When I took my first look at these applications in our writing club, I thought they were really promising and that we'll get at least two new members.
Now that I've read them I'm afraid we'll have to reject both of them.
It sucks. We have only 3 members and it'd be great to have more, but we cannot just accept anyone who dares to apply. And when we are rejecting people, it's bad for our reputation, because some of them don't like the feedback they get and they take the rejection as a personal insult.
I really despise people who encourage me to give them feedback and tell me "not be afraid of giving criticism as well! ", and as soon as I say half a word of it they get infuriated and start to insult me because "you said that wrong way, I'm not a professional, stop thinking that I'd like to be! I don't like your critique but it's definitely not that I couldn't take feedback in general, it's just that YOU ARE WRONG I WANT TO GET AWWS AND LIKES!"
Oh no, ahahahahaha. Every time I read something like this I feel tempted to ask, these are adults you're speaking to, correct? Because their responses to words that are remotely negative-adjacent (or in the gray area of not-explicitly-positive) is anything but mature and I still sit around mildly amused things have gotten to that level.
On the one hand it's understandable you feel bad for rejecting them, but imagine if your writing club did just accept anyone and treat the act of simply writing as totally inviolable and worth defending at all costs, with no sense of quality control for people's toxic attitudes? That actually would bring the club's reputation down with bad word of mouth that the club supports that type of behavior if those aspiring writers had blown up at anyone else.
A day late on thus, but. This week's podcast episode is all about our experience with the PS4. Everyone's favorite dragon DreadnaughtDT joined us for a guest appearance.
Our S turned up late in the evening...left on the doorstep with no driver in sight to check I'd received it. Barely heard the uber-quiet knock on the door either...
Oh no, ahahahahaha. Every time I read something like this I feel tempted to ask, these are adults you're speaking to, correct? Because their responses to words that are remotely negative-adjacent (or in the gray area of not-explicitly-positive) is anything but mature and I still sit around mildly amused things have gotten to that level.
On the one hand it's understandable you feel bad for rejecting them, but imagine if your writing club did just accept anyone and treat the act of simply writing as totally inviolable and worth defending at all costs, with no sense of quality control for people's toxic attitudes? That actually would bring the club's reputation down with bad word of mouth that the club supports that type of behavior if those aspiring writers had blown up at anyone else.
Not related to our club, but this is a real case: an adult, who clearly asked for my feedback and praised me for supporting them in their writing, actually deleted a whole file of their work because of my "too hard" criticism (which was anyway far from the real level of feedback I always give to writers who have clear goals in their writing...) and sent me a message like "look at it now, it's deleted" (oh, the drama). After that they blamed me for considering them as a professional when they don't want to be a professional.
Later on, I've been hearing that I am publicly accused "forcing them to write stuff they didn't want to write", and now that we are no longer in contact, they are "free from the chains of my critique".
To this day, this person publicly yearns for feedback and criticism every now and then, and acts as a victim of "boo-hoo I don't get enough feedback, you have to give me feedback if you read my works". Well, I definitely understand the yearn for feedback, but I also think that you have to earn your feedback... as well as the respect to get it.
Some years ago, I actually sent them some more detailed critique (by their own public request). I thought it would really help them, but I sent it anonymously simply because I was afraid they would get mad at me if I did it with my real name. Well who could have guessed that they acted like they never received that critique?
The moral of the story is something like "The more you victimize yourself for not getting famous, the more likely it is you just cannot deal with real and constructive feedback". Because, well, if the quantity of the feedback is more important for you than the quality of it, being an artist is not your thing – you are an entertainer, not an artist. You want to get popular at first, your skills come in second. Also, popularity hardly ever has anything to do with the quality of the said writing anyway.
Constructive feedback is usually not hearts and awws. In order to learn from it, it should be a pretty detailed analysis of those techniques you carried out well (and WHY you did well in them) and pointing out stuff that you could polish a bit more (and WHY you could polish them more).
Been there, done that – I had a kind of popular writing blog some years ago and I still sometimes receive messages that tell me I was absolutely the best writer in that specific genre. What I always think I'd like to respond is that I wasn't the best, I was just the most active and it led me to being most popular, and it has nothing to do with the quality of my works.
// And hey, of course it's not always like this when a writer advertises their work. IMO, it's about the reasons of the yearning for feedback: whether you want more to feel good or to improve. And when it comes to yearning for allegedly any kind of feedback, but secretly choosing what kind of feedback you want to notice... it's a pretty clear case then.
Not related to our club, but this is a real case: an adult, who clearly asked for my feedback and praised me for supporting them in their writing, actually deleted a whole file of their work because of my "too hard" criticism (which was anyway far from the real level of feedback I always give to writers who have clear goals in their writing...) and sent me a message like "look at it now, it's deleted" (oh, the drama). After that they blamed me for considering them as a professional when they don't want to be a professional.
Later on, I've been hearing that I am publicly accused "forcing them to write stuff they didn't want to write", and now that we are no longer in contact, they are "free from the chains of my critique".
I'm not going to lie to you, I read this and said, "Oh, noooooooooo!" out loud. Ultimately, it's their loss. Funny how they state that they're "free" from the chains, yet are (still?) publicly accusing you of anything because you live in their head rent-free over not telling them what they thought they wanted to hear.
I find it, what's the word, ironic? That there are so many stories out that amount to the hero thinking they want something and going on a journey to get it, but along the way realizing that what they thought they wanted wasn't what they truly needed (and/or that what they needed was beside or within them the whole time), and they get what they need and are grateful for the journey. Somehow writing itself and the receipt of unconditional praise doesn't factor in as something a "protagonist" (in this case, that writer) would potentially think they want, but realize they don't need as opposed to something that might actually make them grow. Unconditional praise is the goal and everyone else is the adversary.
What does "forcing them to write stuff they didn't want to write" mean? Did you put a gun to their head? Was the content legitimately triggering and bad for their health, or did they simply not want to write a story with plausible motivations and consistency in logic? I don't understand that. They're so vague.
To this day, this person publicly yearns for feedback and criticism every now and then, and acts as a victim of "boo-hoo I don't get enough feedback, you have to give me feedback if you read my works". Well, I definitely understand the yearn for feedback, but I also think that you have to earn your feedback... as well as the respect to get it.
Some years ago, I actually sent them some more detailed critique (by their own public request). I thought it would really help them, but I sent it anonymously simply because I was afraid they would get mad at me if I did it with my real name. Well who could have guessed that they acted like they never received that critique?
That's... rather sad of them. One day they'll encounter the wrong person who'll make the same critique but with a "meaner tone" (or at least less obligation to "the sandwich method", because it doesn't work) and with 1000x less Fs to give about their own tone, the response from that writer, and the response from that writer's fanbase or friends if they have any. Hell, that critic might even have ride-or-die friends of their own. It'll be a total crapshow to watch unfold but it'll be worth multiple bags of popcorn and about 50 pages documenting the ensuing Anti-Critic Campaign, complete with brigading, Counter-Reviewing, and sockpuppet accounts from that One Aggrieved Writer.
I haven't seen exactly that happen at all, I assure you.
When I was asked by a writer of my opinion on their shortfic with an Established Pairing and a Bad End, having both read the WIP and Completed versions, I pointed out that the latter still came off like a WIP because of the pacing. And I meant pacing. The difference between WIP and Completed was a few short paragraphs and some dialogue, and when I read the WIP, I'd said, "I can't wait to read more of this". Cue that.
The story leapt from Character A being found by the Main Cast, to A murdering the Cast and finishing with Character B (the other half of the pair), because A Turned Evil And No One Knew. How did the Main Cast react to this metamorphosis? I can't tell you because it wasn't written. A didn't even have speaking lines until they turned evil and talked to B, so A could honestly be interchangeable with anyone else in the cast--them having no voice and thus, not sounding like themselves to begin with, meant the transition to being evil had no impact.
I said, "This could have used some fleshing out. I know you wrote this to fill a ship prompt, but things don't have to be rushed out same-day just because. Take time with it."
I got, "Thank you for your honesty." That was after they insisted that I accept that they write and publish first-draft works and that said works would be subpar solely because they're rushed. So their knowledge of the quality was used to deflect critique, but not to deflect the praise they got from people who already shipped the ship and were thirsty for content.
Ok. [/Saitama]
Never heard from them again concerning any other projects, no requests to critique anything of theirs. Then I found out they deleted a giftfic they dedicated to me. Then when I showed them a story that I was writing, that's when I really never heard from them again, not even to get the time of day. It's been years since then.
The moral of the story is something like "The more you victimize yourself for not getting famous, the more likely it is you just cannot deal with real and constructive feedback". Because, well, if the quantity of the feedback is more important for you than the quality of it, being an artist is not your thing – you are an entertainer, not an artist. You want to get popular at first, your skills come in second. Also, popularity hardly ever has anything to do with the quality of the said writing anyway.
Constructive feedback is usually not hearts and awws. In order to learn from it, it should be a pretty detailed analysis of those techniques you carried out well (and WHY you did well in them) and pointing out stuff that you could polish a bit more (and WHY you could polish them more).
Been there, done that – I had a kind of popular writing blog some years ago and I still sometimes receive messages that tell me I was absolutely the best writer in that specific genre. What I always think I'd like to respond is that I wasn't the best, I was just the most active and it led me to being most popular, and it has nothing to do with the quality of my works.
// And hey, of course it's not always like this when a writer advertises their work. IMO, it's about the reasons of the yearning for feedback: whether you want more to feel good or to improve. And when it comes to yearning for allegedly any kind of feedback, but secretly choosing what kind of feedback you want to notice... it's a pretty clear case then.
The distinction between Entertainer and Artist puts in words what I've been thinking of. That and the difference between Friends and Fans.
On the subject of feedback (and "feedback culture"), I've found there are way too many writers that come in with a need for feel good feedback that aren't up front about exactly that. It'd be much easier if they were, but these writers ask for "constructive feedback" as a blanket term but have "feed me praise" as an unspoken rule they expect every reader to know beforehand, and now we've ended up with readers who are asked to "give feedback" in public but have now opted not to because they simply do not know what it is the writer is looking for and don't want to risk getting blown up at in public for providing an honest opinion, thus no feedback is given at all, resulting in... well... writers complaining that they don't receive feedback and that means they don't write anymore. Or, more tellingly, they're receiving praise but there's nothing to show for it in terms of readership size and traffic, and even less readers return to their work than before on each successive update and the praise tapers off too. The departing readers won't say why, because they can't or don't want to and it's just generally seen as rude. It's a comment section, not an airport. And sending feedback in private doesn't work, because who knows if the writer will opt to publicize that they're being "harassed" and it turns into a hearsay affair with the writer getting most of the sympathy because they told their side of the tale first? And, y'know, the part where writers will publicly complain about how stupid they think their readerbase/reviewbase is for this and that and the other thing, thus turning other people off from providing feedback.
Heck, it doesn't even have to do with whether the feedback was "nice enough", because praise and tone isn't uniform just like writers themselves are not uniform. What's being read relies not only on who wrote it, but who read it and how they're feeling on that particular day. The commentary up top about why the Sandwich Method doesn't work comes from what I've observed: any author unwilling to accept constructive feedback over the inkling of negativity they perceived isn't going to see the praise before and after as anything genuine. They read both the review and reviewer as two-faced, like they were lulled into a sense of safety before getting punched in the face.
Of course not all writers are like this, but these are the ones that get traction and end up talked about more. Everyone has at least one story of a writer they crossed because they didn't pay tribute properly.
I'm not going to lie to you, I read this and said, "Oh, noooooooooo!" out loud. Ultimately, it's their loss. Funny how they state that they're "free" from the chains, yet are (still?) publicly accusing you of anything because you live in their head rent-free over not telling them what they thought they wanted to hear.
What does "forcing them to write stuff they didn't want to write" mean? Did you put a gun to their head? Was the content legitimately triggering and bad for their health, or did they simply not want to write a story with plausible motivations and consistency in logic? I don't understand that. They're so vague.
Well, I have been hearing that it indeed was bad for their mental health – and also that I absolutely did that on purpose (Because, duh, of course I'm putting a lot of effort giving feedback for people's written works just to hurt them and make myself feel superb! It's really worth all the time and effort...)
In my point of view, I actually treated them as carefully as I ever could, knowing that there's a very small area of things I can say which are both useful in terms of developing as a writer AND don't absolutely break them, but it seems it was too triggering after all. Two funny things:
1) They didn't tell me how much I hurt them with it in person, instead they accused me of that in public when it was convenient for public shaming. Before that shaming-phase they only told me how much I've been supporting them and helping them to get over writer's block. Hmmmmmmm-
2) E.g. in the writing club I'm using A LOT harder ways to criticize things, and I've hurt no one so far. Yes, I have asked the club members about it.
So it just seems that when the criticism doesn't concern spelling mistakes and such stuff that can be fixed with really low level of effort, it's too much for them. That is not a problem: I don't mind personally if a person thinks it's not worth the trouble to really develop themselves as a writer and not just as a person smashing computer keys. The problem is that at least a person should be able to admit that they're really not trying to become a good or even an average writer, they are just yearning for fame. The way this kind of people act is really degrading for people who really try something in their lives.
And of course I'm not making any in casu personal accusations here: This problem I'm ranting about doesn't apply just to this one but rather for a wide scale of these "entertainers calling themselves artists". I shouldn't care about this phenomenon, I know, but in a broder sense it just reflects my overall frustration about people not being able to be honest to even themselves, and unability to really commit themselves to goals they wish to achieve. It's laziness, nothing more, and it's a human trait I really can't stand.
Feel free to beat me up in a dark alley for my arrogance. I'll take it as a compliment.
That's... rather sad of them. One day they'll encounter the wrong person who'll make the same critique but with a "meaner tone" (or at least less obligation to "the sandwich method", because it doesn't work) and with 1000x less Fs to give about their own tone, the response from that writer, and the response from that writer's fanbase or friends if they have any. Hell, that critic might even have ride-or-die friends of their own. It'll be a total crapshow to watch unfold but it'll be worth multiple bags of popcorn and about 50 pages documenting the ensuing Anti-Critic Campaign, complete with brigading, Counter-Reviewing, and sockpuppet accounts from that One Aggrieved Writer.
(Back to the individual one)
Well. This goes to the group of persons for whom quality feedback is equal to sandwich model. It isn't. Defining proper feedback as an obligation to use a sandwich model works if you don't care about lying to people and/or if you care more about making someone feel good than really helping them.
But then, of course this works in some fanfic communities. I mean, some fanfic communities are really a good kickstart for a writer and a sandwich feedback has its place in kickstart situations in general, but in 95 % of the cases I have seen, in a fanfic community everything is perfect as long as it involves kissing. If it happens between two hot males, it's better than perfect. The larger the ship, the more entertaining the fic! Note how I used the word "entertaining" instead of "well-written"...
The distinction between Entertainer and Artist puts in words what I've been thinking of. That and the difference between Friends and Fans.
On the subject of feedback (and "feedback culture"), I've found there are way too many writers that come in with a need for feel good feedback that aren't up front about exactly that. It'd be much easier if they were, but these writers ask for "constructive feedback" as a blanket term but have "feed me praise" as an unspoken rule they expect every reader to know beforehand, and now we've ended up with readers who are asked to "give feedback" in public but have now opted not to because they simply do not know what it is the writer is looking for and don't want to risk getting blown up at in public for providing an honest opinion, thus no feedback is given at all, resulting in... well... writers complaining that they don't receive feedback and that means they don't write anymore. Or, more tellingly, they're receiving praise but there's nothing to show for it in terms of readership size and traffic, and even less readers return to their work than before on each successive update and the praise tapers off too. The departing readers won't say why, because they can't or don't want to and it's just generally seen as rude. It's a comment section, not an airport. And sending feedback in private doesn't work, because who knows if the writer will opt to publicize that they're being "harassed" and it turns into a hearsay affair with the writer getting most of the sympathy because they told their side of the tale first? And, y'know, the part where writers will publicly complain about how stupid they think their readerbase/reviewbase is for this and that and the other thing, thus turning other people off from providing feedback.
May I copy and repeat what you just said: These writers ask for "constructive feedback" as a blanket term but have "feed me praise" as an unspoken rule they expect every reader to know beforehand, and now we've ended up with readers who are asked to "give feedback" in public but have now opted not to because they simply do not know what it is the writer is looking for and don't want to risk getting blown up at in public for providing an honest opinion, thus no feedback is given at all, resulting in... well... writers complaining that they don't receive feedback and that means they don't write anymore.
FINALLY someone says it out loud. FINALLY. *takes hat off for Morgan*
---
By the way, and update to the original topic: we chose to let the other one in due to their other merits, and for the other one we gave a chance to edit their work and apply again if they wish. They took it pretty well. I was afraid of a more frustrating outcome.
For the one rejected, the "chairman" of our club and I offered our personal e-mails just to encourage them to edit their application and send it for us again, regardless of whether they want to apply or not. They were thankful of it, promised nothing, but told us they'll keep that in mind. That kind of honesty felt good on our behalf as well
So, Kaz is on 10 pills a day for the next 5 days (wherein his dosage lowers infinitesimally over a period of time), plus eyedrops twice a day. My dog basically has his own pharmacy at this point. :/ (Good news is, we're going to get him to a dermatologist in a couple months' time for allergy testing so that we can minimize his problems in the future).
People be like "seals are basically underwater doggos", except that in Malay language, seals are called "Anjing Laut", which literally means "sea dog".
I've been on this forum a long time and Angel still has the same avatar! Bless you dear for remaining consistent. @Angel
(Watch her change it now... Lol)
I've been on this forum a long time and Angel still has the same avatar! Bless you dear for remaining consistent. @Angel
(Watch her change it now... Lol)
When she changes it, it's gonna be your fault. We'll never forgive you.
---
Got a blackmailing e-mail. Says I have got a nice taste in some special kind of videos, and that I look good in my webcam.
I have to say it's a psychological accomplishment to make me feel a bit uncomfortable, given that I don't even have a webcam and thus they've really got nothing to blackmail me with.
When she changes it, it's gonna be your fault. We'll never forgive you.
---
Got a blackmailing e-mail. Says I have got a nice taste in some special kind of videos, and that I look good in my webcam.
I have to say it's a psychological accomplishment to make me feel a bit uncomfortable, given that I don't even have a webcam and thus they've really got nothing to blackmail me with.
I run a few websites, and I get this kind of garbage. It's a dumb scam. They did the same tactic as a website owner, like saying they hacked my system 2 months ago, and want my bitcoin. WTF.
At first I was nervous, checked everything with my server, even went on my support line with the host. They didn't see anything. As a precaution I updated everything. Server, forum software, plugins, etc. Making sure my ass is covered.
I run a few websites, and I get this kind of garbage. It's a dumb scam. They did the same tactic as a website owner, like saying they hacked my system 2 months ago, and want my bitcoin. WTF.
At first I was nervous, checked everything with my server, even went on my support line with the host. They didn't see anything. As a precaution I updated everything. Server, forum software, plugins, etc. Making sure my ass is covered.
They've got a password of mine which has been in use about 2-3 years ago. I have changed it since and I'm well aware that it has been leaked in a data breach. So the fact they've got it makes no difference for me, but I've got to appreciate that they really used it as a confirmation of that they'd really have breached my system.
I just realized that actually, I do have a web cam. But it is plugged in only during online lectures. So... if they really think that I'm fapping in those videos where I'm listening to a lecture about European Union's Brussels I regulation and it's effect to union-wide jurisdiction... they've got a really f*cked up idea of EU law in general.
Getting inspired tho. Maybe I'll just see if hissing "GDPR" in my husband's ear turns him on. Or if he gets the hint if I just suggest him something like "wanna make some consolidated legislation with me? "
Or maybe just "oh, the way you implement that directive feels so..."
They've got a password of mine which has been in use about 2-3 years ago. I have changed it since and I'm well aware that it has been leaked in a data breach. So the fact they've got it makes no difference for me, but I've got to appreciate that they really used it as a confirmation of that they'd really have breached my system.
I just realized that actually, I do have a web cam. But it is plugged in only during online lectures. So... if they really think that I'm fapping in those videos where I'm listening to a lecture about European Union's Brussels I regulation and it's effect to union-wide jurisdiction... they've got a really f*cked up idea of EU law in general.
Getting inspired tho. Maybe I'll just see if hissing "GDPR" in my husband's ear turns him on. Or if he gets the hint if I just suggest him something like "wanna make some consolidated legislation with me? "
Or maybe just "oh, the way you implement that directive feels so..."
The thing is, its a scam. It really doesn't matter if you have a webcam or not, they're hoping that you're dumb. That's why these emails exist, to prey on your ignorance. I get these emails about webcams, too. I don't even have a webcam. They want me to be stupid enough to buy into it, but as a website owner, I have more reasons to be nervous, because they can do it. Thing is, you have to be proactive and fast on your feet. Like you did with your password.
I thought about having Jak and Daxter stealing Yuna's dressphere for LeBlanc. It's never explained how she gets it so...it becomes a job Jak and Daxter do because they need to pay rent.
"Sly cooper would be proud" becomes a mantra because they do a multistage heist to get it.
They start the beginning as freelancers doing odd jobs to finance their way home. Its tricky because most Spirans don't know who the precursors were.
A future scene has them team up with YRP because the Ronsos have a part they need.
On the one hand, I have actual fresh-made popcorn ready with a dash of chili-lime seasoning sprinkled on and it's perfect for storytime. On the other hand, this presents a choking risk.
Well, I have been hearing that it indeed was bad for their mental health – and also that I absolutely did that on purpose (Because, duh, of course I'm putting a lot of effort giving feedback for people's written works just to hurt them and make myself feel superb! It's really worth all the time and effort...)
In my point of view, I actually treated them as carefully as I ever could, knowing that there's a very small area of things I can say which are both useful in terms of developing as a writer AND don't absolutely break them, but it seems it was too triggering after all. Two funny things:
1) They didn't tell me how much I hurt them with it in person, instead they accused me of that in public when it was convenient for public shaming. Before that shaming-phase they only told me how much I've been supporting them and helping them to get over writer's block. Hmmmmmmm-
2) E.g. in the writing club I'm using A LOT harder ways to criticize things, and I've hurt no one so far. Yes, I have asked the club members about it.
I feel like point 1 hits multiple flags of a toxic relationship in general, but, yeah, sounds about right!
A lot of spaces are being infested (yes, I will use that word) with people who subscribe wholly to the idea of instant gratification but have no intention of improving themselves as human beings, and come off like they were vaguely within sneezing distance of an article describing the Duluth model and thus internalized the idea that anyone who's ever been a victim of something once can not only do no wrong in that moment or in the future, but they can never be a victimizer in another instance. More insidiously, they've conflated Being A Victim with Receiving Sympathy, and will present themselves as a victim to the public because they believe Receiving Sympathy (read: Attention) is their ultimate goal (because look how many people rush to their defense when they talk about something bad happening to them!) when in reality Receiving Sympathy (read: Attention) is just a stepping stone to resolving an issue in the event that the issue is legitimate and someone providing Sympathy can also offer Advice to leave the situation and avoid it in the future.
But these people don't operate with that in mind because they're not victims of anything in the present moment except -- being generous here -- their own failed defense mechanisms that have emotionally stunted them at what age they were in when it formed, and also their inability to part with that defense mechanism or the situation that generates it because it's stuck in them as The New Normal. The thing is, "I'm having visceral and unreasonable reactions to obstacles presented in my path that I feel threaten to shatter my self-perception of being an Ultimately Good and Intelligent and Worthwhile and Therefore Perfect Person and also have an addiction to Attention and Feeling Outraged so that my Outrage distracts me from actually having to confront my own thoughts and potential failings, I need help for this so I stop hearing boss music every time someone says I could have done something better" is too many words, so they Buffalo Bill it by figuratively wearing the skin of a victim and spout that someone else is being abusive to deflect. Because we all hate abusers, don't we?
If this keeps up, we'll have writing critics accused of being kiddy-diddlers just because they reviewed someone poorly!
So it just seems that when the criticism doesn't concern spelling mistakes and such stuff that can be fixed with really low level of effort, it's too much for them. That is not a problem: I don't mind personally if a person thinks it's not worth the trouble to really develop themselves as a writer and not just as a person smashing computer keys. The problem is that at least a person should be able to admit that they're really not trying to become a good or even an average writer, they are just yearning for fame. The way this kind of people act is really degrading for people who really try something in their lives.
And of course I'm not making any in casu personal accusations here: This problem I'm ranting about doesn't apply just to this one but rather for a wide scale of these "entertainers calling themselves artists". I shouldn't care about this phenomenon, I know, but in a broder sense it just reflects my overall frustration about people not being able to be honest to even themselves, and inability to really commit themselves to goals they wish to achieve. It's laziness, nothing more, and it's a human trait I really can't stand.
Feel free to beat me up in a dark alley for my arrogance. I'll take it as a compliment.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't understand this "If I can't fix it in five minutes, it's too much effort to fix" mentality. I've seen that crop up a lot in writing spaces but writing isn't a hobby that "resets to zero" every time someone starts. It's like literally anything else that one can partake in during their free time or not in which minor habits build over time, errors that were overlooked at the moment can crop up later on in a worse place, and practice doesn't necessarily make perfect so much as make permanent, especially if one engages with it in bad form. It's the bell that can't be unrung. It's the Butterfly Effect without the time travel. It's as simple as sitting down on a chair. It's not up for debate that people who sit on chairs that do all the support work for them end up with weak muscles and bad posture. That's a thing that happens, and it takes a lot of effort to correct after the fact because it's much easier to slip into the bad habit that caused the terrible posture (too lazy to change) or could have been nipped with proper habits early on (assuming one isn't too proud to take advice).
If you take up knitting and forget a purl or whatever when making a scarf, that scarf is probably going to look gnarly the more you go on. If you finish that scarf anyway because "weh, too much effort to go back and fix, I'm already almost done" and gave it to a friend, your friend probably wouldn't be too jazzed you gave them a scarf that turned out ratty or unraveled easily, or whatever result one gets when they forget to purl (someone that actually knows about knitting can feel free to chime in). Yeah, you made it on your free time, but someone else has to live with that thing knowing you didn't put in the effort to do it right.
If you bake cookies and it turns out you added too much salt and made the cookies flat, who would want to eat flat cookies? In this case you can't un-bake a batch of cookies, but imagine the time that was wasted doing something improperly? It's not like baking is new; hundreds of thousands of other people did the same thing since convection was discovered, there's plenty of resources at one's disposal from "reasonably knowledgeable sources" (not experts, just people that know things) on how to make the most slammin' cookies ever. You can still keep cranking out bad cookies if it makes you feel better, but it'll be much easier for others to think you're just bad at baking and steer clear.
So I mean, writing is writing, and criticism given and corrections made to an ongoing product is valid, even in a "hobby done on one's free time"; there's no such actual thing as anyone going into something to suck on purpose even after spending years on it. Getting better at it is implicitly expected-- that's why we inherently trust people who've been at something for years over the guy who just got in through the door.
Anyway: if a plot hole happens in Chapter 11 that stemmed from an error in characterization all the way in Chapter 4, and the author finds that they've written themselves into a corner and can't continue, or they have continued but the nonsense in Chapters 4 and 11 turned people off the fic, is it really more valuable to feel self-righteous about how they didn't let the "mean" critics tell them what to do about Chapter 4 when it was initially noted the story wasn't going to hold up, or is it more important to actually do the story justice? It's your story-- but that means you either value it enough to do it right, or you don't value it, your time, or anyone else's time at all and are making excuses. At that point, be honest and say you don't care about that and that your intended recipients are similarly people who don't care about that.
Then again I'm assuming these authors do longfic at all. Some of these writers just do one-shots and/or easily abandon projects for shorter works because of the Ooh, Shiny factor, following the lead of the trendsetting Entertainer in their circle.
(Back to the individual one)
Well. This goes to the group of persons for whom quality feedback is equal to sandwich model. It isn't. Defining proper feedback as an obligation to use a sandwich model works if you don't care about lying to people and/or if you care more about making someone feel good than really helping them.
But then, of course this works in some fanfic communities. I mean, some fanfic communities are really a good kickstart for a writer and a sandwich feedback has its place in kickstart situations in general, but in 95 % of the cases I have seen, in a fanfic community everything is perfect as long as it involves kissing. If it happens between two hot males, it's better than perfect. The larger the ship, the more entertaining the fic! Note how I used the word "entertaining" instead of "well-written"...
By the way, and update to the original topic: we chose to let the other one in due to their other merits, and for the other one we gave a chance to edit their work and apply again if they wish. They took it pretty well. I was afraid of a more frustrating outcome.
For the one rejected, the "chairman" of our club and I offered our personal e-mails just to encourage them to edit their application and send it for us again, regardless of whether they want to apply or not. They were thankful of it, promised nothing, but told us they'll keep that in mind. That kind of honesty felt good on our behalf as well
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
", and as soon as I say half a word of it they get infuriated and start to insult me because "you said that wrong way, I'm not a professional, stop thinking that I'd like to be! I don't like your critique but it's definitely not that I couldn't take feedback in general, it's just that YOU ARE WRONG I WANT TO GET AWWS AND LIKES!"
