Relationship of Quality and Volume

[KeithD]

Occasionally in put-down attack posts on the discussion board I see the reference to “I write high quality, not high volume” as if there is some ipso facto relationship between these two. I posit that there isn’t such a correlation and that this is just being invoked by one Literotica author toward another in bad form and sheer nastiness. I opine that there is no ips facto relationship to how well someone writes and/or how good their story is and how many stories they post to Literotica. If you’re a good writer, have imagination, skill, and time to write/speed in composition, what you post can be as high in quality as what anyone else posts but greater in volume. The reverse is true, too, of course. If you’re a bad, unimaginative writer you can produce a lot (or a little) and it won’t be high quality. If what you write isn’t high quality, though, there is no ipso facto connection to how much you write. Regardless, this is a sharing, without stringent standards to writing quality, site, and I think it’s just bad form and nastiness for one author to marshal that self-aggrandizing put-down assertion against another Literotica author who has not indulged in that sort of attack on the discussion board.

Where volume of story file here does come into relevant comparison, I believe, is in contribution to Literotica (the more the entries in the story file, the bigger the contribution to Literotica) and also to the degree of relevance of advice to other authors. The more and more recent experience an author has in getting stories posted to Literotica, either by category or in general—and how current that is—the greater the relevance of their advice (not necessarily the accuracy, of course, but the relevance of their ability to speak to the issue) on getting stories posted in good position at Literotica. Here, of course, quality does come into play, and I would hope the one asking the question—and therefore, presumably interested in getting a best-case answer for their needs—would check that out themselves to the extent they can—both by looking at the commenter’s own relevant story file and his/her other advice given on the discussion board.

In my own case, I’ve chosen not to respond to the attack at the point of attack so as not to inflame the thread, but I put it out here as a general response to the occasional “I write high quality, not high volume” attempt at a put-down, which sometimes has gone to the attempt to inflame with a “you write repetitive garbage,” when I know damn well the attacker doesn’t read my stories and I have no respect for the attacker’s literary opinions anyway.

I opine that going after another Literotica author on the discussion board on the basis of claimed comparison in writing ability and story quality when the other author hasn’t gone there is just being nasty and invoking bad form here and has no place in the atmosphere the AH tries to maintain. It’s also more than a little arrogant to be asserting that you are a superior writer to anyone else based solely on your own opinion or your need/desire to make points in an on-line argument.

Thoughts?

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

It's like the old joke, we do three kinds of jobs... Good, Fast, and Cheap. Pick two.

Some authors like Jack Higgins are writing machines. He published 85 novels in 60 years. Two made into movies and they're in 55 languages.

Not all of us have the time or the ability to crank out story after story. I just finished the next installment of my sitting on daddy's lap series. 15K+ words in 3-4 days. I tried to work on the next chapter, and several other stories and I am drained. I have nothing in me to write.

We all hve our own process and we all write differently. No two writers work the same. Because you churn out story after story does not mean you're a better or worse writer than someone who put's out one or two stories a year. Not to mention some people have other commitments and can't live on this board every waking moment as some seem to do.

In short having a lot of stories means you worte a lot of stories. Nothing more or less.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Nobody attacks you over the number of stories you churn out. This is what happens:

1. You say something incorrect, asinine, or demeaning to someone.
2. People call you on it and you end up looking foolish and often, demonstrably incorrect.
3. You resort to telling people their opinions aren't worth anything because they haven't churned out hundreds of stories.
4. People tell you that they measure authors by the quality of their work, and not how much of it they produce.
5. You decide this makes you a victim because people have the audacity to stand up for themselves or for each other.
6. Rinse and repeat, ad nauseam.

You have constructed for yourself a bizarre system in which you are more worthy than everyone around you because you've written a ton of stories. I suppose it's democratic in the sense that literally anyone could do that if they wanted to devote the time to it. I seriously doubt that anyone besides you cares. Nobody besides you is trying to compare the number of stories people have written, and nobody is judging each other by that metric. Nobody's measuring you by that metric, positively or negatively. You're just being told that carpeting the place with your stories does not give you license to denigrate everyone else.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's like the old joke, we do three kinds of jobs... Good, Fast, and Cheap. Pick two.

Some authors like Jack Higgins are writing machines. He published 85 novels in 60 years. Two made into movies and they're in 55 languages.

Not all of us have the time or the ability to crank out story after story. I just finished the next installment of my sitting on daddy's lap series. 15K+ words in 3-4 days. I tried to work on the next chapter, and several other stories and I am drained. I have nothing in me to write.

We all hve our own process and we all write differently. No two writers work the same. Because you churn out story after story does not mean you're a better or worse writer than someone who put's out one or two stories a year. Not to mention some people have other commitments and can't live on this board every waking moment as some seem to do.

In short having a lot of stories means you worte a lot of stories. Nothing more or less.

I agree.

Some people write prolifically, especially if they're retired or don't work for whatever reason and have a lot of time. Samuel X I think is over 3k stories if I remember right. Under a variety of names Bostonfiction writer has to be over 2k by now.

But it has nothing to do with quality, in fact in some cases writing a lot of stories-especially if its just a personal goal for a number maybe a competition(like the old survivor contest), or a look at me thing, can lead to lack of quality, they end up with a cookie cutter assembly line feel. Its like giving the same speech 100 times...the passion in speeches 1-10 has become a monotone recital by #90.

Now quality is subjective. Let ten people read a story 5 could rave over it 5 could tell you its a bucket of suck. None of them are wrong because its their opinion.

Quality on lit? What's the measuring stick? Numbers? Too many variables that don't give a true indication....plus the disparity in readership from large to small categories so I would not say a 4.85 has to be a quality story, could just push the hot spots (hmm would that be quality on an erotic story site)

I think the only quality that matters here is if the author feels it was a quality story. I've told people before not every story is created equal...I have stories that I know I wasn't in full stride so to speak. They're alright, but I'm not thrilled with them...other stories I have that, "Oh, I nailed that!"

And to prove the quality point? Stories I felt weren't my best have many times out performed my 'nailed it'.

In fact the survivor contest- where the goal was to write as many stories in as many categories for points as possible.- is the perfect example of quantity not equaling good writing.

I think anyone here who remembers it knows it led to some shitty stories where people were just forcing themselves to write in categories they had no clue about and rushing on top of it to get the points.

My opinion-and I guess advice-on the matter is worrying about how many stories you can is more about notches on the belt than it is writing. Acting like having more stories than another person makes you a better writer is ludicrous and an attempt to elevate one's self and put others down.

Tying that into quality...if the author is the one saying they write a quality story then is it really a quality story? Do I write quality stories? I try, but other people have to be the judge of that, not me and that's back to subjective.

Its best to just write, and not worry about anything but writing. I know its easier said than done, but its what I push myself to stick to.

 

[Voboy]

Ah.

Bait.

Have fun with your thread I guess, Keith. I tend to incline toward a lot of EoN's points, though not all of them. You do you.

 

[KeithD]

Ah.

Bait.

Have fun with your thread I guess, Keith. I tend to incline toward a lot of EoN's points, though not all of them. You do you.

Yep. I didn't name names, but lookee who showed up.

Maybe someday I'll read their posts.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Ah.

Bait.

Have fun with your thread I guess, Keith. I tend to incline toward a lot of EoN's points, though not all of them. You do you.

Bait; not taken...

 

[KeithD]

Posting to the thread as if you might have been expected to take the bait, isn't taking the bait?

Wouldn't not posting at all constitute not taking the bait?

And why would someone think of it as bait? All it does is try to establish what is acceptable behavior by one Literotica to another on the discussion board. You have a different view of what a Literotica author should say about the work of another Literotica on the board? I invited discussion/thoughts.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think what drives this is that it's human nature to tend to value whatever we're good at -- or, at least, whatever we are praised for doing -- and to diminish the value of whatever we don't get praised doing. Some people write stories that get lots of views, and some people write stories that get high scores. We also tend to value whatever we are accustomed to doing as a matter of habit.

I don't think there's any relation, inverse or otherwise, between quality and quantity here. There are bad writers that write few stories and good writers that write lots of stories. The only valid opinion about an author's story is the one that's based on a close reading of that story. And, at the same time, no reader's measuring stick of quality is more objectively valid than any other reader's.

One area where I disagree, somewhat though not entirely, with KeithD on this issue is that I don't think quantity of stories published tells you much about the relevance or authority of that author's opinion. I'm not referring to you, Keith, or to anyone else on this thread, but there are some Lit authors who've written a ton of stories and I wouldn't regard their storytelling advice as being worth a puddle of mud.

I don't think experience or authority counts for much here at Literotica. I don't know any of you. In threads, I look at the quality of the argument made, whether it's based on what I consider reliable, verifiable authorities, like, for example, the Chicago Manual of Style, or an applicable dictionary, and whether the person's argument seems to show familiarity with what I know from experience to be what I consider good fiction. In evaluating stories, the only way to do it is to read the story closely. I don't care who the author is or what the length of that author's story catalog is.

 

[KeithD]

I don't think there's any relation, inverse or otherwise, between quality and quantity here.

This was the essential point I was making. I was referring to attack points in discussion board argumentation that directly equate higher volume of stories with lower quality writing.

One area where I disagree, somewhat though not entirely, with KeithD on this issue is that I don't think quantity of stories published tells you much about the relevance or authority of that author's opinion.

I agree here, in terms of advice on content writing, which is why my post, in this regard, says I think it's important that the commenter's content and history of advice here should be checked out. The main thrust I put on quantity of stories here being a factor, however, was in giving advice on how submissions will be handled in specific categories and in general. I do think (and tried to post)--and think it's sort of self-evident--that steady/current output in a category (or generally) is more relevant in giving advice on submitting stories in that category (or generally) than little or no experience in submitting in that category (or generally)--and the current experience in doing so is more valuable than dated (or no) experience. This wasn't a quality of the writing issue.

There's a tendency here to give "helpful" advice based on nothing--no personal experience or knowledge--on the topic of the question.

 

[lovecraft68]

I think what drives this is that it's human nature to tend to value whatever we're good at -- or, at least, whatever we are praised for doing -- and to diminish the value of whatever we don't get praised doing. Some people write stories that get lots of views, and some people write stories that get high scores. We also tend to value whatever we are accustomed to doing as a matter of habit.

I don't think there's any relation, inverse or otherwise, between quality and quantity here. There are bad writers that write few stories and good writers that write lots of stories. The only valid opinion about an author's story is the one that's based on a close reading of that story. And, at the same time, no reader's measuring stick of quality is more objectively valid than any other reader's.

One area where I disagree, somewhat though not entirely, with KeithD on this issue is that I don't think quantity of stories published tells you much about the relevance or authority of that author's opinion. I'm not referring to you, Keith, or to anyone else on this thread, but there are some Lit authors who've written a ton of stories and I wouldn't regard their storytelling advice as being worth a puddle of mud.

I don't think experience or authority counts for much here at Literotica. I don't know any of you. In threads, I look at the quality of the argument made, whether it's based on what I consider reliable, verifiable authorities, like, for example, the Chicago Manual of Style, or an applicable dictionary, and whether the person's argument seems to show familiarity with what I know from experience to be what I consider good fiction. In evaluating stories, the only way to do it is to read the story closely. I don't care who the author is or what the length of that author's story catalog is.

I'll disagree with you saying this doesn't apply to Keith, go back to the Plagiarism thread where he tells someone his story file makes him an expert on everything and people with few stories shouldn't be talking. Then swipes at the same person saying the post more words to forums then they do stories.

Both instances are insults and bullying, and attacks. That's why he started this thread because ever since I have been here the MO for him is to be belligerent, and attack someone then when someone responds in kind curl up and play victim.

I think you see this, Simon. You don't want to be argumentative, you'd rather placate, and I don't mean that as a dig, its a personality trait, we're all different. Some people are polished, some are blunt force trauma. Despite my efforts not to be I always fall into the latter.

What I very much agree on is your last point. There are things that are based on fact, and if that can be shown...there should be no argument "How are you today?" should have a question mark...there's no debating there.


But most of what's discussed here has a lot of intangibles, and is more style and opinion and preference than right or wrong. At that point we all have a say and we can try and justify our points and that's all fine...but many times even people who say, its subjective will still fall into...but my way is better.

When the topic is along those lines, someone trying to claim they know more for any reason just makes no sense. Fiction is about creativity and all creative people work their craft in different ways and methods than the next person and the results are an array of different types of stories and writing and that's what makes a site like this fun.

Trying to pound someone into submission with I know more because I've written more is wrong on every level. There's a difference between advice/opinion and 'I'm right/you're wrong."

This thread is about finding someone who will agree with his theory 'size matters' maybe some do and that's their right.

A saying I picked up years ago from an Ex says it best "Feel free to feel free, but don't feel free to be free with me."

 

[oggbashan]

I write some good stories and some rubbish ones.

Which are which?

I don't know and sometimes the comments and ratings surprise me by being higher or lower than my own assessment. What is good? That depends on the reader's assessment, not mine.

 

[sweetandeasy]

I have zero stories* but just was thinking about a clip from a Mickey Spillane interview that I saw awhile back, when he was on Letterman's old show. Dave asked him about his writing process and how long it takes him to write a new book, and Mickey said, "Oh, about three weeks," and Dave (who really liked Mickey) said, "But is it really any good?" Mickey just laughed.

(*excludes pending. I've got hundreds pending, all part of my late night tv erotica series.)

 

[SimonDoom]

I think you see this, Simon. You don't want to be argumentative, you'd rather placate, and I don't mean that as a dig, its a personality trait, we're all different. Some people are polished, some are blunt force trauma. Despite my efforts not to be I always fall into the latter.

My goal isn't to placate but to keep the discussion focused on the substance of what people have to say rather than on their motives or qualifications. It's amusing, given my background outside Literotica, to hear myself described as not wanting to be "argumentative." I won't go into details, but it's pretty funny and ironic. I guess I've had enough opportunities to be that way elsewhere that I have no appetite for it here. I don't know you or KeithD. As far as I know, you might both be nice to kittens. Or, maybe not. I'll never know. What I DO know is that you are both among the more interesting and, I think, valuable contributors to this forum. And, in part, that IS because you both have a lot of experience writing. Experience, in some cases, does count for something. That's what I meant in my previous remark. But there are plenty of cases, which I will not go into, where story volume at Literotica has not translated into quality or writing wisdom.

You and KeithD are also both guilty at times of getting unnecessarily testy with and making gratuitous remarks about other forum participants, and there's just no point to it. It doesn't advance the ball in any constructive way. He's going to say his thing, and you're going to say yours, and these boards would be more pleasant -- and useful to all concerned -- with fewer personal attacks and with more focus on what people have to say and less on why they say it or who they are.

Too often, Author's Hangout threads devolve into back and forths that remind me of the old SNL Point/Counterpoint skit where Dan Akroyd would respond to Jane Curtin's argument with "Jane, you ignorant slut!" It's funny in a skit, but mostly annoying in a thread here.

 

[AlinaX]

I hope everyone is nice to kittens.

 

[SimonDoom]

I hope everyone is nice to kittens.

It doesn't seem like too much to ask of someone, but I make no assumptions.