Quote:
Originally Posted by Googi
Simply making a general statement that you'll "rely on feedback" doesn't mean much, especially since you, for some reason, consider surprise important which means that your methodology is one that isn't conducive to generating meaningful feedback. Suppose you get negative feedback, do you abandon what you were doing and try to do something else, or do you continue down the same path believing that success lies at the end of it? What method is there for provably determining which option is the better one in any given case? I can't think of one. Can you?
|
My interests do lie in a certain "shock" factor, yes. But it's the style of shock which is very different - it relies on a lot of details. So in a sense its "modular" shock. So tweaking it to please the majority shouldn't be difficult - if it doesn't to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Googi
I don't see how that makes my point moot. Why should anybody believe an approach is effective simply because it's non-typical? If anything, it's reason for even greater suspicion since what is typical is usually typical because it is effective, and more importantly, what is not typical is usually not typical because it is ineffective.
|
I'm not going to explain the details of my intended storyline devices, so you have all the reason you like to be suspicious. But, given the chance, I will release some and you will have lots to decide upon at that point.