On Readers and Writers

[alixtii]

As a reader, one has the right to read a story however one wishes. One can read a story written in English as if it were written in ungramatical French. One can read it through a feminist lens, or a Marxist lens, or a post-colonial lens. One can print it out and use it to wallpaper one's study.

One can go on to write fanfic about how character A and character B were really screwing each other off screen. (Yes, even if the original story is a fanfic. So I say.)

When one comes across truly offensive content--homophobia, racism, misogeny--one has the right to make a fuss. When one comes across something that just offends oneself, one still has the right to make a fuss, but everybody else has the right to mock and laugh and tell one to STFU.

Or one can use that marvelous invention, the back-button.

Once the story is written, the author is dead.

BUT. . . .

As an author, one has a right to tell a story however one wants. One has the right to include content that will make the readership feel uncomfortable.  One has the right to make implicit promises and then not follow through on them.

One has a right to end a chapter on a cliff-hanger.

One has the right to post the story in one large chunk, or in parts once every day, or whatever makes one's writerly heart happy. One has the right to make the readers wait in delicious agony for that next part.

One has a right--nay, an obligation--to make one's readers feel. That's called good writing. Readers don't have to feel what one wants them to feel, but if one isn't trying to exert one's control over them, one isn't doing one's job.

One has a right to give one's readers what (one thinks) they need rather than what they want. One has a right to give one's readers what (one thinks) they want rather than what they need.

Being "cruel and manipulative" is part of an author's job. Period.

All of these things are tools in a writer's toolbox. And next time I see someone trying to steal these tools out of my favorite writers' toolboxes, I am going to be very, very upset.

(Which is not to say that my favorite writers couldn't make great stories with a blunt screwdriver and their hands tied behind their backs.)

Comments

[invisionary.livejournal.com]

Once the story is written, the author is dead.

Only if it's written well.

I've seen fanfiction where it was obvious (to me, anyway) that it was the author speaking, not the characters. The established wants/preferences of the character(s) were replaced with those of the author, even when they were in direct contradiction.

And I've seen this in professional fiction, too. On Studio 60, there were whole scenes where all I could hear was Aaron Sorkin talking, instead of Matt or Danny or whoever.

"Once the story is written, the author is dead" should be the case, but it isn't always.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

But it's still you who are doing the hearing when you hear Aaron Sorkin talking rather than Matt or Danny. The audience constructs a notion of the author at work that may be completely unrelated to the actual author (or may be disappointingly similar). So I'd maintain the author is still dead, because it is the text (and some extratextual knowledge) to which you are responding.

[invisionary.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I guess that's one way to look at it. But I've seen stories where plot, characters, basically everything was compromised because the author clearly had an agenda. I believe that stories can and should stand or fall on their own merits, and I also believe that "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" is a good rule to observe when reading/viewing a story, but sometimes the author makes that rather difficult, you know?

[amyheartssiroc.livejournal.com]

Seriously. Being evil is the most fun part of being a writer.

[beccaelizabeth]

*nods*

[wisdomeagle]

So long's they don't take my ellipses away, I'll be okay.