Pleasing Everyone

[Philip Overby]

Not everyone likes the same aesthetic. That can go with writing, art, or whatever. The goal of a writer is to reach an audience ultimately. If that audience is one person (themselves) or millions depends on several different tangibles. That being said, why does it seem so often that writers need validation about everything? Is it an inherent need to be liked by everyone? Or do you care if people like your writing or not?

For reference, I looked up A Game of Thrones on Amazon (not the best source for reviews, but a representation nonetheless). Here are the break-downs of reviews:

5 Star: 1,995
4 Star: 425
3 Star: 147
2 Star: 146
1 Star: 199

(Granted some of the 1 Star reviews are for the Kindle version, so take that into consideration)

So as a fan of Martin, I can't understand why anyone would give him a 1 Star review. But people do.
Some people remarked on it "meandering," while others said "it was too dark and gross." However, the goal isn't to make everyone like you. Those 1,995 5 Star reviews are probably more representative of how most people that read the book feel.

Let's take a more polarizing look at Twilight, a book that always stirs up emotions (please let's not turn this into a bash Twilight thread ). On Amazon, most of the readers seemed to have enjoyed the book enough to give it 3,499 5 Star reviews, but others weren't as positive with 729 1 Star reviews. Does that mean it's a good or bad book? Well, that's subjective. Did it reach its audience? Certainly. It pleased the people it was supposed to please.

Even Lord of the Rings, widely considered one of the best fantasy series of all-time has 1 Star reviews. Why is that? Well, some people think it's boring. That's fine. A lot of people think it's awesome.

So at the end of the day, what kind of writer are you? Are you trying to reach every single person to make them marvel at your work? Or do you accept that some people aren't going to like what you write and just hope that some people do like it?

NOTE: These questions are for people who are interested in sharing their work with others.

Another NOTE: I understand that some people hate Amazon. That being said, I think it's more representative of casual (notice that's bold) readers than any other source.

 

[Steerpike]

I go with my vision, preferentially. Whoever likes it, likes it. Those who do not like it, don't.

For example, in the "First Paragraph" post I made the other day, some people liked the first paragraph, some didn't. ThinkerX thought it was bland. But by the time I posted it, I'd already decided on it, so I'm not changing it. I realize some people will be right there with me on it, and others won't like it for various reasons. Nothing wrong with that, and one should not expect anything different. Further, neither my view of the work or the view of someone who doesn't like it is "wrong," it's just that one view is mine and one isn't.

I have to admit that when I post works for critique, I find that much of the time I end up leaving my vision intact regardless of the feedback provided. That may be one reason I don't post work for critique often, and by the time I do get to a point where I post something it is going to be hard to persuade me to take a different direction with the work. That's not to say the critiques aren't valuable even if I don't change anything, because they often get me thinking in directions I hadn't considered before, and that is helpful, particularly if the overall story is evolving and I've shared an excerpt. In other cases, the critique can make a substantive difference to the story. With the story I sold to Pseudopod, the ending was changed per feedback from Benjamin Clayborne. The difference in that case I knew something wasn't right at the end, but I didn't have a good handle on it. Benjamin's advice crystallized this sort of amorphous concern I already had in my own mind. The advice he gave allowed me to fix the story, and it resonated with me. I think it is important for writers to hold fast to their vision and not be quick to toss it out because of comments from another person. If the comments you receive align with your vision and something clicks and you say "Ah, of course!" then run with it. But if someone just says they'd like it better if X happened, or advises you on stylistic concerns, I'd be hesitant to make the change. This is a big problem with the "is this plot OK" threads, and why people shouldn't post them in my view. You can't please everyone, so please yourself first. You'll please at least 'some' other people in the process.

The trick is knowing when comments merely reflect an aesthetic or stylistic difference, and when they reflect something fundamentally wrong with the writing. I'm comfortable enough in my writing ability that I figure I can ascertain whether my writing is good or bad on my own. Others are more uncertain about their own writing and like the feedback or validation.

When it comes to us as readers, a different psychology is at work I think. People seem to have a need for validation of their beliefs, whether it is choice of religion, choice of book, choice of smart phone or computer operating system. People want what they like to be objectively good and valuable, and when someone else dislikes it the instinctual reaction of many is to try to marginalize the opposing viewpoint and thereby make one's own view look more "right."

 

[saellys]

Anyone who thought Game of Thrones was dull will think Camlann is the most boring thing ever, and there are approximately one tenth the number of POV characters. I'm certainly not out to please everyone; I'm out to write the sort of book I would want to read, and I think my co-writers feel much the same way.

 

[Xaysai]

I'm still new to writing, but I plan to write what (and how) I enjoy. I'll never be a published author, nor do I seek to make a living as a professional writer but if someone enjoys what I write, then I am happy. If I wrote something that was published and popular, then so be it, but it's not my endgame.

The problem with the 5-star scoring model is that there are far too many dimensions to be able to score with such a system.

Something I learned early on is that there are books (and movies, and music) which I love, but don't think are necessarily "good".

For instance, I thought that the movie "Inception" was good, but I didn't particularly enjoy it; the difference being that I appreciated the story, the acting, the cinematography, and the action, but it just wasn't for me.

As I mentioned in another thread on these forums, I appreciated China Mieville's "Perdido Street Station" because it was beautifully written, but I didn't enjoy it at all. I might not call it "bad", but I wouldn't call it "good" either.

I didn't finish the Game of Thrones series because I just didn't want to have to keep track of so many characters. It's not a bad series at all, I just have no ambition to finish it (ok, maybe one day...).

Lord of the Rings I would give a 3/5 to because there are extremely long stretches without any action (or plot advancement), and I just don't enjoy that pace of book.

I dunno if anything I posted made any sense, it's been a long day : (

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm also in the camp of "Write what you'd want to read". It's impossible to try and please an imaginary audience of readers before you release a book. You can write for them I think, meaning you should hold yourself to a certain standard but write the story for yourself first.

If you're not writing for yourself foremost, I'd question whether or not your writing with the level if honesty that's needed. Maybe it's just me but if I'm writing based on what I think another will want to read, its just not going to be very good. If I'm worried about what someone is going to think if I have a graphic torture scene or social prejudices abound in a particular world, then I'm not being honest in the telling of the story.

I forget who said it but... The one unforgivable sin in writing is writing without absolute honesty.

 

[Leif Notae]

There is a difference here, and I'll tell you what it is.

The stories written within genres are the literary dinosaurs. The threat to someone not evolving how they tell a story to this current generation is amazing. You can lose a thousand followers on one ill-timed tweet, what makes you think prodding someone to read UP TO 150 pages is going to make them think it is worth it?

The flaw is within the writer, not the reader. If someone walks up to you, hands you the book, and says "You are invalidated", that is a problem on you, not on them if you start placing blame on a reader. There are THOUSANDS of writers who cannot write their openings if someone held them hostage and threatened to touch their cats inappropriately if they couldn't get a hook out.

Look at the various books and blogs that teach structure, beginnings, character development... The list goes on. Look at how many books there are written by people (professionals and amateurs) that fail because they refuse to understand these concepts. It isn't an insult to you as an "artist", it is proven to do what every writer wants: SELL BOOKS

Keep in mind, you are looking at capturing readers outside your genre too. Those causal readers or people who might read your genre every once in a while. This is normal business sense. You can hold onto your regular customers, but you need to capture more if you intend to grow.

I've stated it before in my previous incarnation and I will say it again. The "A Song of Fire and Ice" was intended to be a trilogy. Fear, panic, and overdosing on booze and bacon made it a seven book series, and the fourth and fifth books are invalid info dumps. GoT is horrid in the fact it is a description orgy and a bloated tribute to The War of the Roses.

All these books could be half their size. They SHOULD be half their size. Heck, they should be a quarter of the size and concentrate on a sweeping arc of one character instead of this "Look at my world, but don't look AT it" mentality going on.

And since we're on HBO topics: Why do you think there are so many changes with how the books translate to the screen? Why do you think all movies made from books are so difficult to keep 100% true to the story? This applies because you have people who want instant involvement, instant stories, and keep me g-d entertained or I'll go cuddle up with Black Ops II.

These are a part of your target audience as well as outsiders. You think I'd enjoy slogging through 150 pages to get to a real start of a book? I'd rather go play some Fallout: New Vegas and generate some inspiration on my own at that point.

Execution is critical. This isn't about who likes you and it isn't a high school homecoming competition. If you are a published writer, you better g-d know how to write a story for the market and understand how the market works.

/rant

I love you all.

 

[Philip Overby]

I'm pretty sure Martin, Sanderson, and others mentioned in other threads know how to write a story for the market. They are successful writers. Are they good writers? THAT is what subjective.

This is a reader's market now. More people are clamoring for an audience than ever before with self-publishing. It's easy to get out there in the market. But there's more competition from other writers, video games, TV, and other instant gratification entertainment. Books aren't instant gratification entertainment. You have to spend time with them.

I completely understand your argument that writers need to understand they have loads of other mediums competing with them now. But it goes back to audience. There's an audience that has little patience for reading if it's not instantly gratifying. And it's growing. But there's an audience that picks up a 1,000 page doorstopper and understands that it's not going to be "BOOM BLAST POW!" the whole way through. Nor can it keep up that pace throughout.

I think saying book writers need to learn to write like screenwriters is like saying people who paint frescos should learn how to draw manga. They're two completely different mediums with (potentially) two different audiences . Do they overlap? Sure, sometimes. However, books are targeted at people who want to read and movies are targeted at people that probably don't want to read.

I'm agreeing with you on several points:
a. writers need to have a hook
b. writers need to have something that keeps the reader going with so many competing forms of entertainment
c. some of these books could deal with a bit of trimming

However, I disagree that:
a. books need to be instantly gratifying
b. Martin and others don't know how to write for the market. If they don't, then no one does.

 

[Leif Notae]

Ah, but they do not. They are writing for a NICHE (genre), not the MARKET. It was only through so many people clamoring about ASoFaI that HBO took it under its wings (with help from Martin's background in scriptwriting between Wild Cards and ASoFaI). This is why Sanderson can't get into a larger market because his stuff isn't written for a larger audience.

And if you don't believe books need to be instantly gratifying, then you might want to take a look at said market. Even agents are turning away mid level professional authors because they can't get an instantly gratifying book on the shelf. Do you know how many series I enjoyed that were scrapped now because of this?

You are debating on the writing and artistic level. I am debating on the money level. When it comes to a capitalist economy, the market (money) will always win out. You must do better, faster, and sooner than anyone else if you hope to be viable.

Please, everyone do yourself a favor (and this isn't intended to be a shot at anyone, this will help you out so much when the time comes for you to submit your stuff), look at the market. See what others are doing. Know what the professionals are going through. Not the established ones, the ones that can get away with anything, look at the ones scrumming in the ocean of crud out there to get noticed.

The market is more vicious than ever, but powerful fires (and swift hammer blows) breeds stronger iron, as it were.

 

[Mindfire]

There is a difference here, and I'll tell you what it is.

Yes, please enlighten us, oh Grand Poobah.

The stories written within genres are the literary dinosaurs. The threat to someone not evolving how they tell a story to this current generation is amazing. You can lose a thousand followers on one ill-timed tweet, what makes you think prodding someone to read UP TO 150 pages is going to make them think it is worth it?

Tweets and books are very different and people look for different things in them. Someone is generally going to be more patient with a book than with a tweet. Judging one by the standards of the other is a false equivocation.

The flaw is within the writer, not the reader. If someone walks up to you, hands you the book, and says "You are invalidated", that is a problem on you, not on them if you start placing blame on a reader.

Um, no. That's a problem with them, because they're the one being a rude jackass. And I can absolutely blame them for being a rude jackass.

There are THOUSANDS of writers who cannot write their openings if someone held them hostage and threatened to touch their cats inappropriately if they couldn't get a hook out.

Like who exactly? I'd like to see some examples of this phenomenon. Of course, if you did name some examples, you would immediately disprove your own statement. Because in order to give examples, you'd have to have heard of these authors. And if you've heard of the author, it means they're not languishing in obscurity. And if they're not languishing in obscurity, they've most likely been read and enjoyed by a substantial amount of people. (Or else they've been read and despised by a substantial amount of people, but authors who reach such depths of infamy are relatively rare.) Which means that those people thought the hook was adequate, or stuck with the book for reasons other than the hook, demonstrating it not to be as supremely important as you say.

Look at the various books and blogs that teach structure, beginnings, character development... The list goes on. Look at how many books there are written by people (professionals and amateurs) that fail because they refuse to understand these concepts. It isn't an insult to you as an "artist", it is proven to do what every writer wants: SELL BOOKS

Advice books aren't just guidelines to point you in the right direction. They are dogma that must be strictly adhered to. Because, as we all know, when it comes to producing thoughtful, imaginative fiction, formula, not creativity, is paramount. Anyone who says otherwise is a talentless hack. Obviously.

Keep in mind, you are looking at capturing readers outside your genre too. Those causal readers or people who might read your genre every once in a while. This is normal business sense. You can hold onto your regular
customers, but you need to capture more if you intend to grow.

This makes two assumptions:
1. That "growth", nebulously defined as that is, can only be achieved by reaching people who normally don't read inside your genre. As opposed to, you know, reaching a larger pool of people who do regularly read inside your genre. What exactly is the benefit to targeting people who don't read fantasy- with a fantasy book? Is there some kind of business magic I'm not privy to?

2. That the author's primary concern is "growth", rather than simply telling a heartfelt story. But that's just rubbish, filthy lucre takes precedence over "to thine own self be true" apparently.

I've stated it before in my previous incarnation and I will say it again. The "A Song of Fire and Ice" was intended to be a trilogy. Fear, panic, and overdosing on booze and bacon made it a seven book series, and the fourth and fifth books are invalid info dumps. GoT is horrid in the fact it is a description orgy and a bloated tribute to The War of the Roses.

Now, I'm no ASOIAF fan. They're not for me. Nor do I like overly descriptive books. Again, not for me. But it seems that there is a vast throng of people clamoring for Martins "bloated description orgy" of "invalid infodumps". So, either your assessment of his books strays into reductionist territory, or a whole lot of people are extremely stupid.

All these books could be half their size. They SHOULD be half their size. Heck, they should be a quarter of the size and concentrate on a sweeping arc of one character instead of this "Look at my world, but don't look AT it" mentality going on.

Could be? Most likely. Should be? That's a matter of opinion. And while everyone has a right to their opinion, once you try to foist your opinion onto us, we have the right to ask, "why?" Why is it that you are the expert and the tons of people who love Martin's work are in the wrong? Again, I'm personally not a fan. But I recognize authorial skill when I see it.

And since we're on HBO topics: Why do you think there are so many changes with how the books translate to the screen? Why do you think all movies made from books are so difficult to keep 100% true to the story? This applies because you have people who want instant involvement, instant stories, and keep me g-d entertained or I'll go cuddle up with Black Ops II.

Book-to-screen adaptations lose and gain things in the translation because books and film/television are different mediums with different strengths and weaknesses. Films can portray action more easily while books are better at portraying character thoughts, etc. This has nothing to do with people wanting "instant involvement". Do people generally have less patience when watching tv or a movie than when reading, sure. But they're not as twitchy as you seem to think. Because otherwise no one would sit through any movie that had a slow opening. King Kong (2005) made over half a billion dollars, and nothing happens in the first 2 hours.

These are a part of your target audience as well as outsiders. You think I'd enjoy slogging through 150 pages to get to a real start of a book? I'd rather go play some Fallout: New Vegas and generate some inspiration on my own at that point.

So, have you been criticizing the "audience" at large or talking about yourself this whole time? You do know that not every reader is like you, right?

Execution is critical.

The singular statement of this post

This isn't about who likes you and it isn't a high school homecoming competition.

Nope. Nothing like a high school homecoming competition at all. Whereas in high school homecoming competitions the goal is to be as popular as possible and garner as many votes as you can, in writing (according to you) is to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and sell as many books as you can. Completely different.

If you are a published writer, you better g-d know how to write a story for the market and understand how the market works.

/rant

Presumably if you're a published writer, you've already done something correctly, so this bit of advice is a bit redundant. If this was intended to be addressed to writers who wish to be published, this assertion still has the pesky problem of suggesting that the desires of "the market", which are about as fickle as Wall Street (or perhaps the other way around?), are a better barometer for what will create a worthwhile book than passion, wisdom, and personal integrity. Because bestsellers are NEVER passion projects obviously. They can only be the result of crassly calculating commercial appeal in the pursuit of financial gain.

I love you all.

Goody! No hard feelings?

 

[Mindfire]

Ah, but they do not. They are writing for a NICHE (genre), not the MARKET. It was only through so many people clamoring about ASoFaI that HBO took it under its wings (with help from Martin's background in scriptwriting between Wild Cards and ASoFaI). This is why Sanderson can't get into a larger market because his stuff isn't written for a larger audience.

And if you don't believe books need to be instantly gratifying, then you might want to take a look at said market. Even agents are turning away mid level professional authors because they can't get an instantly gratifying book on the shelf. Do you know how many series I enjoyed that were scrapped now because of this?

You are debating on the writing and artistic level. I am debating on the money level. When it comes to a capitalist economy, the market (money) will always win out. You must do better, faster, and sooner than anyone else if you hope to be viable.

Please, everyone do yourself a favor (and this isn't intended to be a shot at anyone, this will help you out so much when the time comes for you to submit your stuff), look at the market. See what others are doing. Know what the professionals are going through. Not the established ones, the ones that can get away with anything, look at the ones scrumming in the ocean of crud out there to get noticed.

The market is more vicious than ever, but powerful fires (and swift hammer blows) breeds stronger iron, as it were.

Okay, I'm about to drop a bomb on you. Are you ready for this? Here goes. Not everyone gets into writing for the money. Shocking, isn't it? Some people just want to put their prized idea out for the world to see (or maybe just for them and their close friends) and don't give a shazbot whether they actually make money from it. For such people, simply being published is a success. What's more, I notice that most of the people who become huge successes didn't set out to be so. One girl made millions almost overnight selling her books through Amazon. What was her goal? To save up enough money to buy a ticket to see the muppets. "The Market" is intrinsically chaotic. Unless you're an expert, attempting to predict it is a gamble at best and you can, fittingly enough, fall prey to the gambler's fallacy quite easily. It's better to simply write what's on your heart. And if the tide flows in your favor, hurrah! If not, things come in cycles. Keep writing and don't sweat it.

 

[Leif Notae]

I figured most people here ARE looking to be published. I figured most people here wanted to learn steps not only to write, but to write well enough in the fantasy niche to get a career started.

If you are writing for self enjoyment, more power to you. I am happy for you and we shall continue on disagreeing.

However, you cannot refute people are looking for both aspects. If they want to write well and write for the market, they must keep both in mind.

Pleasing people aside, that's what it is all about. Pleasing yourself and obtaining your goal, whether it be in personal writing or getting pubbed, self or otherwise.

This should be a venue that applies both concepts because they are intertwined. You write well, with structure and story in mind, and the market or niche will support it. You write for yourself without thought to structure or story and hear nothing else other than hobby writers telling you how good you are and fail at it, you could end up not writing any more.

Now then, since Mindfire and I still must continue these snipes in private, and I am old and tired... I will be going to bed.

Thanks everyone for a wonderful night.

 

[Mindfire]

I figured most people here ARE looking to be published. I figured most people here wanted to learn steps not only to write, but to write well enough in the fantasy niche to get a career started.

If you are writing for self enjoyment, more power to you. I am happy for you and we shall continue on disagreeing.

However, you cannot refute people are looking for both aspects. If they want to write well and write for the market, they must keep both in mind.

Pleasing people aside, that's what it is all about. Pleasing yourself and obtaining your goal, whether it be in personal writing or getting pubbed, self or otherwise.

This should be a venue that applies both concepts because they are intertwined. You write well, with structure and story in mind, and the market or niche will support it. You write for yourself without thought to structure or story and hear nothing else other than hobby writers telling you how good you are and fail at it, you could end up not writing any more.

Now then, since Mindfire and I still must continue these snipes in private, and I am old and tired... I will be going to bed.

Thanks everyone for a wonderful night.

If someone's goal is to make money through writing, then at some point yes, they're going to need business sense. But I don't see what that has to do with learning the actual skills needed to improve one's writing. Also, just because someone writes for themselves does not mean they give no thought to their writing. On the contrary, they ought to give it plenty of thought, as it's matter of personal importance. You seem to be thinking that writing "for yourself" = writing without any form of discipline, planning, or editorial review. Which is simply not the case.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'd like to note that writing what people will like isn't necessarily the same thing as writing what people think they want. I don't recall anyone demanding a novel about teenagers killing each other for sport, but The Hunger Games managed to capture the public imagination, and as silly as it was on a world-building level, there was a clear artistic vision to it. (This also ties into the thread about ideas versus execution, although only to a certain extent--I wouldn't call The Hunger Games a masterpiece of technical perfection, just powerful and heartfelt.)

 

[Penpilot]

So at the end of the day, what kind of writer are you? Are you trying to reach every single person to make them marvel at your work? Or do you accept that some people aren't going to like what you write and just hope that some people do like it?

One man's trash is another man's treasure. I think this can apply to stories too.

For me, I just write the story that's in my head and heart. Obviously, I want everyone to enjoy it and tell me how awesome it is, but that's not going to happen. It's like asking a room of people what the best flavor of ice cream is in the world. Some will agree on one while some will agree on another. The only sure thing is consensus is impossible.

I believe if I write a good story according to my standards, something I'd like to read, the people who give me a chance will enjoy what I have to offer. I realize some people just don't enjoy X no matter how good X is. X just doesn't jive with them. I know someone who doesn't understand what the deal is with fantasy and hates Lord of the Rings. Calls it silly.

We're all individuals, with different things that speak to us. I have many guilty pleasures, films/books, that are deeply flawed, but I enjoy them anyway. For example the movie Starship Toopers. I love that movie and have tremendous fun watching it. Some call it the biggest piece of trash ever made. *Shrug*.

On the other side, I just saw Life of Pi, didn't like something in the ending, and it spoiled the movie for me.


But any way to sum up, different writing appeals to different people. And no piece of writing will appeal to 100% of the people.

 

[tlbodine]

First, Starship Troopers is one of my favorite movies of all time. I once called into work just so I could watch it because I turned on the TV and it was about to start. (to be fair, I also hated that job and would take any excuse I could get, but still)

Second, isn't there a witticism out there some place about how if you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody?

I think writers walk an interesting line. Because on the one hand, yeah, the primary purpose of writing is communication. We write to move stories from our brainpan to other people's. If we didn't want to do that, we wouldn't bother writing the stories down -- we'd just have them in our heads and be satisfied with them. So it's impossible to write without being at least *slightly* conscious of your audience and its needs.

But on the other hand, I believe that if you're not writing from your heart, whatever you write is going to suck. You have to deeply care about what you're doing. You have to ask questions that mean something to you and find answers that say something about how you view the world. Otherwise, what's the point?

Then again, there's another trap in the "everything is subjective" line of thinking, and in the "I only write to please myself, and I know when it's good" thing. There's a very thin line between being confident and having authorial vision....and being deluded and narcissistic. I think it's important to decide on an external source - someone or something with an opinion you really trust - as a reference point to keep you grounded. That source could be the NYT or your wife, but it needs to be somebody you can trust to be 100% honest with you and say, "Dude, this sucks" and you can take a long, hard look at your story and realize, "...okay, yeah, it does."

 

[Graylorne]

And there's something else. When you're writing only for yourself, or even if you're self-published, you're free to do as you like.
Once you sign a contract with a regular (even small print) publisher, you have to take his wishes into account as well. Should your editor say 'I'd like more grit, more blood and gore, for that's what the reader wants', or 'this piece is no good, please take it out,' you can't just say No. That means you have to come to an agreement that satisfies both of you. If you want to go regular, better get used to that. And take it from me: it hurts.

 

[Amanita]

Pleasing everyone is impossible.
Trying to do so isn't a good idea either in my opinion.

I have plenty of well-known and respected books I don't like. The much-discussed "Song of Fire and Ice" is an example. I've bought book one and started to read but it simply didn't catch my interest and I wasn't motivated to read the entire series. So the way Martin started his book obviously didn't work out for me, but for many others it did.
I can't go and claim that Martin did something wrong and that's why I didn't like it, it was just a matter of personal taste. When reading a fantasy book, I prefer more fantastic elements and I tend to turn to historical fiction if I want stories set in earlier time without fantastic elements. In these I tend to care more because I know the peoples and places, maybe even some of the historical characters. Nobels fighting over the throne in an invented land however, why should I care who wins?
The Long Price series on the other hand is more or less about that as well, but it still caught my attention, mainly because of the unique magic system and the unusual cultural background though.

The more challenging a book's style is, the more fascinated I need to be by the content. I didn't really like the beginning of the first Harry Potter book either for example but it was an easy read and so I did finish it and started to like the later books more.
Harry Potter is an interesting example in other aspects too. It's among the books closest to "pleasing everyone" currently available in fantasy and has many fans among people who usually don't read this kind of thing or don't read at all. Still, it isn't liked by everyone. A majority of people on these forums actually openly dislike it. In Rowling's writing, there are many examples of things considered universally bad here on the forums. Still, would her books have been even more popular if she had read these rules beforehand and followed them? I have to admit, I doubt it.
Many of the other bestsellers are considered badly written here as well. Twilight which I've never read because it didn't interest me, Eragon for which I have to agree and so on.
Pleasing everyone is impossible but using easier language and structure seems to make it more likely that the book's going to become a bestseller. Everyone has to decide for themselves if they want to do this or not.

 

[BWFoster78]

Interesting thread that brings up some great questions:

1. What is the measure of goodness for an author? Is it a subjective valuation of his work as art or number of sales?

Depends on who you ask.

Some would say that GRRM is awesome because they love his work. Some would say he's awesome because of the success he's achieved. Others would claim he sucks regardless of the obviously deluded masses who clamor for his books because they don't find merit in what he has produced.

I'm not sure these questions are answerable on an objective basis.

2. How does one achieve success in the marketplace - by trying to determine what the market wants and filling that need or by producing the best work possible?

I tend to think the latter.

Look at the most popular works of the last few years - Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games. About the only commonality is that they all feature young protagonists. Thus, should we all feature only young protagonists? A Game of Thrones doesn't, and it's pretty popular at the moment. I was in B&N last night. There's a whole table full of just GoT stuff.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a magic formula for making it big. You need to create something readable and have a lot of luck.

3. Who should a writer write for - himself or the audience?

I see both sides of this one.

Can you truly know what your audience wants? Does the audience really want something in particular besides a good story? You know what you want and like, however. It's a much easier requirement to fill.

There's also the argument that, if you're writing inside a genre and readers of that genre have certain expectations, it seems silly to not meet those expectations.

And you have the thought that you'll produce a better work if you "love" the idea if the novel, but shouldn't a professional writer be able to make any story good, regardless of his personal opinions? Isn't that what being a professional means?

Great Discussion, Phil!

 

[Steerpike]

Then again, there's another trap in the "everything is subjective" line of thinking, and in the "I only write to please myself, and I know when it's good" thing. There's a very thin line between being confident and having authorial vision....and being deluded and narcissistic.

That's the difference between being an amateur and being of professional calibre. For example, in the Charles Bukowksi advice to writers, he said if you have to show the work to your mom, or your wife, or your girlfriend, do something else. On this particular bit of advice, I think he's on to something, if you think in terms of a professional writer. If you are going to be a "professional" at any thing, you have to develop the skill to produce quality work product on your own, and that necessarily entails the skill to recognize whether what you have is a quality product or not. I'm in the midst of a very lengthy patent infringement analysis for a client. I don't need to bring some other attorney in to decide whether mt legal conclusions are correct, even though there is some subjectivity in application of the law in this area. Likewise, I don't need a family member or another writer to tell me whether my fiction writing is good writing or not. Having such people can be helpful in a variety of ways, not the least of which is you can see another person's reaction to your work, but if you're going to write at a professional level you should be able to look at your own work and determine whether it sucks or not.

 

[BWFoster78]

That's the difference between being an amateur and being of professional calibre. For example, in the Charles Bukowksi advice to writers, he said if you have to show the work to your mom, or your wife, or your girlfriend, do something else. On this particular bit of advice, I think he's on to something, if you think in terms of a professional writer. If you are going to be a "professional" at any thing, you have to develop the skill to produce quality work product on your own, and that necessarily entails the skill to recognize whether what you have is a quality product or not. I'm in the midst of a very lengthy patent infringement analysis for a client. I don't need to bring some other attorney in to decide whether mt legal conclusions are correct, even though there is some subjectivity in application of the law in this area. Likewise, I don't need a family member or another writer to tell me whether my fiction writing is good writing or not. Having such people can be helpful in a variety of ways, not the least of which is you can see another person's reaction to your work, but if you're going to write at a professional level you should be able to look at your own work and determine whether it sucks or not.

I totally get what you're saying here, but I have a concern.

I have now read two self published books whose authors thought were ready (the phrasing on this sentence isn't turning out the way I intended. I don't mean to imply that any of the other self published works I read weren't ready); I don't think that any objective outside observer would evaluate those two books to be ready.

How is an author to know when he has reached a level where he can objectively evaluate the quality of his work?

EDIT: Another great question. This thread keeps on giving!