A
Aynmair
Guest
BUT -- If one is creating for (entertaining) an audience, then one provides what the audience wants, or one soon has no audience. Little kids like hearing the same story over-n-over. Older kids like hearing the same song over-n-over. Yet older folk may like reading the same stuff over-n-over. IOW, "rehashed pablum" is the stock-in-trade of entertainment.
We may write creatively. Our creations may or may not shift audience tastes. Our creations may also sink like stones. We must decide for ourselves why we bother to create.
Your audience is diverse, though it may look like an exponential decay curve - where the majority has a taste for A, and reinforces production of A, but the long tail of the curve is comprised of a small number with diversified tastes for B, ', C, etc. So you write and let fly a story and it starts on a journey of natural selection. Someone mentioned Vernor Vinge earlier, and he's just an example I happen to know - he wrote about something very different (the singularity) to a very small receptive audience initially, but that audience has gotten larger over time as the innitial audience talked about and "educated" others. So tastes shift over time, though slowly, as biology shifts over time.
Edit add-on: if writers don't produce diverse stories from diverse POVs, written with diverse styles, all for our own enjoyment initially, then "we" can't hope to change any tastes out there. Vive la difference!
Last edited by a moderator: