who make their living writing stuff they don't want to. Are they happy? Who knows? You'd have to ask them.

As writers, we have to live with each decision we make. Whether it be a comment on a forum, a blog post, a line in our stories, or a choice to write something we don't love, our brand is tied into that. If at any point you're not happy with the process, it's time to reevaluate yourself and see what it is that's preventing you from being successful (whether that means making money or just finishing something). 

On that note, people who don't like your work aren't going to contribute to your success. They may give you bad reviews, discourage you, or whatever, but they're not the ones who are going to stick with you. So the sooner you accept that some people aren't going to like what you produce, the sooner you can carry on writing what you want and hoping for the best.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 28, 2013)

I don't think there's any content that feels off-limits to me as a writer.  I do, however attempt to portray relatable characters, so that is a limitation I'm happy with sticking to.  I like to push the boundaries but don't relish shocking and appalling a reader with my daring.  To me... that's a risk that probably wouldn't pay off.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 29, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
> 
> Does that mean if you had an idea that you were really excited about, maybe a new twist or something that has an original feel, you wouldn't write that story unless it was supported in surveys, blogs, and marketing research?
> 
> To me that seems like an over the top following of trends.



I read a blog post one time by an author who really knew his target audience.  He could literally picture a middle-aged lady in a supermarket, and, every decision he had to make in terms of story, he thought, "Will that lady like this content?"

Your argument seems to be that there is something wrong with that approach.  You seem to feel that writing in this matter is somehow inferior to being "inspired."

I kinda feel like you're being elitist.  An author has to produce inspired "art."

No.  An author can produce whatever he wants.  Why is that guy's satisfaction at producing something his target audience is going to enjoy somehow not as valid or good as you producing whatever you want?

As an author, I want to be read.  If I had my choice of producing something that I loved but no one else in the world did or something that didn't excite me but that thousands of people liked, I'd choose the second option.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Dec 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> As an author, I want to be read.  If I had my choice of producing something that I loved but no one else in the world did or something that didn't excite me but that thousands of people liked, I'd choose the second option.



I think it was something like this I was going for with the DJ analogy from earlier. It's no fun doing something for others if no one appreciates it.

I guess that while writing can be therapeutic and something you do for yourself. It's probably something you're doing because you enjoy it. Still, telling a story requires an audience or you're just dreaming.

If your main goal is to tell stories and entertain your readers, then I don't see anything wrong in writing that which you think your readers will enjoy - provided you too enjoy it. It's when you start writing stories you don't care for in order to sell books that I think you've crossed the line.

Maybe you could put it like this: "Some of us want to tell stories and some of us want to be storytellers."


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Your argument seems to be that there is something wrong with that approach.  You seem to feel that writing in this matter is somehow inferior to being "inspired."
> 
> I kinda feel like you're being elitist.  An author has to produce inspired "art."


 I have to assume you didn't read this part of the thread: 



T.Allen.Smith said:


> Now, certainly there are plenty of good stories that can entertain, and only entertain. It's a valid goal to do just that and no more. Presently, I'd be happy with that, but once that goal is obtained, I think I'll want to have more impact than entertainment alone. I used to think entertaining was enough. I'm not certain that's true anymore. Time will tell.
> 
> And yes, you could probably play to a current market forever and sell books. I doubt however, you'd ever produce anything jaw-dropping or inspirational. I'd rather shoot for a visceral reaction to my stories, even if it's considered an outlier, than to just hope to be part of a crowd.



Just as you choose only to be read (the same spot I'm in presently), I now believe I'd want more after that's achieved. It's just a choice. One I hope to be in the position to make one day. There's nothing elitist about it, other than recognizing a difference between great writers & all the rest.   



BWFoster78 said:


> No.  An author can produce whatever he wants.  Why is that guy's satisfaction at producing something his target audience is going to enjoy somehow not as valid or good as you producing whatever you want?  As an author, I want to be read.  If I had my choice of producing something that I loved but no one else in the world did or something that didn't excite me but that thousands of people liked, I'd choose the second option.


Agreed.... As I clearly stated before, it's perfectly valid.


----------



## Ankari (Dec 29, 2013)

Just as in anything, there are two approaches to writing. Yes, you can write for your target audience and try to make money. Or you can write what you love and know contentment.

But why is it assumed that the two approaches are opposing? What if, instead of imagining the middle-aged woman, I imagine a 34 year old man bored of the mainstream fantasy that followed the success of Harry Potter or Twilight?

Then I would be writing for the ideal audience, myself. I'm sure there are more like me, right?

Besides, we are writing fantasy. This is already a smaller market. If we wanted a wider audience range, we would write science fiction or romance.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Dec 29, 2013)

Ankari said:


> Just as in anything, there are two approaches to writing. Yes, you can write for your target audience and try to make money. Or you can write what you love and know contentment.
> 
> But why is it assumed that the two approaches are opposing? What if, instead of imagining the middle-aged woman, I imagine a 34 year old man bored of the mainstream fantasy that followed the success of Harry Potter or Twilight?
> 
> ...



Exactly - the two approaches don't have to oppose at all.  We don't see them as opposing in our work.  Do we see ourselves as storytellers, as artists?  Yes.  Are we writing for a target audience?  Yes.  We have a certain advantage in that we *are* our target audience - dark urban fantasy romance (a cross genre, btw) is particularly popular with women ages 25 - 49, which we are.  So we write what we want to read and know we are hitting our target audience.  Our beta readers confirm this theory.

So, yes, you can be "elitist" and still find commercial success.  There is no reason why not.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Dec 29, 2013)

Ankari said:


> What if, instead of imagining the middle-aged woman, I imagine a 34 year old man bored of the mainstream fantasy that followed the success of Harry Potter or Twilight?
> 
> Then I would be writing for the ideal audience, myself.


I agree with this.


In addition, there is a point where I consider others, but I don't want those people to be imaginary. I want beta readers, people who already enjoy my work (what little there is), people I trust to be brutally honest in a way that's constructive… I can think of some who fit into all three categories!

For the imaginary people, I tend to imagine they think like me. Example: if I kill off my MC halfway through an 80K-word novel told from his POV then continue the other half narrated by the dead MC watching his allies and enemies from heaven, I imagine my reader will feel cheated because I would. Call it a do-unto-others approach.

Like Ankari said, you can write for yourself AND write to succeed AND care what others think.





			
				BWFoster78 said:
			
		

> If I had my choice of producing something that I loved but no one else in the world did or something that didn't excite me but that thousands of people liked, I'd choose the second option.


You may do so, and you may succeed with this choice. I would fail miserably if I attempted the second option. If I don't like what I'm writing, the story will never be read by others. I need to love my work to be proud enough to show it off. Not like. Love.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 30, 2013)

> There's nothing elitist about it, other than recognizing a difference between great writers & all the rest.



The entire section you quoted boils down to, "It's okay to just entertain, but, eventually, it'd be nice to be a great writer." I think what is elitist is the way you're describing "great writers."

My definition of a great writer is one that can entertain me, that keeps me turning the pages and, when I finish the book, makes me disappointed that I've reached the end.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 30, 2013)

Ankari said:


> Just as in anything, there are two approaches to writing.



I would disagree with this. There are as many approaches to writing as there are writers. Just as in anything, it's a spectrum and there are infinite points between the two extremes.



BWFoster78 said:


> My definition of a great writer is one that can entertain me, that keeps me turning the pages and, when I finish the book, makes me disappointed that I've reached the end.



I don't care very much for "Great Writers". What I look for are great storytellers.

My definition of a great storyteller is one who entertained me so much that I want to share the experience with everyone I care about. Great storytellers are the ones that I talk up to friends and family, the ones I eagerly introduce to my children, the ones whose works last across generations. 

I would like to be a great storyteller.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 30, 2013)

> I don't care very much for "Great Writers". What I look for are great storytellers.



There are some who say that writing is craft and storytelling is art.  

I'm not sure I agree.  Then again, I'm not sure I don't agree.  The terms are way too nebulous for my tastes.

I do know that my favorite books share some traits:

1. They are easy to get into.
2. They keep me reading "one more chapter" at 2am when I've got to get up at 4am to go to work.
3. They have characters that I like.
4. They make me react emotionally.

Granted, these traits are what I like, and I intend no claim that they should be what other people look for.  Given these traits as goals, however, which of them are due to storytelling and which to writing?

Since the two terms are so nebulously defined, I'm not sure how to really answer that question.  For me, it all boils down to technique.  If you keep your pace fast and tension high, you can capture a reader's attention and keep it.   If you choose scenes that shows the characters struggling and exhibiting both positive traits and flaws, you can make them likeable.  The last one, emotion, is the hardest for me, but I think that, if you choose the correct scenes to show the emotion correctly, you can make the reader feel.

Reasonable people, however, may conclude that all these traits boil down to storytelling.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 30, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> There are some who say that writing is craft and storytelling is art.



Well, the thing is that there is a lot more to "writing" than fiction. And also I think that people who focus on being a "writer" can often become too involved in the sentence level of their work. In general, I think that's a bad thing for storytelling. If you're writing fiction narratives then I think the focus should ALWAYS be on the story, not on the words. The words are just a tool, the story is the goal.

Furthermore, I'll go so far as to say that if you are in the business of writing fictional narratives that people buy and read for pleasure then you NEED to keep readers in mind. That's your job. Entertaining readers. Your job isn't to win awards or get great reviews. Your job is to entertain readers. You should be thinking about those readers at least a little. 

I'm not suggesting that this means you shouldn't write whatever you want or you shouldn't write from the heart. The idea that you can either write for an audience or write for yourself is a ridiculously false dilemma. And the idea that writing to entertain readers makes you less of a "great writer" is just as false. Who do you think Shakespeare was writing plays for? Himself? No. He wrote for the audience. Tolkien said in his letters that his primary intent in writing LOTR was to entertain readers. That's the entire idea behind the storyteller. A storyteller is nothing without someone to tell his stories to.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 30, 2013)

> Well, the thing is that there is a lot more to "writing" than fiction. And also I think that people who focus on being a "writer" can often become too involved in the sentence level of their work. In general, I think that's a bad thing for storytelling. If you're writing fiction narratives then I think the focus should ALWAYS be on the story, not on the words. The words are just a tool, the story is the goal.



I think it is definitely easy to get too wrapped up in the words.  However, some authors feel the need to wordsmith more than others.  I'm not going to say that's wrong.  If it ends up with them producing something that they and their readers are happy with, more power to them.

To me, the term "writing" encompasses more than just sentence level stuff.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 30, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> My definition of a great writer is one that can entertain me, that keeps me turning the pages and, when I finish the book, makes me disappointed that I've reached the end.



I get that. I would define that as a good writer, those that entertain as you describe. Great writers, in my mind, push boundaries & create trends. Great writers cause us to consider different ideas, or even challenge our existing thinking, all the while entertaining in the same fashion.

I still don't see how that's elitist. It's simply a division line that I recognize between good & great. It's subjective opinion.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 30, 2013)

> I still don't see how that's elitist. It's simply a division line that I recognize between good & great. It's subjective opinion.



If you say, "for me to consider a writer to be great, he has to push boundaries and create trends."  I accept your opinion as no different than me saying that, for me, a great writer is one that accomplishes the things I spelled out above.

The tone I got from your comments - and maybe I misread - was a disdain for authors who "merely" entertained.  To me, that disdain is somewhat elitist.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 30, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> If you say, "for me to consider a writer to be great, he has to push boundaries and create trends."  I accept your opinion as no different than me saying that, for me, a great writer is one that accomplishes the things I spelled out above.
> 
> The tone I got from your comments - and maybe I misread - was a disdain for authors who "merely" entertained.  To me, that disdain is somewhat elitist.



Yes, that wasn't my intention. 

I stated, that presently, I'd be content entertaining, and doing so well enough to be read. Since, I don't have disdain for myself, the whole "elitist" bit was confusing.

Still, I see a difference between someone I'd consider good, say Joe Abercrombie, and someone I'd consider great, say Nabokov. It's a personal opinion & distinction, nothing more.


----------

