William almost broke my nose this morning. He was having some sort of altercation with another cat on the bed while I was reading the paper, and suddenly the other cat (I think it was Marcel) threw him off and he came rocketing up into my face and the top of his hard little wedge-shaped head connected squarely and powerfully with the bridge of my nose. The really intense part of the pain didn't last very long and there was no bleeding, but my eyes still feel watery, my nose still hurts, and it's starting to swell. Don't ever let anyone tell you cats aren't dangerous.

His head seems fine, by the way.

On a completely different note, there's been an interesting discussion of "the writer's duty to the reader" on one of the horror message boards*. It began with someone posting the following quote:

"The author is like the host at a party. It is his party, but he must not enjoy himself so much that he neglects his guests. His enjoyment is not so much his own but theirs." -- Charles P. Curtis, in Good Advice on Writing, compiled by William Safire and Leonard Safir

This is a fine example of why I believe most how-to-write books are claptrap. I've never felt that a writer has any responsibility to his readers except to do the best work he's capable of. Of course that includes some sub-rules -- being true to the characters, not cheating on the plot -- but if he spends time thinking about what the readers want, he'll end up writing for them, not for himself. A writer who doesn't write first and foremost for himself is unlikely to satisfy anyone else. This is how it's always worked for me, anyway.

I said as much on the board, and most people seemed to agree, but one fellow (a book critic, natch) came back with this:

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. A mix of both is what is best, because if you're just writing for yourself, why are you trying to get published?

So apparently I'm just masturbating here. (Also "trying to get published" -- maybe, O maybe if I persevere, I shall succeed one day.) I thought of saying so on the board, but it's one of those polite boards, so I posted the following instead:

Because I happen to think I have stories worth telling and that some readers will enjoy. I just don't feel any need to insult those readers or waste my own talent (such as it is) by attempting to pander to what I think they want, or what they think they want.

There's also the little matter that I'm not very good at anything else and am almost completely unemployable, so if I wasn't fortunate enough to be able to make my living as a writer, I'd probably either be dead or on welfare.

This all sounds more contentious than I intended it to, but as you can probably tell, I feel very strongly about this issue. Don't get me wrong; I hope like hell that readers will enjoy my work and am gratified when they do. I just don't think worrying about what they want will increase their enjoyment. Your mileage may vary, but I've had a successful twenty-year writing career doing it my way. If I did it the way suggested in the original quote, I'd still be cranking out sequels to Lost Souls. These books might sell, but they would also suck hairy donkey balls, and I would be miserable and devoid of self-respect.

I think most people who've been reading this blog for any length of time or who have had contact with me in real life know that I respect my readers deeply unless they give me reason to do otherwise. However, no one will ever convince me that I have a "contract with the reader," or a "duty to the reader," or any of the other ridiculous phrases they use in writing manuals, on message boards, etc. My contract with you is that I will write what I need to write and will do so as well as I'm capable of doing. Your contract with me is that you will read the book if you wish to, that you'll at least pay enough attention so that you won't offer pinheaded criticisms such as "We never even find out how old Rickey and G-man are" when their ages are given on page one (an Amazon "reviewer" actually did this with Liquor), and that, if you like it, you'll maybe consider buying the next one or checking it out of the library. Beyond that, any "duty" or "contract" I attempted to impose upon myself would turn my work into something no one would want to read. Trust me on this one.

I know we've been over this before, but enough people are still talking seriously about "the writer's duty to the reader" and other such inanities that it seems worth bringing back up every now and then.

Nor, for whatever it's worth, had I ever heard of Charles P. Curtis. A look at his list of publications on Amazon fails to convince me that I should heed his writing advice. But now I'm just being snarky, and the contracts for the French editions of Prime and Soul Kitchen have arrived from my agent and await my attention.

*Edit: I've removed the name of and link to the board because the guy who disagreed with me evidently took great offense at being mentioned in this "snotty" blog entry, and since it's a board that I'd just joined and, as I say, a very polite one, I don't wish to cause any more trouble there. I just can't seem to stay out of dutch, can I?