Feedback In The Hole!

[lebateleur]

switchknife had an lj article in which feeback was discussed. It's here. I commented here and received this reply.

I was going to respond to the reply, but before I knew it, I had a full-blown essay of my own on my hands, and one that doesn't deal entirely with the original comment, so my response is going to live here instead.

The commentor wrote: *at the very least* one thing to remark on to do with the story in particular ('I really liked the way you chose to say this here.' 'It was really interesting how you used that theme.' 'Oh, I so get how you chose to characterise [insert character.]' etc.) then why are they bothering and not doing something more productive with their fannish time?

Which got me to thinking: a rose by any other name...

Basically, I'm always happy when anyone takes the time to leave a comment on one of my fics - even if it consists entirely of 'nice read. thnx' because no one's obligated to do so and if they read the fic and don't review, I'm none the wiser. Of course, if someone takes the time to say why they liked the fic, so much the better, and of course concrit and a dissertation on Why Your Fic Works is gold, but here's the kicker:

It strikes me as disingenious to claim that a reviewer is wasting her time if she doesn't mention why she liked one's work. An author who says, 'tell me why you liked it' is essentially saying, 'tell me why I'm amazing and talented and wonderful.' Nothing wrong with that per se - after all, who doesn't want to be told that they're amazing and talented and wonderful - but it's dishonest to say that you aren't satisfied with readers who don't say 'why' because they're wasting their time, when what you're really saying is, I want you to sing my praises.

Still, that little voice in the back of my is head honest enough to admit that I do prefer the dissertations to the 'why it worked's, and that I prefer both of those to the 'wow grate ficcy!'s. This made me realise that while people in switchknife's thread were quick to note that not all authors are the same, no one seems to have mentioned that not all reviewers are the same, in essence that there is not one monolithic, static The Reviewer.

There's an obvious learning curve when it comes to writing fanfic. And although it's just occurred to me, it should have been obvious that there's a learning curve when it comes to writing feedback as well. Just as most of the first time teenage fanfic authors haven't yet learned to skilfully employ plot, pacing, and characterisation, most of the first time teenage fanfic reviewers have likely yet to learn how to skilfully explain why a piece of writing works and how. Remember, this is what they're currently going to school to learn. Could you write a decent book report at the age of twelve? Perhaps, but can't you write even better reports now that you're seventeen, twenty-five, thirtysomething?

I'm willing to bet that there's a significant correlation between 'good' reviews and the age/school history of the reveiwers. I'm also willing to bet that authors write better reviews than non-authors, because there's nothing like trying to write an IC, plausible, engaging piece of fiction to make you appreciate how much effort it takes for anyone to do so.

Personally, I tend to think of anyone who reads/reviews my fics as another me - no longer a teenager, a fellow writer, college graduate - and this is likely not the case. So it seems somewhat unreasonable, if not ungrateful, to expect all of my audience to respond to and review my fics as if they were another me.

Which is just a very longwinded way of saying that I'm still quite happy to receive any feedback whatsoever, including those pesky 'reeks of early adolescence' reviews.

これで以上です。

Comments

[saeva.livejournal.com]

Hi. Excuse me. This is your journal and, of course, you have rights to do whatever you like on it and I wouldn't dream of imposing on that. However, I would ask, as the poster/writer/reader that you just greviously misrepresented, that you either quote the entirety of my point, or not at all.

The beginning of the sentence that lebateleur quoted, goes like this: "So, if they don't have at least one "negative" (and I use that term loosely because my idea of positively constructive seems to be everyone else's negative) thing to say, something constructive beyond giving the author a buzz of joy (which is nice, but... yeah, if it meant better feedback I'd totally trade in for a different model,)..."

So, for those you who put the together the entire sentence I was in no way, at all, beyond a doubt of common sense, stating that I want reviewers to sing my praises. I specifically mentioned NEGATIVE commentary (otherwise known as con-crit) BEFORE I mentioned positive commentary (that's what the whole "or, at least" was about) because I prefer the former. I believe the former is more useful and I'd be jazzed as all get out if the former was included in feedback more.

I feel that I've been incredibly misrepresented here and I resent that, because that wasn't what I was saying -- that's *clearly* wasn't what I was saying or else I would not have mentioned negative commentary, let alone before positive commentary.

Now, to get more to the problem at hand, my objection is to Generic Feedback. Generic Feedback, in my opinion, in a plague on creativity, just like Generic Manners are a plague of human consideration. When so many people ask 'How are you?' just because it's "polite" and the thing to do the words lose all meaning. People ask when they don't care. People don't respond honestly and open up a discourse because they know the other person doesn't care. It's sickening and just another way of removing the humanity and factuality from life.

So, I have a problem with Generic Feedback whether it be "It rocked!" or "It sucked!" I don't have a problem with people not singing my praises (I do have friends.) I don't have a problem with people not ripping my stuff apart (I do have betas.) I have a problem with the inconsideration and apathy of generic commentary.

That's my position. But even though you couldn't have known *that* unless you read my comments on the other page of Switchknife's post, I think it's wholly clear that my position is not 'people should sing my praises' just from my reply to you. Thank you.

- Andrea.

[daisy-drabbles.livejournal.com]

As a non-biased bystander in the discussions (for I do not know you or lebateleur), I for one never entertained the thought that this post was a deliberate misrepresentation, or even accidental misrepresentation of the point you were trying to get across in the Switchblade discussion held previously, but rather a tangent on a subject brought about in part by the conversation itself. Indeed, lebataleur stated initially that the reason she posted this here and Not as a reply was because as her thought formulated, it was less a reply to you, but rather a dissertation on a tangent of what was being talked about - hence your quote was only taken for the part that was pertinent to the idea she had come upon. Not a misrepresentation, but the beginnings of an idea to a further understanding of some of the opinions in fandom. Perhaps this would have seemed less an attack, as you seem to be taking it, had you not been quoted at all, but I do not see where in this post her intentions were other then musings on a subject that merely happened to be brought about in the thread referenced.

Personally, I happen to agree with her ideas, mostly because I am one of those people who does not find a lot of time to leave lengthy comments on fics I read, and will often resort to the "I Loved this!" line to at least let the writer know I read it, and enjoyed it. I have an extremely busy schedule, and I often mark fics I would like to read for my free time, which means by the time I'm done usually, I only have a short time left to comment on them. This isn't always the case, and when I do find the time to leave a more responsive review, I will do so as well as I can. There are also times when I simply cannot point out or specify the why and what parts of a fic I enjoyed, or why. Sometimes I merely enjoy the fic as a whole, with no other reason for enjoying it then it was damned good. Or a fic has left me too flabber-minded to formulate coherency in a reply, hence... another short review of praise.

As an Artist by trade, I Live off of feedback, constructive or otherwise. It helps me to hone my skills for the next gallery piece I may be working on. I understand completely the need of the creator to understand the points in the piece that people liked, and why, and what it made them feel. However, I can also understand when someone looks at my artwork and tells me they love it, and upon asking why they love it, they can only shrug and reply "I'm not sure, I just Do." Not everyone is an artist, afterall, and a lot of times the responses are emotional -- which is a horribly confusing thing to try and explain in words. The same holds true for writers and readers. I've found that pure readers are more apt to leave the shorter "generic" responses to prose; and alot of that is because of the emotional response to the piece provoked, the inability to be able to articulate why they enjoyed it. Does this disavow the nature of their comments? Of course not, it is merely that they do not have the ability to express themselves in a more constructive fashion.

I have to say I find it a bit presumptuous to write off "Generic feedback" as a plague of creativity. To do so assumes you already understand the thoughts and motives behind the people who leave such notes, already understand how their lives and minds work. For all you are aware of, the person leaving the comment "This Rocked" could merely be extremely pressed for time. That they left any comment at all should be enough to assure you that they read the story and enjoyed it. (Or in the negative sense, did not enjoy it.) Perhaps it may seem like a waste of time to you, but to people who are writing the comments.. on the positive side, isn't it safe to assume they did so only from an appreciation of you work? And in that, isn't that a Good thing? On the negative side... well. There is always going to be a negative side, and negative generic comments are things better left ignored. (As well for me, personally, negative explained comments. I have no problem with Constructive criticism, but if the only point to a comment, even one well thought out, was to tear down my work bit by bit without offering up a way to improve it... that almost seems worse then the generic version.)

/daisy

[lebateleur.livejournal.com]

I specifically mentioned NEGATIVE commentary (otherwise known as con-crit) BEFORE I mentioned positive commentary (that's what the whole "or, at least" was about) because I prefer the former. I believe the former is more useful and I'd be jazzed as all get out if the former was included in feedback more.

So would most authors, I'm willing to bet. However, expecting Jane Reader to be able to walk into fandom off the street, as it were, and know that a) (some, but not all) authors want concrit and b) how to write insightful commentary on a story, is unrealistic. My whole point is that writing (what an author might consider) useful feedback is an acquired skill. And in order for it to be acquired, one must first realise the need for it, and then practise doing it. If people are being shut down during the early stages, they'll never learn how to do it well.

When so many people ask 'How are you?' just because it's "polite" and the thing to do the words lose all meaning. People ask when they don't care. People don't respond honestly and open up a discourse because they know the other person doesn't care. It's sickening and just another way of removing the humanity and factuality from life.

Actually, no. It's called etiquette and its whole purpose is to facilitate human interaction. Try spending a day at work or in public without using it unless you really do care, and see how successful your interactions are. But politeness in social situations and feedbacking fanfic are two different animals. A reviewer gains nothing by leaving you feedback, while a receptionist having a shitty day may indeed gain something by pretending to mean it when he's polite to clients.

(And for the record, as of writing this yesterday, I'd read all five pages of commentary on switchknife's lj.)

[stormshaman.livejournal.com]

This is somewhat out of order. Please bear with me.

However, I would ask, as the poster/writer/reader that you just greviously misrepresented, that you either quote the entirety of my point, or not at all.

How did she misrepresent? By posting a link to her comment and your reply before replying to the part of your statement that she wanted to reply to? Heaven forbid.

Now, to get more to the problem at hand, my objection is to Generic Feedback. Generic Feedback, in my opinion, in a plague on creativity, just like Generic Manners are a plague of human consideration.

I disagree. Most of the feedback that I get is generic--I deal with it by using it as a springboard to draw the feedback-giver into a conversation, much like Generic Manners are generally used as a springboard to draw another person into a conversation (or just to make the other person feel better by giving the impression that s/he's important to somebody).

When so many people ask 'How are you?' just because it's "polite" and the thing to do the words lose all meaning. People ask when they don't care. People don't respond honestly and open up a discourse because they know the other person doesn't care. It's sickening and just another way of removing the humanity and factuality from life.

Clearly you don't interact with people much, if you truly believe that (referring to the part in bold specifically, and the rest of that comment in general). But then, your comments give me the impression that you are a thoroughly unpleasant person, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

So, for those you who put the together the entire sentence I was in no way, at all, beyond a doubt of common sense, stating that I want reviewers to sing my praises.

I didn't get that from your original comment. I didn't get that from the snippet that lebateleur posted. I don't see that anyone else got that either. But I guess we're just not as intelligent as you are.

So, I have a problem with Generic Feedback whether it be "It rocked!" or "It sucked!" I don't have a problem with people not singing my praises (I do have friends.) I don't have a problem with people not ripping my stuff apart (I do have betas.) I have a problem with the inconsideration and apathy of generic commentary.

Have you bothered trying to turn that "generic feedback" into something more to your liking by asking the reviewer why s/he thought it rocked or sucked? I am guessing no, given the hard twist that your underoos have apparently gotten into over one person's comments.

I specifically mentioned NEGATIVE commentary (otherwise known as con-crit)

How is constructive criticism "negative commentary"? Perhaps it's just my age, but I was raised to believe that constructive criticism was just that--constructive (and therefore positive, i.e. good).

Just my 2 cents--and yes, I've read all of your comments.

[lebateleur.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting - you've covered a lot of what I was trying to say perhaps more clearly than I did! Incidentally, I was really intrigued by this bit:

I disagree. Most of the feedback that I get is generic--I deal with it by using it as a springboard to draw the feedback-giver into a conversation, much like Generic Manners are generally used as a springboard to draw another person into a conversation (or just to make the other person feel better by giving the impression that s/he's important to somebody).

Which strikes me as an ingenious way to turn 'generic' feedback into something more. I try to thank all the people who review my stories (though my track record isn't perfect), but I hadn't thought to try asking them questions about what they dis/liked and why. switchknife asked readers to leave one liners if they didn't have the time for anything else; I imagine that if a hurried reviewer got an email from the author asking for clarification, she'd probably be happy to provide it when she's free. At the very least the reviewer knows the author is interested in dialogue, should she wish to pursue it.

And BTW: MACGYVER ICON!!!

[stormshaman.livejournal.com]

Well like I said in Switchknife's journal, I get very little feedback as it is (it's the nature of the hockey fandom (which I write in)--everybody has their favorite teams, and they tend to ignore everything that's written about other teams). So every bit that I get is precious to me, and I try to extend it as much as possible whenever possible.

(and here's another RDA ikon for you--I've got a few) :)

Hockey?

[lebateleur.livejournal.com]

Did you say 'hockey?' As in NHL? Oh, how I do miss hockey. What teams are you into? Japan's sort of the third world of hockey, so I don't really get my fix any more.

And yeay! more MacGyver loving:)

Re: Hockey?

[stormshaman.livejournal.com]

Did you say 'hockey?' As in NHL? Oh, how I do miss hockey. What teams are you into?

Yes, as in NHL (AHL, ECHL, and the other minor leagues too--some folks even write college hockey fics). :D

I'm a passionately-devoted fan of the Carolina Hurricanes, but I also follow the Vancouver Canucks, Nashville Predators, and Tampa Bay Lightning.

(of course, they all take a back seat to the 'Canes, but I still follow them)

Japan's sort of the third world of hockey, so I don't really get my fix any more.

Do you take in any JIHL games at all? Or do you not live near any of the teams?

Re: Hockey?

[lebateleur.livejournal.com]

Coolness! I like the Canucks as well, and also the Red Wings and the Pens. When I lived in Indiana, I used to see a lot of IU, ND, and UM college games as well.

Do you take in any JIHL games at all? Or do you not live near any of the teams?

Unfortunately no, as I live in the backwaters of this great, urban country. And the recent 'hockey'-based dorama was horrible, to add insult to injury.

::le sigh::