Reviewing and so on

[dmarley]

In response to the responses to destina's already-famous post, zvi_likes_tv said in this post:

Underlying my viewpoint is a distrust in the ability of authors to argue from the text they actually published as opposed to the story in their head. [...] Too often, I think authors take the position that their intentions, motivations, and interpretations are the important part of a story, regardless of whether or not those are communicated to the audience.

(Warning. I'm not working from a firm thesis here. I just started at point A and moved on from there, so this is more a string of points than anything supporting a single idea. Just so's you know.)

zvi_likes_tv has articulated something that's been niggling the back of my head during the discussion, namely the gap between what the author believes the story says, what the story actually says, and what the reader believes the story says. ("The truth is a triple-edged sword," and so on.)

Over and over I see responses to criticism revolve around "you're wrong because what I meant to say was this." Communicating what one means to say is pretty much the basis for all artistic expression. To a great extent, the success or failure of a piece of writing lies in how well the author can convey the white-hot particles of inspiration [1] blazing through her head onto a printed page. The author has to both have the idea, and be able to execute the idea.

[1] Paraphrasing Terry Pratchett, who has a lot of cool things to say about inspiration.

It's a little like the theory of pop culture that looks at how well the art fits the medium. Whether or not it was informed by that particular theory, The Dance with Them What Brung You School of Criticism post by rosenho pretty well sums up how that theory can be applied to fan fiction. In other words, it isn't whether or not a story is Mary Sue, Mpreg, or Slash, it's whether it succeeds as a Mary Sue story, an Mpreg story, or a Slash story. And, obviously, different readers will bring different ideas with them about what makes those succeed for them. Not to mention the readers for whom the type of story will not succeed no matter how well executed, because they simply have no interest in the idea.

What does this say about the whole business of critique and review? Again, it's that triple-edged sword thing. The author writes, the reader reads, and sometimes they agree on what's being said in the actual story. It's when they don't agree that reader critcism happens.

So, in the "writer intent" vs. "reader interpretation" debate, who wins? Was the reader simply too dense to get the writer's point? Or was the author just not skilled enough to be able to say what she meant?

The real question, though, is how is anyone ever supposed to talk about what they did or didn't get out of a story if readers aren't allowed to publically discuss their opinions?

I'm certainly not the first to say it, but I'll happily say it again: Reviews and critiques are not primarily for the benefit of the authors. They're mostly for the benefit of other readers, whether for information, amusement, or the love of a good critical analysis. This doesn't mean that the reviewer is always right or fair. It also doesn't mean that the author is always right or fair, either. What it does mean is that reader discussion is a much more important part of the fan fiction community than it's given credit for.

I've been on lists and forums where the authors are treated like the goddesses in the temple, showering their blessed words upon the humble supplicants below. Said supplicants are not to question or criticize the Mighty Author, lest she withdraw her favors. In this model, there is no triple-edged truth. Instead, it's a one-way street from author to reader, and the reader is not seen as having any contribution to the community. The author's word is law, and if she fails to communicate her story satisfactorily, then the fault is that of the reader, who clearly is too lowly to be capable of divining her intent.

This is an extreme model, yes, but not an untrue one. And it sucks. Readers are the reason any fan writing community exists. Even author-only communities depend on the authors reading one another's work. Now, I don't believe that readers have the right to dictate what an author writes (that's another issue entirely). But I do believe that the reader represents the reason an author goes to the trouble of posting her work, and as such deserves an equal opportunity to express her opinions, and have her opinions considered on their own merits--whether good or bad--and not pre-judged because she dares to discuss.