Negative feedback = great success? · 12:04pm Aug 5th, 2014
So I lost a follower yesterday (thank you very much Nic-Fit for pointing it out, by the way), and the prime suspect is the most recent (guest) chapter of the story that I shall shamelessly tag in this blog post. With all the dislikes it's accumulating, it wouldn't surprise me if it were the case. Then again, for all I know, the loss was actually because of my blog... 
Either way, while I have no idea who I just lost, nor am I certain my suspicions are correct, this turn of events doesn't particularly bother me. In fact, in a way, it feels strangely satisfying that I apparently managed to piss off someone to such a degree, although a hate-filled rant in the comments section from said person might have made me even happier. 
Joking aside, this also got me thinking: while negative feedback usually reflects that the quality of your work is poor in someone else's eyes, sometimes it seems as though the only reason it appears is because the work managed to hit a nerve in the audience, and they hate it for personal reasons that are completely unrelated to any "technical" ones (i.e bad grammar, bad structure, etc.) With that in mind, do any of you ever feel overjoyed at the sight of your stuff generating lots of hate, especially if it manifests as drama in the comments section, entire forum threads spent on bashing it, etc.?
To be clear, I'm not just talking about trollfics here. Those are specifically designed to attract as much drama as possible, so it's not a surprise when that appears, nor is it any mystery how the author must feel about it. However, the aforementioned fic of mine, against all appearances, is definitely not a trollfic (or at least not intentionally), and there are countless other fics out there, particularly the very dark ones, that generate a similarly divided audience. If we set aside the poorly written ones, in my experience, these fics get so many dislikes for two main reasons: 1) the readers felt that the stories, while structurally more or less sound, did not contribute anything meaningful to the pool of MLP fanworks, and 2) they got pissed off at having to watch Fluttershy murder all of her animals or whatever... 
While I prefer it if my stories get positive feedback (who doesn't?), the sight of getting dislikes on my "edgier" fics does anything but upset me. The negative feedback only tells me one thing: I managed to elicit a reaction, and that was the only real purpose of the fic in the first place. And like I said, this isn't about trolling, which is basically tricking the audience, at the end of which some will laugh, while others will rant. This is about going for intense and serious emotional reactions, some of which may end up being negative. For example, as far as I know, the fic Biblical Monsters generated quite a lot of angry responses because of the ending, and not because it was bad, but because it was as far from a "happy ending" as the center of the sun is from a block of ice. I personally enjoyed that story precisely because it managed to stir me up so much, and I'm not surprised that several people were affected in a negative way. In that sense, I believe that story is a success.
Your thoughts?
Or, ya know, they just got bored, don't find you important, or were clearing out their follow list.
Not really, no. It generally implies that I either misread my audience, am advertising my work in the wrong place, or my readers misinterpreted what I was trying to do. I mean, sure, there will likely be an occasional angry individual regardless of what I do, but if I'm getting that much drama, it's usually a mistake that can be fixed.
That sounds like flame-bait, not trolling.
Usually if an excessively dark fic annoys me, it's less because if the concept, and more because it's usually just the author trying to get everyone's attention on how totally evil and twisted they are. Which they totally are, because they are special magical snowflakes and there is no deeper suffering in life than not being hugged enough as a child.
That or someone is just going through, down-voting everything in a certain group, or portion of the site, like the feature box.
2345119
I did mention that I'm not certain my reasons are correct. Also, it was the timing that made me suspect what I said.
Fallout: Equestria once had a mention on Cracked where they basically said "OMG WTF why would you ever combine adorable ponies with a freaking 'post-nuclear holocaust' setting?" It's nowhere near the most "brutal" fic out there, but it managed to reach a point where non-pony sites started talking about it. Or, to be more specific, started complaining about it. I'd say that's almost on the same level as how MLP:FiM became notorious for the whole "brony" phenomenon...
Stirring things up is still way better than not generating any reaction whatsoever. And maybe there's no reason to "fix" anything, though it's difficult to tell based on a dislike bar alone...
What's the difference? Better yet: isn't one a subset of the other?
Indeed, but there's a difference between "dark for the sake of dark" (i.e the fics spawned by Cupcakes and the like), and "real stories that contain very dark elements." That said, the scenario I mentioned, when taken out of context, does sound ridiculous (not to mention appears as "flame-bait"), but when one writes a good story around it, then it has an entirely different impact.
Also, I'm pretty sure it doesn't take a "dark and twisted" person to write something dark and twisted. All it takes is imagination. I do agree with the attention-seeking bit, though...
Those are boring reasons, even though they are valid.
2345143
I wasn't aware anyone cared about Cracked anymore, due to the highly inconsistent quality and intelligence of their various writers, and the fact they are there for comedy, not precise, intelligent statements on modern day society.
Only vaguely.
To flame-bait is to attempt to make something controversial for the sake of attention. Negative attention. It's there to inspire arguments, anger, and complaints. Flame baiting is by it's nature, extreme, dramatic and blunt.
Trolling is a hobby more defined by being subtle. Unlike flame-baiting, it has two goals. To make an intelligent, convincing argument or statement that convinces people who don't know better that the 'troll' is correct, even if something nags at the back of their head that there's something off. The other half, is inspiring a debate on the subject that can never be won, due to intentional hypocrisies in the trolls own argument while also prodding at everyone else involved.
Trolling is intelligent, and requires intelligence. It's elegant, and is more inspired on parody, and usually hides some sort of legitimate point that sits side by side with the entertainment factor. In contrast to flame-baiting, which has no internal point and is just there for the sake of being controversial and amusing for the baiter in question.
As a general rule of thumb, if it's an obvious ploy for attention or attempt at making people angry or spark emotional focused arguments then it's flame-baiting.
If it's an intelligent and well structured argument that's subtly mocking and an attempt at making academic, social, or political arguments, then it's trolling.
2345938
It was the first example that came to mind in my case. These guys also wrote about it, and while I'm not sure how high they are on the "internet food chain," I think the point still stands: this fic is way above the scale most MLP fanfics ever ascend to, and, simultaneously, its content generates quite a bit of controversy.
On "trolling vs. "flame-baiting":
You make a valid point, but I believe the two still fall under the same abstract category that I pointed out, i.e "intentionally trying to spark a debate through the content of the work in question." In that sense, a "trollfic" would be a fic that subtly takes jabs at certain sensitive subjects within the brony fandom in order to start a (sensible) debate. However, the term is instead used on fics that simply try to upset as many people as possible through the most blatant methods available (e.g Cupcakes, Sweet Apple Massacre, etc.)
The characteristic they both share is the intentional writing. These kinds of stories are made specifically for an audience reaction, as opposed to how more "traditional" stories come to life. The latter are, in a sense, "stories being written by their authors for the sake of writing a story." In other words, even though their content could be the kind that guarantees controversy, they aren't structured in a way that pretty much asks for people to start arguing over it.