Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40865
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Edit: since I posted this answer, the OP has expanded their question to state the interest is in whether one should dumb down in the choice of genre. That is not what I expected herein. I hope what appears below will be of use to future readers interested in the more general question implied in the title. I also think it's relevant, in general logic if not in examples discussed, to the genre issue now raised.

* * *

> Should I be myself?

**Yes**.

The only alternative is trying to write like someone else, and you'd fail, not because they're better but because they're different. Never mind the specific things authors get praise for, either as individuals or in the aggregate; you can't even mimic the pattern of their vocabulary. Ben Blatt [has shown](https://smile.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00Y8OEYQ0) authors each have their own vocabulary fingerprint, which is why Nabokov overused "mauve" so much.

Besides, what does any reader or viewer want from the fiction they consume? They want something they've never encountered.

> Should I write what I really want?

**Yes and no**.

On the one hand, it has to be something you can bring yourself to write. If you hate it, what makes you think anyone else will like it? On the other hand, we all have to make compromises. Any number of authors have admitted to liking their most popular work a lot less than the public does. Sometimes they write something for money. That's where _A Christmas Carol_ came from. The real question isn't what you want and what everyone else wants, and which of the two you should go with; both are surprisingly flexible. The question is what can you bring that other people don't?

> Even though it isn't getting much traction?

**Of course it isn't.**

There's no way to write, none at all, that gives you a good chance of getting traction. No-one has the secret to being conventionally published, or to being a bestseller. That's not to say there aren't things you should avoid doing because they'll make your chances even worse. Writing guides are full of time-tested observations we ignore at our peril. (We can break a few "rules", but we need to know what we're getting ourselves into; that's what all the best writers have done.) But if you're going to make changes to gain more traction, they need to be things you can do well enough it doesn't backfire, despite styming what makes you you. I'm sorry that's not very specific, but it can't be. Every writer has to figure out for themselves what about them can change.

> Should I dumb down my writing?

**That depends what's "smart" about it; ask your beta readers.**

- Maybe [you speak like a thesaurus](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness); don't do that. (Well, you might be able to make it work for one character, but not your narration.) If your writing is "eloquent" in some other sense, it's probably in the good sense of using your vocabulary well, not in the most abstruse way you can. What I mean is your words need to flow the right way; have the right show-don't-tell effects; move the reader the way you want, etc.
  - Related to that point, maybe your writing is hard to read because of its grammar or syntax, rather than the words themselves. (Again, this gets into eloquence; so does the point below.) In my experience, readers have objected to my work at times for all these reasons. It's definitely something one has to fix. What I found helpful was to review every sentence over 25 words for how, if at all, it can be improved. Maybe it should be split; maybe it needs to lose words that don't do anything; maybe it shouldn't be there at all. It varies, but you learn a lot from considering them.
- Maybe your prose is [purple](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PurpleProse); if so, that might be fine, because on the one hand it can be too purple but on the other hand it can be [too beige](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeigeProse).
- Maybe you try to make your story do what [your teacher said fiction does](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryoneIsJesusInPurgatory), to have a polemical message. If you really want to do that, that's fine, but do it right. The best examples don't have a character tell us the right view; they have a character go on the kind of experiential journey that would make a person feel that way.
- Or maybe the smarts are in your imaginativeness. That's probably the least dangerous kind of smart your writing can have. People want to see something new. That's not to say the most imaginative plot or character or setting you can invent will be popular with other people. It's hit and miss. All writing is hit and miss.

> Should I pander to what I think most people like to read?

**That's up to you.**

What do you think they like to read? Or watch; remember, scriptwriters are authors too. I'd hate it if we ended up in a world where every new film is, "Supervillains 911 a city, then superheroes punch them into defeat." Especially if both sides do it with coloured CGI energy balls. Is it popular? Sure, but we need diverse stories. Luckily, I think we'll keep getting them from every medium, because every writer is better- or worse-suited to this and that niche, and we're all different. I can't tell you what you're best off writing; in fact, you can't even do that at first. You'll have to write a good few stories before you know what you're good at. But I suspect one day you'll find you can write all sorts of things well, as long as you feel the urge to write something like that.

Original score: 6