Subjective-Objective Confusion Disorder · 12:09pm Sep 30th, 2018
Blog Number 43: Questions of Quality Edition
I realize I'm throwing out a lot of questions here, but this isn't a rhetorical move to browbeat people into some form of nihilism. I genuinely suspect - or wishfully think, (one or the other) - that there are answers to these questions, if only I was informed enough or smart enough to work them out. But after months of trying, especially in relation to writing, I haven't made a blind bit of progress in figuring out something very important to me: what IS quality, and how do you tell when it's there?
This has eaten away at me for a long time: When you're trying to judge something as good or bad, how exactly are you supposed to tell? After all, whose judgement are you supposed to trust? Because every possible answer to me is tainted by the fact that it's subjective.
For starters, you can't trust your own judgement, because inevitably the author has the emotional investment and blind spots that prevent them from saying anything authoritative about the quality of their own work. Plus, we know the Dunning-Kruger Effect exists, among other cognitive biases that cast doubt on one person's ability to make a judgement call. It's subjective, shall we say.
You can't trust your audience, because people have subjective tastes, preferences, bugbears, idiosyncrasies, and moment-to-moment mood changes. When Reviewer A compliments Writer B on their Character Development C, supposing Reviewer A was just in a good mood that day, and next day he looks at it again and says, "Well, actually, now I give it a reread..." Supposing Reviewer A was 18. Would they say the same thing at 24? If reviewers polarize into two camps, is the correct call to average their responses somehow? Or to find whichever camp's biggest? But then there can't be any stability in said judgement, because all it takes is an arbitrary number shift. And if one person says you fluffed Character Development C whereas another person says you nailed it, how are you supposed to tell which one's talking through their hat? This too is subjective.
You can't trust critics and reviewers, because however well educated and informed they are relative to the larger population, it's still dubious to what extent they're the arbiters of taste. Most people I've met scoff at the idea that someone can tell them what's good and what's bad. OK, so this is about enjoyment versus quality, I guess. But even the experts don't seem to agree on what constitutes quality, and even if they did, what worth is their reasoning if someone else tries the same art and doesn't have the same response? It collapses into the problem of subjectivity. In the end, experts in the field seem little different from just another audience. Because it's ultimately subjective.
So can you trust the aggregate of responses to see if there's a trend? That's usually how these things are resolved, but this assumes that everyone's shooting for the same target (just that some shoot too high and some shoot too low). That assumption relies on a certain unanimity of agreement which I don't see existing. Look at the "common currency" of what constitutes good writing. Everyone wants strong, well-rounded characters who undergo a change as a result of engaging with the events of the plot... except when everyone praises a character solely because of their appearance, or cheers a flat character for being funny/sad/evil/cool, or likes a character who's no different at the end than at the beginning. Everyone wants a plot to develop logically and make sense, except when no one cares about it being stupid or bonkers because hey, they still enjoyed it. Everyone wants good stories that tell an engaging, meaningful tale, except when they read something knowing it's going to be none of those things and still see value in it.
It's just subjectivity, only a lot more of it.
Except when it isn't subjective, because of the logic of a scene or the unrealistic character psychology or whatever. OK, let a writer address that. But then it is subjective, because not everyone cares that e.g. Person A could've solved the plot a third of the way in. Yet the story is called "great" anyway. But you focus on this aspect anyway in the hopes of getting somewhere, and then it just doesn't go over well, and it turns out there were, like twelve other things you overlooked...
...because as soon as you get in the mindset that there's a standard in all this, everything - every damn thing you write, sooner or later - has a problem somewhere that you overlooked. You failed to meet that standard. Except whoops, it's OK, because it met someone else's standard, which isn't a standard, but is subjective, except this one guy talks like it's an actual problem that can be fixed, so you take notes, but then take more notes on something else, which doesn't work out, but you try, only not really because now someone else doesn't like it, and you try to fix that, and something else is flawed, and you try to fix that, and screw something else up, and something else is flawed, and oh my god how do people DO this shit!?
It's a randomly moving target with no discernible rhyme or reason. In that environment, I don't see how you can trust any judgement call. It can literally be subverted by the next opinion. Yet I haven't found a person, here or anywhere, who outright endorses the "no standards" approach. I'm just having a hard time figuring out why, because to me it seems like the only approach that really covers the contradictions.
Goodness knows I'm not saying that's the final word on the matter - it would take all of three seconds to prove I don't have much knowledge of literary criticism - but it's a sticking point that, at the moment, I can't get past. How are you supposed to produce quality if you have no idea what it looks like, can't predict what'll work and what won't, are faced with confusing opinions that - for all you know - just prove there's no audience yet for a particular creation, and keep finding counterexamples to what's apparently the consensus on how to write quality?
And even allowing for all that, what's the point if not everyone is after quality in the first place? In that context, how do we get to say it's something above and beyond mere taste or arbitrary luxury?
So I'm either stuck in a rut or coming up against something I don't want to admit is true. It's like I've been spending months - years, even - trying to capture mist in a net. I don't know what I'm doing anymore. So if anyone has the answer to this riddle, please please tell me what it is. Because at the end of yet another month of no progress, I'm just flat-out stumped.
Impossible Numbers, out.
This is why people get one good editor they trust, which isn't something you can know immediately. Takes time to build a relationship, but once you know that when they go, "Hey, this doesn't work," they're telling the truth, well, that's irreplaceable.
Eeyup.
I have thoughts here. Lots of ‘em. The problem, of course, is that you can’t trust any single person’s thoughts as being authoritative. The reality is that what works for one person might not work for you, because it’s your head and hands trying to execute a game plan that someone else tried to capture in writing about what their head and hands actually do. It’s telephone games all the way down, yo.
But.
Short version: see 4945893. You find your special somepony who knows how to translate between your brain and the world, then you put a ring on it.
No, but seriously, having one or more folks whose opinions you trust is, IMO, essential to “success” (broadly and loosely defined). It’s not that having person X working on your story is going to make it topple SS&E’s complete works overnight; it’s more like, it helps you to gain confidence about your story’s quality by making sure that someone with an eye for quality has had one or more chances to look for quality issues that a single set of eyes just can’t detect.
I believe that, fundamentally, you (and me, etc.) are too close to the works you yourself write to maintain a strong sense of objectivity. But a good editor doesn’t necessarily have to be there either. in fact, someone who you like and who likes you will probably be a bit subjective, too; after all, they’re spending time working on Pony fanfic instead of like... I dunno, making money, maintaining their health, or building a romantic relationship.
But if they can bring you a perspective that helps improve your overall quality relative to the audience you’re seeking, isn’t that ultimately what matters?
And if that sounds like a cop-out, consider that what it means to deliver a “quality” work might differ greatly by both genre, and by your specific vision for the story. The latter point is also one of the key things that defines the interplay between authors and editors; an editor can help you examine things from a different angle, but ultimately it’s your call what kind of story you want to tell, and what to do with their advice. Finding someone who can mesh well with those realities is super helpful!
The reality, though, is that finding the “one true editor” isn’t necessarily easy either. One thing I’ve made a point of doing with my FimFic stories has been to reach out and work with several different editors. I try to look for people who write things that I like and that I believe are of quality, and/or who bring other talents to the table. In doing so, I’ve made a number of contacts who I can ask when I feel like a story needs a certain set of skills, or a certain kind of critical eye. And, beyond that, I have found someone who basically “gets” me and can help way more often than not.
It’s less about knowing where quality lies, and more about finding people who you trust can help point you in its general direction.
I am reminded of the following:
derpicdn.net/img/view/2014/6/8/648474__safe_artist-colon-romanrazor_princess+celestia_twilight+sparkle_alicorn_blue-dash-mane+celestia_cheering_comic_comparison_crying_duo_facehoof_f.png
First, there are a lot of guidelines for good writing out there. They're rules for a reason: because they tend to work. So step one is that a good editor will make sure you're following the rules, or if you're breaking them, that you understand what you're doing and it's a net positive for the story.
There are lots of things the rules don't cover, though, and yes, that's very subject to personal taste, bu a good editor can divorce personal taste from what he's trying to call good writing or not. There are stories I hated that I'd recommend as good reading. You don't (usually) want an editor who wants you to get the story to a point where they like it. It shouldn't matter whether they like it, though editors are (understandably) more engaged with a story they do like, and thus will probably do a better job with it.
Audiences are a far trickier thing. I can tell you that doing something a certain way doesn't work well, but audiences may not care. It really depends on what they're looking for in a story. High literary quality? Just a fun time-waster? Something in between? There are also lots of things authors do wrong in stories that have a very subtle effect on readers, to the point they could say something rubbed them wrong about it, but they couldn't put their finger on what. Or they can gloss over something without it bugging them, but if they read a "fixed" version, they'll agree it was better. So that's yet another question about what an audience is exactly looking for: good enough or great?
The most definite thing I can say about an audience is that you need to figure out who you're targeting and listen to them. Good reviewers are jacks of all trades, to a degree, and can understand what makes an effective entry in a particular genre, even if it's a genre they don't enjoy. But if I get feedback from someone who didn't like my horror story, and I know he just doesn't like horror at all, then I'm going to have to take his response with a grain of salt. Listen to what he says, think about it—he may be right about some or all of it. But a lot of times, he was just never going to like the story no matter what, so there's not much value in trying to please him.
And that leads to my last point: no story is perfect for every reader. If you make the changes everyone asks you for, the only person who will think the story is perfect is the last one who edited it. But there's going to be fairly universal agreement about the major parts of the story, usually because of those standard guidelines about what makes for good fiction. Consider the source, what known biases and preferences that person has, and in the end, you have to be the one happy with it, and in most cases, the audience in general will only differ on fairly minor points about what they liked and didn't. You might get a few people who hated the whole thing, and they're the most likely to speak up (and don't even get me started on people who knee-jerk downvote just because they're not a fan of that ship, for example), but if you're not getting a consistent response (or one from a trustworthy source) about the same thing being a problem, it probably isn't. Though on the other hand, if you're getting numerous responses of people with big bones to pick but they disagree on what the major issue is, your story may just be too scattershot.
If you're getting a good majority consensus from multiple reputable reviewers and people in your target audience, I'd say you've found good quality.
In part, I think you're overthinking things. You're concerned about the subjectivity of things, the volatility of opinions, and how all of that relates to trying to improve your writing. Trying to balance that is both challenging and somewhat pointless?
Lemme explain.
Yes, lots of writing is subjective. Yes, different people have different standards. But like Pasco said, there are general rules and guidelines. And like nearly everyone will say, finding editors and reviewers you can trust is important. But here's the thing: Even editors and reviewers you trust, ones that follow those basic guidelines Pasco talked about, will disagree on things. You mentioned as much in the blog. You're all concerned about it.
So what? That's the nature of writing and most art, as it turns out. There's a lot of subjectivity. Part of getting into this, whether it be writing, editing, reviewing, or whatever, is accepting all of that subjectivity. Sure, there is a certain amount of objectivity with regards to mechanics and such, but the subjectivity? You just kind of need to accept that it's part of the business.
So when it comes to improving your writing, what you should look for is people you trust. You don't have to agree with what they say necessarily. Instead, you should look for people that can articulate their thoughts and present reasonable arguments. What they say isn't always what's important; it's how they say it.
I think it's also important to remember this:
1) You can enjoy something that is good
2) You can dislike something that is bad
3) You can enjoy something that is bad
4) You can dislike something that is good
5) And, of course, everything in between
The first two are easy to remember, and it's easy to think that's all there is to it. Part of making all that subjectivity in writing easier to understand and accept is accepting parts 3 and 4. These are things that are not only possible but reasonably common. It's kind of liberating to realize that just because you liked a thing doesn't mean it was done well or that because you disliked it, of course it was done poorly. Granted, it's hard to recognize those situations, but understanding they exist can help a lot.
In sum, yes, there's a lot of subjectivity. But who cares? Find someone(s) you trust, and understand that enjoyment and quality are not a direct relationship.
4945993
Does it count if I like precisely 0 ships?
4945893
4945918
4945940
4945993
4946294
Thank you all for the helpful responses. It occurs to me in all this I might have to change my overall approach to writing. Up till now, I generally tried to solve problems on my own, which is one reason I hardly ever use proofreaders and so on. But at this point I don't think that's going to be feasible in the long run. Certainly not if I'm getting this confused over it.
The reason I was stressing myself out over this yesterday (and long before then) was because I worried I just didn't get writing. Now... well, I'm still not 100%, because this has been an ongoing problem. But at least I'm considering this alternative way of dealing with it. Seems I might have unrealistic expectations about how this works.
I'll be rereading these responses, because there's a fair amount of nuance to take in, and I'll likely refer back to them. The big takeaways, though, are:
1.a. Get at least one editor, proofreader, second set of eyes, or the like before even thinking about publishing anything. So long as another person gives it a go, it's less likely to be influenced by author's bias. Just don't expect a perfect mutual understanding from the get-go: realistic expectations.
1.b. Try multiple editors, in fact, both to increase catchment area for that ideal editor and to have more eyes keep a watch out for errors and suggestions.
2. Don't go to the other extreme and treat the editor's word as the final word. They're offering advice, not commandments.
3. Advice tends to work =/= Advice will absolutely always work. Think probabilistically/statistically.
4. Keep in mind I might need editors tailored to specific genres (and styles maybe?) in case features are called bugs.
5. Pay attention if problems are consistently called out or seem to have a major impact on people's reading (e.g. in the case of a scattershot work). General consensus is indicative.
6. You can enjoy something that is bad, or dislike something that is good. This is perfectly OK.
7. Prefer editors who are articulate and explain the issue, whether or not you ultimately agree with any particular point they make.
8. Just relax. Accept that you can't fully control for subjectivity, because that is the nature of the beast.
4946378
No man is an island, nor should a writer be. :)
4946378
I tend to meander across several different styles. Depending on the story I'm writing, I might use first person, third person, I might use almost exclusively action tags, exclusively said tags, or a mixture of and an all.
Back in the day (not all that long ago, but shhh, it's a story) I mostly wrote in third person with only action tags. There was nothing wrong with this, it was just the style I used. At least two "editors" (scare quotes very much intended) tried to correct me on this, claiming that action tagging wasn't valid. One of them went so far as to "correct" over 3000 words of story.
Absolutely. You should try to make it so that your editor doesn't find the same mistake as often. It keeps your editor sane.
That said, I wish I could get an editor who would keep up with me. No disrespect to my current editor, particularly since she has her own writing to do, but it's not exactly easy to find people who will keep their hair and edit 3k words a day. (I lost mine just writing it!)
However, even just getting an editor for one or two pieces is a major help if you constantly strive to write better.
Peace, and I hope you have a great day!
4946380
Absolutely. I'm going to start taking that seriously from now on. It's been a recurring problem of mine.
4946382
Re: the third-person stylistic thing, I guess it's a balancing act. Like CoffeeMinion said, ultimately it's your call how and what you want to write, even if editors can be immensely helpful in spotting what you've missed.
I suppose one way of looking at it - and solving the "keep up with me" problem - is that not everything you write needs to be edited. Some things you might want to write for nothing more than fun, and other things you might decide on your own to delete or keep to yourself. But get an editor when you decide that a particular work isn't messing about, that it matters that it works for an audience. And so on.
Thank you both again for the comments.
4946407
Funnily, the way I phrased that, you could take it as "no writer should be an island, either" or "no man should be a writer". <.<
Which, let's face it, if you can be something else, don't be a writer. XD
4946378
One more I'd add, from personal experience on the editing side:
As the writer, you have the final word. You're the one who has to be happy with the story, and you might make some changes because you agree with the editor that they're needed or because at least you don't feel it makes things worse. A good editor will always explain the changes he's suggesting so you can make an informed decision, and a good editor will also identify when he thinks his opinion might be skewed by personal preference. But when you've made your final decision, move on from there. End the discussion on that point. When a writer keeps coming back to something, I take that as him still being open to persuasion on it, and some writers find it frustrating that the back and forth keeps going on. If you're really and truly done with a point, close it down, mark it as resolved, and don't invite more discussion on it. In my case, I often don't even go back to check which way you decided to go, so I might never know whether you took my suggestion or not.
4946378
Oh, and I'm a resource, too. I think I've offered editing to you before, but all you have to do is ask. You write far faster than I can review, so it'd have to be an occasional thing, but if you want an opinion, hit me up for one.