But Why?
Since posting this article on the communities I haunt on reddit, I’ve had a fair few people ask why I bothered writing a response to the Mythcreants article at all. I’ve also seen plenty of responses where people have considered the article similar to a troll post, and even some who initially thought that the article was satirical – and said they wouldn’t waste their time, so why would I waste mine, in fact, what makes Ms. Winkle’s opinion so valuable to me?
So I’ll make it clear here. Chris’s opinion isn’t valuable to me, not with regards to the text that she evaluated but it could be valuable to any potential readers of the Malazan series, and it could be valuable to any potential authors who specifically look towards Mythcreants for advice.
I’ve said it throughout my response and I’ll say it here again – what frustrated me about the article when I first read it, and frustrates me still (enough that I felt I should write a response) is that it is framed/presented as a teaching article – Lessons From Bad Writing – yet it is not. That Ms. Winkle criticises the text, and in most cases does so in a dismissive, contemptuous, incorrect or assumptive nature is fine – she is perfectly entitled to do that in a subjective, opinion piece that is presented as such.
This is the main issue for me – as I have said before.
I love literature and everything to do with it, the good and the bad, I love that there is always something to learn. I also love teaching about literature, whenever I get the opportunity – to present arguments related to relevant text and give the ‘whys and wherefores’ and see someone piece something together in their head, and have a positive response. I also love to participate in discussions about personal opinions and feelings that have been evoked by various pieces of literature. Literature is an amazing gift and to misrepresent all of those things, to me (and this is very much my personal opinion) feels like a little bit of a tragedy.
The other issue that I have with the article is the wider misrepresentation. Not just in the case of the author or the particular piece, as I highlight above, but from a much larger perspective. Chris misrepresents, not just her article, but also what Mythcreants as a community is about. You can see the organisations principles HERE. The people who run Mythcreants (Ms. Winkle being Founder and Editor in Chief) not only write articles-a-plenty that are freely accessed on their website, but they actively charge writers for their services. These services include, but are not limited to content editing, something that is suggested in their FAQ as the best choice if a writer is asking for a critique of their work. A list of the services Mythcreants provide is HERE
I have never used the organisation for any services. I’ve skimmed a few other articles and looked at a few other topics listed, but that’s as far as I have gone, and would ever go. Nevertheless, based on just this experience, and given what I have seen (as per my response) I would not recommend or suggest Mythcreants as a professional service. To anyone.
Thank you for reading!
If you’ve got anything you’d like to say or ask, you know where to find me!
boc-hord 
I was sifting back through some of my lengthier Reddit posts today, and came across a fairly heated discussion (ie. rant) that I’d thrown up on the Malazan subreddit, in response to C. Winkle’s rudderless and—not to mince words—somewhat deranged “screed” over Gardens of the Moon—or, at least, the first 25-30-ish pages of it. I think we must have enountered Winkle’s piece on Erikson’s book around the same time.
To be honest, I’d forgotten about the lather I’d worked myself up to over the discovering Winkle for the first time. (I was also departing a doctoral program in English lit, under less than idea circumstances.) I suspected that my reaction could have been disproportionate to Winkle’s writing. But, I did click back over to the Mythcreants website, and almost immediately reminded why her writing had driven me round the bend—along with the whole thrust of their business in general.
However, re-reading your (generous) critique of the her critique has helped smooth my feathers, somewhat—I think you give her far too much credit for a litany of sins—and I give you credit for that, becuase I get the sense that—deep down—her writing might have whispered dark thoughts into your ear as well: “break something expensive . . . buy a new stereo,” that sort of thing.
As an inveterate, if sporadic, blogger myself—I started way back in the bay 2000s times—I know that sometimes you will get the occasional ping from a comment, out of the blue—and that it can brighten up a a sallow day. You may be having a great day already, but thought I’d let you know that putting about your site, and reading updates on your book list progress, has been a lovely way to spend the afternoon.
The majority of my best writing will never generate or lead me to a sizable income—but have a lifelong relationship, reading and writing speculative fiction. It may not be a living all on its own, but specualtive fiction has the benefiit of being a genre of literature that sells—even in smaller markets. However, I’ve been out of the loop where it comes to speculative fiction’s “reading culture” for quite a long time. This past year I’ve been trying to familiarize myself with the lay-of-the-land, so to speak. I’ve been finding the very loud, gripe-ridden fandoms that proliferate around genre fiction on internet feeds and so forth disheartening—along with some sort of strange fantasy-literature, self publishing-expert complex that exist around it, promising to draw everyone a roadmap to the next, doorstop bestseller IP—somehow without actually writing anything down.
But that’s my own little soap-box. I’ll spare you the tangent.
To round off the reason behind me leaving this comment in the first place, I just want to say I’m grateful for finding your little corner of the internet today. It’s provided a fine reminder that people who read and think about books do so in ways that they know best—which happens to be reading and thinking quietly amongst themselves, and definitely not on camera Though you haven’t posted in a while—I hope life is treating you gently, wherever you happen to be—thanks for brightening my afternoon.
LikeLike
Thank you ever so much for this. I really appreciate you taking the time to leave a comment, and I’m especially glad that you understand where I was coming from with my critique of Ms. Winkle’s “lesson”. It did indeed, as you suspected, lead me to some dark thoughts, which is part of the reason my response is so measured, as well as much longer than my initial gut-reaction was. It ruffled me up enough that I felt I had to respond – it had far too much space in my thoughts for me to just let it slide – anyway, I’m just glad I’m not the only one. In the long and short of it all, it really doesn’t matter what I say – I won’t get a response from the writer as they don’t give responses, and what was said in the article will only be accepted by those who are already on that particular bandwagon, but I couldn’t in good conscience let it go unanswered, just in case there are the odd few who might actually want an alternate view, and some who might research opinion on the site before they “employ” them for whatever it is they claim they do.
But enough of that. I’ve been trying (and failing) to blog regularly, but life, inevitably gets in the way and procrastination isn’t conducive to that outcome either. Still, I write, a little, and review (or rant) when I can. I have a whole load of unfinished and unpublished posts that I will be posting eventually, and I’m looking forward to starting the English Literature degree I never got around to doing when I was younger, so that’s going to be something else for me to natter about. Or not, depending on that whole procrastination thing (which I hope remains solely with blogging and not with writing assignments!)
Thanks again, for taking the time. And for what it’s worth, you have brightened up my day.
LikeLike