Convoluted Writing Thoughts
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Convoluted Writing Thoughts |
| Creator: | Flamingo |
| Date(s): | February 4, 2000 |
| Medium: | post to a mailing list |
| Fandom: | Starsky & Hutch was the topic of the mailing list, but the comments are for fan writers in general |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Convoluted Writing Thoughts is a 2000 essay by Flamingo.
It was posted to The Pits, a Starsky & Hutch mailing list that required membership and is now offline. It is posted on Fanlore with permission from its author.
Written when the internet was just taking off, it is a peek into fannish culture on the cusp of print and online communication.
For additional context, see Timeline of Concrit & Feedback Meta.
Related Essays by Flamingo
- Convoluted Writing Thoughts (2000)
- The Art of Fanfic Critique: who and what it is for (2001)
- Mailing List Culture and Critical Discussion of Fanworks (2003)
Some Topics Discussed
- the rights of writers, and the rights of reviewers
- once a fic is made public, it is fair game for comment
- types of feedback
- "I have to say that it is the net which has fostered this strange notion that the *writer* of a work has the right to control people's opinion -- and people's interest in expressing that opinion..."
- the value of critique
- thin skins
The Essay
Before I start trouble here I'd like to remind everyone that I am a WRITER. And if you think that getting a cranky criticism, or even a slightly negative one doesn't put me through hours of anguish, just ask my editor how many hours of debate I will engage her in over whether or not my motivation for a character's action is adequate enough. I don't like people dumping on my stories any more than the person who is writing her first story. I am no tougher about my writing than anyone else here. Understanding all of that, I would like to dispel the notion that the writer should get a vote on the type of criticism she receives.
I have a problem with the very concept that the writer gets to decide what kind of feedback they want. It doesn't work that way, and conflicts over that have caused enough problems on enough lists that I would like to think we're not going to have to deal with this here. I hope. ;-) I also thought that was WHY this list was formed. Because the expression of opinion was so suppressed in other lists.
I have to say that it is the net which has fostered this strange notion that the *writer* of a work has the right to control people's opinion -- and people's interest in expressing that opinion -- about her work. This dismays me. There's over a hundred people on this list. If we assume even half of them are writers (and that may not be true) and EACH ONE OF THEM has a different notion of just WHAT KIND OF CRITICISM they will accept, how the hell could any of us reasonably keep track of that? Even if it was only 10 or 5???? And as for letting the writer define what is an acceptable definition of the words critique, criticism, or feedback, that's semantical dictatorship. It *is* criticism, and there's nothing wrong with that. Quit dancing around about it. The fact is that no writer in the world has ever looked forward to a single word of criticism on anything they ever wrote. Believe that. I have made a living editing both pro and fan writers and I'll let you in on a huge secret -- they all act the same when you tell them something in their story isn't brilliant. The only difference is in how they ultimately handle it. (And sometimes not even that.) I anguish for days over criticism (and I assume it all is correct even when my editorial sense says it isn't) and go back through my work to find out if I can justify what I've done, if I've set it up properly, or if the viewpoint of someone who doesn't have the advantage of being inside my head as I write is giving me important information. It is extremely hard to differentiate from the statement: This didn't work, from: This didn't work FOR ME. However, no writer ever born could ever judge her own work adequately, so if you're not open to criticism from others, how are you ever going to know how what you're writing affects anyone else?
When a writer puts sweat blood and tears onto a page, electronic or otherwise, there is always a lot of herself right there. The right to self-expression through writing is its own reward. For some it is enough. So, having written the story, the writer has two choices. Keeping it as a sweet secret she can enjoy in private and take no risks (I have MANY MANY stories like this that no other soul will ever rest eyes upon but me) or she can hand it to someone and say, "Wanna read this?"
At the point, the writer steps off a cliff, and relinquishes all control over what will happen next. You've given it to someone else. What that story means to you cannot possibly mean the same thing to the person you've given it to. That person has their own history, opinions, and viewpoints, and interprets literature their own way, and no two people do it exactly the same. You don't get to hand it to them and say, "Wanna read this -- but you can't have an opinion on it." That's nuts. It's a story. People think about stories. Stories affect people. THAT IS WHY MOST OF US WRITE THEM -- TO AFFECT OTHERS. You don't get to say -- This story can only have THIS KIND of an affect on you. The reader can't control the affect it will have on them, how can you assume to? To likewise say, "You can read this but I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK UNLESS IT'S POSITIVE," denies the reader the right of expression, something the writer hasn't been denied in producing the story!
A story placed in any public forum is fair game. It is reasonable to expect the public forum to be fair, honest, and avoid inflammatory language. It is reasonable to expect the public forum to take into consideration the experience of a writer. Just as I did with Val, an experienced writer, and reviewed her work on a far more exacting level than I would a brand new person presenting their first story. It is reasonable to expect the public forum to be polite, and to avoid cruelty for its own sake. Reviewers should not use someone's story to show how clever THEY are. However, the fact is that the writer is never going to be happy about any failure in their story. They may take the criticism and use it wisely and rewrite the story. But they're still not going to be happy about it. So allowing them to determine just HOW this criticism -- and it is CRITICISM, no matter how you wanna dress that word up, don't be so afraid of it -- should come across will never work. Because the reviewer cannot possibly satisfy the narrow limits of what that writer really wants, because all any writer ever really wants, and this is the God's honest truth from Stephen King to Maya Angelou to Suzan Lovett to Flamingo to the person posting her very first story today, is unmitigated extremely thorough praise. (I have one writer friend who is the only real honest person I know on this topic, since she will call you after you send her a criticism and demand more information on "the parts you liked." Then, after being shored up a little more on her wonderfulness is more open to parts that were less successful.)
CRITICISM is GOOD!!! It makes you better writers. It enables you to figure out how to make the next story so much better which means you get less negative criticism, satisfy your readers more, and ultimately, this brings the WRITER lots more pleasure. You are not your story. It is very hard to not take criticism personally, even though there is no reason to take it personally. No one is saying anything about you, they're commenting on the execution of a literary concept. A story is words on paper, words which can easily be changed in a more pleasing arrangement. And people love it when you do that and they will tell you that they love it and then you'll be REALLY happy!
Reviewers have no restraints on how they feel about what they are reading. It's unreasonable and unfair to shackle them with leg irons in their comments, outside of the normal ones of civility and politeness. If the reviewer thinks that they would not want to hear what they are about to say, they can find a more positive way to say it. Reviewers should act responsibly. But that's it. Because the only result of shackling reviewers' comments is to eliminate them. If you're wondering why there are less story comments than their could be, it could easily be attributed to confusion among the readers on, "what am I allowed to say?" I recently had a person subbing into VP who expressed great concerns about how she had "learned" what was "appropriate to say" and what wasn't. And she hadn't spent a minute on VP where we say pretty much anything we want! The net is about free expression and writing is all about free expression. Story writers don't get an exclusive on this. Reviewers have it too.