Exonarrative Factors in Story Critique

Since getting back into comics, I’ve thought a lot about reviews and reader reactions. The comics fanbase is notorious for being one of the most “passionate” (I put that in quotes as the spectrum ranges widely from hateful viciousness and needless cruelty to blind loyalty and admiration, to the point of worship… to the characters, the creators, the publishers, the industry). I’ve dived headfirst into this wide array of reactions and thought about what and how readers judge/critique the art and stories that come out of this industry. A lot of this initial thought process was catalzyzed by being on League of Comic Geeks and reading other people’s reviews of books I liked/disliked as a – possibly from a peer affirmation POV (e.g. “Am I liking/disliking the right things?”) – but also, eventually, seeing how what people liked/disliked can often be the strangest, niche factors as I want to discuss in this entry.

Some of my thoughts on what I’m calling “Exonarrative Factors” – which defines whether a fan liked or disliked a book/story based on metrics I personally believe are “outside” of the actual story and how it was crafted – are from thoughts I’ve had brewing in my brain for over a decade i/r/t to narrative in general (TV series, films, etc.); but another piece of the puzzle fell into place when I reflected on Running Against the Devil (2020), which I read and summarized in a newsletter back in 2022. There are some interesting correlations between the American voter base (or any, really) and comic fanbase. One quick, obvious example are “single issue voters”. These are people who will vote for the party that backs their one issue, ignore every other policy on their platform, and despise the other party, again, because of a single issue. Abortion, gun control, and immigration are examples of this. To me, these are akin to audiences who have are turned off (or turned on) by a story based on a singular trope, singular topic, or singular format. If you have that “one thing”, regardless of how well the story is crafted or told, they will instantly love or dismiss it.

But more importantly, a lot of what’s driving me to put these thoughts onto paper is that as someone aspiring to have published fiction/stories out there, I want to know the factors that causes someone to love, like, dislike, or hate a story. I know personally, I’ve been hyper-critical of my own tastes with comic pulls the last six months. Why do I enjoy one, why do I dislike another, and what makes me drop a pull? MRK once said in a class that stories are like empty jugs. We, as authors, can give the reader the shape, color, and size of the story… but they ultimately fill it with their own lived experience, biases, and whatnot. It’s that liquid that I’m most interested in. What contitutes that liquid? That liquid is what creates the subjective experience of art. It’s the thing that storytellers can’t fully control. Now IRL, as a marketer, I know how the advertising I’ve created targets and manipulates a niche market. I’ve applied Eugene Schwartz’s five levels of awareness and sophistication to target as many people “likely buyers” as possible within a defined market. And there is an art and craft to it. But the medium itself is levels below i/r/t sophistication in creation and consumption when compared to storytelling. Of course, on the story side, there are also “levels” if you will. There are mass market stories that are simple and effective. There are stories that are subtle and complex. Ultimately, though, the “liquid” we fill the “story jars” with can be potentially a lot more complex than the “liquid” we fill “advertising jars” with, but the principle of liquids and jars are the same.

HYPE & CHATTER

I first noticed this exonarrative factor when Game of Thrones (2011-2019) was first adapted for T.V. As someone who had read the first four novels between 2005-2006, I personally found the first couple of seasons a good adaptation, but not necessarily something I would’ve watched otherwise. However, I did, and I found myself watching it not because it was a prestige HBO TV (which at that time, I was stricken by), but because for the first time in my life, EVERYONE was watching this IP based on these nerdy fantasy novels that I personally loved along with fellow nerds, which was still, back in the early 2010s, a “thing”. We were still the “Weird Loners Club”. Iron Man (2008) had just came out to catalyze the budding MCU. Put another way, nerds were still nerds and it wasn’t cool to be a nerd…yet. Point is – Game of Thrones attracted people outside of nerdom. I was now having conversations with neighbors and friends about this story, which I had read and loved, to people who would’ve NEVER picked up the books in the first place. Game of Thrones legitimized “medieval style” fantasy again (almost two decades after Jackson’s outlier Lord of the Rings).

And that, the hype and chatter of it all – colors one’s perception and judgment of a story. Critics have called Game of Thrones the last piece of IP to be part of the monoculture (SIDE NOTE: others would argue Squid Game (2021) and Tiger King (2020) counter this, while I personally side with another group who would say the pandemic “shelter in place” drove most of that hype and chatter) – and what monocultures do very well is it gets everyone talking about the same thing. And when that happens, at the risk of accidentally seeing spoilers and/or dealing with FOMO, by nature of a monoculture, you have to watch and talk about it.

As an artist or marketer, you inevitably want the hype and chatter because that’s what drives referrals and word-of-mouth sales. But as a critic, it becomes a lot of noise that influences your judgment of whether something is inherently good or bad storytelling. (Of course, you could argue that the social and cultural context in which something is published, released, or featured are important factors in discussing said value of craft. And this leads to so many films, novels, TV shows that are “of their times”, but I would argue a lot of it also came down to hype and chatter.)

LICENSED IP

Related to the discussion on Game of Thrones above are adaptations of IPs (from books/comics to movies/TV, and vice versa, or even between those two pairings, i.e. from book to comic and vice versa, from movies to TV). And what’s more – within formats themselves as new creative teams take stewardship over an longstanding IP (i.e. when a new writer/artist team takes over a comic series, or whenever they reboot James Bond, Godzilla, or Sherlock Holmes).

Every creative team will have their take on it, and the different segments of the fanbase will have their judgment on it. People will say this Superman isn’t my Superman depending on who’s writing it. And this, to me, again detracts from how I think about story. A recent example would be Leah Williams’ Power Girl, which I had zero context or history with. All I knew, when I decided to read it on a lark, was that that her large chest was a definining characteristic (and trusting that Williams would deliver on the absurdity of that with a sense of humor). What I got instead, was a well-rounded character (pun intended) with Williams’ trademark tongue-in-cheek and winking-at-audience humor. What I didn’t know was the online vitriol directed at Williams for destroying such an esteemed character, with a longstanding history in the JSA, being the cousin from Earth-2, the CEO Karen Starr, etc. etc. How dare Williams ignore all this canon? How dare she ruin this character?

I didn’t care. Because I didn’t know. But what I do know is that I enjoyed the series (based purely on storycraft) immensely. I’m writing this in January of 2025 in which DC has once again rebooted, but this time, creating an alternate universe, and I am thoroughly enjoying all three Absolute titles, and look forward in anticipation to the next three in April. I also listened to Snyder and Thompson’s conversation on Best Jackett about how you capture the “essence” of a character, while changing everything else around them to create fresh takes. HOWEVER - I can also see how fans can be upset when their loyalties to certain canons and what they believe “makes a character” is ignored.

Point is – I think some fans want to believe in the sacredness of certain IP, and I know new incoming creators taking stewardship of an IP do too… but the intersection in that Venn disagram will also be of real estate that doesn’t include everyone, and therefore, a guaranteed segment of fans will be unhappy.

GENRE CONVENTIONS

Similar to the licensed IP and fan expectations Venn diagram, some fans are also upset when “their genre” is not respected. There are certain tropes that fans come to expect when they walk into a book, show, or film, or video game too. And when those tropes are not delivered (without good reason), or delivered in unexpected ways (but not the kind of “good unexpected” that pays homage to, makes meta-commentary on, or flips stuff for good reason), some fans get upset. I think this line of thinking has mostly withered in the last two decades (or even less) as more and more stories utlize “genre blending” and “genre commentary/homage/parody” that fans welcome. My favorite sitcom, Community (2009-2015), captures this ethos at a peak level that only Dan Harmon can deliver on.

Ultimately, some fans of some genres expect certain formulaic tropes in their stories, and when those tropes are are not delivered, it is not satisfactory to them, regardless of whether the story itself was told well or not.

FAMILIAR FAMILY & WORLD

I remember strongly disliking the STORY in Solo (2018), but reveled in the WORLD. And I think a lot of fans of certain IPs fall into this trap as well. That is, when a cast of characters or a world (its rules, its aesthetics, its built), is familiar and it’s a place you have fond memories of escaping to, or hanging out with the characters. It’s kinda like when podcasts first became huge while America’s loneliness numbers increased. Some Internet guru was saying how some high percentage of people ate alone in their cars during lunch breaks, and the allure of podcasts – where two or more hosts have an enviable chemistry and camaraderie – became these parasocial friends, where they became people you hang out with, and imagine being friends with, but without ever having actually met, nor interacted with. That is a long drawn out way to talk about how I think people have relationships with their favorite characters, but I hope that’s clear. I guess fan fiction and shipping characters is also another way in which fans interact with their favorite IPs.

And of course, this exonarrative factor is something that marketing and entertainment executives know very well, and let’s be honest, some creators as well. And then they flood the market with those characters we have parasocial relationships with… books, spinoffs, reboots, novelizations, comics, board games, TTRPGS, etc. etc. Anything that will give us a portal back to this sacred place. And listen, I am here for the Buffy-verse or BSG reboot whenever that happens because I, too, would like to revist those worlds and hang out with those characters again. But ultimately, we are initially “tricked” temporarily to engage with said media because we miss our parasocial friends and the world they live in, until we can judge whether the story itself is good or not. When it isn’t, we feel betrayed. We see a story that’s slapped together haphazardly, and while the characters do what they’re expected to do, it’s done in a way that feels fake. Or fan-serviced. Or a ghost of their former self. Actors reading lines and getting paid but no longer embodying the character they played years, or even decades ago. And closely related to that…

NOSTALGIA-BAIT

This doesn’t necessarily have to be a reboot or sequel of a familiar IP. It could just hit on the right tropes, style, and format. Stranger Things (2016-2025) is a collection of all the things Milleniels grew up with in the 80s and 90s. Granted, Stranger Things is good storytelling, but that doesn’t mean it’s not hitting the right notes for that nostalgia bait. Which, tangentially, is something I do want to add here. I think these exonarrative factors can be used for good. I just want to draw the distinction in this article that a lot of times, when people say they like or dislike a story, it may not come down to the actual craft of the story, but any of these exonarrative factors I’m writing about, and I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but as someone who wants to work in story, I feel like it’s important to know how people engage with stories and what factors affect their opinion of it, and more importantly, what is within the storyteller’s control or not.

AESTHETICS (STYLE)

Two words: Tron: Legacy (2010). Here was a film where the story was mostly bland, but I ended up watching at least three times. Why? The look and feel. “The vibes”, as the kids like to say these days. The Daft Punk soundtrack. There’s just nothing else like it. Do all those things contribute to storytelling? Sure. But if we strip storytelling to its core of character emotional beats (ARC), worldbuilding rules (MECH),and central dramatic arguments (CDA)… did Tron: Legacy deliver on any of that? I mean, I guess? It’s a functional story. It worked. There were attempts at emotional beats. But at the end of the day, what made Tron: Legacy worked for me was that it looked and sounded cool. That’s it. And I think there are times where readers enjoy books simply for the poetry of the prose. There might not even be a good story, but the “literariness” of the prose is beautiful. The same could be said of certain directors and the way in which they use editing tricks to keep an audience engaged… only for them to walk out afterwards, dazed and confused, come to their senses, and realize the tremendous amount of plot holes, expository scenes, and just general lack of substance.

BRANDED WRITER

And then there are authors, filmmakers, musicians that people are just simply loyal to. And people outside of that loyalty often “just don’t understand”. This idolization can also become extreme and unhealthy. There is also a certain level of predictability to it. You know a Wes Anderson film when you see one. You know a Pearl Jam album when you hear one. You know the themes and “concept family” of certain authors. You know the “level of engagement” requried. It’s not a new artist where you’re sussing out what they’re about, how they deliver it, and can they pull it off. With branded writers you trust, you have a pretty good sense of what level they’re at and what you’re getting.

IDENTITY (SOCIAL/POLITICS)

Related to the loyalty towards an artist above, it is as much as fandom towards them as it is the identity you choose for liking a particular work or artist. We attach the art to the artist to the point where if they act a certain way publicly, we start reading into their work to look for clues of who they are and whether or not we want to be on their side. Alternately, a piece of work may argue for or against an issue, and people rally, politically or socially to a work as well. All of this can sometimes have nothing to do with the actual craft of the story. People may rally to what they think the piece of art is about as well. They co-opt the work and make it their symbol.

CONTROVERSY-BAIT (EDGINESS)

Controversy-Bait is when people like edgy topics in their art just because it is uncomfortable for most other people. This is similar to the identity exonarrative, but I suspect that audiences attracted to controvery-bait tend to be teenage edgelords (I know I was one when I was younger), or a troll who likes to proclaim they like “edgy” stuff to show off, or be different for the sake of being different (I am guilty of this in my youth as well). As an exonarrative, the same paramaters we’ve discussed so far applies. It could be well crafted art. It could also be terribly crafted art with very low substance, but because it features certain edgy topics like death, sexual assuault, or whatever… some audieneces may like it based on those aspects.

SHOWING OFF (CLEVER CRUEL)

And then there are reviews you read online where hating something becomes its own art. And being clever in your hate is entertaining to the reviewer and the people who read those reviewers. But clever hate doesn’t necessarily mean the work itself is crafted well or not. What happens is the clever hater may be leaning on ANY of the above exonarrative factors. Maybe it’s an identity thing. Maybe it’s controversy-bait. Maybe they have expectations of how certain characters “should” be handled and they get upset when that’s not delivered the way they want it. But ultimately, they get good at writing scathing reviews based on those factors.

SINGLE ISSUE VOTER

I spoke of this briefly in the intro and don’t feel like we need to add more here. Some people refuse to see certain things based on a single issue. Many don’t want to see the third Guardians of The Galaxy because of animal cruelty. And/or they watch it and that overshadows the rest of the story.

PALETTE (DIVERSE vs. BLAND)

Finally, it can come down to the audience’s taste, as in how much they’ve consumed in their life, how diverse is their experience in consuming different types and forms of art, and from that diverse consumption, can they pick up on references, allusions, and homages. These are the easter eggs that to one audience enriches the work, but to another, if executed badly, could just be confusing… but again, doesn’t really say one way or anotehr whether the craft of the story is good or bad.