One of my biggest regrets with the Knights & Necromancers series is how generic it sounds.
Not just the title—if it were just the title I could have fixed that by changing it.
No, the problem is that the stories seem impossible to summarise without sounding like generic cookie-cutter sword and sorcery fiction because that was the foundation I built on. I’d like to think I made something more of it but that ‘something’ is a thing too vague to boil down and market.
After trying, again and again to summarise the series, I’m forced to come to the conclusion that the premise probably is, a little bit at the very least, a little bit uninspired.
While I can pick out individual elements that definitely aren’t generic, the whole they compose looks and feels rather generic.
Which makes sense, since I felt rather uninspired writing them. My internal censor was in full force throughout. Whenever my mind got sucked towards something weird, I dialled back towards the more normal. Whenever I got fascinated by something I found interesting but was definitely off-beat for a fantasy story, I either skipped writing it or edited it out after the fact.
Most of what I normally write I write for myself. Both fiction and non-fiction, most of it simply goes into a folder in my Dropbox, only revisited if I need to reconnect with the ideas, emotions, or reasoning I was trying to preserve. A lot of it is perpetually half-finished. Which is okay. A lot of it gets deleted once I begin to find it stupid. Which is also okay.
It’s just that one thing I learned while blogging is that you people hate the non-fiction pieces I enjoyed writing and love the ones I hated. (‘You’ in this context being the generic aggregate bio-matter of the people who visit this site.) So, paradoxically enough, if I really like something I write, chances are I will never blog it.
Seriously, the difference in the traffic the two get is usually just about an order of magnitude. (I.e. over 10x, a real order of magnitude.)
The most popular posts in my blog ‘career’? Either posts that are magnets for email-happy lunatics (i.e. facile posts that nonetheless manage to be ‘controversial’ in some way), boring pieces that outline the blatantly obvious in as simple terms as possible, or lightweight pre-digested fair (like listicles or ‘this versus that’ fight posts).
What blogging has trained me to do for public writing is to remove all subtlety, abandon any structure that requires people to read from start to end (seriously, if you lay out a problem at the start of a post and follow it with suggestions for fixing, people will call you an arsehole because they only read the start and not the suggestions), tone it down (morons will ignore logic if you call an idiot an idiot), explain everything (even the stupid super-obvious stuff that shouldn’t need explanation), and generally assume that the readers are more boring and less imaginative than a senile middle manager three days from retirement in a large bureaucratic organisation that would make the offices from Gilliam’s Brazil look like Brazil’s Semco.
Because if you—my generic aggregate blog reader bio-matter—aren’t a fucking idiot then as a collective you do a bloody fucking good impression of one.
(And a lot of you are nutters too, judging by some of the emails and comments I’ve gotten in the past. Long emails. Long long crazy crazy emails.)
Once you get sucked into the trap of thinking that your writing can be of use, the temptation to adjust the writing to be more ‘effective’ gets pretty strong. The problem is that ‘effective’ blog writing—the writing that blog readers actually read and act upon—tends to be drivel because those same readers ignore most things more substantial.
Without blogging, I would probably be unemployed today. Which is a fact that weighs heavily on my mind whenever I consider giving it up completely to preserve my sanity.
The trouble with fiction is that, in storytelling, the writer’s emotions are at least partially infectious. If I am not fully emotionally invested in the story, that comes across. It might not be something you can pinpoint and it might not even be readily apparent, but that lack—that hollowness—is there no matter how well you write.
But, you, my reader, have trained me well. My experience with blogging has trained me to tone everything down, because the web is full of touchy fucks. It has trained me to simplify everything, because otherwise you’ll misunderstand it. It has trained me to chunk everything, because otherwise you’ll ignore it. It has trained me to make everything facile, because anything with nuance will be grossly misrepresented by you. All of these lessons work well to drive up blog traffic and kill productive discussion in favour of meaningless yay or nay prattle, but they absolutely destroy fiction. All you get is faceless people tackling vague problems in a generic place.
Moreover, blogging has trained me not to publish because I am not a robot and I have to write about what I have to write. I write what I like in the ways I like and then I close the file unpublished. Because publishing it would be pointless at best and a magnet for trouble at worst.
Blog readers are the worst kind of reader in the world. They arrive eager to misunderstand and ready to be angry with you.
Fiction readers arrive generous with their time but expect a world rich and complex enough to inhabit and a cast of characters who seem real and recognisable without being too familiar.
They are two audiences in diametric opposition. Any lesson learned for dealing with one, must be unlearned for the other. Not realising this sooner was, obviously, a major mistake on my part.
(Not saying fiction readers are saints. A lot of them are dumb fucks with an axe to grind. But, compared to your average blog reader, they might as well be old J.C. himself returned to save us all from our sins.)
Afterwards, before I actually published them, I tried to reconnect with the stories, trying to find facets in them that I could emotionally invest in but without ‘weirding’ them up too much. I hoped to make the characters feel as real to you as they do to me. I don’t know if it worked.
What I do know is that if I had just followed my writing interests, followed the lines and threads that captured my attention, I would have enjoyed the writing process much more.
It probably wouldn’t have sold any better but I doubt anybody would have felt that it was generic.
Your view of blog readers seems to match many publishers views, i.e. dumbing down to meet the lowest needs and upset the least number of people.
Contra. Believing that your readers are dumb f… surely won’t foster a mindset that generates material worth reading?
History tells of authors try, try trying again until their material is accepted by the general public.
That isn’t quite my view of blog readers. Blog readers actually love controversy and being offended and will arrive in hordes to shout and scream and complain if you take care to insult their pet cause, even when it should be obvious that the post is either stupid or simplistic. It’s the “facile posts that nonetheless manage to be ‘controversial’” category I mention in the post. The reason to tone it down is that even when you’re trying to do a logical, reasoned post on something, that covers a particular topic in detail and with intelligence, everybody is looking for an excuse not to have to address the arguments of the post. So, they latch onto the tone. Saves them a lot of work because it means they actually don’t have to read anything.
And history doesn’t tell of bloggers trying again until their material is accepted. Book authors, maybe, but blogging history tells you that you either got popular when blogging was new or you got popular by following the advice of people like Copyblogger and various SEO folks (whether you knew you were doing so or not). The sad fact is that their advice works, not just a little, but a lot. And it lobotomises your writing. The only conclusion you can draw from the fact that those tactics are extraordinarily effective is that blog readers, as a collective, are stupid.
I’ve been blogging since 2002, since 1997 if you count my regularly updated and article-oriented home page as a blog, and actively reading and participating in the blog community since it started. I’ve written for corporate blogs as well as my own. This isn’t my first go on this merry-go-round. Blogging isn’t like publishing.