Of course playing off the cliche: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" But to clarify the meaning, in a nutshell, it's a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality. So contemplating on the same plane of knowledge and existence, if a book was indeed written but no one reads it, does the book still have a soul?
Having posing this question to other authors, all say "yes!" The life brought into the story is evidence of the books existence, thereby concluding it does posses a "soul," as it were. Like all living beings giving birth, life breeds life.
But I raise the question of why writers write, and how their existence is influenced by the deepest desire to have their voices heard. Even through the argument that an artist should only write for her or himself, without worry of an audience, yet still, writers wish to share their art; and by sharing, an audience is needed, regardless of size. So, once a writer has composed words onto paper, but no one "listens" to the interpretations, how is the connection and kinship shared? To create life is one form of the soul, but to sustain it, to give it purpose, that is the destination. If a reader doesn't know the existence of the book or chooses to not read it, endorsing George Berkley's observations about whether something can exist without being perceived, does that book truly exist? And if that book doesn't exist, can it truly have a soul?
Whether a tree does make a sound, or whether a book does encompass a soul, to be perceived is the question of any argument. Naturally the answer is bi-polar in examination. Shared knowledge is a writer's ambition, and that is the only reality a writer is able to express.