Are ratings indicative of talent?

[Voboy]

There are many people who know they are talented writers, and are not.

This is true!

 

[lovecraft68]

There are many more people who think they are smart, and they are not.

Irony

 

[AwkwardlySet]

The majority of high scores are well earned.

I am not so sure about it to be honest. While it is probably true for the more vanilla categories, I'd say it is far less true for the more extreme categories and kinks. Simply put, I'd say there isn't enough content for some of those categories and readers seem to be much more appreciative of such content and wish to nurture it.

 

[Duleigh]

I'm going to agree with @TarnishedPenny and @MelissaBaby, scores here are not definitive of your skills or talent but they are a raw polling that indicates that something is there, you're producing something that people like enough to take the extra step and respond with a vote. If you are scoring high across different categories, you should work to foster your talent. Also pay more attention to feedback, look to see if you have people following you across the different categories and start conversations with them, I get so much good advice from regular readers.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I am not so sure about it to be honest. While it is probably true for the more vanilla categories, I'd say it is far less true for the more extreme categories and kinks. Simply put, I'd say there isn't enough content for some of those categories and readers seem to be much more appreciative of such content and wish to nurture it.

Fair point. I would counter that, within the context of those categories, some authors still manage to get higher scores than others, and I would argue that is likely an indication that they possess some degree of talent.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Just for the record, Sylvester Stallone has been nominated for acting Oscars twice.

 

[Voboy]

Fair point. I would counter that, within the context of those categories, some authors still manage to get higher scores than others, and I would argue that is likely an indication that they possess some degree of talent.

I think one aspect of talent is understanding the audience, thus (for Lit, anyway) knowing the categories.

Most of my lower-scoring stories are ones I had doubts about, category-wise. I have to bite my lip sometimes and knowingly put borderline stories into categories where I know they won't score well. It never really sits right, but adding more categories is not the answer (I don't think).

All this begs the question, though: "what is talent?" I suspect we'd all have slightly different answers. And honestly, I'd expect most of those answers to be geared toward supporting the notion that we are talented ourselves.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

but adding more categories is not the answer

Agree completely. I would even go so far to say that it would be much better if categories were completely removed. Some of those categories are way too general, and in some you can find extremely varied content, so they hardly make the process of selection easier. I would say that tags are a perfect way for a reader to filter the content. Maybe adding nuances to tags would make the selection even better. As in, you put cheating as a major tag, because the story is about extra-marital affair and put a minor tag of, let's say foot fetish, because there is a scene with footjob or something. I think a system like that would make the lives of both writers and readers easier, because you wouldn't need to select just one category if your story strongly touches two or three categories. You would just put two or three major tags and some minor tags for more nuances and voila. Selecting and filtering for readers would be much better as well

 

[SimonDoom]

All this begs the question, though: "what is talent?" I suspect we'd all have slightly different answers. And honestly, I'd expect most of those answers to be geared toward supporting the notion that we are talented ourselves.

You'll never get universal agreement on this one, which is why to some degree this thread is doomed from the beginning, unless you enjoy getting lots of different answers and sifting through them for whatever seems useful to you.

I think talent in fiction boils down roughly to two very different sorts of talents, and the best writers excel at both.

One kind of talent is having a way with words. Some people "get" grammar and syntax better than others. Some people sense the music in words better than others. They have an intuitive feel for how to put words together in a way that's pleasing and coherent and artful and memorable.

Another kind of talent is the ability to tell a good story. Some people intuitively seem to understand the concepts of character and narrative and conflict better than others.

Whatever your talent level, you can improve both of these skill sets by reading and writing over and over. But some people grasp these things much faster than others.

It's no different from the talent required to paint a painting.

 

[Voboy]

Agree completely. I would even go so far to say that it would be much better if categories were completely removed. Some of those categories are way too general, and in some you can find extremely varied content, so they hardly make the process of selection easier. I would say that tags are a perfect way for a reader to filter the content. Maybe adding nuances to tags would make the selection even better. As in, you put cheating as a major tag, because the story is about extra-marital affair and put a minor tag of, let's say foot fetish, because there is a scene with footjob or something. I think a system like that would make the lives of both writers and readers easier, because you wouldn't need to select just one category if your story strongly touches two or three categories. You would just put two or three major tags and some minor tags for more nuances and voila. Selecting and filtering for readers would be much better as well

That would make it more complicated, I think.

I'm not a believer that the site needs to be more complicated for readers. Simple is best. We here in the AH need to remember that many (probably most, I expect) readers think a whole lot less about these stories than we do. They just want to find something that they'll probably like, quickly.

It's hard to sort through three screens of tiered tags one-handed, is what I mean.

 

[SimonDoom]

Agree completely. I would even go so far to say that it would be much better if categories were completely removed. Some of those categories are way too general, and in some you can find extremely varied content, so they hardly make the process of selection easier. I would say that tags are a perfect way for a reader to filter the content. Maybe adding nuances to tags would make the selection even better. As in, you put cheating as a major tag, because the story is about extra-marital affair and put a minor tag of, let's say foot fetish, because there is a scene with footjob or something. I think a system like that would make the lives of both writers and readers easier, because you wouldn't need to select just one category if your story strongly touches two or three categories. You would just put two or three major tags and some minor tags for more nuances and voila. Selecting and filtering for readers would be much better as well

This will never happen. It would piss off many Lit readers, and the site won't allow that to happen.

My guess is that 80-90% of Lit readers use and basically like the category system. It works for me, for instance. There's no reason to abolish a system the great majority like to accommodate the desires of the minority who complain about its lack of nuance.

 

[SamScribble]

Some highly-rated stories seem to be the work of very talented authors, and some appear to be the work of authors who are barely literate.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

There's no reason to abolish a system the great majority like to accommodate the desires of the minority who complain about its lack of nuance.

True, but a bit more nuance might help. Splitting LW into two would probably break a lot of troll hearts, for instance.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Some highly-rated stories seem to be the work of very talented authors, and some appear to be the work of authors who are barely literate.

True, but on the other hand, while the race doesn’t always go to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, that’s the best way to place your money.

 

[Comshaw]

Hi all!

Do you think that ratings and engagement are a good way to accurately judge your skill? I've taken the leap into writing because I genuinely enjoy it, but the perfectionist in me wants to be phenomenal at everything I do lol. Anything less tends to be admittedly a bit demoralizing. How do you objectively tell if you're good at what you do? (snip)

Do you mean skill or talent? Two very different things. Skill can be weighed and appraised objectively. If you have all the grammar perfect, a story line that has continuity through the whole tale and dialogue that follows the rules, you have a skillfully written story. BUT, I've read stories that match all those criteria and I bailed halfway through because they were devoid of any flavor, of anything to get me involved in the tale. I've also read stories that were less than technically perfect, but the author had enough talent to make me ignore the mistakes because the tone, timber and emotion of the tale grabbed me and wouldn't let go.

So down to me giving you my opinion of if ratings are a good judge of skill. No. As I said above, those stories that were technically perfect, also had low scores because they didn't hold the reader's interest. Conversely, some of the stories I've read were rated high, were a gripping and emotional story, but weren't skillfully done as far as the technical side. The former was done with skill, but little talent, the second with talent but flawed skills. To be good you need both. To be great you need the first, but also the second in spades.

That does not mean you can't use ratings to judge how good your story is. You just can't use one part of the ratings, the vote. If you take all of it, the vote, reads, comments, favorites as an amalgamated assessment of the work, it will indicate if readers really liked it, or if it was an anomaly. And no matter the protestations of "I write for myself" we ALL post our writing here to get people to read it. So in essence we are all here to satisfy the reader with what we offer, so reader judgements are important. Let me put it bluntly and in the vernacular of the men I grew up with: Saying you don't care about the scores or comments or any other reader based criteria is total horse shit. We ALL do. Granted some care more than others, but we all care to some extent about those things. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here posting stories for others to read.

Thanks for the reply and insight! I've seen that mentioned in threads before. That the "Loving Wives" category always gets one-bombed by people that hate that kink. I personally couldn't sit through 5 pages of a kink I hate just to crap on it in detail. Heck, I'm selectively too lazy to click on something I know I won't like just to rate it poorly. It seems like a waste of time.

With the loving wives crowd that love to hate particular stories, you have to understand that is their kink. They will read an entire work to give it a "1" and tell the author how terrible it was and how much they hate it. Anyone who actually hates the premise of a story would never read through the entire thing. They would hit the first indication of what they disliked and bail out, sometimes leaving a comment and a vote and sometimes not. But those who profess to hate something, yet would read the entire thing are: 1) punishing themselves, which falls under masochism, or 2) secretly (sometimes even from themselves) loving the premise but refuse to admit they do, even to themselves. Either way they are there and just something to get use to, 'cause like cockroaches they aren't going away.

Comshaw

 

[Jmanchu]

Hi all!

Do you think that ratings and engagement are a good way to accurately judge your skill? I've taken the leap into writing because I genuinely enjoy it, but the perfectionist in me wants to be phenomenal at everything I do lol. Anything less tends to be admittedly a bit demoralizing. How do you objectively tell if you're good at what you do?


Backstory: I'm fairly new to the writing scene, and am a late bloomer in terms of my writing journey. I think those two aspects lead to a lot of my questioning. Almost every writer I've heard of has been writing for as long as they can remember and feel this drive and nagging need to complete a story like they need oxygen. I've always loved reading and always came up with stories in my head, but hated writing. It wasn't until later in life, I realized that had to do with undiagnosed ADHD. Turns out I love storytelling, but it is so stressful for me to collect my thoughts coherently and complete a story quickly and that frustration was mislabeled as hate. Writing is still a challenge for me. I have lists of ideas and notes for them but not many finished stories.

Considering how people can just drop in 1 stars if they are in a bad mood, and many authors here have pointed that out, I'd say not. Also, hello fellow ADHD person.

 

[Seadog777]

Hell no!

Unless you write a story that kills the wife, lover and everyone in between, you get 1 bombed to death in the Loving Wives category.

 

[Trionyx]

They're a good way to find out whether or not people like or dislike your work a lot.

Getting paid is an even better way.

Then I guess I am not a very good writer….I haven’t received a penny for my writing here on LE.

 

[Voboy]

Then I guess I am not a very good writer….I haven’t received a penny for my writing here on LE.

I suspect Tad is referring to the commercial marketplace, not prizes on Lit.

I dabbled there for awhile, and my work sold well, but ultimately I preferred writing as a hobby, not a job. I still make a little each year, though, even though I stopped writing commercially about four or five years ago.

 

[lovecraft68]

I suspect Tad is referring to the commercial marketplace, not prizes on Lit.

I dabbled there for awhile, and my work sold well, but ultimately I preferred writing as a hobby, not a job. I still make a little each year, though, even though I stopped writing commercially about four or five years ago.

When money is involved things can lose their shine. I loved comics my entire life, but after having the store for a few years it turned me bitter towards a lot of the aspects of the industry, including most of the newer material. To this day I only buy back issues, and for a longtime after I decided to shut the store down I didn't bother with them at all.

It was a concern with writing that it would end up the same, but so far for the most part I've still enjoyed the process. I'm self published so no one is pushing me. If I take time off, I take time off. I promised myself if I started viewing writing in a negative way I'd immediately stop selling, so far so good.

 

[FelHarper]

An author may be incredibly bad in grammar, spelling, paragraphing, pacing, painting a realistic picture, etc. etc., but if the readers still get a thrill out of the work, (sometimes measured in ml) all of that doesn't matter. Like, 50 shades... (And taking cover again...)

I dropped a credit on Audible for that years ago, just to see what the fuss was about. I made it a few hours in and couldn’t go any further. It was just...bad. Characters, plot, description, everything. Writers shouldn’t get big book deals when they’re still learning to crawl.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Then I guess I am not a very good writer….I haven’t received a penny for my writing here on LE.

I think the whole point of Tad's post was that success depended on people liking your stories, not the fact if you were talented or not

 

[lovecraft68]

Absolutely not true. Here's a fine example of a talented new female writer that tells about a husband who fulfills a fantasy of seeing his wife with someone else. Her story almost got a 4 rating because she skillfully portrayed positive characters and lots of sexual tension. Everyone who fails at LW blames the audience instead of their crappy story.

https://www.literotica.com/s/his-slut-wife-1

He was being sarcastic...kind of.

You're right though, a close to 4 is pretty good over there. I'd say anything over a 4 is like a 4.8 in any other category.

But note you're using her score to make a point. We only see the score because she has thick enough skin to allow it.

As for blaming the crowd, well...who votes and why does no other category have such all around low scores and shitty comments? Are LW authors the only ones who don't know how to tell a story? Or is the large faction of mouth breathers to blame? To back that up we have seen many threads here from people blown away by the amount of hate and trolling in that category.

I have never seen anyone come here and say that about any other category, even trigger categories like non con and incest don't have those types of hate filled loons. The numbers and author complaints reinforce the opinion readership-or the most vocal faction of it- is the big part of the problem, not writing ability.

LW is a world of its own here.

 

[firmbutgentle]

A better question might be whether talent is the point of writing. I’m not writing to be good at writing, but to communicate with and, here, to arouse my readers and connect with them. A high rating or a positive comment means something to me, perhaps more than it should.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't write for ratings, I write because it pleases me to do so. When ratings are good, I'm happy about it. When they aren't good, it doesn't really bug me. Nasty comments about stories, I smile at them, usually, unless they attack me as a person, then I delete them. Nice comments I cherish. The hearts on stories are wonderful to get. But back to ratings, I don't put much importance on them at all. Or is it a'tall?