![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When Negative FB is Good FB
I honestly was pretty busy yesterday and didn't suffer the trauma from LJ outage that occured yesterday. I tried to sign on in the ayem, saw there was a power issue with SixApart, and then headed off to do erands.
Ahhhh, weekends. The only time when I can get crap done.
Which is why I'm posting this today instead of yesterday.
People, negative FB on a story is okay. No, really. It is. I don't take offense. As long as the FB is politely worded, you're not putting words in my mouth (i.e., seeing something that isn't there or claiming I said something when I didn't), trying to impose your fanon on my fanon, or dragging past wanks that have nothing to do with anything into the discussion, I'm perfectly cool with it.
The fact is, someone gave negative FB on Into the Desert the other day on the basis of Buffy's characterization. The negative FB was politely worded and the reader was clear about what s/he didn't like. While I didn't agree with it, I could see where s/he was coming from.
Unfortunately, the past few days have been crazy-making, so I didn't get a chance to compose a thoughtful response and explain where I agreed, where I disagreed, and to point out that this particular story isn't my usual. That, and I wanted to re-assure the correspondent that, no, I don't hate Buffy. There've been times I didn't like her, but right now she's very high on my "characters I like" list.
By the time I had 5 seconds to rub together to compose a response, the FB had been deleted by the correspondent.
I'm completely mystified by this. Obviously someone felt upset enough or felt negative enough about a story to give thoughtful feedback to it clearly stating their case and to make sure it was politely worded. Then it's gone within 24 hours before I have a chance to reply.
Why not let it stand? Or at least give the writer a chance to provide a thoughtful response.
It's your response to a story and it's as fair as any "OMIGAWD! Squeeeee!" response. Whether I agree with it or disagree with it should be an immaterial issue. My little snowflake feelings of speshulness are not at issue here, nor should they be.
Besides, I find thoughtful negative FB or at least FB pointing out issues with a story to be very helpful at times. There's almost always a nugget of something useful in there that can (and maybe should) be applied in the future.
Let me give you an example in my favorite trope of "unreliable narrators."
Unreliable Narrator Story One
I write my first unreliable narrator story: Dismay, in which a depressed, hungover Xander is speaking.
The reaction is...not good. Part of the issue there was structural. It was written as part of a round-robin. The first part was set-up and told from Buffy's point of view. This was the second part and it was set-up and told from Xander's point of view. This somehow got lost in the shuffle for a lot of people. Maybe they missed the fist part of the story (even though I did post a link to the first part). Maybe they wanted something different out of the second part. And maybe it was because I was new-ish on the fanfic writing front and people honestly didn't "know" me or what to expect.
Add on that it was a fairly dark view of Buffy, again, while Xander is both hung-over and depressed and posted on a Buffy/Xander fanfiction list, well...I honestly wonder what I was thinking at the time.
However, some of the negative FB was useful. I obviously had not put in enough clues that Xander's word was not to be trusted. Since the story is written in first person, readers didn't have any external clues (and they still don't even in the story's current form) that taking Xander's word as gospel is a very large mistake.
Right. So obviously lesson learned. Put in information that "tells" the reader that your narrator isn't reliable.
Unreliable Narrator Story Two
Some months later, I try again with unreliable narrator story number two: Mars Rising. This time it's a bitter, depressed Xander mulling his present circumstances.
This time, I don't write it in first person. I litter the story with hints that, once again, Xander's word is not to be trusted. I even follow it up with the baseball bat that is Faith. Their conversation reveals that Xander is not only lying to himself on several issues, he has also completely misread a few other things. And if he can't be trusted on the points where Faith directly contradicts him, then maybe he can't be trusted on anything he's said.
Structurally, the story is sound. It's a solid stand-alone, so I'm not reliant on another writer or additional chapters/stories to make the context work. The writing is also much better.
The reaction was better, although not necessarily in a way that made me happy. Once again, at least half the readers were taking Xander's word for gospel when they shouldn't.
Part of it, again, was the time and place this was posted. It was posted on a Xander-centric Het-Only Wank-Tastic Yahell Group where the opinion of most of the non-Xander characters was not high (to put it kindly). Part of it was that it was posted in the summer between the last season of Buffy and the last season of Angel, so negative feelings were still pretty high about where all the Buffy characters were left at the end of 'Chosen.' And poor Buffy was getting dragged through the mud in fanfic.
And again, part of it was me. While I look at that story and am still mystified by how I couldn have made it more clear that Xander was horribly unreliable on more than a few points, the writing could stand to be a little bit better. But I didn't think my writing skills (or the lack thereof), was the core problem.
Then it hit me: using a canon character as your unreliable narrator was probably a mistake in fanfic. People who associate strongly with that character are going to tend to take everything that character says as true, no matter how many red flags you wave in their faces. They'll also assume that you hold the same opinion and that you're using that character as a mouthpiece.
In my case, neither point is ever true. I may empathize with a character, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. As a writer, my job is to understand character motivations and to transmit those motivations to the reader. There's no rule saying that I have to like the motivations, that the motivations have to be at all good, or that only one motivation is behind it all.
Real people often have contradictory motivations for doing or saying something. Some of those motivations are rooted in good or selfless impulses. At the same time, those same motivations can also be rooted in negative or selfish impulses. In addition, a person's thoughts on an issue evolves and changes over the time. People change their minds all the time. People contradict themselves all the time. People can also be delusional even though the truth is right under their noses. People trip and fall. Some stay down, some get back up. Sometimes they need help getting back up.
In short, being human is a messy business. Nothing is ever neat and clear-cut. If it was, we'd be Cylons (the toaster version, not so much the Humolons), and I don't think anyone wants that.
A fully rounded character should be the same. They can be wrong. They can lie. They can screw up. They can change their minds. They can have conflicting motivations for what they do, even if what they do is ultimately "good." They can fall. They can wallow in the muck. Sometimes they need a kick in the ass to get right with the world. A fully rounded character is fucking messy (as opposed to just "a mess") with good and bad points. That's how you make a character jump off a page and seem real, as opposed to a one-dimensional paper doll.
In original fiction, I think, writers have a little bit more leeway on this point. Very few people assume that characters in original fiction represent the author's opinions or are an avatar for the author.
In fanfiction, too many readers think the opposite. If Xander is my favorite character, he must by definition agree with me or represent my worldview. Which...no. Xander is no more an avatar for me than Faith, Buffy, Spike, Willow, Dawn, or Giles is. Nor would I want him to be. The character of Xander is interesting to me for a lot of reasons, but areas of agreement (what few there are) doesn't happen to be on that list.
I've run into the buzzsaw of "if you like Xander, you must agree with Xander" too many times to count. I still run into it, even though at this point quite a few people who read my Buffy fanfic have twigged to the idea that it is about as far from true as you can imagine.
Even when I point up instances where Xander (or any other character) might be wrong about something or are maybe looking at an issue or a situation while wearing blinders — even if on the whole the character is being honest, at least from their point of view — and decorate that with flashing lights and waving flags, some people will still assume Xander (or any other character) is 100% in the right.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say in my long-winded way is that Mars Rising taught me an important lesson: if you're telling a story from the point of view of a unreliable narrator, using a canon character is not a good idea.
Unreliable Narrator Story Three
The next time I tell a story with an unreliable narrator is what really locks my point of view in place: Cuckoo in the Nest.
Tony is a canon character, true. However, he's not a canon character that anyone sympathizes with or even knows. At most, we get hints to his character over seven years and only see him on screen once in 'Hell's Bells' (I fanwank that the 'Restless' version of Tony represented Xander's view of his father, and is not necessarily reflective of reality...even if it pointed to the dynamic of that relationship).
While I'd love to sit here and say that it was my awesome writing skills that pulled it off, what helped me to a very large extent was the structure of the story. The first half is Tony's view of canon events. Since (presumably) people reading a fanfiction story about Tony would already be aware of "the story behind the story," so to speak, I actually don't have to work all that hard to show that Tony is so full of shit that his eyes are a squishy brown.
So, when the second half of the story comes in, the part that's post-'Chosen,' it's already established that Tony is wholly unreliable. What he observes maybe true, but how he translates those observations are so far off the mark that it's breath-taking.
And everyone who read the story, I mean everyone, knew two things: 1) Tony's word was not to be trusted; 2) Tony's opinions don't reflect any that I happen to hold.
At long last, success!
The question was, could I do it again? Lord knows I wanted to see if I could.
Unreliable Narrator Story Four
Now I'm in the middle of finishing up the latest (and most complicated) unreliable narrator I've ever tried my hand at: Eva Swithin in Facing the Heart in Darkness.
This time I went back on my "no first person point of view for unreliable narrators" and wrote the whole thing in first person. That poses a whole host of problems and challenges, many of which actually have nothing to do with the unreliable narrator issue. The FB (good and bad) for that has been extremely helpful on that front. While I'm not sure whether I'll try the fist person point of view in writing again, what I've learned from writing it, and what I've learned from people giving feedback on it, will stand me in good stead for the future.
The unrelaible narrator issue in Facing the Heart of Darkness is slightly more complex than in the past. Maybe it's because the story is more complex, or maybe it's because Eva is designed to be a more complex character. I had (obviously) a lot more leeway in designing Eva's character than I did Xander or even Tony. She doesn't have a canon template that she needs to match, so what's "in character" and "out of character" is almost entirely up to me (British cultural quirks aside, which my British correspondents have been very good at pointing out when I go off-the-beam).
On the one hand, people do know she's unreliable on a lot of issues, even if she has moments of being dead-on about a lot of others. However, I've run into an interesting issue where sometimes people are rooting for Eva even to the detriment of Xander. On the one hand, that thrills me to pieces. On the other, it's taken me by complete surprise.
I don't think I "went wrong" anywhere, because most of the time the people reading react to her just the way I expect them to. It's when their reaction isn't what I expect that it draws me up short and sends me scurrying back to my notes and previous chapters to see what seed I planted to get that reaction.
By the way, I want to stress that this is not a bad thing. Not at all. In fact, it makes the experience a lot more interesting to me. And because I love tearing apart and analyzing things, it gives me an excuse to do that. I've just as often ended up agreeing with readers as I have disagreeing, once I've reviewed the "evidence," so to speak.
That's when you've got to accept some things: writing is not a solitary sport. You can put something out there with one intention. But just as you're writing from a certain mindset, people are reading with their own mindsets. Those mindsets may overlap, but there are points where they simply don't. Furthermore, the reader doesn't have ESP. You can intend one thing, but for a lot of reasons a reader simply see it differently.
Maybe it's lack of skill on the writer's part that causes the disconnect. Maybe it's just that when viewed from the outside a story, character, or sitution just looks different and the writer isn't at fault.
Notice I'm not blaming the reader here. In most cases, I simply won't do it. Especially when so many of them are on the same page when it comes to their reactions.
So, lessons learned? A few, but so far nothing on the unreliable narrator front. A lot of my theories got confirmed. A some of my theories got shot to hell. That's going to take some mulling over the story iteself, as well as the FB, before I come up with any solid conclusions on that front.
As I demonstrated above, negative FB, or even positive FB that isn't exactly pleasing to you, is very, very helpful if you're looking to improve as a writer. It doesn't matter how good you are (or think you are), the checks and balances readers put on writers is (I think) invaluable. Good FB (even if it's less-than-glowing) is an invaluable service. It may piss me off, it may make me want to pull my hair out, I may not agree with it at all. That said, I can usually find something, even it's a throw-away comment, that I can use.
Although, I've recently learned that sometimes you have to discrimate between negative FB to a story's structure/construction and writing issues vs. reaction to an idea that's expressed in a story that someone doesn't like. Those are two very different issues.
Criticizing an idea (such as the point the story's trying to make, or the fact you're saying something about a character's state of mind) falls into much fuzzier area where, I think, I'd be hard-pressed to find middle ground. Part of it is because it falls within the realm where our views on canon characters disconnect, part of it is because an idea I don't find repellent is repellent to someone else (and visa versa).
What I find intriguing, however, is that the line between negative FB on a writing issue vs. an idea is just as fuzzy. I think that's where my disagreements sometimes come in with negative FB. Someone my think the "idea" being explored is a writing issue, when from my point of view it isn't. It could be beause that wasn't the issue I was exploring when I wrote the story. It could be that I personally didn't think it was important. It could be that I think you're missing the entire point of what the story's trying to say about the characters enmeshed in it.
Now, with a WiP, you can discuss this issue and engage in a meaningful conversation.
However, what do you do with an older story like Into the Desert? The woman who wrote that story is (in some ways) not the same woman who's writing Facing the Heart of Darkness. That's one issue. The other is that I conceed right up front that the writing isn't the best I can do, even if it was the best I could do at the time. I can clearly see the good points and bad points of the story. Furthmore, my view of all the characters (yes, including Spike) have changed and evolved over time, in large part because I've written them more (or in Spike's case, really thought deeply about his characterization for the first time).
Yet, I reposted it, leaving it as-is. While I'd love to go back and re-write the Buffy parts of that story, doing so (in my mind) is somewhat dishonest. I find it instructive to go back to older stories and critically look at them. I like tearing them apart down to the component elements. It helps me see areas where I have improved, but also where I've failed to improve. It also shows the new bad habits I've picked up over time.
So, when you get negative FB on an older story, how do you respond? How can you respond? It's an old photograph, and may not necessarily represent your current output. How do you explain that this one story does not represent your "usual" or that what's in this story is not at all what exists in the rest of your portfolio? Worse, how do you do it without sounding defensive?
It's a puzzle, one that's made harder when the FB you want to respond to disappears before you get a chance to respond. While I'm tempted to try a direct email, I'm not sure if it would be considered rude and intrusive.
I know, I've raised far more questions than I've answered in this tl;dr musing on "good" vs. "negative" FB.
On the whole, I think the issue of FB is a delicate balancing act. I don't just mean in giving appropriate FB, but in appropriately responding to it.
Anyone out there have any thoughts on the matter? I'd love to hear from you and what you think about this issue.
Ahhhh, weekends. The only time when I can get crap done.
Which is why I'm posting this today instead of yesterday.
People, negative FB on a story is okay. No, really. It is. I don't take offense. As long as the FB is politely worded, you're not putting words in my mouth (i.e., seeing something that isn't there or claiming I said something when I didn't), trying to impose your fanon on my fanon, or dragging past wanks that have nothing to do with anything into the discussion, I'm perfectly cool with it.
The fact is, someone gave negative FB on Into the Desert the other day on the basis of Buffy's characterization. The negative FB was politely worded and the reader was clear about what s/he didn't like. While I didn't agree with it, I could see where s/he was coming from.
Unfortunately, the past few days have been crazy-making, so I didn't get a chance to compose a thoughtful response and explain where I agreed, where I disagreed, and to point out that this particular story isn't my usual. That, and I wanted to re-assure the correspondent that, no, I don't hate Buffy. There've been times I didn't like her, but right now she's very high on my "characters I like" list.
By the time I had 5 seconds to rub together to compose a response, the FB had been deleted by the correspondent.
I'm completely mystified by this. Obviously someone felt upset enough or felt negative enough about a story to give thoughtful feedback to it clearly stating their case and to make sure it was politely worded. Then it's gone within 24 hours before I have a chance to reply.
Why not let it stand? Or at least give the writer a chance to provide a thoughtful response.
It's your response to a story and it's as fair as any "OMIGAWD! Squeeeee!" response. Whether I agree with it or disagree with it should be an immaterial issue. My little snowflake feelings of speshulness are not at issue here, nor should they be.
Besides, I find thoughtful negative FB or at least FB pointing out issues with a story to be very helpful at times. There's almost always a nugget of something useful in there that can (and maybe should) be applied in the future.
Let me give you an example in my favorite trope of "unreliable narrators."
Unreliable Narrator Story One
I write my first unreliable narrator story: Dismay, in which a depressed, hungover Xander is speaking.
The reaction is...not good. Part of the issue there was structural. It was written as part of a round-robin. The first part was set-up and told from Buffy's point of view. This was the second part and it was set-up and told from Xander's point of view. This somehow got lost in the shuffle for a lot of people. Maybe they missed the fist part of the story (even though I did post a link to the first part). Maybe they wanted something different out of the second part. And maybe it was because I was new-ish on the fanfic writing front and people honestly didn't "know" me or what to expect.
Add on that it was a fairly dark view of Buffy, again, while Xander is both hung-over and depressed and posted on a Buffy/Xander fanfiction list, well...I honestly wonder what I was thinking at the time.
However, some of the negative FB was useful. I obviously had not put in enough clues that Xander's word was not to be trusted. Since the story is written in first person, readers didn't have any external clues (and they still don't even in the story's current form) that taking Xander's word as gospel is a very large mistake.
Right. So obviously lesson learned. Put in information that "tells" the reader that your narrator isn't reliable.
Unreliable Narrator Story Two
Some months later, I try again with unreliable narrator story number two: Mars Rising. This time it's a bitter, depressed Xander mulling his present circumstances.
This time, I don't write it in first person. I litter the story with hints that, once again, Xander's word is not to be trusted. I even follow it up with the baseball bat that is Faith. Their conversation reveals that Xander is not only lying to himself on several issues, he has also completely misread a few other things. And if he can't be trusted on the points where Faith directly contradicts him, then maybe he can't be trusted on anything he's said.
Structurally, the story is sound. It's a solid stand-alone, so I'm not reliant on another writer or additional chapters/stories to make the context work. The writing is also much better.
The reaction was better, although not necessarily in a way that made me happy. Once again, at least half the readers were taking Xander's word for gospel when they shouldn't.
Part of it, again, was the time and place this was posted. It was posted on a Xander-centric Het-Only Wank-Tastic Yahell Group where the opinion of most of the non-Xander characters was not high (to put it kindly). Part of it was that it was posted in the summer between the last season of Buffy and the last season of Angel, so negative feelings were still pretty high about where all the Buffy characters were left at the end of 'Chosen.' And poor Buffy was getting dragged through the mud in fanfic.
And again, part of it was me. While I look at that story and am still mystified by how I couldn have made it more clear that Xander was horribly unreliable on more than a few points, the writing could stand to be a little bit better. But I didn't think my writing skills (or the lack thereof), was the core problem.
Then it hit me: using a canon character as your unreliable narrator was probably a mistake in fanfic. People who associate strongly with that character are going to tend to take everything that character says as true, no matter how many red flags you wave in their faces. They'll also assume that you hold the same opinion and that you're using that character as a mouthpiece.
In my case, neither point is ever true. I may empathize with a character, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. As a writer, my job is to understand character motivations and to transmit those motivations to the reader. There's no rule saying that I have to like the motivations, that the motivations have to be at all good, or that only one motivation is behind it all.
Real people often have contradictory motivations for doing or saying something. Some of those motivations are rooted in good or selfless impulses. At the same time, those same motivations can also be rooted in negative or selfish impulses. In addition, a person's thoughts on an issue evolves and changes over the time. People change their minds all the time. People contradict themselves all the time. People can also be delusional even though the truth is right under their noses. People trip and fall. Some stay down, some get back up. Sometimes they need help getting back up.
In short, being human is a messy business. Nothing is ever neat and clear-cut. If it was, we'd be Cylons (the toaster version, not so much the Humolons), and I don't think anyone wants that.
A fully rounded character should be the same. They can be wrong. They can lie. They can screw up. They can change their minds. They can have conflicting motivations for what they do, even if what they do is ultimately "good." They can fall. They can wallow in the muck. Sometimes they need a kick in the ass to get right with the world. A fully rounded character is fucking messy (as opposed to just "a mess") with good and bad points. That's how you make a character jump off a page and seem real, as opposed to a one-dimensional paper doll.
In original fiction, I think, writers have a little bit more leeway on this point. Very few people assume that characters in original fiction represent the author's opinions or are an avatar for the author.
In fanfiction, too many readers think the opposite. If Xander is my favorite character, he must by definition agree with me or represent my worldview. Which...no. Xander is no more an avatar for me than Faith, Buffy, Spike, Willow, Dawn, or Giles is. Nor would I want him to be. The character of Xander is interesting to me for a lot of reasons, but areas of agreement (what few there are) doesn't happen to be on that list.
I've run into the buzzsaw of "if you like Xander, you must agree with Xander" too many times to count. I still run into it, even though at this point quite a few people who read my Buffy fanfic have twigged to the idea that it is about as far from true as you can imagine.
Even when I point up instances where Xander (or any other character) might be wrong about something or are maybe looking at an issue or a situation while wearing blinders — even if on the whole the character is being honest, at least from their point of view — and decorate that with flashing lights and waving flags, some people will still assume Xander (or any other character) is 100% in the right.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say in my long-winded way is that Mars Rising taught me an important lesson: if you're telling a story from the point of view of a unreliable narrator, using a canon character is not a good idea.
Unreliable Narrator Story Three
The next time I tell a story with an unreliable narrator is what really locks my point of view in place: Cuckoo in the Nest.
Tony is a canon character, true. However, he's not a canon character that anyone sympathizes with or even knows. At most, we get hints to his character over seven years and only see him on screen once in 'Hell's Bells' (I fanwank that the 'Restless' version of Tony represented Xander's view of his father, and is not necessarily reflective of reality...even if it pointed to the dynamic of that relationship).
While I'd love to sit here and say that it was my awesome writing skills that pulled it off, what helped me to a very large extent was the structure of the story. The first half is Tony's view of canon events. Since (presumably) people reading a fanfiction story about Tony would already be aware of "the story behind the story," so to speak, I actually don't have to work all that hard to show that Tony is so full of shit that his eyes are a squishy brown.
So, when the second half of the story comes in, the part that's post-'Chosen,' it's already established that Tony is wholly unreliable. What he observes maybe true, but how he translates those observations are so far off the mark that it's breath-taking.
And everyone who read the story, I mean everyone, knew two things: 1) Tony's word was not to be trusted; 2) Tony's opinions don't reflect any that I happen to hold.
At long last, success!
The question was, could I do it again? Lord knows I wanted to see if I could.
Unreliable Narrator Story Four
Now I'm in the middle of finishing up the latest (and most complicated) unreliable narrator I've ever tried my hand at: Eva Swithin in Facing the Heart in Darkness.
This time I went back on my "no first person point of view for unreliable narrators" and wrote the whole thing in first person. That poses a whole host of problems and challenges, many of which actually have nothing to do with the unreliable narrator issue. The FB (good and bad) for that has been extremely helpful on that front. While I'm not sure whether I'll try the fist person point of view in writing again, what I've learned from writing it, and what I've learned from people giving feedback on it, will stand me in good stead for the future.
The unrelaible narrator issue in Facing the Heart of Darkness is slightly more complex than in the past. Maybe it's because the story is more complex, or maybe it's because Eva is designed to be a more complex character. I had (obviously) a lot more leeway in designing Eva's character than I did Xander or even Tony. She doesn't have a canon template that she needs to match, so what's "in character" and "out of character" is almost entirely up to me (British cultural quirks aside, which my British correspondents have been very good at pointing out when I go off-the-beam).
On the one hand, people do know she's unreliable on a lot of issues, even if she has moments of being dead-on about a lot of others. However, I've run into an interesting issue where sometimes people are rooting for Eva even to the detriment of Xander. On the one hand, that thrills me to pieces. On the other, it's taken me by complete surprise.
I don't think I "went wrong" anywhere, because most of the time the people reading react to her just the way I expect them to. It's when their reaction isn't what I expect that it draws me up short and sends me scurrying back to my notes and previous chapters to see what seed I planted to get that reaction.
By the way, I want to stress that this is not a bad thing. Not at all. In fact, it makes the experience a lot more interesting to me. And because I love tearing apart and analyzing things, it gives me an excuse to do that. I've just as often ended up agreeing with readers as I have disagreeing, once I've reviewed the "evidence," so to speak.
That's when you've got to accept some things: writing is not a solitary sport. You can put something out there with one intention. But just as you're writing from a certain mindset, people are reading with their own mindsets. Those mindsets may overlap, but there are points where they simply don't. Furthermore, the reader doesn't have ESP. You can intend one thing, but for a lot of reasons a reader simply see it differently.
Maybe it's lack of skill on the writer's part that causes the disconnect. Maybe it's just that when viewed from the outside a story, character, or sitution just looks different and the writer isn't at fault.
Notice I'm not blaming the reader here. In most cases, I simply won't do it. Especially when so many of them are on the same page when it comes to their reactions.
So, lessons learned? A few, but so far nothing on the unreliable narrator front. A lot of my theories got confirmed. A some of my theories got shot to hell. That's going to take some mulling over the story iteself, as well as the FB, before I come up with any solid conclusions on that front.
As I demonstrated above, negative FB, or even positive FB that isn't exactly pleasing to you, is very, very helpful if you're looking to improve as a writer. It doesn't matter how good you are (or think you are), the checks and balances readers put on writers is (I think) invaluable. Good FB (even if it's less-than-glowing) is an invaluable service. It may piss me off, it may make me want to pull my hair out, I may not agree with it at all. That said, I can usually find something, even it's a throw-away comment, that I can use.
Although, I've recently learned that sometimes you have to discrimate between negative FB to a story's structure/construction and writing issues vs. reaction to an idea that's expressed in a story that someone doesn't like. Those are two very different issues.
Criticizing an idea (such as the point the story's trying to make, or the fact you're saying something about a character's state of mind) falls into much fuzzier area where, I think, I'd be hard-pressed to find middle ground. Part of it is because it falls within the realm where our views on canon characters disconnect, part of it is because an idea I don't find repellent is repellent to someone else (and visa versa).
What I find intriguing, however, is that the line between negative FB on a writing issue vs. an idea is just as fuzzy. I think that's where my disagreements sometimes come in with negative FB. Someone my think the "idea" being explored is a writing issue, when from my point of view it isn't. It could be beause that wasn't the issue I was exploring when I wrote the story. It could be that I personally didn't think it was important. It could be that I think you're missing the entire point of what the story's trying to say about the characters enmeshed in it.
Now, with a WiP, you can discuss this issue and engage in a meaningful conversation.
However, what do you do with an older story like Into the Desert? The woman who wrote that story is (in some ways) not the same woman who's writing Facing the Heart of Darkness. That's one issue. The other is that I conceed right up front that the writing isn't the best I can do, even if it was the best I could do at the time. I can clearly see the good points and bad points of the story. Furthmore, my view of all the characters (yes, including Spike) have changed and evolved over time, in large part because I've written them more (or in Spike's case, really thought deeply about his characterization for the first time).
Yet, I reposted it, leaving it as-is. While I'd love to go back and re-write the Buffy parts of that story, doing so (in my mind) is somewhat dishonest. I find it instructive to go back to older stories and critically look at them. I like tearing them apart down to the component elements. It helps me see areas where I have improved, but also where I've failed to improve. It also shows the new bad habits I've picked up over time.
So, when you get negative FB on an older story, how do you respond? How can you respond? It's an old photograph, and may not necessarily represent your current output. How do you explain that this one story does not represent your "usual" or that what's in this story is not at all what exists in the rest of your portfolio? Worse, how do you do it without sounding defensive?
It's a puzzle, one that's made harder when the FB you want to respond to disappears before you get a chance to respond. While I'm tempted to try a direct email, I'm not sure if it would be considered rude and intrusive.
I know, I've raised far more questions than I've answered in this tl;dr musing on "good" vs. "negative" FB.
On the whole, I think the issue of FB is a delicate balancing act. I don't just mean in giving appropriate FB, but in appropriately responding to it.
Anyone out there have any thoughts on the matter? I'd love to hear from you and what you think about this issue.
no subject
Okay, that was a long sentence :-)
But yes, I'm with you; negative, questioning feedback, if polite, can be fascinating and enlightening and make you dig deeper into the story than maybe you did when you were writing it.
no subject
Why that part isn't taken into consideration (character bias), is one that utterly mystifies me.
Now, to be honest, I didn't read Hollow Heart because Wes/Faith is not a pairing that interests me, but it seems odd to me that people would leap to a conclusion that you were being unfair in your portrayal of Buffy and Giles, especially since you both have a track record of being fair to those characters.
no subject
except me and Kennedy once)some bailed.no subject
Of course, by "suggestions" readers usually just think you mean "character pairings" or "plot ideas" which is... well. Not quite what one wants. Sometimes I've thought about asking on my ff.net fics if any lit or creative writing students could comment on the level of the prose and say what they did and didn't like but I fear that's so snobby and elitist people would be frightened out of commenting. I don't want to disaffect my readers either. Sometimes "OMGSQUEE" is all they have to say.
no subject
However, I occassionally run into someone who wants to dictate the "terms," i.e., plot and pairings (such as they are). Those suggestions are actually annoying, because you get the sense that the other person likes the basic idea, but wants to cut out the parts that make them uncomfortale or squicks them out.
*shrug*
It's a tough issue to wrestle with on both ends and I don't think the tension is going to be resolved. For one thing, the line between acceptable criticism and where criticism steps over the line into dictating what you want in a story is different from writer to writer. I know I'm much looser than a lot of writers on that score, but not as loose as some others. But that line can be difficult to define in some cases, and sometimes you don't realize you have a line until someone steps over it.
It's an interesting issue, in either case.
no subject
I've even had people go a step further and assume that a character's experiences directly reflected my own, to the point where I wrote a story in which a character had a miscarriage and at least two readers assumed that I had also had one.
Nonetheless, I don't think it's a mistake to write major canon characters as unreliable narrators. I think it's something that depends a lot on the fandom, for one thing. I mean, nobody in Firefly fandom is going to begrudge you for writing Jayne or River as perceiving things in a way that's visibly "off." Buffyverse fandom is, among the fandoms I've participated in, one of the most obnoxious in terms of insisting that their favorite characters can do no wrong. And even there, it depends on the character: you're going to have a lot less trouble selling a fic in which Lilah narrates unreliably than one in which Xander does.
Which is frustrating, because I have to say, my favorites of your Xander fics are the ones where you set him up with a clear and jaundiced angle and extrapolate from that. It makes him, as you say, that much more human. But then, I've never been a big Xander fan, so I think I like him better when he's a little messy, you know?
no subject
Why Buffy fandom is so defensive regarding their favorite characters...I'm at a loss. I suspect quite a bit of it is rooted in the various online wankfests what would happen while the show was on the air, but to paraphrase Xander's line, "At some point, that stops being a good excuse." I've seen the same thing to a lesser extent in Highlander and X-Files fandom.
I don't know why the culture in some fandoms encourages that point of view (my fave character is always right) vs. a more flexible view (my fave character is sometimes a raging jerk). You would think that Buffy fandom would be more accepting of moments of jerkiness since all the characters had their share of Polaroid moments. It's a complete mystery to me.
I have to admit that no one, so far, has assumed that a character's experiences are mine. I admit that that particular twist is a new one on me.
no subject
The most important thing about concrit to me is that it create an engagement. Either the writer gets to defend the story and change the critter's (haha critter. OK) mind, or the critter defends her point and opens the writer's eyes.
The problem there is people only see the con and not the structive part. hahaha ok bad pun. But people often only see the negative instead of how that negativity can help you. People who want to leave concrit are often aware of that and are afraid that their concrit will be taken the wrong way, which is why I assume your critter took down her comment. And if you had responded, she's probably so wary as a critter that she might've taken your reply as merely defensive rather that thoughtful or engaging.
But it seems to me you understand that the story has some missteps, and that your perceptions about the characters since then has evolved. I don't understand what would have been wrong with saying, "yeah, I wrote this fic a while ago, and I realize there are some parts in it that aren't so good. My opinions since then have evolved." If it's that you would like to engage in discussion with the fber, can't you just say what you think the bad points were and what you think now? That doesn't seem at all defensive to me.
I guess, lastly, I'm kind of confused about why do you feel the need to explain that this story doesn't represent your usual output. Is it so the reader will think better of you? Or so the reader may reconsider reading your other stories, and give you another chance? If that's the case, then I can see how maybe a response you concot could be considered defensive, but if you want to engage in a discussion about that story, the important thing is to admit that you know there were problems in it, not that your other stories are so much better. The critter isn't insulting you as a writer or a person, and you have no need to defend yourself as such.
Um, anyway, I wasn't trying to preach at you so much as express my own problems that I've run into with concrit. So often the writer seems to want to defend herself or the entire body of her work, when I've just pointed out one thing that was wrong in an old piece she did. It's easier when she admits that yes, there were problems with the piece, or that she doesn't agree with some of the things in the piece now, rather than trying to convince me that I shouldn't "blame" her because now her opinions have changed. I'm not saying that's what you're doing or would've done; that's just the impression I've gotten from other sometimes when I tried to concrit.
no subject
Which is exactly what I want to try to avoid at all times. What holds true in one story is not going to hold true in another, so it's (I think) unfair to tell the reader, "Well, I'm not usually like this, so try this other story."
Yet, on the other hand, I do think it's fair to point out that it's an older story that has some problems...and that there are certain things I did back then that I wouldn't do this time around. Which...no matter how you slice it, does sound defensive even though it isn't the intent. It's a case of: "I'd rather have this conversation face-to-face so you can see I'm not being defensive."
The fact is, at the time I was happy with the story in question. Now I'm happy with parts of it, but not in others. Some of the flaws that were pointed out I thought were very fair, other points I disagreed with, but I was interested in hearing more regarding the points I disagreed with. I suppose I'm interested in the discussion itself, but the person who left the feedback and then deleted it had no way of knowing that about me.
So, in a sense, I can understand why the person cancelled it.
The uncertainty of how someone would respond to critical FB has certainly more than once had me killing my feedback before it posts, so I honestly have no room to talk.
no subject
But yes, it is difficult to engage in discussion with a critter when you disagree. It's there that a response is more likely to come off defensive.
And yeah, I've deleted quite a bit of critical fb myself (before I posted it, I mean). But, well, it bears talking about, because sometimes I wish I could be more open with my criticisms. But sometimes I'm glad so many people seem not to appreciate it--then I'm free to say what I like and leave out difficult explanations about what I didn't like. I'm lazy that way.
no subject
Something like that anyhow. A bit of sweet in with the sour is always good, something to encourage the writer. But yeah, chrit is always good, it's what helps you improve.
no subject
IMO, feedback, constructive feedback is always good. Positive, any kind of positive feedback is good in a people care sense.
As how to responde to negative feedback, *shrug* the written medium, especially one as the Internet, is not conductive to having your opinions perceived in the correct way. I know I've had people misinterpret me. I'm sure I've misinterpreted people. You can try not to sound defensive, but without body language to help interpret your meaning, people might take it the wrong way, so, unless you know the person it's a roll of the dice.
no subject
The most negative feedback I ever recieved was confusing as hell, as the writer's main beef was that Alexis Denisof (or whomever plays Wesley) doesn't pause when he speaks, and then went off on tangent that seemed to imply that she thought I was writing RPS...when I wasn't. She also mentioned she didn't like the story at all. This led to a mini-kerfluffle with respondent and respondents girlfriend despite all efforts to keep this from occurring.
As a result, I've been very leary about asking for concrit, or any feedback beyond "Yes please, give me some."
no subject
I have noticed that the Buffy fandom seems to have high percentage of readers/viewers who take the characters at gheir word, even though it is beyond obvious that s/he is unreliable at best; a self serving liar at worst. Favorite example? Spike.
Since I'm tired of using the example from Becoming how about Fool for Love for a change. I can't tell you he number of people who insist that Spike is right about slayers having this death wish and how Spike has this great insight into people. Except that the Chinese girl apologized to her mother for failing (hardly the last words of someone who wishes to die) and Nikki just got unlucky - she had Spike on the ropes.
So I tend to think the fault is more with your readers who take every word spoken as gospel, no matter the evidence.
Constructive feedback and a question
(Anonymous) 2006-11-06 05:15 pm (UTC)(link)I like how you write, your stories, character portrail, sinarios, its all awesome and a cut above anyone elses in terms of style, humor and creativity. My favorite stories by you, far and wide, are Whisper and , damn it, the title illudes me, Faith, Xander, the Addams family TV near shippiness that happens.
Your first person narrative stories with the unreliable narrator are amazingly well done, mostly my feedback is about Facing the Heart in Darkness. Either I'm a more than averagely dence twenty-something male and just can't appreciate how long you can make Eva run around in circles of pure chaos- I _do_ appreciate and enjoy the running in circles and how well you've accomplished it - my main concern is the overwhelming length of this WIP.
As I've been following this work from chapter 1, and after it hit chapter 35 or so, it occured to me that you might very well be lost in your own monster of a work. It's pretty massive, the situation that you currently have, but in fifty chapters time, even with Eva's delightfully right and wrong quirky narratives, I've found my attention span begin to fail. As far as actual plot goes, I can't tell if Facing the Heart in Darkness is evolving into a much larger story. I was thinking it may be because you might be enjoying writing Eva too much to allow her to evolve accordingly as situations develop. Hense my thinking you may be, or atleast might have been- trapped. Your most recent chapters on this fic have jump started the actual progression of events a great extent, which I like.
I guess my main question should really be, is Facing the Heart in Darkness mostly an exercise of making a non-canon character completely her own, individual and learning how to fit her into a Buffy-verse situation?
And there's always a chance that I just don't get it. But I'll keep reading anyway. I might eventually clue in, who knows.
Thanks for the many excellent fics to date, I personally find nearly all of your works exponentially better than most I normally have to pay to read.
Keith Lyons
no subject
On the feedback issue, I welcome negative feedback, but it takes people awhile to realize that. I have seen some people respond to what I thought was a point of information as if it were a flame. People get very touchy about their babies and it can take a reader some time to realize you aren't going to blow a gasket if you say you they got a fact wrong, let alone that their characterization was off. I think the only thing that really works is experience. The more thoughtful readers see you not biting the heads off other critiquers, the more confident they will be to offer their honest opinions.
no subject
As far as feedback goes.... Well, I'm in the middle of my first fanfic story that I've ever posted anywhere so I don't know if I'm the best person to give my opinion on that. As far as constructive criticism goes I think thats good. In fact, you gave me some that I really appreciated and found helpful. Negative FB can also be good, I think, if it helps the writer improve. I think any Writer who's worth anything at all wants to improve. You know! wants to get better at it with each story they write, and any FB thats helps that along is good for the writer. I think it's non-sensible flaming thats pretty useless. I don't think that you should have to defend everything that you write to said reader though, just because they didn't see or appreciate where your going with a story. I think to some degree stories are like art. There are some stories or art some people like and there are some types they don't. If you get a critique on your work where the commenter is giving you FB you can use to make it better than great. If they don't or can't then it's really no use worrying about it.
Oh! By the way, I'm going to friend you if thats okay?
LMZ
no subject
My only pick with this series is that you don't seem to be following up fully on comments on grammar and spelling. After I'd found errors remaining in almost every chapter I was going to comment and list them but then saw that although you'd corrected the problem when the comment was made within a few days of posting this was rarely the case with later comments. I'm happy to provide FB of this sort of thing (I can be a pedant about spelling/grammar) but not if it's going to be ignored. On the other hand I can see why, with your prodigious output, you'd have to draw the line at some point.
In general I find negative FB to be a very awkward issue. It's a pity that LJ won't let you comment in a way that is only visible to the author because sometimes I'd like to comment and/or make suggestions for improvement but feel bad about doing it in public. Particularly when, although I've read widely, I've not written much myself. On the other hand, in my own writing I've found constructive negative FB much more valuable in many ways: positive is good for the ego but it's not going to improve your writing skills. The feedback I got from my beta before I posted "Those Whom Moses Forgets" made a big difference to the final result and, I think, improved it immensely.
no subject
So, although negative feedback is useful, it's hard for me to take. When I give negative feedback to people, it's usually only to people I know. Even then, I think it's hard for me to GIVE negative feedback.
Oh, and you're right that it's important to respond appropriately to negative feedback. The author should always be courteous and thank the person for commenting, or for pointing out errors. Or you know, the author should at least be gracious, even if they disagree with what the reader said.