![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusI've had a few conversations lately about reviews. One person commented that, "well, I write for myself." Another mentioned, "sadly, some people only write so that they can get reviews." It struck me as odd, this implication that a real writer, busy scribbling in their garret, writes only for themselves and not for others. That a real writer disdains reviews as being beneath their lofty ivory tower.
It's not true. There are different types of writers.
Now I believe that all writers create stories because they need to -- it's too much work, too much risk, to put your heart on the line just for the momentary hit of a review that may never even arrive. In that sense every writer creates for themselves. The stories are there and they demand to be written.
But there are Artists and there are Storytellers.
Artists need to refine the art of writing for its own sake. They don't care at all about reviews because what they are doing with their stories is self-contained: the craft is their goal. They sharpen their pencils, are surrounded by sheaves of papers as they refine, and refine, and refine.
For Storytellers writing is a communication, a gift given to the reader. For the Storyteller, the story is a two-way street. They are the ones surrounded by a circle of listeners, the fire crackling in the background as they gaze about the room to see if they have everyone's rapt attention. The response of their listener or reader is what tells them if the story was effective. Does the dragon needs to smarter, or did they tarry too long in Elvenland? The craft is secondary to the effect it has the reader.
The Artist usually disdains their earlier work as abyssmal and often throws it away.
The Storyteller admits their earlier work is not as good as the latter, but since it was enjoyed they consider it worthwhile despite any faults.
The Artist argues with their reviews. Their story is either better than what the reviewer thinks, or (more often) worse as the reviewer seems to have missed its obvious faults and the Artist is astounded that anyone would ever read that story of theirs (maybe they should pull it). Or else the reviewer misses details, or sometimes even the entire point of the story. One-liner reviews are a frustrating response since the art is completely lost on someone like that.
The Storyteller studies their reviews. The story can be completely misconstrued, but so long as the reader enjoyed it, it's irrelevant. The Storyteller will take notes and think: "oh. It appears that people think that that was a dragon in chapter two. Well, I suppose could change it to a dragon if they like." One-liner reviews, while not as much fun as something more detailed, are accepted in the way a smile is accepted in lieu of a thank you.
Most people are a mix of types. Or they'll have the attitude of an Artist on one story, and the attitude of the Storyteller for another.
But the Artist is not more of a writer than the Storyteller, and the Storyteller is not better than the Artist.
It's not true. There are different types of writers.
Now I believe that all writers create stories because they need to -- it's too much work, too much risk, to put your heart on the line just for the momentary hit of a review that may never even arrive. In that sense every writer creates for themselves. The stories are there and they demand to be written.
But there are Artists and there are Storytellers.
Artists need to refine the art of writing for its own sake. They don't care at all about reviews because what they are doing with their stories is self-contained: the craft is their goal. They sharpen their pencils, are surrounded by sheaves of papers as they refine, and refine, and refine.
For Storytellers writing is a communication, a gift given to the reader. For the Storyteller, the story is a two-way street. They are the ones surrounded by a circle of listeners, the fire crackling in the background as they gaze about the room to see if they have everyone's rapt attention. The response of their listener or reader is what tells them if the story was effective. Does the dragon needs to smarter, or did they tarry too long in Elvenland? The craft is secondary to the effect it has the reader.
The Artist usually disdains their earlier work as abyssmal and often throws it away.
The Storyteller admits their earlier work is not as good as the latter, but since it was enjoyed they consider it worthwhile despite any faults.
The Artist argues with their reviews. Their story is either better than what the reviewer thinks, or (more often) worse as the reviewer seems to have missed its obvious faults and the Artist is astounded that anyone would ever read that story of theirs (maybe they should pull it). Or else the reviewer misses details, or sometimes even the entire point of the story. One-liner reviews are a frustrating response since the art is completely lost on someone like that.
The Storyteller studies their reviews. The story can be completely misconstrued, but so long as the reader enjoyed it, it's irrelevant. The Storyteller will take notes and think: "oh. It appears that people think that that was a dragon in chapter two. Well, I suppose could change it to a dragon if they like." One-liner reviews, while not as much fun as something more detailed, are accepted in the way a smile is accepted in lieu of a thank you.
Most people are a mix of types. Or they'll have the attitude of an Artist on one story, and the attitude of the Storyteller for another.
But the Artist is not more of a writer than the Storyteller, and the Storyteller is not better than the Artist.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 03:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 11:56 am (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 03:51 pm (UTC)I was starting to get tired of people saying that writers who write only for others are egotistical -___- Ok... how is writing something to appease others arrogant? *listens for a reply that doesn't come* Exactly...
I'm a mix of both Artist and Storyteller. I love the reviews, yet even if I don't get them, I continue on (despite what everyone else thinks). On the other hand, when I get reviews from fans saying they loved it, I make it a point to make the chapter extra long for them.
Writers don't write for just their own pleasure. If anyone tells you different, they don't know what they're talking about. Whether it be for a job, for fun, or for recognition, a writer still wants to please others and share their work with the world. So in a sense, they *are* writing for others besides themselves.
Now, you'll find an occasional writer that doesn't want *anyone* to view their work and they often pile their stories in a safe and throw away the key. But most of these writers are too doubtful of their own talents to show anyone what they've accomplished. Or they feel their work is too good for 'anyone else other than them'. That, in my opinion, is egotistical.
People just need to accept the fact that most writers write for others (even if they don't realize it). Just by publishing it on the net or on hardcover is proof of that.
Thank you, Icarus, for bringing this to the surface. I'm glad at least someone is willing to look into this more deeply ^^!
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 03:58 pm (UTC)And once the story is out there, I don't feel the need to go and tweak and make the sentences better -- I just want people to READ it, and tell me what they thought! In-depth discussions of the word choices, the characters, the plot -- ALL thrill me. And even one-liner "good story!" comments give me pleasure.
We call it "comment crack."
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 04:10 pm (UTC)For me, it's not really about the comment crack, although that's a nice bonus. I particularly don't want it mid-stream. I want to write my story (or our story) and be happy with it the way it is, and have it done, before I let it into the world. I don't want comments while I go that might change the flow of the story as I see it or want it to be.
Which is why I won't let
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 03:59 pm (UTC)~a Story-Teller
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 05:34 pm (UTC)Because, of course, I'm also a reader. An easy-to-please reader, but someone with my own itches to scratch nonetheless.
This is quite insightful, though, and I think your theory is the result of a good deal of analysis on your part. I agree with your assessment.
And didn't that sound pretentious. Sorry. What I meant to say was: good job.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 07:33 pm (UTC)God, you pegged me so well. I consider myself a revisionist writer because I'm never satisfied with my work. ::sighs:: It's all about the craft. I've been lucky lately because I've been getting some good, insightful reviews even though I'm on hiatus now.
Even though I enjoy the storyteller-esque suspense I leave my readers in and live for watching them unfold the mystery in their minds.
Anyway, kisses and love and hope to see you soon.
Sing
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 08:12 pm (UTC)I think I'm a definite mix of both. Sometimes all I really want are one-line reviews, and other times they'll shit me: those are generally the times when I'm not completely happy with my work and I just want somebody to tell me what I did wrong!, dammit. :)
Nice work on this, though. It's made me think.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 10:10 pm (UTC)i get an idea and i write. i don't sit there and think "oh wow, people will love this... maybe i should put some of whatever in it"...
your whole division and clarification though was wonderful... helps put a lot of things into perspective. appreciate it. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 11:35 pm (UTC)Just out of interest, which one are you?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 03:17 am (UTC)I am primarily a storyteller.
I even consciously changed my writing style to simpler language, shorter sentence structures and paragraphs to make it more accessible for the quick-grab-and-go internet reader. I used to write in a very lush Tolkienesque style; a sentence of description could flow on for a paragraph.
Occasionally I switch to the mode of an Artist. I write stories where I know the reader is going to have to struggle a bit, or they might be uncomfortable reading it.
The Hat Trick (http://www.thedarkarts.org/authorLinks) is one where the reader has to stretch a little to understand, and the ending doesn't satisfy - it can't. SNAFU is another where I don't let up on the horrors of war.
Here Again (http://www.percyfest.muse-wanted.com/icarus_fiction/stories/hereagain.html) is another, where the subject matter is disturbing and intentionally keep the camera rolling, in an unblinking way, on loving yet destructive incest between Percy and Arthur, to show its confusion and the blurring of roles.
A '57 Vincent And A Red-Headed Boy (http://www.thedarkarts.org) is also uncomfortable, shows the unintentional mindless hurt that people cause each other through sheer childishness, the kind you can't readily fix.
There are a few others, but naturally, these are not my most popular stories. ;)
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 11:22 am (UTC)An artist needs feedback far more than the storyteller in your world, because the thrill of telling the story is secondary to learning the craft. Discovering errors and weaknesses is part of the artistic process. If the feedback comes from other (off-line) sources, the artist will not need posted reviews, but creating something and throwing it away indicates more about a person's standards than their motivation. Every artist has a sketch before a completed work, masterpiece or not - and few people are comfortable posting rough drafts or failed attempts.
An artist has a goal. If that goal is a message the reviewer may not be ready to hear, learning what they don't understand is valuable. The quality of the feedback matters, of course, but "arguing a review" may be less of an artistic trait than a self-serving one. If a reviewer doesn't look below the surface, is it my fault (clarity) or his (ignorance)? I may be able to learn which if I argue, and then the reviewer will give me useful feedback.
Taking joy from writing and other people's enjoyment of it doesn't work as a sorting factor for me. But it was an interesting personality theory.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 11:39 am (UTC)That is the definition of a Storyteller.
You've mixed up the definitions of the Artist and the Storyteller, and assumed that the Storyteller has no interest in the art of writing. Quite the opposite: the Storyteller is always aware of the art, but as a means to an end. What you've described as your own experience -- and redefined as the Artist -- is actually the Storyteller's point of view. Don't think that the Artist is better (and therefore if you are a Storyteller you've been insulted): These are just two different approaches to the same art.
Believe it or not, there are those who place the art of writing first, before the effect that it has on the readers. The story is secondary to the craft, and secondary to what the writer is attempting to explore with the art of writing. The audience to these writers is incidental.
We have a romantic view of writing and tend to prefer the image (and word) Artist.
I would be willing to guess that the majority of writers in the fanfiction world are Storytellers rather than writers, because it is such a highly interactive environment, and the Storyteller seeks the communication and interaction with their audience.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 11:42 am (UTC)writersArtists.Whoops.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 06:26 pm (UTC)So you are saying the artist has no desire to improve through the mechanics of feedback? I'm back to the vacuum problem - how can they tell what is good without someone teaching/telling them so? They can rely on their own subjective appraisals, which are valid and can be quite accurate, but when are these artists, these people unconcerned with reviews of their work, created? When does their inner sense of "art" overwhelm them? In short, how do they know when they're "done" learning, becoming masters of their art?
If the response of people to that art - the gut response - isn't there, can we call it art? Can they? How will they know if we don't tell them? (Maybe not all of us can, not all the time, but someone must be able to?)
I think I've wandered deeper into philosophy than I should, but the question is still in my brain - how does a person grow without feedback, even in this solitary hobby? This elusive artist intrigues me.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 12:25 am (UTC)That's not me at all. I write for myself, yes, in that I write what I'm interested in writing and am not swayed by someone who comes along and says I should have done this and this and he should have got together with that guy instead, etc., but if there were no one to read it, I'd probably spend my time on something else, because I wouldn't be able to motivate myself to actually write out the story (why should I if I'm the only one who's going to read it? Might as well keep it in my head and save myself the trouble).
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 06:14 am (UTC)Those people I've met. The ones who disdain posting are a self-limiting group. I had an aunt who did that - we found boxes of her writing when she died. No cyberfame for her. That's what I was thinking of as the artist - and the "arguing reviews" bit threw me into the wrong path. Thanks for clearing it up.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 03:00 am (UTC)The Artist (in the extreme case) is the "James Joyce" sort who doesn't give a damn about accessibility. Though they're happy to publish and receive responses to their works. But their focus is on the Art of Words and they do it on their own terms.
The Storyteller is the "J. R. R. Tolkien" sort who set out to tell a "ripping good yarn" never mind it's been done before or even better. They seek to give something to the readers - the first reader being themselves - that little gasp, that surge of joy (what Tolkien called the "eucatastrophe" - a sudden and piercing joy - is his essay On Fairy Stories).
It's a fairly subtle difference (motives always are).
My point is, the two types of writers tend to misunderstand each other. The Artist seems a selfish primadona to the Storyteller. The Storyteller seems an unoriginal attention-getting hack to the Artist.
In fandom the Storytellers are called review-whores who write populist stuff that's been done before.
Meanwhile in fandom the Artists are sniffed at, largely ignored by the teeming masses, and considered in-group primadonas.
I've deliberately chosen these two to point out the misunderstandings that arise when people don't realise the difference between the two motives for writing and their equal value.
Icarus
Very interesting thread...
Date: 2004-07-12 01:23 am (UTC)But this...
I would be willing to guess that the majority of writers in the fanfiction world are Storytellers rather than writers, because it is such a highly interactive environment, and the Storyteller seeks the communication and interaction with their audience.
...gave me some pause because I'm ancient enough to remember the pre-computer days of writing fanfic longhand, long before I'd ever heard the word fanfic, without a clue that others in the world might be doing it too, or wishing to see mine. It was the opposite of interactive, but I went at it like a fiend. And yet, I think of myself as a storyteller (well, really, I think of myself as a hack, but that's my thing), because my method of writing is to think "Ooh, what if this happened? And then this happened?" -- that is, I'm telling a story. I was just telling the stories to myself -- and I wonder does that mean I was an artist (because I told my stories to myself for my own pleasure without thought for any further audience) but am now a storyteller (because I post my fanfic and am pleased that others enjoy it)? Even though my method of and motivation for writing fanfic hasn't changed (at least I don't think it has)?
I'm not trying to be snide; I suppose I'm just having a bit of trouble with the definitions. Or maybe, as you indicated, it's not always black and white, storyteller vs. artist.
Re: Very interesting thread...
Date: 2004-07-12 02:36 am (UTC)The difference is one of focus: the Artist focuses on the art, while the Storyteller focuses on the effect of the art.
You of course are your own first audience.
To further clarify, James Joyce I would hazard a guess is the classic Artist. He refined the art of his writing and didn't give a damn about its accessibility. That doesn't mean that Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is inaccessible, not by any means. But his focus was generally the Art itself. I base this on the mere existance of Finnegan's Wake and the fact that Joyce was even irritated when friends guessed the name of his work-in-progress (Finnegan's Wake) before it was published.
J. R. R. Tolkien I would consider a classic Storyteller, based on his own statements that he simply set out to write a "ripping good yarn" and a "home" for his invented languages. Yet he's a wonderful artist with exquisite descriptive ability who created a modern mythology in the mold of Beowulf. His focus was on the "yarn," the story itself. He too did not have an audience for the sixteen years he spent writing it -- and he never expected much of a readership.
The Artists are often falsely accused of being primadonas by those who don't understand their high aims. Perfection. Meanwhile Storytellers are often falsely accused of being cheap hacks (often by themselves as well, ahem) by those who don't understand their joy in a well-told, satisfying tale. The aims are different, the focus is different, but they are equally valid.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 12:06 pm (UTC)I suppose that I have an attitude of an artist really. Of course, it may change, but that's the general outlook, I'm thinking.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 02:52 pm (UTC)Is shredding her earlier works as she types.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 04:44 pm (UTC)One of my favorite posts on the topic is by Min- Are We Storytellers or Cathartic Writers? (http://minisinoo.diaryland.com/020628_91.html). I think I like it because she comes at it as a 'storyteller', which is where I'd place myself, but she makes the point that good writing and good stories can result from either approach (as do you). The differences and how the different approaches/reasons for writing play out fascinate me!
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 05:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-12 10:48 pm (UTC)odd [...] that a real writer disdains reviews as being beneath their lofty ivory tower.
Hmm, perhaps my peacekeeper genes are activating, here, but to me there's a tremendously wide gap between those two positions--between doing something *only* for what it brings in terms of reknown and popularity, and doing something with the knowledge that praise *might* come of it. I wouldn't take statements against "writing only for reviews" as meaning that anyone who thinks about receiving praise isn't a True Writer and lacks Artistic Vision because they've left the ivory tower of Creating, but only that the speaker disdains those with a purely "what can it bring me?" motive. :D
I admit, I would scorn anyone who wrote "only for the reviews", as to me that sounds far too much like the whinging on FF.Net about "Review my story or I'll stop writing!!1!" However, if the rabble beneath one's ivory tower is so insignificant, why would one profane one's sacred creation by handing it to them? Frame it with gold and precious metals and keep it to yourself.
it's too much work, too much risk, to put your heart on the line just for the momentary hit of a review that may never even arrive.
Wonderful way of phrasing it! I would have taken the condemnation of those who 'write for the reviews' to be exactly that-- those who only exert effort in the expectation of returns, those who hold their plots hostage to a certain number of reviews ("I'll post the next chapter when I get 25 reviews on the last one").
I'm not much for ivory towers, either. :D Things I have written for myself remain ensconced on my hard drive, where I can enjoy or revile them as I please; I understand the point of publishing, be it via 'Net or paper, to be sharing, which in turn means that reactions are welcomed or at least accepted. Why post something if the reviews will only inevitably misunderstand your artistic Vision?
One-liner reviews, while not as much fun as something more detailed, are accepted in the way a smile is accepted in lieu of a thank you.
What a lovely metaphor. ((memorises))
You have a lovely way of summing up the "types", as well. I am a mix of both, and neither is better than the other. I suppose I seem to come down harder on the glory-hounds simply because the "Artistes" tend to keep their priceless marvels out of sight, while those holding their own stories hostage to fame are all too easy to run across. Any type of writer, to my mind, is better than a so-called 'author' who would do such a thing. That sort of attitude violates both my Artist and my Storyteller principles, by both refusing to let out the story within them *and* demanding payment from the listener rather than taking what the story prompts from them. Even the high-strung Artists with their masterpieces locked up in towers have at least succeeded in producing something, and even if they're the only one to appreciate it, well--someone is appreciating it, freely and honestly. What author of any stripe would possibly want coerced or insincere feedback? To me, that would be the crux of the matter, Artist or Storyteller: do you want responses that involve thought, or do you want response at any cost?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-19 01:34 pm (UTC)In fanfic, I compare myself to other writers:
In original fiction, I compare myself to published authors I admire, and also to fanfic writers I know. Novels become doubly hard, because I want to be a good writer, but I also want to have the passion a fanfic writer has. Fandom people seem more passionate about their work. At the same time, I want to be publishable, like an 'original' author is.
I suppose what I need is a deadline, arbited by someone besides myself. This will work to get original work done.
For my fanfic, I need to accept that what I write is a very long, ongoing series, and write it as such, not as a WIP which will eventually get done. I'm moving toward that now.