The balance between responding to criticism and telling "your" story?

As I get closer to actually beginning my webcomic, I find myself thinking more and more about how to handle reviews and feedback of the sort that a serialized internet work tends to attract. The main question I keep wondering about is the one in the title: how to strike a balance between responding to criticism and taking your readers' feelings seriously, and telling the story that you want to tell.

On the one hand, very few - if any - authors can't be improved by feedback, and as an unpublished (in any sense of "published") amateur, I certainly do. And the cry of "Don't Like? Don't Read!" is more often then not just an attempt to fend off any acknowledgement of having done something wrong.

But on the other hand, reasonable people can disagree on what a work of fiction does right or wrong. And the urge to draw in as wide an audience as possible by adding things to appeal to them - instead of just focusing on the audience who's attracted to the story as it is - has often hurt mass-market works. As someone who doesn't plan on making money off of his work (and most likely couldn't if I wanted), I'm free of any monetary motive for something like this, yet at the same time I know my writing could use plenty of improvement. And too much Author Appeal (of any kind) without care for the audience almost always produces a disaster.

The question, then, is this: how do I decide what criticism and feedback I should follow for the sake of my story and my development as a writer, and what would merely make it more appealing to the reviewer (possibly alienating my "core" audience in the process)?

I think Fast Eddie's quote said it best. Good critiscism is something that helps to advance art not something that says "good/positive things".

It's impossible to please everyone and everyone will have their own headcanon that they will try to impose to you as an author. I think that you should listen to crticism regarding your mistakes, but you should trust what you planned, what you like and what you want about your story, even beyond what your fans say. After all you are sharing a part of your soul with your story.

The pacing is bad?, your character lacks depth?, character is too perfect?= valid criticism

Your story sucks, The story would be 20%cooler with lasers and your main character is boring= bad criticism/whining/imposing headcanons.

Unless you plan just to please your audience even at the cost of being confortable with your work, you should expect people disagreeing with you in some aspects and even trying to hurt you. But you should be honest with yourself (what do you like and what do you want) before trying to please your audience

There will always be someone that will dislike something. But I think what you want has to take priority over what others want, after all is your story and your work.

edited 12th Aug '12 12:36:58 AM by FallenLegend

It depends. Criticism on storytelling methodology is always and without exception more likely to carry validity than criticism on story content. These are obviously not perfectly separate things, but one can usually trace the complaint back if it's sufficiently well-reasoned to see where it goes.

This.

There is a line between comments like "you misspelled some things/I found some continuity errors/protagonist has vague motives" etc. and "there's not enough lasers in here, you should add more because I like lasers/too much shooting not enough romance" etc. Each author has to draw that line for themselves, but when in doubt, go with your instincts; if you're really uncomfortable with a proposed change, trace their line of thinking or ask them about it, and if there's no compelling reason to make it then don't feel compelled to.

You find the authentic voice in your story, those true emotions and feelings you have as you're writing it - and try to make good use of the feedback you get in a way which harmonizes with that voice.

I'll put it simply: the moment a story becomes no fun for you to write, or you start to hate the characters you control, the only critic that matters is yourself.

That interview was done just before The Happening, and I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to hold up The Happening as an example of successful or capable storytelling.

In fact, M. Night is probably exactly the sort of cautionary tale that njrxll was thinking of when he wrote that authors can damage the quality of their work by listening to themselves rather than others.

I do. I'm not in my right mind, ja. (I'm in my left.)

Be that as it may, I feel there is an element of truth in what he's said in the interview (if you're open), and I would still watch one of M. Night's films over say, something like Joss Whedon's Avengers. There's a kind of heart in them that I like.

edited 13th Aug '12 9:18:12 AM by QQQQQ

That's not good advice, either. Not only did The Avengers do extremely well, its creator is highly respected and the movie has high critical acclaim. There's nothing wrong with making a Cliché Storm if you have fun doing it and it's critically and commercially successful.

Not every creator has to be Doing It for the Art and audiences are allowed to turn off their brains and enjoy if they want.

edited 13th Aug '12 9:27:29 AM by KingZeal

My advice is there if you'd like your work to be authentic - if you do value authenticity in what you and other people make. The Avengers made shitloads of money, oui, and it made people giggle plenty when the Hulk finally got to Hulk Smashing(TM) the hell out of Loki (surprise!). Yet I felt indifferent upon my second viewing and I likely wouldn't want to watch it again, ever, regardless of whether Whedon had done Firefly and Buffy earlier. Unless it's on a 12-hour international flight with those petite TV screens in the seat ahead of you, and the rest of the choices are just as bland. Even then, that's a maybe.

edited 13th Aug '12 9:38:27 AM by QQQQQ

I'm with King Zeal on this one, honestly. The Avengers was not intellectual, but I can't see how it wasn't "authentic".

And yes: while I wasn't thinking of him specifically, M. Night is definitely an example of a writer who's gone too far in one direction.

edited 13th Aug '12 12:30:57 PM by nrjxll

So you'd rather watch a shit movie with lame acting that doesn't respect its source material like The Last Airbender over a good movie, with good acting, that has nothing but the utmost respect for its source material like The Avengers?

Also, can we please not derail this into a debate on the merits of any specific works? While I may agree with King Zeal's position, there was no need for him to bring it up at all - I'm trying to get the broadest spectrum of responses possible here, not shoot down those I might have problems with.

edited 13th Aug '12 12:42:40 PM by nrjxll

This is something I struggle with daily, on both ends. There will be some stories you (general) will NEVER like. And in these situations, no matter how good your criticism is, it will just never be valid, except as a reason why you personally don't like it. I notice this a lot when people want some story or another to be something completely different, like the person who complained about a show I liked sucking, because it didn't have the media-sponsorship element be deconstructed or played darkly, even though it was very light hearted in nature.

So, the way I see it, is that while you need the criticizers, you also need the fan base to support you in certain aspects. Only then will it be easier. I think. I could be wrong.

I don't think you have to worry too much about being wrong, Mr AHR. I think you make a good point. :)

Ah, well thank you :)

Your welcome. :)