<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Which Story Should You Tell?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/which-story-should-you-tell/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/which-story-should-you-tell/</link>
	<description>Reflections of a working writer and reader</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 08:23:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee</title>
		<link>http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/which-story-should-you-tell/comment-page-1/#comment-108917</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:48:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/?p=1171#comment-108917</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s an issue which comes up again and again, especially for indie writers like myself who publish online, since the commenting format seems to invite suggestions for improvement - and everyone has suggestions! In the end I find myself returning to the reason I write - to grapple with the challenges I set myself. Readers will have to look after themselves. Some interpret this as arrogance, but I suppose any writer who takes their work seriously needs a healthy measure of it to keep going.

&lt;strong&gt;jb says&lt;/strong&gt;: Hi Lee. Yes, I&#039;m sure it&#039;s very different for people who publish online, because the feedback comes so much sooner. In the traditional publishing format the delay between finishing a manuscript and seeing it in published form can be a year or longer. In the period of a year a writer has often forgotten much about his or her own story, moved on to something else. So the readers responses are no longer quite so relevant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s an issue which comes up again and again, especially for indie writers like myself who publish online, since the commenting format seems to invite suggestions for improvement &#8211; and everyone has suggestions! In the end I find myself returning to the reason I write &#8211; to grapple with the challenges I set myself. Readers will have to look after themselves. Some interpret this as arrogance, but I suppose any writer who takes their work seriously needs a healthy measure of it to keep going.</p>
<p><strong>jb says</strong>: Hi Lee. Yes, I&#8217;m sure it&#8217;s very different for people who publish online, because the feedback comes so much sooner. In the traditional publishing format the delay between finishing a manuscript and seeing it in published form can be a year or longer. In the period of a year a writer has often forgotten much about his or her own story, moved on to something else. So the readers responses are no longer quite so relevant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Murdoch</title>
		<link>http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/which-story-should-you-tell/comment-page-1/#comment-108872</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Murdoch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:58:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/?p=1171#comment-108872</guid>
		<description>Of course an author doesn&#039;t work in a vacuum. The catch is that we don&#039;t have an ideal reader (other than ourselves), we have a wide variety of readers, some of whom will love what we&#039;ve done and some of whom will hate it. It&#039;s like the fable by Aesop where the two men, father and son, are going to market walking beside a donkey and one passer-by suggests the old man get on the donkey then another suggests the young man gets on and they end up carrying the donkey on a pole between the two of them. You can&#039;t please all the people all of the time; be grateful if you please anyone even some of the time.

&lt;strong&gt;jb says&lt;/strong&gt;: Hi Jim. Of course you may also have several people who love or loath your work, in each instance, for different reasons. I don&#039;t know who it was said that a book has as many interpretations as it has readers, but I do believe that is the case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course an author doesn&#8217;t work in a vacuum. The catch is that we don&#8217;t have an ideal reader (other than ourselves), we have a wide variety of readers, some of whom will love what we&#8217;ve done and some of whom will hate it. It&#8217;s like the fable by Aesop where the two men, father and son, are going to market walking beside a donkey and one passer-by suggests the old man get on the donkey then another suggests the young man gets on and they end up carrying the donkey on a pole between the two of them. You can&#8217;t please all the people all of the time; be grateful if you please anyone even some of the time.</p>
<p><strong>jb says</strong>: Hi Jim. Of course you may also have several people who love or loath your work, in each instance, for different reasons. I don&#8217;t know who it was said that a book has as many interpretations as it has readers, but I do believe that is the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

