The Sword and Laser discussion

I like this part of the interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbasly...

Hmm, contrast that with what Lee Child quoted in the intro to the first Jack Reacher novel (Killing Floor):

"Dickens didn't write what people wanted. Dickens wanted what people wanted." -- G. K. Chesterton

I agree to Martin's statement - the author is not bound, in any way, to change his story for his readers.

But ultimately, it depends on the writer - those writing because they want to write must go on writing as they please, those wishing to be popular must write as their targeted readers please.

Lit Bug wrote: "I agree to Martin's statement - the author is not bound, in any way, to change his story for his readers.

But ultimately, it depends on the writer - those writing because they want to write must g..."

I don't know that I can agree with that last. A writer being true to their own voice should ultimately be more popular than one pandering to anticipated demands, all other things being equal.

I am not sure about that part - an unyielding author might not be popular and vice-versa, is it not possible?

Dickens definitely did respond to his readers desires, but that was part of the medium in which he published his works. The chapter installments meant he would discover which characters were the most popular and would normally raise their status and importance in the novel if he could.

I think, like all things in life, there has to be a balance. A balance between an author sticking to what they want to write and what the readers want.

After all, the author is selling to the reader. It would behoove them to try to deliver a satisfying result to their audience. But at the same time, sometimes author's just love to have it opposite of readers expectations and want to write what they would read.

It really depends on how much the readers wants and expects changed. For instance, if the author wanted to write a strong female protagonist and the readers said that it should be a male protagonist. Well that would be an immediate no from the author.

But if say the readers mention that the female protagonist is annoying and should display some compassion instead. Then that's something the author could take into consideration while writing the manuscript.

It really depends on each unique circumstance of the book in question and what the audience is expecting of the author. Ideally, both would find a compromise and settle on the best of both worlds. But by default, I would stick with the author being mostly unyielding if they cannot come to an agreement.

Not that every author is right per sé, but it does help to filter out who sells and who doesn't.

All I meant was that there have been authors who wrote what they wanted, not what their readers wanted. Hardy's Jude the Obscure, for instance. His readers were furious, but today his work is considered a landmark in certain respects. Same goes for D. H. Lawrence.

The question about adhering to the readers' requests is not in matters of style, but of content - sociological, ideological content. I have noticed three kinds of authors - those unwilling to bend (whose work is often disregarded, or vilified, sometimes appreciated by a niche reader), those who simply want to be popular and churn out what the readers want (sometimes, it is also because of financial issues - Dickens did that, he wrote what his readers wanted, being impoverished) and those who try to manage a balance between the two (they, too, often regret having to change their original draft).

Tips on writing/narration/world-building/character delineation is a different matter, unlike ideological issues - often readers will not accept easily something that goes beyond their beliefs or morality.

It is there that the author has to make the most difficult choice.

Lit Bug wrote: "All I meant was that there have been authors who wrote what they wanted, not what their readers wanted. Hardy's Jude the Obscure, for instance. His readers were furious, but today his work is considered a landmark in certain respects. Same goes for D. H. Lawrence."

And then you have Arthur Conan Doyle who killed Sherlock Holmes so he could write things like Rodney Stone and The Doings of Raffles Haw before readers hounded him to bring Holmes back to life. Or H.G. Wells who kept trying to break away from science fiction with social novels like Ann Veronica.

Ah yes - you're right. Sometimes labeling is a big burden. Look at poor Rowling. No matter what she writes, we're gonna remember her for Harry Potter Series.

From Arthur Conan Doyle's autobiography:

"Some have thought there was a falling off in the stories, and the criticism was neatly expressed by a Cornish boatman who said to me, "I think, sir, when Holmes fell over that cliff, he may not have killed himself, but all the same he was never quite the same man afterwards."

--Memories and Adventures

Lit Bug wrote: "I am not sure about that part - an unyielding author might not be popular and vice-versa, is it not possible?"

Of course it's possible. Your wording was key, though:

those wishing to be popular must write as their targeted readers please.

That statement I disagree with.

Serendi wrote: "From Arthur Conan Doyle's autobiography:

"Some have thought there was a falling off in the stories, and the criticism was neatly expressed by a Cornish boatman who said to me, "I think, sir, when ..."

Doyle would say that, though.

Well, I meant those kind of people who write only to be popular, and who'll write any kind of stuff in order to be popular, whatever they find to be in fashion at the present.

I don't talk of it as a thumbrule - everyone wants to be well-respected, but many are not willing to write any trash simply because as a genre it is popular.

Writers doing the most original, groundbreaking work always take the biggest risk - because their audience has to discover them. The books have to fall into the right hands and the people who encounter them (by luck, often) will win other readers by sheer enthusiasm.

It's a 'survival' instinct with humans NOT to feel comfortable with things that are different, and any attempt to strike out with radical originality has to buck this trend.

TIME is needed to overcome this - and if you look at certain trendsetting authors and when their first books were printed vs. WHEN they became recognized, there can be a ten year or more growth curve (you would be amazed if I named names - but the copyright dates on the books will graphically demonstrate this). Quite a few household names in F and SF took ten or more years to 'make it.'

If an author is lucky enough to get some critical acclaim, early on (good professional reviews) this helps the publisher keep the books in print through the start up.

Some authors are not so lucky - and a lot of time out of print/with the niche readers continuing to speak up finally wins through, but as many more fall through the cracks.

I am FINALLY seeing mentions of Matthew Woodring Stover's Caine series happening, after years of obscurity this vividly original series is getting what it deserves. I am also seeing Rosemary Kirstein's Steerswoman series mentioned here and there, but it is still hard to get and out of print (unless something's changed recently while I was not looking).

Computerized tracking and bottom lines have robbed so many books the chance to find their audience, as online buying has started a trend towards only buying what you know of already. Browsing is not as prevalent as it once was.

More derivative books 'fast track' the numbers because they already have a ready audience, they don't have to create one.

Writers will write what they have TIME to write, and if they are successful, that means they will be writing more because they won't have to hold a day job.

It's the readers who don't 'follow the crowd' who make the difference with original works of any kind. I liked the final line of the movie Ratatouie (which was themed on critics and reviewers and maverick genius) - that every new idea or genius invention NEEDED FRIENDS. And that is what cuts the mustard in the end, whether a writer can strike off on their own path and sustain their individuality in the marketplace.

Lit Bug wrote: "Ah yes - you're right. Sometimes labeling is a big burden. Look at poor Rowling. No matter what she writes, we're gonna remember her for Harry Potter Series."

Hmmm I'm not going to say Poor Rowling here because if you write something that popular that becomes part of the pop culture lexicon and fabric the way she did then she accomplished what every author wants...to be read and remembered. Most authors would kill to have written something that loved even or especially if it was their legacy.

Her new books will sell because her name is attached and this will give her the opportunity to have another classic and expand her legacy...what she does with it is up to her but she is forever the author of one of the most successful series in the history of the planet. How many authors would perform sacrificial ceremonies just to make the best seller list? Now everything she touches will end up there because of her HP legacy.

Well, yes, which is why she wrote under a pseudonym, which didn't work out because someone in her lawyers' office couldn't resist telling his wife's best friend, who couldn't resist tweeting about it to someone who had the means to check it out.

Rowling made an amazing accomplishment, agreed. Still, she'd like to be able to be a low-profile writer again, and it was wrested from her. Frustrating at the very least.

Even if I wrote something so great as HP, I'd not want that to overshadow the rest of my work, being always judged by that standard - that's what I meant by poor Rowling :)

Of course it's a democracy and like in all good democracies, you either play to the base and perhaps remain in office longer than you should, or your lead—if you do so, you may fail and fall flat on your face, but there's also hope that you'll succeed because others followed you: see authors who weren't really successful in their day, only later to become very popular. :P

Janny wrote: "Writers doing the most original, groundbreaking work always take the biggest risk - because their audience has to discover them...."

Insightful comments, Janny. Kudos.

Lit Bug wrote: "Even if I wrote something so great as HP, I'd not want that to overshadow the rest of my work, being always judged by that standard - that's what I meant by poor Rowling :)"

Gad I thought you were talking about HP Lovecraft there at the beginning. A perfect example of someone who stuck to his artistic vision despite what publishers wanted and had to wait decades after his death before anyone really noticed, BTW.

But then again that Image of Harry Potter Lovecraft would be an entertaining one and completely derivative two ways, no?

"What did you do in class today Harry?"

"We communed with Yog-Sothoth. Did you know he is the Key and the Gate? Goyle went a bit crazy but he was always nutty. By the way, is it me or does Hermione have in Innsmouth look?"

Nathan wrote: "Lit Bug wrote: "Even if I wrote something so great as HP, I'd not want that to overshadow the rest of my work, being always judged by that standard - that's what I meant by poor Rowling :)"

Gad I ..."

That's going to make me look like dumb, Nathan, because I haven't read Lovecraft at all :( But those who have must have grasped your comic timing in HP meets HP aka Harry Potter Lovecraft! :D

Lit Bug wrote: "Nathan wrote: "Lit Bug wrote: "Even if I wrote something so great as HP, I'd not want that to overshadow the rest of my work, being always judged by that standard - that's what I meant by poor Rowl..."

I really like their brown sauce.

/wait wat?