The writer-reader relationship is platonic
Writing is a problematic act. The pressure of pains triggers the writer's pen. For example, when you read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and close the book, your mood is in the Tsarist Russia of that period rather than the space and time you are in. But despite this successful style and content, the author still sometimes feels a distance between him and the reader.
Most of the time we think we are writing for three or five people, they don't read us. What we are really addressing are three or five other people whom we will never get to know.
In other words, the writer-reader relationship is platonic in a way. While the reader can choose the writer they want, it is more difficult for the writer to reach the reader they dream of.
A novelist can produce the most marginal content, write his heroes, unexpected tragedies or a radical love recipe, but why can't he do these things as he wants? Where/who is the point that reminds the author of the limit? At this point the reader comes into play. Every writer writes to be read. Whether he writes for a certain segment of society or for the generations that will come after him. His/her aim is to be read and to influence. This aim determines the limits of the writer when creating his/her work.
This is not to say that the reader does not have much responsibility or that he or she is too free. For the real reader, literature is not a means of passing the time, but an end in itself.
The real reader does not get rid of the author's influences on a whim, he analyzes them, filters them, experiences them and compares them with the reality of his life.
On the other hand, even if the writer is initially concerned with discharging and reflecting his/her own world in the content, when the work is finished, the writer remains outside and watches the dialog between the text and the reader.
For example, after the publication of the novel, in the conversations with the novelist about the novel, everything about the novel is asked, and the novelist shares with the reader why and how he wrote the novel, the structural features he placed in the novel, in short, everything about the novel. A question should be asked here:
Should the novelist explain everything about his novel to the reader? "Actually, it would be better if he didn't. Because such an explanation is dangerous. It usually leads to a decrease in the level of emotion in the novel and to the weaving of thought and excitement." When the reader reads the novel, he must complete it with his own imagination. The author's intervention means the mono-typing of the novel, which gains different meanings with each reader.
The other point between the author and the reader is the reader's expectations. If the authors that the reader describes as "difficult" and avoids reading are writing with aesthetic concerns, the bond they establish with the reader is longer lasting and more encompassing than popular authors.
Moreover, literature should not only be considered in terms of enjoyment or time-satisfaction.
Rita Felski says: "literature is the power to develop, expand or reorganize our perceptions of how things are." She emphasized the thought-provoking and questioning aspect of literature.
What is for you and what is against you has no value; unless we understand you. In order to strengthen the semantic bond of the writer-reader relationship, both parties have responsibilities. With this sensitivity and consciousness, the semantic bond can be strengthened.
