On Comments

The following musings are not specific to this particular site, but to all sites of the genre. Actually, it has more to do with a discussion I was part of in a chatroom, said discussion having left me a bit irritated and in need of a soapbox to publicly expound upon. This, then, is my first blog entry.

I find myself wondering about the purpose of story comments. Most sites that publish amateur fiction and encourage readers to comment say something to readers like "give writers feedback in return for their stories" and "don't just say that you liked or didn't like a story, but say why."

The implication, or sometimes the explicit amplification, is that reader feedback can help authors see where they are succeeding and where they are failing, and thereby improve their craft and the quality of the end-product.

To this point, this sounds straightforward. As we have amateur authors, so shall we have amateur literary critics. Personally, I think it's a cute idea and works out rather well for the most part. Unlike professional literary critics, amateur literary critics are much less jaded and vicious. Viciousness in professional literary criticism is a badge of distinction, a competitive advantage in getting your criticism published. Here (speaking generally of all of the amateur tg fiction publishing sites with which I'm familiar), there is no such motivation. The soapbox is democratic, open 24 hours a day and not space-constrained. There is no need to be vicious merely to be published. Remarks can be as kind and insipid as the commenter desires, without getting the commenter booted out of a job.

To some extent, the comments can become a focus group, amplifying the kind of stories the readership finds fulfilling and encouraging the writers to provide more of. (Yes, I know that's a dangling preposition, and I don't care.) Writing for a ready-made audience, and writing to please them is going to skew the nature of the stories being produced, but as it's a symbiotic relationship, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It might be bad if it impinged on creativity and encouraged self-censorship and a flight to "safe" themes and characters and the tried-and-true. But, this is true in the world of "real" publishing as well. The true artist is either totally brilliant in forging new ground or starves to death, or as is often the case, both, only becoming recognized posthumously. Most published authors have to content themselves with honing their art within the boundaries of tried-and-true formulas with ready-made readerships.

But, back to the subject at hand. Reader comments on open tg fiction publishing sites. What are the purposes and parameters for those comments? How do or should those comments be adminstered for maximum benefit and enjoyment by all concerned? I'll admit right now that I don't have any answers, and that it's clear that the site administrators for each site have to answer those questions for themselves. But, this is my chance to share my thoughts and reactions, so I will.

Part of the purpose of encouraging comments is to encourage authors to produce more stories. As comments are the only currency that change hand in this form of publishing, the theory goes that authors who receive more comments will be more encouraged to produce more stories. Part of the stated purpose of enabling reader comments is to show new authors where they can improve, so future stories will be better. A further function of allowing this commentary is to build a vibrant community of readers, who can interact with each other and bring something greater to the site than a bunch of disconnected individuals can.

That's the theory of it all, anyway. The practice of it is a bit different. In reality, the desire of most site managers seems to be to encourage authorship and protect egos. Comments are to be fan letters. Any negative thoughts are to be carefully buffered with broad praise and encouragement to continue writing. Numerous near-flame-wars have appeared in the comment sections of some stories (here and elsewhere) where insensitive remarks garnered hurt feelings.

In the chatroom conversation I mentioned at the top of this musing, I found myself being criticized for having the audacity to suggest to an author how I thought a story could have been improved. A friend, whose opinion I value and who does quite a lot of voluntary proof-reading for authors, thought that reader commentary should stop at the point that a reader might tell a writer how to write their story, or how THEY would have written the story. I understand what my friend was trying to say, although I disagree with her interpretation of what I was trying to say. Suggesting how an ending didn't seem to fulfill the intent of a story, or how a plot development was excessively distracting would seem to be valid reader observations and well within the parameters of appropriate feedback. At least, to me. From my own experience in trying to write, I can assure you that those observations are NOT enough to enable one to write their own story as opposed to simply reacting to someone else's. So, telling a reader who wishes to make suggestions to an author that if they are going to do that, they should go write their own damned stories (and my friend did NOT use those exact words), seems a bit unwarranted in my humble opinion.

By themselves, my friend's comments wouldn't bother me. We're all entitled to our opinions, after all. But, added to recent comments by some site administrators and some angry reactions to other reader comments that I've seen, I think it would be useful to discuss just what we see as the purpose of allowing readers to post comments to stories. Are we a community? Are we a fan club? Are we consumers? Are we a group therapy session? Frankly, I think we're a bit of each, myself, and that it's a good thing. I also think that, just as one might wish to encourage authors with comments, so do you have to encourage readers to make those comments by making their comments welcome.

Click Like or Love to appropriately show your appreciation for this post: