A good piece which deserves wider attention and debate.

In any case, I intend to keep publishing online and will begin serialising my new F/SF novel CORVUS later this year, and posting short stories as I complete them. How many readers do I need to feel satisfied? Only one, really – myself, and I’m probably my own harshest critic.

http://www.billhilton.biz/blog/2007/12/17/amateur-not-amateurish/

Again, the comment I made above bears repeating: you don’t need to worry too much about all the crap out there, because the good stuff finds you. In the case of the video in that post, I found it via Stumbleupon.

Talking of which, I must stumble this thread – don’t think anyone else has done it yet, and it deserves wider attention.

We need to interject ourselves into the dialogue on “amateurism” and “old media vs. new media” every chance we get.

http://reason.com/news/show/123523.html

much like AEs, but hers is better.

Tins…

Definitely a cool couple of hours of my life invested in reading that site, though. Thanks for pointing it out. :)

Speaking of cool links, do we have Eli to thank for the wikipedia update?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blook

(And yeah, don’t think that now I’ve been cited as a Wikipedia “External Link” expert that I won’t use that to win arguments with my wife. “Of course I’m right, dear. I’m an EXPERT!!!”)

At any rate, I suppose the point I’m trying to make, tying in with Lexy’s, is that if we write surpassingly good stories then we don’t have to worry too much about them getting lost among the dross, because word will get around.

That’s not to say we can afford to avoid marketing altogether, of course (that’s the copywriter in me talking…)

For example, I read xkcd. I first discovered it via a feed on a friend’s Facebook profile – I wasn’t particularly looking for a new webcomic to read at the time, but I saw it, liked it, and have read it ever since.

In this viral model – content comes to you, you don’t necessarily go looking for it – no active filtering has to take place. Good material gets evangelised, weak material doesn’t.

There is one point you missed about a minimum entry bar, though: mediums with editors do help a writer who is learning the craft … if the editors deign to give a personal note or two, that is.

I’m quite sure a great number of authors honed their skills through magazine submissions. The same ‘conducive’ environment might not exist on the Internet. However, like you’ve already pointed out – the Internet suddenly seems like a cheery place for those of us who want an audience (and who aren’t in this for learning)

I read webcomics and web fiction in exactly the way you describe; I don’t have anyone to filter out the drivel (my word of choice), and I get along fine.

Of course, I’m always excited when I come across any site with new stuff for me to read, especially when there’s a lot of it. That, of course, is why I’m such a strong supporter of Pages Unbound. While I’m going to continue to search for all the out of the way stuff that nobody’s really seen, PU will be opening up far more stories to the reading public.

Really, it works for everyone. Although, I did notice a story that I’ve been planning on reviewing signed up on PU recently. I’ll review it anyway, but I’ll feel less like I’ve opened up something new to people, since I’m betting that most of my readers have gone by PU at some point, or do so regularly.

Anyway, I got a little off topic, but, I think that filters are largely unnecessary, with the important exception of voluntary filters. That’s what reviewers and, more importantly, friends, are for.

I also agree with Hel that the publishing industry isn’t actually particularly effective at filtering for quality either. Yes, they set a technical bar, but not a literary one.

Good article, Lexy.

I admit I’d bemoaned the lack of review sites for web fiction, but I think that’s more for the possible exposure than anything else. Your point about “the public awareness of what we are doing is so low that even the crappiest of crappy stories effectively raises our profile as a whole,” is a perspective I hadn’t considered and now feel is very valid. (But I remember POD-dy Mouth http://girlondemand.blogspot.com/ She sadly no longer reviews POD’s, but one review from her seemed to catapult authors. I don’t know if something similiar could be done for web fiction, but someone like that would be nice in our field.)

Your observation about knitters and chrocheters was a surprise. My mother is a chrocheter but a technophobe. I’d never thought about web savvy crafters being a web fiction readers b/c of the hands-free aspect. Very cool.

I do hope you’ll write that article concerning putting web fiction “in the path of ‘casual clicks’.” I know I’d learn some interesting things.

Keep it up.

Tins…

It’s like fast food: you can go to any town in the country and order a burger at McDonald’s and know what you’re getting. It doesn’t mean it’s great. It just means you know what to expect.