What sort of readers read what sort of stuff? You know those psychological profilers that work for the FBI, well, isn't that what we should be?

Should we identify who the germ of the idea appeals to and then ensure the rest of it appeals to them to?

Who do we want to write for, ideally?

How do we appeal to groups that generally don't like genre fiction?

What is it about a story that makes it stand out from the crowd?

Generally, I believe readers want characters with whom they can identify through portrayal of their emotions as they struggle to achieve a driving need or want against obstacles strong enough to push them to their limits.

From there it's kind of splintered. Mysteries and romace, and often the combination, probably lead the way in popularity for fiction. But mystery and romance are kind of universal themes that can show up in the trappings of other genres. I think of Laurel Hamilton's Anita Blake books, and Jim Butcher's series where mystery and/or romance has hopped over a few aisles to the fantasy/sf shelf.

I would bet there's been a fair amount work done to identify the "typical" reader of most genres for the purpose of marketing/advertising. A simple example: the readership of romance genre work is mostly adult females.

quote:

---

Generally, I believe readers want characters with whom they can identify through portrayal of their emotions as they struggle to achieve a driving need or want against obstacles strong enough to push them to their limits.

---

So what does that say about Steven King fans?

Speaking only for myself, the charcters I like to read about do not share a similar background as I, do not have a moral code that I would aspire to, or rarely seek a goal that I would find worth risking.

I do not think that most readers want to be like the people they like to read about. (Seeing my daughter reading Twilight right now, I hope I am correct about that). Instead I believe that the vast majority of readers read to escape. They want to view a world not like there own.
After all, do doctors like to read stories about doctors? Do accountants like to read about other accountants?
I think not.

I believe that readers want to read about the opposite of their self. Think about it. Do the people that laugh at the Three Stooges really want to bash their friends with a two-by-four (I'm asking seriously)? Do the people that watch James Bond want to get in hand-to-hand combat with secret agents?

Finding out what people like isn't all that hard. Just look to what sells. The trouble is writing so people will like what you write. You could try to write like others, if you want to be a mimic. Just remember, a copy is never as sharp as an original.

I think it's both - many readers want (need) to be able to identify with the main character, but they want to follow that character through an experience the reader won't (nor can) ever have. That's real escapism in my book, because the experience is that much more 'real' when readers can identify with the main character.

So it's possible for accountants to read books about accountants - but about accountants that get teleported into fantasy worlds, or caught up in epic world changing events, or thrust into space. The plot won't be about preparing IRS statements. And it's equally possible for the protaganists not to be accountants, but to just be, at some level, ordinary decent human beings with whom we can all identify.

Having said this, there are certainly exceptions to the rule, and often certain genres work at odds with each other in this respect.

Should we identify who the germ of the idea appeals to and then ensure the rest of it appeals to them to?

I think so, except where we want to address a deliberately controversial subject.

Who do we want to write for, ideally.

It's my opinion that most of us write for ourselves first. Perhaps we also have an 'ideal' target audience member in mind. I don't think it's remotely wise to try and write to satisfy everybody - for then we'll satisfy noone.

How do we appeal to groups that generally don't like genre fiction.

Don't bother. Or else, if it's really important to us, write literary fiction. But it comes down to the old you-can't-please-everybody.

What is it about a story that makes it stand out from the crowd?

I believe one of the reasons that Stephen King has enjoyed so much success is that he is generally adept at creating both "worlds" and characters that people can identify with. Most of his protagonists are average, middle-to-lower economic class, flawed, and vulnerable. Most of the time the characters are struggling to stay alive: something easy for large numbers of readers to sympathize with given that most humans are wired with an instinctive fear of death. He is skilled at telling a story in which the reader shares the terror of the characters. Not everything he's done is Pulitzer material, but there's a lot to be gleaned from his body of work if one aspires to include elements of mass appeal into their stories. Despite some prevailing opinions amongst aspiring writers, no one is forced to fork over money for Stephen King books just because he wrote them, yet a huge number of people do.

I think in general most people want to read about characters somewhat different from themselves, but I believe different people have differing levels of comfort as to how different a character can be before they are uncomfortable with the identification.

quote:

---

What sort of readers read what sort of stuff? You know those psychological profilers that work for the FBI, well, isn't that what we should be?

---

Maybe, but I don't think its quite as easy with something as subjective as taste in stories. Most people I know like a range of different material depending on mood.

I think we should be more concerned with writing whats in us and making it as close as we can to whats in our minds.

quote:

---

Who do we want to write for, ideally?

---

Most of the time I'm writing the stuff thats in my head that wants out. Some times I do write things with an eye to what I know of a particular editors preferences. But for me, its more about whats in me that wants out, not who should I write what for.

quote:

---

How do we appeal to groups that generally don't like genre fiction?

---

Do we really care? In my experience most people who "don't like" genre fiction haven't even tried it and aren't likely to because of their deeply rooted preconcieved notions about it or because they would basically be ashamed to admit associating with it.

quote:

---

What is it about a story that makes it stand out from the crowd?

---

Thats pretty much a matter of individual perception and taste.

quote:

---

Generally, I believe readers want characters with whom they can identify through portrayal of their emotions as they struggle to achieve a driving need or want against obstacles strong enough to push them to their limits.

---

I don't think these things are requirements. They are the requirements of a certain type or structure of story, and its one that most people (myself included) enjoy. However, there are other structures and archtypes that are just as valid and that people also enjoy.

With the character thing especially...I personally don't understand the people that say they can't "get into" or "care about" a story if they can't get into or care about a character in it. Characters are only one of the elements that exist in stories. Some stories are focused on a character or character and thats fine and I like those kind. But I can just as easily be pulled in by setting or voice, and in the end for me content and subject matter are going to be the main things that decide whether I find a story interesting and worth reading or not.

Likewise not everyone story is going to be focused on overcoming obstacles and certainly not all of them are necessarily going to involve pushing a character to their limits. This is true on many levels...for instance, a story may pose a character with obstacles...but they may not even be overcome, or it may be left ambigious.

From what I can see, a good deal of currently published fiction lacks these things. In particular I've read plenty of stuff recently with no clear resolution or overcoming of anything.

quote:

---

After all, do doctors like to read stories about doctors? Do accountants like to read about other accountants?
I believe that readers want to read about the opposite of their self.

---

I don't think it has to be one or the other. I personally like both, for reading and for writing.

quote:

---

I recommend you write what interest you in a way that you believe is entertaining. Blaze your own trail. Maybe someone will like the path you made.

---

This I agree with wholeheartedly, and I think people around here tend to forget it far to frequently in pursuit of trying to figure out what sells, what people want, what editors want etc etc...which is largely pointless because each person/editor/whatever wants something (usually multiple somethings) different.

Sooner or later somebody most likely will like said path.

quote:

---

I don't think you can have a dramatic story without characters struggling to overcome (i.e., stuggling against) obstacles to gain what they want or need.

---

I guess it depends how you define "dramatic" and/or "story." But I have read what I consider stories where this, at least in my perception, was not the case. Simon Logan's "The Binding" and "Rohypnol Bride" are examples of stories (although I guess maybe some people wouldn't call them stories, but I don't know what else you'd call them) where there aren't really obstacles struggling to be overcome, just people and their acts.

quote:

---

I don't think you can have a dramatic story without characters struggling to overcome (i.e., stuggling against) obstacles to gain what they want or need. I agree that the resolution can be victory, defeat, or mixed.

---

In the context of what appeals to whom, and the discussion of attracting readership across genre lines, my point was that the best way to do that is probably to write a good traditional story with the elements the largest number of people appear willing to exchange their time and money for.

I'm not familiar with the works you cite, but am aware that people do produce work distinctly outside the classic dramatic story framework. I have nothing against all of that, but it's very hard for me find interest in a story where people are acting without any apparent motivation, without any attempt to achieve meaningful goals, and are unchanged after having been unaffected by whatever did happen. I suspect I'm not alone in that.

Similarly, stories that follow the traditional story form except that they omit resolution might be interesting to read as an experiment, but my guess would be that works of that type aren't going to be something that broad groups of readers go back to again-and-again. In both cases, such a story may have as good or better chance to gain notoriety from a literary perspective than a traditional story.

I won't say classic stories are better (or worse) than non-traditional stories, just different. But I do think they stand the better chance of appealing across genre lines and various demographics; especially for novel-length work.

quote:

---

In the context of what appeals to whom, and the discussion of attracting readership across genre lines

---

Well like I said, I don't really feel one is much likely to attract people who don't read fantasy, science fiction, or horror to works of that genre no matter what you do as far as the nature of the story, because the simple fact its in those genres will cause them not to even look at it for whatever reasons.

quote:

---

I have nothing against all of that, but it's very hard for me find interest in a story where people are acting without any apparent motivation, without any attempt to achieve meaningful goals, and are unchanged after having been unaffected by whatever did happen. I suspect I'm not alone in that.

---

Well, I said that every story isn't about overcoming obstacles. That doesn't mean theres no motivation and it certainly doesn't mean the characters are unchanged. In some cases it means that the focus is the nature of the characters and/or the nature of the setting and/or what they are doing, rather than why they are doing it or whats preventing them from doing it.

For instance "The Binding" consists of scenes of a couple partcipating in ritualistic/fetishistic body binding that culiminates in their mutual simultaneous deaths. There are no obstacles...nothing is preventing them from doing what they are doing. There motivations are unclear and left largely to interpretation although obviously pyschological in nature, and they are definitely changed (dead) at the end.

Obviously that doesn't really have mass appeal(although probably as much or more, in the case of that story, due to the subject matter as the structure) but I don't think its accurate to say that the overcoming of obstacles is a requirement for an enjoyable story. Unhindered events can still be interesting, and don't necessarily mean a lack of change or motivation.

quote:

---

Similarly, stories that follow the traditional story form except that they omit resolution might be interesting to read as an experiment, but my guess would be that works of that type aren't going to be something that broad groups of readers go back to again-and-again

---

Well, that sounds very logical and seems to make sense. I'd tend to agree. However, my reading of currently published short fiction disagrees. A very tidy percentage of recently published stuff I've read lately lacks at least what I would describe as a clear resolution. At one point a few months ago I read about 6 stories from various places I submit to in the course of a day. Three of them had either no resolution at all, or one that was suffciently ambigious as that you don't really know what the resolution was.

quote:

---

But I do think they stand the better chance of appealing across genre lines and various demographics; especially for novel-length work.

---

I won't say much about novels as my knowledge of the current state of things in that area is more limited. However its been my experience that novels do pretty much always tend toward a more straightforward "traditional" story structure. Other structures are usually the perview of short pieces.

As far as appealing to various demographics and the like...well for me I came into writing like this: "I have all these stories in my head that want out. I want to learn how to let them out in the best way possible so that those who read them will see what I see. Then I want to find a market for them."

It seems that many people here aproach it more like: "I want to be a writer. What should I write to appeal to the largest audience possible?"

Not placing a value judgement on those points of view or saying they are mutually exclusive (I read and write plenty of standard straightforward stuff and I want to be published as widely as possible as much as the next person, but I'm going to write whats in my mind) just presenting another point of view.

I'm not saying there is any particular thing (e.g., an obstacle, conflict, drama, resolution) that is universally required for a work of fiction to be enjoyable or good or whatever. There are no absolutes in that regard. But again, in the spirit of the original thread, there are certain story characteristics that have wider appeal than others. No one has to stick to them if their passion lies elsewhere. I do believe understanding what makes well-executed traditional stories broadly appealing is a worthwhile endeavor, yet I don't feel driven to write things that I think will be "popular", much less do so exclusively.

I think both Harry Potter and the Twilight books have recently had a lot of crossover success, and have done so on the strength of having elements that appeal to wide audiences. They're not for everyone, but they've given a lot of people a lot of enjoyment.

quote:

---

With the character thing especially...I personally don't understand the people that say they can't "get into" or "care about" a story if they can't get into or care about a character in it. Characters are only one of the elements that exist in stories. Some stories are focused on a character or character and thats fine and I like those kind. But I can just as easily be pulled in by setting or voice, and in the end for me content and subject matter are going to be the main things that decide whether I find a story interesting and worth reading or not.

---

As you have said yourself so many times, this is subjective.

For those who need to "care about" a character in order to enjoy a story, those stories about characters for whom they can not "care" will not appeal. It's a matter, for some of them, at least, of finding characters with whom they want to spend time, and some characters just aren't the kinds of people those readers may want to spend time with.

Such readers "get into" a story by coming to want to spend time with the characters of the story.

So it's nice to have a character who goes through what you're going through, say I recently had a break up, it'd be nice to identify with such and such character going through the same thing, but it might be just as nice (or nicer) to read about someone beginning a new and exciting romantic relationship because that's where I'd rather be. (In this hypothetical).

quote:

---

Again, as you have said, it's subjective. You don't have to understand it, unless you really want to.

---

I usually do want to understand things about people though. I find what interests who and why to be extremely interesting.

Also, theres a part of me that kind of feels like some people are probably missing out on stuff they would enjoy because it doesn't have, or doesn't seem to have, those elements.

The only time its a problem for me is in that some will present that factor...characters a reader will identify with, connect to and "get inside" strongly, and a deep immersion into their thoughts and feelings as an objective requirement for a "good" story. Or as an objective requirement for a publishable story. Neither of which I consider objective facts. Thats why I always try to say things like "I personally don't understand" or "in my opinion."

quote:

---

I think both Harry Potter and the Twilight books have recently had a lot of crossover success, and have done so on the strength of having elements that appeal to wide audiences. They're not for everyone, but they've given a lot of people a lot of enjoyment.

---

One does wonder about phenomenal successes like that. I think some of it is luck and marketing. Harry Potter and Twilight both became fads (I don't say that in a pejorative way) and then ballooned from there. I think once it reaches a certain point, people who normally don't read genre stuff might try it anyway if enough friends recomend it (or after they see the movies.)

In the case of Harry Potter for instance, I think kids got hooked on it, and then hooked their parents who then recomended it to friends.

I think as far as the crossover/non genre reader thing its very, very hard for us as writers to directly affect the situation much. This is because, in my experience, non-genre readers aren't going to get far enough to see anything we, the writer, include to try and attract them anyway, because they are so put off by the genre itself. I mean, most fantasy/sci fi and even most horror has universally engaging elements anyway...but I think a lot of people just can't see them when they are "hidden" under elves and aliens and wizards and spaceships.

But if someone they know and like recomends something, explains to them that its not what they think, then they might give it a try.

I wonder if perhaps that is related to the trend we've been speaking of in the other thread, where even genre publications seem to be veering away, a bit, from obvious standard genre elements.

Of course on the other hand, I think things like Harry Potter, LOTR and Twilight...both the books and the movies...are making inroads towards having less people with unfounded misconceptions about genre stuff.

As for people who read what I write...the only time I've been sure that somebody besides me read what I wrote was during my Internet Fan Fiction period. A lot of people wrote to say they read my stuff and liked it, or posted notice of what I wrote somewhere online. I still occasionall get (or find) something about it, though I haven't written any in, oh, five years or so.

Before that, and also after, by writing and sending out manuscripts to market, I got the idea in my head that I was writing into a vacuum, that maybe nobody but me was reading anything I wrote.

Robert: Fan fiction is a monster that will eat you whole. Erase it from your mind if you can. I'm talking from experience.

As for the questions posted by skadder, I think that trying to find an answer for any of them won't get you closer to being published and they will give you nothing but data that relates in no way to the creative writing process.
Writing starts with me and an idea I'm passionate about, not with my hypothetical audience and what they have read.

Do I feel an Excel file of "what readers read what" will be of any help when I write a story? No, not to me, at least.

I write and read to feel things and to be entertained. Usually I like to feel certain things, and that's why I like thrillers and science fiction and not romance.

So, to me, if you give you readers (any reader) the chance to feel (any feeling) and they'll read (anything). Chances are the feelings you create will appeal to certain readers.

As an example, I've read books where it's become obvious that the author is trying really hard to "appeal" to a certain group. We tend to look down on books like that, y'know, that pander to us.

So what kind of books DO we like? Books where the author basically says, "I'm gonna write what I want to write about. So sit down, shut up, and enjoy the effin ride, bee-yotch."

quote:

---

I've read books where it's become obvious that the author is trying really hard to "appeal" to a certain group.

---

I think YA especially is full of that, with publishers imposing a kind of formula of political correctness that panders to, and avoids offending, special interest groups of power. The formula includes a character from every ethnic group imaginable and a high moral tone.

And yet one of the first pieces of advice for writers that I can remember is, "know your audience" -- at least, do so if you want to be widely read. If the piece is Art, or something you want to get off your chest, or an autobio for your kids to read when you're gone, fine, no audience research required. But understanding the audience for stories one will sell, especially genre stories, surely can't hurt.

I think SF audiences like characters for several reasons. Space opera (I'm thinking of the Lensman series) is full of larger-than-life men who save the universe and get the girl, men we'd all like to be. (I'm not sure such stories appeal to women.)
Haldeman's Forever War was more sombre, a ghastly reflection on war, the more poignant because one knew Haldeman was a Vietnam Vet--but the story was helped by the romance, and by the main characters' fight against bureaucracy and mindlessness that, even though set in the future, we can identify with today. For excapists like me it provided some comfort, some hope that if one keeps pluggin' away, true to one's principles, just maybe things'll get better.

To me the answer is: write what you mean to write (a lot harder than it sounds) and leave the rest to take care of itself. I've heard here that you read stories from the zine you want to submit, so, to me, that's all you can do to answer your question.

But I admit it gets frustrating. The writing world is frustrating. But that's why you have to have fun with your story, and write whatever strikes your fancy, otherwise it's mental torture.

>>>>>>As an example, I've read books where it's become obvious that the author is trying really hard to "appeal" to a certain group. We tend to look down on books like that, y'know, that pander to us.

Yes, it's painful to see "that action scene" was there because someone decided it SHOULD, not because it evolved naturally from the story. Ugh.

>>>>>>And yet one of the first pieces of advice for writers that I can remember is, "know your audience" -- at least, do so if you want to be widely read.

You're right! I forgot all about that. I agree with TaleSpinner, a bit of understanding is required to write a genre story. Like, do not make aliens the ones who killed the butler in a murder mystery.

A good number of people are driven by what they describe as a compulsion to write certain things--I've heard that many times--and my take is that these people are blessed with strong artistic vision.

Sadly, perhaps, I'm not one of them. My driver is a fascination with the craft of storytelling, and in that vein I'm probably predisposed to be sympathetic with a hypothetical audience (usually typified by and limited to me so far, lol) somewhat more than loyal to whatever artistic vision I might possess.

There are also plenty of writers who are primarily driven by achieving commercial success.

My primary audience is me, driven by feelings that "I could do better than that!" having thrown yet another lousy read out the window. But I have stuff I want to say too, a message I enjoy translating into what I like to think of as art. And I'd like to be widely read, to sell, so I try to learn what others like, and elements of writing craft and story selling--but without overly compromising what I happen to like, and what I want to do artistically.