Chuck Wendig | Just Be Yourself...

The critical comment was clearly arrogant, but it did include a couple of technical pointers there. Chuck's response seems to have been outrage that anyone should dare point out any potential flaws in his writing.
 
You've got to wonder about the mentality of someone sending that. Does he really think that Wendig will do anything other than be annoyed? I wouldn't. It's one thing to say that your book isn't someone's thing, or even that the book is just plain bad, but it's another to say that you're too idle to put the work in to make it worth looking at. Dressing it up in pompous langage and claiming that it's tragic rather than screaming abuse doesn't really change things. Yet another person on the internet with a gigantic sense of entitlement.

But why bother replying? I had to wade through about 500 words before I even saw what the message was. I don't really get Wendig's style: it's like listening to Buffy with extra swearing. I think I'm just too much of an old fart to get the internet, to be honest.
 
Hee. Jo, I see you liked Toby's post. I almost did and then wondered if I was agreeing he was too old for the internet, so didn't, and now I think maybe I should have (my helpless dithering thus demonstrating that I am too old for the internet...)

Anyway, I agree Wendig didn't come over as calm and reasoned, but that was a very annoying comment. You can see why it made him cross, and I think he's big enough that a bit of ranting won't do him any harm. I'd have liked him not to name the guy, since his numerous fans will doubtless rant along with him.
 
I always think of Toby jugs when I see Tobies name. My gran had dozens of them.

Back on track - I generaly like Wendig but he does occasionaly rant. Not like Scalzi does of course, he makes Wendig look like a girlscout (that swears).
 
I have just about stopped laughing now.

What I meant was that I don't really get why someone would go to all that trouble to tell him that his book wasn't good, when the reason they're giving is pretty insulting, and why he didn't just throw the thing away. I guess it must have struck Wendig as especially irritating, and I can't blame him for thinking that.
 
After reading all this (and laughing) I just had to scroll back up to like Toby's post. Toby who is NOT too old for the internet.

Wendig's posts always make me smile. It must be the swearing, which proves I'm probably too YOUNG for the internet.
 
Meh with the internet giving people voices to utter their wafflings to all. Young? Old? Squidgy in the middle? Crazy round the edges? Human. It's all on show if you pick apart the blog posts and Twitter rants enough.

P.S Being a foodie... I am always reminded of a Toby Carvery (pub chain, could be worse, eh?) That's some worrying image recognition and word association which has been going on longer than I've been a member here. I blame the fridge magnet acquired in Lincoln some years back. <- Also food related.
 
While the post in question was a bit obnoxious, I find Wendig's response more troubling. He could have used this as an opportunity to discuss how professionals handle criticism, how it's simply part of the job, and once you put your work out there to the public you need to put your big kid pants on and suffer the opinions of that public. How sometimes you emerge from the forge of criticism as a better writer.

But nope. He used his bully pulpit to lash out at his critic (who, it should be noted, Wendig censored altogether when he first submitted his comment). And he fed his followers the attractive lie that if you write only to please yourself you are above criticism because we're all special snowflakes.

His reference to cooking is worth exploring. Yes, it's personal expression. And yes, we all have different tastes. However, there are real skills involved in becoming a chef, and there are genuine techniques you need to learn to become excellent at preparing food. Every one of us who dines out has every right to post a review of a meal - to call it bland or overdone or greasy or simply awful tasting. And any chef who believes criticism of her cooking is illegitimate because she's expressing herself in her own unique way is a fool.

Nothing good will come of the relentless corrosion of criticism, of undermining its very legitimacy with a misguided deference to relativism and egalitarian ideals. Something unhealthy is happening to creative culture when elitist has become the worst slur imaginable. Excellence is a thing. Artists and craftsmen should strive for it. It's hard, and we mostly fail to achieve it. But nothing of enduring excellence has ever been achieved simply by expressing ourselves the way we want and screw what anyone else thinks. Not unless you're a born genius. Chuck Wendig is not a born genius, and it's unlikely any of his fans are either.

And frankly, I find the cult of personality at these high-profile genre blogs distasteful. I understand that it's shrewd marketing, and I applaud anyone who can manage to make a living at this racket of writing fiction. But the pack mentality and tribalism demonstrated at these places almost puts me off the whole SF/F scene. It's funny how people who likely suffered exclusion from the dominant peer circles when they were at school will demonstrate all the same pack traits once they have a scene of their own.
 
Last edited:
His message seems to be "learn which criticism/advice to pay attention to", which I can't argue with -- without developing that ability, you're stuffed. But why he needed a whole blog post to say that, rather than a single tweet (especially given that he provides no clue as to how to go about acquiring this wisdom) I dunno.
 
His message seems to be "learn which criticism/advice to pay attention to"

Which should be really good advice - I've learned that all technical criticism must be seriously considered (ie, structure, language, character development, etc), while creative changes are best bounced off (consider and mull to stimulate own creativity).

However, what Chuck Wendig has actually defended - intentionally or not - includes:

  • protagonist looking at self in mirror to provide description for reader
  • starting and finishing novels within 90 days as standard

Neither of which sound like the sort of thing you'd expect from someone posturing themselves as a writing guru.

Anyone remember when Joe Abercrombie was challenged over his depiction of a woman character in Last Argument of Kings? He didn't get abusive - he went away, thought about it, then decided that he was probably wrong - because he wanted to be a better writer.

What Chuck Wendig has done is opened himself up to accusations of the reverse. In that regard, it appears that the original troll may yet have achieved their intention.
 
However, what Chuck Wendig has actually defended - intentionally or not - includes:

  • protagonist looking at self in mirror to provide description for reader
  • starting and finishing novels within 90 days as standard

Neither of which sound like the sort of thing you'd expect from someone posturing themselves as a writing guru.

What I'd like some of these commercial writing gurus to acknowledge is that concessions have to be made if you want to be a full-time professional novelist without hitting the bestseller lists. I'd like them to acknowledge that commercial imperatives mean you need to write 3-5 books a year to pay the mortgage, and that when you write 3-5 books a year you're likely going to have to cut some corners and write differently than you would if you were crafting a magnum opus to sweep all the literary awards. There's nothing shameful about those trade-offs. But it's disingenuous to pretend they don't exist.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top