The virtual world of internet forums is always going to be a difficult place. My psychological expertise is in identity construction and narratives psychology and virtual identity is one of my favourites. It’s so easy to adopt different mask online that sometimes people get carried away.
I am a member of several writing forums, Writewords, Authonomy and YouWriteOn amongst them. I made the decision to join, in psychological terms, to gain a feeling of belonging with like-minded people. However, as within all groups, there is a natural hierarchy and conflict will occur as leadership is challenged. This is particularly rife in the writing world as there is a fuzzy division between ‘published’ and ‘unpublished’. This is played out in many ways.
On the Writewords forum, where there is no firm expectation that any review of uploaded work will be reciprocated, just an informal agreement, the mood is largely calm, with peaks and troughs of strong feeling being expressed in explanatory terms with a chance to respond until the matter is clarified. There was recently a thread about how unpublished writers feel that they are not taken seriously and they were mostly reassured that they are, which reinforced the group and the support given. Most of the conflict on Writewords arises from matters not connected to writing and is quickly negotiated.
On YouWriteOn and Authonomy there is an explicit requirement to exchange critiques on work to different degrees of formality. Whilst in theory this is a good and fair system, unfortunately the hermeneutics of the situation leave room for Machiavellian tactics such as marking down other people’s work to get your piece above them on the hierarchy (thus grabbing leadership), not responding to someone who has critiqued and backed you because you have already been satiated (Freud would have a field day with that one!) or complaining loudly when another leader fails to engage in the stag fight.
This is can be explained by a simple area of psychology, transactional analysis. In his landmark books, ‘I’m OK, You’re OK’ and ‘The Games People Play’, Eric Berne explained how we operate in groups by ‘stroking each other’ and the person who gets the most ‘strokes’ (or in this case votes) becomes the leader (or winner). Leadership, in the writing world, translates as an agented, published book. It’s the model for lots of group activities from sport to the X-Factor. Again, in theory this works fine, but the conflict arises when someone whose ego is in a certain state (parent, adult, child) which does not match the rest of the group comes along . For example, the group may operate in a adult way, like Writewords, with members and site experts. This is unlikely to boost conflict as there are no ‘strokes’ to vie for and publication is elicited away from the site.
However, in a system where there is a fight for position (publication) based on the most ‘strokes’ and someone is not receiving them, someone whose ego has been in adult can easily move into foot-stomping, leg kicking child and demand compliance. Alternatively, the adult ego can turn to the patronising, pseudo-expert parent, pointing out factoids which are speculative and evidenced.
In real life, where we are face to face with people, we tend to tone down (if we can, as a lot of these ego state changes are outside consciousness) our key changes. In real life only seven percent of our states are communicated in words. 38 percent is communicated in the tone of words and a huge 55 percent through expression and body language. In virtual forums the medium of communication is very different. The whole communication is written narrative and this is much, much more transparent than trying to work out what someone is saying face to face.
To sum up, participants in internet forums where the ego is boosted by reciprocated strokes have only one chance to express what they say. The inner emotional state changes are the same as if the encounter were face to face, as the brain treats visualisation and imagination as if it were real, so the expression of these through words in exaggerated many times in an effort to encapsulate meaning. When someone is so desperate to gain leadership that they ignore all the forum’s unspoken rules – to remain in adult ego state – and change into child or parent this in obvious in transparently unpleasant narratives of jealousy, damaged reasoning, expertise pretence, explicit lobbying of other group members and tantrums in order to elicit strokes either by fear or by pretending to be victimised.
This behaviour occurs on forums the world over and well as in real life. The astonishing part of it is that it is happening on writing forums. It is the business of writers to encapsulate meaning into narrative, and to make that meaning transparent. The eloquent posts on the writing forums complaining, in parent and child ego states, that something is a little unfair, a little amiss, a little unbalanced in terms of the number of strokes any given author thinks they should receive on the merit of their work, are clearly little more than a reflection of the time spent thinking about how they can manipulate strokes and writing the post, and not productively writing the next novel, the next short story, the next honest critique of a fellow group member’s work.
The aim of all unpublished writers on all these sites is common: publication. In fact, no amount of ‘strokes’ from other group members is going to achieve this. Writewords, Authonomy and YouWriteOn are valuable meeting places for authors and writers to exchange tips and encouragement. The latter two melt this with a competitiveness which can turn the most timid writer into a virtual fuming ball of self-interest in order to obtain the most stokes and gain leadership. In a short analysis of these sites and their forum threads, the more competitive the site, the bigger the prize offered, the more complaining about other people, usually about those who won’t comply with tender stokes or, worse, about those who give honest but negative feedback, are found.
Is it the right route for writers, with only two writers from Authonomy obtaining publication (the final promised stroke for reaching the top of the stroke chart isn’t publication, but a literary report) and YouWriteOn turning to offering writers self-publishing in an attempt to emulate the stroke of publication? From experience, the time spent reviewing other people work in order to get this reciprocated is immense. Of course, the major benefit is that your work is up there for any scouts to see, and this generates the excitement and comptetitiveness about making it more visible. If the system was entirely fair and reviews *had* to be reciprocated with positive strokes (slightly defeating the object of critique) and eliminated the chance to behave strategically then this would reduce the input criteria to the thing we all have too little of: time.
Or would it be better to spend time writing the next book, story, article and submitting to agents and publishers? This raises the question of ‘who judges the standard of writing?’ and the answer is clear: those who have a commercial interest. The strokes from fellow forum users are nice but they don’t pay the rent.
So how is a writer’s time best spent? Fuming on the forums or writing the next big thing? You decide. In ‘adult’, please!
Thanks for this – a very well-thought out analysis. I belong to WW and have gone as far as to register with the others – but something has always held me back – and that something has been expressed in your blog today.
I’m of the firm belief that the only way to be a better writer is to write, to read the best in your genre and then to try and find an agent/publisher.
Forums are wonderful place to make friends with other writers who understand what you’re doing, and as a means of open and frank discussion where a novice can become better educated about the publishing industry.
But, all this mutual ‘stroking’ – I’m not sure I like being touched by strangers!
Thank you – this is absolutely fascinating, and explains very clearly my gut feeling that creative work and competition sit very awkwardly together.
Not necessarily in prizes given after the event, since most of us with any sense don’t set out to win a prize when we write Chapter One, just hope we do when we hear we’re on the longlist. But the kind of competition which embroils work-in-progress with winning confuses the creative process, which is organic, simultaneous, unpredictable, and immeasurable, with the competitive process which is linear and binary.
And as you say, if you’re busy scratching backs, when on earth are you supposed to write. But then I think we all do know people who don’t want to write, they want to be authors…
Good one on positivethinking and it helps a lot.
Thanks,
Karim – Positive thinking
Great piece, Jacqueline. I think it explains a lot of the behaviour I have witnessed on certain sites.
The online writing world is very seductive. It draws you in, because it seems to be offering mutual support, but actually, as you point out, what you get is something a little more complex. Very interesting.
Roger
Brilliant analysis. I’ve been in plenty of places, and have found much of what you say spot on. Many places, sooner or later, show their colours…and very few operate on truly altruistic lines. Egos will out, finally.
Intresting, but perhaps it fails to take some of the underlying drivers of the different sites into account.
Authonomy, the one I’m on, is operating less like a writer’s site than like a typical games site, so games theory might better account for some of the behaviours you’re seeing.
Also, given the differing backgrounds of participants, some of whom are professionals, it is not true that people who adopt an expert persona are always doing so because they’re going into ‘pseudo parent’ or ‘pseudo expert’ state. Some are real experts – such as Emma Darwin herself, who has participated in the site.
I would also argue that Authonomy, by and large, suffers much LESS from the kind of foot stomping you’re talking about than do other Internet forums, simply because in order to win the ‘prize’ (however hollow it might be in reality), participants have to be nice to each other. For a forum that is largely unmoderated, the behaviour on Authonomy is remarkably civilised by typical Internet standards.
Alex Milton
I’m endlessly fascinated by the psychology of online groups and Authonomy (to which I belong) is no exception. I would agree with Alex a fair amount – it does have a lot of parallels with gaming too.
I would also agree that as a site it is far more pleasant and less personal than many sites I’ve been on… possibly, as Alex says, because generally you ascend the ranks by being nice!
I find the games amusing – but have found some of the feedback totally invaluable.
“Freud would have a feild day with that one!”
And he’d have a field day with that one!
LOL Thanks for spotting the typo – corrected now.
Alex, I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that all people who adopt an expert persona were always moving into parent or child mode. I apologise if it came across like that. Some people are just experts – other are not but for whatever reason drives them want to appear to be.
I agree that writing forums provide a great sense of community, as I wrote, I am a member of lots of them and they have been invaluable in all sorts of ways. Just a thought, and purely in realtion to this dicussion and not specific to any of the forums, but isn’t being nice to someone to get something just a position on the behaviour dialectic related being horrible – a positive stroke instead of a negative one?
Games theory – yes! Although I am a qualitative psychologist so it doesn’t appeal to me as a methodology. I’m bad at maths as well as spelling 🙂
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate you reading.
This is a great article. You’ve summed up Authonomy really well. I belong to YWO,Authonomy, Webook, Zoetrope and Forward Motion.
Webook is all about the writing really – a great place to get work done.
Zoetrope and FM are very ‘Adult’ and supportive.
Authonomy is a lot of fun on the forums, but the prize of the ED is not worth the hassle for me yet.
YWO is the only writing site that I don’t get on with. It’s too cold.
At best, Webook is the only place that doesn’t distract me from my writing too much.
Nice analysis. I think however the appeal/addictive quality of Authonomy goes beyond simple stroking. There’s a virtual life quality in which people whose work isn’t recognized in the “real world” get to feel validated by their “peers” in the authonoverse. The prize is no more real than are the avatars. The prize is NOT publication but being “chosen” by your peers to get an Ed Desk review by HC/UK. There may be some evidence that getting this prize has helped some people get agents, but so far I don’t believe anyone who received it, has landed a contract. However, the structure itself is addictive. One watches ones’ rankings rise and fall always checking in to see if the book has been “backed” and if this has resulted in a change of fortune.
This is very interesting (not least because I wrote my own PhD on the links between narrative and identity, only from within the domain of literary criticism). I used to belong to Authonomy but left it because the game of exchanging strokes seemed to me so futile. I think it speaks to the core of motivation for certain people – some do it in order to be praised, to have their work rewarded (like a good mark in school), to find souls who are sympathetic to their individual perspective on life, to be assured that what they produce is good, special, valuable. It’s an indication of the inside-out, slightly regressive culture we live in that external validation matters so dreadfully.
But no one ever produced good art from being told all the time they are doing well. Writing is a craft, and it takes a long time to hone, with much practice and the steady recognition that what we do could always be bettered. This is an adult message in itself, and not one that writers can tolerate if they are working out of a needy child. I think it all depends on where the ego is invested – if it’s based in the act of production, then strokes become essential. But if it’s based in doing genuinely good work, then criticism becomes more important.
“It’s an indication of the inside-out, slightly regressive culture we live in that external validation matters so dreadfully.”
I do know what you’re saying, litlove, though I think external validation is always going to matter if you have an external goal for your writing – that others will like it/read it/publish it/buy it. At some point you are going to want to know what others think of your work, and you can’t help hoping they’ll think well of it. The difference seems to lie in whether – when you get some negative or mixed feedback – you think ‘Bother, more work to do, tho’ I’m not sure they’re right about X’ or you think, ‘They’re wicked and stupid and they’ve got it in for me.’
I think there’s even a role for the conditional validation you get from someone whose opinion of the craft you respect, such as your writing tutor. It’s different from the unconditional validation you get from your devoted, supportive but non-reading dad, for example, much though you value the latter for other reasons.
For the record, I did participate briefly in Authonomy, because the stats on my blog showed that someone had linked to it from the site. I went to had a look, found a really interesting thread, put in my two penn’orth, and the discussion continued. Then one or two members posted such bizzarely negative responses that I doubt if I shall ever go back.
Emma – I don’t think I was saying that external validation is worthless, or unpleasant! Of course writers are going to want people to like their work – and I was also talking about how important it is to spend time on the craft of writing, so that writers produce the best work they can – and that would be to please people, right? My point was about ONLY wanting – or perhaps better, tolerating – the positive response.
Perhaps I can ask you something in return. As a writer you’ve had a great deal of external validation for your work, more than most writers are fortunate enough to have. How will you feel when you get some really stinking reviews? I mean,I hope it never ever happens, but you’re going to have to have some solid core of trust in your own work to withstand that, and it can only be developed (I would think) by committing in the act of writing to doing what pleases you first, and others as a delightful second.
Yes, it’s a very good point about not wanting negative responses (don’t we all, in one sense!) but also not tolerating them. I’m not a psychologist, unlike so many commenters, but I assume it’s because the writer’s ego is so fragile (at least about their writing) that anything un-positive is just too threatening, in how it joins up with their own, firmly suppressed fears about themselves.
A propos the reviews, I’ve been lucky in print (helped, perhaps, by the fact that, at least with debut novels, on the whole they just don’t publish a really bad one, since what’s the point?). But I’ve had some pretty negative bloggy ones – the one-stars on Amazon give you the idea. And yes, it’s horrid. I’ve learnt to approach a Google Alert with extreme caution!
Actually, would you mind if I go and answer it on my blog, which needs feeding? I’ll put the link here when I’m done, if Jacqueline doesn’t mind…
Hope you don’t mind if I post the link to my full answer to litlove here:
http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2009/11/under-your-skin-and-into-your-core.html