Should writers defend their work?

[Ian Austin]

I'm sat on Twitter chilling out, and I see Linkara and Sterling Gates discussing the merits of a comic-book issue that Sterling Gates wrote. And it gets me to thinking... why is Sterling Gates trying to justify his work to an online critic?

So I figured I'd throw the question out there.

Do you think writers should have to defend their work? Or are they better served letting it speak for itself and allowing fanboys, armchair quarterbacks and critics the right to argue about whether it was good?

[Sir Woodrow]

Screw Linkara at least Sterling is actually making comics rather than acting all pissy on the net about them.

[Zombie Mod]

if they want to then yes, if not then let the fans do it.

[BoilerRoomBrawler]

A writer who defends their work is generally concerned with image, marketability, and reputation. Some internet critic with sizable clout criticizing your work may or may not be worth addressing if your reputation or credibility is at stake because of the repercussions of their criticism.

Other times it's just ego.

[Kitty Shamrocks]

I enjoy writing myself, and have been in a couple newspapers and websites, so I've come across this. Honestly? I don't respond unless the person has an actual, legitimate critique or a valid question they want answered. I think I learned this the hard way from having stuff published when I was really young and wanting to defend EVERYTHING, only to realize later that it's just silly to do so.

[Ian Austin]

I enjoy writing myself, and have been in a couple newspapers and websites, so I've come across this. Honestly? I don't respond unless the person has an actual, legitimate critique or a valid question they want answered. I think I learned this the hard way from having stuff published when I was really young and wanting to defend EVERYTHING, only to realize later that it's just silly to do so.

I try to do the same for my (meagre) writing.

Just always struck me as a curious thing. On the one hand, writers want that dialogue with the readers. But... I don't know, I tend to think actively arguing/debating with people isn't really contributing much of merit.

[Free Hat]

I don't see what the harm is in respectfully offering counter arguments to common criticisms of their work. As long as they don't go the George Lucas route and accuse their critics of being whiny fanboys who just hate anything that's new.

[Ian Austin]

Jan 17, 2011 17:35:59 GMT -5 Free Hat said:

I don't see what the harm is in respectfully offering counter arguments to common criticisms of their work. As long as they don't go the George Lucas route and accuse their critics of being whiny fanboys who just hate anything that's new.

Fair point. But when does it end?

Take me for instance. I don't like Green Hornet. At all. But would I want Seth Rogen to engage in a dialect with me about it? No. He made the film he wanted to. While I think it's dreadful, I don't think he owes me an explanation for it.

[hossfan]

If they think their work is being misrepresented by a critique, sure. Especially when attacks start becoming personal (example: Author X is a racist/socialist/misogynist/fascist for writing this scene this way).

[Bo Rida]

On the whole I don't thing they should especially if it's constructive critism.
However there's been plenty of cases where people base a lot of their arguments on the historical/scientific inaccuracies in a programme only to be completely wrong, it must be frustrating doing your research just for somebody to say you made a mistake based on nothing.

I was a forum last year where they were discussing an abysmal BBC show called "the Deep" and there was a guy who worked as the scientific adviser on the show and it was really interesting to see his frustration about how most of their input was ignored and as a result people thought that the few things they got right were in fact errors too, I think that sort of thing is beneficial.

[Michael Coello]

Jan 17, 2011 17:30:02 GMT -5 Sir Woodrow said:

Screw Linkara at least Sterling is actually making comics rather than acting all pissy on the net about them.

Hasn't Linkara written stuff, back when he kept shilling "Revolution of the Mask" on his show?

Anyway, I only see a need when it gets kind of personal. Again, with Linkara, and when he goes on about the works of Frank Miller, where he goes after Miller for being the worst kind of person. Though, I like how Frank has never really denied who he was, since he even said himself that he's been led by his dick.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

If they, say, have an irrational hatedom directed towards their work by a demographic that by all accounts shouldn't even be paying attention to it, then yes, they would have every right to defend themselves.

But there's a big difference between that and an author getting bent out of shape over constructive criticism.

[Ian Austin]

But there's a big difference between that and an author getting bent out of shape over constructive criticism.

But what stops constructive criticism becoming armchair quarterbacking?

That's the eternal snag. I get the sense Linkara genuinely believes he could tell the story better than Sterling Gates. And, for my money, that's not the job of the reviewer. They review what's there, rather than what THEY think should be there.

[Kitty Shamrocks]

Jan 17, 2011 17:38:26 GMT -5 Ian Austin said:

Jan 17, 2011 17:35:59 GMT -5 Free Hat said:

I don't see what the harm is in respectfully offering counter arguments to common criticisms of their work. As long as they don't go the George Lucas route and accuse their critics of being whiny fanboys who just hate anything that's new.

Fair point. But when does it end?

Take me for instance. I don't like Green Hornet. At all. But would I want Seth Rogen to engage in a dialect with me about it? No. He made the film he wanted to. While I think it's dreadful, I don't think he owes me an explanation for it.

Exactly. If someone just flat ou disagrees with something I write or just doesn't like it at all, it's not like anything is going to change their mind, nor should I have to defend something I enjoyed writing simply because someone didn't like it. If they want to talk about certain aspects of it, even if they disagree, that's totally fine by me. I guess I just stop paying attention when it is less about the writing and more about me. I don't need to respond to what some anonymous person thinks of me as a person.

[eJm]

Linkara's gone down in my book the last few months. His lack of research on topics really, really, REALLY annoys me. There's no excuse for it.

Onto the topic at hand, I see it varying in the degrees the topic has gone. If you can give a reasonable, just argument for it, sure go ahead. If you're going to act like you can do a better job then the writer/filmmaker/musician then...well, instead of bickering, you should go and DO it.

[Deleted]

No - your work should speak for itself.

[TripleMerc]

Personally, I answer direct questions about the material, elaborate, or defend opinions expressed, but I will not defend the writing itself. If it turns into personal attacks, I don't defend myself. A guy looks pretty ridiculous attacking someone who doesn't care enough to fight back.

[Jay Peas 42]

It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

[Red Impact]

Having worked as a journalist for a while, we essentially had a policy not to defend unless it was sent to us personally. People will always find something to complain about.

Also, we're all pretty much guilty of doing the same thing.

[bob]

only when I was directly confronted about a few things I wrote in the old college paper and explained why I wrote what I did and then the people dropped their complaints