Erikson's Rant - He was RIGHT!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- My full thoughts on Steven Erikson's recent rant related to much of the criticism Malazan and his writing as a whole has received.
The Rant: / 1646644495487844
Merch: teespring.com/...
Patreon: / danielbgreene
Discord Server: / discord
Twitter: Da...
Twitch: / fantasynews
Instagram: / dgreene101
Subreddit: / danielgreene
Podcast: afictionalconv...
Thanks, Daniel, for your comments. I had no idea my essay went viral (and if it did, I'm assuming it was a tiny event). I've also read through a lot of the comments below. I laughed at the one commenter who suggested I should have let the essay sit for a day or two before posting it (presumably, I would then have toned it down?). Well, fuck that. I've sat on that criticism for almost twenty years. And yes, I did tone it down, compared to what I might have said, say, fifteen years ago. The basic truth is (as most authors well know), we're kind've screwed if we do or if we don't. There's almost no 'winning' this. Accordingly, I feel the need to emphasize once again: what am I talking about is the technical aspects of narrative. In this specific instance, characterization. My objection was with the suggestion that I can't do characterization. I can. A reader can choose to like the way I do it or not: that's not my business. I admit, the follow-on opinion that I went overboard in my response, was too pissed off, etc, only underscores the thin ice a writer is on in giving voice to such matters. I teach creative writing when I can. I am aware of what I'm doing when I write and am quite able to defend my decisions, either via essay or in person (bring it on). But at all times, I'm talking about the technical aspects of craft. An example: if a computer scientist draws on said expertise and knowledge, and decades of experience, to describe to you the workings of your computer, its programs and hardware, and your response is: 'man, that was condescending!' well, what is that computer scientist supposed to think? So, I discuss characterization in order to help and inspire beginning writers, and this particular essay is only the latest in a series of essays I've written on writing over the years. The only difference was in the framing, where I gave voice to my weary irritation at seeing that opinion trotted out one times too many. Mea culpa. It amazes me the extent to which artists in the public eye invariably find themselves walking a minefield. Anyway, it may be that I'm just too fucking old to worry overmuch about taking a wrong step these days. I will continue to talk the craft of writing, in essays and elsewhere. If you want to chat about that, Daniel, head to my FB Erikson and message me. Cheers, and thanks again. I hope your invitation to other authors out there bears fruit.
Love that you took the time to respond. I think your skill at making me care about “side” characters is the best that I have ever read.
If you're wondering what the sound of whupass from that slippery corner is all about, it's my third me kicking the snot out of my internal editor for going "Wow, that's a lot of noodle in one go, right there... Where could I put a wedge in it? Maybe a whole axe..? Let's see, after '[...] in person (bring it on)', or would just after 'Mea culpa.' make it more dramatic, more final..." ;)
I can't really say whose side of the fence I'm on, here: There are the simple basics of it that we read authors for their work, and we'd be fucking off if our opinions influenced said work too much. Why the hell get somebody else to write the book that we'd want to write ourselves, if we'd only had the persistence? We choose our authors because they're the Bayern-Münchens to our "everything is always right in my daydreams" footsie teams: A thorough kicking. It's their life's work to know better than we do, what it is we really want, for fuck's sake!
On the other hand, whatever it is you do for a living, there will either be a customer or no eating this week. Said customer will sometimes (these days, all the time) think the job is open for discussion, after the handover. Tiresome, but in the end it makes for better lunches than silence does. I have my opinions about, say, Neal Stephenson's inability to tie his wild weaves up, or certain other authors' repetitive protagonists, but... I only know that those protagonists fit in a template and Neal tends to peter out because -tadaa- I still search the shelves for those authors' names. Still go "Meh, you make that point every book" and "Ho! Didn't see that coming! Which year is this from again?"
In sum et ergo ego: Books are not bricks. We read them exactly because they're not rectangular and fit the norm. We read them for what makes them stand out. I guess I do know which side of the fence I'm on, when I only take the time to reason it through ;)
Thank you. I recently had my own authorial "freak-out" over perceived symbolism. The reader tried attributing symbolism where I never intended and then insulting me for that projected symbolism. I wasn't having it. The readers hang-ups aren't the authors fault.
Sneaky Erikson. Going undercover by using his real name. 😄
All I’m getting out of this is that Daniel's next author interview is coming soon.
I think Erikson, more than any other author that I'm familiar with, writes exactly what he wants to write and does exactly what he sets out to do. He knows that it lands with some people and doesn't land with other people, but he has a vision, and he's gonna stick to it! I don't always enjoy his approach (although I mostly do), but his approach to writing always makes me think. I think I've gained more insight about my own tastes from reading Erikson than from any author. And that is valuable.
Couldn't agree more!
Same here! Malazan was a revelation for me.
He's on record saying that he knows that some readers will bail on him after a few pages.
@@robinirie98 He basically writes that in Gardens of the moon's introduction
I respect your output medium. Also, your hair looks good.
X)
I am as straight as a ruler, but, yeah.
I think this situation is kind of a rough one for the author. The nature of discourse on the internet is one wherein snappy, funny comments/critiques are favored over accurate ones a lot of the time. If it gets upvotes, if it's popular and repeatable, then it will be parroted by everyone, including people who haven't even read a given work themselves. And that can lead to situations where untrue assessments of a person's work become "true" because of how often they're repeated. I do think there's value in being able to clarify things like this. And of course, opening up a broader discourse is a good thing as well. Otherwise, critique becomes a very one-sided conversation that starts and ends with a review.
If only people would have listened to comments like this some ten years ago.
@@maxxam4665 what happened 10 years ago?
@@jakerockznoodles you were still lame
Yeah the way internet comments work is so terrible, you have to be one of the first comments (if there's already 200+ comments there's basically no reason for you to leave a new comment, better to leave your comment on a comment that is already high up, otherwise it will never be read) and as you said you have to be spicy rather than 100% accurate. This has turned issues these days even more black-and-white than they already used to be (which was considerable) because the main voices that are heard are extreme to one side or the other. No one cares about nuance (or facts, even).
very well worded. agree completely
"welcome to a rather strange video" well that narrows it down Daniel
The Dishevelled Goblin strikes again
I was so glad when he put that out because I've always loved his characterization but I also understand why people bounce off of it. Erikson's characters are mostly established, their arcs in the books occur after they've gone through the typical character arc and that vast back story is teased and hidden in subtext. It becomes really hard to relate to them but once they click with you they stay with you forever. For some that never happens and that is okay. I've heard and read some egregious criticisms and defended him but I am glad that he defended himself. So many authors don't get the chance to do so.
Yeah man, I felt that way in GotM and then read the Chain of Dogs in DhG and was like 'damn, respect Coltaine for life'.
@@ssj4rit Coltaine for life indeed. F*** Mallick Rel.
He's one of the few writer's in fantasy who's competent enough to characterize by not soliciting judgement in lieu of actual, ahem,.. characterization. I've nearly 100% of the time thought that people who criticize his characterization don't actually know what it means, or that they think they are finding easy stones to throw at plot elements of his story landing a little too close to some particular real world cult behavior of theirs or a Potemkin Village they inhabit.
So do you think authors should speak out more and contribute to the discussion of their work?
I do believe that authors should engage more regarding their works.
I think light self-deprecating humor when responding to criticisms directly is always the best route. It would be nice for more authors to use whatever platform-blog, youtube, Twitter-to at least acknowledge it, too. Doesn’t have to be anything in-depth, but it at least let’s readers know they’re heard.
It's gut-wrenching enough to publish a book that anyone can say anything about. I think if I were an author who wanted to defend my stance and receive constructive feedback, it would have to be in a space with people that I somewhat trusted. Not sure Twitter is the best place to have those conversations.
Except for Rowling, Yes
I agree. This idea that authors have to remain silent about their work makes no sense what so ever. What I don't agree with is the authors going further. If an author wants to go and explain the meaning they were going for. That is up to them to decide. Now, I would say if authors decide to go this route, wait a period of time like a decade after the work is out before doing this.
An author should absolutely be allowed to defend their own work from bad criticism. It doesn’t come across as pretentious or arrogant, it just comes across as passionate and intelligent.
When it comes to the Dutch book market, authors will often harass reviewers, send their fans to attack them, and send DMs to reviewers to give them higher ratings or remove their ratings. I actually don't know a single Dutch reviewer who hasn't endured this, and I have over a dozen decently close friends who are reviewers, and another dozen who are more acquaintances. Needless, to say, it kind of happens a lot if you are a little critical.
I like what Erikson did with a more ‘general’ and ‘vague’ approach to explain his creative choices. In my experience, though, a lot of authors... find it difficult to see where the boundary lies. Reviewers should never feel pressured or unsafe when it comes to their genuine thoughts because someone with a larger platform will destroy their reputation. But I've seen that happen a lot less in the international market, so maybe it's just a thing that happens in the Dutch market. I like insight into an author's mind like this, because there's a lot you can learn. I really wish that more authors knew what's fine and what's too far. He was a bit agressieve, but he didn't publicly shame a specific person. That's where the line is, for me.
Steven Erikson interview coming after The Crippled God? It is known.
Maybe before the first Witness book next year.
He's done some interviews for a read through podcast so I don't see any reason he wouldn't come on with Daniel
do it daniel!
If Daniel has gotten interviews with Sanderson and Abercrombie, Erikson dosent seem like much a stretch
It makes sense for authors to be a part of the discussion of their own work. I mean, duh? The problem is when authors get butthurt when they don't agree with a readers opinion. I'd love it if an open dialogue was a normal thing between readers and authors. It'd be so cool if authors were more open to chatting on Reddit (doing iAmA's) - just actually having in depth and engaged discussions that work both ways.
Galactic Reads I generally agree with you, but I do think authors get accused of being “butthurt” or not being able to take criticism when all they are doing is responding to badly presented reviews (the amount of reviews I’ve seen lately on Goodreads and Reddit rate the personal/political lives of the author more than the actual book). Which I imagine would put authors off engaging with readers, understandably.
@@KristianaCembre , THIS ^ Sadly, this is what you are seeing with anything! Comedians, actors, etc. Even people like you and I. It amazes me how the freedom of speech we have has created the most badass art in the world and possibly ever to come and people critic the person rather than the art a lot these days. Thank you for speaking out. Glad others see it too.
The problem is not only authors getting butthurt, a decent amount of critics/reviewers/readers also get butthurt. I have barely ever seen a critical question send to an author to which he/she responds (on a public platform) and everyone goes "ah cool that makes sense", or even "ah cool, I don't agree but at least I now know the reasoning". These things go well in private or perhaps communities (discord) but I don't think it goes over well in plain public. Which is sad but also just the internet in general.
@@ruud9761 , yep! Well said. People say things behind a keyboard that they would never think to say in person ... well ... until recently.
A good example of what an author should not do when responding to criticism is what Terry Goodkind (no disrespect may he rest in peace) did a lot, which is basically constantly proclaim that your series is a masterpiece and that all negative opinions are wrong. But there should be no reason an author can't make a response and explain their point of view such as what SE did. Being butthurt about a response to criticism is hypocritical if you're saying the author is butthurt by making that response in the first place. Here (www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/johnsons/idler/chap60.htm ) is a great essay by Samuel Johnson that talks about criticism that shows that authors experienced generally the same problems in 1759 as they do now.
There is a right and a wrong way of dealing with criticism. Look at Mark Lawrence and the controversy he became involved in when a female reviewer came out about him retweeting people who called her names and disparaged her. He is a large author, and just tweeting about her sent his fans her way to abuse her. Large authors have to be mindful of this type of thing.
Do you have a source to the controversy. Maybe a tweet?
@@TheVpog there was a tweet and a reddit conversation. His friend did a blog post explaining it
I both agree and disagree with this. Basically: Authors, do what you want. You want to respond? Cool. Don't want to? Cool.
I'm in a graduate program, and in one of my classes we workshop each other's pieces. I used to think, "Hey, I'm really good with taking criticism. I can take it. I want to improve."
And then, I submitted a story related to one of the books I'm writing. It's told from a minor character's perspective. A lot of planning went into it. I was very emotionally attached. I combed through the story and did the "Read Aloud" feature on Microsoft. Planned themes and character development. Fulfilled all the requirements.
My class, including my teacher, ripped it apart.
I was trying so hard not to defend the work, but I was crushed. For a second, I received what I'm sure a lot of published authors receive: People talking about you like you don't exist. In the beginning, they addressed everything they disliked about the piece and ways I could improve it. Then, my teacher chimed in: "What do you think of this cheesy part?" And they all discussed it, bouncing back and forth, like I wasn't even there. Terrible feeling. I understand why people would want to avoid it. And the entire time I was internally screaming, "*THIS* IS THE INTENTION OF THE PIECE. YOU DON'T GET IT."
However, then I stepped back and realized several things: They *didn't* know the intention of the piece, some but not all of their criticisms were valid, and obviously the work wasn't complete and needed more time to simmer, stew, and improve.
Now, imagine receiving that feedback after you've worked with an editor countless times, done at least 10 full revisions, discussed with your agent and editor the different parts of your style and story, and cleared the work with your publisher. Like, if someone is going to turn around and STILL criticize it, that's like arguing with the wind, in my opinion. That criticism is constructive for readership, not the authors, and responding to a lot of criticism--largely negative--for a published work gives those voices too much power. Expecting authors to read your reviews/criticism and respond comes across as entitled and immature. The authors don't owe anyone anything if someone didn't like their finished work.
Art is subjective. Everyone has a different opinion. Authors shouldn't be expected to respond to each one, especially if they put a lot of work, time, and consideration into it.
Edit: The idea of a "conversation" and "discussion" being had is rather idealistic. This doesn't always happen. Some people would love to just discuss a work, but more often people are ranting.
Was this experience your first in academic workshopping? It sounds much like the Iowa Workshop method: everyone gets a copy of your piece, maybe writes a one page synopsis/letter/response, marks up their copy and then reconvene and critique your work “as if you weren’t in the room” you’re not allowed to defend yourself or the piece nor even speak.
That’s become something of the standard workshop method in academic settings. And it’s hard. But it became ubiquitous for a reason. That fly-on-the-wall experience allows the author to get feedback purely based on what’s on the page. My first story workshopped this way got shredded because half the readers thought my characters were anthropomorphic bees. The professor said it felt like it was written by a high school student (I was in my thirties at the time.) It hurt.
But if I was allowed to respond to the first person’s misunderstanding “no guys, they’re humanoid, but have a hive-mind) it would color all subsequent feedback. They’d be talking about some hybrid of what was written and what they imagine is in my head instead of purely what is on the page.
I was so involved in my own story I failed to establish key things early on. I didn’t do what the story needed me to do. So it got torn apart, which is the only way to rebuild something broken into something better.
@@rabenwrites8198 This is my second academic workshop class and second semester in the program. Every writer in the class is "muzzled" while everyone comments and talks about their work. My professor had invited me to say anything I wanted about the work prior to everyone speaking, and I declined because I was afraid of "coloring" the responses. Afterward, I thought, "Maybe I should have said something," but I think it does depend on the work. Readers aren't going to know the backstory or intentions behind what they're reading, so I thought not saying anything would be wise. I understand the purpose of it, particularly when it comes to learning and improving the piece, though in the context of a published author, the author shouldn't be expected to respond or even acknowledge such criticism, particularly after the numerous edits and revisions their work has received from industry professionals.
I think it's a super hard lesson to learn because you really (REALLY) want to respond, but the best way is always to just ignore critics. There's no way to "win" by responding, it always just gets worse for you.
From the perspective as someone who is solely a reader, I can definitely see it going both ways.
While I do imagine that the discussion of critique from an author perspective would be largely non-constructive outside of looking at larger critical trends.
I think that the only reason an author should respond to forms of criticism would be if they personally believe that they're response may be of potential benefit to readers. To choose to "add value" by offering the perspective of authorial intent. Not as a defense or debate, but just as an alternate interpretation.
Because I agree that there's not really much to be gained from attempting to address most criticism of an already published work outside of this specific circumstance. It's just going to lead to grief.
One my creative writing workshops I got feedback like I don't like fantasy this character shouldn't be using magic, your POC characters aren't speaking in AAVE it's erasure despite the world is set in a fantasy world, why did your character use a common 3+ syllable, it's not poetry but it needs to flow like a haiku, I didn't read it but it's horrible, and other dumb shit. Only 6-7 people in the class had any valuable criticism
I think it's important that authors don't fall too far into the "you're wrong and your interpretations are wrong" camp, but I do think it's highly useful for an author to explain their position and what they were trying to do with their work. Even if the reviewer/audience member at the end of the day didn't get that out of the work, knowing what they were going for can be helpful. Especially if you're down in the weeds, trying to figure out why you liked/disliked certain things. Like, knowing that the author created the element that you might dislike intentionally gives you data that you can use to choose whether you want to keep reading that author's work, and it gives reviewers another facet to consider when they create their reviews.
Saying that you don't like how an author does x, is fine. What is not fine is saying that he did it badly without any caveats. That was the point in Erikson's rant. What he was saying was: what if it's you who are wrong and the millions of other who like it are right?
It's all down to taste and a lot of reviewers state their opinions as objective facts. And as much as I love your content, Daniel, you have a tendency of presenting your opinions as incontrovetible fact.
Glad you spoke out on this! Erikson’s Facebook post has some excellent advice for character development, and reading it in its entirety reveals that he’s got a brilliant sense of humor. I hesitate even to call it a rant.
Maybe one of the mules hacked his Facebook account.
Eric McLuen Ha ha! That must’ve been it!
It's definitely not a rant. It's more of a study on characterization, really. The thing about Erikson that I think people don't really realize, that he simply writes what he wants, but he also writes very well, and with great care. Every word he puts down is there for a reason. But he's not there to hold the reader's hand. He doesn't really care if you stay or go for the whole tale.
Robert Hall I couldn’t agree more!
Authors and their audience should be more important than the critics. Critics should get more scrutiny, IMHO. They get to rip on people with zero consequences.
They're not the ones creating. I think spending time with your audience will do you more good than a random critique will. That being said, outside opinions that aren't fluff are good for growth, too. A harsh fan will most likely be coming from a position of love of your work whereas most critics needed to check a box for payday. The target should always be the audience and the author. Lastly, when a critique says "Why I won't finish reading XYZ" and the author calls that critic out to finish it because it addresses a lot of their concerns, perhaps they should finish reading it.
I can't agree more. I appreciate this video so much.
WHERE DOES HE GET THOSE HOODIES!!
now we're getting to the important questions
What I think Erikson's "rant" boils down to are two hard truths a lot of readers forget about when they criticize a work: 1) I believe an intellectually honest critique takes into account what the author intended in his work and if he managed to attain it. Criticizing an author for something he didn´t set out to do is like just saying “I wanted you to do this and you didn’t so I don´t like your work”. Erikson makes this clear: he doesn’t fail in characterization. He just doesn’t do it in the more common way. If you are looking for a more direct and simple characterization, then you probably won’t like Erikson, but that doesn’t mean heis a worse writer that other writers. They just use different approaches to characterization. And it’s ok to prefer one to the other. 2) Each author writes with one kind of reader in mind (or some literature demands a kind of reader you could say): some prefer active readers, some more passive readers. It’s Erikson’s opinion that a passive reader is more “lazy” and just wants the author to spoon-feed him everything, and he obviously has in mind an active reader for Malazan, that is a reader who engages with what they’re reading, rereads things if necessary, reflects on the story and fills in the blanks story and character-wise (or even takes down notes, like I did while reading Malazan). Even though I agree absolutely with what Erikson said, I also believe he came out too heavy-handed. I mean, it’s ok to prefer a more common characterization style or an easier read. It doesn’t make you lazy in my opinion.
I disagree with some of the first point. I don't think it matters what the author wanted to do and a lot of the time you can't really know what they wanted to do anyway. Of course books are different from each other and focus on different things and you shouldn't expect a book to be one specific way and get mad when it's different, but I don't think that means you have to drag the author's intentions into the discussion. You can talk about things a book did well and things a book did differently than you would have expected without considering what the author did or didn't set out to do.
The problem with his rant is that there is an air of superiority in it. He doesn't say "there are different ways to write characters and mine doesn't fit every taste, but it's what I prefer", he indirectly says "my way to write characters is superior, but the dimwits that read genre fiction are too stupid to appreciate it". I feel the same thing even in your statement (active > passive), even though you consciously tried not to leave this impression by saying "I don't think you guys are lazy for preferring easier books". It's as if he is frustrated people don't give him the benefit of the doubt that there is purpose in the way he writes characters, and at the same time, he doesn't give the same benefit of the doubt to the people that write characters more straightforwardly.
@@frostbitetfc He spends several moments deriding the distinction between "literary" and genre fiction. I don't think he's making any point you think he is. He's making a very standard argument about Show/Tell. And while the Show/Tell advice is a bit overrated, it's also sound for writing in a way in which you don't insult the reader's intelligence and they are lured to be deeper participants into the story. That's not to say trying to write books in which the reader is more "passive" is a bad thing. But between Erickson's example, one is definitely more useful when it comes to building an "Active" reading experience.
See, I don't really think one should take authorial intent into consideration because what you intend might not be the message that comes across. For example, the video game Bioshock Infinite repeatedly has the characters equate black people fighting back against their oppressors *to* those very same oppressors morally solely on the basis that they both use violence to accomplish their goals, without ever actually stopping to consider what the goals are. Do I think the creators of that game actively set out to say that black people who fought violently to escape from racism are somehow just as morally evil as the people that perpetuated the racist systems they're rebelling against? Not really, but that's the message their game ends up conveying because of how cartoonishly evil the Vox Populi are presented.
Completely agree. I hate this idea that when an author publishes a story it's no longer his and belongs to the readers. It's one of the reasons Ive been so hesitant to try and get my own books published. There needs to be give and take; it would give the readers more incite and the writers a better understanding of what the readers hope to see from them.
ok so here's my take here: are reviews always a part of a "conversation"? if I go on Goodreads or twitter or my blog to write a review, am I automatically starting a conversation with the author? what if I only want to discuss it with other readers or even... just not talk to anyone about it at all? it's one thing to be someone like you, who is a professional reviewer and actually welcome input from authors, but there are tons of ppl out there who have no interest at all in that. A review doesn't force me engage in any type of discussion with anyone! and we can't ignore the cases where authors have harassed reviewers, sent fans to troll them and bury criticism. If an author wants to engage with criticism I would hope they do it on their own platform, without singling anyone out (especially if the review in question wasn't written by a professional critic).
I agree with this...which is enough, no discussion needed. We can have opinions without someone trying to force their own upon us. We can like or dislike things without there being judgement over us. There's an aspect of a book we dislike. Maybe we will give it another chance, maybe we won't. Life goes on as usual.
Also there is the possibility that it's not the author doing something wrong but it's just you don't like that style, and that is okay too and the author doesn't have anything to do with it.
I see where you are going with this, but I also think you invite conversation when you out your views out there for everyone to see, and I think that's a good thing. For me at least I love discussing books and that's the whole reason I post reviews.
@@laiaal.3324 Exactly.
I feel an author is not required to change the way the write to please reviewers because I don't reviewers make up the majority of readers.
As with any type of art, once you put a review out publicly into the world, you cede control over what other people do with it. I get that you wouldn't expect an author to necessarily respond to your individual public criticism of their work, but by making your commentary public you have opened the door for a discussion whether that was your intention or not. I don't think people should be subjected to harassment for art criticism, but that doesn't mean that people who publicly criticize and review stuff are themselves entitled to complete insulation from critique, whether that's from other randos on the internet or from the authors of the works they're reviewing. I think that, excluding instances of actual harassment, turnabout is fair play in these situations.
Cool topic and video. I wish you had spent some time to give an overview at the beginning of what Erickson said. I've never read/don't remember the post. Even without that background, I really liked your angle about responding to criticism in a way to continue the conversation
When I come across something in a book I don't personally connect with, my 1st though is usually "I wonder why the author did it this way." So I agree with what you're saying. For me, I would rather know the reason why things in the book went the way they did rather the rant on about how I didn't like it.
Of course Author's should get into the talk -if they want to-.
But conversely, if they are not comfortable stepping into the arena... noone should feel forced to do so
In my experience, most writers that I've known - whether they're playwrights, screenwriters, or novelists - don't regularly engage with criticism for the following reasons:
1. They don't want outside views to influence the work they're creating, especially in the case of ongoing series. There are a couple of examples where showrunners have deliberately altered television storylines (not always to great effect) because they saw some audience members on Reddit, etc. had figured out their plans. Surprise does not always equal satisfying entertainment. I'm sure authors face similar dilemmas.
2. It can be bad for mental health and productivity. Being creative is hard and you can read 99 positive comments, but the post by one shitty troll will way too often be the one that sticks with you, because it might make you angry or speak to your own creative insecurities and BAM! You've lost a day of productivity because some rando on the internet made you feel like a piece of shit. The same is true for reviews. A lot of writers already struggle with depression, addiction, and other mental health issues and engaging with critics, be they good faith or bad, can make it more difficult to maintain a baseline of stability necessary to do this work professionally.
3. Writers are really busy and it's rare if they manage to maintain any kind of reasonable work life balance. TV writers can put in 60-80 hour weeks during production. Authors on deadline can be just as bad. Assuming a writer has been able to make time for family, friends, other interests, they're probably not going to have a lot of time or mental/emotional energy left over to engage with critics, let alone a demanding fanbase.
4. Creatives of all kinds don't owe their fans anything beyond the art they choose to share and should be able to be as public or private as they like. A lot of writers are introverts that prefer that the work speak for itself and that should be okay.
Having said all that, there are plenty of writers that do read reviews, enjoy interacting with fans, host their own forums and social media accounts, do frequent interviews, Q&A's at book signings, conventions, etc. where they address all kinds of things, including criticism. I feel like a lot of the engagement you're asking for is already happening if you're willing to seek it out. I also acknowledge that in the age of social media, parasocial relationships with your audience can benefit a writer's career and are indispensable for creators on platforms like TH-cam.
I mean, that post seems like a good example of why you should be careful when engaging your audience. It can get pretty nasty pretty fast. The post starts of with a lot of complaining and bitterness. Then he suggests his critics are stupid and just don't get it. Even if this is true, I don't recommend saying it. If you suggest to the person you are arguing that they should admit they just don't get it at all, the chances of convincing them are infinitesimal, one of the reasons for steelmanning your opponents position is that it allows people to think they were at least confused for a good reason, they might not have been but arguing with somebodies ego will get you nowhere. Worse, you might miss out on situations where their criticisms had more subtlety than you gave them credit for. He then goes on to respond to what have to be the shallowest of his critics. I'm sure there are... lets be friendly and say 'inexperienced readers' out there whose criticism is born out of missing any and all subtlety in the text and only responding to what is shoved in their face, but I find it rather hard to believe that is all there is to this. If you want to do this, I recommend keeping it as impersonal as possible. Leave your own frustrations at the door, don't be confrontational with the reader unless you absolutely have to, and keep focused on the topic at hand. Any engagement with a large audience based on frustration will end badly, more so for the guy himself as he will have to deal with scores of anonymous internet people.
You're the kind of people he was talking about. lol
In his defense he's probably been sitting on that essay for about 20 years; so it's hardly surprising that when it did finally come out, there'd be a lot of emotional pressure driving it...
@@r.s.4085 No he's not, stfu...
So you freely go around not speaking what you believe to be true?
This would make you dishonest and deceitful.
@@wolfereignowns1154 I tend to be more on the 'too honest' side of things and have gotten in trouble more for being blunt than for being deceitful. Point is, though, there are many true things that I don't actively deny, but also don't bring up because what purpose would it serve. If I think some person I know is ugly, I wouldn't say it to them unless asked, because it is hurtful and serves no purpose. When trying to convince somebody of something, I try to stick to the issue at hand and not their person, because that would be hurtful and would make them defensive and unlikely to be convinced. I might have all manner if things I believe about their person, but I wouldn't bring that up? I don't think it's being deceitful, but rather it's a matter of not involving irrelevant personal baggage into everything.
Honestly I've never understood this idea that authors or content creators can't respond to criticism if it's a constructive response. If I write a review saying oh I didn't understand that aspect or didn't like that and an author wants to say "well I did like this for this or that reason and that's how I approached it" then that's great, that's valuable even if it's not gonna make me like those things still. I do agree that Erikson went a bit far with saying people are wrong for not liking certain aspects of his books because everyone is allowed their opinion on a book or series but in general, I feel like authors should be able to comment on criticism.
If fans can Rant, Authors should be able to too.
Man I need a Daniel - Erikson interview in my life after Daniel finishes MBotF. Especially as he has (overall positive but) mixed views on parts of the Malazan universe and Erikson seems to be more open than a lot of authors.
I don't think that was a big swing. In fact, I think it was a very light jab compared to what it could have been. He aired his grievance, and provided examples of writing to back up his defense of what could be perceived as good vs bad characterization and where the burden lies, whether its between author or reader. Instead, it could have just been 100% mudflinging with no examples at all haha. It was the equivalent of someone lightly pushing someone away for them to back off a bit, instead of bowling them over onto their ass.
Would everyone be as tolerant of authors responding to critics if it was an author everyone roasted all the time, as opposed to Erickson, whom everyone likes? Like what if Stephenie Meyer wrote this essay? The rant itself also is not a substantive response to criticism. Like how is this different from Jake Paul or somebody dabbing on the haters by going, "if I'm such a bad TH-cam channel then how is the Jake Paul Army 10 million subscribers strong?!!!!"
If I were an author, my feelings would be hurt by both haters flinging shit and substantive criticism, maybe in equal measure. It might be hard to separate the two in my mind. I think that authors are sometimes a little too close to the material to make the distinction. Not saying that they should be muzzled, but if they respond to criticism, they run the risk of embarrassing themselves, and, in my opinion, this is what Erickson did.
Not all criticism is good faith. I've read some really stupid criticisms of books (/movies) where it's like, did you even read it? What book were you reading? You're just looking for things to complain about. And some criticism is so subjective that there's no point in responding to it. But... well, I don't know. I'm not sure I'd respond any differently if I were in Erickson's position, but it's hard for me to look at what seems to be butthurt whining from a wildly overpraised writer and go, "yes, this is healthy dialogue".
You mentioned Tolkien, but he actually responded to people interpretting LotR as an allegory of World War II in the forward of the US edition of the book!
I agree with you Daniel that sometimes authors maybe should respond to criticism, though I'd like to add to this point. I like that Erikson did not respond to any *specific* review, but a general criticism. I usually don't love it when authors respond to specific reviews because that feels targeted and can often result in a really bad result for the original reviewer. Not that you are advocating for responding to specific reviews, but yeah.
Also, Sanderson occasionally goes on Reddit to respond to criticism (usually when he is tagged). It's always super respectful and it's rarely defensive, and I super appreciate him for that. (Responding on Reddit is not the same as what I said above because a) usually Reddit communities are in favor of reviewer over author, even in Sanderson's subreddits and b) even when they aren't, it's hard to target the reviewer/critiquer since it's easier to have anonymity on Reddit compared to something like Twitter.)
Whatever. If you review sth it is your responsibility to carry the consequences of the review. If the author throws the ball back at you and the argument is good then you deserved it and you can learn from this mistake. Nothing wrong with this.
I feel like the mentality that authors shouldn’t respond to the audience is a remnant of a time when most literary successes were posthumous, meaning you couldn’t take the “easy” route and ask the author what was going on in a certain book. I think people miss the idea that an author is a mysterious, untouchable figure who crafted a masterpiece and ascended to a higher plane as opposed to a normal person who probably wrote it in between a day job and possibly kids.
there's a difference between responding to criticism and calling people babies that don't think you are doing a good job
especially since they tend to have fanbases that they know are going to go after people that criticize their work if they respond to the criticism
it's kind of weird that you are treating his rant like a response to criticism and not a child throwing a tantrum
they should respond to actual points, it's like the opposite side of those lazy "reviewers" that say things like "the writing had some problems, the pacing was a mess" but don't present any examples from what they are reviewing, those kind of "critics" should be ignored by the creators because they aren't being critical they are just being dicks and lazy
I have not reread the post now, so i might misremember, but to me it seemed he adequately addressed some properly voiced and argued critique somewhere in there, while ranting at those "critics" that give no real value to the discussion other than 'He bad at characters'. Therefore I wouldn't say he should have toned it down at all, in my head the condescending part is meant for exactly those people that put his writing down without any reasoning other than they didn't like it, but still state their opinion as fact. I am very careful about phrasing truths, opinions or assumptions when speaking and therefore it bothers me a lot when others are not, but that comes with my field I guess.
Anyway, to me Erikson's characters have always felt more real, more relatable than most (maybe all) other author's.
I'm glad you brought this up again, I very much agree with you on the value this gives to the discussion.
I think more "fans" need to be called out. The anonymity of the internet lends itself to the mass posting of blanket statements, that while are an opinion in the loosest sense, are spoke in the definitive. People suck, authors and creators are human, let em fire back. It promotes discussion. Now, there is a right way to go about doing this, but God do I want to wipe the theoretical smile off of these people on the internet who love boiling down extremely nuanced discussions down to a single definitive line.
Stick and Stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me.... Its true folks!!.. Both authors and fans need to get thicker skins... Nothing is solved with easy conversations...free speech is FREE speech.. Having said all that adhere to the golden rule... Do (say) unto others as you would have (said) done to you... Geesh why shouldnt author's join the discussions on thier books..
I thought Erikson's rant was not very offensive and very much in his general voice, especially when you take stuff like Rejoice and Willful Child into account. The problem seems to be that a lot of people can't accept "This is intentional because I like it this way" and take it as "You're stupid for not liking it." which he never said. Stilistic, technical choices by an author should not be up for debate, only if they actually achieve what they set out to do. But a lot of people get objective and subjective judgements mixed up and then take it personally when you remind them about that distinction.
I just read his rant, and yes he does kind of imply people who don't like his method of characterization are just too simple-minded.
@@ravenfrancis1476 I think the issue stems from the fact that a lot of people confuse liking or disliking something with it being technically good or bad. You can dislike something but that doesn't necessarily mean it is technically bad. So not liking Erikson's characterization is fine but saying he can't do it goes beyond that and for that you'd need arguments that go beyond "I don't like it." and I guess that's where his irritation comes from. To sum up: He says that people who say he can't do characterization are wrong and just mean they don't like it.
Rafchild Records Sure, but them not liking it doesn’t automatically mean that they’re intellectually inferior or that you’re some sort of billion IQ genius like his rant tried to imply.
I didn't read that out of his rant. The most I can read into it is that confusing not liking it with it being technically bad makes them simple.
You know, Erikson does regular interviews with the Ten Very Big Books podcast, I'd bet that he'd be up for doing an interview with you.
I think this all depends on why you are reading and why you are watching reviews. As someone who reads primarily for enjoyment, I don't really care whether something is technically good. I care whether I had a good experience. No author could persuasively convince me I should have had a good experience for these 5 reasons, and therefore my opinion is wrong, so I'm largely uninterested in author responses to reviews. That being said, I'm not a professional reviewer.
Daniel I'm mad that your copy of Holy Sister is twice the size of Red Sister and Grey Sister
I am too
After much research I bought all the Malazan books on audible. I got through 2.5 and returned them all. I bounced off hard.
I find it ironic that books are a creative art and the authors get lambasted more than other artists.
I believe reading and writing are very similar to comedy as in it is all relative. If you don't have or unaware of a shared experience that is illustrated in a book it can be taken poorly. People are human and full of flaws. These characterizations are portrayed in text and the characters are a reflection of pieces of us. Then I will watch a review and those flaws are attributed to the author. It makes me smh. It could be true but my first thought is to attribute those to the character.
Lite SPOILERS:
An example is Brent Weeks' Kip character is fat-shamed in the Lightbringer series. When is he ridiculed? While training with the world's elite guard. Because that what some soldiers would do, of course. His weight is more than a reflection of having more mass. It is a lack of discipline, self-control, training, preparation, etc. It also provides a character flaw that fits within the plot and setting. And, to some may be relatable to which they can see him overcome and even use it to his advantage.
Are books perfect, no. But this is a conversation I'm glad that Daniel is sharing. More conversation is good.
Edited for spoiler warning and grammar.
Regarding Erikson’s character writing its A subjective experience yes whether one likes or not. But it doesn’t make his character writing bad tho just not one some like. It’s as simple as that. Opinions are just that, opinions but reasons behind opinions can be disproved if one uses skewed facts to try and explain why they have such opinions. So no Erickson didn’t go too far by saying ppl are wrong for saying his character works is bad. Bc it isn’t.
I remember commenting about a YT creator's haircut on one of his videos. Next video he had a new haircut. I've been feeling guilty since.
There is a problem in the content creation media, and I am not talking about just the "new media", but all mediums of communication.
Consumers, as a whole are very supporting, but they are the silent majority. Unfortunately, the vocal minority is so, so, SO DAMN ENTITLED, and it is a big problem.
Most of the time, they are toxic to the authors and I think anyone should be able to respond to toxic people, if they wish. It's a fundamental right to defend yourself and your property from attacks.
What happens is that most authors just keep it bottled up until the point that it explodes and when it does, they will most likely sound vitriolic.
There should be no taboo about defending your work. But, of course, authors should always try to keep their bias checked. And this skill will only be developed by deeper interactions with critics.
I think Erikson's career in archeology informs his writing philosophy.
One of the things I appreciated about the post was that he sets out what he thinks is the superior way of doing things, about something he feels strongly about. While a lot of fantasy fans on a lot of subjects will concede to subjectivity, there are things where people will argue that something is the superior way of doing things, if not in all cases, at least for the most part. What should be a relatively noncontroversial example is character arcs. A considerable portion of fantasy fans will argue that, with a few exceptions, for the most part, writing a character with an arc is the superior way of writing a character. Its obviously an opinion, but its an opinion not on what they like more, but on what they think is superior. And for the most part we may disagree with such assertions, but hardly treat it as some snobby ivory tower position. And I think that's what he was doing in that post. Setting out, both as an accomplished author of fantasy, but also as a fan of fantasy, what he thinks is the superior way of doing a particular aspect of writing fantasy.
As a fan of Erikson, I also want to defend one of his argument, that his haters paraphrased as "look at how many fans I have" was a legitimate one. The point of character work is to have characters that readers can appreciate and care about. If tens of thousands of readers appreciate and care for many of his characters, he is clearly "doing character work". He has written some of the most memorable characters I have read, whether its the larger than life ones like Rake and Karsa, the hilarious ones like Iskaral Pust or Tehol and Bugg, or the pathos filled ones like Udinaas and the Sengar brothers, I've found them to be considerably compelling. And so have a considerable number of readers. Which is why I think, while its valid to argue that someone may not like his way of doing character work, that he doesn't do it, or isn't good at it isn't.
Coming from a different medium (video games) where it seems like everyone is SUPER outspoken about every facet of their work, I feel like authors should have the ability to remark upon critiques as well. I actually think they should also be allowed to share authorial intent with what they meant by certain parts of their novel, with the caveat that they should also acknowledge not everyone will interpret their work in that way and be okay with it.
I can't put my finger on why but there is a whiff of pomposity in thinking that "professional" reviewers reviews should be considered as criticism and taken on board by authors.
There are right and wrong ways to respond to criticism. Replying directly to a one-star review is, I think, a bad idea. But putting out an essay addressing some of the most common criticisms and explaining what you were going for in your book, that's a good idea. For me, knowing what story the author is trying to tell makes a huge difference in how I feel about the book. And even though the essay might not change the minds of most, it might give them a fresher perspective on later books that they read by the author.
I think an author/critic dialogue opening up will depend on critics, honestly. Millennial and Gen Z genre critics are mostly using newer mediums: blogs, podcasts, TH-cam, etc. And these mediums don't have any gatekeepers, so anyone can set up shop as a book critic if they feel like putting in the time, effort, resources, etc, into it. That's not an inherently bad thing; that's allowed a lot more voices to be heard, and that's lead to a lot more diverse books being published and selling well enough for those diverse authors to go and sell more titles. That's not only a good thing, it's essential to publishing's future. It's also exposed a lot more readers to book reviews in general. (Not everyone's going to subscribe to Locus or Publisher's Weekly.) But the pitfall of it is that not every book reviewer is going to have the skills to critique a book on a professional level that an author will find useful or want to engage with.
There's a difference between 'Erickson's character's suck' and 'While Erickson's world building continues to be enjoyable, his characters remain flat and rely on worn genre archetypes.' Or 'I hated this character' and 'I found the main character, Lord Douchebag, unsympathetic. In chapter one the author seems to be trying to portray him in a heroic light by having him confront a bully... but he wins the confrontation by using the same tactics I would expect of a bully, showing me that Lord Douchebag is not inherently any different from the bully. This trend continues throughout the piece.' The first responses don't give an author enough feedback that they can reasonably address the issues the critic is trying to illuminate, while the second responses give details that can start a conversation.
The fact is that for many authors, the vague reviews and public hate mail/one star 'I hated it!'s outnumber well crafted and informed critics. There are reviewers who will go through and say that authors of books they don't like are terrible people because they write bad books, and not for any other reason. That will make it very hard for authors to a) find the best critics and b) have the mental/emotional capacity to engage with the review and the critic in any meaningful way, never mind c) establishing a relationship of professional mutual respect with a critic that can lead to long lasting dialogues. The only way for this to change is to raise the basic standard of book reviews, and/or make it easier for both readers and authors to sort out the best reviewers from the vaguebookers.
I got the feeling a while back that authors stopped responding to a lot of reviews [years ago? Idk] because if they have any input post publishing then people start screaming *DEATH OF THE AUTHOR* nonsense. Its sad and ridiculous how quickly and easily people just dismiss the authors.
So while I agree with you that authors shouldn't tell readers they're wrong in their interpretation - because it is totally subjective - I'm more on the side of the readers need to stop telling authors *THEY'RE* wrong, because that's the way I've seen it 90% happen.
This is very thought-provoking, thank-you. :)
I think there's a huge value in the sort of response essay like Erikson's. Like you said, it's super interesting to continue the conversation and I think it can teach aspiring writers a great deal.
However, I can't help but be reminded of JK Rowling's twitter where she just tries to change Harry Potter by responding to criticism of the lack of diversity with "well actually I always intended for that character to be [insert minority]". Or authors who respond to individual criticisms and drag them through the mud online.
So yes, there's huge value to be found in essays like Erikson's (if toned down a bit), responses to general criticisms of their works, but I can totally see this becoming an encouragement of JKR-like behavior or worse, encouragement of people with a big online following attacking unsuspecting readers who happened to have an opinion.
This is such an interesting video!!
Lien I agree. Jo is just being too much at this point. Plus the “fans” don’t make it easier with them bugging her and being like why isn’t there is or why isn’t there that. People need to learn an author can’t please everyone. And an author shouldn’t backtrack things to satisfy everyone. What’s done is done.
In other words, you want the author to respond in a way that you approve of. That's humility right there
@@robinirie98 Gosh, how dare I point out that there's a difference between authors responding to general criticism and authors abusing their online platform to attack an individual. Honey, I don't know where you've been but that's not a hot take, it's not even a lukewarm one.
@@LienLxxx I think the word abuse has been appropriated and weaponised. Everyone has equal right to their own opinion and to express it as they see fit. I don't believe that authors gave up that right. In the public square we are all free to disagree and criticise but it goes both ways
I loved the rant. I'm still working my way through Malazan, but I definitely aspire to write in his style.
That rant is a very interesting one. The first few paragraphs are incredibly disrespectful and make him sound exactly as arrogant and condescending as he says people will claim he is. I'm sure he only wrote that due to emotions boiling over and he isn't actually a dick. But that only goes to show that responding to criticism should never be done while you're emotional. I think this is why it's recommended that authors never respond to criticism. It's very hard not to be emotional in such a situation, or at least the moments in which you'd like to respond most are the ones in which you really shouldn't.
After the first few paragraphs though, that facebook post is actually very insightful. Heck, after reading that second example, I'm now very interested in his writing. Might even pick up one of his books some time. (Any recommendations? :)
In general, I'm in favour of any communication as long as it can be done respectfully on both sides (no doubt there are many critics who are just as disrespectful as those first few paragraphs).
While Malazan is an epic tale that is so good, i will acknowledge it is also abit of a mouthful.
So i will take a turn and recommend his Scifi comedy Willfull Child.
If you like Star Trek, it is a funny spoof. Imagine Captain Kirk, but on steriods turned up to 120%.
I personally think authors should be in the conversation as long as they don't go into the rabid you're wrong camp. There's plenty of reviewers who drop slurs in reviews and go on personal vendettas against authors that deserve to be called out. I literally saw someone on Goodreads who except for 5 books rated everything 1 stars while dropping the r slur, the n word, and many more throw a tantrum when an author responded with your criticism is vaild but you're using slurs that actively hurt people to make your point which isn't welcome nor tolerated from my community. Please consider your language in future reviews you can curse all you want but slurs are not needed. They also reacted this way towards other reviewers going wtf why are you using slurs
Great topic today Daniel. Have you ever considered doing a video where you Review the Review? I'd find it interesting getting your take on some other folks reviews, both positive and negative, of books that you are also familiar with.
I agree with you. Authors wrote with their own beliefs, goals, and biases. We as the reader also come in with our own beliefs, goals, and biases, and those can really be a huge part of how a reader is interpreting the material. I think a dialogue is a benefit because both sides can see where the other is coming from.
I know this will sound weird but I collect perfume and indie perfume sets out to tell a story. When you talk to the perfumer, they are telling a story with scent. Anyhow, Dame Desert Rose. I didn’t like it. It smelled like a thriving rose with no inherent struggle. It bugged me. I talked to the perfumer and he explained to me that they bloom in monsoon and really do thrive. It made me sniff it again with a different mindset and I appreciated it more. My expectations were not what the perfumer was going for, he was going off his experience. The dialogue benefited me.
I think if an author is responding to/discussing general or repeated criticism, that can be an interesting and worthwhile conversation. However, I've also seen authors (in multiple genres and age categories, though I've seen it more in the YA crowd) respond personally to individual reviewers in a not very nice way, attack them, or send fans to harass them. Reviewers have even been doxxed by angry authors. (Kathleen Hale is the extreme case of this, but things like this happen fairly often.) There are a lot of authors who behave badly online, both towards each other and towards their readers/reviewers, and it makes me very nervous whenever an author likes or comments on my review on goodreads, even if my review is positive.
This is news to me, I suppose it would have been obvious but I completely missed the fact that it was taboo for authors to talk with reviewers about criticism. Cheers for broadening my perspective once again Daniel 👌
And yeah for sure I agree with you. Criticism shouldn’t be contained to one side, it should be spread around evenly with a nice back and forth. Weird that we don’t have that now.
Yeah, I think they absolutely should be able to respond
But if they can't be respectful and mature, it's way better to be quiet. So, I understand that convention.
Daniel Greene you are hitting on the difference between a review and formal criticism. A critic has a literary theory they can consistently reference, and an author can respond to that theory directly. With reviewers, the review is just a personal impression, and the author can't really respond to how a particular person feels without getting in the weeds. Booktubing and Internet reviews in general are very rarely done with any kind of overarching concepts in mind. You may be better than most, but have you tried to write up your theories of fantasy creation in a way that an author could respond to objectively?
While I agree that many opinions are subjective (although I'm wary on this division of "critic" and "review", specially when I have seen many reviewers doing what you describe as critic) there is also a point that a comment another person made: "if someone's opinion is based on incorrect facts, I don't see anything wrong with the author correcting them".
And I think that is the point that Daniel is making too, if a person has a opinion based on a wrong assertion an author can have a saying to correct that.
Also, opinions can be debated, because even with subjectivity there still has reasons behind it, most of the time.
i completely agree with you. as long as it's civil, why shouldn't authors be able to respond to reviews?
while some reviews can be harsh and unreasonably critical, you shouldn't be afraid of responding to them if you feel them unfair or simply attacking you for the sake of a rant review.
there's also the ones that are politely critiquing your work that i feel is important to take in and even thank the reviewers, or even respond to a common complaint like you said.
i don't like the automatic silence that authors are chained to once they put a work out. a discussion is better as it makes people who love the books feel more appreciated, makes the authors feel like they aren't just getting a continuous onslaught of complaints, and deters the troll reviewers who either say the book sucks and moves on or attacks the author personally
So I’ve been reading a lot of classic sci-fi and fantasy recently and something I find interesting is that a lot of them (or a lot of the ones I like and have read from at least, definitely not an expert) are also essayists.
I’m a big old nerd who reads essays for fun so this crossover of getting to read the book then the authors thoughts on the book is so fun. There’s general thoughts on various topics as you’d expect but occasionally an essay that’s an obvious ‘fuck yous’ in response to criticism pops up. Except it’s less of a ‘fuck you’ and more of ‘here’s a very calm and collected discussion of my way of writing’.
I don’t know if this was common at the time or happens to be from authors I’ve read from, hell I don’t even know if it’s common nowadays, but it gives a lot of insight into the authors point of view. They’d often be published in fanzines/magazines which I don’t think are very popular nowadays which might be why this practice died out.
I’m trying to think if there’s an equivalent nowadays, maybe authors blogs but only people who are already fans will read them, interviews don’t really allow the author to talk freely, Neil Gaiman writes a lot of essays but they’re usually transcripts of speeches, and then I’m struggling.
Anyways the point I’m getting to is that I think authors getting to discuss their own works freely and that includes responding to criticism should be introduced (or reintroduced). My main issue with Erickson’s rant is that it was just that: a rant. If he’d given it a week and calmed down I think he could have written something really compelling. (I’m aware there’s some issues with this, a Facebook post is widely accessible and informal, an essay is in a subscription magazine or collection that only a few can read and is supposed to be serious, he wouldn’t have gotten to show his genuine anger, etc).
I’d really like to see essays/ essay collections become more widely read (fanzines make a comeback??). John Green’s new book might see a bit of a boom for these kinds of things across the board if it’s successful so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
In his defense he's probably been sitting on that essay for about 20 years; so it's hardly surprising that when it did finally come out, there'd be a lot of emotional pressure driving it...
It's funny that for Daniel Malazan has many mistakes but the wheel of time is almost perfect ... he cannot admit that Erikson is a thousand times better writer than Robert Jordan. Anyone who has read multiple books of malazan will surely feel that Jordan and Sanderson write YA.
In addition to that now famous/infamous rant, Erikson has been posting a bunch of fascinating essays on his Facebook which go in depth into his anthropology background. I recommend everyone checks those out, they are great reading. Interestingly, his latest is an essay specifically targeted at people who want to write fantasy, about letting go of your cultural biases, among other things.
I think I may quibble with you on Erikson’s right to say his characterization is bad. My takeaway from his article was he was blasting people for saying he doesn’t do characterization at all. He would be totally out of line for criticizing people for not liking his character work, but I think it’s fair for him to dispute the existence of characterization. The former is subjective, the latter objective.
This is completely off the topic of the video but I just noticed that you have Nix's Abhorsen series in the background. That was my first ever fantasy series as a kid and would love to hear your review of it!
I'm a fan of this channel, it's helped me dip my toes into the fantasy genre and has been very informative on what books to pick up and what is worth reading for a newbie like myself. This is my first comment on one of Daniel's videos because I think this is the best take he's had yet. The assumptions of reviewers can only go so far and even if it takes 40 hours to read something like a book from the Stormlight Archive, the reader is only spending a fraction of the time the author spent with the material and cannot understand the thousands and thousands of decisions made by authors to write their specific story. Social media has bridged the gap between consumers and creators and yet, like Daniel said, the conversation ends with the review when there is now, more than ever, the ability to further understand the writing process, the decisions made therein and where the author is coming from. Just because things have always been done one way, doesn't mean they can't change. Claps for Daniel with this healthy, forward thinking take.
I love how hard he swung.
It's Erikson. Voiced as Erikson.
Unrelated Comment: DANIEL please stream some games that you cover on the fantasy news series! Like Mass effect, Witcher and Cyberpunk 2077 when it comes out!!
Let the man have some downtime!
Goddamn you failed son of Arathorn!
I'd love to see you interview Erikson. Malazan is my favorite fantasy series and he's really a great guy and there are not many video interviews with him with good audio/visuals. I also generally like your interviews very much, Daniel!
Hard agree. Authors spend years, even decades with these characters and stories. They will have a better perspective than a reviewer/reader who spends 7 days on the book.
Obviously everyone can have their own opinion, but maybe if it is a recurring criticism an author can explain that aspect of the story/character from their perspective.
But "recurring criticism" doesn't mean the author should for instance change their way of writing, cause books are not only for reviewers and majority of readers might not have issues with "recurring criticism" from reviewers, so the author shouldn't have to change to please the reviewers.
I know an Indie Author who got so fed up with the reviews on Amazon because Amazon tends to police the glowing reviews and let the negative ones run rampant. They self publish through Amazon, I don't know if this makes a difference. But Amazon tends to think the glowing reviews are coming from family and friends. And they finally snapped and wrote a book called "Please give me a One Star Review" and it was golden. The website they use to publish allows for privately publishing books or making them public so I don't know if you could get a copy, but if you can they wrote it under a pen name and it's a very fast and hilarious read that actually makes a lot of good points about book reviews in general.
Some readers need to understand that a book is not an item from a grocery store and a writer is not providing them a service like some kind of a salesman. Books and authors are much more than that and If they need to speak up on their creative inspirations and acts they absolutely should and have all the right to do that.
100% It is art. They don't necessarily cater to your needs. some authors do but Erikson is clearly not that type of author. can see why he would get so irritated at people trying to impose their wants onto his art/ expression whatever you want to call it.
eidduno always felt like you can criticize something and just say "It's not for me." people attach too much of their personality to a thing they like
I long for authors to do things like this more. Thank you for coming out and backing their right to do so
I’ve seen a lot of this type of thing in the Anime community to, and I’m glad Erikson pointed this out.
In Anime there are a lot of fans who define “character development” as the plot stopping so the characters can do mundane things. Another word for this is filler, which happens primarily because of they have more schedule to fill than Manga to adapt, so they create side stories which don’t effect the main plot or character arcs at all, because they were never part of the story they were adapted from. Often these take the form “this is why this character is the way they are” stories. Filler so is so omnipresent in Anime (because of the demands of Japanese TV networks) that now Anime fans expect these stories and believe them to be necessary, even though they’re anything but. It’s, to use Erikson’s example, just spoon-fed characterisation.
Nope. I dont ask for artist to explain their work. Id rather they not. I like the reclusive artist who stays an enigma and lets the art speak.
Having now read Erikson's essay, I have to agree with what he said about characterization and wish he would teach it to many authors, fantasy or otherwise. But he'd have done better to have left out the complaining in the first half of his piece.
He do sometimes teach in writing workshops in Victoria
When it comes to authors or any creative confirming or denying certain aspects of the story I would prefer it on a case by case basis depending on how annoying the fandom is about the issue. It's like if the fandom is toxic in fighting each other over a issue just come out and say yes this character is X or this situation is X. As far as criticism goes, yeah I think that depends too. Some people have no idea what their complaining about, some are just contrarians and you can't please them. Some need to be addressed, some harshly and some kindly. One size does not fit all.
As a musician I think that this might relate to the music business. Many musicians are not trying to create music to be digestible to the widest audience possible. Many tries to create music that tries to be relevant for being somewhat original knowing that it will turn off many listeners but hoping that it will resonate a lot with the listeners that do connect with it. If a piece of music takes more effort to fully appreciate it is not necessarily because it is poorly written.
Time to finish those books so you can interview him! :D (it's hard I know, I'm struggling to start book 9)
conclusion: communication is good.
I think you are right. I believe this will enhance the quality of the writer and his/her coming works if they feel that the criticism is valid and need to be addressed.Turning a blind eye toward criticism is a bad practice in any profession. Everyone needs the devil’s advocate sometimes
I'm curious how you feel about Death of the Author discourse in regards to many fantasy and sci-fi authors. I think it's an important topic to consider, especially since Cixin Liu's comments were brought up in the last Fantasy News. Do you feel that this kind of Reviewer- Author discourse would make that lense of book analysis obsolete? Authors having direct comments and influence over a reader's experience through review response? I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts! Thanks :)
Never before in my life would I say that I enjoyed reading a Facebook rant
These are strange times
I do also love how he actively rebuts and outright denies any racist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise bigoted interpretation of his work.
I don't know his politics, but I'll also say he has a FANTASTIC grasp on what imperialism is as an economic system. He's probably not a Marxist (and evidence to the contrary is probably just wishful projection on my part, as someone who IS a Marxist), but at the very least he is smart enough to understand the economic aspect of war and empire, which is much more than I can say for most politicians and political analysts. I have a feeling that he is a progressive and empathetic person.
An author's work is fair game for reviews. I consider harassment or incitement to harassment to be unreasonable, but comments on the work are fair. Some of those comments will be unutterably stupid, some will miss the point entirely, and some will be deeply insightful. Such is life.
A reviewer is just an author in a different genre.
If you can't stand the heat, perhaps publishing (of books _or_ reviews) isn't the game for you.
I think they should as long as they’re careful about calling out a specific reviewer. A lot of “fans” will really attack anyone who criticizes their favorite author. Joe Abercrombie is great at this. He’ll post negative reviews but always removes the person’s name.
Bro, my thought process
Me:
“Dude this is an interesting video”
Also me:
“Bruh, where he get that hoodie tho?”
Im not a creater of any kind just a book lover. I find sometimes I can love a book even if i know not every aspect of its creation is great, and then really well crafted books fall down for me simply because the subject doesn’t draw me in.
It has ZERO to do with the book/author and everything to do with me and my experiences and what i most connect to.
My point is an author can be great and still someone will not like the book.......thats art, it’s emotional, which is why i support the concept of ‘drop it and walk away’. The response to art isn’t about the artist......it can be, if the artist is just dreadful.
Im rambling
The concept of open dialogue is valuable and an author (or any person) should never be shut down from expressing their views.
But if they care about every persons opinion on their work, things will not end well for them.......its brutal out there.
I'll admit that there were a few times where the depth of the writing in Malazan got to be a bit much for me, but oh man the pay off! I vividly remember more than once in my read through of the series, stopping a few chapters in, closing the book, flipping in from the front to the list of the author's works, and confirming that this book was in fact the next book, and was in fact in the same series. Some of those transitions from one book to the next, where EVERYTHING changes. None of the same characters, or touch points. Not even really sure it is even the same world or setting... The books in the Malazan series took me two to three times as long to read as the books from A Song of Ice and Fire, or Wheel of Time, but I loved the mad dash of reading the last quarter to third of each book as the plot threads started to come together and things started to make sense.
Then, super hyped, I cracked the next book and wait, what? Did i buy the right book? This is the Malazan cycle, right?
This reminds me of Ray Bradbury. The “I am very real” thing. So many people forget that someone has poured their hearts into these good, amazing books. People should write honest, constructive critiques if they think their opinion should be heard. When people just call it bad, or insult the authors personal life, it is just so disrespectful, disgusting, and entitled. These authors are real.
Fascinating as always! While watching this, I couldn't help thinking about the difference between appreciation and enjoyment. Art (of the painting/sculpture/photography kind) is hugely subjective. Unlike a book, you see it all in an instant and can judge if you like it or not. It can be almost an emotional response. But if someone helps you appreciate it by giving you background, explaining what the artist was trying to say or giving context to when it was made, it helps to make a better judgment I believe. The viewer may still not like it but they might appreciate it. Same with films. Some older films may seem dull by today's hyper standards but if someone gives you some background (that was the first time this technique was used and it led to such and such; the director was going through this in their life and they channelled their pain into it, etc.), you see the film in a different light. So yes, I think it would be fantastically useful and of great value if authors responded to criticism, or explained what is behind the words, or talked about their influences, literary and otherwise. The reader would be offered a new perspective and the author might also see their work in a new light. There are fine lines here though. "The work forces one to question one's very existence." This kind of thing bothers me. Telling people how art should make them feel is not helping them appreciate it. And there is of course the danger that too much explanation/appreciation takes away the magic. Some people are not fans of Making Of docs as it then takes them out of the story next time they watch. I personally love them. These docs also show how much effort and love go into art/film/books, and that always gives me an extra dollop of appreciation.
(Hopefully not only one to look up pablum) I watched a panel with him, rothfuss and Robin Hobb. Robin was engaging, Rothfuss couldn't shut up and Erickson looked bored but actually thought before speaking. He strikes me as fairly introverted but with a dry wit and it probably did take a lot for him to finally say something.
And I agree. Some people just don't like being spoonfed every detail or being able to figure out the entire book looking at the cover art and reading the back cover. Hell, the main antagonist of MotF isn't even mentioned until the second book and even then in passing iirc.
But it seems the main point is just because you don't like the book don't say he doesn't know how to write. He has said on numerous occasions it has gotten better. As mentioned elsewhere I am sure his books are exactly what he wanted and by extension they are exactly what his fans wanted as well.
And with Erickson, ironically the reasons people criticize his books for are the exact same for people who love them.
A review is the honest reaction. Who cares how the author feels? They can use that review or discard it.
As to “responding” to reviews, it’s fine, understandable to have an ego about the work you’ve put a lot of effort into. But for some people the work will suck, and some people won’t “get” it. It’s inevitable.
It would be ideal for the author to not have an ego about it, makes them suffer less and helps them absorb criticism.
Hmmm. To me, it would have made more sense if you were saying he was right about some specific details IN his rant, rather than just "he was right to rant." Like I was waiting for you to tell me what he was right about. I guess it's just the fact that he addressed criticism? I mean, sure, but doesn't that go without saying? Do people actually poo poo on authors when they address criticism? It wouldn't be different than anything else if they did lmao.