Accepting Some People Won't Like Your Writing

[A. E. Lowan]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.