Interactions between writer and reader

[BlueB]

I think most of us can agree that feedback is important during and after the writing process, whether it be critique or friendly encouragement. However, over the past few years, these interactions have gained the potential to be much more intimate. Just how intimate do you enjoy your experiences with your readers, writers, and vice versa? Do you prefer it if you leave your writing to the masses and just see what happens? Or do you have a continued dialogue with your readers during the entire process? Do you give your story with no extra information, or do you give your inspiration, goals, your personal journey as a writer?

The most puzzling writer/reader interaction I've ever seen are character ask blogs. By no means do I dislike them, I've just never understood them (I'm blaming the Onceler fandom years back on Tumblr). What do you think about the interaction of giving your writer a prompt and having them answer in character? In theory, it sound great, but scenarios can quickly evolve (or devolve) into something you can barely recognize, especially when multiple readers submit at once. Is there someone more versed in this particular interaction than I that could explain the appeal to me (Not to offend anyone who runs these blogs, I just personally need more information on the subject)?

tl;dr: How close, as a writer, do you like to get to your readers? Readers, how close do you like to feel to your favorite writers?

[Caveat Lector]

Well, to answer the latter, I can say that the idea is very nerve-wrecking. You think "what if this awesome person I really, really look up to and admire doesn't like me? What if I'm a total DORK? What if I get their characters' names wrong!?". And it's easier to play that "what if" game under the context of a much larger fandom with little to no actual interaction with the creator...but it's entirely different if you're in a much smaller, more insular fandom where the creator can interact directly with the fans of their work. But thankfully, I have found that the creators whom I admire and have gotten to talking with in various discussions on here (and elsewhere, in some cases) are really kind, awesome people whom I enjoy talking to outside of their works. In fact, I've even befriended at least one of them!

(Also, I'd like to just take the time to say that working with Celso--Winter Wolves visionary--over one of his projects was really awesome, and I can highly recommend him to any writers looking for work!)

I've also been somewhat on the reverse side of that as well, as a fanfic writer who has befriended some people who took the time to review my stories and loved them. We had a common interest right off the bat (in this case a shared work we really, really like), and eventually, we could talk about other off-topic things as well--such as our daily lives, other fandom interests, how other writing is going, etc. The idea is also mildly nerve-wrecking since, in this case, they admire me, and I wonder if allowing myself to be vulnerable and goofy would diminish any of that...but I've found that the other person usually feels just as I do. In fact, I still talk with some of them to this day!

I'm speaking primarily from personal experience, but ultimately, I'd say it all depends on whether or not the other person is someone who strikes me as genuinely friendly and whom I would enjoy talking to, and if I feel the line between "creator" and "friend" can get too blurred or not. In general, I MIGHT feel more comfortable with keeping distance as a writer, BUT if the other person and I share a few other interests, I might not mind a slightly closer interaction. I also believe I'd probably rather be a "cult hit" writer over a majorly popular writer, but then again, that's not really something you can control, I'm just speaking as a matter of preference.

[Kuiper]

I think most of us can agree that feedback is important during and after the writing process, whether it be critique or friendly encouragement. However, over the past few years, these interactions have gained the potential to be much more intimate.

I think that the relationship between writers and alpha readers (who provide feedback during the early parts of the writing process) has always had a certain amount of intimacy to it, and it has very little to do with "creator/fan" interaction.

For one thing, there needs to be a certain level of trust between a writer and alpha reader. There's an expectation of privacy: the alpha reader needs to understand that the critique samples that the writer sends them are for their eyes and their eyes only (unless, of course, the writer makes things explicitly clear otherwise).

Secondly, whenever you take advice, it's always important to consider the source. Writers don't just want feedback, they want good feedback. Of course, good feedback comes in many forms. Even the most inarticulate of readers can provide good feedback simply by saying "This chapter was great, I loved it" or "This chapter didn't work for me, I found it boring or confusing." That kind of feedback can be a great help in later phases, and can be great when I'm trying to temper and improve a story. However, when I get feedback from alpha readers, I tend to receive high fidelity feedback. This means getting specific (some of my favorite pieces of feedback to get are particulars like "I love this sentence, keep it in" and "This piece of dialog really pulled me out of the story, it seemed really out of character." I have an established rapport with some alpha readers who might know know me and my writing style to the point where they can look at the first draft of a scene and say, "It looks like you're trying to achieve X, but it doesn't really come across. But I really did like elements Y and Z. If you can find a way to achieve X while maintaining Y and Z, I think this scene will be really great." Which is way more constructive than a response like, "This scene didn't really work for me," because that could lead to me completely pitching a scene that actually had some good things going on, instead of working to preserve the good elements while retooling the part that needs improvement. The other great thing about detailed feedback is that you can sometimes make inferences based on notable omissions. There are a lot of times when I'll put something (a phrase, an event, a character, a piece of dialog) into a story with a sense of trepidation: a feeling of "I'm not sure if this is going to work, but I won't know until I try." And if someone gives me a detailed review of a chapter without ever mentioning the "questionable" element, I can presume that the element wasn't nearly as questionable as I thought it was.

Incidentally, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that most of my best alpha readers are fellow writers. Getting feedback on how to write your story from someone who actually knows how to tell a story generally works better than someone who is primarily a consumer. Also, the fact that my alpha readers are also writers makes it easy to form relationships where I'm able to reliably and regularly get high-quality feedback, because there's reciprocity. Asking an alpha reader to devote hours of their time to giving me high-quality feedback while I offer nothing in return can be an imposition. If I have that kind of relationship with peers, I can expect that kind of high quality feedback on the regular because there's reciprocity: people know that if they put time into the group and spend time giving high-quality feedback, they can expect to receive high-quality feedback in return.

[Kailoto]

I have an established rapport with some alpha readers who might know know me and my writing style to the point where they can look at the first draft of a scene and say, "It looks like you're trying to achieve X, but it doesn't really come across. But I really did like elements Y and Z. If you can find a way to achieve X while maintaining Y and Z, I think this scene will be really great."

I find it somewhat unsettling that a lot of the feedback I receive from my trusted confidants (or indeed the feedback that I give to them) follows this structure almost exactly.

Like Kupier noted, there's a bit of a difference between a general, post-release audience and a dedicated alpha- and beta-testing group. With the latter, you're really trying to improve the product before it goes to the masses, so you want people with a strong critical eye so that they can find the most minuscule details to revise. Which is why pre-release testers are often writers themselves, because a typical reader usually doesn't know how to give insightful feedback. There's no indication that it has to be that way, but I find that fellow writers can actually help you improve your work, whereas others simply tell you what they liked and didn't like.

Another purpose of pre-release testing would be to gauge the reactions of people playing the game, in order to collect data on more intangible things (satisfaction with the ending? impact of a certain point? character X's likability?), which is something I don't hear of often in the VN space, but is just as valuable. In this case I'd argue that finding typical readers is imperative, since you're trying to find out how people inside and outside of your target demographic perceive various aspects of your work.

When it comes to post-release, though, and following up with fans, I don't think there's necessarily a "right" or "wrong" way to go about it. Different creators enjoy different levels of involvement with their audiences; some will just finish their work, release it, and move on to the next idea, whereas others prefer to establish a rapport with their fanbase and supplement their story with their own identity. While there's pros and cons to both sides of the spectrum, I think it should come down to whichever you prefer.