The 7 Writer Types You Should Avoid Becoming

[ApK]

Originally Posted by issybird

But what a reader brings to a story or hopes to get from it is his responsibility; it's not the responsibility of a story to provide them; the story's only responsibility is to itself.

Er...em. I can't speak to the raison d'être of the story-personified (or is that anthropomorphized?) Maybe said story needs to reflect on its role in story-society, or consult with it's story-priest or story-rabbi.

However, this being the WRITER'S corner, as opposed to the STORY'S corner, I think the WRITER has a responsibility to strive for excellence in the craft.

The story may or may not have a responsibility to itself, but I think we as writers have a responsibility to the story to tell it well. And I'd go so far to say that keeping the reader in mind is a key part of faithfully executing on that responsibility, so in that sense we have responsibility to the reader as well. And that need have nothing to do with making a living.

I think this is true in fiction, and even more important in non-fiction. Whatever the message is--story, instruction, argument, business case-- writers have a responsibility to the message and to the reader, whether that reader be the general public or no one but the writer themselves.

Now, I'm assuming we mean "writer" as in one who practices the art and craft, not just as in one who has achieved first grade literacy and can operate a pencil or keyboard.

So, yeah, get the homophones right.
(Or is it 'write'?)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

When was that movie made?

It hasn't been made yet. We're writing the script as we go along. . . .

[gmw]

Originally Posted by issybird

No, it's the phrase, "That's the whole point of fiction." It most certainly is not. That fiction allows for personal response does not make it the point, much less the whole point, of fiction. It's a side effect.

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.)

[Hitch]

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

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

Er...em. I can't speak to the raison d'être of the story-personified (or is that anthropomorphized?) Maybe said story needs to reflect on its role in story-society, or consult with it's story-priest or story-rabbi.

However, this being the WRITER'S corner, as opposed to the STORY'S corner, I think the WRITER has a responsibility to strive for excellence in the craft.

The story may or may not have a responsibility to itself, but I think we as writers have a responsibility to the story to tell it well. And I'd go so far to say that keeping the reader in mind is a key part of faithfully executing on that responsibility, so in that sense we have responsibility to the reader as well. And that need have nothing to do with making a living.

I think this is true in fiction, and even more important in non-fiction. Whatever the message is--story, instruction, argument, business case-- writers have a responsibility to the message and to the reader, whether that reader be the general public or no one but the writer themselves.
[...]

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.

[Cinisajoy]

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?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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?

Why does the genre matter? Aside from books for very young children, it is difficult to think of a genre that doesn't kill people as a matter of course. So why do animals get special treatment?

(I'm guilty of the special treatment too, but I do find it an interesting phenomena.)

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by gmw

Why does the genre matter? Aside from books for very young children, it is difficult to think of a genre that doesn't kill people as a matter of course. So why do animals get special treatment?

(I'm guilty of the special treatment too, but I do find it an interesting phenomena.)

Nothing "special" about it; we typically don't just kill off small children in books, either, because they are dependent upon us, as are animals. You can kill off a dog, sure--but you can also kill off some readership. We all know that there's a demographic that won't tolerate what they perceive as "gratuitous cruelty" to animals, and you risk that reading demographic by including it--whether YOU think it's gratuitous or not.

(FWIW: I struggled with this, in a particular story/plot for which I'd had high hopes. Basically, the plot line required a particular act, or you couldn't get there from here. Long story short--ha! See what I did there?--I abandoned the book. Despite whatever I may have owed to "the integrity of the story," I couldn't, when push came to shove, write it. I mean, I could have--but I'm not sure that it ever would have been solidly written, given all my misgivings about it, both my own and any prospective readers'. And that would have been the greatest sin of all--include it because I couldn't see how NOT to, but then do a botched job of writing it. Ick.)

Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by gmw

Why does the genre matter? Aside from books for very young children, it is difficult to think of a genre that doesn't kill people as a matter of course. So why do animals get special treatment?

(I'm guilty of the special treatment too, but I do find it an interesting phenomena.)

I don't think many romance novels kill people, but that is a feel good genre.
Animals get special treatment because they are dependent on us.

Now like Hitch, I have a story I would love to write but I can't do it without one particular character and I refuse to put that character in my book.

[arjaybe]

Travis McGee killed a dog in Mexico, but I don't know if it caused MacDonald to lose readers.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Hitch

[...](FWIW: I struggled with this, in a particular story/plot for which I'd had high hopes. Basically, the plot line required a particular act, or you couldn't get there from here. Long story short--ha! See what I did there?--I abandoned the book. Despite whatever I may have owed to "the integrity of the story," I couldn't, when push came to shove, write it. I mean, I could have--but I'm not sure that it ever would have been solidly written, given all my misgivings about it, both my own and any prospective readers'. And that would have been the greatest sin of all--include it because I couldn't see how NOT to, but then do a botched job of writing it. Ick.)

Hitch

Ah. I actually wrote my variation on this problem, I just haven't tried to publish it. It's probably the hardest I've ever worked on a short story (14k words). It's one of those stories that sort of insisted I finish it. It took months, but I couldn't concentrate on anything else until I got this one out of the way - and I did try. It's a psychological horror of sorts (or that's how I see it) and not at all what I normally write, although there is a theme to it not unlike some of other writing. Being horror it's possible I would get away with the animal cruelty ... or not. Not sure if I will ever publish it, but at least I got it out of my system; it was quite a relief when it was finally done.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Nothing "special" about it; we typically don't just kill off small children in books, either, because they are dependent upon us, as are animals.[...]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I don't think many romance novels kill people, but that is a feel good genre.
Animals get special treatment because they are dependent on us.[...]

Not sure I'm fully convinced by the "dependent" argument. It's part of it, sure, but I don't think it's the full story because the prejudice appears to extend even to those animals that don't depend on us. (Although Twilight did get away with killing bears and cougars - but I certainly wasn't happy about it.) It might just be that it seems such an unfair match between human and animal, but then many of the murders of people aren't fair either.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by gmw

Ah. I actually wrote my variation on this problem, I just haven't tried to publish it. It's probably the hardest I've ever worked on a short story (14k words). It's one of those stories that sort of insisted I finish it. It took months, but I couldn't concentrate on anything else until I got this one out of the way - and I did try. It's a psychological horror of sorts (or that's how I see it) and not at all what I normally write, although there is a theme to it not unlike some of other writing. Being horror it's possible I would get away with the animal cruelty ... or not. Not sure if I will ever publish it, but at least I got it out of my system; it was quite a relief when it was finally done.

Mine was a mystery, but it required this one bit, to sort of set up everything else, and I just...never got it written. Wrangled with it too much.

Originally Posted by gmw

Not sure I'm fully convinced by the "dependent" argument. It's part of it, sure, but I don't think it's the full story because the prejudice appears to extend even to those animals that don't depend on us. (Although Twilight did get away with killing bears and cougars - but I certainly wasn't happy about it.) It might just be that it seems such an unfair match between human and animal, but then many of the murders of people aren't fair either.

Well, I do think that there's still a difference, in the mind of most readers, between slaying of domestic pets as a device (the intrepid heroine comes home to her almost-ubiquitous dead cat, rather than a dead dog), versus a pioneer killing a deer to feed his family. They're obviously not the same, in any way, to the reader's mind.

I'm not big on killing animals, mostly because like Dancing with Wolves, it's a cheap gratuitous plot device, to evoke a response. It wasn't necessary to drive home the "white people bad, Indians good" theme, at all. It was there just to elicit the "ooooooooooh noooooooo!" response. I don't respect that at all, whether it's Lions, Tigers or Bears, or puddy tats.

Hitch

[skb]

I remember watching "Rear Window" when it was re-released after Hitchcock's death (so not many people in the cinema audience had ever seen it).

No one seemed to mind when Mr Thorwald bumped off his wife. All good fun. However, when he murdered the dog...everyone in the cinema seemed to turn. There actually was a collective gasp in the cinema. I went six times (I may be a bit of a Hitchcock fan...) and the reaction was the same each time. Some people cried when the dog died.

Edited to add: Ooops, sorry...spoilers?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by skb

I remember watching "Rear Window" when it was re-released after Hitchcock's death (so not many people in the cinema audience had ever seen it).

No one seemed to mind when Mr Thorwald bumped off his wife. All good fun. However, when he murdered the dog...everyone in the cinema seemed to turn. There actually was a collective gasp in the cinema. I went six times (I may be a bit of a Hitchcock fan...) and the reaction was the same each time. Some people cried when the dog died.

Edited to add: Ooops, sorry...spoilers?

I'm not gonna lie--I'm the same way. Kill 50 guys, meh. Kill THE CAT? And you're on my sh*tlist for life, no redemption possible. ;-)

Hitch