posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
benlehman at 08:40pm on 23/04/2007
benlehman at 08:40pm on 23/04/2007(Context: A friend of mine and a friend of his have recently been going around telling creative communities that they aren't creating right, that they should follow a different method and different process. Not coincidentally one which those two people have used in the past.)
I think that other people have a right to judge my published work. (for a general value of "my").
If I don't want it judged, by not publishing it, I avoid judgement.
Do other people have a right to judge my creative process, though? (again, for a general value of "my").
I don't think so, off the top of my head. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
I think that other people have a right to judge my published work. (for a general value of "my").
If I don't want it judged, by not publishing it, I avoid judgement.
Do other people have a right to judge my creative process, though? (again, for a general value of "my").
I don't think so, off the top of my head. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
(no subject)
I think if you talk about your creative process, other people can judge it. Whether that judging is actually relevant to any standards you choose is another question entirely. Assuming you judge your own creative process based on the quality of product it creates (for all values of 'product', including ethical ones - if you were using slave labor, then 'keeping slaves' is part of your product) then they might have the right to say that you would create better work using a different process. They may be incorrect, or the process you use might be optimal for you, but at least there's a. On the other hand, if they're judging it on some other basis, then you decide whether what they're talking about is anything you need to pay attention to.
(no subject)
(no subject)
If you view "creative process" as something that may or may not produce an end product, does that change things?
Like, I know you write fiction for your own joy. Do I have a right to, say, come and tell you to write to differently? Or is that a fundamental invasion of your intimate space, like me coming and telling you how to have sex? If not, why not?
Answering my own question, I suppose I do have a right to do that if I think it will make you happier, but I also do think it is an invasion of your intimate space. I have to believe that the benefit is pretty darned high in order to make that sort of invasion.
(no subject)
(no subject)
And sex is only unlikely to produce anything qualitatively judgeable by the community if you use protection and no one's in hearing distance.
(no subject)
And for some of us, part of being happy is doing things our own way.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Really? 'Cause I don't agree--I think it's extremely problematic to give someone unasked-for advice about "what will make you happy," because it presumes that you know that better than they do. In general, I think you're obliged to assume that other people know what they're doing, and, if they're not hurting anyone, leave 'em alone.
Now, the definition of "unasked for" can be weird. If people on these forums were discussing the creative process, or saying "this project isn't working for me, and I get stuck at this part," someone would be justified in suggesting that they try X rather than Y, in the same way that, if I'm whining about my love life, my friend could say that maybe I shouldn't throw wine on my dates. But if they're just doing their thing, Critic Guy seems like the equivalent of That Dude Who Wants You To Watch Swedish Art Movies, No, Really, They'll Broaden Your Mind.
And everyone hates that dude.
(no subject)
There's no "right" involved. Now, is it rude and generally counterproductive and hurtful to judge a creative process? Often. That's why friends need to do it really carefully, and generally non-friends oughtn't be given the opportunity unless in your own judgment the net benefit to the end product is positive.
Some people get better with public "feedback". Other people get worse or just second-guess themselves into a block.
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
(no subject)
Which I think is where you and certain parties cross purposes. Their position is driven by a set of norms that are different than the more (sloppy language alert!) "artistic" ones you tend to go with. Theirs - if I read them right - are more about "craftsmanship" and even "professionalism."
Are these works products first, or expressive first? That's an open question, and one the creative community in question hasn't figured out yet.
(no subject)
When I love a game that looks finished and solid, I'll sing its praises. I'll recommend it to people.
When I see a game made by a friend that I think is really unfinished, perhaps even kinda hastily made and crappy, I won't say *anything*. I tend not to involve myself in discussing such game in public. On an RPGNet lovefest thread, when someone decides they're going to buy such a game based on the lovey-dovey feedback they've been getting, I very well might (and have) PM them in private to tell them to think twice, and relate my horrible experiences with the game.
I'm fine with giving my friends feedback. As soon as their unfinished, crappy game is available for purchase proudly, though, I shut the fuck up. I don't want to say anything that will kill their buzz, and yet I will never publicly promote such a game, either. I will keenly give feedback in private via PM and email, usually warning people to wait for an eventual second edition and the like.
I appreciate what Matt is doing, for real. Well, I love Matt and all, but his attitude is a little hostile these days even to his friends. But still, I like what he's doing.
He's trying to create an environment where I don't have to feel guilty about seeing people suckered into buying a crappy game that a friend wrote.
He's also creating an environment where I can feel not guilty, and the author can feel not attacked, if I were to publicly tear into one of these games, showing its faults plainly to potential customers when the game has been released and the author getting revenue from sales.
-Andy
(no subject)
(no subject)
I appreciate what he's trying to do (foster an environment of feedback).
I don't appreciate what he's actually doing (telling other designers the "acceptable" and "unacceptable" ways to get their creative juices going) and where he's doing it (social and play oriented sites, rather than design-oriented sites).
I'm focusing on this little bit right now. It's not to say "rarah shut up" it's because I need to introspect about this for a little bit, decide what amount of moral authority Matt and Paul have over me, and then proceed accordingly.
Are games like Shock: and Agon problems? Yes. Absolutely. This is something we need to address as a community, and we need to do it, largely, not by yelling at sites we look down on because they aren't design sites, but by fixing the culture of design and creating other acceptable release dates than August. Nerdly is a huge, huge step for this.
(no subject)
Could you quote the passage where you saw this because I just read the thread and didn't get that out of it at all.
(no subject)
Matt and Paul come into knife fight and say "this isn't a functional game design community!"
Matt comes into Story Games and says "this isn't a functional game design community!" during a conversation which is shooting the shit about game ideas.
Both of these are category errors about the sites and their role. I think that this is just that people who miss the old pre-diaspora Forge want all existing sites to function like the Forge, with the same goals as the Forge. I feel safe in calling this wrong. No need to discuss it further.
Secondarily, Matt was coming into a thread where people were batting back and forth ideas for games. Yeah, sure, is it a status contest? It is. That's noise in terms of creative approach. We used to do stuff like this on the Forge all the time. Good games came out of it (including Polaris and the Mountain Witch, so you'll understand my touchiness).
There's a problem: Games that aren't done are being bound and sold. Matt apparently thinks that the cause of this is shooting the shit in internet threads about design ideas. I don't think that the connection is very clear at all. I think it's much more tied to the toxic elements of Forge culture where, if you don't go the GenCon, you're not afforded "designer" social status.
(no subject)
Because I don't agree with your representation of my actions. I find this entire thread pretty vile for that reason alone.
For example, please point to any comment of mine where I said "you do this process WRONG" instead of where I said "you created this product WRONG."
For another example, please point to any thread on Knife Fight where I cricitized that community for not being a design community. I don't remember doing that at all. You've said in this thread I did. I think Paul did that. I don't get where I've done so.
And, maybe I'm forgetting something. Maybe I'm not. I don't know. This thread is pretty ugly in that it calls out someone you define as a friend, but at no point did you say "Hey, Matt, since I'm calling you a friend, and calling you out, what do you think about this?" I don't think that's how one treats a friend. It's how one treats an enemy. And, I'm really baffled how angry people are for all this -- and it appears so because I used the following phrase, which is the only really mean thing I can fathom "Put up or shut up."
I find the level of distrust and the willingness to see my actions as outwardly hostile and disrespectful pretty awful. I am baffled that any prior history I've had has been tossed out the window by both you and Andy here as MY problem. I figured I'd earned more respect than that from you both.
(no subject)
If you're going to make a game, make a game. A playable, thorough game. Which means it has to be playtested. And, that the goal of doing is is making a fun game, rather than measuring each others' cocks and nodding in approval.
If you're going to make a joke (or, you know, not make one) then do that. Make it actually funny.
Stop confusing the two. Because our "games" are starting to look like cocks with tick marks. PUNCH THEM.
So, yeah, I confused the two in this thread. That was stupid of me. Mine were jokes. They weren't very funny.
This strikes me as "you are not allowed to fuck around and design little bullshit games while thinking about game design." Which stikes me as a form of "you're doing this wrong."
It's also, secondarily, hostile and disrespectful. The fact that you're hostile and disrespectful to yourself doesn't mean you aren't being hostile and disrespectful to others.
(Hostility and disrespect don't bother me nearly as much as the rigidification of creative process. I think that hostility and disrespect can, as you said elsewhere, be useful if dangerous promotional tools. But, since you asked, there it is.)
The purpose of this thread was not to call you out. It was for me to introspect about what you were saying. I did, I am, and I think a fair amount of useful stuff has come out of that introspection. So, uh, this was successful.
I've realized that you and Paul are operating from a totally different priority set than I am. You seem to me to be saying "hobby-as-a-whole first, personal joy second." I see this as a totally backwards set of priorities. I imagine you must see mine in the same way. I'm much less annoyed about it now, though.
(no subject)
You have gone on record here that you don't agree that the social clime of our community at large is becoming a problem. That's totally fine! It's a matter of differing opinions, not a he-said, he-said fight wherein we assume that the other guy has an "attitude" problem. I find this whole mess silly, just like all the ones before.
I certainly don't KNOW that I'm right. I have some good reasons for thinking why I do about half-baked games. But, there's been no means to absolutely verify that as fact. I think that's true of your position on the matter as well. So, we can discuss it if you like. And, we can act, with our without that discussion. Paul and I are acting. Others will do their thing, too. Cool.
See what's happened from my perspective? I've been in at least 2 or 3 "kerfluffles" since last GenCon. I think in all cases I had a point, and I think in many of them I turned out to be holding a pretty respectable position once the smoke cleared. I have no illusions that I didn't get passionate, that my words didn't come off as too strong for many people's comfort levels.
The end result? I am now viewed as having gone off the reservation as an angry guy. Not just by people who already had a beef with me. With my friends in the community.
It's nearly put me out of the hobby entirely. Other friends, wisely, talked me out of it. I can't understand how standing up for mutualism (not doing so as a paragon of virtue, admittedly) and then getting shouted back at or talked about outside of my view has turned into "Gee, Matt USED to be a nice guy, but now he's just a ranting schmuck who doesn't get his way like the good ol' days."
I'm REALLY tired of that. And, when people say that about me, I'm really troubled. Because I know that I'm not that angry jerk. I know that I'm still the nice guy they've had meals with, face to face! But, I can't for the life of me figure out how they let Teh Inarweb overtake that level of trust and so significantly reduce their opinion of me.
I think the differnce I'd like to see is you doing a better job of representing the situation as differing opinions rather than "Those guys are wrong. There's no problem here." Instead, I'd rather see us discuss it as "Those guys have a different idea than me about why we got some half-baked games. I don't see it their way, but it's certainly possible they're right." And, "Let's talk with them about it!"
And, if that preceding paragraph is a fair point, then there's a lot of panties in a twist about nothing. Lots of finger pointing for no good reason. Lots of hurt feelings for what? Nothing from where I'm sitting.
(no subject)
You have gone on record here that you don't agree that the social clime of our community at large is becoming a problem.
I don't agree with that statement at all. I think that the social clime of our community is a huge problem, but I think the problem is not what everyone else seems to think it is.
I've quite loudly said what I think the problem is, and tried to open a conversation about it, and I got shouted down by people unwilling to look at their own privileges and be critical of their own community. I may try again. I may not. Maybe if I had come in blistering and angry and screaming "fuck" every other syllable you all would have listened to me. Maybe not. It's a moot point because that's not my style of communication, especially not on the internet.
In all honesty, I'm probably not going to bother talking about it again. I'm just going to slowly shift into doing things the way I think that they should be done, and people can feel free to join me in that or not.
--
That's that. Now about new passionate Matt.
I think that you're using the word "passion" here as a dodge. When you say "passion" you seem to mean "hostility and disrespect." It's okay with me, in an abstract way, that you decided to amp up the hostility and disrespect in your online communications. I don't find it morally wrong. It might very well be useful promotionally (it is for Luke and Jared). It just also means that I'm not going to take your points, or your emotions, or your anger very seriously. And, probably, that I'll want to communicate less with you, because your sort of passion sends me into funks, for days and weeks, and then I come out and everyone's like "oh, Matt's just being Matt, what are you worried about?" This isn't your fault, it's just how I react to this stuff.
I'm sure you're still a nice guy. I like you! I just can't deal with internet-Matt anymore. Those are my emotions, and you can't argue me out of them. My discomfort and eventual absence is a price you have to pay for your increased passion.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
This is not meant as a dig, a tit-for-tat. It will INEVITABLY seem as one. (shrug) I don't dig Internet Ben, either. Let's just call it a draw, and get on with our work.
(no subject)
And if everyone followed the plan, it wouldn't be very creative would it?
(no subject)
(no subject)
I went to my composition class and lesson every week. At these lessons we critiqued our work and discussed the creative process that lead to this work. (Ex. Recognize this motif? You used it on the last page. Pay it more attention and the next page will write itself.) This was perfectly fine because not only was I studying with an expert, but also a teacher.
Matt as I have come to see him is an expert, a critic, and not a teacher. He does not instruct with care toward the growth of the less experienced. If he is a teacher, he's that professor that everyone hates.
Does he have a right to critique creative process? If the creative process is out in the open for all to see then he has the privilege. And we have the privilege to say "fcuk off."
(no subject)
And you're perfectly entitled to say "Fuck off."
And that is how Balance is restored to the Force.
If I could tease one word out of this, it would be 'process'.
A published work is not a process - It's done. End product. Improvements come in the next edition. It's fair to criticize a product precisely because the publisher has said "Here are my wares, what do you think?"
A creative process, though, is a moving target. Suggestions to help are fine, if asked for (via an online discussion, whatever) but to criticize a process for not being 'right'? That's something that's only valid when there's an objective framework behind it - like, say, commercial airline pilots skipping the checklists and ignoring ATC, then saying "But we landed OK, right?".
Creativity has eluded objective measurement. There can be no 'right' or 'wrong', only suggestions and 'works for me'.
(no subject)