I’ve been interviewing writers of web fiction, but am interested in the structure of the weblit community as well. There are only a handful of sites that define that fledgling community and certainly one of the most important to web writers–the one “you just have to be on”–is the Web Fiction Guide. There are other directories that list web serials and permit reviews, ratings and access, but WFG is unique and pervasive. The site’s creator, Chris Poirier, has been interviewed before, including mention of his own writing and motivations in starting WFG, so I’ll just refer to the interviews at the bottom of this post and dig a little deeper into the structural significance WFG lends to web writing.

Chris, WFG is a hybrid creature, in many ways. You call it a directory like DMOZ or Yahoo, yet many think of it as a review/ranking site. Which of these two roles do you think is of greater importance to the web fiction writing and/or reading communities?

WFG is a marketplace and a community, more than anything else. It provides a place for people to come and find out about things available to read, and to share their feelings about those experiences with other people looking for the same. It’s a place where people can say “hey — I found this terrific story, and you should check it out”. And yes, it’s a place where authors can (hopefully) find readers looking for what they have to offer. But, ultimately, the site is geared towards readers, not writers. A listing on our site is relatively useless by itself. Really, it’s the first and only time the author gets to set the agenda on the site — to yell to the world “I exist”. After that, it’s up to the readers to decide whether or not they care.

Reviewing is a way they can express their feelings — to tell others “check this out”, or, when necessary, “don’t”. A good review (good, not necessarily positive) helps tell other people something important — specifically, whether or not they are likely to want to read the story being reviewed. That’s what we really offer to both our readers and our writers alike — word of mouth.

Your site design seems to be a good compromise between the two poles people fear in review sites: “too many books coming in to handle” vs “unreliable peer to peer reviews”. Would you see a “two tier” review system (with both open peer reviews and staff reviewing) as having problems as well as advantages?

Well, the two-tier version definitely has problems, the biggest being workload. We’ve already had to significantly change the way we work. For most of the first year, an editor read and reviewed every listing, and the editor rating was paramount. We worked through new listings mostly in order, and everything got reviewed. We just can’t do that any more. Frankly, the editorial board burned out from the workload — and we get a lot more listings now than we did then. There are just way too many new listings — many of them full novels — for us to read and review everything.

As a result, the system now applies a default rating of just below “worth a look”, and we generally read at most a page or two at listing time, and move stuff up in rating if the writing seems better than average. Of course, that means we are probably less accurate than we used to be — some writing doesn’t grab on the first page but gets better later on, for instance — which is why our membership now has a lot more power than when we started. Because we know we won’t be looking closely at everything, member ratings and recommendations get a lot more weight in the ranking algorithm than they used to. In fact, member opinions can push a listing as much as two stars further up the ranking, at present.

Anyway, I hope we’ve found a balance. And, bear in mind, we’ve done four software redesigns since opening — to deal with new problems and implement better solutions. I’m pretty sure that will continue as better ideas come up. We’ve already had some from members of the community that are on my list to implement.

Would you see web literature emerging as a strong rival to books? Or as an eternal “ghetto” like art house films or graphic novels?

Let me obtusely quote (and probably misuse) Marshall McLuhan, here. “The medium is the message.” I don’t think you can treat books and web fiction as interchangeable — at the very least, some styles of writing just work better in one medium than the other — but, also, I think they are incomparable in a number of fundamental ways. Books aren’t just a technology — they’re a whole culture, with a business model, and a centralized control structure (publishers and editors). Web fiction mostly doesn’t have a business model, at the moment, and any filters you can design (ie. like WFG) are easily bypassed by people who don’t want to use them. As far as I’m concerned, that makes the two venues difficult to compare. They encourage entirely different things.

Many note the vastly disproportionate numbers of web novels that deal with darkness, GLBT, wizards, vampires, high schools, etc. rather than mainstream types of writing, then suggest that this is because it’s younger writers, or younger audiences, or merely an area in which marginal markets can make themselves heard. What do you think is going on with that, and do you see it as being an intrinsic situation or something that evolves?

Free, web-based fiction is a relatively young phenomena. I think the predilection for certain genres (fantasy and science fiction, in particular) has a lot to do with the kinds of people who naturally think to write online. Perhaps not surprisingly, there’s a strong correlation between the “geeky” genres and people who know how to and are comfortable working online.

Additionally, there’s no filter on the internet. There is nobody sitting in judgment saying, “people won’t want to read this.” Anybody can publish. That means stuff will get out there that isn’t considered bankable in print. As a result, online self-publishing will always lead the curve in cultural matters. But, yes, I expect that we will see a broadening of content over time. We’re still in the “early adopter” stage of online fiction.

The work on your site covers a startling range of visual appearance, from no-frills WordPress themes to incredibly elaborate schema (such as Dan Leo’s little self-contained universe) do you see any correlation, positive or negative, between elaborate presentation and the quality of the writing?

In my experience, there is no correlation between presentation and quality. I’ve read great work on the plainest possible websites, and crap on beautifully designed sites. Skill in visual design is a specific thing, just like skill in writing fiction is a specific thing. Some people have both skills; most don’t. That said, in the last six months, WFG has started enforcing some basic standards for authors who want to list with us. Specifically, it has to be easy to “turn the page” on any site we list. I figure that requirement is something we can easily do to improve the situation for everyone.

Similarly, the electronic formats make possible things that are wildly beyond the capacity of print books: tag cloud navigation, the use of tweets and avatared discussions as characters and plot devices, hyperlinks between chapters, inclusion of music, art and videos. Again, do you see this as distracting from the reading, or covering up mediocre writing, or as something that moves literature into new realms and challenges writers to measure up to it?

When you start getting into the kinds of things you’ve mentioned here, you really are talking about design work — user interface design, information design, etc. Those are, again, specific skills — skills most people don’t have. As a result, my feeling is that elaborate sites are more likely to fail to engage the reader than are simple sites. A talented author with skills in those other areas will, no doubt, be able to take things further. But most authors probably should stick with what they know — carefully crafted writing, presented cleanly and simply. Katherine Paterson said in one of her books on writing something to the effect that, in fiction, you can get away with anything the audience lets you get away with. “But,” she added, “nobody’s ever gotten away with much.” I think that applies here, too.

You’re approaching 500 projects listed on WFG now. Would you see web literature as a new paradigm, or a fad that everybody will jump into because it’s as easy as blogging, then leave to flock to the next buzz in a few years?

I don’t think it’s a fad, no. Self-publishing has always been an expensive thing, solely marketed to bad writers — people who have been turned down by publisher after publisher, and to whom it really matters to see their work in print. The web changes that. It removes the cost. It means it is no longer just a last resort of the desperate. Yes, naturally, that means even worse writing will get out there, but it also means that people who just want to share their writing can do it easily. I think you’ll get a broader range of skill levels interested in self-publishing, now that the barrier to entry is so low.

Personally, I choose to write online for many reasons: the biggest being that by publishing online, I get a real measure of how my writing works — or doesn’t — from real people who care only about how it made them feel. That feedback is invaluable to me — it helps inform my development as a writer. Truth is, few authors can afford to live solely off their writing. So, even if my writing is good enough to get published, I’d have to put a great deal of effort into marketing it to agents and publishers, for what amounts to very little payoff. I already make a good living doing something I’m very good at. Pursuing a publishing deal — at this stage in my development as a writer — seems like a very poor use of my time. In fact, I’m pretty sure pursuing a publishing deal would actually set me back, in the big scheme of things. Self-publishing online lets me be read, and to grow as a writer — all at no financial cost to me. That has a lot of appeal for me, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. No, web fiction is here to stay.

Speaking of cost/value, it’s obvious that a great deal of work went into WFG, and more is being lavished on it by your review staff. You are obviously paying to put it online and make no attempt to monetize it or solicit contributions. Is WFG what it looks like, a selfless labor of love?

Maybe one day there will be ads on WFG. I wouldn’t object to the idea of the site paying my rent. But at the moment there would be little point in it and there are no plans in that direction at the moment. Yes, I’ve put a lot of time into it, and our editors have, as well. And, at the moment, it’s all done solely because we think it’s worth doing. I’m a big believer in the value of the commons. The community is stronger with sites like WFG than it is without them, if only because it provides a place for the community to form. It provides a place for people to connect, and that’s a useful thing. Such sites will get paid for by the people who think the community has value. That’s the way it has always been.

Providing that “place for the community to form” puts WFG into a pivotal position in webliterature. And some might see that as a step away from it being the proverbial 900 pound gorilla, a virtual monopoly monopoly like Google or YouTue. Do you see that as possibly restrictive to the development of weblit down the road, or as demanding a special kind of responsibility?

“Big Gorilla” is a bit of a stretch, I think. We have about 3000 unique visitors a month, at present. It’s gradually increasing, but it’s still not a lot. And, bear in mind, when we started, the “big gorilla” was Pages Unbound — which no longer even exists. Also, there are a number of other review and listings sites out there. The internet isn’t like the real world. The barriers to entry are low and the playing field is even. Google killed Altavista. Facebook and Twitter killed Myspace. Somebody will kill WFG. It’s just a matter of providing a better product and doing it in a way that attracts people. That all said, I personally take the “responsibility” very seriously. It’s in the algorithm design, it’s in the way the site is administered, it’s in everything we do. I want WFG to be reliable and fair. We work hard to keep it so.

Other interviews with Chris Poirier:

http://webfictionguide.com/articles/interviews/archive/an-interview-with-chris-poirier/

http://www.novelr.com/2008/09/06/the-story-behind-web-fiction-guide

Web Fiction Guide is located at:

http://webfictionguide.com/