The Reality Envelope

For better or worse, I read comments on my work by readers. I call them comments (although a tiny percentage are rants) because they usually reflect an emotional reaction rather than a deeply considered assessment. That’s fine with me because people largely buy books based on how they feel about them.

At the same time, I’m still surprised by some of the comments I read, where two readers of the same book (at roughly the same time) experience it so differently, one claiming it’s one of my best books, and the other declaring it’s the worst book they’ve ever read.

Sometimes, the reason for that discrepancy is obvious. When I write a book in the present tense, I don’t do it to be “literary” or pretentious. I do it because that brings a greater immediacy to the character and events and because I feel that’s the best way to tell the story. But I also know that a certain percentage of readers hate tales told in the present tense. That’s one reason why editors and agents are leery of books written that way, especially by new authors.

Another reason for differing reactions has to do with what I’d call the degree of mental openness of readers, and that openness – or lack of it – takes many forms. Although he was a brilliant attorney, my father never could get into what I wrote. His world view was circumscribed by cold hard reality. My mother was the one who understood and accepted change and other possibilities.

At the time I was first getting published, a majority of science fiction readers were male, and many of them were quite comfortable in accepting everything from faster than light speeds to time travel, conventions widely used, but still practically and theoretically impossible, but those readers were very skeptical about strong, well-rounded female characters. They were open to technological change but didn’t want to read about basic social change. In short, their enjoyment was restricted by the limits of what they could find socially/culturally acceptable.

Another aspect of why the same book gets differing reactions is because some readers conflate the behavior of a character with the author. If I write a character who is socially awkward in dealing with women, I get a percentage of readers who will say that I cannot write romance well. If I write a strong female character, certain readers will comment on the fact that I don’t understand women well. I’ve written several young women characters who embody characteristics of women I know, sometimes quite well, and been told that those characters are unrealistic because they’re not anything like the women the reader knows, i.e., my presentation conflicts with their reality envelope.

In general, most readers will accept fantastic technology and improbable magic systems set in economically and politically impossible societies more easily than a realistic portrayal of a society based on different cultural mores, which is something that all authors need to keep in mind.

3 thoughts on “The Reality Envelope”

  1. KevinJ says:

    Absolutely. Half the reaction to Heinlein’s Starship Troopers is that he was challenging some fundamental elements of 1950s America, a time when the post-Depression/WWII generation just wanted everyone to conform without conflict. (I oversimplify.)

    Of course there were other reasons for the reaction as well. But you’re spot-on about what a percentage of readers just can’t get comfortable being confronted with.

  2. braendyn weyr says:

    Hello,

    I hope this is a good spot to drop a comment with a light inquiry.

    I recently read your story The Saprano Sorceress which I thoroughly enjoyed and am looking forward to continuing on with that series. However, I have this odd hunch about this book of yours and I pray that you’ll indulge me for my wild conjecture, but you sort of do mention in your above entry that certain characters are based on people you’ve met, know or know of.

    So, I suppose I’ll just come right out and ask but, well, it’s just so many little things make me feel that the woman you might perhaps have based some elements of the character Anna Marshall on, could possibly be the Dragonlady herself, one Anne McCaffrey.

    It’s just…for me, if that’s the case, then this story works exceptionally well…as in a lot of ways it seems to riff off of Anne’s debut novel Restoree. Also, Ms. McCaffrey is well known for her operatic history and aspirations, and her musical experience and appreciation but beyond that there’s a frankness to the character Anna that just reminds me heartily of one of my most beloved authors.
    As well, the way Anna undergo’s her youthening wishfulfillment and then the pragmatic lense by which she apprehends the impact of her appearance to her situation coincides entirely with my notion of Anne McCaffrey’s personae and I guess I’d love to know if any of what I picked up was intentionally set down by you.
    No matter what, the idea once it took hold brought a wonderful immediacy to it all and I very much appreciate the experience you afforded me.

    Cheers,
    Brandon Weyr

    1. No, Anna Marshall isn’t based on Anne McCaffrey. It is based on another singer — my wife — who was an academic and regional opera lyric soprano and who is currently a university opera director. Anne liked the series very much and gave the first two books great quotes/blurbs. And, in fact, at the World Fantasy Convention in London in 1998, Anne and my wife met, and had a long conversation comparing their singing background and very much ignoring all the other people clamoring for Anne’s attention.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *