Culture

Why “Go Make Your Own” Is B.S. – Mostly

by

“Go make your own,” is something I hear said more and more when people find a beloved piece of media critiqued. I’ve heard it a lot in video games, a lot in fanworks, often in comics and written fiction, and at times in other forms of art. “Go make your own” has become a kind of default response to critique of something one likes.

As much as we hear it, I can’t consider it a legitimate answer to critique. It’s an a response that’s wrong for a number of reasons I’d like to address here.

There are many flaws to this response, but one truth . .

Reason #1: Those Saying “Go Make Your Own” Often Aren’t

By the way, if you’re gonna say it . . .

When someone says “Go Make Your Own” to a critique their favorite game or comic, the responder rarely seems to be “making their own” as well. I consider this to be hypocrisy

When someone says “Go Make Your Own” they suggest that a critic of a media must for some reason create (often similar) media. Perhaps the idea is “then you’ll understand.” Perhaps the idea is “if you don’t like it just do your own thing.” I’ve not seen particularly good justifications of the “Go Make YOur Own” critique anyway, which alone should make one suspicious.

But if there is value in “Making One’s Own,” then shouldn’t the critic-of-the-critic also be “making their own?” If they require someone to be a media creator of some kind to critique, shouldn’t they hold themselves to the same standards? After all, a person who’s response is positive is still indulging in a critical reaction.

Negative or positive, if “Making Your Own” is necessary to be a critic, it should be a requirement for any reaction to media.

Besides, it seems I see the “Go Make YOour Own” critique the least from writers, artists, etc. Probably as they have at least enough knowledge on an unconscious level to know it’s bunk.

Reason #2: Making Media Can Involve Many Different Things

OK so maybe there’s a value in making media . . .

Though I consider the “Make Your Own” response to critique to be dishonest as noted, there’s a second flaw. “Making One’s Own” as opposed to making a critique of something is meaningless as making media is an individual experience. If there is some value in “Go Make Your Own” it would suggest there is a relatively common set of lessons/experience/validation that making media brings.

But the experience of creating a book, a comic, or a game is a widely varied experience for each creator.

Some people can write easily, while others struggle. An artist can do one style and not another. A programmer can code motion but not particle effects. Some people are good at one thing or not another. Each person thus will have a radically different experience creating media, even if its the same kind of media.

They will also have a variety of non-media skills and experiences that come to bear on producing media. Organizational skills, people skills, typing speed, etc. The supposed value of making media is diluted by all the non-creative skills involved in making it.

The creative experience is so different for people that the idea that creating something blesses a person with unique ability, insight, or legitimacy is incorrect. The experience is far too unique to individuals, and what similarities there are (which I address below) are different.

Issue #3: Making Successful Media Is A Varied Experience

Well, maybe people should go make their own and be successful to see what it really involves . . .

When I see people use the “Go Make Your Own” argument against critique, at times I hear “and be successful” silently appended. It’s as if success would legitimate the critic somehow. This only raises more questions that show the holes in this approach.

Let us say that someone took the “Make Their Own” critique to heart and, upon being told to sod off and not criticize a comic, went and made their own. That, as I note, does not confer any legitimacy. But perhaps the success of said comic is a measure or imparts some ability or right to critique, or special argument?

Success first of all would need to be defined. What is “success?” Is the success parallel to the work criticized – and does it have to be? What, in short, is the criteria here?

Though even if we have criteria for success, does this success actually measure anything?

Things are successful for a variety of reasons. To argue success is the goalpost for someone to be able to critique media is ridiculous. SUccess is a variety of favors, from time to timeliness, to the right endorsement to sheer luck. Success if a fickle, unpredictable thing . . . as many artists and writers know.

Because success often has little to bear on quality, skill, virtue, or indeed any one factor good or bad, there’s no what it someone confers legitimacy on a critic.

Issue #4: Critique May Come From Its Own Skillset

Why do you have to have the same skills and experience as what you’re criticizing . .  .

Creating media, successful or not, doesn’t really grant anyone a right to criticism. It involves so many other factors that one’s own creative experience doesn’t compare to anothers. One may at best get some perspective, but one doesn’t get granted some “right” to critique because there’s simply no comparison between creative experiences and legacies.

Having noted that engaging in creative work doesn’t give some kind of special license, let’s now turn to the act of criticism itself.

The Flippant “Go Make Your Own’ argument ignores that despite some people not making media, they are equipped to criticize, and often quite legitimately. For many critics, their ability or not to create media, their success or not, does not negate the fact they are suited for critique.

  • A nutritionist may rightly criticize a delicious meal for it’s unhealthiness.
  • A historian may criticize a novel for historical inaccuracy.
  • A well-read or well-watched person may have the breadth of experience to critique work – professionally or not.
  • A person of a given race, gender, or background may call out a comic for getting their experiences wrong as they lived them.
  • Almost any reasonably informed person may call out a story for tropes and stereotypes.
  • Some people are not only suited to critique, they may have more knowledge or experience (or common sense) than the creator they critique of some subjects. The creator, in this case, is a less legitimate source of information, nothat that negates their work, but it should be kept in mind.

Good criticism is something many people can deliver. In fact . . .

Issue #5: Critique Is Its Own Art

The critic’s art is their own art.

To tell a critic to “go make their own” really misses that criticism is its own art form. It takes a skill, it takes ability, and it takes effort to develop. A good critic’s work is its own art – it is, in a way, their”making my own.”

It’s just not a work. It is a response to a work that is also a work.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t plenty of awful critics out there, one merely has to read online reviews to see that. It means that a critic should not be judged by if they make their own, but the intelligent effort they put forth in their work. You may not like it, but if they can be honestly good about what they do, it’s worth appreciating, if disagreeing with.

Admittedly the highest critique may indeed be “making your own,” to take lessons and apply them, but that’s not for every talented critic.

We need critique.  Brushing off critique with “Go Make Your Own” degrades its value.  We’ve got enough lousy critique as it is.

So what does “Go Make Your Own” Really Mean?

After hearing the “Go Make Your Own” argument for awhile, the argument is essentially a defensive derailment of a conversation.

It’s derailment in that it distracts from the conversation at hand to be about the critic. Wether it suggests the critic lacks legitimacy, or is wasting their time, or whatever, it changes the subject. Perhaps one simple doesn’t agree, but switching the subject avoids conversation.

It’s also defensive in that it’s an automatic attack on the critic. It does not involve engagement or analysis or conversation. It’s an attack-as-defense reaction that doesn’t involve actual interaction. In some cases – too may cases – it goes way, way too far.

Though I’m no fan of the “Go Make Your Own” argument I do wonder if some of it is because of the amount of awful, bad faith, sensationalist criticism out there. That is something I may address in detail in time to come.

But having said “Go Make Your Own” is an illegitimate response to criticism, let me know there is something of a real point in there. Let’s take a look at that reason

You Should Make Your Own

Though it’s obvious after a giant essay on it that I think “Go Make Your Own” is not a legitimate response to criticism, I do think people should all try and make their own art.

It could be any kind of art. Painting, drawing, writing, speaking. It could b fiction or nonfiction. It could be jewelry-making or cooking. Something that is creative, expressive, and about communication should be a part of everyone’s lives.

This is not because it gives us some “right” to criticize or involves us marching off to create a media revolution no one wanted. It’s because to do this helps us become better communicators and better consumers of media. These are always important – but moreso in modern times.

To practice communication lets us find better ways to work with others – more and more important all the time in a smaller world of multiple cultures that often finds new ways to come apart. Any kind of experience creating for people helps you get better at interacting with them.

Developing creative outlets also let us understand how others create, and how they may both satisfy us – but also manipulate us. To write a book can tell you in turn what you may like, or what tricks are being used to sell you a crap novel. To learn he art of cooking can not only be nutritious, but let you find out when someone is selling you something bad for you in the guise of delicious.

I said earlier that the act of creating varies for each person in what it involves. But the above benefits I find are nearly universal.

Your art may even be critique. Go for it.

So, yes you should “Make your own,” but not for the reasons critics say.

And the first people that should “Go make their own” are those telling us to “go make their own.”

– Steve

The Two Creative Revolutions: One Continues

by

We’re experiencing a creative revolution. Self-publishing technology, POD, and word processors lets one make a novel or comic alone (though hopefully one is social enough to get an editor). A lone game designer or a small crew can make a quality game with common libraries and engines. CGI allows a film like “Manborg” to be made cheaply and efficiently.

This does not mean this explosion of work is one of quality, but it is historically noteworthy. The power to get creative work out and available is accessible by a much wider audience than in the past. To judge by the wok out there, many people are willing to take advantage of this power.

Again, we may complain about a lack of quality, but we’re not lacking for quantity, even if we may wish we were.

We have a revolution in creativity-empowering tools, but that’s not the only revolution. There’s another change that’s gone on, eclipsed by the tools. This shadow revolution, this parallel change, is the idea that all of us can be authors and coders and artists.

There’s been a revolution in our narratives about ourselves.

Read more

Geek Culture: Action, Reaction, And Return

by

I’ve previously talked about geek evangelism – namely I missed it. It seems that the internet had given us a chance to seal ourselves off in echo chambers, and that has affected geek culture and culture in general. People we’re more “building up” than “reaching out,” and many now built walls.

The internet also guaranteed conflict. We could build an infinite amount of new communities – and find an infinite amount of things to fight about. People need people to interact with, but we’re not always equipped to deal with their differences. The internet guarantees differences between people will emerge and collide quickly – infinite space means infinite conflict.

Kind of makes you see how wall-building might even see rational at times. When someone starts a flame war over gum flavor, an echo chamber sounds like a better idea. We geeks, who like to engage with others, who use technology, probably face this even more than most.

Of course most of us don’t want conflict. Why do people end up fighting so often on the Internet? Sure, the internet ensures enough diversity that we can find new ways to fight. But honestly does anyone like this? If we’re going to go form our communities why do we have to keep fighting?

Because the internet doesn’t just give us leeway to leave and do our own thing, it ensures that the communities can produce their own opposites. These opposites are not always forming their own identity – they’re sharing one with the very people they don’t like. Those opposites return, or may even by their own existence redefine the culture

You Say Goodbye, I Say Hello

I remember the truly early days of the Internet going “big.” I remember Geocities and anyone being able to put up a page. I was active on LiveJournal. I helped out with websites. Even “back then” (Defined as the mid to late 90’s) anyone could create any kind of community they wanted.

(OK, again people that could afford it.)

I recall fan wars and battles and geek fallouts and obscure communities popping up. And why not? The tools were there.

Also if you didn’t like something, you could just leave and do something else. Surfing obscure, hyper-specific themed fandom sites was something my friends and I id on occasion, often amused or horrified at what we see. If you wanted it, and someone didn’t like it, you could just go do your thing.

(And I repeat, Harry Potter fandom, wow, nothing quite like that . . .)

It was often like a version of Conway’s “Life.” The organism of a fandom or a club or a geekdom could split off into parts if needed. A community might be eating itself, a kind of cultural autoimmune disorder, and then everyone could go their own way to hate each other on their terms.

At times they might get back together.

There were even groups that existed only in response to others. From MST3K communities that parodied fanfic (often with the permission of authors, leading to a peculiar synergy) to communities rebelling against adult fanfic, to groups that just mocked internet culture. Some sites and groups existed only because others did.

Fast forward to today.

Today it seems worse, and it’s not just people who argue Ed Elric and Roy Mustang are a couple years later. Some parts of geekdom just explode in battles as bad as any conspiracy news-link flame war – many, as noted, being gaming related and comics relating. Apparently fun is serious business.

it seems a lot of the battles seem to involve echo chambers. The fights make sense to those in the communities, but outside are a lot of people going “seriously?”

Because when you can go your own way and can do so in reaction to other things, you’ve got a conflict-producing machine. Leaving doesn’t mean the conflict ends, and people who are sick of something (or just mock it) can build their own community against something or for something.

Perhaps they return with a vengeance, or try to reform their culture, or they make it a goal to improve things. Or they can also be pretentious jerks.

The opposites don’t mean separation. Communities are often formed in response to something.   Those that created the response might be a bit surprised when the response comes back to them – but shouldn’t.

After all, people may exist in the same identity-space as others. Just because they left may not mean they’re going to share the identity with others. They might not be able to. They might have good reason not to.

I’m Leaving, I’ll Be In Touch

So when we put all the parts I discussed earlier together we see this:

  • The flaws in a geek cultures mean people want to leave or separate themselves from some parts of the culture. This is any culture, really.
  • The internet, the chosen Geek Tool (Blessed be Lovelace and Babbage), lets us go form communities and causes.
  • Despite “being separate” we often exist in the same identity-space as people we have a conflict with. We don’t truly get away – or want to.
  • Some communities and their conflicts spawn their own opposite.
  • The the internet lets us return to change things. Hell, we can’t really get away – when so much social involvement is routed through a few services like Twitter or Facebook the infinite division of the internet feels more like a cube farm.

The common social tools of the internet, plus wider awareness, mean that some people who form a community in reaction can then change the culture as a whole. They can change what they left, redefine it, or hunker down and be a kind of center point to alter the culture.

Take a look at the internet now and how it’s used in reaction to all sorts of things.  Ferguson and awareness of violence against PoC.  Gay rights issues tracked to the hour.  Corporate slip-ups.

If you’re an ass, if your community is pathological, if your company is discriminating against older geeks, people can organized against and about that issue quickly. The internet is not just about spawning communities, it’s spawning communities about something – and against something.

These communities “leave” but not totally. Not for long.

Guess where we are now?

Inevitable.  Only Forward, This Thing Doesn’t Go In Reverse

Geekdom doesn’t just spawn counter-communites. Many exist to change or redefine the culture itself, or to maintain it in a kind of activist-wall-building.  Again you see this everywhere, we’re just more wired.

It’s not really surprising. The internet let us reach out and develop but also amplified contact – and chance for conflict. Now that more and more is connected and public, there’s going to be more effort to fix it. It also means communities that left one area can come back rather loudly – they may not be able to conceive of a total separation.

This may also spawn reactions to the . . . reactions. A cultural breakdown in a community can spawn a responding community and then a response to the response. It can get a bit Inception-like as you try and figure out where this all started. Who’s battling for the soul of what?

In various parts of geekdom I’ve seen “reactions” get pretty deep. I could (and may) do entire essays on this. Just as example the “hate of the fake geek girl” BS seems to be about four reactions deep (reactions to women in geekdom, counter reaction stating they belong, minor bigoted counter reaction, larger community building reaction).

This is also important for areas of geekdom that are or have gotten insular. Their insularity, their pushing people out, is going to cause a reaction – possibly a severe one. It’s not going away. It’s going to mean people can form their own groups, communities, and all this happens in a very, very public way.

And people come back.

Lately I’ve seen several points where conventions have had unpleasant issues. These came up – yes – on the internet. Things, in the words of Ron Burgandy, Escalated Quickly.  In real time.

It won’t slow down.

If You’re Going To Ride The Horse, Have A Direction

So the truth of geekdom now is that we’re in a phase of reaction and action (again, any culture has this, I think it’s just amplified). We’re changing rapidly and facing rapid exposure of our problems. We also face a chance to rapidly address them – we have the tools and the inclination. We also can’t stop this – it will not stop.

(Indeed this is true of all culture; again, I’m a geek and we’re the ones that embrace the technology that lets us change so fast.)

So the real choice is, how are we going to handle this?

All the action and reaction mean we are moving rapidly. We might as well pick a damn direction.

I see this emerging as of late – indeed a lot of my work on Civic Geek opened my eyes to how people in our community are asking “what can we do and be?” People are directing their work and focus as geeks.  They’re asking what they should do.

Because if we have no direction, the ability to spawn endless conflict is going to continue to plague us. And if we don’t understand the walls come down fast, that our actions create their opposites, we’ll always be in battles far more than we need to be.

Closing

I started this series just exploring “what happened” and I know – geekdom too quickly developed echo-chamber communities that amplified marketing and pathological voices. The internet also produced infinite chance for conflict.

But also it seems we’re in a phase where everything is so public that some parts of geekdom (or any culture) spawn their own counterforce. At times an overwhelming counterforce.

It’s not done yet.

I do think it’s inevitable. I’ve said many a time that we geeks need to own our culture and take responsibility. Someone is going to anyway.

Because action has reaction, here in the internet, the biggest tiny room in history.

Respectfully,

– Steven Savage
http://www.musehack.com/
http://www.informotron.com/
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/