John Sheppard and Elizabeth Weir were conversing in my head last night.
This is really bad.
Oh no it's good. You will have fun in this fandom, I know you will.
When I have (Pretender, NCIS, Judging Amy), the stories have always gone down like a lead balloon. That should tell me something.
Truthfully Kat, not *every* West Wing story you've written has been a cracker either. Have you ever considered it's not the fandom, but the number of times you've tried that produces success?
I would really rather all the voices just shut up and went away. WW is just about mute and I'm removing its presence and I wanted that to be the end of it.
Well we could argue that your successes (without defining what success is - but shall we say highest response?) are somewhat random. If you are unaware of what produces a high response in your audience (and who is?) then sheer quantity will produce the most high response stories. So let's says your ratio is one in four (for argument's sake. Surely it can't be lower than one in four) there's a 75% possibility of you scoring a hit on your first try. Not unbeatable odds.
Naturaly, we're talking about a lot of variables which would suggest a mathematical approach is inappropriate but sometimes when you have a lot of variables it becomes just as unpredictable as having no variables. So, sheer numbers produces highest response rate. Pure probability.
Second theory: some of the variables in your case are arguably conclusive, such as the fact that you are well known in West Wing fandom even if you don't write the same pairing all the time. The fact that you had been in the fandom a while and may have been
( ... )
Imho, the key to finding happiness in new fandoms is to not give a damn about feedback. Personally, I've found my greatest pleasures writing for non-existent fandoms. So long as you're writing because you feel the urge to tell a story, rather than because you need whatever feeling positive feedback gives you, I say you're onto a winner. But if it becomes about the feedback, rather than the need to write, then I could see how you'd be having some difficulty, Kat. Especially with a new fandom, because there you're a newbie, out of the comfort zone that you may have created for yourself in the other fandom(s) that you regularly write for. People are more likely to be critical. If that is what frightens you, try to see it as a positive rather than a negative. If well respected authors are saying what your stories strengths as well as weaknesses are, then there's oodles to learn from, and plently to improve on. Your skills as a writer can only grow from such feedback
( ... )
If well respected authors are saying what your stories strengths as well as weaknesses are, then there's oodles to learn from, and plently to improve on. Your skills as a writer can only grow from such feedback.
I'd love if that was the case. I value mandysbitch so much because she'll tell me what isn't working for her. While it is subjective to a point, I wish more people would do that in WW
( ... )
Oh, I am defeatist. And impatient. And take things too much to heart and too seriously. Hence why I'm never going to get anywhere with original stuff. Maybe it's the scientist in me. I need to know why something is/isn't succeeding, and to do that I need some sort of feedback. And when I get nothing, I just find it hard to know what to do. It's one of the things I love about you. You've always told me what does and what doesn't work for you (if there were stories you thought were terrible, I would've liked to have known that too). I wish I'd had more constructive criticism in WW. Praise is nice, but detail is nicer.
being able to hand in a paper and *know* what mark you're going to getDuring undergrad, if I was happy with a paper I got lousy marks. But if I hated it, it got high marks. *tries to choke on ice* I was bloody confused
( ... )
This is really bad.
Oh no it's good. You will have fun in this fandom, I know you will.
When I have (Pretender, NCIS, Judging Amy), the stories have always gone down like a lead balloon. That should tell me something.
Truthfully Kat, not *every* West Wing story you've written has been a cracker either. Have you ever considered it's not the fandom, but the number of times you've tried that produces success?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Well we could argue that your successes (without defining what success is - but shall we say highest response?) are somewhat random. If you are unaware of what produces a high response in your audience (and who is?) then sheer quantity will produce the most high response stories. So let's says your ratio is one in four (for argument's sake. Surely it can't be lower than one in four) there's a 75% possibility of you scoring a hit on your first try. Not unbeatable odds.
Naturaly, we're talking about a lot of variables which would suggest a mathematical approach is inappropriate but sometimes when you have a lot of variables it becomes just as unpredictable as having no variables. So, sheer numbers produces highest response rate. Pure probability.
Second theory: some of the variables in your case are arguably conclusive, such as the fact that you are well known in West Wing fandom even if you don't write the same pairing all the time. The fact that you had been in the fandom a while and may have been ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I'd love if that was the case. I value mandysbitch so much because she'll tell me what isn't working for her. While it is subjective to a point, I wish more people would do that in WW ( ... )
Reply
Hence why I'm never going to get anywhere with original stuff.
Maybe it's the scientist in me. I need to know why something is/isn't succeeding, and to do that I need some sort of feedback. And when I get nothing, I just find it hard to know what to do.
It's one of the things I love about you. You've always told me what does and what doesn't work for you (if there were stories you thought were terrible, I would've liked to have known that too). I wish I'd had more constructive criticism in WW. Praise is nice, but detail is nicer.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment