New chapter, and reflections on reviewing

So. Second chapter is uploaded. Just need to edit the third chapter, get that posted, and then I'll need to get my butt in gear to write the next few chapters!

Other than that, I recently dropped my status as a reviewer for The Equestrian Critics Society, mainly because I simply do not have time to read through a story, analyze it, and write a full review on it. It's a time-intensive process that simply does not mesh with Engineering homework

In any case, while I was tying up a couple loose ends related to that, a thought occurred to me: since I did write some reviews, and for the most part they were well-received, then I could apply my extensive knowledge of writing critiques to my own stories and benefit immensely! Right?

Right?!

The thing is, though, if I, for example, reviewed my latest story, My Little Poem, I would probably give it a 6 or 7 out of 10, if I wasn't me and My Little Poem wasn't my story. But why such a score? Shouldn't I be more capable of creating works because I have critiqued them in a successful manner in the past?

Let me outline a couple of reasons why writing critiques and writing stories are two very different things:

1.) Critiques analyze objectively. Creators analyze subjectively.

When a creator creates something, they are following some sort of internal blueprint, even when that blueprint is little more than "FLIBBERTYGIBBET". That blueprint is highly specific to their perspective, which means that any analysis that the creator puts towards their work will factor in this internal blueprint with what is objectively written. Those who critique or review have no access of any kind to this internal blueprint, thus any critique or review from someone other than the creator is far more objective than a critique or review from the author themselves.

There are benefits to analyzing a work from either perspective. For example, the author could see if what he or she has written lines up with their internal blueprint. If it doesn't, then they know to correct the story to bring it in line with their creative vision. Then again, coming into a story with no prior knowledge or internal perspective on the story means that obvious problems with the mechanics of the piece, such as grammar or spelling, will be more apparent, which is equally helpful.

2.) The time a reviewer or critic invests in a story is much shorter than the time a creator invests in a story.

Simply put, creators spend the most time with a story than anyone else. This means that, more than anyone else, they know more about the story, its characters, plot, setting, the whole caboodle. Thus, any changes that are made to the story affect the creator more than anyone else, because changing something that they know so well and spent so much time on becomes a much more emotional experience.

A critic or reviewer has no such prior experience, and comes at a story from a position of ignorance. As they read a story and critique it, that ignorance becomes a general understanding of the story, which influences how it compares to other stories the reviewer or critic has read in the past. While this sounds complex, it doesn't take nearly as much time to execute than creating a story from scratch, which means that a lot of the specific quirks and/or themes the creator has attempted to insert into a story may be completely missed by the critic or reviewer.

This time investment disparity means that a critic or reviewer does not have the capacity to care for a story in the same way an author might. This means that a critic or reviewer can spend more time taking a look at the general environment of writing, and can point out basic problems and issues that an author may not have considered as they create his or her stories. They become a repository of generalities that is unaffected by emotional investment; literally, they are the yardstick for authors, to see how their story measures up to what is created by other authors. Critics and reviewers create competition and promote social interaction in this manner.

However, there may be deeper flaws in a story that a reviewer or critic might miss. And only the creator would know what those flaws are, unless he or she himself or herself is also blind to those flaws. So attempting to review a story that has these deeper flaws and giving an author constructive criticism to correct those deeper flaws is best done in consultation with the author themselves. In short, an editor or pre-reader is needed in this case, not a critic or reviewer.

3.) Critics and authors have different goals.

Critics and reviewers do their best to judge overall quality. Creators strive to engage their audience. While neither of these goals is mutually exclusive, the reality is that they do not often overlap. Consider Troll 2, one of the "worst films ever made", that somehow ends up being super entertaining despite its terrible quality. And there are numerous "critically acclaimed" authors that never see the light of day outside of a hardcore audience that appreciates the overall quality of their works, simply because they do not engage the general audience.

I personally would submit Hemingway as a great example of this. That guy is a genius at both the economy of language and turning objective facts into emotionally gripping experiences... and yet I could not get into his stories without being forced to take antidepressants (This is used as a metaphor, not as an anecdote, i.e. I did not actually have to take antidepressants after reading Hemingway. Just so we're clear). His stories and works actively repelled me from them, as if the author did not want me to be engaged in them. It's great writing, and a great example of proper grammar and economy of language, but it just doesn't engage.

The perfect storm comes when a high-quality work is made that engages an audience. Harry Potter, or Star Wars, or The Lord of the Rings, are great examples of this. However, consider how many stories, novels, movies, plays, and more are created every year, and consider that very few of them engage audiences on the level that these two works have. This gives some perspective at how rare it is for the author/creator to make something that both surpasses their requirements, i.e. engages as wide an audience as possible, AND surpasses the technical and general quality levels of every other story being created at that point.

In Conclusion:

Just because one has reviewed stories does not mean that such a person is a capable author in his or her own right. Critics and reviewers are the yard stick used to judge overall quality, while creators themselves are far more personal, internal, subjective, and knowledgeable. They do very different things, and have very different goals that do not overlap.

So, if a reviewer (or ex-reviewer in my case) decides to write stories of their own, at the very least, those stories will be of a GENERALLY good quality. But the deeper flaws? There is no way to judge without talking to the author themselves and getting those issues worked out in a satisfying manner. And that is something no reviewer can do without somehow morphing into an editor or proofreader.

I hope this was enlightening, or at least thought-provoking.

Sincerely,

Mr. Album

Comments

[Felyon]

This is an excellent analysis.

I am glad I chose to review your story.