Introduction: #
It has been said time and time again that narratives can be either trendy or niche, with some narratives outside a popular genre breaking boundaries of what constitutes a compelling story to a particular audience; making determining viability of a narrative to reach an expected level of success challenging and dependent on a host of factors, the numbers of which can be difficult to obtain without editorial participation of the authors’ part. Thus, this informal case study provides a single means in which authors and fellow readers looking for clarity can fine-tune their instincts in finding stories that cater to them and that they find excellent.
Quantifying Reception: #
The reception toward “Mark: Tainted Ambition - Sociopath LitRPG Fantasy Novel”—which I will simply shorten to “Mark” for this analysis—is vastly more positive when compared to “Matthew: The Epitome of Grace and Beauty - Intellectual LitRPG Isekai Novel”—which I shall simplify to “Matthew”—when comparing followers and favorite numbers proportionally to number of words published.
In specificity, Matthew now stands at 17 followers and 3 favorites, having lost probably 5 followers since the beginning of its continuous serialization until now, while Mark hasn’t lost a single follower (to my understanding). However, Mark has received a single 2.5 star rating, but that doesn’t say much as of now. It has also received a 5 star rating. When it comes to Matthew, it has received 7 ratings with only 2 5-star ratings and mostly 2.5-star and below. There are likely 3 0.5-star ratings. So when resting upon ratio alone, Mark fairs better.
Qualitative Feedback: #
Furthermore, Mark has only received positive comments, while Matthew has only received criticism in the form of one review and 6 comments; to which I have responded with a balance of recognizing and considering the points made, while also expressing my maintenance of narrative and vision integrity. Some time after my response to these comments, I have set up the blog website on which communicative reports like this passage is issued regularly and the Github repository where each revision to Matthew, whether minor or major, is documented in commits with accompanying messages with the aim of bringing forth more transparency and communication.
As for the content of the criticisms, 1 focal commenter can be identified, and their concerns can be listed in the following themes with regard to Chapter 1: exposition vs showing, lack of descriptions, rushed pace, character development, clarity in language, and cultural sensitivity. One other commenter can be mentioned, but they only play a minor supportive role.
Now “n = 2” in the sense that there are only two replications of the same criticism is a limited sample size, but they serve as an beginning precedent that hints at passing readers’ thoughts on the narrative.
Now as for my response here, it is interesting because the language used in Chapter 1 was very rich in descriptive detail, though surreal in nature; character exploration; “showing” with figurative language of his inner state; and a more deliberate pacing. But it’s important to note I’ve also revised it a lot since the criticisms were published.
When it comes to clarity in language, the stylism present in his inner narration is crucial to understanding him as a character. The concern about cultural sensitivity rests upon an unsubstantiated assumption that the story was set in the United States.
Moving on to another aspect of criticism, Reviews, one reviewer’s concerns is relevant. They express a mismatch between the characterization of the protagonist of Matthew as an intellectual with regard to him being detached and lacking emotional depth rather than the expected hyper-analytical personality. In contrast, the narrative does go into in-depth emotional and psychological explorations throughout the narrative as one of the major themes. The reviewer mentions that Matthew’s emotional responses appear inconsistent. However, in reality, shock and defence mechanisms play a role in inconsistent portrayal. The reviewer notes that Matthew’s aspect as a gamer is unexplored beyond a brief mention. But in a subtle way, his ability to navigate more easily a world governed by [System] game mechanics aligns with his background as a gamer. The reviewer says that the writing style is detached, akin to listening to a recap. Contrastingly, the story is vividly and poetically rich in emotional portrayal, something that is usually difficult to predominantly establish within the first several chapters of setting-building. The reviewer notices that the descriptions are odd. Yet I stylistically intended for them to reflect poetically, surreally, and abstractly the main character’s disoriented perspective of entering the new world suddenly. The reviewer mentions the lack of a functioning system initially but subsequent significant leveling up after only a few combat situations. This included achieving a significant milestone by spotting an enemy early. This criticism is understandable, since many readers might prefer a more easy-to-understand system instead of one that lingers at a distance due to the more nuanced, complex, counterintuitive nature of the system within the story. Lastly, as for the reviewer’s reference to the presence of higher-level teammates and how they should have been the ones to scout instead of Matthew, depending on culture, it might be common to have people work immediately without pay, which is why day jobs exist. Matthew’s contribution to the team reveals that even higher-level teammates aren’t perfect and can make mistakes, and he was only optimally positioned to fill in that gap at the right time, not necessarily declaring that all higher-level individuals are incapable of scouting themselves. The idea that higher-level teammates are supposed to be perfectly alert is contingent upon an unverified assumption.
Anyway, with that prefaced, let’s continue to the main topic at hand, that being the superiority in Views-to-page-count of Mark over Matthew.
Analyzing Engagement: #
In any case, Matthew has 558 pages, which amounts to 153,527 words as of writing, and Mark stands at 30,720 words, or 111 pages. So Mark was able to achieve more than half of what Matthew has achieved in 5 times fewer words, gaining a follower for every 3413.33 words compared to Matthew, which gained a follower (not including the approximate 5 followers that were lost) per 9025.71 words. This means that Mark has a 2.64 times higher rate in terms of getting followers, and that doesn’t take into account of the fact that Mark has much less chapters, potentially being less inviting to readers. However, that might only play a marginal role beyond 10 chapters.
For clarity, Matthew currently has 61 chapters, while Mark has 14 chapters. Matthew promises 2,500-word average per chapter, whereas Mark maintains a 2100-word average per chapter.
Genre and Narrative Preferences: #
The preference to Mark over Matthew reveals a tendency toward a protagonist that leans toward an interplay of wish fulfillment and the exploration of darker impulses and fantasies instead of themes of inner turmoil, nuanced psychological exploration and complexity, and more surreal-poetic styles and tones reflective of a uniquely intricate inner state. Even if Matthew does exhibit traits resembling wish fulfillment, it portrays them in such a way that it loses all idealism and becomes cold-hard brutal surreal reality, one characterized by a mind so warped by his circumstances and how he resists against becoming completely corrupted. Even if Matthew involved darker fantasies, it never truly leaves it as a simple victory and always brings out the nuanced consequences behind such actions and how it impinges upon his more normal mind.
Mark is an example of someone well-adjusted to a fantasy world and all the complexities and moral quandaries due to having been born and grown up there, and his violent sociopathy could be considered more idyllic in its portrayal compared to Matthew’s tortured emotion–driven violence, whose darker sides are expressed in very surreal terms, involving styles that portray strongly a messianic complex, god complex, and other forms of self-aggrandizement.
But these are on-the-surface themes without context, but even then, reactions to those superficial themes are valid, which is why those superficial themes carry weight into this analysis.
So if a reader more attuned to narratives like Mark was introduced to Matthew, given the vastly different goals and audiences they prioritize, it is not far-fetched to conclude that it can stimulate a strong reaction, even if the reader may not end up expressing their distaste.
Audience Considerations: #
However, despite this numerical metric of Views-to-page-count, Matthew and Mark have two different audiences in mind. As for Mark, it caters to an audience that enjoys dark fantasy or grimdark, while Matthew is tailored toward an audience that prefers character-driven stories with elements of psychological realism, even amid the fight scenes and progressions. Psychological thriller or horror and intense, surreal, and psychologically complex character development underlies these usually more typical elements.
Conclusion: #
In conclusion, this informal case study effectively demonstrates how differing protagonist archetypes and narrative styles can lead to varying degrees of audience engagement within the fantasy genre. Mark’s story, with its focus on wish fulfillment and the exploration of darker impulses, resonates with readers seeking escapism and action-driven narratives. Matthew’s complex and introspective journey, while potentially offering greater depth and thematic richness, may not cater as directly to desires for wish fulfillment and may require more investment from the reader to appreciate fully. Ultimately, both approaches contribute to the diversity and richness of the fantasy genre, offering readers a range of experiences and catering to varying preferences.
Further Considerations: #
Character Evolution and Reader Engagement: #
While Mark’s character might capture the attention of certain readers from the outset, Matthew’s intricate evolution and inner conflicts hold the promise of cultivating a profound and enduring bond with his audience as they immerse themselves in his emotional journey.
Storytelling Approach and Tempo: #
The rapid-fire, adrenaline-fueled storytelling in Mark’s narrative could attract readers craving instant excitement, whereas the measured, introspective pace of Matthew’s tale may strike a chord with those who relish deep dives into character psychology and thematic exploration.
Further Research: #
This informal case study can serve as a precursor or foundational piece to a more in-depth, evidence-based study. Future research can consider audience expectations with similarly small and precise sample sizes, taking into account the unique boundary-breaking more experimental nature of narratives characterized by psychological realism and weighing responses to plot themes and tropes with the intention of determining which narratives could still be considered innovative while eschewing controversialism.
Conflicts of Interest and Study Limitations: #
Since I’m analyzing my own story, this analysis is bound to be subjective and contingent upon variables that elude my attention as an author. For one, I didn’t address the impact of how the story is marketed or branded to a general reader base. The story was branded more like a power fantasy for a long time (from Chapter 1 to 64), which definitely impacted how the story was received. This is only one out of many things I have failed to address in this analysis, but that is also the nature of this limited informal study. In conclusion, any derivatives from this study need also to take into account the multifarious elements which presently evade my understanding.