Abstract

Many artists face the paradox of finding their most personally meaningful works dismissed, misunderstood, or rejected by their audiences. This white paper examines this phenomenon through two case studies: Budd Schulberg’s What Makes Sammy Run?—which portrays the disillusionment of an artist overshadowed by commerce and reception—and C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra, a work Lewis held dear but which never matched the popularity of his more accessible Chronicles of Narnia. By situating these examples within broader questions of authorship, reception theory, and the sociology of art, this paper explores the fragile relationship between artistic intention, audience expectations, and cultural resonance. The analysis highlights what such tensions reveal about the nature of art itself: that it is both self-expression and a social transaction, bound by the unpredictable alchemy of timing, audience readiness, and interpretive frameworks.

I. Introduction: The Paradox of Rejected Beloved Works

Artists frequently pour their deepest convictions and craft into works that they themselves value most highly. Yet these works often fail to capture audiences in the same way their less personally significant efforts do. This disjunction raises essential questions:

What does it mean when a creator’s heart is not mirrored in cultural reception? How does rejection or neglect shape an artist’s relationship to their own art? What does this dynamic teach us about the triangulated relationship between creator, creation, and consumer?

II. Case Study One: What Makes Sammy Run? and the Artist’s Disillusionment

Budd Schulberg’s 1941 novel depicts the Hollywood system as a machine in which cynicism and opportunism devour authentic artistry. Within this narrative lies a subtle commentary on reception: genuine art, born of passion, is eclipsed by what the market rewards. The protagonist’s exploitation of others’ ideas mirrors the way an audience, often indifferent to depth, rewards commercial packaging over artistic substance. Schulberg thus gives literary shape to the anguish of creators whose most earnest work is ignored while derivative or shallow efforts receive applause.

III. Case Study Two: C. S. Lewis and Perelandra

C. S. Lewis considered Perelandra (1943)—the second volume in his Space Trilogy—one of his most accomplished works, blending theology, philosophy, and myth in a narrative about temptation and redemption on another planet. Yet the book never achieved the mass popularity of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The reading public often found Perelandra dense, alienating, or too metaphysical. Lewis’s disappointment illustrates how an author’s spiritual or intellectual investment does not guarantee resonance with broader audiences. Accessibility, genre expectations, and timing all play a role in shaping reception.

IV. Theoretical Context: Reception, Intention, and the Audience Gap

Schulberg and Lewis exemplify broader dynamics that literary theorists have long observed:

Intentional Fallacy (Wimsatt & Beardsley): An author’s intention does not determine meaning; readers construct meaning through interpretation. Reception Theory (Jauss): Works are received within a “horizon of expectations,” shaped by culture, genre, and historical context. Cultural Capital (Bourdieu): What audiences reward often reflects social status and shared cultural codes more than intrinsic artistic merit.

When a beloved work is rejected, the gap lies not in the art’s sincerity but in the misalignment between the creator’s horizon and the audience’s.

V. Dynamics of Artist–Art–Audience Relationships

The Artist’s Perspective: Works rejected by audiences often become “private treasures,” beloved precisely because they represent uncompromised expression. The Audience’s Perspective: Readers bring expectations shaped by genre, marketing, and cultural trends; they may reject what feels overly challenging, alien, or irrelevant. The Work’s Autonomy: Art exists in tension between intention and reception, taking on a life independent of both artist and audience.

VI. Implications for the Sociology of Art

The phenomenon highlights the instability of cultural value:

Unpredictable Reception: Even great works can be ignored if audiences are unprepared. Commercial Mediation: Publishing and film industries amplify certain works, often sidelining the artist’s most profound expressions. Long-Term Vindication: History sometimes reverses initial rejection, allowing neglected works to be rediscovered and celebrated.

VII. Lessons for Artists and Audiences

For Artists: True artistic fulfillment cannot rest solely on audience reception; creating for posterity, or for personal integrity, may be the deeper vocation. For Audiences: Receptivity requires humility; works initially resisted may contain depths only later generations uncover. For the Cultural System: Structures of publishing, marketing, and education shape how works are encountered; widening these channels fosters more authentic reception.

VIII. Conclusion: Rejection as a Mirror of Art’s Dual Nature

The rejection of beloved works, whether in Schulberg’s fictionalized Hollywood or in Lewis’s personal literary career, underscores that art is not simply a gift offered by the artist. It is also an act of risk, subject to the unpredictable verdict of audience readiness. The tension between what artists value and what audiences embrace reveals the fragile balance of art as both personal creation and public dialogue. Ultimately, this paradox testifies to the enduring mystery of why certain works resonate—and why others, no less brilliant, must await another time, audience, or horizon of understanding.