The Unexpected Angle
I fell into the trap. I got into a series, and I started understanding what the readers wanted. And, of course, I’m a for-the-reader writer, so I started giving it to them.
I forgot the most important thing to remember: you need to give them what they want in an unexpected way.
Reading back through one of my series last weekend, I did that in books 1-3, but failed to in 4 and half of 5. I slipped into only giving readers what they want, which is, unfortunately, not really satisfying.
What’s the angle? Because we almost always need one to stay “fresh.”
The other day I talked about the challenges of serial writing. Neil Gaiman once mentioned how educational comic book writing was in terms of readers. The letters would pour in after a release, and he’d have instant feedback on what the readers thought he was going to do next. So of course he did something different in the next installment.
There is a difference between giving the writers what they want and what they expect. One must always fulfill the former and thwart the latter.
What think you?
14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Natasha Fondren is a writer traveling the U.S. in a camper with her four cats. She is currently enjoying the lizards and desert heat in Arizona.
As a reader I want the unexpected, but to answer your question, I don’t think you should write to give the audience what they want (outside of a good story).
You’re a different sort of reader, though. You know and see and understand the nuts and bolts, Melanie.
I’m curious, though: Why don’t you think you should give the readers what they want?
I like to surprise myself when I’m writing. As a reader, I love surprises. I get bored when I guess the plot.
Me too, Edie!
“And, of course, I’m a for-the-reader writer, so I started giving it to them.”
This could not be any further from describing me.
And since I anticipate you’ll ask me the same question you asked Melanie, I guess I’ll respond preemptively:
I won’t say readers are dumb. That’s not very nice. But the reader isn’t the writer. The reader is bringing a whole pile of personal crap to your writing, and trying to satisfy his or her, and eventually THEIR——the great mass’s——whims——to DEMOCRATIZE your writing…the thought makes me shudder.
I suppose you want to give your readers what they want because you want to make them happy, you want to keep them reading, etc. I want to give readers what they NEED. Trying to compromise by delivering what they want in an unexpected manner is still compromise, and I contend it dilutes the power of the story, of the vision. Any resulting increase in…I don’t know…/interactivity/, or /connection/ is not worth the cost.
Do you have examples of situations (apart from Gaiman, I suppose) where a writer did this, to great success? I mean, I think it goes without saying that most classic works of literature didn’t give a flying fuck about what the reader wanted.
The only interesting point remaining is Harry Potter. Did Rowling succumb to the will of the fans with that epilogue, or was that saccharine-laced garbage planned from the beginning? (Probably from the beginning, but that’s just a guess.)
Oh, and this rants applies both to my poetry and (to a much greater and more important extent) TLI.
I swear, every time you curse, I mentally say, “Joey cursed!” Poor you. I just have to enjoy the transition a little.
It’s fun. For me, at least.
That’s an interesting point, the “need” thing. I could go along with that… in my mental world, I do separate what they want and what they think they want. (Certainly had to with piano parents, LOL!) It’s more, for me, I give them the experience they want, but I don’t necessarily deliver it in the way they want, and I try to surprise them.
I wouldn’t say at all that Gaiman gives readers what they want; if anything, this example proves he gives them the opposite.
But an awareness and understanding of the reader seems to be a trait among uber-successful genre writers across the board. And Dickens, my hero. 
Doesn’t apply to literary fiction, though.
If one is going to write effectively, though, one needs to understand the effect what one do has on the reader, so as better to manipulate them. XD
Wow . . . we’re synced, since this was kind of the point of my blog post yesterday. LOL!
xo
E
The risk! I get it, Erica. I think I saw getting away with things, and I immediately honed in on that challenge, LOL. At least my subconscious got the point, LOL! XD
Excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly.
You got to reward the readers for their cleverness if nothing else. Now, a slight curve here or there is fine, it shows that things are still not exactly what they appear to be without insulting the readers intelligence. I really hate it when the an author tries to “surprise” me by doing something that violates the internal logic of the story just to keep things interesting.
Oh YES, Rafae! I hate when authors do that! I hate when surprises are contrived, or when they’re not rooted early in the story. Deus ex machina makes me batty, LOL!
I have to agree with Rafae, here. I love a good surprise, but I think it’s silly when I read a book or story that is obviously bending over backwards (it could break its poor spine) to be “different”. Like if the heroine is a psychotic lesbian politian pole dancing opera singer.
So true, Robin! Yes, yes, yes!