I recently wrote a story that received immediate, passionate, but negative responses from my cold reader. He doesn't talk about or criticize my actual writing in any way; he's too wrapped up in outrage at my story.
It got me wondering. Clearly my subject matter and my treatment of it affronted him. The email goes on and on ... and on. But isn't such a strong response better than apathy?
Clearly I made this reader feel something intense, and that's good, but ... I don't want to turn readers off ... that's bad!
I keep getting caught in circular logic, so I thought I'd open the topic up for discussion.
I have one like that; while some people seem to like it, others are outraged by the morally questionable tactics of the main characters. I've decided I like it and that if it upsets some people, then maybe the characters are believable, for readers would not be upset by cardboard characters.
So maybe your reader's strong reaction is a good thing. Can you get more readers for it, perhaps in the appropriate F&F thread?
"There is clearly a lot of native ability at work here and it's a shame to see it so underutilized in this way, on this material."
and there was this one:
"If the goal here was to create a sort of anti-storytelling, then I think the author has succeeded admirably."
and this one:
"I think I'd like to read something else by this author that's a little less hell-bent on breaking the spell."
However, I don't see those comments as being particularly rude or beyond the pale, or even indicative of LucyintheSky's abilities as a writer. I think he's just underwhelmed and a little outraged that the writer's talents weren't properly utilized for that particular story.
I also don't think this is the kind of reaction Ben Bova was talking about. As TaleSpinner said, it's a reaction, positive or negative, about the characters, not "anti-storytelling".
Don't change readers, LucyintheSky, but I'd be curious as to what exactly he took offense at, other than "this material"? What was the subject matter, and what about the treatment of it that caused the strong reaction?
In the days when I was writing Internet Fan Fiction, there was a story circulating that drew these incredibly passionate reactions, pro and con. (In fact, the argument was still percolating here-and-there when I finally left the field, some four years after I started.)
The story involved a rape, and, it seemed to me, a lot of the "con" point of view confused writing about rape with rape itself. In addition, there was a lot of denigrating of the story, the writer, and anybody who took a "pro" position.
Now, I know you can't expect professional responses from the fanfic field---I found that amateurishness part of its charm, actually---but, I gather, published stories in the SF field have provoked similar responses.
I gather, back in the 1950s, there was a fairly long argument over the merits of Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations." I don't want to spoil it for any of you who haven't read it---you all should have---but the argument raged over the laws of physics and whether something that was done in the story had to be done or could have been avoided. Eventually, the argument pushed on to other issues, and there were accusations that Godwin had lifted the basic idea from a comic book published a few years earlier. (Kill the message, kill the messenger.)
Were these stories good? "The Cold Equations" has lingered with me since I read it, though I never thought I particularly cared for it. That Internet Fanfic story I mentioned has stayed with me---I liked it enough to mail the writer a lengthy unsolicited critique---and practically set off my own fanfic career.
I'd suggest, LucyintheSky, that if any story you've written provokes that kind of reaction, you may be on to something.
If your intent is to shock, then you can become identified with it. I think Harlan Ellison is a case in point for me. I can't remember what I read of his, but I was so put off, I never read another thing he wrote.
In my experience it all depends on context.
quote:
I think a piece of fiction can create very strong negative reactions, whether that makes it good I don't know.
If the negative response was based on an emotional reaction to to the story characters and events, as in, for example, relatively famous works like Lolita or Ulysses that offended morals, then it could be a good thing from an artistic perspective. The story itself evoked the emotions.
If the negative reaction was based on the reader feeling duped somehow, or her/his time was wasted, etc., then it's probably not so good. The quality (lack of, actually) of the story evoked the emotions.
And it could be relatively neutral if the simple existence of the subject matter caused the angst. The story might have had nothing to do with it.
Of course, any single opinion by itself should be regarded with caution.
[This message has been edited by dee_boncci (edited February 26, 2009).]
Any hints on what he was talking about? Or what the subject matter was?
By the way, in my opinion, nothing is taboo. I've been told on more than one occasion that I'm a sick puppy, and though they may be right, there is nothing that is forbidden to write about. Absolutely nothing.
And lest that means that I'm in favor of stuff like NAMBLA fiction, or shock for shock's sake, I'm not. There must be a point in tackling a taboo subject as opposed to just writing about it for a gross out factor.
quote:
"There is clearly a lot of native ability at work here and it's a shame to see it so underutilized in this way, on this material."and there was this one:
"If the goal here was to create a sort of anti-storytelling, then I think the author has succeeded admirably."
and this one:
"I think I'd like to read something else by this author that's a little less hell-bent on breaking the spell."
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited February 26, 2009).]
The purpose of a critique is to help the writer turn the manuscript (the words on paper or screen) into the best vehicle possible for conveying the story (which is what is in the writer's head) to the reader.
Feedback that doesn't help the words on paper/screen do a better job of recreating the writer's story in the reader's head is not worth worrying about.
The quotes above say more about the critiquer than they do about the work.
. Once the cat's out of the bag everyone can feel free to throw stones my way. Although now I'm so nervous about this dang story that I kind of want to bury it, and myself, under a rock for a while.
Just stick it out. No doubt this critiquer had some serious personal issues and vented on you.
I don't think I'm cut out for scandal.
Also I would have to agree, critique is about writing, not to degrade the writer. The writer undoubtedly has potential, but needs to be offered outside opinions about how effectively the story is written to convey it's intent to it's readers. If that makes sense.
[This message has been edited by LucyintheSky (edited March 22, 2009).]