A 3-Point Commentary on the Latest Short Fiction Kerfuffle [EDITED]

[snurri]

1. Writing is hard.

2. You get no points for doing your best.

3. Readers award no points for difficulty. (Suggested by Greg van Eekhout.)

Comments

[gregvaneekhout.livejournal.com]

I, personally, would add:

3. Readers award no points for difficulty.

[czakbar.livejournal.com]

Good addition.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

I have met readers, particularly in academia, who do. At least one of whom I could point to on LJ...

[gregvaneekhout.livejournal.com]

NAMES, DAMN YOU! NAME NAMES!!!

Good point.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

I'm certain there are exceptions, but I would argue that they're of the prove-the-rule variety.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

This probably falls into the xkcd "as soon as you name a kink, a website comes into existence for it" phenomenon.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Please, no links to Cthulhu porn.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

Bring on the Cthulhu porn!!

[snurri.livejournal.com]

You asked for it. (It's actually very tame. Note the second comment, however.)

[jamiam.livejournal.com]

3. Readers award no points for difficult.

Hell, at the moment I'm taking points away as fast as I can.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

A Three-point Commentary on the Latest Short Fiction Kerfluffy, [AMENDED]

1. Writing is fun!

2. You get no points for trying too hard to be fancy.

3. (some) Readers will love your work if you love your work.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

1. I can agree with. 2. I mostly agree with, although I would argue that there is a taste factor involved. And 3. I think is just flat out wrong, at least as a cause-and-effect statement.

Bring it on :-)

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

Okay, after I posted it I had my doubts about three, just because I've seen people fall in love with their own work and that's not a good thing. Let me try again:

3. If you write with joy, your readers will read with joy.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

See, I like the sentiment, but I just don't think it's true. Plenty of bad writers really enjoy writing--I did, when I was a bad writer, and I still often do when I'm writing badly--and I don't think that makes a bit of difference as to how others receive the work.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

Oh, oh, how about this, then?

3. If you are COMPETENT and write with joy, your readers will read with joy.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

WE MUST NEVER BE COMPETENT.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

OR REPENTANT ABOUT BEING COMPETENT!!!

(I'm basically describing myself as a writer there: I write competently, but with joy.)

(or if not with joy, with much happiness most of the time)

[snurri.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that, as Jay Lake pointed out, the response seems to be splintered in part due to varying definitions of the word "competent." To me it means "decent but unexceptional," and I wouldn't place your work in that category.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

Competence as JVdM seems to be defining it is "refusal to take chances." Or "safe."

For me it's putting the words in an order so that they make sense.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Well, again I think that "safe" is something that can be read a lot of ways.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

You are so right.

Like, for example, dare I say, the writers who write the experimental narrative because it's safe, because they don't actually know how to write plot and character, which is, maybe, dangerous?

You know they're out there.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Sure, I'll buy that. But to me, dangerous can also mean something as simple as writing about real emotions.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

AGREED.

This is why I apply the principles of wabi sabi to my writing, making sure at least one fundamental aspect of the story is royally screwed up, thus making it more human and beautiful.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Wow . . . I can't quite tell if you're serious, but if you are, that's really interesting and I want you to elaborate.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

I wasn't serious, but I wish I was. Then I could have a reason to be indignant about how badly I write and how little of it I sell.

It's an interesting idea in theory, but stories are mechanical at the level I was thinking. In the sense that, you can't apply the aesthetic principle of wabi sabi to something that must "go." If it doesn't go, it doesn't work, and it's aesthetic value is meaningless.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

True. I wonder, though, if you aren't onto something anyway. I often have things in my stories that I'm not sure I can entirely justify, but which just seem to belong, and a lot of the works I really enjoy do the same. The exemplar, to me, is the Mike Yanagita scene in "Fargo"; in a lot of ways it doesn't belong there, but it also kind of perfects the film.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

That's a very interesting example and I'm going to have to think about this more now.

[the-flea-king.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I just can't buy 3 after having spent those years on the OWW. It might be true if all other things are equal, but they rarely are.

I do believe in a something similar, however, which is that, all things being equal, if you write about a subject passionately, you may be able to make the reader passionate about the subject as well. But I don't think it's a certainty, just a good bet.

[jamiam.livejournal.com]

(some) Readers will love your work if you love your work.

And (some) readers will simply think you are a massive wanker! Alas.

[jamiam.livejournal.com]

Hence the love of their own work thing, I guess.

[sarah-prineas.livejournal.com]

I guess!

[jamiam.livejournal.com]

Dave, I love you. (Greg, you too.)

[snurri.livejournal.com]

You only love me when I'm cranky.

[gregvaneekhout.livejournal.com]

You only love me when I'm a roiling ball of hypertensive rage.

[snurri.livejournal.com]

I should get paid for feeding you straight lines like that.

[jamiam.livejournal.com]

Man, I love you guys.

[megmccarron.livejournal.com]

love you. also, sorry for being kind of an asshole on the phone last night. it's part of my charm?

[snurri.livejournal.com]

You were being an asshole? I missed that part. There was a kick-in-the-ass aspect to the talk, but you weren't being mean.

[bondgwendabond.livejournal.com]

I agree that readers don't award points for difficulty, but I actually think readers are often _too_ forgiving. Witness The Da Vinci code and a host of others. :)

[snurri.livejournal.com]

Oh, sure. One must never forget that readers are the enemy, and as such are fickle and taste-impaired.