LitRPG: Inclusive, Exclusive, and Gatekeepers

Yes, I really like what's happening on reddit now! It suddenly recently sprang to life. The mood and tone is a bit... harsh at times, because people are very direct, but I think it's getting better.

I think there's a slight problem with reader-based groups, though, in that eventually these readers will become authors, and then the line gets blurred again, and a rule where "If you've published, you have to step down from becoming a mod" isn't that sensible.

 

Again, something not entirely related...

I have a little piece to say about reviews and authors reviewing other authors:

The short answer is: yes, IMHO authors should have the freedom to review whatever thing they read, and should not be judged because of that, because, as Alexis has pointed out: shouldn't they be people, too? And since this is a small niche genre where readers will eventually become writers, readers shouldn't lose their right to express their opinions once they cross over to the other side.

The philosophy behind this: if you make art, you serve the gods of art, you serve the all-powerful Muses, you serve art itself. The reason for art in the first place is that it expresses something human, and in expressing it seeks to touch another human. They identify with your character, you've reached them. They don't identify with your character, you've reached them in a different way. Art says something about the person creating it. How a person reacts to art says more about the person reacting than about the piece of art itself. Art is a mode of human communication.

In writing a story, I reveal something about myself. Like I've said before, I really don't think you can hide behind your art (if it is art). [If it's color-by-numbers then it's a product, not art.] Maybe that's why indie authors produce works that are messy, but full of soul -- because they still consider themselves artists, and they seek to express.

If that art touches someone either positively or negatively, an indie 'artist' really wants to get feedback, because you've communicated something. The reviewer communicates back how they feel -- how your art has touched them. If it's 'art' you're after, you want those feedback -- even negative ones. If someone doesn't like my story, in saying so, they reveal a part of themselves to me. If they think my MC is dumb and makes stupid emotional-based decisions, they also reveal something about themselves: they value intelligence over emotions. If they think the book isn't descriptive enough, they reveal the fact that they love atmosphere. I glimpse a bit of the particular reader's soul, you see. And that's beautiful.

Wounded ego is a different thing. It's human. But, it's not art, and has nothing to do with the communication facilitated by art. It's an issue that every author needs to process and work through with in order to become a better writer, a better person. Why can't you take criticism? Why can't you be a bigger person and not take it to heart when someone unfairly attacks you? If someone yells at... Jesus, or the Dalai Lama -- would they hit back? No, they counter hostility with love and mercy. If you have the desire to hit back or the desire to go 'la-la-la' -- that says something about yourself. Putting your art out there actually puts you in a vulnerable position, and when you're vulnerable, all your flaws become even more apparent. It's easy to be a good person when all is good and dandy, when you're surrounded by praise and people who love you -- but that's just a bubble. When you're under fire, can you handle it with grace? Can you be truly humble? Can you truly listen and empathize? Ultimately, I believe that by putting yourself out there, you have a real chance to practice ego-reduction, and when you do that, you stop writing self-inserts, and you can start to empathize with and therefore write realistic, flawed characters.

Now, if you don't consider yourself an artist, but a businessman, you don't want negative reviews, ever, so you start banning and attacking people who disagree, or get fake reviews, because what you're after are things that sell, not things that reveal and communicate. Negative reviews are bad for business. Negative reviews are never bad for art, because it's a form of communication.

Of course, if you're an author review another author (or a reader reviewing a book, for that matter), there's a respectful, non-dismissive, constructive way to say something and a vehement, unhelpful way to say something. I'm not talking about tone-policing, because at the end everyone has the right to express anything they want however they want it. But how you choose to express something also says a lot about yourself -- again, I'd say it reveals more about the reviewer than the actual piece of art being reviewed. If you're afraid of repercussion from saying something in a respectful, non-dismissive, constructive and expressive manner, you're engaging in self-censoring, you're bowing to power, you're keeping your head down -- nothing wrong with that as long as you know that. Does it benefit art? Does it benefit the community? Does it benefit readers? No. But I can understand your position. It sucks. What happens when you live under an oppressive regime? You keep your head down, and dissenters get punished. Until everyone decides to stick their neck out and speak up at the same time, then you have a revolution.

 

I'll admit I was annoyed when a certain Facebook group required it for advertising a new release, but I was glad when upon asking for specifics they backed off a bit simply requesting some kind of mention rather than a full scale advertisement. As a debut book in the genre, I think it helped initial exposure a lot to have advertised there, but moving forward I think I'll end up thanking a lot of communities for bringing fans of the genre together so it looks less like an advertisement.

 

The concern with requiring facebook mention is pretty simple - if you're going to use the group to get sales, mention the group so they grow - which would in turn help other authors.

Lots of advertisement services have the same process, we'll put out your book if you register or whatever. That, I think, is one of the clearer exchanges and it costs nothing beyond a mention.

 

@FrustratedEgo I agree with your points about companies explicitly stating what a patron will receive in exchange for using them, but how many publishers do you know who do that? Go to any of the big NY publishers and the only thing you'll find is a submission guideline and an address... if that. The point of my post wasn't to encourage or discourage anyone from submitting to LevelUp or any other publisher. My point was to ask why these guys were being attacked when no one knew what they were or were not offering. If you get an offer from them and the deal is crap, then, turn it down. If you accept a deal from them and they don't live up to it, then scream to the high heavens and let everyone know they are liars, but don't attack people before they've done anything wrong. My point was that people should evaluate these deals before decrying them. Even now, it seems like common sense to me.

Yes, I agree that most of these deals aren't worth accepting. Personally, I think self-publishing is the only way to go, but I get that not everyone feels that way. For those people, they should actually find out what they are being offered before dismissing a deal or a company.