![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI made a thought on a comment thread, and now I put it here for safekeeping. And also because it got a lot longer and about more things.
'Writing' can mean different categories of things, with different purposes. The difference I have noticed is between communication, expression and inspiration.
Communication involves getting an idea from one head to another, preferably with no data loss.
Expression involves getting an idea from inside the writer, head or heart or soul or muse or whatever, into some form in the world.
Pure expression doesn't even have to be seen by anyone else to have achieved its goal.
Inspiration is to make people feel a thing. (If there is a better word for this, please tell me.)
Not a specific thing. A piece of art can be very good art and make everyone who interacts with it feel something different. If they all have a different idea of what it is 'about' then communication has not happened. But it is still doing something.
It doesn't even have to be expression or start with a person, found art does this to people too.
Writers can be devoted to any or all of these goals.
Some forms of writing, technical, manuals, newspaper stuff, is assumed to be pure communication and not any kind of expression. Passing ideas along without adding something from inside the writer. Which I think is actually part of what people who don't call fanfic 'real' writing mean as well, that the writer hasn't added any of themselves to it.
Of course a writer has added bits of themselves - time, effort, ideology, all sorts of things. But the thing they are communicating noticeably starts outside of them.
'Original' fiction, or poems or plays, apparently starts from inside a writer, so it looks like they gave more of themselves to the work. That gets called 'real' writing more often.
When it comes to writing fanfic I think the original text can be seen as either communicating or inspiring.
If fanfic is an act of communication, if it is meant to communicate truths from the source text, then data loss, such as errors in fact checking, is contrary to the *primary* purpose of fanfic.
If however fanfic is a response to inspiration, if people felt a thing because of the source text and therefore want to express that thing, then fact checking is incidental or even counterproductive. The parts that stayed with them, the things they believe to be true, those are the parts that are essential to expressing what a text made them feel/think/believe/remember.
And if fanfic is just using handy already available parts to try and make people feel something (usually, on the net, turned on) then facts are almost entirely incidental. Except for the part where people won't recognise the parts being used if too much gets changed.
Clear sets of shared rules are essential to communication, because they stop ideas getting mangled in transit. They are helpful to inspiration and entirely incidental to expression.
So grammar and spelling are essential to communication, rules of story structure are helpful to inspiration, but all of them are besides the point for expression.
When people talk about 'writing' they mean at least one of these kinds of writing. Writings. But because the kinds have different purposes and basic rules, using one word to mean all three causes confusion and conflicts.
And 'conflicts' of course can mean anything from polite disagreements to huge great ongoing feuds that factionalise fandoms. It can get very personal.
One opinion of criticising a story reckons that it isn't about the writer, just the writing. Seperate from the person.
But writing that is expression is getting something from inside the writer to the outside. People are criticising your insides! Woe!
Yes, it should be seperate. No, it doesn't always feel like that.
Also I have a whole rolled up newspaper loop in my head about not being perfect. Error = *whap!* So pointing out error feels like *whap* even if the writer doesn't mean it that way. This is an example of the mix up between communication and inspiration - writer might be saying only one thing, but it makes readers feel things entirely independently.
And then some readers react as if the inspiration was actually a communication, because the writing made them feel bad so the writer must have meant to make them feel bad so *whap!* them back.
I, er, try to keep in mind the seperation. And not translate 'this story made me feel bad' to email saying 'this story was wrong wrong wrong!!!!!!!' and say bad writing when I meant I felt bad.
(I apologised a lot when I calmed down.)
There is another problem when part of putting a story in front of people isn't actually about the story at all.
Once people start talking about a story it becomes a social exercise. The writer is trying to join in with a communal activity, the shared creation of stories that we do in this fanfic community.
The hoped for response is 'welcome to the community!' Or, if not the first story, 'glad to have you be one of us!' If instead the response is to say the writing is not good, that can feel like being pushed out of the group, told you can't sit at the table. Uncomfortable.
If writing is social, the response needed to make happy people is 'well done! write more! be one of us!' If the 'well done' applies only to the courage and time and effort involved, the constructive criticism would theoretically be helpful.
BUT to get people to hear it without hearing the 'go away we don't like you' part, you have to put it in a wrapper. Something like "Hi, welcome, good story, keep writing. Here are some things that could be better. Write another one with all that corrected and people will be even happier to read it!"
Er, probably not exactly like that.
I'm beginning to get the hang of *noticing* social, just not necessarily *being* social.
But the social parts of writing wrap around the technical parts, on account of humans being social creatures interacting in this here online community. Delivering only the technical means leaving out the social. Lack of signal in a social setting can be interpreted as rejection. Like lack of eye contact.
So I guess part of the problem that leads to conflicts online is the lack of both literal and metaphor eye contact.
So to make things work better you have to tell people you are looking at them and happy they are there, and then move on to the topic.
I usually forget this, but I think the logic supporting the need for it is sound.
Comments? Feedback? Constructive criticism?
Remarks on size of bum? ;)
'Writing' can mean different categories of things, with different purposes. The difference I have noticed is between communication, expression and inspiration.
Communication involves getting an idea from one head to another, preferably with no data loss.
Expression involves getting an idea from inside the writer, head or heart or soul or muse or whatever, into some form in the world.
Pure expression doesn't even have to be seen by anyone else to have achieved its goal.
Inspiration is to make people feel a thing. (If there is a better word for this, please tell me.)
Not a specific thing. A piece of art can be very good art and make everyone who interacts with it feel something different. If they all have a different idea of what it is 'about' then communication has not happened. But it is still doing something.
It doesn't even have to be expression or start with a person, found art does this to people too.
Writers can be devoted to any or all of these goals.
Some forms of writing, technical, manuals, newspaper stuff, is assumed to be pure communication and not any kind of expression. Passing ideas along without adding something from inside the writer. Which I think is actually part of what people who don't call fanfic 'real' writing mean as well, that the writer hasn't added any of themselves to it.
Of course a writer has added bits of themselves - time, effort, ideology, all sorts of things. But the thing they are communicating noticeably starts outside of them.
'Original' fiction, or poems or plays, apparently starts from inside a writer, so it looks like they gave more of themselves to the work. That gets called 'real' writing more often.
When it comes to writing fanfic I think the original text can be seen as either communicating or inspiring.
If fanfic is an act of communication, if it is meant to communicate truths from the source text, then data loss, such as errors in fact checking, is contrary to the *primary* purpose of fanfic.
If however fanfic is a response to inspiration, if people felt a thing because of the source text and therefore want to express that thing, then fact checking is incidental or even counterproductive. The parts that stayed with them, the things they believe to be true, those are the parts that are essential to expressing what a text made them feel/think/believe/remember.
And if fanfic is just using handy already available parts to try and make people feel something (usually, on the net, turned on) then facts are almost entirely incidental. Except for the part where people won't recognise the parts being used if too much gets changed.
Clear sets of shared rules are essential to communication, because they stop ideas getting mangled in transit. They are helpful to inspiration and entirely incidental to expression.
So grammar and spelling are essential to communication, rules of story structure are helpful to inspiration, but all of them are besides the point for expression.
When people talk about 'writing' they mean at least one of these kinds of writing. Writings. But because the kinds have different purposes and basic rules, using one word to mean all three causes confusion and conflicts.
And 'conflicts' of course can mean anything from polite disagreements to huge great ongoing feuds that factionalise fandoms. It can get very personal.
One opinion of criticising a story reckons that it isn't about the writer, just the writing. Seperate from the person.
But writing that is expression is getting something from inside the writer to the outside. People are criticising your insides! Woe!
Yes, it should be seperate. No, it doesn't always feel like that.
Also I have a whole rolled up newspaper loop in my head about not being perfect. Error = *whap!* So pointing out error feels like *whap* even if the writer doesn't mean it that way. This is an example of the mix up between communication and inspiration - writer might be saying only one thing, but it makes readers feel things entirely independently.
And then some readers react as if the inspiration was actually a communication, because the writing made them feel bad so the writer must have meant to make them feel bad so *whap!* them back.
I, er, try to keep in mind the seperation. And not translate 'this story made me feel bad' to email saying 'this story was wrong wrong wrong!!!!!!!' and say bad writing when I meant I felt bad.
(I apologised a lot when I calmed down.)
There is another problem when part of putting a story in front of people isn't actually about the story at all.
Once people start talking about a story it becomes a social exercise. The writer is trying to join in with a communal activity, the shared creation of stories that we do in this fanfic community.
The hoped for response is 'welcome to the community!' Or, if not the first story, 'glad to have you be one of us!' If instead the response is to say the writing is not good, that can feel like being pushed out of the group, told you can't sit at the table. Uncomfortable.
If writing is social, the response needed to make happy people is 'well done! write more! be one of us!' If the 'well done' applies only to the courage and time and effort involved, the constructive criticism would theoretically be helpful.
BUT to get people to hear it without hearing the 'go away we don't like you' part, you have to put it in a wrapper. Something like "Hi, welcome, good story, keep writing. Here are some things that could be better. Write another one with all that corrected and people will be even happier to read it!"
Er, probably not exactly like that.
I'm beginning to get the hang of *noticing* social, just not necessarily *being* social.
But the social parts of writing wrap around the technical parts, on account of humans being social creatures interacting in this here online community. Delivering only the technical means leaving out the social. Lack of signal in a social setting can be interpreted as rejection. Like lack of eye contact.
So I guess part of the problem that leads to conflicts online is the lack of both literal and metaphor eye contact.
So to make things work better you have to tell people you are looking at them and happy they are there, and then move on to the topic.
I usually forget this, but I think the logic supporting the need for it is sound.
Comments? Feedback? Constructive criticism?
Remarks on size of bum? ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-31 03:20 am (UTC)Wanted to point out that in writing programs, and in the kind of coffee shop where everyone's got a legal pad or a laptop, writing is a social activity on the old-fashioned face to face level; published writers get feedback from first readers, and from agents, editors, and publishers. The fic world is different in degree: a good story gets a lot of rapid direct feedback, and it is different in kind: people giving feedback are self-selected, rather than the writer choosing.
Julia, will have to reread and see if my brain can address your primary points better
no subject
Date: 2005-07-31 03:27 am (UTC)Yeah. I sometimes forget (or don't have time) to preface my opinion on S3. I assume that the person I'm directing the comment to *knows* that if I'm reading and commenting on their stuff, that I like what I'm reading (and them). Because if not - I wouldn't be reading it.
So, if I have a differing opinion on something they've said, I can come off somewhat abrupt and harsh. They don't see my smiling face and happiness for how their words have inspired me to think in a new way. Even if that way might be contrary to their opinion.
I need to work on that still.
Hi Becca! Good thoughts. Late here, so please forgive any grammar booboos.
Best,
Karen
Bum size
Date: 2005-07-31 08:45 am (UTC)On to the meat of the topic: I think you are right in the fact that people internalize the comments people make on their writing: even writing that is technically only for communication (if the person writing it has any passion for the written word) contains elements of their personalty.
Writing for the sake of writing, the formation of the pearl of words around the irritating concept in your head, gets very very personal: and very few people can be objective about criticism aimed at their writing because it can feel like criticism of their nose, or the size of their bum, or some other feature of themselves that is a PART of their totality.
Adding on top of this, constructive criticism is a damned hard thing to write: as you say, wrapping it up in a nice package... if you are TOO...."nice" in your wrapping, the crit gets lost in the prettyness of the packaging: "I think it's great that you are expressing yourself so passionately!" sounds a LOT nicer than "Wow, you type in all caps a lot, dont'cha?" but neither extreme actually conveys the message that you feel the writer's usage habits (e.g. TYPING with THE CAPS LOCK KEY STRAPPED DOWN to MAKE a POINT) might interfere in that message being communicated(in this case, the fact that if everything is emphasized, NOTHING is emphasized).
When I write something for more than just the blathering of my thoughts or opinions of the moment; an essay or a piece of fiction or something of the sort, I WANT it to be the best piece of communication it can be: but I STILL internalize it when someone gives me criticism, even constructive and accurate criticism(Bugs me that I didn't catch such a flaw myself, for instance). Ain't nobody that is gonna be relaxed about someone saying their baby is ugly, even if it's the truth.
Crap, I'm wandering far afield on this, myself.
It's the nature of human beasties to crave approval: and being lazy creatures, we sometimes want instant approval: "my first effort is as good as it's gonna get!". It's part of that whole annoying "people=complex & freaky" thing. Some want concrit, some want ego-masturbation. Some want both. And it's a hell of a trick seperating out which from whom.
But the first point with any beastie you are wanting to work with, is to let it get comfortable with you before you start making any sudden or (perceivable as) threatening moves. Especially towards that beastie's spawn. So the social level is the vital opener in constructive criticism.
Some writer-beasties are gonna freak and bolt no matter how gently you express an idea that differs from theirs with them: some can take being half-crucified without a whimper, and nod along in agreement. Some feel cornered and threatened and bite hell out of you, no matter how you express what you express to them: people aren't always gonna agree.
Shutting this down now because my brain stopped working about ten minutes ago, I think, but I'd appreciate it if you re-posted this at the S3 for commentary by S'cubies that don't have LJs (or don't follow them): I mean, it's even topic-y already, and stuff! ;)
And again, congrats on your "merit" grade, be.
*waves*
Writing
Date: 2005-07-31 02:44 pm (UTC)I read fanfic (not so much lately due to RL time constraints) for my own enjoyment and view it as a solitary activity. I usually do not comment, and certainly did not before I read Julia's Xander fic, The Ballad of Ira Hayes. The reason I rarely comment is not a reflection on the writers at all, and, actually has nothing to do with them or their works.
I tend not to comment because 1)I am not a regular user of LJ, and so generally read fanfic through other sites; and 2)I do not know 99% of the writers and have this belief that what I have to say is most likely irrelevant to them.
However, that being said, you made me think about my reticence and I must say that you have given me much food for thought. So, in light of your essay, I will comment on what I read, if only to let the writers know that I appreciate the effort they have put into their works.
With regard to the technical aspects of your essay, I have always separated writing into expository, creative and technical categories. Although expository contains technical writings. Expository and technical writings are communicative in origin and nature, while creative writing can be communicative, inspirational, expressive and just plain entertaining. As you say, in this online experience, the social aspects of writing are diminished due to lack of feedback, etc. This does not make the writing found in this community any less real, just not as universally touted. That is a shame, because there are very good writers of fanfic who deserve recognition.
One other aspect that I see is problematic for fanfic writers is their use of characters who "belong to someone else".Traditionalists would say that use of others' characters isn't creative and doesn't count as real writing. I disagree. A writer of fiction has characters living and talking inside his or her head and knows the story he or she wants to tell. Putting it to "paper" and having it work is where the talent comes in.
None of this is particularly helpful to you, perhaps, but as I said, you gave me something to think about. Thank you, be!
Onjel