Je crois que je vais me mettre à écouter plus régulièrement les podcasts de Sarah Wendell (alias la personne derrière le blog Smart Bitches, Trashy Books) et Jane Litte (alias la personne derrière le blog Dear Author). Dans le dernier, elles parlent longuement des obligations et responsabilités hypothétiques des auteurs vis-à-vis des lecteurs...
Et notamment, de la façon dont les auteurs terminent une série, un livre. En gros, les auteurs doivent-ils terminer une série de la façon dont les lecteurs l'espèrent ? Ou ont-ils le droit de faire ce qu'ils veulent sans devoir de comptes à personne ?
Du coup, ça digresse un peu dans une défense du HEA de romance, que je trouve très juste et avec laquelle je suis entièrement d'accord :
JL: My answer is: I think that they [authors] should fulfill expectations, but they aren't required to.
SW: However, when they don't, I think authors should expect the fallout. [...]
This is particularly true of romance readers. Not because we're completely insane, or we have bare emotions, or we can't handle reality--that's absolute bullshit. Readers of romance have an expectation of a happy ending. And it doesn't have to be permanently happy, it can be moderately happy, with hopeful for the future, but we have that expectation, and if you build up that expectation as an author, and then don't deliver, romance readers get pissed. [...]
JL: But the other thing is, this idea that people who want uplifting endings or uplifting books are somehow, uh--
JL: Deficient, dumb. Or lacking in intelligence, or trying to hide from the real life. And I just think about: You guys, the general You, don't have any idea what's going on in that reader's life. They could be in a broken household, one of their parents could have died, one of them could have cancer, their brother could have cancer, their brother may have died in Afghanistan, they may be bullied severely at school, I mean, you just don't have any idea about their real life struggles. And there's very few people who haven't been touched by something bad in their life. So this idea that they're somehow deficient because that's not the type of fiction that they like to read is really patronizing, condescending, disturbing and all sorts of negative adjectives, and that really bothers me.
SW: I lost a lot of respect for John Green in his comments in this situation. He is someone I thought has done a lot of admirable and kind of amazing things with his career, with his career, and with his ability to interact with people in what seems to be a genuine manner. [...] Some of the comments he made: "Well, I don't necessarily read for a happy ending. I read to be transported." I'm like: You're being condescending and missing the point entirely and that just sucks.
JL: Well, see, John Green has always come off a little to me as "I'm an enlightened white man, let me tell you how it is in the world". (Sarah laughs.) Someone said that John Green is the Nicholas Sparks of the YA, which is so true.
SW: Ouch! I had never heard that, but ouch.
JL: But it's true, I mean if you look at his books, they are totally...
SW: They are rather Sparksesian.
JL: Yeah, and I like how we developed "Nicholas Sparks" as a verb, like "she Nicholas-Sparks'ed her ending".
SW: Yes! It really is a verb. [...]
JL: And I think that the Nicholas Sparks ending is, like, the easiest way out.
SW: It's such a gimmick!
JL: [...] So, when people say "oh, she's so brave, and this is such an amazing ending", I'm like: Well, you know, guess what? It's a lot harder to write a happy ending, I think, than an unhappy ending.
SW: And it's also a lot harder to write a happy ending that does justice to the damage and the pain that those characters have suffered up until that point. And that is one skill that romance writers have. That they can take a truly painful journey and end it in an uplifting way that doesn't seem completely improbable or implausible. To be able to do that takes an enormous amount of skill. Just killing somebody or ending on a cliffhanger when you don't ever know what is going to happen, that's a cheap gimmick.