I love your distinction of fan brain and artist brain. I’m being slightly reductive but—to the fan, pointing out a “flaw” is an act of disloyalty or aggression. To the artist, the close attention that allows you to find those flaws often signals loyalty and affection to the work!
One thing I find myself doing, quite often, is thinking, “I really liked this work but I didn’t like this choice.” It’s a very personal reaction, because the work might be fine with that choice! The writer had a goal and delivered on it. So what I’m actually saying is something like, “If I were to do something like this, I’d have a different goal…and therefore would have different choices…and a different outcome.” As you noted, this looks like criticism but is actually about someone articulating their OWN project and perspective, using other works as a reference point
I appreciate that the "eye" you describe is your "artist's eye." But I don't think it describes mine at all. As a result, I wonder if you haven't assumed that because finding discontinuities and cracks in stories works for you, it is a generalizable phenom. I doubt this idea is or can be true. There may be some way to compose a list of "artists' eyes," but it will always be an incomplete list because such eyes change with the nature of both socially and individually perceived "reality," even the realities of stories.
I write this as someone who is quite different from you. As a writer, understanding how I come up with stories is a useful consideration for me. I can tell you that I go along with stories, rarely looking for discrepancies or holes. I'm swept up in story. I've learned from writer critique groups that unless the problem is huge and obvious, I don't see them--I give the storyteller a pass on issues others see. That's me.
I guess my response to your post is: That's you. Not all of us are like you. 'Nuff said, thanks for the insights into your process.
Always agree every artistic process is different and there's no right way. But to clarify one thing, I didn't mean to imply I think artists necessarily critique while consuming (although I do) or can't give storytellers passes when I say they look for gaps. If you say love cyberpunk novels and also Westerns and think "There hasn't been a good cyberpunk western, maybe that's a space I can write into" or if you think "I love author X's style and author Y's characters and author Z's world, maybe I can combine them into something new" that's also noticing gaps.
This is all reductive and simplified of course. And even then, it isn't universal surely.
I have been called arrogant for pointing out gaps in the works of very accomplished authors. The tone being: You believe you can do better than them?
And, no, I don’t believe I can do better. But I believe critiquing a work is a valuable way of learning to improve my craft. And, I see now thanks to you, of coming up with new ideas.
Love the idea of thinking of flaws as openings for improvement or new directions.
Just watched Harmony Korine’s new movie, Agrodr1ft and thought, this is such male fantasy, but now I can see this as— I want to create a female fantasy inversion of Harmony Korine’s story.
An astute observation. Over the past few years, since beginning my first novel and up to now, (partway through book #3) I've gradually become more critical of even my favourite authors. That's not to say I think I could necessarily do better; but it does underline the fact that nobody is perfect and gives me more confidence in my own abilities. The downside, of course, is that it takes a lot to satisfy me and I often abandon books I would have completed and probably enjoyed a few short years ago.
I had a workshop professor in my MFA program who set a new paradigm for the class as we were reading/critiquing other poet's work: Instead of responding through the artist's lens of "how could this be better?" we had to ask, "what is this poem (or work) trying to *do*?"
A subtle but important reframe as our goal wasn't to impose our aesthetic or preferences on someone else, but to help them be their best. It's a super helpful lens for me this day. I'm still as astute of a reader, but now I'm more spacious and generous. (And pleasant! Artists are wonderful. Some of my favorite humans by far. But we can also be real big assholes with our opinions too.)
100%. I was only talking about how we might critique work while we enjoy it to inspire our own writing. Offering actual critique to another person in a workshop setting is very different and in that case I agree with your teacher. Always important to focus on what that writer wants to do more than your own preferences.
Yes so true, right? Opportunities for creativity evolve from what others made. (My comment might be aimed more at the critics than the aspiring writers ....)
Wonderful post! I would like to share a shade of gray If I may. The Artists Fan eye. I can watch Better Call Saul several times and each one enjoy it as I immerse in it. But I never look for a flaw as the story is commanding my full attention. And then I remember Rowan Atkinsons HBO special. Is just him, a couple chairs and a narrator, and with none of the whole he brings us into this world his character lives, and makes it in a masterful way, I dont see the shoes are wrong for a king, but I see his expression when he lands on the wooden floor.
And then we have those other works that yes they are interesting but they make us wonder like you share “wait how many people has gollum lured to the spiders cave?” Were they elves in search of Sauron? Were they fleeting orcs looking for peace?” And then I go and write about them.
I love this and will probably share with my students -- one of the big lessons I want them to take from my course is that they can get ideas and come to understand their own aesthetic better, even/especially from fiction that doesn't totally land for them.
However, the one caveat I'd offer is that, particularly when offering critique to peers in a workshop context, it can be important to consider *why* an author is leaving out something you expect or think you want. In my experience, beginners sometimes miss intentional genre subversions and their thematic import because they're so intent on displaying their knowledge of the way the form has been executed in the past.
Oh yes, offering critiques to someone else--rather than just honing your own editorial eye for your own work and processes--is a very different thing. Definitely agree workshop critiques need to consider those questions.
One of my favorite writing prompts is "What would my version of this book be?" We all have changes we would make, even to our favorites, because we're unique writers with unique visions. It's always an inspiring exercise!
I have no problems with critiques. I have a lot of critiques with LOTR as well. The problem is the nature of this particular critique. If someone gives a thought-out critique to a work of art I love, I respect that person. If someone gives a knee-jerk critique to something I hated, I feel the need to defend it. (Both regularly happen when Star Wars is the topic.)
I don't mind that Martin criticizes Tolkien. I do mind that his criticism just shows him to be narrow-minded.
Ditto to defending something that you don’t even like because the critiques suck! This is how I feel about Minimalist art. I don’t care for it (except for Ad Reinhardt and Jo Baer) but i heard the same “my kid could do this/where’s the *real* Art” jokes so often that I now have to defend it on principle.
It doesn’t help that people think their dismissive criticism is funny or original, instead of a fairly common opinion, default right down to the exact words used to poke at something.
I have clients (new writers just beginning to absorb craft) lament that they “can’t enjoy stories anymore” presumably because they can’t yet “turn off” the new skill and they “wrong things” and “bad story” everywhere. 🤒
I will admit that I have developed an increasingly itchy DNF trigger finger in recent years when it’s clear the storyteller hasn’t “done the work” but conversely I’ve learned to enjoy well-crafted story on two levels simultaneously most of the time. I can appreciate the emotional fan ride and the diligent craft that went into the innovation of genre conventions (or the disappointments of missed opportunities and lazy cliches even in works I adore) at the same time. Bonus double dopamine!
Rule 34 prohibits me from googling “hobbit porn.” But I am tempted. Martin is wrong about many things—but that’s not one of them. 😈
I love this. And it reminds me of the divide between (broadly) two views of how adaptations from book to film should work: there's one camp for whom the measure of a successful film adaptation is how closely it adheres to the source material; there's another camp that is open to innovation or new interpretations of the source material. A great adaptation, in my view of things, finds what you call "the gaps and openings" in the original and seeks to make something new.
Very succinctly put! I just got done picking apart a dreadfully over-complicated essay on here, so it’s refreshing to see how concisely you conveyed your message here.
I completely agree. It’s tiresome hearing fans complain about critiques on their favorite works as if they’re seeing their own home burn down before their eyes. I feel like embracing your artist’s eye is empowering. Instead of just consuming a work for what it is, you’re giving yourself permission to imagine what it could be.
I am often met with some sort of version of "why can't you just enjoy this (book/movie/TV show/story/etc) without critiquing it? So this piece definitely spoke to me. My critiques tend to the craft of the piece. Like, that scene totally contradicts logically with an earlier one, or, all that could not have possibly happened in one night! (Davinci Code of course), or, that this action seems really inconsistent with how you have described that character previously--not that people can't be inconsistent, but the inconsistency should make some kind of sense beyond total random-ness. Or, you said the house was green now it's yellow, was that deliberate and why? Etc.
However, the critique here by Martin does not seem like an artist's critique; it feels like that of a fan. "I would prefer the book to have more sex in it" is inherently I think a matter of taste. As you say, Tolkien is doing something different (mythic, heroic, etc--not to mention political critique of the possibility of the ultimate destruction of the world, and of power itself, which are pretty big concerns), and to me it seems like Martin just prefers something different; a different kind of writing. That's fan critique ("I like this sort of thing better").
Again, I love and concur with your premise here. I just didn't think Martin's quote did it justice.
I love your distinction of fan brain and artist brain. I’m being slightly reductive but—to the fan, pointing out a “flaw” is an act of disloyalty or aggression. To the artist, the close attention that allows you to find those flaws often signals loyalty and affection to the work!
One thing I find myself doing, quite often, is thinking, “I really liked this work but I didn’t like this choice.” It’s a very personal reaction, because the work might be fine with that choice! The writer had a goal and delivered on it. So what I’m actually saying is something like, “If I were to do something like this, I’d have a different goal…and therefore would have different choices…and a different outcome.” As you noted, this looks like criticism but is actually about someone articulating their OWN project and perspective, using other works as a reference point
I appreciate that the "eye" you describe is your "artist's eye." But I don't think it describes mine at all. As a result, I wonder if you haven't assumed that because finding discontinuities and cracks in stories works for you, it is a generalizable phenom. I doubt this idea is or can be true. There may be some way to compose a list of "artists' eyes," but it will always be an incomplete list because such eyes change with the nature of both socially and individually perceived "reality," even the realities of stories.
I write this as someone who is quite different from you. As a writer, understanding how I come up with stories is a useful consideration for me. I can tell you that I go along with stories, rarely looking for discrepancies or holes. I'm swept up in story. I've learned from writer critique groups that unless the problem is huge and obvious, I don't see them--I give the storyteller a pass on issues others see. That's me.
I guess my response to your post is: That's you. Not all of us are like you. 'Nuff said, thanks for the insights into your process.
Always agree every artistic process is different and there's no right way. But to clarify one thing, I didn't mean to imply I think artists necessarily critique while consuming (although I do) or can't give storytellers passes when I say they look for gaps. If you say love cyberpunk novels and also Westerns and think "There hasn't been a good cyberpunk western, maybe that's a space I can write into" or if you think "I love author X's style and author Y's characters and author Z's world, maybe I can combine them into something new" that's also noticing gaps.
This is all reductive and simplified of course. And even then, it isn't universal surely.
Thank you for this.
I have been called arrogant for pointing out gaps in the works of very accomplished authors. The tone being: You believe you can do better than them?
And, no, I don’t believe I can do better. But I believe critiquing a work is a valuable way of learning to improve my craft. And, I see now thanks to you, of coming up with new ideas.
Love the idea of thinking of flaws as openings for improvement or new directions.
Just watched Harmony Korine’s new movie, Agrodr1ft and thought, this is such male fantasy, but now I can see this as— I want to create a female fantasy inversion of Harmony Korine’s story.
An astute observation. Over the past few years, since beginning my first novel and up to now, (partway through book #3) I've gradually become more critical of even my favourite authors. That's not to say I think I could necessarily do better; but it does underline the fact that nobody is perfect and gives me more confidence in my own abilities. The downside, of course, is that it takes a lot to satisfy me and I often abandon books I would have completed and probably enjoyed a few short years ago.
I had a workshop professor in my MFA program who set a new paradigm for the class as we were reading/critiquing other poet's work: Instead of responding through the artist's lens of "how could this be better?" we had to ask, "what is this poem (or work) trying to *do*?"
A subtle but important reframe as our goal wasn't to impose our aesthetic or preferences on someone else, but to help them be their best. It's a super helpful lens for me this day. I'm still as astute of a reader, but now I'm more spacious and generous. (And pleasant! Artists are wonderful. Some of my favorite humans by far. But we can also be real big assholes with our opinions too.)
100%. I was only talking about how we might critique work while we enjoy it to inspire our own writing. Offering actual critique to another person in a workshop setting is very different and in that case I agree with your teacher. Always important to focus on what that writer wants to do more than your own preferences.
Yes so true, right? Opportunities for creativity evolve from what others made. (My comment might be aimed more at the critics than the aspiring writers ....)
Wonderful post! I would like to share a shade of gray If I may. The Artists Fan eye. I can watch Better Call Saul several times and each one enjoy it as I immerse in it. But I never look for a flaw as the story is commanding my full attention. And then I remember Rowan Atkinsons HBO special. Is just him, a couple chairs and a narrator, and with none of the whole he brings us into this world his character lives, and makes it in a masterful way, I dont see the shoes are wrong for a king, but I see his expression when he lands on the wooden floor.
And then we have those other works that yes they are interesting but they make us wonder like you share “wait how many people has gollum lured to the spiders cave?” Were they elves in search of Sauron? Were they fleeting orcs looking for peace?” And then I go and write about them.
I love this and will probably share with my students -- one of the big lessons I want them to take from my course is that they can get ideas and come to understand their own aesthetic better, even/especially from fiction that doesn't totally land for them.
However, the one caveat I'd offer is that, particularly when offering critique to peers in a workshop context, it can be important to consider *why* an author is leaving out something you expect or think you want. In my experience, beginners sometimes miss intentional genre subversions and their thematic import because they're so intent on displaying their knowledge of the way the form has been executed in the past.
Oh yes, offering critiques to someone else--rather than just honing your own editorial eye for your own work and processes--is a very different thing. Definitely agree workshop critiques need to consider those questions.
"How can I enjoy something without my brain thinking about it?" Well stated. Once a writer, always a writer.
One of my favorite writing prompts is "What would my version of this book be?" We all have changes we would make, even to our favorites, because we're unique writers with unique visions. It's always an inspiring exercise!
I have no problems with critiques. I have a lot of critiques with LOTR as well. The problem is the nature of this particular critique. If someone gives a thought-out critique to a work of art I love, I respect that person. If someone gives a knee-jerk critique to something I hated, I feel the need to defend it. (Both regularly happen when Star Wars is the topic.)
I don't mind that Martin criticizes Tolkien. I do mind that his criticism just shows him to be narrow-minded.
Ditto to defending something that you don’t even like because the critiques suck! This is how I feel about Minimalist art. I don’t care for it (except for Ad Reinhardt and Jo Baer) but i heard the same “my kid could do this/where’s the *real* Art” jokes so often that I now have to defend it on principle.
It doesn’t help that people think their dismissive criticism is funny or original, instead of a fairly common opinion, default right down to the exact words used to poke at something.
I have clients (new writers just beginning to absorb craft) lament that they “can’t enjoy stories anymore” presumably because they can’t yet “turn off” the new skill and they “wrong things” and “bad story” everywhere. 🤒
I will admit that I have developed an increasingly itchy DNF trigger finger in recent years when it’s clear the storyteller hasn’t “done the work” but conversely I’ve learned to enjoy well-crafted story on two levels simultaneously most of the time. I can appreciate the emotional fan ride and the diligent craft that went into the innovation of genre conventions (or the disappointments of missed opportunities and lazy cliches even in works I adore) at the same time. Bonus double dopamine!
Rule 34 prohibits me from googling “hobbit porn.” But I am tempted. Martin is wrong about many things—but that’s not one of them. 😈
I love this. And it reminds me of the divide between (broadly) two views of how adaptations from book to film should work: there's one camp for whom the measure of a successful film adaptation is how closely it adheres to the source material; there's another camp that is open to innovation or new interpretations of the source material. A great adaptation, in my view of things, finds what you call "the gaps and openings" in the original and seeks to make something new.
Very succinctly put! I just got done picking apart a dreadfully over-complicated essay on here, so it’s refreshing to see how concisely you conveyed your message here.
I completely agree. It’s tiresome hearing fans complain about critiques on their favorite works as if they’re seeing their own home burn down before their eyes. I feel like embracing your artist’s eye is empowering. Instead of just consuming a work for what it is, you’re giving yourself permission to imagine what it could be.
Very well-said! Keep it up, Lincoln. :)
Have you ever read Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence.
A big part of his account of creativity involves writers "strongly misreading" their influences.
I am often met with some sort of version of "why can't you just enjoy this (book/movie/TV show/story/etc) without critiquing it? So this piece definitely spoke to me. My critiques tend to the craft of the piece. Like, that scene totally contradicts logically with an earlier one, or, all that could not have possibly happened in one night! (Davinci Code of course), or, that this action seems really inconsistent with how you have described that character previously--not that people can't be inconsistent, but the inconsistency should make some kind of sense beyond total random-ness. Or, you said the house was green now it's yellow, was that deliberate and why? Etc.
However, the critique here by Martin does not seem like an artist's critique; it feels like that of a fan. "I would prefer the book to have more sex in it" is inherently I think a matter of taste. As you say, Tolkien is doing something different (mythic, heroic, etc--not to mention political critique of the possibility of the ultimate destruction of the world, and of power itself, which are pretty big concerns), and to me it seems like Martin just prefers something different; a different kind of writing. That's fan critique ("I like this sort of thing better").
Again, I love and concur with your premise here. I just didn't think Martin's quote did it justice.