Of readers and writers, that is the question

[Lirineth]

Basically (as far as I’m concerned) it’s all about human relations. I would say it starts with parents and their children and then goes on forever, and in every possible direction with as many variants, twists and turns as anybody could imagine or wish for.

So what about the relationship between writer and reader/reader and writer?

Should we see it through the couple standard, that is to say, you need two to tango?

Or should it be more in the region of: this is not a democracy, this is a monarchy. The problem here is trying to decide who is the sovereign and who the subject.

And then we have the question of: up to what point, if any, are readers entitled to ask, hope, wish for and/or expect that their favourite authors keep on writing about the readers favourite characters even if the authors are not so keen about it.

Bearing in mind that every author (secretly and not so secretly) wants to be published and the more issues the merrier, that means that there will be a proportional amount of readers to buy those books, which in turn will make the author wealthier, ergo happier. Now, unlike the person that manufactures cereals, authors and readers are almost in a one on one basis. Write/print/buy, which bring the closeness to a couple’s level (50/50), Which leaves us with the question who has the right to wear the crown in this kingdom, unless of course it’s a democracy. Which of course if this is the case, what should we vote for? Leave things as they are and every author/reader to its own? Or perhaps a more friendly compromising attitude would be the solution. Problem being is who will be doing the friendly and who the compromising.

As you can see, its all about relationships, so one of my questions I think would be, how much do authors care about what the readers like and want? The other could be how do we juggle the authors need for his space to be creative and the commitment towards his public wishes? Because it has happened too many times that somebody goes and writes a fabulous book that sells like hot buns, then whilst everybody is still clapping and praising, the author goes and writes something else that of course nobody reads, but in the meantime the clappers and prairsers are begging for more of the first. So what is the solution to this? Any ideas?

 

[Urien]

I'd love to help out, but the post reads like the first paragraph has been deleted.

"Of reader and writers" is not a question. It's a title

Sorry for being dumb, but what are you asking???

 

[HoopyFrood]

Asking about the relationship between authors and readers, I believe, and how much they depend on one another. Do readers have any control over an author, is the author in the grip of the masses and has to bend to the tyranny of the masses (heh), or is an author in complete control and can leave the masses begging for more, make them claw at the author's door for more stories about their favourite characters. That's what I think it's about anyway.

 

[jackokent]

I sometimes wonder if the questions about how much writers care about what readers want has it parrallels in music. Often artists get to hate thier popular stuff, but it sells. When they get older, more mature they can often become involved with thier own projects that they always wanted to do. These projects are often rejected by the fans but it's thier stuff so it's doesn't matter to them. Take Bowie for instance. I can't stand his later stuff he it's his favorite.

Often writing the comercial stuff is the springboard to funding your own personal exploration, the stuff you really wanted to produce irrespective of the fans. If the readers like it all the better.

 

[Locksmith]

There are two distinct issues here, I think. One is the close link/bond between the author and the reader when you're reading a book.

I think, though, that you're driving at the motivations of authors in writing new books. I sometimes wonder whether the difference is between authors who stick to principles and write what they think will be the best next project and those who finally make the commercial break-through and are determined to milk it for all it's worth. I think that's the same as Jacko's music parallel.

A reasonable number of fantasy authors seem to work on the "milk-the-audience" principle: e.g. Jordan, Feist, Martin(?). I'm not necessarily knocking that - they've put in a lot of effort to write the first successful book - but when even your hardcore fans are asking you to finish the series and you produce a prequel, you've got to wonder if the author is simply looking to cash in. But, hey, it's a business, right? If people don't like where the author is going, they can simply stop buying the books. On the other hand, Stephen King is a great example, IMO, of someone who has produced large numbers of different books (not series, different characters) with great success and has developed a core fan base.

 

[BookStop]

WHile there are authors who only write for themselves, and authors who only write to make a buck, I think the successful authors, the timeless authors, maintain a balancing act somewhere in between. Of course authors want to make money, but they also have stories to tell. Finding a way to do both is difficult, but authors who can hold on to the spotlight over time, keeping thier readers happy, are quickly forgiven when they release 'an only for themselves' piece. They are also more likely to be accepted as artists with something new and exciting if they've had some successes with thier audience in the past.

 

[Sibeling]

I read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's biography and he said that he was really tired of Sherlock Holmes, but the readers demanded more stories about the great detective, so he had to write the stories even though he had run out of ideas and the stories were not as good as the first ones. So, of course, there is some pressure form the readers because they want to get more books of the same kind with the characters they have grown to like.

If a writer wants to be commercially successful, s/he has to mind the wishes of the readers.

 

[steve12553]

Because it has happened too many times that somebody goes and writes a fabulous book that sells like hot buns, then whilst everybody is still clapping and praising, the author goes and writes something else that of course nobody reads, but in the meantime the clappers and prairsers are begging for more of the first. So what is the solution to this? Any ideas?

There may not be a solution. A writer obviously has to balance between the work that will keep him(or her) solvent and able to write and the work they one is inspired to write.
I can't speak for other readers because I don't understand, necessarily, what drives other readers. Myself, I will read a series if it's good but I don't mind being challenged to discover a new world every time I pick up a new book to read. Many of my favorite characters, unfortunately, sprang from authors who died years ago. I have no expectation of series any more. I'll read what is written and hopefully be surprised.

 

[chrispenycate]

I reinforce the music parallel (even stronger for a touring musician, as there there is continuous feedback. if only from a minority of the public, as against the punctual reaction of readers; you only get to criticise a finished product) and make the unsubstanciated statement that it holds for any creative artform. Even writing television scripts. where the commercial pressure to produce exactly what is expected is extreme, lack of creativity can kill off exactly what the creativity restrictors (be they members of the public or people who think they know what the public require) were paying for.
And those people: publishers, producers, agents, distributors - who decide (and explain to the artist) what is commercially viable, and what unsalable, (and are frequently wrong, particularly in the music business I inhabit) should be put into the equation, too. You can't buy a book by your favorite author if it's never printed (or electronic equivalent) or if you don't know that it exists. If it's not in the line of his previous offerings you might hate it or love it, assuming you can find it. If publishers won't risk it, you'll ignore its very existance. Another layer of commercial control over expression.
Of course, in environments where multiple creative talents must interreact, and where large sums of money are involved (I'm thinking particularly cinema, but could come up with other choices) the tensions can become destructive, both at an individual level and that of the project. The writer (unless doing scripts) is generally insulated from such extremes.
Dare I say that the tension created by balancing commercial and creative needs is part of the pressure forcing the perfectionism of the author to the finest possible compromise between producing endless, watered down sequels of successful books and incomprehensible, over-complicated egostroking?

 

[K. Riehl]

Writing to the orginal question on the thread Lois Bujold addresses just this question in her essay "When World Views Collide"

Here's the link:When World-Views Collide