![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Reviews
I'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.
no subject
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
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
writersArtists.Whoops.
no subject
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
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
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
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...
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...
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