I'm going to respond to both you and flummery here, since presumably you'll both get an email notification.
There were two things I was responding to. One, the 'if I explicitly say McDonalds, and you still read Burger King, it is my (the author's) fault' (which is how what I took what you said to mean) doesn't make sense to me, even more so *because* it is at odds with the sloppy reader para quoted by elynross.
Two: It's not the audience's job to read your mind, or know any other context than what is in front of them, right there, on the page.
In the Netherlands most of us take at least two and usually three foreign languages in High School. It is stressed that you need to know something about the culture as a whole, and about the literary history to understand a French/German/English novel at all (and I very much find this to be true). Every author takes a certain context for granted. Like in science fiction authors don't have to explain 'it's the future and we're on another planet' anymore, it's a convention of the genre and readers now need very few cues to get that that's where something is going. A reader who is clueless about the genre conventions of science fiction is usually hopelessly lost when they pick up something like cyberpunk. Not everything is right there on the page. A lot of it is in the frame of reference of the reader *and* the author.
I think 'you may have been thinking it but it's only what made it onto the page that counts' is a great mantra while writing. But I don't think it covers everything about reading.
Relatedly, if I find something poorly written or unenjoyable that doesn't mean there is fault to be found with me *or* the author. I'm not behind the 'love me and despair' thing AR seems to be doing there, but even an attentive, intelligent reader brings their own expectations and desires to reading. I find discussions of *why* people admire this piece and hate that piece fascinating and delightful and fertile, but I still think that saying 'if I don't love it you didn't write it well enough' as presumptuous as the opposite.
no subject
There were two things I was responding to. One, the 'if I explicitly say McDonalds, and you still read Burger King, it is my (the author's) fault' (which is how what I took what you said to mean) doesn't make sense to me, even more so *because* it is at odds with the sloppy reader para quoted by
Two:
It's not the audience's job to read your mind, or know any other context than what is in front of them, right there, on the page.
In the Netherlands most of us take at least two and usually three foreign languages in High School. It is stressed that you need to know something about the culture as a whole, and about the literary history to understand a French/German/English novel at all (and I very much find this to be true). Every author takes a certain context for granted. Like in science fiction authors don't have to explain 'it's the future and we're on another planet' anymore, it's a convention of the genre and readers now need very few cues to get that that's where something is going. A reader who is clueless about the genre conventions of science fiction is usually hopelessly lost when they pick up something like cyberpunk. Not everything is right there on the page. A lot of it is in the frame of reference of the reader *and* the author.
I think 'you may have been thinking it but it's only what made it onto the page that counts' is a great mantra while writing. But I don't think it covers everything about reading.
Relatedly, if I find something poorly written or unenjoyable that doesn't mean there is fault to be found with me *or* the author. I'm not behind the 'love me and despair' thing AR seems to be doing there, but even an attentive, intelligent reader brings their own expectations and desires to reading. I find discussions of *why* people admire this piece and hate that piece fascinating and delightful and fertile, but I still think that saying 'if I don't love it you didn't write it well enough' as presumptuous as the opposite.