No comment
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | No comment |
| Creator: | azdak |
| Date(s): | September 9, 2005 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | No comment, Archived version |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
No comment is a 2005 essay by azdak.
There are 50 comments.
For additional context, see Timeline of Concrit & Feedback Meta.
Some Topics Discussed
- does feedback dictate what kind of fic gets written in a fandom, encourage uniformity?
- lack of feedback, feedback as payment
- hit counters
- fandom and gift culture
- fandom as community
The Essay
In the comments following nakeisha's post on how many people will follow an lj-link to read a story the question was raised of why people will read fic and then not comment on it. I'm someone who's very "guilty" of this – I read a fair amount of fanfic in three different fandoms, and unless I know the author very well (well enough that they will expect me to see their story) I don't leave comments. The reason for this is simple, even if it sounds harsh – most of the fic I read simply isn't good enough. I don't want to send feedback that isn't honest and say that a story was great when it has all sorts of flaws, and I don't want to send feedback that discourages the author, because writing fic is a hobby, not a profession, and I don't see why someone should be slagged off for not attaining a high standard in something they do for fun. So I only send feedback when I feel the impulse to do so, and that only happens when I read a really excellent piece of fic (by my definition of excellent, obviously). When this happens, I like to write a fairly lengthy response detailing what I enjoyed about the piece, because to my mind generalised squeeing that doesn't justify itself isn't worth the pixels it's written in (I will also tentatively mention anything that I felt detracted from the general outstandingness, because if something's really really good, then the author can usually handle criticism). This isn't to say that I don't read a lot of good stories, just that they're not good enough to inspire me to spend the time and effort analysing what I liked about them and articulating this for the writer.
It's probably relevant, though, that I believe the fic itself should be far more important to the author than the feedback it gets – I believe a writer should strive to make their fic as perfect as possible, for its own sake, regardless of whether it ever gets even one damn comment, and I suspect that the culture of feedback encourages writing to please an audience and hence a focus on servicing kinks, rather than on form.
Excerpts from the Comments
[bogwitch]:>>>I believe the fic itself should be far more important to the author than the feedback it gets
Absolutely, but feedback makes it worthwhile. It's hard to make a lot of effort and then post into a void. Feedback is very addictive.
[akdak]: Oh. I'm quite sure feedback is addictive. And that's the problem in a nutshell - once it starts to become an end in itself rather than a nice bonus, you're on the primrose path of dalliance.
[peasant]:But 'writing to please an audience' can encompass so many things. When I write entirely for myself the story is very different to when I know it will be read by other people - I take more pains to explain background details, pay proper attention to pace and structure, work in the metaphors and so on. When I'm writing just for myself I actualy give far greater rein to my kinks since that is one of the main reasons I am writing at all (as opposed to just letting the story play in my head without bothering to write it down).
So yes, the culture of feedback does encourage one to be mindful of the audience but I think for me that acts as a spur to greater productivity rather than any decrease in quality. And as explained above it can be an actual aid to quality.
So I agree with this: I believe a writer should strive to make their fic as perfect as possible, for its own sake, regardless of whether it ever gets even one damn comment
But not this: and I suspect that the culture of feedback encourages writing to please an audience and hence a focus on servicing kinks, rather than on form.
It does of course rather depend on what kinks you are talking about. Feedback, if it affects content at all, will tend to encourage uniformity throughout fandom, with the most popular ideas being rewarded by feedback. This will produce a pendulum swing between the readers rewarding innovation followed by a period when they reward those who adopt the new favoured idea and repeat it, followed by boredom when the first person to innovate again will be rewarded. I think we can in fact see this cyclical development in fics throughout fandom as ideas and ships wax and wane in succession. But I am not sure there is any actual relationship to quality, other than that it often takes a better writer to make the original innovative step that starts a new cycle.
[azdak]:When I write entirely for myself the story is very different to when I know it will be read by other people
I must admit that it hadn't occurred to me that one could write without at least an imaginary (ideal?) audience in mind - but I guess writing for yourself, if you really are writing specifically to please yourself, really falls into the category of writing to please an audience, that audience being you. Not that I think there's anything wrong with wanting to please an audience per se. The problem comes when pleasing the audience is given a higher priority than being true to the story - making it a bit fluffier, or a bit darker, because you know that will get more feedback (of course I don't mean "you" as in you personally).
Of course I don't have any empirical evidence that the culture of feedback makes fic worse, and I could be completely barking up the wrong tree, but I'm very struck by the number of writers who beg for feedback (with varying degrees of dignity) when they put up stories, and also by how often feedback praises how the writer has got certain aspects of characterisation "right", when it's clear that that's just a characterisation the commentator favours. And I've almost never seen feedback that really focuses on the way the story was written, as opposed to the content. But perhaps that sort of thing properly belongs in a review rather than in feedback.
And I totally agree that feedback tends to encourage uniformity, at least within subsets of fandom. I should add that I think your "Concritathon" was an absolutely brilliant idea, and that this sort of engagement with fic texts has a far more beficial effect on quality than feedback does (though I give feedback credit for getting people to write in the first place, which is no mean feat)
[elisi]:Hmmm, I see what you're saying. Out of interest do you read mainly finished fics or WIPs? At the moment I read only WIPs (a lot quicker, since you have to wait for updates - I'm hopeless at rationing myself), and I feel that if I read I ought to comment. Maybe just a few words or sentences, but something to tell the writer that I'm reading. Of course not all fics are brilliant (although I have some outstanding writers on my flist), but I usually try to say something positive (unless they specifically ask for concrit).
As a (fairly new) writer myself I have to say that feedback is in some respects like oxygen. I would never write just to get feedback, because that defies the point, and I'd probably still write if I didn't get any, but it'd be depressing as hell. As for kinks, I think writers probably attract readers with similar tastes, so I guess in some ways it's self perpetuating.
But feedback can be very, very important. The scariest thing I've ever done writing-wise is probably my NC-17 Spike/Dawn story, which was a million miles from what I usually write. But the feedback I got was so supportive (people saying "This isn't my kind of thing at all, but it was well-written!)", that I might try some more since I have a few more ideas.
[azdak]:Out of interest do you read mainly finished fics or WIPs?
Hee, you've flushed me out there. I almost never read WiPs, because it's like reading the first draft of someone's novel, before they've actually done the hard work that will make it really good. I suppose theoretically there might be writers out there who are such geniuses that their work springs fully-formed from their forehead with no need of revision, but I've yet to come across such a prodigy myself. In practice, every story can be improved by having the writer go back over, re-reading, shifting emphasis, rephrasing, perhaps radically restructuring the order of events, or laying the groundwork in the eraly chapters for developments that only occurred to them when they were writing the later parts. I know that some WiP writers take the trouble to revise their completed works, so that they function as a whole rather than as a serial, but most don't, and that seems to me a prime example of prioritising feedback over makig the work as a whole as good as you can possibly get it - because a completed and revised WiP isn't going to get many new readers, or much feedback, and a completed but unrevised WiP isn't yet as good as it good be, so leaving it there is a betrayal of the story, and of the writer's own artistic endeavour.
I don't think not getting feedback need be depressing (although I can quite see that if everyone else is getting it and you're not, that would be very off-putting). On the other hand I do think beta-reading or some equivalent (showing to a few friends whose judgement you trust or whatever) is very helpful, and can provide the necessary ego-boo to keep you going.
A lot depends, of course, on what you want out of the writing process. For some people it's a matter of socialising rather than trying to produce art - but then those writers would probably be the first to admit that their stories could be better if they placed a higher value on artistic merit.
[executrix]:Actually the way I'd phrase it is that writing fanfic is addictive, feedback is often enjoyable.
I'm working on a unified theory about how fandom is cherished for its extreme unlikeness to mundane reality. Fandom certainly seems to be a haven for people looking for Simple-Minded Certainties. The whole feedback&concrit debate rests on the assumption that there is one Good way to write something, and therefore the critics can praise the writer for doing it that way or explain to her the ways in which she's strayed from The Path.
I think it's always interesting to have a discussion about "That plot point bothered me because I don't think Character A would do that because..." but none of the discussants actually have any claim to doctrine that entitles them to burn heretics.
The world contains many people who are excellent editors, and they come from all backgrounds, ages, and levels of formal education. But merely having an LJ account (even one with 100 icons!) doesn't automatically give someone insight into story structure, characterization, effective use of language, or the likelihood of anybody being able to have an orgasm in that position
[lillianmorgan]:LOL, feedback is one of my favourite topics! And you raise so many interesting points, thanks for this. When this happens, I like to write a fairly lengthy response detailing what I enjoyed about the piece, because to my mind generalised squeeing that doesn't justify itself isn't worth the pixels it's written in I'm sure the writers who receive this kind of concrit really appreciate it. Although, I imagine that most of this comes down to a time issue, and, as you mention, how comfortable you feel around the other person. I try in all my feedback to explain what worked positively for me; I actually put a lot of thought into feedback, but the nature of LJ does not really allow for unflinchingly honest feedback. I feedback on everything I read, in my mind I feel it's only fair in that I hope people would do the same for the fic that I write. Even if I didn't write, it's like a cycle - the fic-writer gives some pleasure to me, shouldn't I give something back to them? I believe a writer should strive to make their fic as perfect as possible, for its own sake, regardless of whether it ever gets even one damn comment,
True, although sometimes it's extremely hard to see how good or bad a fic is once you've been mired inside it for weeks or months. Receiving feedback often lets you know what worked and what didn't. I've been surprised by fics I didn't think were that good receiving a lot more feedback than other fics I've slaved and slaved over into my idea of perfection. Or perhaps that's just more of the vagaries of feedback.
[cathexys]:is that really true, though? i don't write fic, but i've often gotten the impression that many writers write fanfic *because* of the community, i.e., whereas their pro writing might pay their rent, it is the feedback that's the payoff when offering their fic for free.
I understand your hesitation to coment if a fioc is really bad (but then I rarely finish those), but if you enjoyed, even if it was flawed, a simply thank you might be enough???
[elisi]:A lot of interesting thoughts in all the replies - although one thing that occurred to me is that fanfic is essentially different from other writing, because the writer is borrowing existing characters.
In an original work the whole world belongs to the author, but a fanfic writer is playing with someone else's creation. Which I think makes a difference - the background, settings and characters are already known to the reader and do not need much elaborating. And also the reader can compare the writer's work with the 'actual' characters and make judgments as to how well the writer has captured the character in question. Of course the reader can be biased, but I have heard people say that they've stopped reading a particular writer's stories because they couldn't recognise the characters. Otherwise it was brilliantly written, they just wished she'd turn it into original fiction.
[janissa11]:you're already giving an author something by reading their work through to the end (assuming it's good enough that you don't give up long before then).
Via metafandom. Is "giving" the word you're looking for? Because I don't see any giving there -- it's more exploitative than that. Mind you, I'll never say feedback is a requirement. I won't beg for it, and I don't respect authors who do. It's purely a choice, and I respect yours here.
However, it seems to me that saying you're "giving" an author something by sticking with the story, and yet never letting him or her know that, or anyone else, is defining an almost purely closed circle, and therefore the notion of any sort of gift is entirely lost. It is not giving; it is indulging, in that sense.
And I hasten to add that hey -- I'm not saying that's wrong. But aren't you gilding the proverbial lily here a bit? Ignoring for the purposes of argument the entire idea of "owing" an author -- the feedback is a personal choice, I think we agree, and something done out of a sense of owing it is sometimes less than satisfying for anyone. But when the circle is closed, as you state it generally is, there IS no gift. You read, you move along - period. If there is any gift, it's to yourself, is it not?
[azdak]:You're quite right about "giving", it's not an appropriate term for what I'm trying to say. It's my fault for trying to couch the discussion in terms that really don't apply to my own understanding of ther writing/reading relationship. I just don't think in terms of "gifts" at all - I don't see a story as a writer's "gift" to her readers, but as something she does *for herself*, albeit in the hope that other people will like what she's created.
Perhaps a hit counter would get round the problem :-) Then the author would know if lots of people were reading their fic and wouldn't need little notes that say "Thank you" to find out. Again, this is personal, but if I got feedback that consisted entirely of little notes saying "Thank you" I'd start to wonder if the fic were any good at all, because if that's all readers can find to say about it, it can't have reached them in any meaningful way.
[janissa11]:I just don't think in terms of "gifts" at all
I think that's a very good point, one I agree with to a great extent. The "gift culture" analogy has always bothered me vis-a-vis fandom. A while back I threw out three possibilities for terminology, and I've never known if any of them really fit. There is the idea of a gift culture; a barter culture; and a society geared virtually exclusively around communication. I lean toward the third idea, myself. A gift, in order to complete the "circuit," if you will, requires a thank-you; because we do not require thank-yous in fandom, that option sorta falters. A barter, OTOH, requires a transfer of some fashion before a transation can take place at all -- it's a form of commerce, and that, too, is clearly erroneous.
Whether we think of it as a gift, an opening salvo, or anything else, the posting of a piece of fiction is I think primarily an attempt at communication, in the sense that all writing is communication. Fans are a serious-ass special-interests group, and fiction is one of the primary routes to communication for us. So I tend to see fiction as the instigator of a process, rather than anything with a specific end point in mind.
And that is, quite frankly, where I have to sit back and say, When we do not respond to fiction, AS an opening for dialogue of virtually any kind, we are missing an essential component of the fannish process. If fandom is at the root level all about communication of ideas, shared interests -- the system breaks down if communication is never fully established. I think it's this fact, more than the idea of gifts and the like, that makes an author feel as if something fell flat. If no one responds, then the bedrock reason for all of it -- fiction, feedback, discussion of all ilks -- has vanished. Why would we participate in fandom, if not to communicate?
Now I think you can make a corollary point regarding the entertainment factor, I should add. Fiction CAN be seen as a closed loop in this sense; that reading a story is a complete process, and the desired element of entertainment has (hopefully) been achieved. But fandom IS interactive, always has been, even when zines were the only options. It is a reaching-out to those of like minds, essentially. If that reaching-out is not reciprocated, has a fannish event really taken place? Or are we then actually talking about something a few steps removed from fandom? Related, but not the same?
Again, this is personal, but if I got feedback that consisted entirely of little notes saying "Thank you" I'd start to wonder if the fic were any good at all, because if that's all readers can find to say about it, it can't have reached them in any meaningful way.
I do see your point, and I agree about the hit counter. But to a significant degree this right here is far, far more an individual stance -- any feedback, I think, IS a realization of a communication process. To a large extent, it matters less what is said, than the fact that something IS said. We of course cannot determine what the response to an opening will be, ahead of time. It is like hollering into the wilderness, and hoping someone will respond. They may or may not respond with what we'd like to hear, but the fact of the response completes the loop, in that sense. The circuit is complete -- communication in some form has successfully been established.
Then you get into what specifically was being communicated, and that's when it gets all complicated again. *grin* But that's another topic, I suppose.
[azdak]:This makes an awful lot of sense. And it explains a couple of things I've never really understood about fanfic. I always assumed, when people wrote uninspiring stories that got lots of feedback because (as far as I could see) they presented a particular view of a character or a pairing, that this enthusiasm was generated because the story hit those readers' kinks. So they didn't care that the story itself wasn't up to much because the content of the stories pressed their buttons hard enough to give them a dose of pleasure. But now I wonder if it isn't a way of showing support for that view of the character/pairing? In other words, it isn't so much that the story was pushing a button *for them*, as that they felt it demonstrated the viability of that view. This ties in with the other thing which has always puzzled me, which is that I've occasionally read journal entries saying "I'd rather make my argument through fic than through analysis". I never really got that, because I've always assumed that any "argument" being made in a story is valid for that story, but not beyond its confines. The fact that I write a story in which Character X is a poor, maligned innocent/devious bastard doesn't prove anything about that character in canon, just about the character in my story. But if the story is a way of communicating a particular view of Character X to a wider audience (even if its only an audeince that already shares that view) then I can see why it might be regarded as an argument.
On the other hand, a lot of what you say seems to apply to lj much more than other forms of internet fandom. Stories on archives, or on the author's own website, don't seem to be used as part of debate in the same way, nor is there the same sense of urgency about the act of communcation that you describe. A fic on a website is simply there, waiting for people to stumble across it - it doesn't seem to be "hollering into the wilderness" in the way that lj entries do.
[azdak]:All the artists I know - be they writers, painters, actors or musicians, pros or amateurs - who take their art seriously have as their prime motivation the desire to create art. Being paid for it is secondary, getting plaudits for it is fantastic but they would still carry on doing it even if the rest of the world didn't like their stuff (convinced that it's only a matter of time before the rest of the world comes round to appreciating their visionary genius ;-)) And I would hazard a guess that profic writers who also write fanfic do so first and foremost because they *enjoy* writing fanfic, because it's a different genre from their normal stuff, that presents different challenges and rewards. And while feedback is lovely, because it tells you people really appreciate what you write, if your main motive in writing is to get feedback, rather than to write the best story you can, then that's going to affect how much time and effort you put into improving what you've written. I'm sure most people aspire to both - excellent stories *and* lots of positive feedback - but unless you're writing for a community of people with very high standards and a willingness to offer criticism, feedback itself is rarely going to contribute to excellence.
Of course, it's always possible to argue that writing fic is just for fun and doesn't need to be excellent. As long as readers enjoy it, that's all that matters. This is a legitimate point of view. But for authors who do aspire to write the best stories they can. I'm not at all sure that feedback is a helpful part of the process, not least because readers tend to squee over things that push their buttons, whether or not they're done well and whether or not they serve the story as a whole.
[cathexys]:see, but that's such a Romantic notion of the artist being driven and the individul creator and all that...the beauty of fanfic, for me, that it is exactly *not* that, that fanfic writers tend to be collaborative on any number of levels in their creation and that the community's responses are a large part of that!
to me it is ultimately not about whether the stories are great or not but whether they please the audience...and if they suceed in doing that, than we as a community should acknowledge that. yes, there are stories that stand out and there are stories (and people with whom you may have particular relationships) where you may feel compelled to give detailed feedback...but a simple 'i read and enjoyed' or even just 'thank you for writing' is, as far as i'm concerned, part of this particular culture...which is *not* an 'individual genius driven to create' model...
[azdak]:see, but that's such a Romantic notion of the artist being driven and the individul creator and all that...
Well, yeah, but does that make it invalid? Does dubbing something Romantic mean you can dismiss it out of hand? I'm a drama student (directing, not acting) so my own field is one of the most collaborative arts there is, exceeded only by film/TV for the number of different types of creative input - as well as the basic trio of author, actors and director you've got set, costume and lighting designers all playing a crucial role. But even though the work is collaborative, the contributions are individual, and it seems to me the same is true for fanfic - if you write a story, then it's you the plot bunny visits, you're the one who hears the dialogue, who has a view of the characters you want to get across. The fact that a lot of other people's views may get taken into account along the way doesn't alter the fact that the actual telling of the story has to come out of one person's brain. And some brains are a lot better at doing it than others.
But we're clearly coming at this from a fundamentally different angle if you honestly don't think it matters whether the stories being told are good or not as long as they please enough people. If their function is purely social, to bind the community closer together, and not artistic at all, then we're singing from utterly different hymn books. And if that really is the case, that artistic merit isn't an issue, then why the debates about beta readers, why the existence of the word "concrit"? Unless the function of the beta reader is to tell the writer how she can make her story more popular ("Stop writing minority pairings").
[cathexys]:well, considering that even the Romantics themselves didn't follow their own hype (i.e., they did revise extensively, for example even when they pretended that they hadn't) and much of their theories in fact are more complex and complicated than they've been made out by either a lay public or resentful literary heirs...yes, it does make it invalid, b/c it's a fictitious and not very useful cliche of artistic creation as far as i and all literary studies i've ever encountered is conerned...i'm surprised you'd say that esp. if you're a drama student where the artwork, i.e., the performance indeed *is* so collaborative.
likewise, i do not believe in an objective literary value that can exist independent from an audience. that doesn't mean that i want to read the poorly written OOC ffnet fic, but it does mean that i believe there are certain rules, certain tropes that ff tends to follow. Very few, if any, stories, for example, use extreme experimental techniques. That doesn't mean that those stories may not be equally good; it simply means that this particular audience will often not react as favorably. In fact, I'd argue that beyond more objective criteria such as spelling and grammar, much of what a beta reader or concrit does, for example, is to test the story against community conventions. Some are extremely large communities (i.e., literary standards in the early 2000s such as complex characters, plot, identifiable point of view); others are fanfic community standards (i.e., the permission to switch pov frequently; the embracing of cliches as long as they're made new, subverted, etc.); others yet are pertaining to a very small interpretive community (i.e., is this character the way "we" believe him to be...)
So, yes, what you'd consider objectively "good," I'd consider in large parts complying with various standards of what we at this point in time in these particular communities considergood...
[azdak]:yes, it does make it invalid, b/c it's a fictitious and not very useful cliche of artistic creation
Yes, but wait a minute, *I* didn't say half of these things that you say render the Romantic attitude invalid, and yet you still said my position was Romantic (and therefore, apparently by definition, wrong). For instance, this not revising stuff example - I was saying that I thought revision was a really *important* part of the creative process (hence my dislike of WiPs, which tend not to be revised). So clearly my position isn't identical with Romanticism. And the words "lone genius" came from you, rather than me - and although I'm willing to accept that as a humorous overstatement of my position, if it means that I'm going to be accused of cliched thinnking, then I'd rather retract my agreement and say pedantically "That isn't exactly what I was saying."
As for the process of creating drama being collaborative (as I stressed it was) the point I was trying to make that even though the *process* is collaborative, the *contributions* are individual. When I choose a set designer, I want someone who will come up with ideas no other set designer would think of. This isn't to say that I'm denying that everything we do, every endeavour in life, occurs within a social context, and that standards (both moral and aesthetic) are "objective" only inasmuch as they are shared by a wider social group than just me. But I don't think it's enough to say "Good is what lots of people like" because that so clearly misses some element of the aesthetic experience (we wouldn't be able to talk about "guilty pleasures", for instance, if we didn't differentiate between what we like and what we consider good). And of course there's a diverse range of opinions as to what constitutes "good" (I don't think I ever claimed that I've come up with a defintion of "objective" goodness, it's an intensely subjective judgment), which is why I think it is ultimately incumbent on the author to decide by her *own* standards whether she's done the best job she believes she can, and not take the quantity of feedback generated as the ultimate arbiter of quality.
[cathexys]:Ok, sorry about assigning you a position only to insult it :-)
i do believe that the central underlying assumption are several we strongly disagree on, however.
you justify not following one of the central community conventions (i.e., feedbacking) by arguing that one should create for oneself..a position i strongly disagree with.
moreover, you still maintain aesthetic princliples that seem to transcend community agreement... (b/c isn't it the community that agrees on what is good and what, in lieu of these markers thus is a gulty pleasure??) i just watched this amazing vid that in this particular community was meant as a joke but i can totally see it being taken seriously and considered "good" in a different community...
anyway, even if i were to agree with you that there is such a thing as the 'plkeasing only yourself' artist...the simple fact that someone chooses to *post* their writing means that they're entering a social setting where they desire fedback. i find it kind of problematic of you to tell writers that they ought to enjoy the creation enough and thus don't deserve your response...if that were enough, wouldn they have posted??? or do you think they do it out of the goodness of their heart to please you after they've gotten all their pleasure in knowing they did a good thing???
again, even if all of your ideas about how and why creation takes place were true...this is a particular community with its own rules and regulations and part of it for most people seems to be that we 'pay back' the pleasure we've receivedc by letting the writers know.
[cathexys]:i'm not an author, but i do think there's a differnce between someone taking the time saying thank you and someone just reading. i'm trying to understand whether you're justifying your own behavior or whether you as a writer really don't care if someone lets you know they read/liked...
as for the community: i think you may clearly define yourself as outside of it with this post...yes, there are diferences in what people want and how they want it, but you are the first person i've ever heard who has argued that acknowledgment of reading (in whatever form) is completely irrelevant. no, you didn't sign anything or get a list of rules; however, communities can have rules even if they are not expressed; such unspoken rules are those one acculturates to as one enters the community (and, before the internet being so open, there actually *were* forms of initiation that "taught" new members proper etiquette.
and no, there isn't a *rule* that you must give feedback, but you're arguing that there *shouldn't* be the etiquette that it is corteous to do so. there's no rule to say thank you when someone says bless you, but we consider it polite. you're not arguing for your right to not do it and thus go against community etiquette; you're trying to make an argument using artistic satisfaction etc. to declare the convention unnecessary or useless. *that*'s what i and apparently everyone else who's commnted is objecting to...
[azdak]:i'm trying to understand whether you're justifying your own behavior or whether you as a writer really don't care if someone lets you know they read/liked...
I'm not "justifying my own behaviour" in the sense that I have a guilty conscience about not leaving enough feedback and am casting around for a way to make that seem less mean-spirited, but I am explaining why I don't often leave feedback, so in that sense, yes, I'm justifying it. On the other hand, my own personal preferences as regard feedback certainly play a role in this - the amount of fanfic/vids I've produced is homeopathically small, but one vid got pimped on a widely read journal, and suddenly I found a load of little notes in my inbox saying "Thanks" and "Great vid", which was nice, but didn't give me half the thrill of discovering that 600 people had downloaded that vid in two days. So the kind of feedback I give definitely reflects the kind of feedback I would want - in-depth and born of great admiration for the work. My fic is on an archive which does have hit counters but never generates feedback (there's one story on there which is the best thing I've ever read in any fandom and when I e-mailed the author she said I was the only person who'd ever sent her feedback via that archive).
[janissa11]:it is ultimately not about whether the stories are great or not but whether they please the audience...and if they suceed in doing that, than we as a community should acknowledge that.
If I may -- I think I see a way to meld these two ideas y'all got going here. I'm not entirely averse to the so-called Romantic notion of art, because I think there's something to it for many -- but we are talking chalk and cheese when you apply this directly to fannish pursuits. Lemme see if I can clarify.
I talked above about communication as the bedrock motivation for fannish existence, and I really subscribe to that notion. It is, however, qualitatively different from more Romantic ideas about the creative process, and indeed, perhaps even somewhat antithetical to it. Art has traditionally been, in some very solid and important ways, a solitary act. Now the realization of some art forms -- for example theatre, or symphonies --- requires collaboration. But the genesis is individual, far more often than not. One person, most often, writes the play, composes the sonata or symphony or concerto, creates a painting.
Fandom, by contrast, begins as a group effort. There can arguably be no fandom if there is only one person. One can be a fan, most certainly -- but one cannot be a fanDOM of one. (Bearing in mind that yes, some plays are co-written, music can be improvisation and therefore a collaborative act, and so on. I think the contrast still holds in a general sense.)
It is the genesis of fannish art that delineates it from other art forms. And that genesis owes everything to the group-think that is so fannishly prevalent. Romantic aspirations may still factor in, and I think do more often than we might realize; there are plenty of us -- plenty -- who would write fan fiction whether or not we had an audience. We've done it before, we will almost certainly do it again. But the introduction of a community based on communication changes the mix.
Therefore, fannish art is about the audience in a way that a more traditional artistic execution is arguably not. This is a very, very slippery slope for me to describe, and I'm absolutely not sure I'm able to make my point all that coherently, I will say up front. Let me draw a rather random comparison. In a pure sense, art is created in essentially a vacuum. Feedback as such is neither needed nor required. But fannish art is community-based, almost always, and there is no vacuum. There is consistent dependable input, most of the time, in a variety of forms. It is as if we compared the solitary artist to the participant in a seminar. The solitary artist composes/paints/writes in seclusion; the participant essentially performs in front of others.
Now when there is a community aspect to the act, communication is not only an option, it is to some degree an expectation. The audience, in that sense, is a PART of the act. This is I think where Romantic expectations totally break down. If this audience remains uninvolved, even when present, a key element of the process does not happen.
I think you can still make an argument -- a cogent one -- for the idea that regardless of audience presence the art itself is created FOR itself, for the artist. But the mix is irrevocably changed when the audience IS present, regardless of initial motivation. We cannot KNOW motivations, for the most part. Nor should we NEED to know them.
What I'm attempting to say, I suppose, is that we may well be facile in saying that fannish art is EVER a Romantic creation, a solitary act. The audience is present in ways that the more traditional exercises of art may never reach. There IS no vacuum. Even if a writer never communicates on a personal basis, the FACT of a fannish community has already created a radical difference. The existence of that community has set the stage, as it were, for a different interpretation.
[viva gloria]:no idea which fandom(s) you read in, but if most of the stories you read aren't very good, why do you bother?
True, feedback isn't / shouldn't be the primary reason for a writer to post fic, but I value the comments I get which indicate that some particular aspect of a story has worked -- or, indeed, has missed the mark. (And I don't have a leg to stand on here: I mostly read off-line and away from the PC, and seldom get around to fb at all.)
[azdak]:Because I'm a fan :) I read fanfic because I want more from my fandoms (and they're all dead shows, so there's no hope of ever getting more of the source text). I read because even something that really isn't very satisfying is sometimes better than nothing, and because every so often I come across a really, really good fanfic, and that keeps me going in the hope of finding something else that good. I know that sounds rather horrible, but it's the truth.
And I don't have a leg to stand on here: I mostly read off-line and away from the PC, and seldom get around to fb at all
Heh, I appreciate your honesty :-)
[delurker]:Hmm, I agree that writing only for the feedback is wrong - but I disagree that you should only feedback the very best stories you read and that authors should write as if they were the only person involved in the storytelling. The first point, feedback as a gift - the author has generally put a lot of time and effort into writing something, time and effort they could have put to someone else. When they publish, they're putting themselves out there. It's only polite to say something to show you've read it and enjoyed it at least a little bit. You don't have to analyse - just let the author know that she's not banging her head against a brick wall. The second point - storytelling is a two way process. A story only lives if there's an audience. If you mean 'feedback' as 'personal validation' then I agree that the author isn't a very good one, because she's not focussing on the story but on herself, but I don't think that hoping for feedback is a bad thing - I think that an awareness of audience is essential in storytelling. Even more so in fandom, where it is a community. In addition I personally find that in hoping for feedback, I feedback myself more, and I push myself more. I think what I'm saying is that I think the fic should be of the utmost importance, but I think that the hope for feedback is often tied to that importance, if that makes sense?
That, and that wanting to 'please an audience' is not a bad thing, unless you're not an important part of that audience.
[azdak]:the author has generally put a lot of time and effort into writing something, time and effort they could have put to someone else.
It's true, but on the other hand I'm assuming that they wrote the story because they *wanted* to write? I'll grant you that some authors do get begged to write more, and perhaps some of them even do that for the sake of their readers when they'd really much rather be doing something else, and in that case, it's certainly incumbent on the people who did the begging to comment and say thank you. But in most cases I imagine that the writer writes because she wants to, because she has a good idea for a fic, or because she thinks she can get a better handle on a character than someone else, or because she loves the writing process, or because the voices in her head won't go away until she writes them down, or whatever.
When they publish, they're putting themselves out there
Well, but are they, if every reader feels obliged to send a polite note? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't dream of sending in a comment that says "This sucks for all the following reasons", because that would be hurtful, but equally if I didn't enjoy a fic that much then I'm not going to pretend I did. Obviously everyone dreams of getting masses of feedback saying how great the fic was, but equally all that is only worth something if it's genuinely a response to the fic being really good. If it's just politeness, the author can't actually conclude anything about how much people liked it. That's why, when I do give feedback, I like to do it in detail, because then the author knows it isn't just an empty squee, but that I've really engaged with the story.
That, and that wanting to 'please an audience' is not a bad thing, unless you're not an important part of that audience.
The whole "pleasing the audience" is a really tricky issue. We all want to please the audience, we all want the audience to appreciate the work that we lay before them, and I'm not a great fan of art that is aimed solely at fellow professionals and too "difficult" for the Great Unwashe- er, general public. So in some sense I think you always have to have your audience in mind (and, of course, if your audience hates what you've done and avoids reading it in droves, then you have to ask yourself whether you've been fooling yourself about how good your story was). But at the same time, you want to avoid playing down to your audience - on the whole, people are more comfortable not being challenged, so you're going to please more people if you give them more of what they already like. And that's fatal to quality.