Some old time readers of this blog may find amusing what I’m writing here. But it isn’t a second-thought. I just believe that criticism is useful, but only useful when it is motivated. No matter what I wrote about these years, I hope that I always explained the best I could those motivations, and avoided gratuitous attacks.
This is just a post from the forums where I was defending Erikson from some criticism, but it makes sense on a general level.
—
Erikson himself has explained that he doesn’t know how much the books sold, nor he really cares. He is interested in the possibility of writing them and being paid so he can continue, and the new contract for six more books confirms that things aren’t going so bad.
GotM is some sort of selective process. He’s not writing something for the commercial success, and he is content enough if some of the people make through it and love it for what it is. It is about building your niche of passionate readers and know that at least some of them appreciate what you are doing, the way you’re doing it. If not everyone loves it, it doesn’t really matter as long you can still connect to some readers.
On these forums there are multiple threads just dedicated to mock some writer. And that writer is one of the most successful commercially. Does this mean that commercial success univocally defines quality? If that was true one of the best new writers would be Stephanie Meyer, who already has her own mocking thread.
Every time a writer reaches some level of exposition all kind of readers try the books. More readers also brings more naysayers, especially on forums. What is silly is the obstinacy. If you don’t like the books, then read something else, as the market isn’t so shallow to not present good alternatives. But do not pretend to be the ultimate judge and that your idea of quality is absolute.
Confrontation is always good, but it’s ultimately the writer who decides what to do with it. If embody it in the work as an attempt to improve, or just discard it. Erikson especially is one who was always open to criticism in his interviews, but in many cases he explained his choices and confirmed they were deliberate and that, even with the possibility of going back, he wouldn’t change them.
That’s authorship, and it deserves some respect. Not unanimous consensus, just respect.