Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
If you want readers, why aren't you defending them?
message 301:
by
Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)
(last edited Feb 20, 2014 09:24AM)
(new)
Feb 19, 2014 05:52PM
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
reply
|
flag
Bonnie wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Gregor wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the hig..."I hadn't thought of it at the time either. Being just an avid with no writing aspirations, I'm not exactly savvy on the world of publishing, but seeing that was definitely a light bulb moment.
@Lynda, I actually remember that review. Amazon, correct? And I believe there were very few, if any, critical reviews of it?
Either way, it's a perfect example. Trying to discredit the reviewer, excuses, it was cheap, excuses, but other people loved it, more excuses and lots of exclamation points!!!!!!!
So sadly typical. lol
I would give anyone who asked for a copy of one of my books a copy, except for my mother.Long story, but high praise would not be forthcoming.
Linda wrote: "I'm looking at a book right now that is so bad, so horrible, so pathetic . . . but I know that if I say anything negative it will only turn the author into a martyr.I've written the review three ..."
Post it! She's buying reviews, FFS! She deserves an honest one.
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "@Lynda, I actually remember that review. Amazon, correct? And I believe there were very few, if any, critical reviews of it?"Yes, Amazon. And a whole bunch of "I loved it!" reviews, which I've noticed have decreased in number since I wrote my review.
My reply to the person who was (IMO) the author under another name was to comment that I could understand why that author was her cup of tea, since they wrote the same way. And I wondered where all her anger was coming from if she were just another reader.
Gosh!!! I thought I had a life!!! I didn't know I needed to pay more than $3.99 to qualify for having a life!!!
ETA: a few essential exclamation points !!!
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "I love a recent author meltdown on amazon in the comment section of a review (IMHO, it's never a good comment thread if there are a lot of "deleted by amazon" or "deleted by user", it's gonna be a ..."Ah, yes, the good ole Fakey McTeacherson. I had the indubitable pleasure of being a participant in that one. O.o
Eta: should be noted that author and her author friends (via socks, of course) all happen to proud flag-flying members of that site that shall not be named.
Fakey McTeacherson...you have me spitting water on my keyboard.
Lynda wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "@Lynda, I actually remember that review. Amazon, correct? And I believe there were very few, if any, critical reviews of it?"Yes, Amazon. And a whole bunch o..."
Yup, that's what I thought. Your response was entertaining, for sure. ;)
Bashing readers is silly and counterproductive. Reading their bio's should tell you something about the author's writing level. Anything published outside of self-publishing? Any awards? Any known mentors, writing classes,etc. Are they members of professional writing organizations? Some of us are pro's whose writing is considered "Not what we are looking for at this time but a good read," as several agents, editors and publishers have told me." If self-publishing doesn't work for me I will return to querying agents. Tastes varies a lot between readers and there are many books from publishing houses I don't care for myself so even pro's get their share of poor reviews. I suspect those you are complaining about have not been to many read and critique groups or writer's workshops where those who read your work pull no punches, LOL.
Some of these "books" I've looked at are only rough drafts and never should have been published in their current state.
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "I love a recent author meltdown on amazon in the comment section of a review (IMHO, it's never a good comment thread if there are a lot of "deleted by amazon" or "deleted by user", it's gonna be a ..."An English Professor reportedly claimed that? I suppose he or she might have thought it was unimportant in this case since they thought the work was unsalvageable anyway.
It always amazes me that people think good idea/good plot are all that is necessary to write a good book. Now every now and then I will run into something written by someone who knows how to tell a story but doesn't have the technical tools such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation to do so in a professional manner. And they are often surprisingly defensive about it, which amazes me because those are learned skills. The telling a story effectively is the hard part, and the one that is very difficult to either teach or learn.
Lynda wrote: "Fakey McTeacherson...you have me spitting water on my keyboard."It was funny. In a sad way.
Apparently writing is subjective, English profs were on stand-by, who not only agreed with the nit-pickiness, but also wanted to know why the reviewer hated the author so much.
Don't worry, though. My imaginary professor disputed their claims. We call her Dr. McFakeypants. ;)
Good times.
It's always depressing to me to see authors who lack that much creativity. Or open sock puppets to comment or review and are completely ignorant to the concept of ones writing voice. You think they'd be better at writing characters.
D.C. wrote: "Gregor wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the highest of praise for their masterpiece."..."Then your mother is a saint.
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
Gregor wrote: "D.C. wrote: "Gregor wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the highest of praise for their ..."She's deceased, and frankly, I think there is a middle ground. She didn't really approve of fiction either, and romances came in somewhere around the ground floor in her estimation, although she was a fan of Samuel Johnson's.
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Oh, yes, I forgot that reviewer had a hate campaign against the author.I also find some typos, errors, questionable grammar, etc. in traditionally published works.
I don't expect perfection (I..."
While I try to have a couple of other people look at my manuscripts, I do self-edit on a lot of my self-pubbed works, and occasionally I have not had another reader in on it. I know it's not as seamless as my books that get professionally edited, but I hope it's usually sufficient that readers shouldn't be aware of it unless I tell them.
My mother's draconian standards probably stand me in fairly good stead in this instance, and an acquaintance with a style manual is invaluable, because the fewer mistakes you make in the first place, the few you have to try to catch. I find it harder to proof than to edit, and I do a number of things that aren't technically wrong, but are old-fashioned. I have a couple of other tricks too.
Linda wrote: "Richard wrote: "D.C. wrote: "While I try to have a couple of other people look at my manuscripts, I do self-edit on a lot of my self-pubbed works..."That makes two of us. Anyone else in the club?..."
I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be better at it than I am. And I bet you probably are one of the handful of readers who can tell that I didn't have a pro in on it.
Gregor wrote: "Then the author should print a single copy of the book and give it to his mother."*snorts coffee*
That's so true.
I could give anything to my mother, she'd find it the best thing since cheesewire. I gave her my stupid vampires stories when I was 16, and she loved them, when now my fingers regularly itch for a matchbox. (All right, in her defence, she was bed-ridden for two weeks with the flu, which probably accounts for part of it.)
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Author shows the review to an English professor [unnamed] who tells her reviewer is being nit picky and that grammar most definitely does not matter."
I'd SO call the hounds on that. Because I have taught English, and I can tell from personal experience that spelling and grammar mistakes are the first things that jump to your eyes and make them bleed. So either that was a lie, or the "teacher" wasn't so great to start with. (Oh, also, the old "but language changes all the time" argument. Yes. It does. Only grammar is it slowest-changing element, at least in English.)
Ah, I almost forgot the "unprofessional review, ignore it" I've just seen this very morning. Expecting professional-level reviews on Goodreads. Yes. Of course.
D.C. wrote: "Obviously, you never met my mother. She was brutal. She used to make me write out three and four drafts of cover letters with a resume! Forget essays. Creative writing would be completely covered in red ink..."I was having a similar thought. I used to write letters to my g-ma when I was little. She would correct the spelling mistakes and mail them back to me. I would NEVER expect a baseless *hug* review from either of them. Hell, I'd be terrified to know they read it.
Yzabel wrote: "Gregor wrote: "Then the author should print a single copy of the book and give it to his mother."*snorts coffee*
That's so true.
I could give anything to my mother, she'd find it the best thing s..."
You have to keep in mind that all those comments were coming from sock puppets. There was never any English professor and in a year, the person saying to ignore the unprofessional review has done nothing but like positive reviews of that book. Today.
Always consider the source. :)
@TinaNicole: Oh, I know there was never any English professor involved... since any self-respecting teacher wouldn't say that about grammar for starters. ^^(I checked that person's profile briefly only. Smelt like sock-puppet, and if it's really one, then it deserves a "reminder" that GR is not peopled with professional reviewers. Also, you never know who'll read the comments: maybe one of the readers is, or will be, someone who genuinely thinks they can find professional reviews here? Well, at least I hope I'm not mistaken.)
Yzabel wrote: "@TinaNicole: Oh, I know there was never any English professor involved... since any self-respecting teacher wouldn't say that about grammar for starters. ^^(I checked that person's profile briefl..."
I'm going to report it when I get a chance. He's (more likely she's) commenting on other reviews, as well. smh
Gregor wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the highest of praise for their masterpiece."Then the author should print a single copy of the book and give it to his mother."
Well, my mother is not proficient in English, so she'd only be able to admire my covers...
And while my late father was a non-fiction author and a former editor for a Dutch publishing house specialized in children's books, I doubt if he'd have liked my books. His reviews would count as professional, though, since he wrote reviews for a national Dutch newspaper.
Linda wrote: "Richard wrote: "D.C. wrote: "While I try to have a couple of other people look at my manuscripts, I do self-edit on a lot of my self-pubbed works..."That makes two of us. Anyone else in the club?..."
(Editors can be expensive but there are the seniors in college always interested in starting out and getting their name on a fiction book. I've learned a lot of tricks to self-editing--reading it in hardcopy as well as on the screen, reading out loud, reading from the last paragraph to the first and handing it over to a couple of beta-readers--I still find mistakes. Of course the editor often misses something also so you have to do the process again. Even spell checkers and editing programs err. That's why you see errors in professionally published books. When I read the Sookie Stackhouse series the first time I didn't see too many mistakes. The fifth time I read them they were riddled with errors. One needs to keep notes on one's characters and not change their names, etc. from book to book. It's difficult. Maybe we need a reading robot.)
Linda wrote: "Richard wrote: "D.C. wrote: "While I try to have a couple of other people look at my manuscripts, I do self-edit on a lot of my self-pubbed works..."That makes two of us. Anyone else in the club?..."
I try to self-edit up to a point, and then I send it to someone who edits for me (she will dissect each sentence and then sew it back together). When I can, I let others read the work as well (and yes those readers have spotted things that slipped through).
I've also noticed how correct but lesser known technical terms can get flagged in the process.
I am so fortunate to have recently found that a friend of mine, a retired teacher, who is willing to do the final proofread on my books. It is such a relief since I can read the sentence four times and not notice that something's wrong. My brain puts in periods that aren't there.At the moment, she is reading the proof of my novel, Desiccate, before I release it for publication. My husband proofs my picture books, and will notice if anything is out of alignment, or a picture should be altered, as well as spelling errors. These really slip by me because I often post my text directly into a graphic so there is no spell check.
I belong to a writing group and they catch errors but each member can only submit 3000 words every three months.
I've tried finding partners online who will swap manuscripts, but it hasn't worked out that well.
The amount of errors I have in my work has increased dramatically since I started to use Dragon Naturally Speaking, which is a speech to text program. I'm sure the more I use it, the more accurate it will become. If I type, I make even more mistakes. (I have tremor dominant Parkinson's disease.) So having people to proof read for me is a godsend. They are worth their weight in gold.
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.] not happy with what content deliberately intending to attack another member and enflame the discussion remaining so althiugh one if first groups I joined on goodreads and this discussion has mostly been a pleasant one -- leaving and deleting all comments.
I am an author. In this debate, authors are always wrong I'm afraid. Authors have no right to make any demands on their readers (likes, reviews, retweets) other than the demand of reading their book which the reader has voluntarily opted to spend their time (and maybe their money if it's not a free download). If a reader is moved to engage with the work beyond the final page by leaving a review, even a 1 star one, that is already a bonus. Authors have no right to expect anything. Anything they get from a reader is a privilege.
Marc wrote: "I am an author. In this debate, authors are always wrong I'm afraid. Authors have no right to make any demands on their readers (likes, reviews, retweets) other than the demand of reading their book which the reader has voluntarily opted to spend their time (and maybe their money if it's not a free download). If a reader is moved to engage with the work beyond the final page by leaving a review, even a 1 star one, that is already a bonus. Authors have no right to expect anything. Anything they get from a reader is a privilege."Thank you for saying this, Marc. Well said.
Marc wrote: "I am an author. In this debate, authors are always wrong I'm afraid. Authors have no right to make any demands on their readers (likes, reviews, retweets) other than the demand of reading their boo..."I completely agree with this, but I think the debate is more about if authors are obligated to come to the defence of readers if the reader is being ill-treated on account of their review/lack of review/forum post/shelving methods/etc. The possible obligation for action being on authors, not readers for the purpose of this discussion.
I also agree that a lot the times readers are attacked/bullied/etc results from some authors' misguided belief that they are entitled to something and therefore the reader is obligated to action or inaction (for example, not leaving negative reviews for books they didn't like...what an inane idea). They aren't obligated to do or not do anything, as you said.
I'm not sure how authors are supposed to police each other, it might be seen as attacking someone because they are perceived as a rival. Personally I don't see that I'm in competition with anyone else. If someone sells a book, they are not taking away a sale from me. However, it's true that is a self-published author chases away a reader through reacting badly, then that might take away a reader from any and all us authors.
Marc wrote: "I'm not sure how authors are supposed to police each other, it might be seen as attacking someone because they are perceived as a rival."That is a concern, and one, I think, where GR staff should be harsher and more restrictive to authors who flout the rules of civilized discourse. For instance, by banning an author for a limited period, extending the period with every infraction.*
*I'm a moderator on a discussion forum, where infractions are punished by increasing 'time outs' (week for the first infraction, month for the second, three months for the third, six months for the fourth), which I think works better than banning someone permanently.
Marc wrote: "I'm not sure how authors are supposed to police each other, it might be seen as attacking someone because they are perceived as a rival."(I'm quoting this part your comment because it fits something that's been on my mind.)
That's part of what bothers me in such circumstances: the underlying fear. Fear of being seen as a rival, fear of retaliation, fear of someone else's fanbase being sent to "get me" (not only authors, anyone can have his/her "fanbase", so to speak).
There are so many things we never do out of fear. Don't speak up if someone gets harrassed in the bus in front of you, in fear of being harrassed too.(*) Don't defend your colleague, because your boss will also get down on you. Never speak your mind, because you'll always offence this or that small fringe of a given population. And so on.
I'm all for diplomacy and not stooping down to silly behaviours (insults, etc.), but I loathe when situations arise, in which some people are likely counting on our fear (as people in general, not just authors) to go on doing whatever they want. It's just terribly sad and frustrating. :(
I think it apropos that after taking part in this very discussion I ended up getting this comment on a 1★ review I posted on Amazon recently: Please google STGRB or GR Bullies to see why this was posted. It is not an accurate review of this work. It is a calculated attack by a small group of trolls that take it upon themselves to bully authors, bloggers, and the like to compensate for their own lack of talent. Please take a stand against this type of bullying.
The 'bookcover designer' then demanded I remove the image of the book from my blog.
I'm happy to say, however, that a number of people stood up and commented after the initial post, calling it out as erroneous.
Edit for clarity: Though I always write an honest review, very few of them are 1 star worthy. Getting a 1 star from me is an uncommon occurrence, but it would be unrealistic if I never encountered a book I deemed only worth the 1.
Hi everyone,As an independent author, I think this thread is great (I've only just seen it and hopped on board).
I've had several 1 or 2 star reviews on various sites (GR and Amazon to name a couple). Apart from a couple which were obvious personal attacks (probably by someone in my past who I have somehow offended) these reviews should always be looked upon as constructive criticism and a way to improve one's writing.
I did see the 'Why Don't More People Read Self Published Books?' but didn't read the conversation. There are plenty of people reading self-published books!
The problem lies in the absolute ease at which one can publish a book in today's market. This in itself allows a writer to finish a first draft of a manuscript, convince themselves that is the finished product, click the 'Publish' button, and bob's your uncle, it's out there for all to see (with numerous grammatical (not to mention plot) errors).
Proof readers, followed by professional editors and cover designers are a *must*, not a "yeah, maybe, but my work's so good I don't need an editor". What a load of rubbish.
The reader doesn't care about the author; they don't care about where you live, what your dog's name is or how you wear your freak'n hair. They have a mortgage or rent to pay, the electricity bill just came in. They may be struggling to make ends meet, and the author's task, is to take them, for a brief time, away from that world, and distract them from their daily stress. To give them an escape, some small reprieve from the constant assault of the real world.
To think that writing has, in any way, anything to do with you, the author is simply pure ego. Writing is about the story, the characters and their experience in the story, and ultimately, the reader. It has nothing to do with the author.
I think many authors (not just self-published ones) have an inflated, self-important image that the reader could not care less about. The reader wants to be entertained and taken on a journey. Unless you are Tom Clancy, no one wants to know what you've nicknamed your poodle.
On another note, I'm unfamiliar with these 'reader bashing sites' that have been mentioned, but I have to say, I don't like the sound of them and do not support them in any way, shape or form.
This, of course, is my own humble opinion.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Keith
To think that writing has, in any way, anything to do with you, the author is simply pure ego. Writing is about the story, the characters and their experience in the story, and ultimately, the reader. It has nothing to do with the author.I think many authors (not just self-published ones) have an inflated, self-important image that the reader could not care less about. The reader wants to be entertained and taken on a journey. Unless you are Tom Clancy, no one wants to know what you've nicknamed your poodle.
I read this and felt I had to post about this. First, how ISN'T the writing anything to do with the author? If it's only about the story and characters, then exactly where do they come from? Thin air? Of course the writing has to do with the author, they're writing that story. They're creating the story, building the world and the characters in that world. And, in turn, whether or not the story is good or bad is also up to the author. It's funny that way, taking responsibility for one's own writing. If that's inflated ego, well then I don't know what to tell you, I take pride in my writing and the fact I can created these stories and put them into words and in a book. That said, pride in one's work isn't inflated ego. Be proud of your accomplishments and to hell with the haters.
I don't know how many authors you or anyone else actually know, and not just online, but those who are family or true friends. The one's I've met and know aren't "self-important with inflated egos". A lot of them are just as self-depreciating and humble as the next guy.
You think readers don't care about authors? I call THAT rubbish. If a reader doesn't care about the author, then why pick up their book and other books by them? For me personally I've read bios and info about authors because I like their books and want to know about the mastermind behind the story. To me when an author bio has some fun, personal details (as in your poodle's nickname) it helps to get to know the author better, "humanizes" them and brings the reader closer to the artist. (yes writing is an art)
And segue - so when those people get bad reviews, or no reviews, it affects them. It is possible for people to get depressed and upset when their hard work is bad-mouthed, true or not. It's possible that writers even get a bit pissed off at the "readers" who post crappy reviews or just plain nasty reviews for their own, self-serving pleasure and amusement. They get jaded, understandably.
I think the attitude about readers and their bad reviews or negative responses or interactions is because of posts about how crappy independent authors are and painted with a broad brush. You read one or two bad books and automatically everyone sucks - because they're arrogant indie, self-published authors. Bad authors and their books can be found published from the big houses too. I've found plenty of mistakes or bad stories in big house published books, let's not just point fingers at self-published authors.
I'm not saying go out of your way to stand up for authors (how can you when you don't know their work?) or better yet, how can you stand up for all readers when some of them are, quite possibly trolls and purposely going out of their way to cause trouble and dissent against an author? Again, you don't know all the readers intent so it's a bit difficult to defend each and every one.
Now creating a hate site and outright pissing on all readers who don't review or give bad reviews is wrong, again painting that broad brush. However, if the majority of reviews are good, then you have to expect the bad too - you can't please everyone.
C.j. wrote: I read this and felt I had to post about this. First, how ISN'T the writing anything to do with the author? If it's only about the story and characters, then exactly where do they come from? Thin air? Of course the writing has to do with the author, they're writing that story. They're creating the story, building the world and the characters in that world. And, in turn, whether or not the story is good or bad is also up to the author. It's funny that way, taking responsibility for one's own writing. If that's inflated ego, well then I don't know what to tell you, I take pride in my writing and the fact I can created these stories and put them into words and in a book. That said, pride in one's work isn't inflated ego. Be proud of your accomplishments and to hell with the haters.Hi C.J., I'm certainly not saying not to take pride in your work, that has nothing to do with ego, it has everything to do with work ethic.
But plastering your mug on the back cover of a book with a bio is most certainly (unless you're selling hundreds of thousands of copies per year), in my opinion anyway, egotistical and self serving.
As a reader as well, I can honestly say I don't care about the author's personal history. I want to read a good book and be taken away to another world. I'm not really bothered what the author looks like.
If a reader doesn't care about the author, then why pick up their book and other books by them?
Like I said, unless you're a Tom Clancy or a Stephen King, no one buys a book because it is written by a certain author. They buy it because the cover draws them in and the blurb sounds like it could be a great adventure. If you're lucky, they might glance at the author's name. Might. In that order.
For me personally I've read bios and info about authors because I like their books and want to know about the mastermind behind the story.
Yes, I completely agree, AFTER you read their work. Not many readers are going to see an interesting book that they think will entertain them, and then go away and read the author's bio before they download it. Readers might take an interest in the author AFTER they read the novel, but almost never before they read it.
There are widely varying opinions on this, but I believe writing is a craft, not an art.
Poor reviews, unless it is an obvious personal attack, should always be viewed as an opportunity to improve.
There is writing that is entertainment, telling stories, providing escapism as Keith says. But then there is writing as literature, that is it is art, which has very little to do with escapism, but more an exploration of humanity through language, narrative and ideas. Both can sit comfortably next to one another in the market as they offer different things. But do not confuse them and lump them in together. I never want my books to provide the reader an escape from the world, or to distract them from stress, but to actually engage with the world and why that world may actually be making them stressed. Now that is not for everybody and I'm comfortable with that. But don't lump me in with a fiction that I do not provide.
Linda wrote: "You forget, Marc, that even "literature" may be an escape. You might consider being a little less pretentious going forward. JMHO."I agree literature has to entertain like any fiction, but far from escapism, there is much fiction that continually reminds the reader that what they are reading is a work of fiction and that it does not call for any suspension of belief or escapism. If you feel that is pretentious then fair enough, I totally get that it is not for everyone. I was just trying to point out that you cannot tar all fiction as escapism.
Marc wrote: "Linda wrote: "You forget, Marc, that even "literature" may be an escape. You might consider being a little less pretentious going forward. JMHO."I agree literature has to entertain like any fic..."
I think you meant suspension of disbelief.
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Marc wrote: "Linda wrote: "You forget, Marc, that even "literature" may be an escape. You might consider being a little less pretentious going forward. JMHO."I agree literature has to entertain..."
I mean both, but whatever
Marc wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Marc wrote: "Linda wrote: "You forget, Marc, that even "literature" may be an escape. You might consider being a little less pretentious going forward. JMHO...."Okay.
Marc wrote: "I agree literature has to entertain like any fiction, but far from escapism, there is much fiction that continually reminds the reader that what they are reading is a work of fiction and that it does not call for any suspension of belief or escapism."I think maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Fiction that keeps reminding you it's fiction sounds like it may be missing the "art." Do you have some examples?
Sarah (Warning: Potentially Off-Topic) wrote: "Marc wrote: "I agree literature has to entertain like any fiction, but far from escapism, there is much fiction that continually reminds the reader that what they are reading is a work of fiction a..."sure:
the work of David Markson, Tibor Fisher, Blake Butler, BS Johnson, Robbe-Grillet
In the theatre, the work of Bertolt Brecht is the best example. He didn't want his audiences ever to forget they were watching actors acting out a fiction up on a stage. What has been called breaking down the "fourth wall" of theatre, that imaginary wall through which the audience get to view the world portrayed on stage.
Marc wrote: "the work of David Markson, Tibor Fisher, Blake Butler, BS Johnson, Robbe-GrilletIn the theatre, the work of Bertolt Brecht is the best example. He didn't want his audiences ever to forget they were watching actors acting out a fiction up on a stage. What has been called breaking down the "fourth wall" of theatre, that imaginary wall through which the audience get to view the world portrayed on stage."
Okay, I see what you're saying. You're talking more pomo/ experimental literature. I would argue the enjoyment of that can still be escapist. Not for every reader, of course, but for those who enjoy it, it can be an escape from whatever else you were doing. Depending on the reader, they may get a lot more escapist pleasure from that than they would from, say, a Western.
I get that you are talking about works that make you hyperaware of reality rather than putting you in a different reality. I don't know, though, I think the hyper-real can sometimes seem unreal (and certainly surreal), and maybe not escaping can be a kind of escape. ;-)
Not to veer too off topic or anything.
Marc wrote: "... I agree literature has to entertain like any fiction, but far from escapism, there is much fiction that continually reminds the reader that what they are reading is a work of fiction and that it does not call for any suspension of belief or escapism. ..."Really? I believe that John Irving's works are considered 'literature' and yet, I found that some of his books, such as A Prayer for Owen Meany, require a bit of 'suspension of belief' (tho I usually use the phrase 'suspension of disbelief').
living up to your name :-)My work often deals with the hyperreal and to my mind that represents the blurring of reality with notions about it that are fed by media, TV, film and other sources, so that one can no longer tell if the experiences one recalls are actually not personally experience, but shaped by say a TV programme or a film. The hyperreal becomes reality for those unable to distinguish things within it. But I'm not sure that makes it escapist. A film like "Natural Born Killers" is a pretty good example of hyperreal art.
Terms like pomo & experimental are flawed, but yes that's the sort of work we're talking about. Again I'm still not sure the mere reading of such work meaning you're not currently doing anything else like cooking or the laundry, necessarily means you're escaping from them!
Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "Marc wrote: "... I agree literature has to entertain like any fiction, but far from escapism, there is much fiction that continually reminds the reader that what they are reading is a work of ficti..."the two are different. Suspension of disbelief as I understand it, is that because the author is creating a fictional world removed from our own, the reader in order to enter that world is asked to leave their notions of reality behind and be carried through by the logic of the realities portrayed in the book.
Suspending belief, particularly in regard to things like meta-fiction, is having your notions (certainties?) of what a book is, what a story is, how language works, how characters think, speak and behave (irrespective of the setting of the world they find themselves in) all completely challenged and shaken up by the book because of what it does with these various elements.
Marc wrote: "...the two are different. Suspension of disbelief as I understand it, is that because the author is creating a fictional world removed from our own..."By mere fact of 'creating', one realises that it's fiction, no? And for me, 'removed from our own' so that readers 'leave their notions of reality behind' is more for genres such as fantasy or paranormal/supernatural. So I don't apply such notions to stories which are consider 'contemporary' reads.
I also don't quite get your distinction re: suspension of belief vs. disbelief. If an author is seeking to 'challenge' and 'shake up' whatever a reader believes, then the reader would, to some lesser or greater extent, have to suspend their own *disbelief* at what the author is attempting, no? Otherwise, I doubt that the author will be entirely successful in his/her attempt at whatever.
Frex, if someone were to argue that the Virgin Mary was and remained a virgin and that Jesus was in fact the product of an immaculate conception, I would have to set aside my own disbelief so to hear & consider that person's argument (or give it any credibility).
ETA: Abbreviated reply to Marc's #406 so to avoid taking thread further OT.
Marc wrote: "...It's not a question of the mere fact of creation equating to the work being fiction..."
Guess I should've quoted the entirety of your wording = creating a fictional world . And my post referred to your earlier statement that 'there is much fiction that continually reminds the reader that what they are reading is a work of fiction'.
I think there is a difference. I think when you pick up a work of (say) metafiction, you can reasonably expect that this will not be a conventional narrative, be it in its form or its language or both. I don't think there is any suspension of disbelief entailed. Either the author pulls off what they are doing and the reader is able to follow the fictional conceits being served up, or as can also be the case, the author fails and the reader is left wondering what the hell they've just read. I agree with your first notion that suspension of disbelief is far more likely to be associated with genre works, because they are more likely to engage in world building such as sciFi, Fantasy, Paranormal & supernatural. Probably less so with chick-lit.
It's not a question of the mere fact of creation equating to the work being fiction (is not memoir an arrangement of 'true' material into a narrative that as a whole never happened in quite that precise way?) Reminding the reader that a work is fiction may be a stratagem for the author to engage the reader in considering the relationship of fiction to the reader's own reality. Why would any author use fiction to probe our own reality? You can only do this by establishing a relationship between fiction and reality for the reader and part of this I believe involves reminding the reader of the nature of fiction through such conceits as unreliable narrators, the art of storytelling and yarn spinning etc.
Linda wrote: "And Such is the Nature Of Belief."The argument I would give you is such is the nature of language
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Simple Jess (other topics)Infinite Jest (other topics)
A Prayer for Owen Meany (other topics)
The Star Of Jolanest: Tales From Tamara (other topics)
Pogo (other topics)
