Here's a snippet.

quote:

---

I suppose that obvious things are the hardest to define. Everybody
thinks he knows what a story is. But if you ask a beginning student to
write a story, you're liable to get almost anything--a reminiscence, an
episode, an opinion, an anecdote, anything under the sun but a story.

---

OSC has pointed out that what the "literati" (aka literary snobs) don't seem to realize is because such a small percentage of the population even READS, all readers qualify as elite, or the top percentage of the population.

For someone to sneer at an "average reader" as if he or she were part of some "great unwashed" is ludicrous. Yes, many of those who read may not be very sophisticated readers and they may not be very selective (in the sense that matters to the "literati"), but they are very selective about what they like and what they look for when they read. They just value different things in their reading choices than those who sneer at them think they should value.

When OSC says that only a small percentage of the population reads at all, he is perfectly correct...from a certain point of view. Only a small fraction of the population reads because they like to "read", and this definition of reading uses its own sub-definition of reading To "like to read" in this sense means to enjoy the mental and imaginative activity of looking at simple text and turning it into a complete and vivid experience.

So OSC talks of a faculty that is well beyond simple literacy, and one that is being used for simple pleasure. Most people can "read" in the sense of translating written or printed symbols into words and understanding the direct meaning of word and sentance units. Probably a large number have the ability we call "comprehension" where a large segment of text must be translated into a unified and coherent whole (these are the people that can learn to program a VCR by reading the instructions ).

But only a very select few both have that capability in strong measure and enjoy using it for its own sake. And these don't even constitute the majority of book buyers. Most people that buy a book will never actually read it. Even if you discount those that buy books for relatives or acquaintances they happen to know enjoy reading, most books are sold to simply lie on bookshelves (with the exception of books intended to be read aloud). Of course, this is just my opinion, but consider the kinds of books that are bestsellers. They are the sort of thing that one puts on the coffee table as a conversation piece, they are rarely the sort of thing that any sane person would actually read.

So the "average reader" means someone that reads only with difficulty, understands almost nothing of what is read, and doesn't read at all if there is any plausible alternative. It doesn't refer to the average person that not only buys a book, but then actually reads it for pleasure.

Is this all true? Well, perhaps or perhaps not. My point is that OSC doesn't actually disagree with the "snobs" about the "average reader"...in fact, he's even more of a snob, because he clearly thinks that the "literati" are themselves "average readers". I happen to agree with him. The average member of the "literati" doesn't actually read for pleasure, or with what a real reader would call comprehension, and doesn't really read very much unless forced to do so.

quote:

---

But only a very select few both have that capability in strong measure and enjoy using it for its own sake. And these don't even constitute the majority of book buyers. Most people that buy a book will never actually read it. Even if you discount those that buy books for relatives or acquaintances they happen to know enjoy reading, most books are sold to simply lie on bookshelves (with the exception of books intended to be read aloud). Of course, this is just my opinion, but consider the kinds of books that are bestsellers. They are the sort of thing that one puts on the coffee table as a conversation piece, they are rarely the sort of thing that any sane person would actually read.

---

Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle books are bestsellers, but they're not runaway number one hits that stayed at the top of the charts for months at a time in both hardcover and paperback like Dan Brown. Neal Stephenson's writing is so good that he makes Dan Brown look like a child with his tongue poking out of the corner of his mouth as he struggles with pencil and large-lined paper, attempting to form simple sentences.

Granted, more people will probably buy Stephenson's books than will actually understand them, should they manage to get all the way through the doorstopping 1000+ pages. But my point is that one can hardly generalize or label people as an average reader. I really don't think there's any such thing.

Anybody who bothers to actually read that very first book of their own volition begins a journey that takes them to different and new places along the way. Inevitably, they will read something they feel is better than what they've read before, and suddenly their standards have been raised. Next time the new standards will be applied when choosing a book. All those magazine article-level readers I mentioned above might have graduated by now to Neal Stephenson's level. Or maybe they have discovered alternate history fiction, or what have you. To apply a label like "average" grossly oversimplifies and misrepresents the entire experience and evolution people undergo when they read.

There is only one group of readers out there: yours. I maintain an awareness of the fantasy market, certainly. But I write the kinds of stories that I would want to read. Average reader be damned.

quote:

---

I doubt myself if many writers know what they are going to do when they start
out.

---

This is so comforting to know. It's what I always suspected. It's sure my modus operandi.

quote:

---

It is a fact that fiction writing is something in which the whole personality takes part--the conscious as well as the
unconscious mind.

---

Could be that the difference between a good writer and a lesser writer is the percentage of each -- kind of a necessary system of checks and balances.

quote:

---

The only way, I think, to learn to write short stories is to write them, and then to try to discover what you have done. The time to think of technique is when you've actually got the story in front of
you.

---

Which, to me, sets apart the writers from the non-writers or wannabee writers. A writer who agonizes over his or her dearth of ideas, or is frozen to solid inaction with concerns about a proper understanding of plot or characterization or doesn't yet know the ending -- must have all your ducks in a row before you start, you know -- will be left in the dust by the writer who writes, and then looks to see what he has, and adjusts and edits and reworks and rewrites till -- surprise! -- he discovers he has learned some of the craft of writing along the way. And this, whether or not he publishes, because a writer is one who writes.

quote:

---

Which, to me, sets apart the writers from the non-writers or wannabee writers. A writer who agonizes over his or her dearth of ideas, or is frozen to solid inaction with concerns about a proper understanding of plot or characterization or doesn't yet know the ending -- must have all your ducks in a row before you start, you know -- will be left in the dust by the writer who writes, and then looks to see what he has, and adjusts and edits and reworks and rewrites till -- surprise! -- he discovers he has learned some of the craft of writing along the way. And this, whether or not he publishes, because a writer is one who writes.

---

Beautifully stated, Kolona!

Thanks for the link, Mike!

quote:

---

...will be left in the dust by the writer who writes, and then looks to see what he has

---

Well put, Kolona.

Reminds me of that old saying, "You can't leave your footprints in the sands of time by sitting on your butt. And who wants to leave their buttmarks in the sands of time?"

Hey, wait! I tried typing standing up and it's HARD!

I wonder how many people who bought THE DAVINCI CODE actually finished it--I'd be willing to bet less than half, for one reason or another.

Of course, there are also best-sellers like the Harry Potter books that are read and reread and loved. But consider, they created a new best-seller list to get the Harry Potter books off of the "official" one because Rowling's books were overwhelming the usual stuff and making it hard to hype the books that people buy but don't read.

Anyway, enough on that.

Great insight, Kolona.

Thanks for posting the link, Mike. It's a very thought-provoking article.

To make my point clear, even though I often feel like people that would rather "wait for the movie" (or graphic novel, or whatever) are missing something that I consider vital and important about certain works of written fiction, I don't imagine that makes me better than anyone else. For instance, I myself have never read any of the Harry Potter books and nobody has supplied me with a convincing reason I should. I enjoy them just fine as movies, and I don't believe that I would enjoy the books as much (assuming I was able to read them at all).

Discussing that will get us way off topic, though. Suffice to say, Card actually has much higher standards for real readers than the literati, since he lumps them into the group of people that read only because they must, and understand little of what they read. I think that O'Connor has a real point, and I think that fundamentally, Card agrees with her. People that pretend to like something because they've been told it is "Art" aren't doing the Arts any favors.

Traditional best-sellers are a good example of this sort of thing, which is why I brought it up. In my own opinion, so are people that try to persuade me to read the Harry Potter books simply because I expressed enjoyment of the movies I don't believe that any particular medium of art is the "one true Artform" or anything like that. I enjoy Anime that I wouldn't even consider watching as a live action adaptation or reading as a novelization. I enjoy paintings...there are some paintings that you just have to see for yourself to believe. I enjoy music...and dance, and even certain poems.

The point is that just as anyone can watch a movie, any literate person can read a book. But some people have no sensitivity to those elements peculiar to one artform which separate good from Art. I have no native sensitivity to what makes one building a great piece of Architecture and another a monstrosity, even though I can tell if the exterior is simply ugly or the interior is poorly engineered and laid out badly. At least, I don't get the same feeling from looking at an "inspiring" building that I get from looking at a great painting or listening to great music.

And my sensitivity to poetry is nothing special. Quite probably it is just the intersection of my sense of prose and my sense of music. In fact, I find that I nearly always prefer a good natural prose paraphrase of the sentiments of a poem to the poem itself. That probably means I just have no natural sense of what makes poetry qua poetry Art.

As always you guys have provided me with a lot to think about. Someday, one of you must sift through these discussions and the pearls therein, and compile some of the more 'on-topic' discussions into a thoughtful little book for writers.

I laughed when O'Connor talked about grounding your story in the physical. When I was in college, I tried writing poetry and enough ordinary people liked it that I asked a professor what she thought of it.

I was told it was much too grounded in the physical senses, but that it was a good start. I guess that explains why I feel more comfortable with fiction.

I agree with what's been said before, I too am more grounded in the physical. It makes my poetry read more like tight flash fiction rather than poetry.

That's okay though, I have developed a taste for flash... :-)

quote:

---

When I was in college, I tried writing poetry and enough ordinary people liked it that I asked a professor what she thought of it.

I was told it was much too grounded in the physical senses, but that it was a good start. I guess that explains why I feel more comfortable with fiction.

---

Just because somebody's a college professor doesn't mean their opinion is worth more than anyone else's. A lot of the professors I've known over the years are complete jerks who try to build themselves up by tearing ignorant lowly students down. Only a few were trustworthy and really understood poetry or literature.

I would argue that the more tightly grounded in the physical you are in a poem, the more precise the image, then the more layers and resonances of meaning a reader may find. Especially contemporary poetry. As an example, consider William Carlos Williams' "This is Just to Say."

Vague symbols or emotions unconnected to the physical are like runny eggs to me: inedible. When the same disconnected amorhphous emotions appear in fiction, it is just as bad. Imagine how ungrounded everyone's emotions would be in LOTR if there were no ring to focus on. The object carries meaning like a battery stores a charge. One of the best things about the fantasy genre is that you can take it to a level that is more literal. The object stores a magical as well as a symbolic charge.

Before I go too far astray, let me say this: the physical senses are just about all we have to perceive the world. The more unusual the world, the more important the senses and what they perceive.

Sorry for the tangent, but it I got the impression that professor left a lasting negative impression on Keeley, like a bad spell, and I felt I needed to perform a counter-spell!

I want to make something clear though, to everyone who reads this thread. This professor I talked with was very nice about the whole thing. She was never condescending or uppity. I don't want anyone to think I implied otherwise in my post.