This is originally posted on my real blog, but since it was inspired by something someone said in class, I'm throwing it here, too:
Sol Stein, who I intensely dislike in most regards related to writing, early in his book Stein on Writing states that he often finds writers write for the wrong reason--the correct reason, he says, is to "provide a reason with an experience that is superior to the experiences the reader encounters in everyday life." It's a concept I'm not sure I fully agree with, but it does speak to something that I think many writers forget when thinking about publication: that the writing cannot exist only for the writer.
Stephen King addresses this when he writes in his own memoir, On Writing, when he says that one must write with the door closed, but rewrite with the door open--that is, when you write you can write for yourself (and, perhaps, your "ideal reader," another King concept), but when you edit you have to consider your overall audience. While it's easy and quite attractive to think that writing (for an audience) is an intrinsic ability and done only for the pleasure of the writer, it really is no different from many other arts in that it is dependent upon its audience to flourish, and that it's the audience's reaction and ability to interpret a piece that makes it lasting, important, and/or popular.
Of course, therein exists a problem with Stein's concept of what the ideal reason to write is. Stein, of course, is primarily interested in writing "literature," something he stresses mostly while degrading the concept of genre (which is one the reasons I dislike the man). In his mind, great writers write because they must, and those that must never feel the need to write about zombies, spaceships, falling in love with a lusty barmaid, or uncovering the mystery of a murder. However, I feel compelled to write as I imagine many of those literature-lovers do, but never do I feel the need to write outside of horror, romance, and other things to entertain. My goal, as a writer, after all, is to entertain--both myself and the reader. It's something Stein would no-doubt frown upon, since I know my romantic retelling of traditional Celtic folktales do not and never will fall upon his views of worthy prose.
The war between genre and literature is something I will never understand, but one thing I do know is that while it's noble to seek out superior experiences for one's readers, it's also noble to simply want to entertain--and if my entertainment (or my superior experience, for that matter) is a story wherein a family is brutally killed in a haunted house, I will never see a problem in that so long as I know I wrote for more than simply myself, and the readers are enjoying themselves--even if some stodgy academic in his ivory tower of literature doesn't think so.
Sol Stein, who I intensely dislike in most regards related to writing, early in his book Stein on Writing states that he often finds writers write for the wrong reason--the correct reason, he says, is to "provide a reason with an experience that is superior to the experiences the reader encounters in everyday life." It's a concept I'm not sure I fully agree with, but it does speak to something that I think many writers forget when thinking about publication: that the writing cannot exist only for the writer.
Stephen King addresses this when he writes in his own memoir, On Writing, when he says that one must write with the door closed, but rewrite with the door open--that is, when you write you can write for yourself (and, perhaps, your "ideal reader," another King concept), but when you edit you have to consider your overall audience. While it's easy and quite attractive to think that writing (for an audience) is an intrinsic ability and done only for the pleasure of the writer, it really is no different from many other arts in that it is dependent upon its audience to flourish, and that it's the audience's reaction and ability to interpret a piece that makes it lasting, important, and/or popular.
Of course, therein exists a problem with Stein's concept of what the ideal reason to write is. Stein, of course, is primarily interested in writing "literature," something he stresses mostly while degrading the concept of genre (which is one the reasons I dislike the man). In his mind, great writers write because they must, and those that must never feel the need to write about zombies, spaceships, falling in love with a lusty barmaid, or uncovering the mystery of a murder. However, I feel compelled to write as I imagine many of those literature-lovers do, but never do I feel the need to write outside of horror, romance, and other things to entertain. My goal, as a writer, after all, is to entertain--both myself and the reader. It's something Stein would no-doubt frown upon, since I know my romantic retelling of traditional Celtic folktales do not and never will fall upon his views of worthy prose.
The war between genre and literature is something I will never understand, but one thing I do know is that while it's noble to seek out superior experiences for one's readers, it's also noble to simply want to entertain--and if my entertainment (or my superior experience, for that matter) is a story wherein a family is brutally killed in a haunted house, I will never see a problem in that so long as I know I wrote for more than simply myself, and the readers are enjoying themselves--even if some stodgy academic in his ivory tower of literature doesn't think so.
RSS Feed