Thanks to everyone who has managed to stay with me through this series, and who have thrown in their two cents. I do think my points have been misunderstood on occasion. My whole focus is on knowing your audience. I’m not saying that using words like argent or lavender is pretentious. Far from it. I’m saying that some audiences will care and others won’t. I’m not indicating that one of those audiences is somehow better than the other, only that they are different. And I’m not saying that there isn’t a market for fine writing. I sure hope there is. I’m saying that different kinds of writing are directed toward different audiences. I’m not trying to indicate that one of those audiences is somehow superior to another. Anyway, here are my closing thoughts on the topic, though such thoughts are always subject to revision.
First, a writer doesn’t have to pick one audience to write for. They may write different things for different audiences. Jack London wrote work directed at the most literate of readers and also churned out potboilers to make money. And, a writer may in fact write for more than one audience at the same time. I think a lot of writers write for readers but also find they have to please themselves first. And, as several folks have pointed out, the readers we writers have the most experience with is ourselves, so if we’re writing for “readers” we often use ourselves as a model. We could easily have two audiences, which don’t have to be incompatible.
Second, writers can, over time, change the audience they are directing work toward. When I wrote Swords of Talera it really was for myself. Although in the back of my mind I had some thoughts about becoming a published author, I never gave a single thought to audience in the first go through of that book. I wrote it purely and simply because it was fun for me and I wanted to know what happened next. As a result, it rambled. When I rewrote it in an attempt to published it, I took out the rambling parts and tried to focus primarily on the story, because I felt that was what the reader wanted. My main audience was no longer myself, although I still wanted to please myself too.
When I wrote Cold in the Light, I tried to keep the “reader” in mind every step of the way as far as story and action went, but I personally adore beautiful language so I tried to keep the prose at a little bit of an elevated level, both for myself and for my writer peers. But I’ll tell you honestly that when I wrote that book I wanted readers, as many as I could possible get. (I didn’t get nearly as many as I wanted.)
Wings over Talera was a hybrid. I wrote the first chapters right after finishing “Swords,” and it was still written solely for myself. But after “Swords” was serialized and I went to finish “Wings,” I tried to keep in mind the readers from the magazine who had liked “Swords.” I wanted those same readers to be happy with the new book. I knew that readers outside of fantasy probably wouldn't care.
Witch of Talera was written, from the first, for readers, the same folks who had enjoyed the previous ones in the series. Of course, I wanted to please myself as well, but I wanted, needed perhaps, to hear people tell me they really liked that book. I’ll tell you, for me, it is truly a great feeling to hear someone say they spent some of their precious time reading a story that I’ve written, and that they liked it. And I’d much rather have that than have a critic discuss the deeper meaning of my prose. The most wondrous gift that any book could give me as a kid was to fire my imagination. And that’s exactly the gift I’d like to give to others.
So who do I write for? Not for critics at all. And not so much for peers, except for the fact that I am one of those peers. I have to please myself in any writing project, or else I can’t go forward. But because I really want to be “read,” I can’t say that I’m writing primarily for myself. My main audience is the kind of reader who likes to read the same stuff I do. And I’d like to have a lot of them. Unfortunately, many readers just aren’t going to like the genres I like so I limit my potential audience by that very fact. Any time you select an audience there are likely to be tradeoffs. In writing, I don’t think you can have it all.
So, some of you have already answered the question of who you write for, but if you’d like to share feel free. And even if you don’t want to tell me, I think you should always tell yourself.
-----
-----
Showing posts with label Writing to Impress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing to Impress. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Who are you Trying to Impress 3
I’ve had folks tell me over the years that they write just for themselves. Some of these individuals have even been in writing groups with me. The fact that they were in a writing group made me think they were not writing “strictly” for themselves. They were sharing stuff and taking comments. That, to me, means that they wanted their writing to connect with others. If someone were writing only for his or her own pleasure, how would anyone else ever find out? Except, perhaps, by accident.
There’s nothing at all wrong with writing for yourself. In fact, I believe this is the purest of all motives. I just can’t believe that most writing folks honestly don’t care whether they are read or not. If you’re putting it out in any public forum, I think you want someone to read it.
It hardly needs to be said that writing truly for one’s self will not earn you any money, except, perhaps, by the sheerest freak of an accident.
On the other hand, those who write for “readers” have the best chance to make truly huge sums of money. The lucky ones will be able to buy and sell the champion money makers from the other three types. But money is only one motive for those who write for readers, and often not the primary motive. These writers often say they want to “entertain.”
Writers who write to impress readers avoid fancy language. They use a simple, everyday vocabulary and mostly short sentences devoid of adornment. They keep the focus off their style and on the story. They may strive to be largely invisible to the reader. Although they don’t necessarily shirk character development, their characters often serve the needs of the story more clearly than the needs of the characters themselves. This often means that the characters are sketched more broadly than in fiction directed toward critics or other writers. These writers also make strong use of action and often utilize cliffhangers.
Again, there is nothing wrong with writing for readers. Some might even say this is the primary audience toward which all writing should be directed.
For my next, and final post in this series, I’ll make some closing comments concerning the four types of audiences, and will tell you how I feel about them. And will reveal who I write for.
-----
-----
There’s nothing at all wrong with writing for yourself. In fact, I believe this is the purest of all motives. I just can’t believe that most writing folks honestly don’t care whether they are read or not. If you’re putting it out in any public forum, I think you want someone to read it.
It hardly needs to be said that writing truly for one’s self will not earn you any money, except, perhaps, by the sheerest freak of an accident.
On the other hand, those who write for “readers” have the best chance to make truly huge sums of money. The lucky ones will be able to buy and sell the champion money makers from the other three types. But money is only one motive for those who write for readers, and often not the primary motive. These writers often say they want to “entertain.”
Writers who write to impress readers avoid fancy language. They use a simple, everyday vocabulary and mostly short sentences devoid of adornment. They keep the focus off their style and on the story. They may strive to be largely invisible to the reader. Although they don’t necessarily shirk character development, their characters often serve the needs of the story more clearly than the needs of the characters themselves. This often means that the characters are sketched more broadly than in fiction directed toward critics or other writers. These writers also make strong use of action and often utilize cliffhangers.
Again, there is nothing wrong with writing for readers. Some might even say this is the primary audience toward which all writing should be directed.
For my next, and final post in this series, I’ll make some closing comments concerning the four types of audiences, and will tell you how I feel about them. And will reveal who I write for.
-----
-----
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Who are you Trying to Impress 2
Last post, I argued that some writers strive to impress the critics. Other writers write primarily to impress their peers. In practice, I see this most often in writers who join critique groups populated by other authors. I’ve been in a few myself.
All writers want to impress their chosen “audience,” and I use “impress” on purpose because it’s a strong word that calls attention to itself. Whatever audience we choose, we want the respect of that audience. We want them to say, “job well done.” For the critique group writer, the first audience is a group of other writers. There is nothing wrong with this, of course. Most writers are also readers themselves so they can offer informed feedback on two fronts. However, it’s clear in my experience that writers typically judge fiction differently than do readers who don’t write.
What characterizes the work of writers who write to impress their peers? One, their prose is usually lucid and shows good grammar. There is often the modest use of metaphorical and poetic prose. These writers tend to use standard style for punctuation and dialogue. They don’t want their “format” to get in the way of communicating with the reader.
Writers who write for their peers also tend to insert self-referential elements into their work. They slip in references to other writers and to great works of fiction (which is not uncommon among the “write-for-critics” group, as well). They want to appear erudite for an educated and informed audience.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with writing for other writers. It can bring you acclaim, and sometimes wads of cash. Your work may not be taught in literature classes of the future, but it won’t be something disdained by those who teach such classes. It may not, however, give you the “common touch” that often marks the mega-selling author. And it won’t give you the widest possible audience.
Our next post will take us to those who write only for themselves.
P.S. I’d like to thank Writtenwyrdd (D. Lynn Frazier) for awarding me the “Kreativ Blogger” award. Much appreciated. There is a meme attached and I will get around to that after my current series of posts runs its course. Thanks again!
Also, the new Illuminata is out, with an expansion on a blog post I did called “Word Count Ruthlessness.” There’s plenty of other good stuff in there too. You can download the issue for free at the link. Look for Volume 7, Issue 1.
-----
-----
All writers want to impress their chosen “audience,” and I use “impress” on purpose because it’s a strong word that calls attention to itself. Whatever audience we choose, we want the respect of that audience. We want them to say, “job well done.” For the critique group writer, the first audience is a group of other writers. There is nothing wrong with this, of course. Most writers are also readers themselves so they can offer informed feedback on two fronts. However, it’s clear in my experience that writers typically judge fiction differently than do readers who don’t write.
What characterizes the work of writers who write to impress their peers? One, their prose is usually lucid and shows good grammar. There is often the modest use of metaphorical and poetic prose. These writers tend to use standard style for punctuation and dialogue. They don’t want their “format” to get in the way of communicating with the reader.
Writers who write for their peers also tend to insert self-referential elements into their work. They slip in references to other writers and to great works of fiction (which is not uncommon among the “write-for-critics” group, as well). They want to appear erudite for an educated and informed audience.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with writing for other writers. It can bring you acclaim, and sometimes wads of cash. Your work may not be taught in literature classes of the future, but it won’t be something disdained by those who teach such classes. It may not, however, give you the “common touch” that often marks the mega-selling author. And it won’t give you the widest possible audience.
Our next post will take us to those who write only for themselves.
P.S. I’d like to thank Writtenwyrdd (D. Lynn Frazier) for awarding me the “Kreativ Blogger” award. Much appreciated. There is a meme attached and I will get around to that after my current series of posts runs its course. Thanks again!
Also, the new Illuminata is out, with an expansion on a blog post I did called “Word Count Ruthlessness.” There’s plenty of other good stuff in there too. You can download the issue for free at the link. Look for Volume 7, Issue 1.
-----
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)