Dreams of the Quill

This morning I received an e-mail from Chris Poirier of the Web Fiction Guide, informing me that he had posted a review of Night Switch and that I should check it out.

You can find Chris’s review here, beneath the Night Switch listing on the WFG. He gives me 2.5 out of 5 stars – in other words, 50%. This is shocking to me, as I take Chris to be the neutral observer type in his role as a (seemingly very) objective reviewer. I think I’ve said this before, and even if I haven’t, it should be obvious to those of you who “get” parts of Night Switch: there’s a lot that isn’t “gotten.”

By that I mean that Night Switch is rife with references (some of which are extremely obscure) and jokes (some of which are extremely in-), and that for several of the installments I can’t even imagine a reader getting everything.

I began reading a fairly angry piece on Leo Strauss in class today, and instantly I thought of my reaction to Chris’s review. I e-mailed him back, of course, telling him what I said above, that there’s a lot that a person isn’t expected to get. Unlike the practice of obfuscation demonized by the article I was reading, however, I do not make my writing hard to understand in order to nurture a cult of Flak-worshippers. No, Night Switch is nothing more (and nothing less) than an exercise in fun. I throw in obscure nonsense that to me makes chapters funny. (I say this all now mostly to clear my conscience of an icky feeling that began permeating it after the article on Strauss; consider it absurd defensiveness.)

Back to my shock—50% seems like a high score for something that a tiny fraction of the world’s literate population can appreciate (and even then not fully). I’d guess that somehow the writing is more masterful than I’d intended, but Chris’s review nowhere hints at noteworthy quality (in fact, quite the opposite, but more on that later). So I remain in shock. Not the kind of shock that needs something done about it. Just, bemusement, I suppose.

Anyway. Chris touches on a number of “problems” with the story that I wholeheartedly agree with from the perspective of someone writing (or reading) a serious text. He mentions Joe’s hypocrisy, how though he is a foaming-at-the-mouth conservative Christian he does not act at all in accordance with the teachings of the religion. He mentions the absurdity of Jason’s job and mindset. He mentions Marin’s “immature” “paranoia.” He says these could be funny, but they’re not. He goes on to mention some pacing problems (almost nothing happens for the first forty-one installments) and voice inconsistencies.

I think all his criticism is fair. I can write off voice inconsistency as the result of a lack of effort—as you may recall, Night Switch is something I do for fun, something I strive to not put effort into, a break away from my usual rhythms, a silly game.

As for the un-funny zaniness or the pacing, I myself never saw those as a barrier to enjoyment. Mainly this is because I imagine the people reading Night Switch to be those who would either “get” most of the stuff happening around Joe (a caricature of an acquaintance), be amused by Jason’s hijinx (satire of the anime blogosphere and internet in general), or appreciate the tongue-in-cheek leftist delusions of Marin (an extreme embodiment of my hometown’s liberal sentiments).

I thought my readers would generally fall into three categories: people from DotQ, who would mostly appreciate Joe’s part; people from the anime blogosphere, who would mostly appreciate Jason’s part, and real-life friends and acquaintances from the San Francisco Bay Area, who would mostly appreciate Marin’s part.

In a way I have (unjustly?) thrust my inside jokes upon the Web Fiction Guide, and, as such, I expected no more positive a review than Chris gave me. As I said, I in fact expected a more negative review.

At the end of the day, though, it was a very fair review—one that sought not to trample my feelings while succinctly pointing out the numerous problems of Night Switch, taken by [an outsider] either as a serious text or a comedic one.

Chris and I exchanged a few e-mails on the topic; he’s an amiable guy, and sees what I was trying to do with Night Switch. Of course, that shouldn’t change his analysis of the story (not that I want him to), but he suggested this to me:

Anyway, probably something that would be good is to get one of your regular readers to come by and write a review — something that goes into why they do like it. I’ve tried to do my best to help people decide if they are likely to enjoy the piece. A viewpoint from somebody who does would probably help even more.

If any of you who read Night Switch and enjoy it (or don’t enjoy it!) have anything to say about the work on the WFG, please do so! It will be interesting to see what works (or doesn’t) in the eyes of people who “get” more of the text than Chris did.

I don’t expect reviews from anyone explaining every inside joke in the text (I am close to 100% sure that I am the only person who could explain -everything-), but it would be great to see more opinions up there, obviously including more “informed” opinions. I am not asking you to up-rate me. Please do not leave a rating without a review.

Thanks!

(I actually meant to make a shorter version of this post—just the last two paragraphs—when I originally submitted Night Switch to the Guide back a month or two ago. Funny how people get distracted.)

Cheers!
-Flak

(P.S. Night Switch is not on official hiatus! I’m just swamped with school, and thus have thrown the schedule out the window!)