23 reasons readers don't write feedback
Warning: just ahead, there will be sarcasm.
julad wrote an interesting post today, which was a response to thamiris' post, regarding whether or not feedback is a better yardstick for the inherent goodness of a story than many of us would like to believe. I don't really agree with either of them. However, those posts did get me thinking. Before long, my thoughts had wandered far, far away from anything Tham and Julad were discussing. I'm off on some other path of contemplation, now.
Note: I'm going to use the word 'you' in the general sense, as in 'you folks in fandom' or 'that writer over there who isn't you'. If you really think this 'you' is you, it probably is. Or maybe you're just paranoid.
Also note - writers read; readers write. All of us are readers. Big-ass glass house, tiny pebbles. We have met the reader, and "they" are us. I don't endorse any of the following theories, except for the one I do identify as my own. I'm just thinking out loud.
Why Readers Don't Write Feedback:
1. They're lazy. You know it's true. We're all guilty. Procrastination is key here. Put it off long enough, and you'll conveniently forget you didn't write the feedback. Guilt ensues; fun dies.
2. They're overwhelmed or intimidated by the story because it's very good. They are made speechless by your brilliance. No, really. It can happen.
3. Your story sucks and they hated it. For some reason, you didn't reach the reader. Too obscure, too lyrical, too sparse, bad plot, crappy characterization, poor grammar, pedantic prose. Whatever. Well, it's possible, isn't it? (Side note: writers automatically assume this one just has to be the reason for low amounts of feedback, regardless of the fact that it might be any one of a number of other reasons. "It must have sucked" as a default explanation is pretty standard.)
4. Faulty assumptions. As in, the reader believes the writer must get tons of other feedback, and this either pisses the reader off and makes her determined not to write feedback, or makes her think the writer couldn't possibly want to read her little ol' LOC and so she doesn't send it.
5. "I don't know what to say." (This, by the way, is the lamest reason ever not to answer feedback, but I'll refrain from going there at this particular time.) Or, on the flip side, having too much to say and not enough time to write it all down in a coherent fashion.
6. They think one or two lines of feedback isn't significant enough to send, and believe me, I've seen many writers perpetuate this bullshit by being disdainful bitches re the "Loved it! Thanks!" school of feedback. Every LOC is a good LOC (except the ones that aren't really LOCs but are just hate mail or thinly disguised advertisements, as cara_chapel points out in this post). Why? Because a LOC means the reader gave enough of a damn to tell you they read your story. Writers who sneer at this kind of feedback and still complain about not receiving feedback are really saying they only want a particular kind of feedback. That's different, you see.
7. They're intimidated by the writer, the writer's work, or the writer's reputation (in either the positive or the negative sense). "I'm not worthy!"
8. Because the reader is *snif* Above This Sort Of Thing. I'm not saying it's universally true - not at all. But sometimes? The bigger the ego, and the more smack they talk, the less feedback they send. I've seen many people admit to this, as in - "I know I'm the first to complain, aren't I? I really should send more feedback on the good stuff."
9. Fannish apathy, disaffection, or ennui is impacting their motivation. Summer seems to drag many fans down. So do winter, spring and fall.
10. They didn't understand the story - the theme was either too subtle or too complicated, and was completely lost on them - or maybe you obscured your actual story with the complicated stuff, and they ran away screaming. I know it's shocking to think a piece of fan fiction could go over someone's head. That's why very few readers will ever admit to feeling that way. (It could also be that your theme was so subtle and obscure it just wasn't there, but that's a post for another day.)
11. Because they don't like you. You personally. They think you suck. Not as a writer, but as a human being. They are incapable of separating personalities from the fiction those personalities produce. Just as many writers don't choose or have any desire to separate themselves from their work.
12. Because if they wrote feedback for every story they read, they wouldn't be doing anything else. So they must make judicious use of their time and only send feedback for stories they really, really like.
13. They've decided your story is overrated. As in, the more they hear about it, the more it is diminished in their eyes because the story can't possibly match the hype. Few things in this world ever can match their hype. It's bound to be disappointing, and if a reader feels let down, she won't send feedback.
14. They hate those stupid blackmail schemes: "If you want more fic, send me feedback!" or "If I don't hear from people, I guess I won't bother going on." If folks wouldn't take that crap from a writer like Stephen King, what in the world makes any fan fiction writer think people will cave in to this manipulation? Oh, wait. Must be because so many readers do.
15. They're annoyed by those "Only send me positive feedback!" demands. Dictating what kind of feedback you're willing to accept decreases your chances of actually getting any at all.
16. Because they are busy. No, really. Some people have lives away from the computer. Seriously. They do! Would I joke about something this important?
17. Because you had the balls to write something you knew wouldn't be popular, and thus have not catered to the audience. (Side note number two, for writers: just write a good story and please yourself. Your personal satisfaction is the cake, the feedback is the icing. Unless, you know, you're in it solely for the feedback. In which case, you're probably in deep trouble, but - whatever floats your boat.)
18. They're afraid to tell you what they really think of your story, in case you're one of those morons who thinks feedback is only about ego stroking and can't tell a flame from constructive crit. In other words: they'd like to write you some feedback or constructive criticism, but after debating it with themselves, they'll probably decide it's so not worth it.
19. They wrote you once before, and you either didn't bother to respond or you were a bitch to them when you did. Either way, now they're done with you.
20. Because they'd rather write long lj posts about meta issues than write actual feedback. *cough*
21. Because they think there's some sort of expiration date after which they should be embarrassed to send 'late' feedback. You've seen notes from people who've LOC'd older stories; they're the sweet, you-made-my-day notes that always start with "Sorry this feedback is so late."
22. Because they don't see your story as a gift to them, and they bristle at the notion they are somehow obligated to thank you in return. In fact? They probably think their feedback to you is the gift. And who's to say they are wrong? Not me.
23. They see writing feedback as a chore. Certainly writing a story can be a chore sometimes, for some writers; why would writing feedback be any different? If fandom is supposed to be about having fun, it makes no sense to do what doesn't make you happy.
And now, for my personal theory: I think the amount of feedback generated on a given story is dependent upon the cycle of the moon, the amount of chemicals in the water and the weather as much as it is any real reason.
The quality of a story simply can't be judged by the feedback received. Any writer who goes down this road is just daring depression and self-esteem issues to reach out and smack her in the face. I believe the intrinsic worth of a story is often inversely proportional to the amount of feedback. And also sometimes, it's not; sometimes, a story gets exactly the amount of feedback it deserves, on either end of the scale.
julad wrote an interesting post today, which was a response to thamiris' post, regarding whether or not feedback is a better yardstick for the inherent goodness of a story than many of us would like to believe. I don't really agree with either of them. However, those posts did get me thinking. Before long, my thoughts had wandered far, far away from anything Tham and Julad were discussing. I'm off on some other path of contemplation, now.
Note: I'm going to use the word 'you' in the general sense, as in 'you folks in fandom' or 'that writer over there who isn't you'. If you really think this 'you' is you, it probably is. Or maybe you're just paranoid.
Also note - writers read; readers write. All of us are readers. Big-ass glass house, tiny pebbles. We have met the reader, and "they" are us. I don't endorse any of the following theories, except for the one I do identify as my own. I'm just thinking out loud.
Why Readers Don't Write Feedback:
1. They're lazy. You know it's true. We're all guilty. Procrastination is key here. Put it off long enough, and you'll conveniently forget you didn't write the feedback. Guilt ensues; fun dies.
2. They're overwhelmed or intimidated by the story because it's very good. They are made speechless by your brilliance. No, really. It can happen.
3. Your story sucks and they hated it. For some reason, you didn't reach the reader. Too obscure, too lyrical, too sparse, bad plot, crappy characterization, poor grammar, pedantic prose. Whatever. Well, it's possible, isn't it? (Side note: writers automatically assume this one just has to be the reason for low amounts of feedback, regardless of the fact that it might be any one of a number of other reasons. "It must have sucked" as a default explanation is pretty standard.)
4. Faulty assumptions. As in, the reader believes the writer must get tons of other feedback, and this either pisses the reader off and makes her determined not to write feedback, or makes her think the writer couldn't possibly want to read her little ol' LOC and so she doesn't send it.
5. "I don't know what to say." (This, by the way, is the lamest reason ever not to answer feedback, but I'll refrain from going there at this particular time.) Or, on the flip side, having too much to say and not enough time to write it all down in a coherent fashion.
6. They think one or two lines of feedback isn't significant enough to send, and believe me, I've seen many writers perpetuate this bullshit by being disdainful bitches re the "Loved it! Thanks!" school of feedback. Every LOC is a good LOC (except the ones that aren't really LOCs but are just hate mail or thinly disguised advertisements, as cara_chapel points out in this post). Why? Because a LOC means the reader gave enough of a damn to tell you they read your story. Writers who sneer at this kind of feedback and still complain about not receiving feedback are really saying they only want a particular kind of feedback. That's different, you see.
7. They're intimidated by the writer, the writer's work, or the writer's reputation (in either the positive or the negative sense). "I'm not worthy!"
8. Because the reader is *snif* Above This Sort Of Thing. I'm not saying it's universally true - not at all. But sometimes? The bigger the ego, and the more smack they talk, the less feedback they send. I've seen many people admit to this, as in - "I know I'm the first to complain, aren't I? I really should send more feedback on the good stuff."
9. Fannish apathy, disaffection, or ennui is impacting their motivation. Summer seems to drag many fans down. So do winter, spring and fall.
10. They didn't understand the story - the theme was either too subtle or too complicated, and was completely lost on them - or maybe you obscured your actual story with the complicated stuff, and they ran away screaming. I know it's shocking to think a piece of fan fiction could go over someone's head. That's why very few readers will ever admit to feeling that way. (It could also be that your theme was so subtle and obscure it just wasn't there, but that's a post for another day.)
11. Because they don't like you. You personally. They think you suck. Not as a writer, but as a human being. They are incapable of separating personalities from the fiction those personalities produce. Just as many writers don't choose or have any desire to separate themselves from their work.
12. Because if they wrote feedback for every story they read, they wouldn't be doing anything else. So they must make judicious use of their time and only send feedback for stories they really, really like.
13. They've decided your story is overrated. As in, the more they hear about it, the more it is diminished in their eyes because the story can't possibly match the hype. Few things in this world ever can match their hype. It's bound to be disappointing, and if a reader feels let down, she won't send feedback.
14. They hate those stupid blackmail schemes: "If you want more fic, send me feedback!" or "If I don't hear from people, I guess I won't bother going on." If folks wouldn't take that crap from a writer like Stephen King, what in the world makes any fan fiction writer think people will cave in to this manipulation? Oh, wait. Must be because so many readers do.
15. They're annoyed by those "Only send me positive feedback!" demands. Dictating what kind of feedback you're willing to accept decreases your chances of actually getting any at all.
16. Because they are busy. No, really. Some people have lives away from the computer. Seriously. They do! Would I joke about something this important?
17. Because you had the balls to write something you knew wouldn't be popular, and thus have not catered to the audience. (Side note number two, for writers: just write a good story and please yourself. Your personal satisfaction is the cake, the feedback is the icing. Unless, you know, you're in it solely for the feedback. In which case, you're probably in deep trouble, but - whatever floats your boat.)
18. They're afraid to tell you what they really think of your story, in case you're one of those morons who thinks feedback is only about ego stroking and can't tell a flame from constructive crit. In other words: they'd like to write you some feedback or constructive criticism, but after debating it with themselves, they'll probably decide it's so not worth it.
19. They wrote you once before, and you either didn't bother to respond or you were a bitch to them when you did. Either way, now they're done with you.
20. Because they'd rather write long lj posts about meta issues than write actual feedback. *cough*
21. Because they think there's some sort of expiration date after which they should be embarrassed to send 'late' feedback. You've seen notes from people who've LOC'd older stories; they're the sweet, you-made-my-day notes that always start with "Sorry this feedback is so late."
22. Because they don't see your story as a gift to them, and they bristle at the notion they are somehow obligated to thank you in return. In fact? They probably think their feedback to you is the gift. And who's to say they are wrong? Not me.
23. They see writing feedback as a chore. Certainly writing a story can be a chore sometimes, for some writers; why would writing feedback be any different? If fandom is supposed to be about having fun, it makes no sense to do what doesn't make you happy.
And now, for my personal theory: I think the amount of feedback generated on a given story is dependent upon the cycle of the moon, the amount of chemicals in the water and the weather as much as it is any real reason.
The quality of a story simply can't be judged by the feedback received. Any writer who goes down this road is just daring depression and self-esteem issues to reach out and smack her in the face. I believe the intrinsic worth of a story is often inversely proportional to the amount of feedback. And also sometimes, it's not; sometimes, a story gets exactly the amount of feedback it deserves, on either end of the scale.