The reader's duty

[Brys]

I just noticed this on another forums:

I'm a Feist fan and while some of his books may not be as good as Magician i could not say that i do not like his later books any less. If you are doing your job as a reader then you would be to imerrsed in the story and excited about where it will go to be thinking about how this sentence or that sentence does not make sense, or wondering why you have spent your money on a series of books

To me that's utterly ridiculous. There are some thoughts about this on my blog: http://illusoryreality.blogspot.com/...ders-duty.html

To summarise:
1. The reader has no duty to the author whatsoever. The reader doesn't have to buy the book, or read the book.
2. It is the writer's duty to make it possible for the reader to become immersed. Bad writing makes that impossible.
3. We should not apply false egalitarianism to novels. Not every book is as good as another. And not every book is enjoyable as another, even those written by the same author.

Other thoughts about this?

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't think it has anything to do with false egalitarianism, because I've heard readers and critics make the same kind of statements in regard to more challenging "literary" novels.

Either way, I agree that the proposition as stated is nonsense. It's up to the writer to draw the readers in and keep them reading, and nobody should have to apologize for not liking something. (Although if they give reasons for not liking it, they should be prepared to defend those statments.)

And certainly the kind of blind loyalty this Feist fan is advocating sounds more like just mindlessly absorbing a piece of writing, rather than truly engaging with it.

[Brown Rat]

I agree, Brys and Teresa: it's strange that the poster thinks readers have a "duty" to become immersed in a book to the extent that they ignore sentence-level problems or don't consider their pocketbooks. If the sentences don't make sense, why should--and how could--an attentive reader ignore that?

When I think of some of my students, who dislike reading so much that they never read on their own, I understand that there are lazy readers who complain about being confused or bored and who don't give the author's text a real chance. But the rest of us, who enjoy reading and do so voluntarily, don't have a duty to read any particular book or author. Nor does the poster doesn't seem to be talking about lazy readers.

in rhetorical theory, there's a concept called "the contract" that may apply here. At the beginning of every book, in the first paragraphs or pages, the author implicitly promises to write a certain kind of book in a certain kind of way. If the reader is interested in that sort of book, written in that sort of way, the reader accepts the implied contract and reads on. But if the author breaks that contract later by writing a different sort of book in a different sort of way, the reader may very well stop reading. The majority of the burden is clearly on the author.

I wonder if the poster feels (on some unconscious level) that Feist's contract for that particular book implies that getting "excited about" the plot matters more than problematic sentences, and that the poster has happily accepted that contract--but is complaining that other readers won't?

[nixie]

Unbelivable, how can anyone say this that its a readers duty to read an authors works.I admit I sometimes carry on with an author I've enjoyed in the past even when the standard of their work has dropped but if I really find it more of a chore than an pleasure then I stop.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Brown Rat

I wonder if the poster feels (on some unconscious level) that Feist's contract for that particular book implies that getting "excited about" the plot matters more than problematic sentences, and that the poster has happily accepted that contract--but is complaining that other readers won't?

It sounds more like he thinks once they've accepted the contract for Magician they're indentured to Feist for all eternity.

[Nesacat]

Why does even reading have to be reduced into a duty. It seems to be happening more and more now. Everything from relationships to turning up at work on time seems to be have become a duty. And now reading. That would like doing chores.

I think that writers do their level best to draw a reader in and keep them interested in a tale and it is then up to the reader to make a choice. I agree with Brown Rat that there are lazy readers who really give a writer a chance to properly get into the tale and like Nixie I too have read books by authors I'd enjoyed in the past only to be disappointed.

But reading should never be reduced to a duty or a chore. I don't think writers would care for their work to be so thought of either.

[Locksmith]

Looks like most people are in agreement on this one - reading should be, above all, fun. I definitely agree.

But, playing devil's advocate, for the sake of the discussion and because the author of the comment isn't here to defend themselves:

I would be interested to see the context of the remarks which you've quoted - things can make sense in a context and not when read out of context. Not everyone is a sufficiently good orator to make their point with unambiguous clarity.

Also, bear in mind that Brys is the first person to use the term "duty" which you've all roundly condemned - the author of the comment does not use the term. In addition, the three points which Brys makes at the end all make sense (and I agree with them), but none of the things they attack are actually said in the comment quoted.

Consider that the writer of this comment may be saying that a book can be enjoyable and fun without being the greatest or most inventive piece of literature ever. As a reader you should not try to over-analyse every piece of work as if it were a chore and should allow yourself to become immersed in the storyline. You might even find you enjoy the work as much as a more "intellectual" piece.

In fact, the person making the comment is saying that the reaader has no duty to work at the prose and consider its absolute merit and should just sit back, relax and enjoy the read.

Or... am I wrong?!?

[Brys]

I think that is what he's saying, and I still don't agree with it, for the reasons Hal Duncan states here:http://notesfromthegeekshow.blogspot...ts-george.html

Which is quite similar to what you are saying - about "reading too much" into something. It puts across all the points I want to on the "sit back and relax" much better than I would (and with a lot more vitriol).

The context was a discussion of Robert Jordan's writing and he was effectively complaining about us criticising the writing, rather than just accepting it being poor and enjoying the story. He doesn't use the word duty, he uses the word "job", but in this context I think they're both interchangeable.

[Locksmith]

There is a world of difference between questions of "reading too [or "to" ] much" into things (they have to be there in the first place to be read) and saying don't set out just to pick holes in the book you're reading for the sake of it.

It sounds like all the author of the comment was saying was, if you read every book focusing on whether sentences are well constructed or whether a particular set of character relationships are correctly constructed, you'll never enjoy a book. Not everyone can do that - if you're a pedant like me, you get peeved by the fact that the current editions of the Dune books a riddled with typos, for example. Our mystery commentor clearly has no such issues and is just urging people not to expect Kafka when they pick up Feist. That still leaves people room to read as much as they like into deep, meaningful books.

For example - dangerous territory here - I really enjoyed Da Vinci Code. I read it on a plane journey to the States. It's badly written, filled with plot holes and cliches, but I still had to take 15 minutes at the airport at the end of my flight to sit down and finish it because it was so gripping. You might say that's "good writing", but Da Vinci Code is not, objectively, well written - a paradox.

(Personally I don't think he or she meant "job" as in "duty" in the way that you have characterised it at all, but that's a semantic argument that only that person can answer.)

[littlemissattitude]

You know, I think it is interesting...if I'm really enjoying a book - if I'm caught up in the story - the typos and weird sentence construction don't seem to bother me much at all. If I'm not able to get involved in the story, however, those flaws just drive me crazy, to the point that I've thrown books across the room over it.

It is non-fiction where typos and such really bother me, because I can't help thinking that if the author didn't care enough to make sure his or her spelling is correct or to make sure that the writing was at least fundamentally correct gramatically, then I have no basis to assume that his or her facts and conclusions are correct. If those kinds of things slip through not only writing, but editing and proofing, then I cannot rely on the author. Maybe I'm wrong, but even with the editorial work of the publisher, it seems like it is ultimately the author's responsibility to see that those things are taken care of.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

You know, I think it is interesting...if I'm really enjoying a book - if I'm caught up in the story - the typos and weird sentence construction don't seem to bother me much at all. If I'm not able to get involved in the story, however, those flaws just drive me crazy, to the point that I've thrown books across the room over it.

It is non-fiction where typos and such really bother me, because I can't help thinking that if the author didn't care enough to make sure his or her spelling is correct or to make sure that the writing was at least fundamentally correct gramatically, then I have no basis to assume that his or her facts and conclusions are correct. If those kinds of things slip through not only writing, but editing and proofing, then I cannot rely on the author. Maybe I'm wrong, but even with the editorial work of the publisher, it seems like it is ultimately the author's responsibility to see that those things are taken care of.

Well, LMA, I can't speak for mainstream publishers on this, but I worked as a typesetter for about 11 years for a firm that did typesetting for various university presses, and I've got to come the writers' defense on this one; I saw more perfectly reasonably constructed, sensible, logical sentences so screwed up with blue pencil that you simply would not believe.... I mean, there were times I literally had to reread what I was typing in a number of times just to make sure I wasn't making mistakes, because what the writer had put made perfect sense, and what the editor had changed it to made it complete drool and dribble. If I were the writer, I think I'd be coming after that particular editor with a very sharp object with intent to kill, not maim. Remember what Harlan has in "The Whimper of Whipped Dogs" about these young copy editors fresh out of college who think they're out to save the literary world, when they really don't know their ass from a hole in the ground? Well, it's all true....

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Locksmith

In fact, the person making the comment is saying that the reaader has no duty to work at the prose and consider its absolute merit and should just sit back, relax and enjoy the read.

Or... am I wrong?!?

Well maybe it's just me, but "If you are doing your job as a reader you would be too immersed in the story (etc.)" doesn't sound like an invitation to sit back, relax, and enjoy. It sounds like an obligation on the readers' part to just turn off their minds and let the author do what he or she will with them.

Which, as a writer myself, I find ridiculous. True, that attitude could conceivably make me a lot of money ... but no, on the whole, I think I'd rather not ... not if it means no one is going to actively engage with my writing.

[Locksmith]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Which, as a writer myself, I find ridiculous. True, that attitude could conceivably make me a lot of money ... but no, on the whole, I think I'd rather not ... not if it means no one is going to actively engage with my writing.

You're clearly a true artist. Boiled down, aren't you in fact saying that the reader does have a duty/job, and that is to engage with your writing. What if I just want to switch off, relax and have a yarn spun for my pleasure?

As mentioned above in relation to the Dan Brown comment, there is room in the world, and indeed in my world, for more than one type of book. If you pick up Feist, don't complain when it's not Shakespeare and vice versa. IMO there's a tendency on SFF forums to get bogged down in over-analysing material which just hasn't got the literary merit to be over-analysed. Yes there are some great works of literature out there in the field, yours may be amongst them, but there's also a lot of dross, albeit that it may be popular and sell well.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Locksmith

Boiled down, aren't you in fact saying that the reader does have a duty/job, and that is to engage with your writing. What if I just want to switch off, relax and have a yarn spun for my pleasure?

No, I'm saying that it's my job to write well enough to appeal to the kind of readers that I want -- the kind that do have somewhat higher expectations. Certainly, it would be more profitable for writers in general if every reader mindlessly absorbed everything they read and made no value judgments when selecting what to read next -- but I'm not that kind of reader myself, so it would be unbecoming in me to chastise other readers for exercising their own taste and discretion (whether it agrees with mine or not). I'm not criticizing the person whose viewpoint is under discussion for choosing to read whatever ill-conceived and ill-executed writing comes his way; that's his perogative. I do argue with what he seems to be implying, that others who don't wish to read that sort of thing should just stop complaining and lower their expectations.

Speaking only as a reader, I sometimes want to kick back and relax, too. But for me, shoddy writing happens to detract from that -- and good writing impedes it not at all. So why shouldn't I expect and ask for a certain standard of craft even in things I read solely for fun and relaxation?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Speaking only as a reader, I sometimes want to kick back and relax, too. But for me, shoddy writing happens to detract from that -- and good writing impedes it not at all. So why shouldn't I expect and ask for a certain standard of craft even in things I read solely for fun and relaxation?

I'm in full agreement here. If I'm reading "for fun" and the writer has simply not taken the time to parse sentences properly, or uses words completely erroneously (especially if it's a pattern), or consistently gets facts wrong, then I can't simply "sit back and relax", any more than I can when being told that the earth is flat and I should accept that as a worldview. At that point I very much want to either throw the book across the room or dump something particularly nasty over somebody's head. For those who do like that sort of thing -- more power to them! I can't stand "dumb comedies" either, they drive me nuts worse than having my teeth drilled without anaesthetic. But plenty of people do like them. If they try to get me to watch one and I can't get to the door quickly enough, there's going to be a j.d.-sized hole in their wall. Good writing is actually easier to read than bad. It makes more sense, it enables one to visualize much more easily, it engages on many levels, and it can actually touch emotions much more deeply. But it is no reader's "obligation" to force themselves to read something they don't like. That's quite another thing.