What We Owe The Readers

[KeithD]

I believe that a story can focus only on the arousal and still be of a high writing quality.

 

[Paul_Chance]

This is just a great line. I'm going to start using it in place of commenting on the weather.

"Hi fellow human being who shares space with me, just checking in to confirm that things between us continue to be amicable and there is no drama going on". @Bramblethorn

 

[Paul_Chance]

It's been interesting reading the variety of responses, so I'll add some comments here for consideration.

One of the first things that happened is people zeroed in on "owe", which led to the amusing diversion into contracts and contract law, which was not my intention.

I meant the word in its simplest meaning - to have an obligation to someone else for something given.

Out of sheer curiosity, among those who objected to or focused in on the word - what word would have made the initial post more palatable to you?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I meant the word in its simplest meaning - to have an obligation to someone else for something given.

That's what I meant by contract too, but I understand that people can't not think of money and law when the word contract is used (and I have admitted such), but I really don't think the discussion diverted all that much. Really the only thing that happened was that the topic widened from what writers may 'owe' readers to also include what readers may 'owe' writers.

 

[TadOverdon]

I assume the writer of the essay was talking only about popular commercial genre fiction.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I assume the writer of the essay was talking only about popular commercial genre fiction.

That would be a correct assumption, the original author was not talking about posting to a free site for free readers.

Several of the contributors to this thread did a good job of lining out our particular environment on Lit. I liked @Comshaw response differentiating between work for pay (incurs obligation) and work for free ("as is" or "it is what it is", no obligation). @lustychimera and @Cagivagurl also spoke to that difference.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I also think those that pointed out it's a three body question, inserting the publisher/web publisher in the mix, had a valid point. In the relationship between the author (creating the work) and the reader (consuming the work), the publisher sits with their own obligations (in the looser sense) to the author and the reader. That kind of gave me food for thought, so thanks to @KeithD and @ElectricBlue for pointing that out.

 

[Cagivagurl]

That would be a correct assumption, the original author was not talking about posting to a free site for free readers.

Several of the contributors to this thread did a good job of lining out our particular environment on Lit. I liked @Comshaw response differentiating between work for pay (incurs obligation) and work for free ("as is" or "it is what it is", no obligation). @lustychimera and @Cagivagurl also spoke to that difference.

Changing the word from owe, to obligation doesn't affect the outcome. In my opinion...
To be obliged or owe somebody something assumes a relationship between the two parties.
In this instance, there is no relationship.
A story is written, I assume because the creator had a moment of inspiration and extracted a certain amount of joy from the process of writing it.
The story is submitted and then posted on a free web site where people can choose to read or not read the posted piece.
That is the extent of the writers relationship... No debt, no obligation aside from legal ones, and site rules.
As the writer you are under no obligation apart from the ones you place on yourself.

History.... Ah yes... Once you have written a few stories, and gathered a few followers. It could be argued the readers who follow you have expectations based on previous works... That is their issue, not yours....
Their expectation is not your obligation...
Cagivagurl

 

[Britva415]

One of the first things that happened is people zeroed in on "owe", which led to the amusing diversion into contracts and contract law, which was not my intention.

I meant the word in its simplest meaning - to have an obligation to someone else for something given.

Out of sheer curiosity, among those who objected to or focused in on the word - what word would have made the initial post more palatable to you?

I think just as many if not more responses took "owe" in the spirit you intended rather than the contract tangent.

I think everyone else focused on the word in the sense of "obligation," just as you intended.

Not to speak for everyone, but that's my impression based on them having spoken for themselves. Someone spank me if I'm wrong.

So:
For people who objected to the word "owe" on the basis that it represents an obligation, and to the extent that they object to the notion of obligation at all, I don't see an answer to your question. If you didn't mean "obligation," we can't know what you meant. If you did mean "obligation," then the objections to "obligation" are not going to go away.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I think that we have a good number of writers here blowing the horn of "I write what I want and don't pander" claiming that they owe the reader nothing, yet at the same time are chasing down that Red H like a cheetah in the African Savannah. If you want the Red H that badly, then you do owe the readers what they want. If you say that they owe you nothing, talk the talk, walk the walk and don't cry when you get a downvote or someone leaves you an anonymous critique.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I think that we have a good number of writers here blowing the horn of "I write what I want and don't pander" claiming that they owe the reader nothing, yet at the same time are chasing down that Red H like a cheetah in the African Savannah. If you want the Red H that badly, then you do owe the readers what they want. If you say that they owe you nothing, talk the talk, walk the walk and don't cry when you get a downvote or someone leaves you an anonymous critique.

Giving readers something a bit different, that still gets the recognition of a red H, is thus more of a mark of approval, no? Much more of a challenge.

I tried to write an incest story which both satisfied my desire for realism and lack of abuse, and got a red H, to see if I could construct a story to please those readers, while being totally uninterested in the topic. It was a fascinating exercise, skimming high-scoring stories and borrowing phrases. It did quite well, people liked the dialogue, with the main criticism being 'they didn't stay together'. Which was the point.

Though if you write stories which get fewer readers or voters, your scores are much more vulnerable to swinging about. That's one nice thing about I/T as a category - your score likely represents a real opinion of readers, given 1000 votes isn't unusual. In other categories you might get 10k views over a few months, but only 10 to 20 votes - those scores mean little.

Laurel used to award a few stories a green E for Editors Choice. They were always something a bit different (as well as well crafted). I read most of them and would love to see more, because they were generally the kind of writing I aspire to (but rarely achieve, partly because I publish when I can't be bothered to edit any more).

 

[Cagivagurl]

I think that we have a good number of writers here blowing the horn of "I write what I want and don't pander" claiming that they owe the reader nothing, yet at the same time are chasing down that Red H like a cheetah in the African Savannah. If you want the Red H that badly, then you do owe the readers what they want. If you say that they owe you nothing, talk the talk, walk the walk and don't cry when you get a downvote or someone leaves you an anonymous critique.

There may be a few writers who feel that way.
The red H means nothing to me...
I write for my own pleasure.
I'm not saying I don't enjoy it when I get one. I simply don't covet it.
We are all clever enough to know what's required to earn the red H... Most categories have a fairly simple recipe for success.
Some of us write what we want regardless...
There's not enough room in your pigeon hole for all of us.

Cagivagurl

 

[pink_silk_glove]

There's not enough room in your pigeon hole for all of us.

One, the hole is far bigger than a pigeon, and two I never named any names, you just assumed that you're in that group, which I guess means that you are. Purely by your deduction, not mine, so don't blame me.

 

[Cagivagurl]

One, the hole is far bigger than a pigeon, and two I never named any names, you just assumed that you're in that group, which I guess means that you are. Purely by your deduction, not mine, so don't blame me.

I didn't think you were talking about me directly.
I felt it was a catch all statement reflecting on all.
I made my comment not defensively, but as an explanation of my philosophy.

Cagivagurl