On other things: the "I write for myself" thing has always puzzled me. IMO, if you put up your work for public consumption, it is implicit that you want feedback. If you wrote for yourself, you'd have kept your writing to yourself. This is especially true for professionally published writing: to put it bluntly and harshly, you're writing something to sell. And you don't get to choose your audience; anything in public view is fair game and subject to all type of criticism. The public is about as loving and caring as a rusty iron maiden, and editors are not obliged to be humane or even remotely nice. (I've read someone else's rejection slip that doesn't say much aside from -- paraphrased -- "your writing is frankly infantile." You think I'm harsh? Meet disgruntled editors who have to read hundreds of submitted manuscripts from hopeful aspiring writers.)
I write for a living and yes, you do choose your audience. Maybe not personally or individual by individual but you have to have a target audience in mind not only when you go to publish, but when you're writing it. If you don't, your chances of ever getting published are close to zero. Publishing houses publish material related to their specific genre. Most small to mid size publishing houses are genre specific because print publication is extremely expensive. And one subject is easier to and less costly to manage than 2 or 3. Electronic publication is broken down differently in terms of cost.
Some of the editors I have dealt with have the personality of a piece of chalk. Others are more receptive and willing to work with an author. It depends on the editor, the market and sometimes the genre. And some of the stuff they get thrown over their transom is swill. Some writers don't take the time to read the publisher's guidelines (an absolute must if you're to be taken seriously). Some don't even take the time to run their work through a spell checker. And more often than not, a lot of writers have never read a book on grammar. So, sometimes I can empathize with editors and why they get snarky.
IMO, 'writing for myself' can be interepreted several different ways. When I hear someone say "I write for myself," I think they mean they write things that they like to read. Not for self-aggrandizement or to stroke an overblown ego.
I'm also -- no offense -- leery around anyone who claims that his/her writing is "art" and is therefore, somehow, not subject to criticism. Common excuses include, "But you can't possibly understand what I'm trying to convey!" or "But this is my style -- if I listen to your critiques, I'd become a mindless conformist drone!" Nope. E.E. Cummings you are not; win a Pulitzer Prize or something first and maybe your argument will have merits. ...
Authors have to develop a thick skin if they want to be successful in the publishing industry. Everyone is going to criticize your work whether you want it or not. But I think there is an art to the craft of writing and weaving a storyline. However, that art can be appreciated for what it is, go unnoticed by the reader or picked apart by people who enjoy doing so. Writing for a living is not an easy job. It takes self-motivation, discipline and learning the marketing side of writing. That's the part most 'writers' forget when they sit down to write their first article, short story or novel. The work doesn't automatically grow legs, walk out the door and sell itself. (Although some people think their work is so great, it could). No. To be a successful writer who wants to make money, you need to study marketing trends, target your audience, read similar authors' work and frankly, learn that genre inside and out. And if you're involved in a niche market (like I am), you have to get involved even deeper because the market is that much more defined.
Anyway, I didn't mean to blather on. But that seems to be what I do best.
Faralas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mage.gif" alt="" />
