by Gerry Conway
Read this before we start (and, warning, SPOILERS):
Ready? Okay. I think this critic misses the point, because, like more than a few critics throughout the history of literary (and cinematic) criticism, he/she doesn’t understand the nature of the implied writer/reader contract. That’s not surprising because the concept of a contract between the writer and the reader doesn’t seem to get much attention in academic critical studies, and almost no attention in popular critical writing. As far as I know, it isn’t much taught to aspiring writers, either, which explains so much bad, narcissistic writing.
Here’s the concept, in as simple terms as I can explain it: the writer/reader contract is an implied agreement between the writer and the reader concerning the kind of story the writer is telling, what the reader should expect from that story, and in return for the gift of the reader’s attention, the writer’s implicit promise to deliver on those expectations. To the degree that writer and reader fullfil that contract– the reader, by giving the writer his/her attention, and the writer, by fulfilling the reader’s expectations– a story is or is not successful. If a reader doesn’t pay attention to what she reads, she can’t complain that a story fails. If a writer does not fulfill her reader’s expectations, she can’t claim the reader “doesn’t understand” the writer’s work. Stories are a contracted dialogue between author and audience. Fullfil the contract, everyone’s happy. Break the contract, recriminations follow.