Is the reader always right?
The title of this post is designed to mimic its commercialized sibling that sustains that The client is always right. You will learn my motives behind choosing this title, and topic, shortly.
During one of my musings I stumbled across the idea of the relationship between the writer and the readership. I asked myself why people write in the first place. Some write because they feel the need to express themselves, others write for a living, and some other people write because they are simply addicted to writing. Now these reasons may or may not register with you are being entirely correct or inclusive of every cause behind a written piece. It is not my intention, however, in this piece, to detail why people write. This is simply a verbal illustration of the paths my mind trod to arrive to the following thoughts.
Let us discard the first and third reasons that I mentioned above behind peoples writing. If a person writes for a living, meaning that one makes money out of the words he or she writes, does that necessarily make one a hypocrite?
The discussion arose in an Italian Literature lecture. My professor argued that many best-selling books nowadays are not worthy of being read. In his estimation, it is not the number of copies a book sells that determines how good the book is. I do agree with him on that point. Perhaps you find that he and I are romantics in this age of mass production even of thoughts. Perhaps we believe in the martyr-writer, a figure that forsakes all for the love of the written word? But no, I find myself obliged to dismiss that assumption at once.
I argued with my professor that a certain criterion for what is good writing and bad writing is totally subjective. If a writer produces a piece and this piece scores popularity, it is perhaps because the thought in the piece beats to the rhythm of current life. My professor then replied that a writer should not write for the sake of selling, but for a higher, more personal cause. He mentioned a number of writers who did not receive any fruits of success during their lifetimes but were discovered to be brilliant after their death, it was then that their words found reading eyes. He also followed to a number of writers who knew how to juggle their own flow of creativity that may or may not sell, and the market that is hungry for a specific type of the written presentation.
Having established that bestsellers are not necessarily of a fine quality of thoughts, I must come to the question of why they were written in the first place. This also brings to mind the figure of the writer who checks the market first, then proceeds to jotting down whatever ideas are popular then and there. Do not mistake this for a generalization, I am examining my own reflections and I am by no means labeling any writers, be they famous or not.
Now, if a writer succumbs to the temptation of the market, does that make him or her less of a genuine writer? Or does it mean that the writer is genius because he or she knew what to write to appeal to the masses?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Related Posts
- I Am Entertainment
- How to Become a Writer Or, Have You Earned This Cliche?
- Sucks To Be Dumb
- Metablog: Exposure
- I Want YOUR Opinion
October 29th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
I think there is an element of snobbery involved within the writing community.
Is Stephen King good because he sells millions of books? Some say he is bad for the very same reason.
I rate authors on whether the book is a good read. Case in point, Dan Brown. I have not read the famous book….partly because it is being seriously hyped. I’ll wait a bit for the hype to die down before I get it…then I’ll know if he is ‘good’ or not.
October 30th, 2005 at 5:08 am
“Now, if a writer succumbs to the temptation of the market, does that make him or her less of a genuine writer? Or does it mean that the writer is genius because he or she knew what to write to appeal to the masses?”
- Remember now that the Pen is Mightier than the Sword. And I strongly believe so, whether it is a message I write down on a table at a public library saying “have a nice day” or an author who writes something that people want to hear, or a writer who is writing just for future people to learn and understand a concept he wanted to get across. Either way, there is never a good or bad writer. There are writers who have to write just to make a living! Its a job in their view and nothing less. If they are in need of putting food on the table and write just to hit the market, then that’s absolutely fine, its a job and by selling millions, they are doing their job right.
October 30th, 2005 at 9:40 am
I have not read the Da Vinci Code yet, muppetlord. I am doing exactly the same thing you are doing, waiting until the spark dies out to see if it was ever steady. Adding to that, I have no time for that book yet, my hands are full with others.
I failed to understand, however, what you meant by saying “there is an element of snobbery involved within the writing community”. Could you please explain, perhaps elaborate some more? Thank you for a valuable comment.
Gandhi Taymour;
I like exploring different views. Now, is it your opinion, if I understood correctly, that it is “just fine” for a writer to produce absolutely anything the market asks for, say, exceedingly sexualized novels?
Do not mistake my providing the example with a refusal of the genre per say, it is merely an example.
I think the point I am trying to understand is the answer to this question: Do you think it is fine for a writer to write whatever people want to read, regardless of the quality of thoughts or style, simply because this writer wants to make money? Is there no “message” cliche that everyone seems to involve with the writer’s persona, that the writer has to live up to? Or, possibly more important is the question: Is a writer responsible for what “damage” his/her production inflects on literature? (Using the term “damage” loosely).
October 31st, 2005 at 9:43 pm
what I mean is it can be fine, it depends on the writer’s purpose and ……… I forgot what I was gonna write my friend distracted me!!!!!!!!!!! so I’ll reply later!!!!
October 31st, 2005 at 10:01 pm
This is a really interesting topic to investigate, Tololy. I personally find myself drawn to creative work (music, writing, film, art) for different reasons, but mainly I look for what is original and truly inspired.
On the other hand, that doesn’t exclude the possibility that I might fall for something that has been produced with a kind of mass-production mentality, i.e. what will please the masses.
Although I expend time and energy looking for creativity in non-mainstream venues, I am not willing to snub something merely because it IS mainstream.
Now regarding the responsibility of a writer in particular, I think it also depends on what their purpose is. If a writer is writing to make money, I think knowing his/her market is a sign of intelligence, and it is their way of doing business in a business-oriented world. On the other hand, should there be some kind of code of ethics, or guidelines restricting what’s written? Doesn’t that violate freedom of speech?
Sorry for the long response!
November 1st, 2005 at 11:45 am
Gandhi Taymour, We are waiting for your comment.
Lulu, by all means feel free to write as many comments as you like. Length is not an issue either, the point is that we all learn and exchange ideas.
You spoke my mind in some of what you posted, but I am still not quite sure what my end “opinion” would be. I thank you for an informative comment.
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:48 am
omg I can’t remember …. I’m sorry argh it was so good too!!!!!!!
November 12th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
The writer can (and maybe should) write anything! I would like to pose the question: doesnt the reader have the responsibility to subjectively analyze what he reads?!
I am not advocating that writers should write lies and sell thoughts, but a reader who doesnt own a sense of self and is manipulated by commerialized stories is the one who needs fixing NOT the writer himself!