I'm not unconvinced by the theory, but I wonder how an artist can grow in a vaccuum? (I'll toss the "storyteller" aside for the moment, since I don't understand how that part of your world works at all - I couldn't care less how many hits my story gets if it has no reviews, and that's the logical extreme of cyber-storytelling, not the one line reviews. It seems this storyteller label has more to do with posting stories than writing them, and using a reviewer in an unfinished story as a beta-substitute.)
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
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.