Writers blocking comments and feedback

[cataleptik]

One of the dumbest statements I've read so far on the Lit boards. And this is the LIT boards we're talking about where dumb statements are a matter of course.

What part of "people don't need anyone's approval" do you not understand? You're going to judge people who disallow comments and feedback? Well, if they're blocking your ability to leave feedback that's a pretty good sign that they don't give a flying fuck about your judgement.

Even if you can't leave a public comment there is an option to send feedback by email or you can even PM the author if they haven't disables PMs. And if all else fails at the very least you can start a feedback thread in SF if the need to write your opinion about a story is truly that pressing.

Moral of the story: no one gives a crap if you find it offensive that some writers turn off the comments section to their stories.

it wasn't dumb. it was youthful.

sometimes

rude people cover up their
inner pain, their lack of love
with the compulsive cruelty of

well, Hitler. but they are

just jerking off.

 

[christiankay]

Just as we (the writers) fight for freedom of speech, every writer in their right mind would fight for the right to accept or reject other peoples opinions.

 

[PrivateRickmers]

This is a reading site; not a creative writing course (even assuming you are qualified to be giving writing advice). If authors have turned off comments and/or votes, they have clearly indicated they aren't asking for writing advice--in truth very few people reading stories at Literotica have the credentials to be giving writing advice.

I would suggest rather than anyone with a love for good writing is qualified to give writing advice.

 

[sr71plt]

I would suggest rather than anyone with a love for good writing is qualified to give writing advice.

knowing what is good writing requires a certain level of knowledge of writing and what makes it good, doesn't it?

You can certainly index what you personally like to read, of course. The more you get into saying what "all" like to read or what and how the author should write, though, the more you are talking from authority that can only be backed up by training and talent for it. And for your opinions to have validity with others, you really need to demonstrate that training and talent.

The whole problem in what you posted is in using the word "good." There's a whole bunch of supposition behind that word that involves more than an "anyone can do it" "easy button."

 

[lovecraft68]

Just as we (the writers) fight for freedom of speech, every writer in their right mind would fight for the right to accept or reject other peoples opinions.

Right, but by blocking comments, or deleting every comment that does not hail the author as the coming messiah of erotica, then the author is negating the readers freedom of speech.

 

[lovecraft68]

I would suggest rather than anyone with a love for good writing is qualified to give writing advice.

Opinions here vary as much as the categories. I agree with you, but the word good is to general.

Good by my opinion and yours may vary. To me, if the story was entertaining then it was good. That does not mean you would agree.

I just keep defaulting back to people have a right to an opinion, and a simple "loved it" or "hated it" requires no qualifications other than being a reader of such stories.

Comments attacking grammar specifically or mechanical writing on the other hand I would not take to seriously unless the person posting had something to back it up with.

On a side note I love the posters who rag on authors writing skills and the idiots posts are full of misspellings and shitty grammar themselves.

 

[sr71plt]

This is a privately owned website. There is no right or expectation to be had of freedom of speech. The website has given erase buttons on comments to the authors to use for whatever reason they want to.

If you feel a compelling need to tell someone else off and for it to stick, put up your own website and sit poised on it like a spider on a web.

 

[PennLady]

Right, but by blocking comments, or deleting every comment that does not hail the author as the coming messiah of erotica, then the author is negating the readers freedom of speech.

No no no. That's not how it works. I don't have to listen to you -- that's not denying freedom of speech. Besides, if you have the right to speak, don't I have the right not to listen? It is not my job to give you a platform to speak from.

If the government -- state, local, whatever -- tries to prevent you from speaking, then you're into denial of rights territory. But a privately-owned website like this is entitled to make rules. Just b/c they do not permit stories about underage sex does not mean they are restricting your freedom of speech (we've all agreed on that, right?). And if the author does not want to allow comments, that's within their rights as well.

On a side note I love the posters who rag on authors writing skills and the idiots posts are full of misspellings and shitty grammar themselves.

Yes, those are fun. Also fun are the posters who praise a poorly-written story with an equally poorly-written comment.

 

[lovecraft68]

No no no. That's not how it works. I don't have to listen to you -- that's not denying freedom of speech. Besides, if you have the right to speak, don't I have the right not to listen? It is not my job to give you a platform to speak from.

If the government -- state, local, whatever -- tries to prevent you from speaking, then you're into denial of rights territory. But a privately-owned website like this is entitled to make rules. Just b/c they do not permit stories about underage sex does not mean they are restricting your freedom of speech (we've all agreed on that, right?). And if the author does not want to allow comments, that's within their rights as well.



Yes, those are fun. Also fun are the posters who praise a poorly-written story with an equally poorly-written comment.

I feel that if I have the right to post my work people have the right to critique or praise my work. It's just my opinion that erasing the bad denies them the same chance that I want.

Of course I do not have to listen to them just like they don;t have to read my stuff, but to me fair is fair.

The reason I made that comment is personally it goes up my ass when an author will not leave a comment that denotes anything but effusive praise. They have no issue with "You're the greatest" but heaven forbid someone says "Not your best work". I think it tells me something of that persons character.

 

[PennLady]

I feel that if I have the right to post my work people have the right to critique or praise my work. It's just my opinion that erasing the bad denies them the same chance that I want.

But you don't have the right to post your work, necessarily. I mean, you certainly have the right to write, and to submit and etc., but no privately-owned site is obliged to give you a platform. And most of these story sites, if not all, are of course privately-owned.

Of course I do not have to listen to them just like they don;t have to read my stuff, but to me fair is fair.

I really don't think it's about "fair." As you said, they don't have to read. I'd say that means that you do not owe them a means of critiquing. If you want feedback, no problem. I do.

The reason I made that comment is personally it goes up my ass when an author will not leave a comment that denotes anything but effusive praise. They have no issue with "You're the greatest" but heaven forbid someone says "Not your best work". I think it tells me something of that persons character.

Well, yeah, but -- so what?

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, the premise is off. No one has the "right" do do anything on this site that the website owners don't permit/enable. And, on the issue of comments on stories, the website owners have given the readers both the capability to comment and vote on individual stories (while giving the authors the right to block that) and have given the authors the capability of erasing comments (but not already-given votes). Those are the parameters of the "privileges" given here on that issue. These are privileges that are involved, not rights.

 

[bronzeage]

I would suggest rather than anyone with a love for good writing is qualified to give writing advice.

It might be helpful, but hardly a sufficient qualification.

I once called H. L. Mencken a cranky old misanthrope and was immediately challenged to produce some of my own writing which surpassed his.

It's a strange kind of challenge. If I have to be better than him to criticize his work, do any of his fans have to better than him in order to recognize his genius?

It is one thing to declare one likes or dislikes a certain story. It is quite another thing to explain why it falls short or exceeds any standard. It is still a further thing to explain how to repair the story which failed.

Posting stories and commenting on stories on Lit is not a right, it is a privilege. Another of the privileges authors are given it the ability to hear from readers. It is also the authors privilege to not hear from any readers. In the real world, none of it makes any difference at all.

 

[Spacefender]

Right, but by blocking comments, or deleting every comment that does not hail the author as the coming messiah of erotica, then the author is negating the readers freedom of speech.

No he or she is not. Nothing is stopping said commenter from starting a thread right here in Story Feedback about whatever story said commenter was trying to comment on. Any writer who would only delete negative feedback while allowing positive feedback most likely is too thin-skinned to be posting their work on the internet (or perhaps an ego-maniac) but I don't see it as being inconsistent with freedom of speech.

 

[PennLady]

No he or she is not. Nothing is stopping said commenter from starting a thread right here in Story Feedback about whatever story said commenter was trying to comment on. Any writer who would only delete negative feedback while allowing positive feedback most likely is too thin-skinned to be posting their work on the internet (or perhaps an ego-maniac) but I don't see it as being inconsistent with freedom of speech.

Exactly. I agree, which is no surprise. There are other outlets for one's opinions of Lit stories, ranging from commenting in the forums to emailing the author (if the feature is on) to starting your own website and ranting.

I think the thing here is that people often want to tell the author directly, via comments or private feedback. But the author doesn't have to "listen," i.e., turn on those features.

 

[sr71plt]

No he or she is not. Nothing is stopping said commenter from starting a thread right here in Story Feedback about whatever story said commenter was trying to comment on. Any writer who would only delete negative feedback while allowing positive feedback most likely is too thin-skinned to be posting their work on the internet (or perhaps an ego-maniac) but I don't see it as being inconsistent with freedom of speech.

Turning off negative feedback and leaving positive feedback can also be a promotional tactic. It doesn't necessarily show ego mania.

But on the topic of ego mania, what is the motivation/ego-maniac condition of someone who feels the compelling necessity of giving negative criticism to someone posting stories on a free-use/read site not just when that writer hasn't asked for criticism but has also when the writer has used the website-enabled mechanisms to block out that criticism--and then rants about it when they aren't able to inflict themselves on the writer at the point of the story entry?

Let's talk about that ego mania.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

I once called H. L. Mencken a cranky old misanthrope and was immediately challenged to produce some of my own writing which surpassed his.

It's a strange kind of challenge…

Especially strange, because you didn't criticize his writing. And the old SOB was "a cranky old misanthrope". Even that doesn't mean that he didn't have important insights.

 

[nakdsub]

I saw one writer

who had just posted his first story. He received so many bad comments that he deleted all but one, then blocked so no more could post.

 

[Spacefender]

Turning off negative feedback and leaving positive feedback can also be a promotional tactic. It doesn't necessarily show ego mania.

Even if it is a promotional tactic it doesn't rule out ego-mania. scouries promotes the shit out of himself here and the fact that he's an ego-maniac is a self-evident truth. Anyway, I stated a couple of reasons why someone might delete negative comments while allowing positive ones to remain. I'm sure there more than just those I mentioned.

Which is beside the real point I was making; that authors have the right to do as they wish with the comments they receive.

 

[sr71plt]

Even if it is a promotional tactic it doesn't rule out ego-mania.

You've moved a bit, but not far enough. "Can't be ruled out" is a change in what you posted but it still is a stretch away from "can't be assumed," which I believe is the correct observation.

Also, who doesn't have a strong ego who writes for a public read?

I still see no one who wants to address the flip side of this--the ego-mania of someone who "just gots to" get negative criticism through to a writer who has not only not asked for critique but who has actively blocked it.

 

[PennLady]

I still see no one who wants to address the flip side of this--the ego-mania of someone who "just gots to" get negative criticism through to a writer who has not only not asked for critique but who has actively blocked it.

I'd address this except it doesn't apply to me. If the author doesn't allow feedback, I just move on.

I do think people who rant about it, and complain about it, have their own ego issues to address.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, I would have thought that of you on both points, PL.