The purpose of the writer.

Objectively, the writer's duty is to ensnare the (often willing) stranger within their grip and suffocate them with a tale, until this metaphorical lack of air leaves them submissive and deliriously agreeable. This is in subconscious of every writer, perhaps unaware, but still craving the triumphant moment when the reader is undoubtedly moved, and utterly in love with their creation. If the reader is correctly snuffed, they will obediently serve the author by endeavouring to purchase their following works and produce the most accomplishable propaganda of this modern time; spreading praise within 'word of mouth' assisted by social media.
The writer is then viral. Another triumph.

The difficult position of the reader is maintain dominance in this situation. In any sense, to read and disagree, or to read and analyse literature has become the ideal form hosted by academic notions and the media. You are demanded to question. You are commanded to revolt against those words that flow from the authors hand. You are rewarded for escaping the verbal assault, with outstanding gratification  as a student in university results or as a journalist by the employer.
This is the progression of the reader. This is the death of the Author.
The reader be comes the one who is accomplished.
The writer's triumph becomes a failure, or their original failure is revisited and re-evaluated as success.
There is no stability or consistency.

In attendance of the Bendigo Writers Festival and meeting the accomplished who have successfully wandered within the two roles, I have been stuck on this same question,
Can the progressive reader ever omit to being a writer if they know that their duty and efforts are possibly futile?