Reviews

[icarus]

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.

Comments

[herlifeisbroken.livejournal.com]

I am much, much more of a Storyteller than an Artist when put in your framework. I love to tell stories; while I'm not in any sense a review hound, I appreciate when I've made someone think or laugh or cry and they tell me so. Very apt descriptions and thoughts on the matter; it makes much sense.

[srichard.livejournal.com]

What a perfect examination of the whole dichotomy. I personally love getting reviews - I can't think who wouldn't - and definitely see my process of writing as being a relationship with those who read. Thank you for putting this all so clearly.

[ragnhildholm.livejournal.com]

Very interesting. I think I have some aspects of the Storyteller in me (I'm going by your definitions here), but primarily I'm an artist. One line reviews mean very little to me - my favourite part in the whole process is the creative part; when it's just me and my pen (never pencil for me, always a blue or black ballpoint and a thick, new pad of lined paper...), writing, rewriting, rewriting again... crossing out, changing words, moving phrases... I don't even post it all. That's not the main point. But like I said, I do have other sides - I'm by no means completely uninterested in reviews; I very much want reviews. Just not the one line "that was nice" or "cute" or whatever. Positive or negative, I want an in-depth assessment of strenghts and weaknesses, of interpretation, of... Okay, this is getting very long, and very rambling, so I'll scuttle off now. You just got my thought process going is all. *grins sheepishly and edges out the door sideways*

[himiko-chan.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

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 ^^!

[rikibeth.livejournal.com]

Very much more a Storyteller, although I think my collaborator is more of an Artist. Not sure.

matociquala is always talking in her journal about the craft aspects, muscular sentences without scaffolding and all that, and I always feel so plebeian by comparison... I don't pay nearly the attention to that that she does. Although I do try to say things in the most effective way possible.

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."

[biichan.livejournal.com]

I love you.

~a Story-Teller

[geoviki.livejournal.com]

I think I'm a blend, as well. I've been guilty of saying "I write for myself", and I just decided I'm guilty of a lack of clarity. What I mean when I say that is that "I write to please my own kinks first." Because I've been tempted to listen to concrit and try to write to scratch that reader's itch. Fortunately, I've caught myself early and realized, no, I can't please that person, because that isn't being true to my own vision of this character. I'll just have to accept their criticism. But I'd be a liar to say that readers' opinions don't matter to me.

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.

[singtoangels.livejournal.com]

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.

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

[maelwaedd.livejournal.com]

This is beautiful.

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.

[seremanwe.livejournal.com]

What a wonderful way to put it. I am a mix of both as well, though I know that to get a review in the first place, I have to put myself out there. This is where I commend all those writers who have the courage to take that chance and shove their work out there into the world. It's a scary thought, but hopefully in the end, worthwhile.

[harveywallbang.livejournal.com]

i do write for myself. i don't write something just so people will comment on it. i think i'm more artist than storyteller because i like getting reviews, but the small "liked it, it was cute..aww" comments don't really hold much for me... it's the reviewers that say something different than everyone else that i appreciate.... but if someone doesn't like something, i'm not gonna change it for them. i just won't post something if i know it's not gonna be appreciated the way i want it to be...
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. :)

[a-linz.livejournal.com]

I very much like your way of looking at writers, and I think I'm a story teller and happy to stay that way ^^
Just out of interest, which one are you?

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

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.

[flameofdeath.livejournal.com]

This is definately an interesting post and got me thinking a bit.

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.

[esmaraldo.livejournal.com]

I'm a definite Artist.

Is shredding her earlier works as she types.

[laughingdryad.livejournal.com]

here via daily_snitch, if you didn't figure that out already. I'm a mix of the two types, like you said. Just wanted to tell you that I completely agree and I appreciate this post. :)

[forked.livejournal.com]

Interesting post, and I definitely agree that folks differ as to why they write. Often I've seen a third category included- 'communal writers' or some such- folks who write in order to participate in the community.

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!

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

This is a wonderful essay. Now that I think about it, I know both Artist and Storyteller fic authors. Since I'm a Storyteller myself, the Artist mindset has always seemed rather odd to me, but now it makes much more sense...

[anoddplace.livejournal.com]

"sadly, some people only write so that they can get reviews."

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?

[ella-macmillan.livejournal.com]

I'm much more of an Artist than a Storyteller, and I need to become more of a Storyteller, or I will never finish anything.

In fanfic, I compare myself to other writers: mctabby if I'm writing historical fanfic, for instance. I get unhappy with the story, so I take it down and rewrite it. Thus, the only fanfic I have ever finished is a one-shot for a challenge. (I do work fairly well with deadlines.)
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.