What not to do: Examples

[SimonDoom]

Case to be made the best example of what not to do is to give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of your story other than you.

Then why publish it? Why not write it and keep it hidden on your hard drive or print it out and stick it in a drawer?

You may genuinely feel this way, but I wonder. I can say with absolute certainty and no shame that I do NOT feel this way, and I am quite certain that most authors don't feel this way or want to feel this way.

I want to write the stories I want to write, but I also want them to be enjoyed. I care what people have to say about them. To do otherwise seems to me weird. When I'm at work, for example, I care about whether others think I'm doing a good job. If I don't, I'll probably be out of a job before long. Everything is like this. If you build a house, you want the owner to enjoy your house. You don't say, "Fuck 'em. I like it and that's what matters."

I'm not so arrogant as to think that others don't have things to say about my stories I can learn from. I do try to learn from what others think and say. To me, that's an essential part of the author-reader dynamic.

 

[KeithD]

From the getgo I'm thinking of the story I'm going to write as being one there is a readership for--often an underserved readership. That's why I want it published rather than in my drawer. But it's still wholly something I want to write and, if something I'm pleased with, I don't really give a flying fig how many others are pleased by. I do start off with the belief that it has an audience, though.

 

[XerXesXu]

Then why publish it? Why not write it and keep it hidden on your hard drive or print it out and stick it in a drawer?

You may genuinely feel this way, but I wonder. I can say with absolute certainty and no shame that I do NOT feel this way, and I am quite certain that most authors don't feel this way or want to feel this way.

I want to write the stories I want to write, but I also want them to be enjoyed. I care what people have to say about them. To do otherwise seems to me weird. When I'm at work, for example, I care about whether others think I'm doing a good job. If I don't, I'll probably be out of a job before long. Everything is like this. If you build a house, you want the owner to enjoy your house. You don't say, "Fuck 'em. I like it and that's what matters."

I'm not so arrogant as to think that others don't have things to say about my stories I can learn from. I do try to learn from what others think and say. To me, that's an essential part of the author-reader dynamic.

LC68 expresses himself as trenchantly as ever, but he identifies a clear divide between writers on AH. There are those who’re self-validating and those who seek external validation. I’m in the former camp, I was brought up and educated that way, and, yes, lots of what I write will end up on my hard drive forever. I write, and always have, to sharpen my thoughts. Much of it is academic. All my published writing, before self-publishing, is in academic journals. Stories, and fiction, are just a more entertaining way to explore my ideas, and it’s become a pleasant hobby.

Clearly, many writers here seek external validation. That’s fine, but it can be excruciating to watch the way some writers torture data in the hope of extracting validation; and the way they can react to vulgar and abusive critics such as ‘anonymous’.

 

[Voboy]

Clearly, many writers here seek external validation. That’s fine, but it can be excruciating to watch the way some writers torture data in the hope of extracting validation; and the way they can react to vulgar and abusive critics such as ‘anonymous’.

Easy.

Don't watch. That's your choice.

 

[KeithD]

a clear divide between writers on AH. There are those who’re self-validating and those who seek external validation. . . .

Clearly, many writers here seek external validation. That’s fine, but it can be excruciating to watch the way some writers torture data in the hope of extracting validation . . .

I think this is true.

 

[SimonDoom]

There are those who’re self-validating and those who seek external validation.

And I believe 100% that this is a phony choice. It's not true in any way, shape, or form.

I think people who try to convince themselves of this are simply finding ways to insulate themselves from criticism. They remind me of Paul Simon's lyric "I am a rock; I am an island." Yeah, right. Nobody is a rock or an island. If you think you are, you're fooling yourself.

Shakespeare is the greatest poet and dramatist in the history of the English language. He achieved the absolute pinnacle of "art" in writing in English. It's completely obvious if you have read his work that he wrote to please people. He would have laughed at the alleged dichotomy between writing for yourself and writing for others. He made money from what he did by writing things that people liked. He very obviously eagerly WANTED people to enjoy his plays. And the result was the greatest body of work that anybody ever wrote in the language.

I think this view "I write only for myself" is the creed of solipsism: all that matters is me. Well, I don't think that. I'm VERY curious about what others think of my stories, because while I have a fairly high opinion of my ability, I have an even higher confidence that I can be better than I am, and one of the best ways to get better is to seek and to listen to feedback and criticism. Also, it gives me pleasure to know that my stories have given others pleasure. It seems downright weird to me that an author would be indifferent to that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Clearly, many writers here seek external validation. That’s fine, but it can be excruciating to watch the way some writers torture data in the hope of extracting validation; and the way they can react to vulgar and abusive critics such as ‘anonymous’.

Some of us just torture data because we enjoy torturing data though ;-)

When I write, my primary target audience is me. I don't particularly enjoy trying to anticipate what others will enjoy, and I'm not particularly good at it. I am happier with what I produce when the process doesn't involve trying to figure out how to maximise my metrics.

But, having written, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the feedback I get from readers, and for longer works they're essential motivation for finishing the damn thing.

 

[KeithD]

I think this view "I write only for myself" is the creed of solipsism:

That isn't the same thing as "self-validating." I'll admit that if I have a choice between a comment from an anonymous stranger on a free story site and my own trained assessment of writing, I'll go with "self-validation" every time (while occasionally being told something valid that I missed).

There is very little true in terms of story quality in all that many of you go through in crunching numbers on a site that has every attribute of a publishing version of a kitchen strainer. All of that nearly totally useless massaging of available stats on a few precious babies you've produced mainly is an excuse not to write more. It's more fun to look for validation from mud (and convince yourself you've found it) than to keep exercising the art as best you can (which is rarely served by the results of your stats/comments/ratings crunching) come what may.

 

[KeithD]

Among those quite scarce stats authors gather and hang on will be a huge load of responses from casual readers who latched onto being irked about the use of "lol" in dialogue by a young character and breezed right through those 10,000 words of carefully crafted characterization, plot, and setting put in the story. But all responses will be taken as valid and equally authoritative. And, oh, yes, a comprehensive assessment of the story--as long as, after all of stat crunching, the author can smile at what this all validates for her/him.

 

[XerXesXu]

Easy.

Don't watch. That's your choice.

I choose to watch. I'm a people watcher.

 

[XerXesXu]

And I believe 100% that this is a phony choice. It's not true in any way, shape, or form.

I think people who try to convince themselves of this are simply finding ways to insulate themselves from criticism. They remind me of Paul Simon's lyric "I am a rock; I am an island." Yeah, right. Nobody is a rock or an island. If you think you are, you're fooling yourself.

Shakespeare is the greatest poet and dramatist in the history of the English language. He achieved the absolute pinnacle of "art" in writing in English. It's completely obvious if you have read his work that he wrote to please people. He would have laughed at the alleged dichotomy between writing for yourself and writing for others. He made money from what he did by writing things that people liked. He very obviously eagerly WANTED people to enjoy his plays. And the result was the greatest body of work that anybody ever wrote in the language.

I think this view "I write only for myself" is the creed of solipsism: all that matters is me. Well, I don't think that. I'm VERY curious about what others think of my stories, because while I have a fairly high opinion of my ability, I have an even higher confidence that I can be better than I am, and one of the best ways to get better is to seek and to listen to feedback and criticism. Also, it gives me pleasure to know that my stories have given others pleasure. It seems downright weird to me that an author would be indifferent to that.

Well, we'll have to disagree on that. Most people see this cut in all aspects of life. I'm not Shakespeare, he was a professional writer, and the more he pleased the more money he made. I'm not an 'author', I'm a hobby writer, I write to articulate my own thoughts in a way that entertains me. I lose no money if it doesn't entertain others.

If you have high confidence that you can be better than you are, you were clearly not taught to be the best you can be and let others strive to be better than you.

 

[SimonDoom]

That isn't the same thing as "self-validating." I'll admit that if I have a choice between a comment from an anonymous stranger on a free story site and my own trained assessment of writing, I'll go with "self-validation" every time (while occasionally being told something valid that I missed).

There is very little true in terms of story quality in all that many of you go through in crunching numbers on a site that has every attribute of a publishing version of a kitchen strainer. All of that nearly totally useless massaging of available stats on a few precious babies you've produced mainly is an excuse not to write more. It's more fun to look for validation from mud (and convince yourself you've found it) than to keep exercising the art as best you can (which is rarely served by the results of your stats/comments/ratings crunching) come what may.

The point is that you don't have to choose. It's a phony choice, every time. You can rely on your own judgment and at the same time value what others have to say, too. That's what I do. Publishing a story is an act of communication, and in my view it entails respecting how the recipient of the communication feels. I think, based on things you've written, that's what you feel, too. For instance, you have said quite a few times that you think it is irresponsible for an author to start a series without finishing it. That indicates a respect and regard for the reader. That's all I'm saying. It's not that you have to sacrifice your "art" for the sake of what the reader says.

 

[KeithD]

In discussions on the board, posters DO tend to choose--and the resultant threads ARE mostly argued from those two perspectives--which was XXX's point, which I said/say I thought was valid.

I don't see that this has anything to do with holding that series should be finished in respect for the reader--nor that respect for the reader is ipso facto matched up with them having statistically useful expertise on the elements of story quality.

 

[Voboy]

I choose to watch. I'm a people watcher.

Then quit complaining about how excruciating it is.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Then why publish it? Why not write it and keep it hidden on your hard drive or print it out and stick it in a drawer?

I want to write the stories I want to write, but I also want them to be enjoyed. I care what people have to say about them.

There is a clear difference between publishing something so everybody can read it, yet still not caring what they thought about the story, and sticking the story in your drawer. One can enjoy just putting their work out there, and not caring what others think about it. I read readers comments and sometimes I get some useful feedback. That is great. That doesn't mean I really "cared" what that anonymous man or woman thought about my story. It is a good feeling to be appreciated even by some unknown people I suppose, but really caring about it... Life has taught me that whatever majority likes/approves/appreciates usually isn't of good quality, no matter if its literature, music, philosophy, politics, or religion. Why would I care what that same majority thinks? Once again, I care mostly what I think and I care what people whose opinion I value think, no matter if they are just some friends of mine, or some talented authors here on Literotica.

I didn't really believe LC when he said he only cared about his own opinion. I think he was just being argumentative. Everyone values someone's opinion. But I don't understand those who say they care what everyone thinks? I understand caring about being popular, as that is very important for an author who wants to sell his books, but does that author really "care" what those people think about his work, or is it just caring that people want to read and buy his books?

 

[Voboy]

There is a clear difference between publishing something so everybody can read it, yet still not caring what they thought about the story, and sticking the story in your drawer. One can enjoy just putting their work out there, and not caring what others think about it. I read readers comments and sometimes I get some useful feedback. That is great. That doesn't mean I really "cared" what that anonymous man or woman thought about my story. It is a good feeling to be appreciated even by some unknown people I suppose, but really caring about it... Life has taught me that whatever majority likes/approves/appreciates usually isn't of good quality, no matter if its literature, music, philosophy, politics, or religion. Why would I care what that same majority thinks? Once again, I care mostly what I think and I care what people whose opinion I value think, no matter if they are just some friends of mine, or some talented authors here on Literotica.

I didn't really believe LC when he said he only cared about his own opinion. I think he was just being argumentative. Everyone values someone's opinion. But I don't understand those who say they care what everyone thinks? I understand caring about being popular, as that is very important for an author who wants to sell his books, but does that author really "care" what those people think about his work, or is it just caring that people want to read and buy his books?

I care that people like what I write.

As I always say, I write stories that I would like to read. So by posting them, it's a tacit endorsement that it satisfies me. That part's easy. If I'd gotten routinely negative responses about my stories, I might very well have stopped publishing them. So to that extent, I want people to like what I post.

There are certain people I'm very close to, and their responses to my stories matter even more. Especially when, as I rarely do, I write particular stories with them in mind. Or if I'm writing a commissioned piece, or for the marketplace.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I care that people like what I write.

Who is people in this case? If its all the random anonymous people who browse Literotica stories, then I will ask you:
Do you maybe "like" that those people like what you write, or do you truly "care" what those people think? For me there is a clear distinction between those two. I fit into option one. Option two should make you upset if they express negative comments about your story? That is how I see things, at least.

 

[Voboy]

Who is people in this case? If its all the random anonymous people who browse Literotica stories, then I will ask you:
Do you maybe "like" that those people like what you write, or do you truly "care" what those people think? For me there is a clear distinction between those two. I fit into option one. Option two should make you upset if they express negative comments about your story? That is how I see things, at least.

I don't think about it that much, to be honest.

I write for myself, as a reader. If there are people who enjoy my work here, that just means those are people who like what I like. I don't really ponder about it all that much further.

It's rare that I get comments, especially not "constructive" ones. When most of your comments are praise, there's not a lot of indication of what readers actually think. Meaning, there's not much of what they think for me TO "care about." All I really know is that people read my stuff, vote on it, and seem to do so favorably.

In the absence of more data, I don't go much beyond that.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I did write "usually". You made two good examples of quality series being also quite popular. There are plenty more examples of the same. I could name several examples off the top of my head. But for every example where quality and popularity coincide, there are at least five where they don't. So there is an obvious pattern in my opinion. What the exact ratio of the above cases is - I can only speculate, but as a wild guess I wrote five to one, although I bet it's even worse.

 

[KeithD]

Just a note (because this is a writing site): "Quality' is a neutral noun. It really needs an adjective--like "high quality" or "low quality" to have meaning.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Just a note (because this is a writing site): "Quality' is a neutral noun. It really needs an adjective--like "high quality" or "low quality" to have meaning.

Eh really? Are expressions "quality time" and such just some exceptions? I am genuinely curious, being a non-native speaker. In my language saying quality something automatically means high quality something, and if you want to say the opposite, you have to say low quality something. When used as a noun, quality is neutral in my language, but when used as an adjective it means high quality. I assumed same applies in English

 

[ElectricBlue]

In Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the author, RM Pirsig , comes to the best definition of 'quality' I've ever read, if Lit writers are looking for a benchmark measurement.

Don't hold us in suspense, or make us go find an ancient copy in a second hand bookshop - give us the definition!

 

[Voboy]

Eh really? Are expressions "quality time" and such just some exceptions? I am genuinely curious, being a non-native speaker. In my language saying quality something automatically means high quality something, and if you want to say the opposite, you have to say low quality something. When used as a noun, quality is neutral in my language, but when used as an adjective it means high quality. I assumed same applies in English

For me, if someone describes something as "quality," I think of it as high. Like when someone talks about a slick shot in a soccer match and describes it as a "quality finish;" I know what they mean. I believe most modern English speakers would probably conclude the same thing, though I don't really know.

I'm not sure I differentiate between "popular" series and "quality" series, because in many cases I know that I am not the universal determiner of what a "quality" series might be. If that makes sense. I don't know if there is an objective standard of such things, and if there is? I don't care to know about it. My own subjective opinion of my own work is my de facto starting point. If others like it too? Well and good!

But I'm not all that comfortable critiquing the "quality" of others' work. I might not like it, but that merely means that I don't like it; it's not an objective claim about its overall quality (or lack thereof).

 

[ElectricBlue]

After reading the afterword, I threw that book away and swore to never to read it again.

I think I probably read it, but can't recall anything about it. I know it was meant to be ground breaking, but I can't remember why. I read Jonathon Livingstone Seagull too, because it was popular, but it's left no lingering trace, either.

 

[Voboy]

I think I probably read it, but can't recall anything about it. I know it was meant to be ground breaking, but I can't remember why. I read Jonathon Livingstone Seagull too, because it was popular, but it's left no lingering trace, either.

I think I started that Pirsig book, but I know I didn't finish it. I did try to wade through The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, which was a similarly self-indulgent and fascinating piece of 1970s metaphysical realism. Toffler was in a similar vein, in many ways.

An interesting time in borderline-nonfiction.