![[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}
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