Once in a while I enjoy reading someone else's breakdown/insights, but only if the subject is one that fascinates me.
I think this is true for everyone, but the difference is that if you aren't interested in a topic of analysis, then a mature person just says, "hey, if you need me, I'll be at the bar." There's no need to tell the person/people in happy contemplation that their time is wasted because, y'know, they're worrying too much. Or some equally stupid shit.
I think everyone has a very specific sense of analysis -- what's valuable, and what's not. I know I dislike analysis in a vacuum; I get bored stiff almost instantaneously if I'm around the pure-science trek-geeks who really do only care about whether the engine's this size or that size, or whether so-and-so wore such-and-such in season five or season eighty. I'm the one in the corner saying, "yes, but what does this mean for the story?"
Someone who spends as much time as I do, for instance analyzing the details of mecha height/weight variances -- but then doesn't go the final step to draw a bead on what this says about characterization or motivation... is someone I'll avoid in the future. I can bloody well find and extract data on my own just fine, thanks; what I seek is someone who can give me their interpretation against which I can compare my own.
I suspect that quite often it's only another writer who will notice the details for what they are and appreciate them thusly.
Or may be the first to note and discount: I think of chefs who don't really care to dissect another's work, out of some kind of discomfort over someone doing it to them. Yet there are gourmands who can burn water, but have no hesitation spending a half-hour over a single dish, savoring every bite and discussing all the flavors. (Which just ties into my belief that you don't have to cook to know the pie is burnt, anymore than that you have to Be A Writer to know the story is broke.)
no subject
Date: 2 Feb 2008 02:10 am (UTC)I think this is true for everyone, but the difference is that if you aren't interested in a topic of analysis, then a mature person just says, "hey, if you need me, I'll be at the bar." There's no need to tell the person/people in happy contemplation that their time is wasted because, y'know, they're worrying too much. Or some equally stupid shit.
I think everyone has a very specific sense of analysis -- what's valuable, and what's not. I know I dislike analysis in a vacuum; I get bored stiff almost instantaneously if I'm around the pure-science trek-geeks who really do only care about whether the engine's this size or that size, or whether so-and-so wore such-and-such in season five or season eighty. I'm the one in the corner saying, "yes, but what does this mean for the story?"
Someone who spends as much time as I do, for instance analyzing the details of mecha height/weight variances -- but then doesn't go the final step to draw a bead on what this says about characterization or motivation... is someone I'll avoid in the future. I can bloody well find and extract data on my own just fine, thanks; what I seek is someone who can give me their interpretation against which I can compare my own.
I suspect that quite often it's only another writer who will notice the details for what they are and appreciate them thusly.
Or may be the first to note and discount: I think of chefs who don't really care to dissect another's work, out of some kind of discomfort over someone doing it to them. Yet there are gourmands who can burn water, but have no hesitation spending a half-hour over a single dish, savoring every bite and discussing all the flavors. (Which just ties into my belief that you don't have to cook to know the pie is burnt, anymore than that you have to Be A Writer to know the story is broke.)