# What's More Important: The Reader or The Author?



## hollaatmegan (Aug 6, 2014)

I face this problem a lot when I'm writing: I write the way I like and what I think will most effectively display my story. And on here, that seems to be the general mantra: Write for yourself! Haters are gonna hate!

Which is totally positive and I really appreciate that because I struggle with how to write a lot, though I feel like I've developed my own voice pretty nicely over the years.

But! I had this brilliant English teacher who really pushed us to be very conscious of the audience when writing. Your target audience, and what you think the readers will want, and that's logical, right? Especially if you want your work to get somewhere. 

But not selling out is a giant struggle. Like. What's the balance between what you want and what an audience wants?


----------



## Bishop (Aug 6, 2014)

hollaatmegan said:


> What's the balance between what you want and what an audience wants?



Depends on each person. 

Everyone has their price. That's the old saying right? Some people have the intrinsic idea of an 'artistic integrity' that cannot be broken, and if you don't like their story, then it's your problem. The opposite end of the spectrum is those who literally go in thinking "What kind of story sells? Teen vampires. Awesome, cool, I'll write the next twilight!" and have no concern for their own creativity, just looking for a paycheck.

I honestly feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. I write what I want, but if I a publisher said to me, "Great! We just want you to change X, as it appeals to our audience a little more," I'd be pretty likely to change X depending on how much it changes my tale. I suppose it's a sliding scale, where I weigh how much I want my story to be exactly how I imagined it and how much I would want to sell it.

Either way, publication is a Future Bishop problem. Present Bishop is just writing for himself, just practicing the craft and getting a few novels under his belt in order to get good enough that one day Future Bishop can deal what that publishing problem.

Bottom line? I think it's something you need to decide for yourself, something every writer needs to decide for themselves. Because it's your writing.


----------



## escorial (Aug 6, 2014)

if you write what you think readers want than job done..if you write what you want..job done


----------



## Terry D (Aug 6, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with researching a market and writing to that market in an effort to make a buck. Writing isn't a sacred calling, it's an art and a craft. You can create art while pleasing your audience. Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for hire (most of his work was done for pay and with input from his employers, like most other Renascence artists). Even if art isn't your primary goal, there's still nothing wrong with targeting your work to an audience (that's genre writing). Happily it's usually pretty easy to find a genre you enjoy, and in which you would enjoy writing.

That covers the question of choosing a genre (for the purposes of this post I'm considering 'mainstream' and 'literary' as genres). If you are talking about your writing style, I view the topic a bit differently. I think a writer's first responsibility, when choosing the words he puts on paper and the way he chooses to order them, is to connect with that reader. To do that, in my opinion, s/he needs to be clear, honest, and entertaining. I'm not impressed with writers who use arcane structure, overblown prose, or quirky SPaG. Just tell me the damned story. You're probably not smarter than your average reader, so there's no point in trying to sound like you are. As I mentioned in another thread, the relationship between a writer and a reader is like a romantic relationship; always healthier when there is clear communication and mutual respect.


----------



## hollaatmegan (Aug 6, 2014)

Terry D said:


> As I mentioned in another thread, the relationship between a writer and a reader is like a romantic relationship; always healthier when there is clear communication and mutual respect.



Ooh! I like that. Very nice way to put it.


----------



## Plasticweld (Aug 6, 2014)

Terry D said:


> You're probably not smarter than your average reader, so there's no point in trying to sound like you are.



Terry that is a nice little gem of wisdom!


----------



## Nickleby (Aug 6, 2014)

The question needs to be more specific. If I had to resolve this basic dichotomy, I'd say neither is more important than the other. There's no story without the author, it's true, but there's no point if nobody else ever reads it. Prose is a monologue you create. The only true response happens inside the reader's head. They can talk about how a story made them feel, they can tell you whether they liked it, but they can't share the experience of reading it with anyone else. Each reader, and the writer as well, has a different experience with a piece of prose.

Your teacher was right, you should consider your audience. It's possible to write for yourself, so that you are your own audience, and readers seem to sense when that happens. You can pick an audience for the sake of maximizing sales, and readers will sense that as well. The more important part of those relationships is left as an exercise for the reader.


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 6, 2014)

Writing for your audience matters more for some genres than others. If you want to write persuasive essays, you had bettered know who you are persuading and zero in on them. If you want to write artistic poetry, worrying about your audience may be counterproductive.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 6, 2014)

I look at it like I'm writing the kind of stories I wish someone else had already written so I could read them. My target audience is everyone who enjoys the kind of stories I do. I hope a few people out there like my stories, but if some don't then that's okay. For me, being passionate about what I'm writing takes priority over whatever money might (or might not) be made from it.


----------



## helium (Aug 7, 2014)

Write what you want. Not everyone writes, and many write badly. My conclusion is that the writer should write something interesting.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 7, 2014)

I don't think it's ever black and white, at least for anyone who wants to publish (even if not for pay). I could write a story based on what's currently popular and enjoy the writing just as much as if I thought up some idea regardless of what was popular. I may have more fun with the stories I write strictly "on my own", but for me, the challenge of writing anything well is enough (although I must admit my frustration levels with romance tend to peak).


----------



## Morkonan (Aug 7, 2014)

hollaatmegan said:


> ... What's the balance between what you want and what an audience wants?



Balance?

First of all, all "writers" don't fall under the same definition. The act of writing is "purposeful." If you only write for yourself, then who cares? What's the point of laying down some lines if you're the only one that will ever read them? Sure, go ahead and write, if you find it cathartic. But, if you're trying to reach other people with your writing, that's a completely different "purpose", isn't it?

If you're writing in an attempt to communicate with others, then that is your purpose. If one is determined not to fulfill that purpose, but undertakes it anyway, then they're a_ compulsory masochistic exhibitionist_, not a writer. 

Writing for the Reader doesn't have a whole lot to do with money. Anyone who wants to get rich should look elsewhere for monetary gain, considering that only a fortunate few writers actually end up that way. But, if you don't actually want to work for a living, writing isn't a bad choice of occupations. 

Look.. The bottom-line is that if you aren't writing for your Readers, then you're just not doing "writing" in my opinion. There is no reason at all why your purpose for writing has to be at odds with the purpose of communicating to the Reader. None. What it does mean is that you will have to do some small amount of "work", expend some modicum of "effort", in order to achieve that goal.

In my opinion, there's no such thing as a "necessary" balance. A true writer's intent and purpose serves the Reader at the same time that it serves the desires of the Writer. There's nothing to "balance", here.


----------



## count58 (Aug 7, 2014)

It's okay to write what you want especially if you write good ones.
Readers will follow and like your story. 
If you have a great story ... you get a lot of readers
especially when they say good things about it.
Then you can say you are indeed a good author.
Next is to write more interesting stories.


----------



## Sam (Aug 7, 2014)

> But! I had this brilliant English teacher who really pushed us to be very conscious of the audience when writing. Your target audience, and what you think the readers will want, and that's logical, right? Especially if you want your work to get somewhere.



What you should keep in mind is that your English teacher may have never written a story in his/her life, let alone a novel, and therefore was not the most qualified person to speak about the writing process. I've had e-mails from English teachers that made me wonder how they managed to get into college to begin with. 

The people you should take advice from on this matter are writers. They're the ones with hands-on experience.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 7, 2014)

^This. Especially when said advice comes from someone like Sam who has a few published novels under his belt.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 7, 2014)

hollaatmegan said:


> But! I had this brilliant English teacher who really pushed us to be very conscious of the audience when writing. Your target audience, and what you think the readers will want, and that's logical, right? Especially if you want your work to get somewhere.



There are different kinds of audiences, too.

There's the obvious _reader_, the everyman (or everywoman) who may pick up your work from the shelf.

But—assuming you're aiming for publication—before you reach them, you'll have to satisfy a different audience: agents and editors.

As an audience, these industry professionals are the hardest to please. It definitely helps to know what they're looking for. So, in that case, I say being conscious of your audience is very important.

But, as far as the writer and the everyday reader goes? I say the author should focus, first and foremost, on satisfying their own writerly desires. 

Trying to satisfy readers is like trying to hit a moving target. Better to satisfy yourself and let the readers gravitate toward your individual style on their own.

This way, you gain fans by writing what you love, instead of gaining fans by writing what _everyone else_ loves. :encouragement:


----------



## aj47 (Aug 7, 2014)

This question can only be answered by you, for you.  I write for me but with the idea that I'm communicating with someone and so I want to do it well enough that they enjoy reading through to the end and that they understand my story.


----------



## Cran (Aug 7, 2014)

hollaatmegan said:


> I face this problem a lot when I'm writing: I write the way I like and what I think will most effectively display my story. And on here, that seems to be the general mantra: Write for yourself! Haters are gonna hate!
> 
> Which is totally positive and I really appreciate that because I struggle with how to write a lot, though I feel like I've developed my own voice pretty nicely over the years.
> 
> ...


Beyond the basics, it's pretty much as others have said - it depends on what sort of writing, and what sort of writer. 

But not selling out is a giant struggle. Like. = Forget virtually every form of Non Fiction; it's not for you. You want to write novels, fiction, mind trips. If you're good at it, you'll gain a readership; if you're great at it, you'll stretch the envelope and be added to The Names.*
_
*Which Names, of course, depends on which genres you pursue - they all have Names to look up to. _


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 7, 2014)

Just write for who you want pretty much. I would very much like to live in a nice house and be very pretentious from my writing, but I always have an image of me as an old man looking back and regretting not living life and doing what I want and I know I would regret it if I made it writing stuff I hated. But then again, I would be in a nice house and my wife and children would be financially secure and happy. So, I will just go for whichever comes up first. Selling-out or being good and still rich. Massive chance of both of those things happening


----------



## spartan928 (Aug 7, 2014)

Your an audience right? And how many audiences are there? Millions upon millions. Morkonon said it best, but I'll add this thought. Forget about the notion of "writing to an audience". I believe success is creating an audience through your work, not the other way around. Writing a best-seller for a supposed ready-made audience is like spearing a hummingbird with a toothpick. Would be nice, but how many people actually succeed? That is, "sell out" and make fat stacks by writing fiction they don't relate do, don't care about, or worse, hate? If you love the fiction you write, there are bound to be others that will too.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 7, 2014)

The English teacher was teaching you how to get through exams. Written examinations don't give you the time to go through phases of drafting, editing and the like; they require to produce the good stuff fast. So, you have to have your audience immediately in mind.

You don't have to do that when focusing on a story. You should have your desired readership as a priority at some point in the process between the first word and the story's publication, but when, how and how often you focus on who you're writing for is entirely up to you.


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 7, 2014)

I want to tell you a story. How do I do so? What do I need to get you to listen?


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Aug 7, 2014)

Definitely the reader, not to say the writer isn't important but there are things that can be horribly written and huge (We all know what I'm referring to) and other things that can be well written and be totally polarizing.  People with good taste can be into poorly written things with an intriguing story. So and so forth, it all just depends on what you pull out of the book.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 8, 2014)

I don't get equating writing for readers with "selling out". When I told stories to my son, I made them stories he would enjoy, that were age appropriate - that was 'selling out'? The fact that I enjoyed telling them, that I took care in telling them - that doesn't count? As Terry pointed out, Michelangelo was an artist for hire. The Sistine Chapel is therefore an example of "selling out"? Especially since he didn't enjoy painting, didn't want to work on the Chapel at all, and wanted, instead, to be working on the Pope's tomb.

I should be such a sell out!


----------



## Sam (Aug 8, 2014)

It's not writing for readers that's selling out; it's writing cookie-cutter dross for readers that's selling out. 

There's a difference.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 8, 2014)

> It's not writing for readers that's selling out; it's writing cookie-cutter dross for readers that's selling out.



I view selling out, in terms of writing, as when a writer only writes what he/she needs to write in order to make the money he/she wants to make. This usually leads to much lower standards, and can be exemplified by most recent YA series, like Landy's _Skulduggery Pleasant_ books.


----------



## Sam (Aug 8, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I view selling out, in terms of writing, as when a writer only writes what he/she needs to write in order to make the money he/she wants to make. This usually leads to much lower standards, and can be exemplified by most recent YA series, like Landy's _Skulduggery Pleasant_ books.



Agreed, with one addendum. 

I characterise it as an author writing formulaic novels while using the excuse that "it's what readers want". For instance, when Dan Brown's _The Da Vinci Code _became something of a cult phenomenon worldwide, within months there were dozens and perhaps hundreds of books about arcane mysteries being solved by bookish professors. Some people call those writers astute and clever for having played into a near-certain sure thing. That may be, but I call it pandering to a market and selling out. Why? Because I'd rather be the one who started the craze than the ones who blindly followed the bandwagon. 

Call me crazy.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 8, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I view selling out, in terms of writing, as when a writer only writes what he/she needs to write in order to make the money he/she wants to make. This usually leads to much lower standards, and can be exemplified by most recent YA series, like Landy's _Skulduggery Pleasant_ books.



Well, by that definition, then you do equate Michelangelo with selling out. 

I don't see a problem with people wanting to earn money with something they enjoy doing, and finding the path that is most likely to reach that goal. Non-writers do it all the time - and yeah, that includes other "artistic types". There are books published by "non-sell outs" which are formulaic, poorly written, yada yada yada. What's their excuse?

I don't see why we need to be so judgemental of others' motives for writing. If I don't like how a particular author writes, I don't buy the book.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 8, 2014)

I think of "selling out" as when someone specifically goes against their own ethics for money. Like, they don't _want_ to do it, but they want the money enough to grit their teeth and bear it. 

Like, if you despise Paranormal Romances (or something), but you write one for a paycheck—that, to me, would be selling out.

But, if you're purely after a paycheck and you're wiling to write anything, I don't consider that "selling out." To me, that's just a business approach.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 8, 2014)

Today's sell-out is tomorrows icon. Pulp fiction writers in the 30's, 40's and 50's were viewed as 'sell-outs' and hacks for pandering to the burgeoning genre's of detective stories, science fiction, and horror, but the names that came out of those years--Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Poul Anderson, Dashiel Hammett, Raymond Chandler, H.P. Lovecraft, Robert Bloch, Richard Matheson, and the list can go on and on. I admire any writer who has the will, and skill, to make the choice to write for a living. It's a tough business, and if some choose to pay the bills by churning out 'knock-off' stuff, who am I to call them a sell out? Sell-out from what?


----------



## Jeko (Aug 8, 2014)

> Well, by that definition, then you do equate Michelangelo with selling out.



Hardly; the Pope gave the artist no choice but to accept the commission. But when war with the French broke out, he fled to continue sculpting, until the Pope caught up with him again. He also negotiated with the Pope to paint much more than what was originally desired. His example is the opposite of 'selling out'.

I don't see a 'problem' with 'selling out' from the writer's point of view; I simply don't like it as a reader.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 8, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Hardly; the Pope gave the artist no choice but to accept the commission. But when war with the French broke out, he fled to continue sculpting, until the Pope caught up with him again. He also negotiated with the Pope to paint much more than what was originally desired. His example is the opposite of 'selling out'.
> 
> I don't see a 'problem' with 'selling out' from the writer's point of view; I simply don't like it as a reader.



Michelangelo took commissions to make money. He did paintings even though he did not like painting. He did not just sculpt or paint stuff and hope it would sell. Thus "when a writer only writes what he/she needs to write in order to make the money he/she wants to make" either fits him or the definition is off.

As to not liking it as a reader, how do you know? Do you look at each author, maybe search for interviews, to find out if they were "sell outs" or not? I'm not trying to be snarky - I'm really curious as to how you know the difference between a sell out and just a writer whose writing you find sub-par.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Aug 8, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't get equating writing for readers with "selling out". When I told stories to my son, I made them stories he would enjoy, that were age appropriate - that was 'selling out'? The fact that I enjoyed telling them, that I took care in telling them - that doesn't count? As Terry pointed out, Michelangelo was an artist for hire. The Sistine Chapel is therefore an example of "selling out"? Especially since he didn't enjoy painting, didn't want to work on the Chapel at all, and wanted, instead, to be working on the Pope's tomb.
> 
> I should be such a sell out!



Henry Rollins has a great philosophy on that. It basically is just you're not selling out until you put your principals aside to make money. Making something accessible by no means makes you sell out.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 8, 2014)

Pidgeon84 said:


> Henry Rollins has a great philosophy on that. It basically is just you're not selling out until you put your principals aside to make money.



Totally agree. If I hated pornography but wrote it because I could make a fast buck - that would be selling out. If I see there's a steady market for YA and decide to try that, it's not.


----------



## ppsage (Aug 8, 2014)

W@ell, I'm with es on this one. Write how you want for whatever. I personally write the way a lot of people jog, to keep in shape. 90% of my stuff nobody ever sees and that's how we all like it. ------------ But what I'm mostly concerned about here is how terrible an example Michelangelo is in this case. Things were just different. No commercial market at all. Everything highly politicized. War lords everywhere, and gangsters. I haven't read of Michelangelo specifically, in the period, but have his erstwhile rival and follower Cellini. These guys are more like Halliburton than like Picasso. They're contractors with gangs of workers. Or maybe like talented directors who do their own producing. Everything they did was compromised in ways which don't even make sense in our society. Don't believe the films. There was ninety guys painting that ceiling, with twenty more back in Florence chipping marble at the same time. Scratch an artist in that era, and you'll find Goebbels, making up the spin we all believe now. And waiting his shot to off the capo.


----------



## Newman (Aug 8, 2014)

hollaatmegan said:


> What's the balance between what you want and what an audience wants?



Both.

You have to try to satisfy yourself and the audience.

Quite often writing for an audience will help up the quality.


----------



## hollaatmegan (Aug 8, 2014)

Newman said:


> Both.
> 
> You have to try to satisfy yourself and the audience.
> 
> Quite often writing for an audience will help up the quality.



I think this is how I feel on the matter. It is a balance. Maybe start off as writing for yourself, but if an audience follows, then find a balance. Thaaaat's what I've gotten out of all of this. Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 9, 2014)

> Michelangelo took commissions to make money. He did paintings even though he did not like painting. He did not just sculpt or paint stuff and hope it would sell. Thus "when a writer only writes what he/she needs to write in order to make the money he/she wants to make" either fits him or the definition is off.



Again, Michelangelo is not a good example, both for ppsage's reasons and the fact that when he did paint, even though he did not like painting, he did more than what was expected for him, and often for no further payment than what was originally agreed.



> Do you look at each author, maybe search for interviews, to find out if they were "sell outs" or not?



I should be more clear; I don't put down a book because the writer's a 'sell out'. I put down a book because it's not interesting/entertaining enough. That is often the result of selling out, especially when an author's work has been of a higher standard before. Ultimately, therefore, I don't judge the author through my decision. If a writer 'sold out' but did manage to entertain me, I wouldn't put the book down, and I wouldn't care whether they sold out or not.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 9, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I should be more clear; I don't put down a book because the writer's a 'sell out'. I put down a book because it's not interesting/entertaining enough. That is often the result of selling out, especially when an author's work has been of a higher standard before. Ultimately, therefore, I don't judge the author through my decision. If a writer 'sold out' but did manage to entertain me, I wouldn't put the book down, and I wouldn't care whether they sold out or not.



Then why judge writers based on why they chose to write something? I mean, that's the essence of my whole disagreement - if people write badly, or write something you (generic) don't like, why does it matter what their motivation was? Likewise, if they write well or write what you like, what's the difference? This whole "sell out" business is just judgemental nonsense, IMO.


----------



## Hopeful Writer (Aug 9, 2014)

hollaatmegan said:


> I face this problem a lot when I'm writing: I write the way I like and what I think will most effectively display my story. And on here, that seems to be the general mantra: Write for yourself! Haters are gonna hate!
> 
> Which is totally positive and I really appreciate that because I struggle with how to write a lot, though I feel like I've developed my own voice pretty nicely over the years.
> 
> ...



I think you could compare writing to games with this. There are a lot of game developers that "make games they'd want to play." They don't generally make the mainstream games, but they make a good living and build a sizeable and very loyal fanbase. I tend to like those games better, and I live by that philosophy. I'm going to make something I like, while accepting and changing format, grammar, etc from feedback.

As far as the comments about people and their prices. Some of us are insanely stubborn on our stories. I personally get it from my grandmother. I'll modify things a lot, to make them better. You'll see my story turned into a sell out story when you murder me and change it yourself. James Cameron was homeless when he sold the script to the Terminator for $1, in exchange for the right to direct it. That is the kind of intensity I'll readily put into my "artistic integrity."

Please don't mistake me for trying to say this is the right way either. Mainstream readers deserve stories they like to, and there's nothing wrong with trying to make a living. Also, I've read/liked some teen vampire stories. Not Twilight. Some more obscure ones. So I guess my point is, whichever you as a writer feel is more important is the more important one. Write for yourself, or write for your readers. Whatever you prefer. ^,.,^


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 9, 2014)

Hopeful Writer said:


> Mainstream readers deserve stories they like to, and there's nothing wrong with trying to make a living. Also, I've read/liked some teen vampire stories. Not Twilight. Some more obscure ones. So I guess my point is, whichever you as a writer feel is more important is the more important one. Write for yourself, or write for your readers. Whatever you prefer. ^,.,^



I mostly agree, but I'll add that I don't think it's selling out to write mainstream. If that's where your heart is, writing vampire/werewolf romances, zombie apocalypses, or whatever is popular at the moment, then I say do it and do it well. Selling out, to me, is riding the tidal wave of someone else's bestseller hoping to make a quick buck.


----------



## Hopeful Writer (Aug 9, 2014)

J Anfinson said:


> I mostly agree, but I'll add that I don't think it's selling out to write mainstream. If that's where your heart is, writing vampire/werewolf romances, zombie apocalypses, or whatever is popular at the moment, then I say do it and do it well. Selling out, to me, is riding the tidal wave of someone else's bestseller hoping to make a quick buck.



Sorry! I didn't mean to imply that. It's just hard to word it properly coming from the perspective of someone that rarely has similar to mainstream interests, and would have to sell out to get mainstream appeal (I think). Your comment makes me think of Divergent though. The totally not a rip-off of hunger games novel/movie.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 9, 2014)

Hopeful Writer said:


> Sorry! I didn't mean to imply that.



You're fine. After all, someone's bound to disagree with me.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 9, 2014)

> Then why judge writers based on why they chose to write something? I mean, that's the essence of my whole disagreement - if people write badly, or write something you (generic) don't like, why does it matter what their motivation was?



It doesn't - that's my point. If something's bad, it's bad, and I won't enjoy it. But 'selling out', in my perspective, always leads to poor standards, which leads to me not enjoying a work. 

I'm not judging the writer based on their motivation; I'm judging whether or not I should continue reading a novel, or whether or not I enjoyed a novel, based on the performance of a writer on paper, which is partly a result of their motivation. I can't know for sure if a writer 'sold out' or not, but the conditions for 'selling out', in my perspective, will lead to lower standards. So I don't like writers 'selling out', but I can't say whether a writer has sold out or not unless there's hard evidence for that conclusion. But it doesn't matter whether I come to that conclusion or not, because if I don't like the work, I don't like the work, and I don't read it or much more of the author's work. That's where the importance of my opinion to myself, in terms of what I choose to read, ceases. The rest, including matters of motivation and agenda, is just curiosity that often increases the enjoyment of the work, even if it was awful.

In the same way that I'd rather writers didn't write in hieroglyphics (because I can't read hieroglyphics), I'd rather they didn't 'sell out'; either would hamper my enjoyment of their work. That's what matters to me; the result, not the cause.

You could equate it to the difference between the 'manslaughter' and 'murder' of a novel; both equate to the story's death, so we don't want either. 'Murder' would carry a heavier sentence in court, but all I care about is whether my novel is alive or not. So I only care about the difference between the two in the sense that with one, a different motivation would have led to the novel still being alive.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 9, 2014)

Cadence said:


> It doesn't - that's my point. If something's bad, it's bad, and I won't enjoy it. But 'selling out', in my perspective, always leads to poor standards, which leads to me not enjoying a work.



But how do you _know _it "always leads to poor standards"? That's making a huge assumption, and based on what? If you don't know the motivation, how do you know they've sold out and that's why the book was poorly written? It's just not logical.


----------



## Sam (Aug 9, 2014)

When an author of heretofore great quality begins to pump out the same rehashed story again and again, with not a hint of apology, I consider it selling out to meet a deadline or make a quick buck. It's not even authors who jump on fads that annoy me. It's reading stale prose from an author who's found a niche and knows s/he can milk that cash cow dry for years, because said author is unwilling to take risks to keep their work fresh. When Ed McBain's _87th Precinct _series started to get a little worse for wear, he reinvented himself with several pseudonyms and a number of novels in different genres. He wrote the screenplay for what would become Alfred Hitchcock's _The Birds. _He wrote a series for twenty years about a lawyer called Matthew Hope. He constantly reinvented himself and took risks. King did the same thing with the Bachman books. 

Selling out, to me, is being content with prosaic stories that only differ in characters' names and setting. I'm sorry if that rubs people the wrong way, but that's my opinion and I don't see it changing soon.


----------



## tabasco5 (Aug 9, 2014)

I read an interview with John Grisham recently, and he was asked if there was one book he could have written what would it be.  Now, consider Grisham's position.  He has written over 20 novels and sold over 200 million.  So needless to say, he isn't hurting for money or a fan base.  He is (or should be) at a stage where he could write a true classic novel.  Instead, he turns out book after book using recycled plots and scenarios, some of which are embarrassingly bad.  

Now, back to the question.  What book would he choose to write of any ever written?  I would expect an author in his position to answer with some classic, some piece of literature that is regarded as truly great.  Huck Finn or The Grapes of Wrath (which is his proclaimed favorite) or something similar.  But what does Grisham say?  Harry Potter.  And why?  Because JK Rowling is the only author he can't outsell.  Now, in my opinion, that is the definition of a sellout.


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 9, 2014)

I dunno, that sounds a bit tongue and cheek to me, tabasco. Besides, if he wants to out-sell Rowling, so what? Name me a human in the world who wouldn't want to. Just seems like ambition to me. I hope one day I can be in a position where my writing is so successful that not only do I have the option to become a sell out, but people can discuss whether I'm a sell-out. Sounds like living the dream.


----------



## Hopeful Writer (Aug 9, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> I dunno, that sounds a bit tongue and cheek to me, tabasco. Besides, if he wants to out-sell Rowling, so what? Name me a human in the world who wouldn't want to. Just seems like ambition to me. I hope one day I can be in a position where my writing is so successful that not only do I have the option to become a sell out, but people can discuss whether I'm a sell-out. Sounds like living the dream.



I'd hate to outsell Rowling. All I want is to generate enough income for a house in the country and to be able to peacefully go into the city when needed. Being a huge mainstream success would make that virtually impossible. Not to mention I'd have to personally oversee most of that money going to my 'tribe' and other first nations, cause I know you can't trust most charities. More stress to deal with. No thank you.

I know others want it, and more power to them. If I ever write something that has mainstream appeal, they can have it for themselves.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 10, 2014)

> But how do you _know it "always leads to poor standards"? _



By my definition of 'selling out', it must; it's a logical conclusion, and I've found no evidence to the contrary. Though if you define 'selling out' differently, you won't see where I'm coming from.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 10, 2014)

Cadence said:


> By my definition of 'selling out', it must; it's a logical conclusion, and I've found no evidence to the contrary. Though if you define 'selling out' differently, you won't see where I'm coming from.



But you understand that if, as you say, you don't look into the author, I don't get how you know they've sold out and thus write badly, or if they're just a bad writer. 

"I know it's an apple because it's red."
"How do you know it's not a red ball?"
"Because it's red."

or

"It's red so it must be an apple."
"Maybe it's a ball?"
"No, because it's red."

But mostly I don't like absolutes. I've read a lot of books over my lifetime by authors who, by your definition, are sell-outs, and I found the writing and story to be entirely engaging.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 10, 2014)

I can't say any more to make myself any clearer, but we're looking at this from different angles, so I'll try to break everything down one last time.

1) If a writer follows the conditions of 'selling out' that I have stated, they will write with lower standards, because if they choose to write with higher standards than what's necessary, they stop being 'sell-outs'.
2) I prefer higher standards.
3) So, I don't prefer it when writers sell out.

This argument is not built upon examples, but on logical succession. I don't look at bad writers and work out whether they were sell outs; I simply acknowledge that selling out, by my definition, will lead to worse writing. So if I read bad writing, it doesn't matter whether the write sold out or not. But if a writer is about to write their next novel, I'd rather they didn't sell out, because that would lead to a worse novel being produced.


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 10, 2014)

Hopeful Writer said:


> I'd hate to outsell Rowling. All I want is to generate enough income for a house in the country and to be able to peacefully go into the city when needed. Being a huge mainstream success would make that virtually impossible. Not to mention I'd have to personally oversee most of that money going to my 'tribe' and other first nations, cause I know you can't trust most charities. More stress to deal with. No thank you.
> 
> I know others want it, and more power to them. If I ever write something that has mainstream appeal, they can have it for themselves.



Well you could have an alias and just be an anonymous writer and you would be filthy rich, so you could hire someone to oversee your money. it's not like there's anything you can't do with money that you can without it. But that's a different conversation. Anyway, your ambitions are a lot simpler and to an extent a lot more achievable which is maybe a good thing in itself. I'd out sell Rowling any day if given the chance, though


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 10, 2014)

Cadence said:


> But if a writer is about to write their next novel, I'd rather they didn't sell out, because that would lead to a worse novel being produced.



Well, yeah, we're never going to come to any point of agreement as long you insist that "selling out" automatically leads to a worse novel, despite people's experiences that say otherwise. :-s


----------

