Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I had much the same trouble with Kenny's: "That's the whole point of fiction, to allow the reader to explore, to be, to experience being someone else."
I will allow that vicarious pleasure can be one of the points of fiction. It may even be a very common point from the perspective of the reader, but it is less obvious how often this is a point from the writer's perspective (and so how often it is, or is not, a side effect).
If the writer is merely trying to portray a story as effectively as they can, it may be that any vicarious pleasure experienced by the reader is a side effect of that process. But sometimes a reader can recognise being manipulated by the writer. (Of course this should not happen. The reader may be manipulated by the writer but they should not be aware of the fact.) So deliberate manipulation is certainly possible, and I'm quite sure it happens - probably more often than I've recognised.
Whatever. There are lots of reasons for fiction and a vicarious thrill is just one of them.
Love of language must come out somewhere pretty high on the list. The wonderful dialogue of Pride and Prejudice, the playful twists of language in Alice in Wonderland, the ... well, you can fill in your own.
The exploration of ideas is also pretty common, most especially, but not exclusively, in science fiction.
The statement of political ideals is not uncommon.
And the list goes on.
If there is any "whole point" of fiction, it must surely be to write something that isn't completely true. (It can be partly true. It can be a truth of sorts. But if it was completely true it wouldn't be fiction.)
|
The writer's only obligation, really, is not to get in the way of his/her story reaching the reader in its best form, unhindered by declamations of political ideals or other dreck that only serve the author's self-indulgence, rather than the readers' enjoyment and comprehension of the story. In that vein, s/he should also seek not to encumber the story with homonym errors, typos, scanning errors or anything else that's easily fixed. And by easily, yeah, verily, perhaps I mean a paid proofer or editor, or maybe I just mean beta readers--but whatever it takes, simple errors shouldn't get through, not on any large scale.
If the writer couldn't care less about commercial sales, then s/he can write whatever drivel or brilliance s/he wants, and be as true to him/herself as s/he wishes--but again, that assumes that s/he doesn't give two sh*ts about money or sales. If you do give those sh*ts about sales, then you are obliged to also give the reader an enjoyable ride, whether you are writing romance or horror, comedy or tragedy, etc. Writing perfect sentences is meaningless, if you cannot tell a story. Telling a brilliant story is meaningless, if your text and spelling, etc., is so tortured that the reader can't suffer through enough paragraphs to understand your gist. Or, for that matter, if your brilliant story is so self-indulgent that nobody buys it--what's the point, then? You've written something that makes you happy--but will you still be happy if nobody,
ever, reads it?
Why are you writing, then,
if not for the reader? You can say that you're writing for yourself, that your obligation is to yourself--but surely, you're kidding yourself. Because if you've published it, then your hope is patently that people read it, that they buy it. And for that to happen, you had to have given some thought to what you owe that reader, along the way.
You're either writing for the reader, or whatever you're doing it's not writing. It might be called a lot of things--but being an author, being a writer, isn't one of them. Journalling, perhaps. But again--that's not being a writer.
Just my $.02.
Hitch