Erikson's Rant - He was RIGHT! 

Thanks, Daniel, for your comments. I had no idea my essay went viral (and if it did, I'm assuming it was a tiny event). I've also read through a lot of the comments below. I laughed at the one commenter who suggested I should have let the essay sit for a day or two before posting it (presumably, I would then have toned it down?). Well, fuck that. I've sat on that criticism for almost twenty years. And yes, I did tone it down, compared to what I might have said, say, fifteen years ago. The basic truth is (as most authors well know), we're kind've screwed if we do or if we don't. There's almost no 'winning' this. Accordingly, I feel the need to emphasize once again: what am I talking about is the technical aspects of narrative. In this specific instance, characterization. My objection was with the suggestion that I can't do characterization. I can. A reader can choose to like the way I do it or not: that's not my business. I admit, the follow-on opinion that I went overboard in my response, was too pissed off, etc, only underscores the thin ice a writer is on in giving voice to such matters. I teach creative writing when I can. I am aware of what I'm doing when I write and am quite able to defend my decisions, either via essay or in person (bring it on). But at all times, I'm talking about the technical aspects of craft. An example: if a computer scientist draws on said expertise and knowledge, and decades of experience, to describe to you the workings of your computer, its programs and hardware, and your response is: 'man, that was condescending!' well, what is that computer scientist supposed to think? So, I discuss characterization in order to help and inspire beginning writers, and this particular essay is only the latest in a series of essays I've written on writing over the years. The only difference was in the framing, where I gave voice to my weary irritation at seeing that opinion trotted out one times too many. Mea culpa. It amazes me the extent to which artists in the public eye invariably find themselves walking a minefield. Anyway, it may be that I'm just too fucking old to worry overmuch about taking a wrong step these days. I will continue to talk the craft of writing, in essays and elsewhere. If you want to chat about that, Daniel, head to my FB Erikson and message me. Cheers, and thanks again. I hope your invitation to other authors out there bears fruit.

I think Erikson, more than any other author that I'm familiar with, writes exactly what he wants to write and does exactly what he sets out to do. He knows that it lands with some people and doesn't land with other people, but he has a vision, and he's gonna stick to it! I don't always enjoy his approach (although I mostly do), but his approach to writing always makes me think. I think I've gained more insight about my own tastes from reading Erikson than from any author. And that is valuable.

I think this situation is kind of a rough one for the author. The nature of discourse on the internet is one wherein snappy, funny comments/critiques are favored over accurate ones a lot of the time. If it gets upvotes, if it's popular and repeatable, then it will be parroted by everyone, including people who haven't even read a given work themselves. And that can lead to situations where untrue assessments of a person's work become "true" because of how often they're repeated. I do think there's value in being able to clarify things like this. And of course, opening up a broader discourse is a good thing as well. Otherwise, critique becomes a very one-sided conversation that starts and ends with a review.

"welcome to a rather strange video" well that narrows it down Daniel

An author should absolutely be allowed to defend their own work from bad criticism. It doesn’t come across as pretentious or arrogant, it just comes across as passionate and intelligent.

I respect your output medium. Also, your hair looks good.

I was so glad when he put that out because I've always loved his characterization but I also understand why people bounce off of it. Erikson's characters are mostly established, their arcs in the books occur after they've gone through the typical character arc and that vast back story is teased and hidden in subtext. It becomes really hard to relate to them but once they click with you they stay with you forever. For some that never happens and that is okay. I've heard and read some egregious criticisms and defended him but I am glad that he defended himself. So many authors don't get the chance to do so.

Glad you spoke out on this! Erikson’s Facebook post has some excellent advice for character development, and reading it in its entirety reveals that he’s got a brilliant sense of humor. I hesitate even to call it a rant.

It makes sense for authors to be a part of the discussion of their own work. I mean, duh? The problem is when authors get butthurt when they don't agree with a readers opinion. I'd love it if an open dialogue was a normal thing between readers and authors. It'd be so cool if authors were more open to chatting on Reddit (doing iAmA's) - just actually having in depth and engaged discussions that work both ways.

When it comes to the Dutch book market, authors will often harass reviewers, send their fans to attack them, and send DMs to reviewers to give them higher ratings or remove their ratings. I actually don't know a single Dutch reviewer who hasn't endured this, and I have over a dozen decently close friends who are reviewers, and another dozen who are more acquaintances. Needless, to say, it kind of happens a lot if you are a little critical. I like what Erikson did with a more ‘general’ and ‘vague’ approach to explain his creative choices. In my experience, though, a lot of authors... find it difficult to see where the boundary lies. Reviewers should never feel pressured or unsafe when it comes to their genuine thoughts because someone with a larger platform will destroy their reputation. But I've seen that happen a lot less in the international market, so maybe it's just a thing that happens in the Dutch market. I like insight into an author's mind like this, because there's a lot you can learn. I really wish that more authors knew what's fine and what's too far. He was a bit agressieve, but he didn't publicly shame a specific person. That's where the line is, for me.

Completely agree. I hate this idea that when an author publishes a story it's no longer his and belongs to the readers. It's one of the reasons Ive been so hesitant to try and get my own books published. There needs to be give and take; it would give the readers more incite and the writers a better understanding of what the readers hope to see from them.

So do you think authors should speak out more and contribute to the discussion of their work?

I both agree and disagree with this. Basically: Authors, do what you want. You want to respond? Cool. Don't want to? Cool. I'm in a graduate program, and in one of my classes we workshop each other's pieces. I used to think, "Hey, I'm really good with taking criticism. I can take it. I want to improve." And then, I submitted a story related to one of the books I'm writing. It's told from a minor character's perspective. A lot of planning went into it. I was very emotionally attached. I combed through the story and did the "Read Aloud" feature on Microsoft. Planned themes and character development. Fulfilled all the requirements. My class, including my teacher, ripped it apart. I was trying so hard not to defend the work, but I was crushed. For a second, I received what I'm sure a lot of published authors receive: People talking about you like you don't exist. In the beginning, they addressed everything they disliked about the piece and ways I could improve it. Then, my teacher chimed in: "What do you think of this cheesy part?" And they all discussed it, bouncing back and forth, like I wasn't even there. Terrible feeling. I understand why people would want to avoid it. And the entire time I was internally screaming, "*THIS* IS THE INTENTION OF THE PIECE. YOU DON'T GET IT." However, then I stepped back and realized several things: They *didn't* know the intention of the piece, some but not all of their criticisms were valid, and obviously the work wasn't complete and needed more time to simmer, stew, and improve. Now, imagine receiving that feedback after you've worked with an editor countless times, done at least 10 full revisions, discussed with your agent and editor the different parts of your style and story, and cleared the work with your publisher. Like, if someone is going to turn around and STILL criticize it, that's like arguing with the wind, in my opinion. That criticism is constructive for readership, not the authors, and responding to a lot of criticism--largely negative--for a published work gives those voices too much power. Expecting authors to read your reviews/criticism and respond comes across as entitled and immature. The authors don't owe anyone anything if someone didn't like their finished work. Art is subjective. Everyone has a different opinion. Authors shouldn't be expected to respond to each one, especially if they put a lot of work, time, and consideration into it. Edit: The idea of a "conversation" and "discussion" being had is rather idealistic. This doesn't always happen. Some people would love to just discuss a work, but more often people are ranting.

What I think Erikson's "rant" boils down to are two hard truths a lot of readers forget about when they criticize a work: 1) I believe an intellectually honest critique takes into account what the author intended in his work and if he managed to attain it. Criticizing an author for something he didn´t set out to do is like just saying “I wanted you to do this and you didn’t so I don´t like your work”. Erikson makes this clear: he doesn’t fail in characterization. He just doesn’t do it in the more common way. If you are looking for a more direct and simple characterization, then you probably won’t like Erikson, but that doesn’t mean heis a worse writer that other writers. They just use different approaches to characterization. And it’s ok to prefer one to the other. 2) Each author writes with one kind of reader in mind (or some literature demands a kind of reader you could say): some prefer active readers, some more passive readers. It’s Erikson’s opinion that a passive reader is more “lazy” and just wants the author to spoon-feed him everything, and he obviously has in mind an active reader for Malazan, that is a reader who engages with what they’re reading, rereads things if necessary, reflects on the story and fills in the blanks story and character-wise (or even takes down notes, like I did while reading Malazan). Even though I agree absolutely with what Erikson said, I also believe he came out too heavy-handed. I mean, it’s ok to prefer a more common characterization style or an easier read. It doesn’t make you lazy in my opinion.

Man I need a Daniel - Erikson interview in my life after Daniel finishes MBotF. Especially as he has (overall positive but) mixed views on parts of the Malazan universe and Erikson seems to be more open than a lot of authors.

I think it's important that authors don't fall too far into the "you're wrong and your interpretations are wrong" camp, but I do think it's highly useful for an author to explain their position and what they were trying to do with their work. Even if the reviewer/audience member at the end of the day didn't get that out of the work, knowing what they were going for can be helpful. Especially if you're down in the weeds, trying to figure out why you liked/disliked certain things. Like, knowing that the author created the element that you might dislike intentionally gives you data that you can use to choose whether you want to keep reading that author's work, and it gives reviewers another facet to consider when they create their reviews.

When I come across something in a book I don't personally connect with, my 1st though is usually "I wonder why the author did it this way." So I agree with what you're saying. For me, I would rather know the reason why things in the book went the way they did rather the rant on about how I didn't like it.

ok so here's my take here: are reviews always a part of a "conversation"? if I go on Goodreads or twitter or my blog to write a review, am I automatically starting a conversation with the author? what if I only want to discuss it with other readers or even... just not talk to anyone about it at all? it's one thing to be someone like you, who is a professional reviewer and actually welcome input from authors, but there are tons of ppl out there who have no interest at all in that. A review doesn't force me engage in any type of discussion with anyone! and we can't ignore the cases where authors have harassed reviewers, sent fans to troll them and bury criticism. If an author wants to engage with criticism I would hope they do it on their own platform, without singling anyone out (especially if the review in question wasn't written by a professional critic).

Cool topic and video. I wish you had spent some time to give an overview at the beginning of what Erickson said. I've never read/don't remember the post. Even without that background, I really liked your angle about responding to criticism in a way to continue the conversation

There is a right and a wrong way of dealing with criticism. Look at Mark Lawrence and the controversy he became involved in when a female reviewer came out about him retweeting people who called her names and disparaged her. He is a large author, and just tweeting about her sent his fans her way to abuse her. Large authors have to be mindful of this type of thing.

Steven Erikson interview coming after The Crippled God? It is known.

This video and your way of reflecting in general is what drew me in to your channel (that and Wheel of Time tbh). Having a nuanced and critical (and self-critical most importantly) discussion without being aggressive or snarky is awesome and you do it in style. Awesome Daniel! Keep at it, and yes I agree with your points on criticism and authors engagement with critics.

I'd love to see you interview Erikson. Malazan is my favorite fantasy series and he's really a great guy and there are not many video interviews with him with good audio/visuals. I also generally like your interviews very much, Daniel!

This is news to me, I suppose it would have been obvious but I completely missed the fact that it was taboo for authors to talk with reviewers about criticism. Cheers for broadening my perspective once again Daniel 👌

Honestly I've never understood this idea that authors or content creators can't respond to criticism if it's a constructive response. If I write a review saying oh I didn't understand that aspect or didn't like that and an author wants to say "well I did like this for this or that reason and that's how I approached it" then that's great, that's valuable even if it's not gonna make me like those things still. I do agree that Erikson went a bit far with saying people are wrong for not liking certain aspects of his books because everyone is allowed their opinion on a book or series but in general, I feel like authors should be able to comment on criticism.

I've gotta check out these short stories you mentioned. I'm definitely under-using patreon. I follow your channel and In deep geek...but I swear I don't know if I've really paid much attention to it since...anyways...again, great video! Love your work! Looking forward to that book of yours!

Saying that you don't like how an author does x, is fine. What is not fine is saying that he did it badly without any caveats. That was the point in Erikson's rant. What he was saying was: what if it's you who are wrong and the millions of other who like it are right? It's all down to taste and a lot of reviewers state their opinions as objective facts. And as much as I love your content, Daniel, you have a tendency of presenting your opinions as incontrovetible fact.

I have not reread the post now, so i might misremember, but to me it seemed he adequately addressed some properly voiced and argued critique somewhere in there, while ranting at those "critics" that give no real value to the discussion other than 'He bad at characters'. Therefore I wouldn't say he should have toned it down at all, in my head the condescending part is meant for exactly those people that put his writing down without any reasoning other than they didn't like it, but still state their opinion as fact. I am very careful about phrasing truths, opinions or assumptions when speaking and therefore it bothers me a lot when others are not, but that comes with my field I guess. Anyway, to me Erikson's characters have always felt more real, more relatable than most (maybe all) other author's. I'm glad you brought this up again, I very much agree with you on the value this gives to the discussion.

You mentioned Tolkien, but he actually responded to people interpretting LotR as an allegory of World War II in the forward of the US edition of the book!

One of the things I appreciated about the post was that he sets out what he thinks is the superior way of doing things, about something he feels strongly about. While a lot of fantasy fans on a lot of subjects will concede to subjectivity, there are things where people will argue that something is the superior way of doing things, if not in all cases, at least for the most part. What should be a relatively noncontroversial example is character arcs. A considerable portion of fantasy fans will argue that, with a few exceptions, for the most part, writing a character with an arc is the superior way of writing a character. Its obviously an opinion, but its an opinion not on what they like more, but on what they think is superior. And for the most part we may disagree with such assertions, but hardly treat it as some snobby ivory tower position. And I think that's what he was doing in that post. Setting out, both as an accomplished author of fantasy, but also as a fan of fantasy, what he thinks is the superior way of doing a particular aspect of writing fantasy. As a fan of Erikson, I also want to defend one of his argument, that his haters paraphrased as "look at how many fans I have" was a legitimate one. The point of character work is to have characters that readers can appreciate and care about. If tens of thousands of readers appreciate and care for many of his characters, he is clearly "doing character work". He has written some of the most memorable characters I have read, whether its the larger than life ones like Rake and Karsa, the hilarious ones like Iskaral Pust or Tehol and Bugg, or the pathos filled ones like Udinaas and the Sengar brothers, I've found them to be considerably compelling. And so have a considerable number of readers. Which is why I think, while its valid to argue that someone may not like his way of doing character work, that he doesn't do it, or isn't good at it isn't.

I think it's always intresting to see a creator of anything really talking about what they intended for a work even it didnt neccesarily succeed for your perspective. I find when working on my own projects being able to tell someone what i was going for so they can feedback whether they got any sense of it or of it felt like something else entirely a great help

WHERE DOES HE GET THOSE HOODIES!!

If fans can Rant, Authors should be able to too.

I feel like the mentality that authors shouldn’t respond to the audience is a remnant of a time when most literary successes were posthumous, meaning you couldn’t take the “easy” route and ask the author what was going on in a certain book. I think people miss the idea that an author is a mysterious, untouchable figure who crafted a masterpiece and ascended to a higher plane as opposed to a normal person who probably wrote it in between a day job and possibly kids.

In addition to that now famous/infamous rant, Erikson has been posting a bunch of fascinating essays on his Facebook which go in depth into his anthropology background. I recommend everyone checks those out, they are great reading. Interestingly, his latest is an essay specifically targeted at people who want to write fantasy, about letting go of your cultural biases, among other things.

Coming from a different medium (video games) where it seems like everyone is SUPER outspoken about every facet of their work, I feel like authors should have the ability to remark upon critiques as well. I actually think they should also be allowed to share authorial intent with what they meant by certain parts of their novel, with the caveat that they should also acknowledge not everyone will interpret their work in that way and be okay with it.

I loved the rant. I'm still working my way through Malazan, but I definitely aspire to write in his style.

i completely agree with you. as long as it's civil, why shouldn't authors be able to respond to reviews? while some reviews can be harsh and unreasonably critical, you shouldn't be afraid of responding to them if you feel them unfair or simply attacking you for the sake of a rant review. there's also the ones that are politely critiquing your work that i feel is important to take in and even thank the reviewers, or even respond to a common complaint like you said. i don't like the automatic silence that authors are chained to once they put a work out. a discussion is better as it makes people who love the books feel more appreciated, makes the authors feel like they aren't just getting a continuous onslaught of complaints, and deters the troll reviewers who either say the book sucks and moves on or attacks the author personally

I love the idea of content creation coming within the context of a larger discussion within a community. That is, artists sharing their process and mirroring/riffing off of their audience. Like a comedian or live musician! Sounds like a wonderful way to evolve as an artist (if that’s something they want.) 💙

After much research I bought all the Malazan books on audible. I got through 2.5 and returned them all. I bounced off hard.

Authors and their audience should be more important than the critics. Critics should get more scrutiny, IMHO. They get to rip on people with zero consequences. They're not the ones creating. I think spending time with your audience will do you more good than a random critique will. That being said, outside opinions that aren't fluff are good for growth, too. A harsh fan will most likely be coming from a position of love of your work whereas most critics needed to check a box for payday. The target should always be the audience and the author. Lastly, when a critique says "Why I won't finish reading XYZ" and the author calls that critic out to finish it because it addresses a lot of their concerns, perhaps they should finish reading it.

In my experience, most writers that I've known - whether they're playwrights, screenwriters, or novelists - don't regularly engage with criticism for the following reasons: 1. They don't want outside views to influence the work they're creating, especially in the case of ongoing series. There are a couple of examples where showrunners have deliberately altered television storylines (not always to great effect) because they saw some audience members on Reddit, etc. had figured out their plans. Surprise does not always equal satisfying entertainment. I'm sure authors face similar dilemmas. 2. It can be bad for mental health and productivity. Being creative is hard and you can read 99 positive comments, but the post by one shitty troll will way too often be the one that sticks with you, because it might make you angry or speak to your own creative insecurities and BAM! You've lost a day of productivity because some rando on the internet made you feel like a piece of shit. The same is true for reviews. A lot of writers already struggle with depression, addiction, and other mental health issues and engaging with critics, be they good faith or bad, can make it more difficult to maintain a baseline of stability necessary to do this work professionally. 3. Writers are really busy and it's rare if they manage to maintain any kind of reasonable work life balance. TV writers can put in 60-80 hour weeks during production. Authors on deadline can be just as bad. Assuming a writer has been able to make time for family, friends, other interests, they're probably not going to have a lot of time or mental/emotional energy left over to engage with critics, let alone a demanding fanbase. 4. Creatives of all kinds don't owe their fans anything beyond the art they choose to share and should be able to be as public or private as they like. A lot of writers are introverts that prefer that the work speak for itself and that should be okay. Having said all that, there are plenty of writers that do read reviews, enjoy interacting with fans, host their own forums and social media accounts, do frequent interviews, Q&A's at book signings, conventions, etc. where they address all kinds of things, including criticism. I feel like a lot of the engagement you're asking for is already happening if you're willing to seek it out. I also acknowledge that in the age of social media, parasocial relationships with your audience can benefit a writer's career and are indispensable for creators on platforms like RU-vid.

Honestly, I kind of needed to hear this. I'm trying to see what I can do when it comes to creating a story. Mostly for fun outside of work. This exact thing kind of turned me off putting effort in... I think I'm going to work on a first scene using my magic system tonight 😇

I agree with you Daniel that sometimes authors maybe should respond to criticism, though I'd like to add to this point. I like that Erikson did not respond to any *specific* review, but a general criticism. I usually don't love it when authors respond to specific reviews because that feels targeted and can often result in a really bad result for the original reviewer. Not that you are advocating for responding to specific reviews, but yeah. Also, Sanderson occasionally goes on Reddit to respond to criticism (usually when he is tagged). It's always super respectful and it's rarely defensive, and I super appreciate him for that. (Responding on Reddit is not the same as what I said above because a) usually Reddit communities are in favor of reviewer over author, even in Sanderson's subreddits and b) even when they aren't, it's hard to target the reviewer/critiquer since it's easier to have anonymity on Reddit compared to something like Twitter.)

I think there's a huge value in the sort of response essay like Erikson's. Like you said, it's super interesting to continue the conversation and I think it can teach aspiring writers a great deal. However, I can't help but be reminded of JK Rowling's twitter where she just tries to change Harry Potter by responding to criticism of the lack of diversity with "well actually I always intended for that character to be [insert minority]". Or authors who respond to individual criticisms and drag them through the mud online. So yes, there's huge value to be found in essays like Erikson's (if toned down a bit), responses to general criticisms of their works, but I can totally see this becoming an encouragement of JKR-like behavior or worse, encouragement of people with a big online following attacking unsuspecting readers who happened to have an opinion. This is such an interesting video!!

I can't agree more. I appreciate this video so much.

Some readers need to understand that a book is not an item from a grocery store and a writer is not providing them a service like some kind of a salesman. Books and authors are much more than that and If they need to speak up on their creative inspirations and acts they absolutely should and have all the right to do that.

I’ve seen a lot of this type of thing in the Anime community to, and I’m glad Erikson pointed this out. In Anime there are a lot of fans who define “character development” as the plot stopping so the characters can do mundane things. Another word for this is filler, which happens primarily because of they have more schedule to fill than Manga to adapt, so they create side stories which don’t effect the main plot or character arcs at all, because they were never part of the story they were adapted from. Often these take the form “this is why this character is the way they are” stories. Filler so is so omnipresent in Anime (because of the demands of Japanese TV networks) that now Anime fans expect these stories and believe them to be necessary, even though they’re anything but. It’s, to use Erikson’s example, just spoon-fed characterisation.

I'm a fan of this channel, it's helped me dip my toes into the fantasy genre and has been very informative on what books to pick up and what is worth reading for a newbie like myself. This is my first comment on one of Daniel's videos because I think this is the best take he's had yet. The assumptions of reviewers can only go so far and even if it takes 40 hours to read something like a book from the Stormlight Archive, the reader is only spending a fraction of the time the author spent with the material and cannot understand the thousands and thousands of decisions made by authors to write their specific story. Social media has bridged the gap between consumers and creators and yet, like Daniel said, the conversation ends with the review when there is now, more than ever, the ability to further understand the writing process, the decisions made therein and where the author is coming from. Just because things have always been done one way, doesn't mean they can't change. Claps for Daniel with this healthy, forward thinking take.

Great topic today Daniel. Have you ever considered doing a video where you Review the Review? I'd find it interesting getting your take on some other folks reviews, both positive and negative, of books that you are also familiar with.

In an ideal world I effectively agree with you completely. Respectful discourse is almost always a good thing when compared to one-sided silence. The reason why I hesitate to say that it'll become commonplace though is because authors are in a disadvantageous position when navigating what is effectively a political web we're talking about here. While I would also love to hear their opinions in what could rightfully become a substantive conversation, I'm afraid that because they need to be concerned with their public and professional images and how publishers, critics and audiences will receive their responses, I'm sure they consider it much safer to merely abstain from entering the conversation. Unless they are a titan in the field whose reputation can shield them from most of the backlash, I'm afraid they might not have enough protection to feel safe enough to reply to criticism. Without a doubt though, it's a good thought and I would like to see respectful two-sided conversations for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

Fascinating as always! While watching this, I couldn't help thinking about the difference between appreciation and enjoyment. Art (of the painting/sculpture/photography kind) is hugely subjective. Unlike a book, you see it all in an instant and can judge if you like it or not. It can be almost an emotional response. But if someone helps you appreciate it by giving you background, explaining what the artist was trying to say or giving context to when it was made, it helps to make a better judgment I believe. The viewer may still not like it but they might appreciate it. Same with films. Some older films may seem dull by today's hyper standards but if someone gives you some background (that was the first time this technique was used and it led to such and such; the director was going through this in their life and they channelled their pain into it, etc.), you see the film in a different light. So yes, I think it would be fantastically useful and of great value if authors responded to criticism, or explained what is behind the words, or talked about their influences, literary and otherwise. The reader would be offered a new perspective and the author might also see their work in a new light. There are fine lines here though. "The work forces one to question one's very existence." This kind of thing bothers me. Telling people how art should make them feel is not helping them appreciate it. And there is of course the danger that too much explanation/appreciation takes away the magic. Some people are not fans of Making Of docs as it then takes them out of the story next time they watch. I personally love them. These docs also show how much effort and love go into art/film/books, and that always gives me an extra dollop of appreciation.

Daniel Greene you are hitting on the difference between a review and formal criticism. A critic has a literary theory they can consistently reference, and an author can respond to that theory directly. With reviewers, the review is just a personal impression, and the author can't really respond to how a particular person feels without getting in the weeds. Booktubing and Internet reviews in general are very rarely done with any kind of overarching concepts in mind. You may be better than most, but have you tried to write up your theories of fantasy creation in a way that an author could respond to objectively?

I think this all depends on why you are reading and why you are watching reviews. As someone who reads primarily for enjoyment, I don't really care whether something is technically good. I care whether I had a good experience. No author could persuasively convince me I should have had a good experience for these 5 reasons, and therefore my opinion is wrong, so I'm largely uninterested in author responses to reviews. That being said, I'm not a professional reviewer.

I agree with you. Authors wrote with their own beliefs, goals, and biases. We as the reader also come in with our own beliefs, goals, and biases, and those can really be a huge part of how a reader is interpreting the material. I think a dialogue is a benefit because both sides can see where the other is coming from. I know this will sound weird but I collect perfume and indie perfume sets out to tell a story. When you talk to the perfumer, they are telling a story with scent. Anyhow, Dame Desert Rose. I didn’t like it. It smelled like a thriving rose with no inherent struggle. It bugged me. I talked to the perfumer and he explained to me that they bloom in monsoon and really do thrive. It made me sniff it again with a different mindset and I appreciated it more. My expectations were not what the perfumer was going for, he was going off his experience. The dialogue benefited me.

Speaking as a Malazan fan and a fan of your reviews, the fact that Erickson engages so much with fans and social media in general is one of the things i love about him. I don't read all his posts, but i did happen to read this essay and to agree with a lot of his points.

I got the feeling a while back that authors stopped responding to a lot of reviews [years ago? Idk] because if they have any input post publishing then people start screaming *DEATH OF THE AUTHOR* nonsense. Its sad and ridiculous how quickly and easily people just dismiss the authors. So while I agree with you that authors shouldn't tell readers they're wrong in their interpretation - because it is totally subjective - I'm more on the side of the readers need to stop telling authors *THEY'RE* wrong, because that's the way I've seen it 90% happen. This is very thought-provoking, thank-you. :)

I remember commenting about a YT creator's haircut on one of his videos. Next video he had a new haircut. I've been feeling guilty since.

You know, Erikson does regular interviews with the Ten Very Big Books podcast, I'd bet that he'd be up for doing an interview with you.

I know an Indie Author who got so fed up with the reviews on Amazon because Amazon tends to police the glowing reviews and let the negative ones run rampant. They self publish through Amazon, I don't know if this makes a difference. But Amazon tends to think the glowing reviews are coming from family and friends. And they finally snapped and wrote a book called "Please give me a One Star Review" and it was golden. The website they use to publish allows for privately publishing books or making them public so I don't know if you could get a copy, but if you can they wrote it under a pen name and it's a very fast and hilarious read that actually makes a lot of good points about book reviews in general.

Time to finish those books so you can interview him! :D (it's hard I know, I'm struggling to start book 9)

Of course Author's should get into the talk -if they want to-. But conversely, if they are not comfortable stepping into the arena... noone should feel forced to do so

I think if an author is responding to/discussing general or repeated criticism, that can be an interesting and worthwhile conversation. However, I've also seen authors (in multiple genres and age categories, though I've seen it more in the YA crowd) respond personally to individual reviewers in a not very nice way, attack them, or send fans to harass them. Reviewers have even been doxxed by angry authors. (Kathleen Hale is the extreme case of this, but things like this happen fairly often.) There are a lot of authors who behave badly online, both towards each other and towards their readers/reviewers, and it makes me very nervous whenever an author likes or comments on my review on goodreads, even if my review is positive.

Daniel I'm mad that your copy of Holy Sister is twice the size of Red Sister and Grey Sister

I 100% agree. As an avid booktube watcher, I come for the recs not the reviews. Yours is one of the few channels I actually watch reviews on because you actually say something besides “I liked it”. I love this idea of creating more of a dialogue between authors and their readers!

There is a problem in the content creation media, and I am not talking about just the "new media", but all mediums of communication. Consumers, as a whole are very supporting, but they are the silent majority. Unfortunately, the vocal minority is so, so, SO DAMN ENTITLED, and it is a big problem. Most of the time, they are toxic to the authors and I think anyone should be able to respond to toxic people, if they wish. It's a fundamental right to defend yourself and your property from attacks. What happens is that most authors just keep it bottled up until the point that it explodes and when it does, they will most likely sound vitriolic. There should be no taboo about defending your work. But, of course, authors should always try to keep their bias checked. And this skill will only be developed by deeper interactions with critics.

As a musician I think that this might relate to the music business. Many musicians are not trying to create music to be digestible to the widest audience possible. Many tries to create music that tries to be relevant for being somewhat original knowing that it will turn off many listeners but hoping that it will resonate a lot with the listeners that do connect with it. If a piece of music takes more effort to fully appreciate it is not necessarily because it is poorly written.

I long for authors to do things like this more. Thank you for coming out and backing their right to do so

I can't put my finger on why but there is a whiff of pomposity in thinking that "professional" reviewers reviews should be considered as criticism and taken on board by authors.

I think Erikson's career in archeology informs his writing philosophy.

Great video Daniel. I look forward to them every day.

I think I may quibble with you on Erikson’s right to say his characterization is bad. My takeaway from his article was he was blasting people for saying he doesn’t do characterization at all. He would be totally out of line for criticizing people for not liking his character work, but I think it’s fair for him to dispute the existence of characterization. The former is subjective, the latter objective.

I thought Erikson's rant was not very offensive and very much in his general voice, especially when you take stuff like Rejoice and Willful Child into account. The problem seems to be that a lot of people can't accept "This is intentional because I like it this way" and take it as "You're stupid for not liking it." which he never said. Stilistic, technical choices by an author should not be up for debate, only if they actually achieve what they set out to do. But a lot of people get objective and subjective judgements mixed up and then take it personally when you remind them about that distinction.

I think you are right. I believe this will enhance the quality of the writer and his/her coming works if they feel that the criticism is valid and need to be addressed.Turning a blind eye toward criticism is a bad practice in any profession. Everyone needs the devil’s advocate sometimes

This is completely off the topic of the video but I just noticed that you have Nix's Abhorsen series in the background. That was my first ever fantasy series as a kid and would love to hear your review of it!

I think an author/critic dialogue opening up will depend on critics, honestly. Millennial and Gen Z genre critics are mostly using newer mediums: blogs, podcasts, RU-vid, etc. And these mediums don't have any gatekeepers, so anyone can set up shop as a book critic if they feel like putting in the time, effort, resources, etc, into it. That's not an inherently bad thing; that's allowed a lot more voices to be heard, and that's lead to a lot more diverse books being published and selling well enough for those diverse authors to go and sell more titles. That's not only a good thing, it's essential to publishing's future. It's also exposed a lot more readers to book reviews in general. (Not everyone's going to subscribe to Locus or Publisher's Weekly.) But the pitfall of it is that not every book reviewer is going to have the skills to critique a book on a professional level that an author will find useful or want to engage with. There's a difference between 'Erickson's character's suck' and 'While Erickson's world building continues to be enjoyable, his characters remain flat and rely on worn genre archetypes.' Or 'I hated this character' and 'I found the main character, Lord Douchebag, unsympathetic. In chapter one the author seems to be trying to portray him in a heroic light by having him confront a bully... but he wins the confrontation by using the same tactics I would expect of a bully, showing me that Lord Douchebag is not inherently any different from the bully. This trend continues throughout the piece.' The first responses don't give an author enough feedback that they can reasonably address the issues the critic is trying to illuminate, while the second responses give details that can start a conversation. The fact is that for many authors, the vague reviews and public hate mail/one star 'I hated it!'s outnumber well crafted and informed critics. There are reviewers who will go through and say that authors of books they don't like are terrible people because they write bad books, and not for any other reason. That will make it very hard for authors to a) find the best critics and b) have the mental/emotional capacity to engage with the review and the critic in any meaningful way, never mind c) establishing a relationship of professional mutual respect with a critic that can lead to long lasting dialogues. The only way for this to change is to raise the basic standard of book reviews, and/or make it easier for both readers and authors to sort out the best reviewers from the vaguebookers.

I actually agree with what you were trying to say here. Seeing different authors respond to common critiques of their writing would be fascinating. As someone who just finished the Brent Weeks’ Lightbringer series, I am super curious about how he would respond to the criticisms of his portrayal of women. I thoroughly enjoyed the series, so it never ended up changing my opinion in the story. However, I can absolutely see many potential fans being turned away from the series by it. Idk, just an idea. Daniel, if you read this, I’d love for you to ask Weeks about it in a future interview. P.S. love you content Daniel.

I mean, that post seems like a good example of why you should be careful when engaging your audience. It can get pretty nasty pretty fast. The post starts of with a lot of complaining and bitterness. Then he suggests his critics are stupid and just don't get it. Even if this is true, I don't recommend saying it. If you suggest to the person you are arguing that they should admit they just don't get it at all, the chances of convincing them are infinitesimal, one of the reasons for steelmanning your opponents position is that it allows people to think they were at least confused for a good reason, they might not have been but arguing with somebodies ego will get you nowhere. Worse, you might miss out on situations where their criticisms had more subtlety than you gave them credit for. He then goes on to respond to what have to be the shallowest of his critics. I'm sure there are... lets be friendly and say 'inexperienced readers' out there whose criticism is born out of missing any and all subtlety in the text and only responding to what is shoved in their face, but I find it rather hard to believe that is all there is to this. If you want to do this, I recommend keeping it as impersonal as possible. Leave your own frustrations at the door, don't be confrontational with the reader unless you absolutely have to, and keep focused on the topic at hand. Any engagement with a large audience based on frustration will end badly, more so for the guy himself as he will have to deal with scores of anonymous internet people.

This might be a little off topic, but I just wanted to thank you for being such an amazing and mature reviewer. I recently finished reading To Sleep In A Sea Of Stars and, after browsing through several RU-vid reviews on the book, some of which were really quite condescending, I have really just come to appreciate your differentiated and nuanced take on things. As I said, very mature. Thank you :D Note: Even though I did enjoy TSIASOS I'm not saying it doesn't have any flaws, because it does.

There are some audio distortions in the video. As for the content, I think you bring up an interesting point. I didn't know that I characterized my characters the way Erikson did in his second example. I thought I was being lazy and just giving the barebones of descriptors (because if I have to sit through those boring meandering overly described settings one more time in any novel, I'll pitch a fit.) It's refreshing and reassuring to see that my style of writing can actually be valid. I think authors giving away their process a little is immensely valuable.

Just started re-reading and am just finishing The Bonehunters. I have to say in terms of the scope of his world building & the maturity of his writing style he's tough to beat. I do feel not all of the characters get flushed out as much as I would like nor do I feel like all of the plots/subplots all get satisfying conclusions. But on the whole his work does make most other fantasy novels feel "smaller" if that makes sense.

been waitin for this since ever

7:54 This is good advice for anyone putting something big out on a public forum, especially if it's something you are emotional about. Unless there is an urgent need to put it out right away, it's always a good idea to sit on it and come back the next day to make sure that what you've written is what you actually mean and not just the first thing that came to your head.

So I’ve been reading a lot of classic sci-fi and fantasy recently and something I find interesting is that a lot of them (or a lot of the ones I like and have read from at least, definitely not an expert) are also essayists. I’m a big old nerd who reads essays for fun so this crossover of getting to read the book then the authors thoughts on the book is so fun. There’s general thoughts on various topics as you’d expect but occasionally an essay that’s an obvious ‘fuck yous’ in response to criticism pops up. Except it’s less of a ‘fuck you’ and more of ‘here’s a very calm and collected discussion of my way of writing’. I don’t know if this was common at the time or happens to be from authors I’ve read from, hell I don’t even know if it’s common nowadays, but it gives a lot of insight into the authors point of view. They’d often be published in fanzines/magazines which I don’t think are very popular nowadays which might be why this practice died out. I’m trying to think if there’s an equivalent nowadays, maybe authors blogs but only people who are already fans will read them, interviews don’t really allow the author to talk freely, Neil Gaiman writes a lot of essays but they’re usually transcripts of speeches, and then I’m struggling. Anyways the point I’m getting to is that I think authors getting to discuss their own works freely and that includes responding to criticism should be introduced (or reintroduced). My main issue with Erickson’s rant is that it was just that: a rant. If he’d given it a week and calmed down I think he could have written something really compelling. (I’m aware there’s some issues with this, a Facebook post is widely accessible and informal, an essay is in a subscription magazine or collection that only a few can read and is supposed to be serious, he wouldn’t have gotten to show his genuine anger, etc). I’d really like to see essays/ essay collections become more widely read (fanzines make a comeback??). John Green’s new book might see a bit of a boom for these kinds of things across the board if it’s successful so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

Honestly, I think Erikson is one of the chillest dudes regarding criticism. Not only are his books controversial when it comes to writing style, exposition and overall high barrier for entry, if you listen to the Ten Very Big Books podcast, which is a great read-along show, after every book (so far) that they've read they invited Erikson for an interview. And, especially after the first book, he. Got. Pounded. They really didn't pull their punches when it came to criticizing parts of it, and he was the sweetest guy taking it on the chin and understanding where they've come from. So for me, even just the fact that he ranted on facebook in the first place came as a surprise, but then again it made the rant itself all the more relatable, since he's always been in my eyes this guy who doesn't mind the criticism and pretty much accepts it.

John, let me go on the record: You do not suck, are awesome, and I love your content and hope to one day be on your videos in interviews and other related book content whenever my book makes its way unto your desk.

I love how hard he swung. It's Erikson. Voiced as Erikson.

Yeah, I think they absolutely should be able to respond But if they can't be respectful and mature, it's way better to be quiet. So, I understand that convention.

I'll admit that there were a few times where the depth of the writing in Malazan got to be a bit much for me, but oh man the pay off! I vividly remember more than once in my read through of the series, stopping a few chapters in, closing the book, flipping in from the front to the list of the author's works, and confirming that this book was in fact the next book, and was in fact in the same series. Some of those transitions from one book to the next, where EVERYTHING changes. None of the same characters, or touch points. Not even really sure it is even the same world or setting... The books in the Malazan series took me two to three times as long to read as the books from A Song of Ice and Fire, or Wheel of Time, but I loved the mad dash of reading the last quarter to third of each book as the plot threads started to come together and things started to make sense. Then, super hyped, I cracked the next book and wait, what? Did i buy the right book? This is the Malazan cycle, right?

I don't think that was a big swing. In fact, I think it was a very light jab compared to what it could have been. He aired his grievance, and provided examples of writing to back up his defense of what could be perceived as good vs bad characterization and where the burden lies, whether its between author or reader. Instead, it could have just been 100% mudflinging with no examples at all haha. It was the equivalent of someone lightly pushing someone away for them to back off a bit, instead of bowling them over onto their ass.

I think it's kind of give and take. I would like to see authors respond to some of the reviews so maybe we can get more understanding and appreciation for what they were trying to do. However, I would also like to see more reviewers taking a little more time to research or listen to interviews that the author may have done to try to get more of an understanding BEFORE their review. I'm considering creating my own channel, and if I ever got large enough or brave enough, one of my VERY LONG TERM goals possibly would be to be able to do a review and a discussion with the author at the same time on video. I think having those discussions would be interesting to have at the same time. I do recognize that A LOT of care, respectfulness, and research would need to go into that before it became a reality and during every stage really, but I think we would see a lot of amazing conversations and possibly growth on both sides come from that.

Stick and Stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me.... Its true folks!!.. Both authors and fans need to get thicker skins... Nothing is solved with easy conversations...free speech is FREE speech.. Having said all that adhere to the golden rule... Do (say) unto others as you would have (said) done to you... Geesh why shouldnt author's join the discussions on thier books..

That rant is a very interesting one. The first few paragraphs are incredibly disrespectful and make him sound exactly as arrogant and condescending as he says people will claim he is. I'm sure he only wrote that due to emotions boiling over and he isn't actually a dick. But that only goes to show that responding to criticism should never be done while you're emotional. I think this is why it's recommended that authors never respond to criticism. It's very hard not to be emotional in such a situation, or at least the moments in which you'd like to respond most are the ones in which you really shouldn't. After the first few paragraphs though, that facebook post is actually very insightful. Heck, after reading that second example, I'm now very interested in his writing. Might even pick up one of his books some time. (Any recommendations? :) In general, I'm in favour of any communication as long as it can be done respectfully on both sides (no doubt there are many critics who are just as disrespectful as those first few paragraphs).

I'm curious how you feel about Death of the Author discourse in regards to many fantasy and sci-fi authors. I think it's an important topic to consider, especially since Cixin Liu's comments were brought up in the last Fantasy News. Do you feel that this kind of Reviewer- Author discourse would make that lense of book analysis obsolete? Authors having direct comments and influence over a reader's experience through review response? I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts! Thanks :)

conclusion: communication is good.

The problem with this kind of things is that a lot of people believe they opinion is right, when in books EVERYTHING is subjective. What you love other people will find boring/badly done and what you hate other people will adore. And that is why is great to have so many different books. But also people loves to complain and criticize and that's why sometimes criticism gets way more attention that the same amount of praise.

He spends a lot of time breaking down his work and writing in general. His website and facebook are full of this kind of stuff. I think if more people read those things they'd have an easier time with the series. His breakdown of the scene at Pale from GOTM really showed me how much he puts into every word and clued me into how I needed to read the series.

I partially agree. I would say that an author willing to separate themselves from their work so that readers can have compelling discussions and debates on the interpretation of the source material increases the strength of its web. However, I definitely can see how it would be beneficial for the author to reach out if they need to as long as they remain courteous in the face of support or adversity no one can rightly put them down. What I definitely don’t want is for an author to change or alter what they are already doing and already have fans for.

I think more "fans" need to be called out. The anonymity of the internet lends itself to the mass posting of blanket statements, that while are an opinion in the loosest sense, are spoke in the definitive. People suck, authors and creators are human, let em fire back. It promotes discussion. Now, there is a right way to go about doing this, but God do I want to wipe the theoretical smile off of these people on the internet who love boiling down extremely nuanced discussions down to a single definitive line.

There are right and wrong ways to respond to criticism. Replying directly to a one-star review is, I think, a bad idea. But putting out an essay addressing some of the most common criticisms and explaining what you were going for in your book, that's a good idea. For me, knowing what story the author is trying to tell makes a huge difference in how I feel about the book. And even though the essay might not change the minds of most, it might give them a fresher perspective on later books that they read by the author.