Who Am I Writing For?

Years ago, at a charity auction, I bid for and won a t-shirt because it had a bunch of writing quotes on it, including this one:


Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then for money – Moliere*


Of course, there are more things to write for than that. You might start making up stories to entertain a child, or write more for respect and recognition than money or the simple enjoyment of it, but I suspect that when a writer starts being paid for writing – when it becomes a source of income – they (and others) have to wonder how that influences them. After all, saying you don't do it for the money but for the love of it sounds so noble, but a writer still needs to eat and pay the bills. And there's no better proof that someone likes your work than when they spend their own hard-earned cash on it.


But I'm less interested in "what do you write for?" as I am in the "who do you write for?". By that I mean who a writer is trying to please while they're doing the actual writing.


Me? When high on the thrill of inspiration, when the words flow and the story is rocking along, I'm having so much fun that it's hard to believe I'm writing to please anyone but myself. When I'm struggling, forcing myself to write when not in the mood in order to meet a deadline, I wonder why I'm doing something that is so much hard work and I'm convinced I'm doing it for everyone but me: my agent, my publisher, and the readers.


But even when I'm having fun, the enjoyment isn't entirely self-centred. I can think of two examples:


1) When I'm holding back information, or revealing it, I get a real kick out of imagining what the reader will be thinking at that point. I might know what's going to happen, but they don't. I've always had a few 'three chapters at a time' test readers, so I can pester them with 'what do you think is going to happen next?' questions as a book progresses. It lets me know if I'm being too obvious, or confusing them. I know I'm getting it right when they have no idea, but can't wait to find out.


2) If the writing is dragging I think to myself: "Well, this is no good. If I'm bored, then the reader will be too. Time to make this more interesting". It's the fastest way to get out of the doldrums.


And yet, it's not all about pleasing the reader. Which brings me to another favourite quote:


I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone – Bill Cosby^


I've seen newly published writers get all tied in knots after encountering reviews of their first book and/or hanging about on forums. A couple of readers don't like prologues, or first person, or that creatures that were similar to cows were called something else, and the author panics. It's as though every reader was their editor, and it leaves them thinking if they doing something wrong and should change the way they write.


After my first book was published I encountered the same feedback. Sometimes what readers hated in books – say, that it was written in first person – was something I liked as a reader. Sometimes what they thought was wonderful was something that I disliked intensely. One reader loved what another hated. It was perplexing until I realised that readers aren't editors, they're more like test readers. When my test readers disagree with each other about something, it usually comes down to a matter of personal taste.


It's more obvious that personal taste is the problem when, for instance, I get the very occasional reader who objects to me putting gay characters in my stories. It's not a flaw in the book; it's just not to this particular reader's taste. And that takes me back to the question of who I'm writing for. Obviously NOT a reader who objects to gay characters. They can always read something else. It's not like there's a dearth of books without gay characters in them.


The truth is, when I'm writing for readers, I'm not writing for all readers. Tastes in books vary so much, that it would be impossible to please everyone. So I'm writing for 'my' readers. But I'm also writing for myself, because while I gain a great deal of satisfaction and entertainment out of writing, a large part of that comes from thinking about the enjoyment my readers will have reading them.


*While this quote is usually attributed to Moliere, it turns out that may not be exactly true.


^Bill Cosby may be an odd person for a writer to quote, but it goes to show that some audience-creator issues are universal.

1 like ·   •  6 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 12, 2012 17:15
Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Aliased (new)

Aliased I don't object to gay/lesbian characters, but I do find the ratio of gay/lesbian main characters to straight ones to be off-putting and beyond my willing suspension of disbelief.

If the ratio of main characters who are homosexual to main characters who are straight is an accurate representation of their preferences in the countries as a whole in the Magicians and Traitor trilogies I think economic growth would be stymied as the population diminished.

What I'm trying to say is that while I could have accepted several homosexual characters in the those two trilogies it feels like they are all over the place, as though there was a little too much agenda spilled onto what was otherwise a very entertaining fantasy story.


message 2: by Anna (new)

Anna The ratio isn't unrealistic at all. Most fantasy books (most books) feature much fewer GSM characters than is realistic. You could go through 50 books and not find a single GSM character, especially if you were purposefully avoiding them. Consider the Magicians and Traitor trilogies to be correcting this difference. In total we have 6 major GSM characters across (so far) five books. Sure, it's perhaps a little higher than you might excpect for a randomly picked population the size of the books' cast. But it's not huge.

It's never stated that this is an accurate representation. The author chose these characters to focus on. A large number of the characters are magicians, but that doesn't mean Kyralia is overrun with magic users. As for your point about economuc growth and diminished populations... I'm not going to go into that too much, but it is possible for lgb people to have kids (bisexuals obviously can, and orientation does not equal actions. It's made pretty clear that many people are probably hiding their sexuality). The culture of Kyralia is roughly medieval, and in those times the population was much smaller. Since they have superior healing skills it may be that their population is larger than their technology can support and so a higher rate of homosexuality is a good thing for society!

'All over the place'? There are six. It's not an agenda, it's just characters. If you have a problem with it? Fine. Go read something else, god knows if you want to avoid gay characters it's pretty easy. Don't begrudge minorities their representation in an already biased media.


message 3: by Aliased (new)

Aliased Anna I have said what I came to say and can move on now, however, before I go I want you to know two things.

I disagree with almost all of what you said, and I am pleasantly refreshed by your ability to state your opinion politely and in proper sentence/paragraph structure.

I hope you have a wonderful day, mine is slightly better for having read your post.


message 4: by Isabelle (new)

Isabelle Wow talking about bias James. Hope you have a nice day in your one sided world :)


message 5: by Claire (new)

Claire I can see this turning into a mudslinging contest like most healthy debates on here. Everyone's world is one sided to a certain extent, thats why its called a viewpoint. Its how a particular person sees it. Doesnt mean its right or wrong but we are all entitled to out opinions and though I happen to agree with Anna, that doesnt make James's opinion any less valid.


message 6: by John (new)

John Claire wrote: "I can see this turning into a mudslinging contest like most healthy debates on here. Everyone's world is one sided to a certain extent, thats why its called a viewpoint. Its how a particular pers..."

I don’t think James was trying to be disparaging at all and I happen to agree with him. There is an overabundance of rainbows here that make a reader ask why, what does it have to offer the plot, does it distract? I found it distracting as I could not fathom the why part. I am indifferent to people’s personal orientations and only note these ones as they distract from the actual story … but that is my 5c


back to top

Trudi Canavan's Blog

Trudi Canavan
Trudi Canavan isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.
Follow Trudi Canavan's blog with rss.