Accepting Some People Won't Like Your Writing

[Philip Overby]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[JRFLynn]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well that was inspiring. Cheers.

 

[BWFoster78]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Chessie]

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]

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?