Writing, art and the internet critic
Dec. 24th, 2018 11:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAs I write my novel, I have to push away the internal critic in my head. Which up until roughly 2002 did not exist. It's not your everyday critic, it is the voice of the internet - the thousands, possibly millions of voices who rip apart art on a daily basis -- not just on a technical level, but on the increasingly subjective socio-political one. Over time, I've learned to hand-wave these voices...to realize some of what they say is worthy, the rest is noise. Troublesome. But noise.
It's not easy though. And makes me sort of miss the days before we could share our opinions and views, right, wrong or in-between within the blink of an eye to anyone who would care to read them or listen.
Been thinking about this off and on for a while now -- and have noticed a discernible pattern in how various critics amateur and otherwise review art -- particularly in fandoms. They have no issues with the art itself, the characterization, the plotting, no -- it's their interpretation of the theme or message conveyed that they are annoyed by. OR the travesty of a white author writing about a black character in a manner that is...dishonorable and prejudicial. OR the travesty of an LGBTQ relationship being broken apart by an untimely death -- a pseudo Romeo/Juliet (except Juliet is a boy) ending. OR that fascism seems to be the message of the work -- and really how dare they!
Here's the thing -- I can't help but wonder if people are missing the point of creating art? Or expression? In this propaganda soaked world, with every bit and piece of work being interrupted with marketing and advertising and product placement -- I can see why. How can you know the difference between propaganda and art or a commercial and a story? Particularly when many advertisers use stories to sell products. We're in a world -- where someone is constantly trying to sell you something whether it be an ideology, an idea, a product, a place, a point of view, a political candidate, a way of life -- it's something.
Stories and art aren't really doing that. The point of most stories is not to sell you a particular moral perspective or anything for that matter. They aren't trying to promote, sell, advertise or market. Stories are a means of communicating a perspective different than our own. For a little while -- we are whisked away in someone else's head, their world-view, and if done well -- get to see things from an angle or perspective we never thought of or hadn't considered. They are often what-if scenarios or dreams channeled by the writer onto the page or screen -- to convey what they've felt, seen or imagined.
Marti Noxon once stated that she never thought of the theme or message when she wrote, in most cases there is no message or moral there -- there is just the story. And this is true of many writers, James Joyce when asked what his stories were about -- really couldn't tell you. Same deal with many many other writers. I've had people ask me -- what is the point of your story, your theme -- and I often think, it's just that we need to help one another find our way in this world. And they'll either get it or they won't. That's the other bit -- even if you do have a theme or moral hidden in there, it's unlikely everyone will pick up on it. We see things through our own unique lense. No one sees the world the way we do. And sharing a story is a way to share that unique perspective with another human being or many at once.
That said there are stories that are meant to be sermons -- parables and allegories fit under this definition. Their characterization is scant as is their world-building. There's just enough there to get the message across. And they don't tend to be very long. I remember reading Anthony Burgess' critique of Stanley Kubrick's take on "A Clockwork Orange" and the American publication of his work -- he felt it had become allegory. The characters were not allowed to evolve, the story not allowed to progress past that thematic point or message. Kubrick wanted to make a point about brain-washing and controlling people -- he was interested in the socio-political perspective. Burgess wanted to tell a good story first, then thematic message after. And he felt for his story to truly work -- the lead character had to grow up, evolve, and choose to let go of his hoodlum behavior on his own via the lessons he'd learned. While Kubrick and the American publishers felt that it worked far better for the lead, Alex, to revert back to his nasty ways with no remorse. Burgess felt that approach turned the story into allegory -- and he didn't like allegory.
As you can see from the above, these things are seldom clear-cut. And there's an argument to be made that Burgess' ending was naive and far more preachy, than Kubrick's ambiguous one. Similarly, when I look at Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Go Tell the Watchman". The later book is most likely the more realistic, and preachy in its own way. In it -- Lee tells a story of the South as she experienced it. A gentleman bigoted father who defended the destitute, and her attempts to show him the errors of his ways vs. To Kill A Mockingbird, with the far more liberal father, who defends people, and appears to be almost colorblind. The message in it is clear and far kinder -- and the story, a coming of age tale. Both are works of art that convey a socio-political message -- but which was the writer's intent? And both depending on the reader, can be interpreted in a positive and/or negative manner. Should either have never been published? Should we censor those works that we despise or don't like and only keep those that further our own world view? And by doing so...does this make us hypocrites?
Looking at television fandoms, the same questions can be asked. If you think say, Stephen Moffat's take on Doctor Song was misogynistic, because she was portrayed as ambiguous in the moral sense from your perspective, and her ending felt like fridging the gal again from your perspective -- but say you felt Rose and Doctor Who's relationship was empowering, how do you deal with a viewer who sees it exactly the opposite? Probably not very well. We're all, I think, wedded to how we view the universe. But I keep wondering, what if we are wrong? Or what if we are missing something? Or maybe the writer is telling us something by depicting the story in a certain manner? Perhaps not very well -- which is another post altogether.
I was thinking about the current Doctor Who arc --which granted could have been executed better, but overwhelmingly seemed to be about trying to jump-start new characters. Theme such as it was -- and it was bare bones -- was how to solve problems without killing anyone and/or without violence. Difficult to do since, Doctor Who -- at least the reboot -- has always been violent. And they kill the villains, not always successfully - since they have a wicked habit of popping up again and again. (see the Master). Most of 9, 10 and 11's runs involved the Doctor committing increasingly violent or ambiguously immoral acts to defeat some villain, with dire consequences. He's almost an anti-hero at one stage or a dark, seemingly well-meaning, lonely god. Granted I didn't watch most of these runs, but that appeared to be the fandom critique of them.
During this period, the far darker, Torchwood premiered, followed by Children of God miniseries -- which was critiqued for killing off one part of the key gay couple on the series. Much like the BTVS fandom, when Tara was killed, fans felt the writers were sending a homophobic message to the world -- or a deeply disturbing one. (Except in this case the writer in question was actually homosexual, and the fans, mainly heterosexual women. While in the prior scenario -- the writer in question was male heterosexual, and the fans mainly male and female heterosexual, although there were a few LGBTQ fans in that mix, who felt whether intentionally or not, the writers were sending a rather nasty and cliche message to the world -- which had been an on-going Hollywood story trope. The writer's in question appeared to be shocked by the fans reaction and bewildered by it -- since they'd been caught up in the story they were conveying, and not considering the theme or message whatsoever.
The difficulty with socio-political or any critical story analysis, I think, is it can often become a projection of the fan's own personal baggage, views, and/or yearnings for the story, as opposed to a critique of the actual themes an plot arcs of the story presented. The fan can at times become so obsessed with the story or message they want to see on screen or on the page -- that they are deeply disappointed and furious by the one that actually appears -- which of course is not the one they envisioned. And really, why would it be?? The story-teller is not the fan, they are not in the fan's head, and they may in fact have a completely different view of the universe or the moral landscape than the fan. Not to mention different pressures, and different demands, and much more diverse group to please or appease. When you create art and through it out there -- it is a bit like throwing a piece of food at swarm of ants. They rip it to pieces, pulling and yanking in every direction. And with competing interests, goals, and views.
What is often lost is a thoughtful and constructive analysis of how the story worked and how it didn't for that person. And what could have been tweaked or adjusted to make it better, without changing the thread of the story itself. In addition, what is often lost is a meaningful discussion of the ideas and views and themes seen in the story -- the questions the writer/artists raise, and how and if they answer them or if not, how we think they should be answered. Not to mention a thoughtful look at how the art/story reflects our society and what is currently happening around us. For all stories reflect the views and societal pressures surrounding the writer or creator.
When we critique a story, perhaps the first question asked should be -- what is the story about? The next, why are they telling me this? Why this story?
The challenge, I think, in regards to all conversations, critiques and meta analysis is to be curious first, and foremost. And pull back on the moral and personal judgement, which not only cuts off the conversation but leaves little room for true understanding.
It's not easy though. And makes me sort of miss the days before we could share our opinions and views, right, wrong or in-between within the blink of an eye to anyone who would care to read them or listen.
Been thinking about this off and on for a while now -- and have noticed a discernible pattern in how various critics amateur and otherwise review art -- particularly in fandoms. They have no issues with the art itself, the characterization, the plotting, no -- it's their interpretation of the theme or message conveyed that they are annoyed by. OR the travesty of a white author writing about a black character in a manner that is...dishonorable and prejudicial. OR the travesty of an LGBTQ relationship being broken apart by an untimely death -- a pseudo Romeo/Juliet (except Juliet is a boy) ending. OR that fascism seems to be the message of the work -- and really how dare they!
Here's the thing -- I can't help but wonder if people are missing the point of creating art? Or expression? In this propaganda soaked world, with every bit and piece of work being interrupted with marketing and advertising and product placement -- I can see why. How can you know the difference between propaganda and art or a commercial and a story? Particularly when many advertisers use stories to sell products. We're in a world -- where someone is constantly trying to sell you something whether it be an ideology, an idea, a product, a place, a point of view, a political candidate, a way of life -- it's something.
Stories and art aren't really doing that. The point of most stories is not to sell you a particular moral perspective or anything for that matter. They aren't trying to promote, sell, advertise or market. Stories are a means of communicating a perspective different than our own. For a little while -- we are whisked away in someone else's head, their world-view, and if done well -- get to see things from an angle or perspective we never thought of or hadn't considered. They are often what-if scenarios or dreams channeled by the writer onto the page or screen -- to convey what they've felt, seen or imagined.
Marti Noxon once stated that she never thought of the theme or message when she wrote, in most cases there is no message or moral there -- there is just the story. And this is true of many writers, James Joyce when asked what his stories were about -- really couldn't tell you. Same deal with many many other writers. I've had people ask me -- what is the point of your story, your theme -- and I often think, it's just that we need to help one another find our way in this world. And they'll either get it or they won't. That's the other bit -- even if you do have a theme or moral hidden in there, it's unlikely everyone will pick up on it. We see things through our own unique lense. No one sees the world the way we do. And sharing a story is a way to share that unique perspective with another human being or many at once.
That said there are stories that are meant to be sermons -- parables and allegories fit under this definition. Their characterization is scant as is their world-building. There's just enough there to get the message across. And they don't tend to be very long. I remember reading Anthony Burgess' critique of Stanley Kubrick's take on "A Clockwork Orange" and the American publication of his work -- he felt it had become allegory. The characters were not allowed to evolve, the story not allowed to progress past that thematic point or message. Kubrick wanted to make a point about brain-washing and controlling people -- he was interested in the socio-political perspective. Burgess wanted to tell a good story first, then thematic message after. And he felt for his story to truly work -- the lead character had to grow up, evolve, and choose to let go of his hoodlum behavior on his own via the lessons he'd learned. While Kubrick and the American publishers felt that it worked far better for the lead, Alex, to revert back to his nasty ways with no remorse. Burgess felt that approach turned the story into allegory -- and he didn't like allegory.
As you can see from the above, these things are seldom clear-cut. And there's an argument to be made that Burgess' ending was naive and far more preachy, than Kubrick's ambiguous one. Similarly, when I look at Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Go Tell the Watchman". The later book is most likely the more realistic, and preachy in its own way. In it -- Lee tells a story of the South as she experienced it. A gentleman bigoted father who defended the destitute, and her attempts to show him the errors of his ways vs. To Kill A Mockingbird, with the far more liberal father, who defends people, and appears to be almost colorblind. The message in it is clear and far kinder -- and the story, a coming of age tale. Both are works of art that convey a socio-political message -- but which was the writer's intent? And both depending on the reader, can be interpreted in a positive and/or negative manner. Should either have never been published? Should we censor those works that we despise or don't like and only keep those that further our own world view? And by doing so...does this make us hypocrites?
Looking at television fandoms, the same questions can be asked. If you think say, Stephen Moffat's take on Doctor Song was misogynistic, because she was portrayed as ambiguous in the moral sense from your perspective, and her ending felt like fridging the gal again from your perspective -- but say you felt Rose and Doctor Who's relationship was empowering, how do you deal with a viewer who sees it exactly the opposite? Probably not very well. We're all, I think, wedded to how we view the universe. But I keep wondering, what if we are wrong? Or what if we are missing something? Or maybe the writer is telling us something by depicting the story in a certain manner? Perhaps not very well -- which is another post altogether.
I was thinking about the current Doctor Who arc --which granted could have been executed better, but overwhelmingly seemed to be about trying to jump-start new characters. Theme such as it was -- and it was bare bones -- was how to solve problems without killing anyone and/or without violence. Difficult to do since, Doctor Who -- at least the reboot -- has always been violent. And they kill the villains, not always successfully - since they have a wicked habit of popping up again and again. (see the Master). Most of 9, 10 and 11's runs involved the Doctor committing increasingly violent or ambiguously immoral acts to defeat some villain, with dire consequences. He's almost an anti-hero at one stage or a dark, seemingly well-meaning, lonely god. Granted I didn't watch most of these runs, but that appeared to be the fandom critique of them.
During this period, the far darker, Torchwood premiered, followed by Children of God miniseries -- which was critiqued for killing off one part of the key gay couple on the series. Much like the BTVS fandom, when Tara was killed, fans felt the writers were sending a homophobic message to the world -- or a deeply disturbing one. (Except in this case the writer in question was actually homosexual, and the fans, mainly heterosexual women. While in the prior scenario -- the writer in question was male heterosexual, and the fans mainly male and female heterosexual, although there were a few LGBTQ fans in that mix, who felt whether intentionally or not, the writers were sending a rather nasty and cliche message to the world -- which had been an on-going Hollywood story trope. The writer's in question appeared to be shocked by the fans reaction and bewildered by it -- since they'd been caught up in the story they were conveying, and not considering the theme or message whatsoever.
The difficulty with socio-political or any critical story analysis, I think, is it can often become a projection of the fan's own personal baggage, views, and/or yearnings for the story, as opposed to a critique of the actual themes an plot arcs of the story presented. The fan can at times become so obsessed with the story or message they want to see on screen or on the page -- that they are deeply disappointed and furious by the one that actually appears -- which of course is not the one they envisioned. And really, why would it be?? The story-teller is not the fan, they are not in the fan's head, and they may in fact have a completely different view of the universe or the moral landscape than the fan. Not to mention different pressures, and different demands, and much more diverse group to please or appease. When you create art and through it out there -- it is a bit like throwing a piece of food at swarm of ants. They rip it to pieces, pulling and yanking in every direction. And with competing interests, goals, and views.
What is often lost is a thoughtful and constructive analysis of how the story worked and how it didn't for that person. And what could have been tweaked or adjusted to make it better, without changing the thread of the story itself. In addition, what is often lost is a meaningful discussion of the ideas and views and themes seen in the story -- the questions the writer/artists raise, and how and if they answer them or if not, how we think they should be answered. Not to mention a thoughtful look at how the art/story reflects our society and what is currently happening around us. For all stories reflect the views and societal pressures surrounding the writer or creator.
When we critique a story, perhaps the first question asked should be -- what is the story about? The next, why are they telling me this? Why this story?
The challenge, I think, in regards to all conversations, critiques and meta analysis is to be curious first, and foremost. And pull back on the moral and personal judgement, which not only cuts off the conversation but leaves little room for true understanding.