The Right Measuring Stick: Readers or Gatekeepers?

Kindness · Jul 30, 2012

Inspired by this, this, this and a lot of what Donald Maass has to say (which is awesome sometimes and kind of unnverving at other times xD). I'm also talking about genre fiction

Whose pleasure should you be writing for? Your average reader or the gatekeepers?

Gatekeepers are readers... but they aren't normal readers. Things a normal reader wouldn't care about may jar a gatekeeper, simply because their job has usually left them hyper-sensitive to certain issues. For example, having a very large gap between the opening and the inciting incident in your MS (even if the gap is interesting), or scenes that are fun or engaging and add to the overall mood of the story but don't add a lot to the main plot or sub-plots. A reader might have fun reading these -- and you'd be giving them exactly what they signed up for -- but a gatekeeper might possibly pick up on them in a negative way.

I don't spare any effort to be interesting when I'm writing for readers, but I aim to entertain and so everything else is secondary. I know what I (and, in a more general sense, what fans of my sub-genre) like as a reader and so rather than following general guidelines I just do my best to ensure that my target reader would still be enjoying the story I'd like to tell them at any one point in time (for example, take the long gap between the opening and inciting incident I mentioned earlier. If the gap happened to boring, I would cut or summarize it, simply because readers wouldn't be enjoying themselves. But if the text wasn't boring or frustrating or plain, I would leave it).

As I said, the issue here is that there are certain things that gatekeepers will be leery of that your average reader would enjoy. I'm not saying this with a lazy "good-enough-is-good-enough" attitude, because I don't believe it is, but when I'm writing (or even revising) for gatekeepers or the average reader I often find that (especially after reading gatekeeper blogs) they're two very different beasts.

So...

1: When wrting for the normal reader, I leave in everything that I believe to be interesting and don't cut anything I feel they'll enjoy. This includes things that don't absolutely need to be there but don't need to be cut either, because while they border on extraneous they are interesting; they add something and don't exist to the detriment of the story. If the point of the story is to entertain, and the scene isn't delaying the entertainment because it's interesting in itself, what reason do you have to remove it, other than tightening for tightening's sake?

2: When writing for a gatekeeper I do my best to tighten the story, removing everything that doesn't do double or even triple duty so that the manuscript feels more polished and has fewer elements that may set off alarm bells. It removes a lot of the actual story, though, and as I mentioned above, a lot of it is tightening for tightening's sake. I feel like I'm doing this to give gatekeepers a streamlined manuscript, rather than because I feel it's a decision I made with my ideal reader's reactions in mind. And again, I do research gatekeeper blogs, so it's not something I'd be doing based on some abstract idea of what they're looking for.

So... who should I really be writing and revising for? My ideal, normal reader, or the gatekeepers who hold that special key in their hands? Should reader tastes and reactions be my yardstick or should I do my best to avoid unnerving gatekeepers?

Kerosene · Jul 30, 2012

I just keep a general idea that my reader hate my guts and wish to spike my head out on their lawns if I don't entertain them.

ok, that's a joke.

I write for myself, revise for reader and just keep a thought in the back of my mind for the people who are a bit tougher than normal.

But when I do write for myself, I am a "Gatekeeper" who can't stand worthless scenes/info/wasted words. I mean, you read a book and for 300 pages, its the characters walking around in circles while the writer is just trying to expand the story out to their limit.

I try to make each scene complex. yet simple. Something that's interesting can be highlighted, but it can be introduced into another interesting thing and combined to fold into a much more powerful scene.

Sorry to say this, but to say, "it's good enough," is giving up to me. I just rewrote, a scene I've rewritten and revised a dozen times over and found new ways, new experiences to fold into it this time. To not have a writer accomplish this, is giving up. To blame it on some readers who have stronger opinions than others (like me) is just the writer giving up. I apologize, again.

All in all, I say: Write for yourself. If you don't have a high opinion, then accept it. If you do, know your limits and try to excel to the point that you can accept it yourself. You might want to look to the reader for purpose and connection, but don't try to think there are lurkers in the darkness out to cut through your writing. (Writers do this, to learn from)

I'm still a very stringent reader, because of my writing influence, but I will still read a crappy book and call it good because I liked it. I'll still damn it to hell, but I will enjoy moments in it and at the end. Otherwise, I won't read it to begin with.

Theo81 · Jul 30, 2012

Whoever is going to read your novel.

One of the things self-publishing has shown is there is definitely a market for things the "gatekeepers" would reject out-of-hand. Take the self-pubbed novel On The Island - I don't think it would have been picked up traditionally (and I think I voiced doubts about that when critiquing the Q, it sounded too much like something I'd seen before) but it's been a tremendous success and plenty of people really like.

Agents have been saying for a long time that Chick Lit is a difficult sell and they are looking for more up-market versions of it - not so for the Top 100 Kindle bestsellers. Plenty of Chick-lit/Rom-Coms there.

Ditto Misery Lit/memoir - hard sell to agents, but there are a lot of self-pubbed bestsellers out there.

As with anything, not just writing, know your market in order to be successful.

NeuroFizz · Jul 30, 2012

The two are not mutually exclusive, so why not aim for both excellence in the craft of writing AND maximizing the pleasure/interest of the readers? If one truely understands the contemporary guildelines of solid writing, it is obvious they do not restrict creativity in any way. Also, if one fully understands these guidelines and why they are used, it is possible to break them in ways that will thrill the gatekeepers as well as the readers.

Kimber · Jul 30, 2012

I write what I like, and I'm a reader so I figure there is an audience out there somewhere. I try to edit with gatekeepers in mind.

WeaselFire · Jul 30, 2012

Theo81 has a point about self-pubbed works. But I've always thought of gatekeepers as pickier versions of readers. A reader might forgive some lapses that a gatekeeper might not. But I'm not sure that a reader wouldn't enjoy the story just as much, or more, if it passed a gatekeeper first.

I'm basing this on my reading habits. My wife is a chick-lit reader and I occasionally (okay, relatively often...) pick up one of her titles to pass the time. There are quite a few I can't finish because of problems in the writing. She tells me I just have to get past those parts, but I kind of feel I didn't get my money's worth if I have to work to read the book.

I loved Sophie Kinsella's Shopaholic books. Bridget Jones' Diary as well. Both were published traditionally, passed gate keepers, and were great reads. Marian Keyes, Mary Kay Andrews and Jennifer Weiner are on the Kindle and I've enjoyed them as well. I fell in love with Janet Evonovich (books, not person) while in chemo, they were available at the time but now I pre-order them all. Again, all passed gatekeepers.

The self-pubbed 99 cent Kindle books my wife picks up I don't, on average, enjoy. Some have great ideas behind them, but poorly developed plots, slow story lines and cardboard characters. I can't help thinking that getting these past a gatekeeper would have made them much better.

Jeff

Roger J Carlson · Jul 30, 2012

WeaselFire said:
Theo81 has a point about self-pubbed works. But I've always thought of gatekeepers as pickier versions of readers. A reader might forgive some lapses that a gatekeeper might not. But I'm not sure that a reader wouldn't enjoy the story just as much, or more, if it passed a gatekeeper first.

I don't think gatekeepers are pickier versions of readers. I think gatekeepers are people who know WHY some particular bit of writing works or doesn't work. The average reader will only know that they do or do not like it.

Gatekeepers, imo, can be wrong about markets, that is whether or not people want to read a wizard-boy-in-an-English-boarding-school story. But I don't think they are often wrong about writing quality.

gothicangel · Jul 30, 2012

The only consideration I have about readers, is that I write the books that I would love to find in Waterstone's on while browsing a Saturday afternoon.

There is only one difference between readers and gate-keepers, the so-called gate-keepers have to always keep one eye on the business side of publishing.

MoLoLu · Jul 30, 2012

I don't trust gatekeepers to the letter but I'm farily certain if my stories can't past their tests, something's missing. Maybe I'm writing the wrong genre, maybe I'm not writing well enough. Whatever the failure, if I can't get past a gatekeeper I have to think twice before I move on to the alternative of self-pubbing.

If that ever were to be the case, which isn't yet because I haven't published anything, I'd have to be utterly honest with myself and ask: is this really, really good enough for my target audience or is there a good reason beyond pragmatism or workload that my writing isn't sticking anywhere? Chances are, it'll be the latter. And chances are it isn't the story or plot but the writing itself which needs correction.

So, while I don't write with gatekeepers in mind, I've no doubt there's a reason they exist. And, even if they didn't exist, I'd have to learn how to be my own gatekeeper or I'd end up spewing out ill-thought out crap by the minute.

VoireyLinger · Jul 30, 2012

I detest the term 'gatekeeper' in relation to publishing. I don't see gatekeepers, I see people interested in acquiring and marketing the best product they can get their hands on.

And as for sound, tight writing vs. entertainment... you need both. it's not an either-or proposition. Those unpolished, repetitive and irrelevant 'story' bits kill readability and entertainment value, as do superfluous scenes.

Ultimately, I don't write for editor or for readers. I write the best damn story I can. I know as a writer, I'm too close to the story to see some of what drags it down and trust that my editor will be able to pinpoint problems, because that's her responsibility to me and to my story... to help me make it better.

shadowwalker · Jul 30, 2012

JMO but I think gatekeepers are the reason readers will search out a specific author time after time. Those books where you have to "skip over" or "ignore" things just so you can finish - who's going to remember that author, or seek out the next book by them? Those are the books you pick up for a quick read; who writes them matters not one whit.

CatchingADragon · Jul 30, 2012

I really write for my own pleasure first, hoping I'll find the overlap between my interests and the readers' and gatekeepers' interests.

As others have said, I don't think gatekeepers and normal readers are mutually exclusive. I agree that gatekeepers can be wrong about markets, as can anyone, but gatekeepers want to put out something of they honestly believe readers will enjoy. After all, that's how they make money. When they are more critical about cliches, weak openings, or weak writing, they are critical for the sake of believing it will be harder to sell the work to the ultimate potential reader.

So, writing with the gatekeeper in mind is writing with the readers in mind, and vice versa. I think a good gatekeeper is a friend who wants to help you find the widest possible readership, not an enemy to slip by on the way.

I'm not sure I understand the notion of readers being more likely to be interested in non-story elements, or "tightening for tightening's sake." I just don't think there's really a huge difference of preference between gatekeepers and general readers in terms of how "tight" a story should be. I think the point of tightness is to help the story hold the readers' interests. So I personally write trying to find the balance between the exposition necessary to make the world and the characters full and believable (and not cardboard cutouts), and keeping the story going and the conflict escalating to hold the readers' interests, whether they are gatekeepers or not.

(Worldbuilding exposition vs story progression is a different topic itself, but I think there is an art in finding the balance, and trying to make a sentence do both at the same time.)

Also, with the age of the Internet, I know I can always put "bonus features" online if it doesn't make it in the book. For example, I made up a card game that my characters play. In the book, I don't go into detail about how it's played, as it's really not important to the story. If my book got published, I could always put that info online for interested readers.

Miss Plum · Jul 30, 2012

Roger J Carlson said:
I don't think gatekeepers are pickier versions of readers. I think gatekeepers are people who know WHY some particular bit of writing works or doesn't work. The average reader will only know that they do or do not like it.

Gatekeepers, imo, can be wrong about markets, that is whether or not people want to read a wizard-boy-in-an-English-boarding-school story. But I don't think they are often wrong about writing quality.

First, I completely agree with this.

Second, those "enjoyable" scenes that don't move the plot or amp up the suspense also don't keep the reader madly turning pages into the night.

Finally, and this is something I note reluctantly, I'm surprised at the awfulness of some self-pubbed writers who seem to be selling pretty well -- those who presumably wrote for readers, not gatekeepers. Seem to be selling well, but I don't know. Is the sheer number of Amazon reviews an indication of a book's sales? Do e-pubbed books or books sold through Amazon get more Amazon reviews? There are two of these authors in particular whom I've looked at, and the errors in the most basic sentence mechanics drove me batty but the NUMEROUS 5-star readers didn't seem to even notice. The stories themselves also probably needed major reshaping and structural editing. I don't know because I couldn't read more than about 20 pages.

But I want to talk about one of those books. Essentially Harry Potter + Twilight, hit all the magic notes (aka cliches) and made a stab at wit. Bravo, Author. I have nothing against applying successful formulas, even in a blatant ripoff kind of way, and the writing itself did have energy. However, the grammar, even spelling were awful, awful. Metaphors made me go "huh?" instead of "aha!" In the hands of a New York editor, that book just might become a massive bestseller, and the author could make a million dollars rather than the (wild guess) ten thousand she's getting. She could also offer a much better product to the world, keeping her existing readers and netting quite a few more. But as it is, she's got a secure little fan base and she needn't lose any time getting her stuff straight out to them, no publisher's schedules or other troublesome requirements.

So, which way do you want to do it?

Sorry, I have a vague impression of having written this in these forums before and I'm probably repeating myself.

BethS · Jul 30, 2012

Kindness said:
So... who should I really be writing and revising for? My ideal, normal reader, or the gatekeepers who hold that special key in their hands? Should reader tastes and reactions be my yardstick or should I do my best to avoid unnerving gatekeepers?

I write for the first gatekeeper: me. And I'm a tough sell.

buz · Jul 30, 2012

I write for the glorious union of the Gatekeeper and the Keymaster, and the coming of Gozer the Traveler.

...

I guess I'm one of those "not mutually exclusive" people, so far. But then, I don't have much experience with literary Zuuls nor readers either (I don't know what the readers are in the Ghostbusters metaphor dammitall), so I s'pose I can't have a definite opinion. But, well...I'd prefer to entertain multiple levels of super cool people, be they readers, keymasters, or Sigourney Weaver.

...I'm bad at contributing.

quicklime · Jul 30, 2012

if you intend to pub with an actual publisher, instead of on your own, you have to please the gatekeeper. But they aren't mutually exclusive pools; that's why things like The Da Vinci Code, which seems a form of retinal assault from the time I saw a few pages, still got "gatekeeper-approved"...they may have had issues with the construction but also appreciated and believed in other aspects of it, like the pacing....and apparently figured trying to get Brown to mix fast pace with sixth-grade writing ability would chase him off...

anyway, if you're writing commercially, you're writing for both. but so is anyone else in that pool, and since gatekeepers make a lot of money off casual readers, it isn't like they just slam the hammer down and hold the common man back from writing to those same casual readers.

Amory · Jul 30, 2012

I can sort of speak with experience here, not because I am a gatekeeper, but because I read equal amounts of two kinds of writing: Novels that are traditionally published and novel-length fanfic (I rarely read fanfic that it's at least 75,000 words long).

Now, most of the books keep me intrigued. Some keep me up all night, like The Hunger Games did recently. Their fast pacing keeps you wanting more and the lack of unnecessary stuff keeps your mind from wandering. I rarely skip parts of books.

Fanfic, on the other hand, is the ultimate "write for the readers" art. You CAN'T publish it or make any money off of it. You are writing simply for your pleasure and the pleasure of your readers. Basically, you can do whatever you want. This CAN lead to some great fanfic that would never be published even if it were original, but is really awesome. A lot of fic hardly has any plot, it's just character development. However, I OFTEN skip scenes in fanfic, if the scene in particular just doesn't grab hold of me or seem important to the story. I scan through it and pick back up where the story does.

Overall, I think gatekeepers know what people want OVERALL in books. Some people may enjoy scenes that aren't important to the plot--many people, even--but just as many are likely to flip past it or even put the book down. That's my feelings on it, anyway.

I, personally, write what's basically fanfic for my own stories. If I want to write a scene that has little to do with the plot, I write it--but I don't try and fit it into my novel.

Jamesaritchie · Jul 31, 2012

I don't worry about readers or gatekeepers. I write a story I'd want to read if someone else wrote it.

ArachnePhobia · Jul 31, 2012

buzhidao said:
I write for the glorious union of the Gatekeeper and the Keymaster, and the coming of Gozer the Traveler.

...

I guess I'm one of those "not mutually exclusive" people, so far. But then, I don't have much experience with literary Zuuls nor readers either (I don't know what the readers are in the Ghostbusters metaphor dammitall), so I s'pose I can't have a definite opinion. But, well...I'd prefer to entertain multiple levels of super cool people, be they readers, keymasters, or Sigourney Weaver.

...I'm bad at contributing.

Wouldn't the librarian's ghost be the reader? I mean, look what happens when she's interrupted before a chapter break.

I don't have much to contribute, either. When I think of the readers, be they gatekeeper or bookshop browser, I assume they are smart enough to notice if I try to "get away" with anything, and I make my stories as clean and tight as I am able.

Phaeal · Jul 31, 2012

Agents have to worry about getting editors to approve their clients' books. Editors have to push the books through a long gauntlet of editorial boards, publishers, marketing and sales people. So, yes, the "gatekeepers" are going to be pickier (perhaps antsier) than the average reader -- their livelihoods depend on their picks.

One obvious thing they are going to be picky about is manuscript length. It's hard enough to push a novice author's book without having to justify a tome of 200K or 300K words. In many genres, the desireable word count will be much, much, much lower. So, yeah, maybe your ideal reader would enjoy all that fascinating but extraneous description of the microfauna of Planet X or the backstory of Hero's ten-times-great-grandmother. However, the agent and editor may have good reason to tremble at such excess, no matter how luscious.

The Right Measuring Stick: Readers or Gatekeepers?

Kindness

Back From My Self-Imposed Exile

Kerosene

Your Pixie Queen

Theo81

NeuroFizz

The grad students did it

Kimber

Kimber Vale

WeaselFire

Benefactor Member

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only

gothicangel

Toughen up.

MoLoLu

VoireyLinger

Angel Wing Fetish

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

CatchingADragon

dragon seeker

Miss Plum

BethS

buz

edits all posts at least four times

quicklime

all out of fucks to give

Amory

May the odds be EVER in my favor.

Jamesaritchie

ArachnePhobia

Phaeal

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.