Story vs reader's expectations.

[Courtney]

Some authors emphasize they focus on telling the story they want to tell and hope readers will like it. That's understandable but is it a fair or even reasonable expectation?

Writing today is more a medium of entertainment than an artistic exploration and expression of words. Literature isn't dead but it's not in high demand either. Readers are picking up books for escapism, power fantasies and other emotional outlets lacking in everyday life more than looking to grow as a person or challenge preconceived notions.

I don't like reducing readers to customers but they DO make or break authors with their financial and personal support. As impossible as it is to please everyone should a "professional" author bear some responsibility in attempting to tell others a story they want/expect to hear or write whatever they feel like and hope it appeals to someone?

I'm asking because I think there's a split in authors - those who consider themselves entertainers searching for an audience and artists who want to be appreciated for their craft.

If you're an author, which do you identify with more and how does that impact/compromise your approach to telling a story and finding readers for it?

[Yzabel]

Hmm, I guess I'm in the "write what I want" category. I'm willing to compromise on things such as "add more description" or "tone down the techno-babble". But I absolutely refuse to do things such as "add more romance because a lot of readers like it" if the story I want to tell has no room for romance. I'm using that as an example. Replace it with "fight scenes" or whatever else fits the bill.

The way I understand being a "professional author", it's in the quality: good grammar/spelling, sentences that make sense, delivering a good product, etc. On the other hand, I honestly think that if it's to find yourself writing stories you're not interested in, just because the wider audience wants them, then you might as well crap out stuff like technical manuals for a living. (I don't have anything against technical writers—I used to be one, and might go back to that field again—but let's be honest, it's not the most creative activity out there. ^^)

Of course, as usual, it's a matter of balance. I guess my balance just lies more towards the "do what I like" side, rather than "do everything for the audience only".

[G.G.]

Please don't believe I disregard the readers, but if every author would stick to the trend, what would become of the readers who are not fond of that trend?
Or are simply tired of it?

I am a firm believer that an author should write what he or she feels and not write for the money. That's also how new trends start. There would never be anything new if not for those who are risking it.

[Courtney]

I don't think anyone can write a story they don't care about or are uncomfortable telling. That said, shouldn't mass appeal be a consideration?

I guess, for me, I want to include as many readers rather than exclude so I have rewrites that insert more romance or action because it keeps people invested. My book is about far more than either of those things and the story wouldn't necessarily suffer if I had no love story or minimal action but then - judging by gripes from reviewers for other genre books - these are things they want/expect from stories and get frustrated at the execution (i.e. love triangles) more than the fact these things were included.

[Yzabel]

Courtney wrote: "My book is about far more than either of those things and the story wouldn't necessarily suffer if I had no love story or minimal action but then - judging by gripes from reviewers for other genre books - these are things they want/expect from stories and get frustrated at the execution (i.e. love triangles) more than the fact these things were included."

As a reader, this would be one of my gripes: "why did the author include a love triangle in a story that didn't call for one?" If the triangle is well-done, I'll probably tolerate it... but if it isn't, or, worse, if it detracts from the story (e.g. world-building not developed enough because the author had to make room for romance), then I'll definitely resent the inclusion of this element of "appeal to the masses."

But then, we can never make everyone happy, it seems. ^^;

[Courtney]

I'd sooner have world building myself as a reader and writer but I know some people want love octagons if an author will give it to them. Though i expect that's more a cooncern of romance writers, which is not my genre ^^

[[deleted user]]

I've gotta go with Yzabel and G.G. on this one. I write what I like mainly because if I try to write something to meet someone else's expectations, it won't be as good as my own work simply because I'm not invested in it; it's contract work, and when I do contract work, my only motivation is money.

Tell the story that's in your heart, Courtney, secure in the knowledge that if it's good writing, it will find its audience.

[[deleted user]]

I write what I want to write. I don't need huge sales because I don't write for a living, and writing is worth it only if I have a love for what I'm doing. I write Science Fiction for thoughtful adult males who want an epic, galaxy-spanning adventure generated logically from the events within the story--at least in novels--and with intelligent, realistic characters, situations, and dialog. I know that stories like that can also appeal to some women, and I welcome female readers as well.

So I write the kind of stories I like to read, and I enjoy the challenge.

[Courtney]

Thanks, Jack! I agree I don't think I could tell a story that didn't engage me also but I LOVE the energy fandoms inspire and some of my happiest memories include getting psyched about Harry Potter releases or obsessing for clues in A Song of Ice and Fire because other fans were invested.

That's why I lean towards making myself an entertaining writer who may say something important than a writer trying to say something important and hoping it entertains. It's easier and more gratifying to try and give people a good time because I'll know my story provided something they valued, even if it was just a break.

[Library Lady 📚]

Jack wrote: "I've gotta go with Yzabel and G.G. on this one. I write what I like mainly because if I try to write something to meet someone else's expectations, it won't be as good as my own work simply because..."

I think this shows up in some series towards the end, where the author was under contract to write a certain number of books, but it's obvious he/she burned out a few books before the end. Hence, crap sequels towards the end of a series.

[Virginia]

Am I the only one who sees rewriting the classic storylines and plots as the same as art students copying the grand masters and music students playing a piece again and again until they get it write? Like the phrase, 'You have to learn the rules before you can brake them.' Writing commercial fiction and learning how to please an audience gives us the knowledge we need to bring in literary themes and complicated issues in a way that people will love.

Maybe I'm biased. Half my work is epics trying to be high literature and the other half is novelas where all the characters diddle each other. Maybe one will fund the other.

[Yzabel]

Lena wrote: "I think this shows up in some series towards the end, where the author was under contract to write a certain number of books, but it's obvious he/she burned out a few books before the end. Hence, crap sequels towards the end of a series."

Clearly. I've read a few books that made me think the author was padding and filling up pages, and wonder if the whole problem wasn't because s/he had to deliver a definite number of novels to the publisher, while having already told his/her story a long time ago.

Courtney wrote: "I'd sooner have world building myself as a reader and writer but I know some people want love octagons if an author will give it to them. Though i expect that's more a cooncern of romance writers, which is not my genre ^^."

I was thinking of a couple of "horror stories" I've heard about. Things like, "you're writing YA so you HAVE to include romance" (which makes sense in some stories, but not in others).

I've had a few people tell me that my current project didn't include enough romance; but the characters just don't strike me as having the time to indulge into frolicking, so why the hell would I add such scenes? They'd just be fillers, take too much room in a story that is already pretty long, and I'd hate having to cut on important character development/important scenes to make room for them—see what I mean? (Conversely, if I was writing a romance novel, I wouldn't include fight scenes or car chases just because some readers like those.)

[Michael]

I always try to be reader-focused when making decisions about my work, but I try to weave my artistic spirit in between.

I've had a few people tell me that my current project didn't include enough romance; but the characters just don't strike me as having the time to indulge into frolicking, so why the hell would I add such scenes? They'd just be fillers, take too much room in a story that is already pretty long, and I'd hate having to cut on important character development/important scenes to make room for them—see what I mean? (Conversely, if I was writing a romance novel, I wouldn't include fight scenes or car chases just because some readers like those.)

I tell people to write whatever they want. As you pick up readers, you'll start to determine what they like. Then, as you write more novels, you learn what works and what doesn't, without betraying your artistic spirit. Those people who are recommending more violence, more romance, etc, probably aren't in your target audience, anyway.

[Courtney]

Yeah, I'm not about shoehorning because you're right that it doesn't always make sense to the plot.

[Oak]

Michael wrote: "I always try to be reader-focused when making decisions about my work, but I try to weave my artistic spirit in between.

I've had a few people tell me that my current project didn't include enoug..."

Michael, I couldn't have said it any better. I fully agree.

[C.G.]

It really depends on what your goals are as a writer. If it's to make a lot of money, then you'll have to write to the trends or be lucky enough to be a trendsetter yourself. Otherwise, if you're writing because you simply have a story to tell and want to share it with a few others, then don't add things to it you never intended just because it's currently what's popular.

Like Yzabel, I was told by both an agent and a publisher that I needed to add a romance subplot to one of my novels if I ever hoped to sell a lot of copies. In the long run, they may be right, but romance had nothing to do with the story I wanted to tell, so it wasn't something I was willing to compromise on.

There's also no way to please all readers, so I don't worry about it too much. I've gotten comments where someone thought my book didn't have enough action and others that thought it had too much. I just focus on making and improving my writing style as best as I can and hope that my readers will enjoy the stories I want to tell since I do hope to make a career of it.

[Yzabel]

Michael wrote: "As you pick up readers, you'll start to determine what they like. Then, as you write more novels, you learn what works and what doesn't, without betraying your artistic spirit."

This raises interesting questions. Who does pick who? Do authors pick readers and adapt to their desires? Or do readers pick books by a certain author, and realise they like what s/he writes?

* This brought to you by the Midnight Committee for Stirring Up Debate ** ;)

Maybe I'm being elitist, but I can't really fathom the first idea. Perhaps because the more "popular/hyped" books I read, the more I realise they're not what I'd like to write anyway, so I'm not even going to try? Or perhaps because I've never really planned on earning a living through writing fiction? I don't know. It just seems... weird. I'd do things differently if I were writing non-fiction, though—but then I'd indeed do it for the money only, and no personal pleasure would be involved. Come to think of it, perhaps I also react in such a way because I've experienced writing for a very specific market, with very specific goals (i.e. technical manuals), and it helped me understand that fiction had to remain something I write on my terms, otherwise I just end up resenting it? :/

[Yzabel]

C.G. wrote: "Like Yzabel, I was told by both an agent and a publisher that I needed to add a romance subplot to one of my novels if I ever hoped to sell a lot of copies. In the long run, they may be right, but romance had nothing to do with the story I wanted to tell, so it wasn't something I was willing to compromise on."

I can't remember anymore: were you the one with a sci-fi story, and your agent told you to add romance and market it as YA because the protagonist was 17 or something? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[Justin]

I write what I want or what I myself would enjoy but I also keep the reader in mind and write that I think they would enjoy as well. You want to write a thoroughly good story but at the same time you want to appeal and reach a certain audience. I believe not only can an author do both but should do both.

[Patrick]

I think it makes a lot more sense to write what you want and to look for an audience rather than to try to write to one. Writing always suffers for the latter, and who wants to read bad writing?

[Library Lady 📚]

Patrick wrote: "I think it makes a lot more sense to write what you want and to look for an audience rather than to try to write to one. Writing always suffers for the latter, and who wants to read bad writing?"

I think it does depend on your purpose for writing. I wrote my currently published books for myself. And guess what? They are quite unpopular. Apparently no one reads literary vampire novels--they want hot rich vampires having sparkly sex, lol.

So, if you want to sell books, you should write for your readers. If you don't care, and you're just doing it for fun, do whatever you want. It's your story.

[C.G.]

Yzabel wrote: "can't remember anymore: were you the one with a sci-fi story, and your agent told you to add romance and market it as YA because the protagonist was 17 or something? Or am I thinking of someone else? ..."

It was someone else. Mine was a fantasy novel, but what my agent told me was similar to that.

[Michael]

I'm the type that writes what I have to write. But I think it was Stephen King said something along the lines of, "at first you write with the doors closed. then when you're done with it and rewrite, you write with the door open" and I take this to mean that that rewrite tends to help with adding what you feel needs to be added. But i'd never add what's in trend because it's in trend. if i'm gonna add it, i'm gonna add it because the story needs it or may help to build the story better.

[[deleted user]]

I’d think we’d all agree that as authors we write what we want to write. Unless contracted to Mills and Boon, authors generally do as they please.

I'd like to head back to the entertainment vs lit part of the debate. Those who write to be entertainers are in it for the popularity. For them, sales equates to success. It makes little sense to be an entertainer with no audience, thereby sales are crucial.

The writer who is doing it for lit is after the critical reception, welcoming both good and bad reviews. Each book is a step to becoming a better writer. And the writer is never afraid of branching out into new areas. It can never be about the money or the readers. The readers attune to the author.

For the entertainer, each book is another product to add to the brand, focusing it and broadening its appeal. Critiques are irrelevant. The author does this one thing and produces more of the same with each book. The author attunes to the reader.

Now, before the outcry, entertainment writers are the biggest sellers in the market. Look at James Patterson, Janet Evanovich, (two of my favs BTW) both with strong brands and continuing to produce work although we have probably seen the best of their work in their largest franchises. These were once lit writers who have become successful enough to be entertainment writers. So, it isn’t always one or the other.

m

[Mark]

I don't believe that entertainment writing vs lit writing is about money or prestige. I don't think most of us write for money. I don't think that you can write with any honesty or credibility if all you're looking for is a paycheck. We write because we love to write, because we have to write.
There is a divide, however, and I have always seen it in this way:
Writers who write literature are writing to please themselves (of find out something about themselves)
Writers who write popular fiction are writing to please others.

I write because I love to do it, but I also write because I want readers to enjoy what I write. I'm not trying to change the world or cause a social upheaval, I want people to be entertained.
With that in mind, the editing process is especially important to me. When my beta readers have a complaint I listen to them. If one loves some aspect of a story and another hates it, then it's pretty much a wash and I can keep it the way I had it. However, if everyone is telling me that something doesn't work (it doesn't matter if I love it or not) it needs to be changed. After all, editing is the end of writing for yourself and a chance to get it right for the audience.
Does that mean my stories are meaningless entertainment? Or your stories are? Of course not, popular fiction can be just as full of purpose and ideas as "literary" fiction is; it's just accomplished in a different way.
I don't think anyone sits down at a computer for however long it takes each of us to complete a novel for no reason. You took the time for something, you do have something to say.
The difference between literary writing and popular writing is the method you deliver the message. Literary is introspective, all about the author. Popular writing is outward-thinking.

[Virginia]

Mark wrote: "Writers who write literature are writing to please themselves (of find out something about themselves)
Writers who write popular fiction are writing to please others."

I'm really not convinced. Popular fiction is a whole lot easier to get rich in but saying that means people don't write it just for themselves, but that's the same as saying people make money from baseball but not from competitive stinging nettle eating (a real thing) so all baseball players must be doing it for the money. Fact is, many are just doing it because it's what they enjoy.

[Mark]

Virginia, I'm not saying popular writers don't write for themselves. All writers write for themselves first and foremost. What I'm saying is that writers of literature don't edit with readers in mind. I'm saying they never really consider readers. Whereas, popular writers (once the first draft is done) put the readers on the top of the list of people they're thinking about.

Personally, the reader is at least on my mind a bit when I write. Sure, I'm doing it for myself, because I love doing it, but if I hit a patch that seems slow, I'll think, this is going to bore people (and make a note to review it in the edits and see if it does read slow) or sometimes I will write a particularly good scene and think, they are going to love this.
Usually the "they" I'm thinking about is my wife. She's the reader that I think about when I ask these questions during my writing.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating literary writing. It can be very enjoyable and moving, full of thought and ideas. There are a great many literary writers that I enjoy, but it's just not the way I've ever gone about it.

[Virginia]

@Mark

But literary writers do think about the customer (the good ones, anyway). They just think about different customers. As a literary reader, you can really tell the difference.

Wikipedia describes literary fiction as: To be considered literary, a work usually must be "critically acclaimed" and "serious".[1] In practice, works of literary fiction often are "complex, literate, multilayered novels that wrestle with universal dilemmas".

Think of books like To Kill a Mockingbird. It wasn't written for the author, it was written to open up the discussion about race in america. To make people think. It wasn't written to make money but that doesn't make it inward facing.

[Lily]

Interesting topic.

Stephen King wrote in Memoir of a craft that there are two types of writers, those who write to explore themeselves, and those who write for an audience (I'm paraphrasing). He places himself in the latter group.

I feel that the reader's impression of which group a book might belong to is long after the fact. Many books that later became an open discussion about various societal issues weren't written that way to begin with. I've personally seen many writters desperately attempt more literary discussion and in the end they fail. It happens.

Catcher in the Rye became a huge phenomenon, and much later, studied in many schools. As far as I know, it's still being studied. Salinger, however, wrote for himself 100% and it was the only book he wrote. By writing for himself, he ended up speaking to a whole generation because that was the times.

I don't think any author can help writing for themselves. That's the nature of having an imagination. Whether you imaging reading the writing out loud to crowd as you write, or writing for that muse voice in the back of your mind, it's still writing for yourself.

How the books are promoted, escapism, NY best-seller list, etc, that's long after the fact, usually a publisher's decision for the best sales possible and includes targetting a very specific audience. But that's just business, and I don't feel any author needs to take it that seriously.

Personally, I've long since learned to take on the mindset of, I am both the reader and the author. I write for myself.

[Tiger]

I have a perspective that's fairly weighted towards the art side of things, though a book is still a product and needs to be thought of in that sense.

I opened my publishing company because I wanted to acquire different stories than I could readily find in the traditional publishing arena. I saw that, over the years, genre conventions have become almost laughably restrictive. I run in to this problem myself because my book is technically urban fantasy (takes place in a city + speculative elements), but nowadays when you say urban fantasy it is usually understood to mean white appearing cis hetero female lead with missing brown parent who gives them ill defined supernatural powers. There will usually be a love triangle and a general fish out of water theme, and it will primarily be oriented towards escapism. My book doesn't have any of those things, so some readers are inevitably disappointed when they crack the cover on the thing.

I imagine authors in this group often encounter similar issues. For example right now I am reading a book that is almost impossible to classify using the genre system. It doesn't have a linear plot as such. It's not a zombie book, nor a true dystopian tale. But it's a very worthy story. So then what?

I also find this trend towards escapism rather odd. When I was growing up (BACK IN MY DAY!) books were meant to challenge you. Fantasy and sci fi especially pushed the envelope and asked you to imagine whole other worlds, worlds that weren't always comfortable. Romance was often secondary or tertiary. Now, it seems like the main focus in a wide range of genres. I don't write escapism and I doubt I could if I tried. I think escapism requires glossing over subjects I will never gloss over.

Lastly, while I think it's important to stretch as a writer, to learn new things and to think of the book as a product as well as an art piece, at a certain point trying to chase trends is a bad idea. You have to write what's true to you. If you deviate too much from that, what's the point?

[Tiger]

Ken wrote: "I write what I want to write. I don't need huge sales because I don't write for a living, and writing is worth it only if I have a love for what I'm doing. I write Science Fiction for thoughtful ..."

I think it's interesting that you say this, because I think in a very general way my book is for men too (though of course I don't think that's a hard and fast rule; anyone can enjoy any story, depending). However, I think it's more for males who feel let down by the expectations of masculinity and want an atypical exploration of its downsides, or maybe they just want to see a man who isn't always putting up the expected front. I find that it's very difficult to find this type of reader, though.

[[deleted user]]

Tiger wrote: "However, I think it's more for males who feel let down by the expectations of masculinity and want an atypical exploration of its downsides, or maybe they just want to see a man who isn't always putting up the expected front. I find that it's very difficult to find this type of reader, though. ..."
I think what you mean is the anti-hero type of story vs. the steely-eyed, aces-everything-perfectly hero. Those have been around at least since the 1930s (noir private-eye movies). Dashiell Hammett's Sam Spade--played by Bogart in the movies--is a good example of that. I write people with flaws who often stumble into a situation by accident, where they can either do the right thing or the wrong thing. You have to build a character to do that convincingly. Cardboard won't cut it for me.

[Tiger]

Ken wrote: "Tiger wrote: "However, I think it's more for males who feel let down by the expectations of masculinity and want an atypical exploration of its downsides, or maybe they just want to see a man who i..."

Mm, yes and no. I got a bad review the other day that said the MC wasn't ENOUGH of an anti hero to work. I think anti hero can be as constrained by rigid masculinity as the hero.

[Lily]

And how many online reviewers know the literary definitions? I don't mean offense to anyone, but still...

I think it' unfortunate that so many in this internet culture, for lack of a better term, name or word drop whatever has been memorized from a wikipedia article.

Regardless, I think we would all benefit from putting aside the technical and, more importantly, disregard the politics. Restrictions are placed on male characters because of this rediculous paranoia of politics and no one wants to rock the boat.

A male character comes across as a knuckle-dragging caveman beccause that's what the author intended? Let them. It's called freedom of speech for a reason.

And then there are artists. They rock boats and start revolutions though they're rarely recognized until after their death.

[Tiger]

I just want to note that freedom of speech (which is more limited than people seem to realize) and freedom from criticism are not the same thing.

[Lily]

The only restriction to freedom of speech is hate speech.

I honestly feel everyone will fair better in this discussion if we all simply focus on the topic, which is anwering the question of which type do you feel you are, as an author, focus on storytelling or expecting to please readers? The semantics of the various types of readers' expectations in another topic entirely.

[Tiger]

Apparently there are some other restrictions as well

Limitations on freedom of speech

As for the topic at hand, it's a bit of both, really. Write the story you want to write but also think of the finished tale as a product. Though again I'll say following trends becomes a fool's errand if you get too invested in it. It's nigh impossible to predict what the next big trend in books will be, and by the time you've identified it, it's likely to pass before you can produce a novel that will fit with it.

[Lily]

All fiction is fuly protected by freedom of speech because it's the written word.

[Tiger]

You didn't qualify it that way the first go around. I think there's been some kerfluffle in the past over the written word as well in regards to obscenity laws.

[Lily]

Well. it is a writers' group, we're talking about writing, in the written word... using.. the written word...

[Tiger]

"The only restriction to freedom of speech is hate speech."

That did not imply to me that you were only discussing freedom of speech regarding the written word. I am not entirely sure why this is a problem.

[Lily]

It isn't. That's the point. No problems, no restrictions.

Back to the topic...

[Tiger]

Okay. Well, I'm perceiving some hostility for whatever reason (I did also respond to the topic, you'll note) so I'm going to leave you to it.

[Virginia]

Lily wrote: "And then there are artists. They rock boats and start revolutions though they're rarely recognized until after their death."

I think a lot artists and authors get most of the recognition they're ever going to get when they're alive.

As for rocking the boat, there's rocking the boat in a good way and there's the people who rock the ferris wheel carriage just because you said you didn't like it.

[[deleted user]]

I understand that this is a question for authors. Since I'm not one, maybe I shouldn't say anything on this topic. But I will anyway. I think the original question is a forced choice that shouldn't exist in real life, particularly not in the arts or humanities. It's just one more sign of our current culture that wants to create divisions where they don't have to exist. Things that are artistic and meaningful should encourage you to think differently, and not reduce everything to yes/no, dark/light, your politics/my politics, and your opinion vs mine. It's just the same ole crap replayed. Here's a quote from your topic intro again:

"I'm asking because I think there's a split in authors - those who consider themselves entertainers searching for an audience and artists who want to be appreciated for their craft. If you're an author, which do you identify with more and how does that impact/compromise your approach to telling a story and finding readers for it? "

Is there no intention of some kind of communication between authors and readers in the "craft" itself? No hope of shared understanding? If not, why bother writing it down in the first place? If it's really just all about you and your ideas, why are you putting it out there for us? And if you think we're only interested in consuming the same plate of reading without challenge or to be mindlessly entertained, why do you think we keep buying books or spend any time reading?

I don't hover over writers and I don't expect them to let me dictate to them. But if they think of readers as something reduced to this, and this only:

"Readers are picking up books for escapism, power fantasies and other emotional outlets lacking in everyday life more than looking to grow as a person or challenge preconceived notions."

...maybe the same could be said of some motivations for writing? Readers read for a lot of reasons at any give point; I hope writers do too. Otherwise, there is a danger of a writer just being someone demanding your attention while he talks to himself on the subway. Why not write what you feel compelled to as the first draft, and then reread it from the point of view of readers as you do your edits? Isn't that what you do for punctuation and grammar anyway? Why would looking at your work from another person's perspective be a bad thing?

I'm going to guess that most writers want to be true to themselves and their stories, but also care about how it connects with their readers. That's why they want readers and reviews. We're more than our money to you, aren't we? Aren't we??

[Lily]

Faerie wrote: "I understand that this is a question for authors. Since I'm not one, maybe I shouldn't say anything on this topic. But I will anyway. I think the original question is a forced choice that shouldn't..."

I appreciate your perspective :)

The thing is, it's a two-way street. Consumers are as responsible as those who create the products. There wouldn't be a market for escapism or power fantasies if consumers didn't buy it, and people have been buying it for a very long time. It's nothing new. Lady Chaterlay's Lover. Cantebury Tales. The Story of O. The list goes on. And you can bet a lot of money the writers of these books wrote for escapism, 100%, as well as enjoyed every cent they earned.

I feel the real underlying problem is people aren't talking to each other as much anymore. They're talking at each other, with this expectation of feedback being nothing more than an echo. From a author's perspective, and no I don't feel this way just throwing the question out there, why should writers feel motivated to connect to readers if readers refuse to connect with what they're reading? Two-way street.

[[deleted user]]

Faerie wrote: "I'm going to guess that most writers want to be true to themselves and their stories, but also care about how it connects with their readers. That's why they want readers and reviews. We're more than our money to you, aren't we? Aren't we??..."

What money? There's no money in this, at least for most of us. That's why we have to write for the love of it, not to get rich. I try my best to entertain the reader, give that reader his/her money's worth, and that's all I can do. My own reward for this effort--and it's a huge effort to write well and produce something of quality--is that I will leave a body of work to be proud of, or at least not be embarrassed by. That, for me, is basically the essence of the entire contract between the reader and writer. The reader finds entertainment, the writer hopefully makes back the money he spent providing it, and leaves something behind that isn't too shabby.

[Lily]

Perhaps it's the word "entertainment" that's a bit misleading. We all want to entertain, have people laugh at our jokes, nod at our thoughts, etc, but just because a writer aims for entertainment, doesn't mean we always get paid for it ;)

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "Perhaps it's the word "entertainment" that's a bit misleading. We all want to entertain, have people laugh at our jokes, nod at our thoughts, etc, but just because a writer aims for entertainment, doesn't mean we always get paid for it ;) ..."
That's correct. We don't always get paid for it. That's why writers have to love what they do because, for most, it's an unpaid hobby.

[Lily]

Ken wrote: "Lily wrote: "Perhaps it's the word "entertainment" that's a bit misleading. We all want to entertain, have people laugh at our jokes, nod at our thoughts, etc, but just because a writer aims for en..."

I've often thought of creative writing like a volunteer job. It's thankless work, but still needed.