Individual Style VS Perfect Edits & the problem of AI.

[onehitwanda]

The threat of getting our heads knocked together was usually enough to make us stop behaving the way we were.

Oh, I know - my management style is "Battle Royale". Lock the belligerent parties in a room with an assortment of dark ages to late renaissance weaponry. Last person standing is right.

But in terms of organic behaviour modification? Yeah. Best you can achieve is a Pax Romana.

 

[StillStunned]

But in terms of organic behaviour modification? Yeah. Best you can achieve is a Pax Romana.

"They created a desert and called it peace."

(I heard that quote for the first time the other day, and I've been dying to use it.)

 

[onehitwanda]

"They created a desert and called it peace."

(I heard that quote for the first time the other day, and I've been dying to use it.)

sometimes the strongest argument for good behaviour is a radioactive glass wasteland stretching from sunrise to sunset.

 

[Omenainen]

I sure am not qualified to judge what happened, but I can tell now, this thread is not a solution.

I agree on both claims. I would’ve preferred to keep the conversation about the review in our review thread. It has been the decision of others to try to shut down the discussion there and then run all over the forum taking it into unrelated threads, old and new.

If you want to form an opinion, come read the story and the review, and keep in mind that the author came to us asking for a review.

 

[CalebZhass]

I agree on both claims. I would’ve preferred to keep the conversation about the review in our review thread. It has been the decision of others to try to shut down the discussion there and then run all over the forum taking it into unrelated threads, old and new.

If you want to form an opinion, come read the story and the review, and keep in mind that the author came to us asking for a review.

From what I've read, it wasn't necessarily the review that was problematic, but the presentation of it. How much of that was from badly worded thoughts or a biased reading of those thoughts I cannot tell. Communication is a though job, more than two thirds of it non-verbal. It is very easy to attribute (or mistakingly convey) negativity to/in words where there is none.

See my post above about emotional baggage and why it would be important to be mindful of feeling hurt, intentional or not.

As said, I hope folks manage to take the proper message away from these events and not the victim blaming BS some seem to lean towards.

Yes even with the most well intentioned actions, there can be victims.

 

[KeithD]

Reviewers are not editors.

As a matter of fact, the function of written work assessment is trained within editorial training programs and nowhere else. Even in university creative writing programs, work assessment is included in the editorial process segments.

 

[KeithD]

I'd argue that having this kind of open criticism is useful for the board as a whole, even if you think this particular review was a misfire or mean-spirited. It allows other writers to look at a story,

No, I don't support sacrificing the sensitivity of a single Lit. writer to the supposed worthwhile guidance for the writer community on Literotica as it is constituted. If a reviewer is so self-confident that they are better grounded in writing than the one they are critiquing and they have harsh assessment to give, in Literotica as it is constituted, they jolly well could give their opinions in private.

 

[lovecraft68]

[No personal attacks or trolling - including creating accounts for this specific purpose. Heated discussions are fine, even welcome. However, personally attacking / kink-shaming a fellow author or reader is not allowed within the Author's Hangout. Threads which devolve into the exchanging of insults will be closed and repeat offenders will be given a timeout, per the AH rules.]

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I agree on both claims. I would’ve preferred to keep the conversation about the review in our review thread. It has been the decision of others to try to shut down the discussion there and then run all over the forum taking it into unrelated threads, old and new.

If you want to form an opinion, come read the story and the review, and keep in mind that the author came to us asking for a review.

I've done as you suggested. I read the story and reviewed your review. Feel free to get back to me if you have any questions about it.

 

[KeithD]

Simon had this settled in post #2



Most people here don't want help, they want praise.

I think this is absolutely right--and that the Web site isn't set up to be more demanding than this.

 

[TheRedChamber]

No, I don't support sacrificing the sensitivity of a single Lit. writer to the supposed worthwhile guidance for the writer community on Literotica as it is constituted. If a reviewer is so self-confident that they are better grounded in writing than the one they are critiquing and they have harsh assessment to give, in Literotica as it is constituted, they jolly well could give their opinions in private.

Then, as noted, they wouldn't also get the opinions of anyone else reading the review - who may agree with them and not the review or might help put the review in a better context.

 

[KeithD]

Then, as noted, they wouldn't also get the opinions of anyone else reading the review - who may agree with them and not the review or might help put the review in a better context.

Once again. This isn't a criticism review Web site. No experts in doing so are provided here. This is a story sharing site. Yes, writer beware when they ask for a critique--but there really aren't notifications that they are asking for help from self-proclaimed critics who mostly have no more preparation for doing this than grasping how to hang their shingles out and don't necessarily have any more expertise in writing fiction than the requester has.

I don't apologize for trying to save writers from themselves on this.

We've been here with A&O reviews periodically before and we'll likely be here again until/unless they recognize that they are overreaching their knowledge background and the guidance for writing constructive reviews (keep your hobby horse agendas out of judgments made and be sensitive in recognition of how this Web site is pitched. If what you have to say is harsh, do it privately. Otherwise, you end up right where this iteration of A&O review has landed--accusative yammering and hurt feelings across the board).

I didn't hop right in here on A&O from the beginning. I watched this rise to a crescendo (once again--we've been here with A&O before) before posting anything. It's deja vu all over again with this pair.

 

[SimonDoom]

Simon had this settled in post #2

Grow a thick skin and don't be a baby. Especially if the review was asked for. The fact this isn't even the OP's story, and that all the butthurt is because he feels his friend was 'attacked' makes this even more lame.

People need to keep something in mind, reviews here, just like comments or private feedback, are opinions. AMD and OM volunteer reviews, but that doesn't mean they're any more or less qualified to give one than the OP, Simon, myself, or anyone else here. The review is what they think...if the story in question succeeded with the readers, why do their thoughts matter that much?

I just want to add one thing to this, because my advocacy for having a thick skin in a place like this--something I DO believe is a valuable trait for an author, and that I advocate an author trying to acquire--doesn't mean I'm completely insensitive. I don't think taking the position in favor of a thick skin should be an open invitation for a reviewer to write without any sensitivity to the author's feelings. In the case of the review in question, in my opinion the reviewer went WAY over the edge of propriety in describing one aspect of the author's story as "atrocious" and asking the author "Why do you hate your character?" There was no call for that. It's never justified to speculate that the author hates the character (unless the character is a villain), especially in this case when it seems so manifestly untrue and unfair to ask that question. Even if, as a reviewer, you believe you are correct, no good is served by writing this way. It's pointlessly antagonistic.

So I think two things can be, and are, true. When you submit a story for review by O and A, or by me, you should do so with some expectation for what you're going to get, and in the case of O and A with the expectation that the feedback might be a bit more unvarnished than you'd like. Brace yourself. But it's also true that the reviewer in a particular case can have stepped over the line of propriety in the way they phrase things. I think that was the case here.

 

[SimonDoom]

Once again. This isn't a criticism review Web site. No experts in doing so are provided here. This is a story sharing site. Yes, writer beware when they ask for a critique--but there really aren't notifications that they are asking for help from self-proclaimed critics who mostly have no more preparation for doing this than grasping how to hang their shingles out and don't necessarily have any more expertise in writing fiction than the requester has.

I don't apologize for trying to save writers from themselves on this.

A couple points, since I'm doing reviews.

I don't claim that I'm an expert or experienced reviewer. I've provided some information about my relevant experience and qualifications, such as they are.

The author has total say over whether he or she wants the story reviewed. I did my first review, as an example, of a story by an author who appears to be long gone, and I had nothing but good things to say. That review was written more for the benefit of potential readers and also for people to have a flavor of how I intend to write reviews.

I'm going to try to keep my tone constructive at all times. To the extent I say something negative, I'll try to do it in a way that it's something the author can do something with, as opposed to making them run back to their cave.

I welcome criticism of my reviews. JoyofCooking already has done this, and I thought the criticism was sound, and I modified my first review.

Interestingly, and circling back to the original topic of this thread, the author whose story I'm currently reviewing, WritingwhatIlike, recently has complained of having a story wrongfully tripped up by Lit's AI detector, and having read one of his stories, I think this accusation is preposterous, so I'm going to bring that issue up in the review. Unless he's completely changed his method of writing stories it seems like a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[HordHolm]

*Deep breath* Ok... so... I've watched this develop over the last couple of days with an increasing desire to repeatedly plant my forehead down on my desk. Maybe I will. But I hope what follows includes some common sense.

There have been suggestions that the issue at hand has involved a certain amount of 'previous' between reviewer and reviewee, and that the personal beef may have informed the strength of the opinions in the review. Neither A nor O seem keen to engage with this side of the controversy and frankly, even if they did, I doubt I'd feel any more enlightened. However, it might be worth considering, going forward, that if people have 'history' with each other it's probably not the best idea in the world to be either a reviewer of the other's work, or to offer work to be reviewed by the other. To do so merely exposes both parties.

To be blunt here, nobody forced reviewee to offer her work up to be reviewed, but equally nobody forced the reviewer to review it, either. A bit of foresight from both sides, and we wouldn't be where we are now. This is, hopefully, one of the 'teachable moments' from this whole bucket of cold sick.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's never justified to hate any of your characters, even the villain. Villains are human too. They can be charming, charismatic, and fun (think Tony Soprano), and portraying them well requires some level of empathy.

I'm not sure about that. I think there are effective villains in stories that are wholly unsympathetic--almost devil figures. Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, for example. I think he's a wholly non-empathetic figure, but I think that's the author's point. He's pure evil, so evil that he can't be comprehended. He has a code, of sorts, but there's no real glimpse of goodness in him. His motives are entirely bad, and we never learn enough about him to explain why. Another of Cormac McCarthy's famous characters, the Judge in Blood Meridian, is like that. He's just pure, inexplicable evil.

But they're the exception. 95% of the time I agree with you. Like Darth Vader. He seems wholly evil in the first movie, but he has a core of goodness and honor that becomes essential for the conclusion of the trilogy.