Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I don't think we can separate the story and the writer (a story is infinitely malleable, and the writer is the one doing the moulding). So, by saying that the story's only responsibility is to itself, we are effectively saying that the writer's only responsibility is to the story - but since they are one and the same thing, the writer's only responsibility is to themselves. All a bit convoluted.
As to the writer's responsibility to the reader: well, since you include the fact that the only reader might be only the writer themselves, we seem to have once again woven ourselves back into the tangle.
But if we try to pull out of the convolutions, then we might get to something like this: A writer intending publication should consider the audience.
This is not quite the same thing as having a responsibility to the reader - there is no actual obligation involved - but any published work that hopes to achieve a readership (however wide or narrow) must consider their audience. However, it remains up to the writer to choose between what they believe is best for the story versus what is best for the reader. The hope is always that there is no choice (what is best for one is also the best for the other), but this is not always the case.
To pick up on an example I found in another forum (that I know a few here may recognise) - should he shoot the dog? Lots of readers don't like animals being harmed in books (kill, torture and main as many people as you like, but don't touch the dog/cat/horse). So here a writer has to choose between what happened in the story in their head, versus what readers are willing to accept. Should the story/writer remain true to themselves, or should they bow to preferences of the readership? It's not always an easy choice.
|
If the dog doesn't leave his feet alone, it is tempting.
Seriously, what genre?
Horror would be more acceptable than romance. Why are we shooting the dog? Should we tie up the owner instead?