It's a sad day when....

[SimonDoom]

The problem (as I see it) is a psychological one and lies in the fact that we aren't all alike. It appears that you, like me and a whole bunch of others here have grown a crusty shell that allows vile comments to slide right off. But there are others not so lucky. A single word can cut them like a knife. I know this because way back in the beginning I was one of the second type. It took me a very long time to grow my shell. But some of those who don't have that shell just can not get to that point. It appears to me this author is one of those; a person who has never grown nor can a shell like ours. Which is unfortunate if they have such well-written stories. They are allowing a tiny minority to rob the majority of well-done works.


Comshaw

I think you may be right, and I sympathize with people who are far more prone to be hurt by criticism, but on the other hand I don't know how it's possible to succeed in any human endeavor without being able to take criticism.

If you have ever been involved in a competition of any kind, whether it's football or the science fair or a debate tournament, you know the sting of losing and failing, and you ALSO know the crucial value that criticism plays in getting better. If you want to do your job well, you have to be prepared to listen to superiors tell you when you screwed up, or how you could do better. The kind of criticism I see here at Literotica is like child play compared to what's out there in the real world. The people who write stories here are all adults, many of them quite mature adults, and it's hard for me to see how they got to this point in their lives without constantly dealing with criticism of their work during their lives.

I think one possible source of the problem is the way people look at writing. People take criticism personally because they see writing as very personal. They see it as an extension of themselves. I think one is better served by looking at writing as being a craft like anything else, like fixing a drain pipe or building a chair or writing a legal brief. You don't get better at anything in life without criticism.

 

[Erozetta]

I disagree that you need to be thick skinned to weather criticism here.

You just need to not have blinders on and set realistic expectations for your work without letting your own personal bias get in the way of learning.

When I first signed up here, I looked at the score range and got intimidated, a lot of stuff rated 4+ and here I was with a story expecting a 2.5 to dub it "average" and I would've been thrilled with that. A 3 is better than average, getting that woulda made me giddy.

I feel like I had realistic expectations and such a low score wouldn't have been seen as a deterrent for me, but as a starting point to get better. I don't have a thick skin, I get hurt pretty easily, but not by criticism of my writing. That's not a slight to me, it's a step toward improving my skills.

It helps to have really low expectations for yourself.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It appears that you, like me and a whole bunch of others here have grown a crusty shell that allows vile comments to slide right off. But there are others not so lucky. A single word can cut them like a knife.

Thick skin is a choice, not luck at all.

I disagree. They aren't strictly "writing for applause" because they weren't complaining about the scores or about genuine criticism of their work. They were complaining about vicious, toxic people who delight in trying to tear down someone for no other reason than the feeling they get by doing so.

Additionally, I would disagree that "the love of sharing their writing" isn't ego-driven. It's more ego-driven than the first type. throwing one's story out into the public with the thought that "you need to read this because it's good and if you disagree you're a troglodyte" is all ego.

Yes, it is ego driven because the complaint is about how people are reacting to the work. They have a desire for people to react a certain way, which is completely different than the love of sharing the writing which just wants to see the reactions, period.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on the last statement.

Someone has already, no?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I think one possible source of the problem is the way people look at writing. People take criticism personally because they see writing as very personal. They see it as an extension of themselves. I think one is better served by looking at writing as being a craft like anything else, like fixing a drain pipe or building a chair or writing a legal brief. You don't get better at anything in life without criticism.

Totally agree with that.

 

[Duleigh]

Sad. From the nature of his/her problem, I might venture to say they were posting in Loving Wives. I avoid LW for just this reason.

I would like to think the same, but my stories in Romance are getting pounded with one bombs daily. When someone sees something over 4.8 they take it upon themselves to pound it down to 3.8 meanwhile Laurel and Manu turn their backs and pretend its not happening.

I would love the ability to deny anonymous votes... that might help

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

the softest writers write fanfics.

That's an awesome observation.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Learning how to take negative feedback is just as much of a skill as learning how to give it. The meanest critique I ever received on a piece of writing became a catalyst for me to get better.

Looking back, I wonder if it hurt as badly as it did because the reviewer was correct in her assessment of my work.

 

[Duleigh]

that the softest writers write fanfics.

Seriously? Is that a challenge to compare erections?

 

[drobert44]

If you are going to submit to an open site like this, where millions of people with a keyboard can read and comment on anything, then one has to develop a kind of Stoicism. After six years, I don't care if somebody doesn't like everything I do. If they have something constructive to say, I'll read it. Otherwise, I'll ignore it. If it's really nasty or incoherent, then I'll just delete it. They have no power to stop me or anyone else here. It's just words on a screen.

Do you think Francis Ford Coppola loses any sleep because Megalopolis bombed at the box office? "Oh, the audience just doesn't get it." (He put plenty of his own money into it too.) After decades in the business, he knows the score and he probably also thinks, FTJ. (I just made that up, but what it is abbreviated from should be obvious.)

Right, only a few bad apples here; just ignore them.

 

[Duleigh]

I disagree. They aren't strictly "writing for applause" because they weren't complaining about the scores or about genuine criticism of their work. They were complaining about vicious, toxic people who delight in trying to tear down someone for no other reason than the feeling they get by doing so.

Additionally, I would disagree that "the love of sharing their writing" isn't ego-driven. It's more ego-driven than the first type. throwing one's story out into the public with the thought that "you need to read this because it's good and if you disagree you're a troglodyte" is all ego.

100% agree with your disagreement. I love getting constructive criticism, my readers are my beta readers and constructive criticism is a godsend. I've become on line friends with some of my pickiest critics because they keep me on my game. If Laurel gave the same priority to edited stories that she gives to new stories I would have replaced everything I've posted here with corrections submitted by my readers. Making an edited story wait weeks and sometimes months for someone to click a mouse is unreasonable.

The ego driven thing is the flaming mongooses who toss a 1-bomb on a well-written story because they like a different story better or their particular kink wasn't front and center. "Duh, look at me! I can tear down a writer with a big vocab... voc... dey know lots a words!" That's what pisses off most writers. If you feel a need to give me a 1 then tell me why. And use a legit account so we can converse. This site would be 100% better for writers and readers if there was no anonymous voting and votes required a comment from a verified account.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

This site would be 100% better for writers and readers if there was no anonymous voting and votes required a comment from a verified account.

No, the site would be FAR worse. Feedback would be a trickle.

 

[Comshaw]

Learning how to take negative feedback is just as much of a skill as learning how to give it. The meanest critique I ever received on a piece of writing became a catalyst for me to get better.

Looking back, I wonder if it hurt as badly as it did because the reviewer was correct in her assessment of my work.

"negative feedback" isn't the problem. Feedback that contains nothing but intentional vitriol and nasty demeaning commentary is. That's what the OP was righty complaining about. After years I am of a mind that almost all commentary on my stories carries a nugget of worthy criticism, ALMOST all. Sometimes all it contains is the ramblings of a small, bitter person venting their spleen. To me that's entertaining and as someone mentioned on another thread (being an old forgetful fart I don't but wish I did remember who to give them credit) it shows I got to them so I made an impact on them. But to some it's hurtful.

Comshaw

 

[MillieDynamite]

I want my writing to evoke emotions; hate is just as valid as love. They are both intense emotions, so people tell me how much they hated a character or what happened or how much they loved it, those still validate my work for me.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I want my writing to evoke emotions; hate is just as valid as love. They are both intense emotions, so people tell me how much they hated a character or what happened or how much they loved it, those still validate my work for me.

I'm generally happy when I get negative comment from somebody with the spine to stand up and be identified. Often as not, I can learn from such comments and that's a good thing. That's not what I think a lot of people are commenting here, the anonymous one-bombing that offers no insight, just negativity.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Oh, I know about that too. If they hate my grammar or spelling (both of which may be honest mistakes missed by the editor or were planned that way in dialog), it depends on what they say and how they say it, if I'm upset or not. This little gem made me laugh.

"very badly written with little or no sense of sentence structure"

An English teacher that follows me ripped them for their statement. And I pointed out, "Proper sentence structure requires an opening Capitalized word and a period at the end."

I'm generally happy when I get negative comment from somebody with the spine to stand up and be identified. Often as not, I can learn from such comments and that's a good thing. That's not what I think a lot of people are commenting here, the anonymous one-bombing that offers no insight, just negativity.

 

[StillStunned]

Oh, I know about that too. If they hate my grammar or spelling (both of which may be honest mistakes missed by the editor or were planned that way in dialog), it depends on what they say and how they say it, if I'm upset or not. This little gem made me laugh.

"very badly written with little or no sense of sentence structure"

An English teacher that follows me ripped them for their statement. And I pointed out, "Proper sentence structure requires an opening Capitalized word and a period at the end."

I once got a comment along the lines of "the English was terrible, you need an editor." I'll admit my plotting is weak, my characters are flat and my sex vanilla, but I think my English at least is better than most. You know, actually being an editor and all.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I often leave out the word was if there is an auxiliary verb behind it, and was isn't necessary to make it make sense. Often, Grammarly wants the was there, but I still leave it off if was, is, or are, aren't necessary for the sentence to make sense.

 

[SimonDoom]

This site would be 100% better for writers and readers if there was no anonymous voting and votes required a comment from a verified account.

100% No. Better for whom? Maybe for you. Maybe for that very small number of authors -- a tiny, tiny percentage of all the people who use this site --who get upset over voting they don't like. Which isn't even the majority of authors, most of whom never contribute to this forum and probably don't care at all. I DO contribute to this forum, and I think this would be a TERRIBLE idea.

We've gone over this so many times. It's not going to happen, because the Site is not going to do anything -- it shouldn't-- that makes it harder for people to give feedback. For obvious reasons.

I LIKE anonymous voting and comments. I'm very glad that anonymous people can vote. I see no difference after 8 years of contributing stories between anonymous comments and non-anonymous comments.

Reducing anonymous voting and comments would reduce voting and commenting by over half. Laurel has chimed in on this and said that anonymous readers account for over half the feedback. Reducing the total amount of feedback increases the risk of randomness and maliciousness being able to have an impact on scores.

There's no inherent or intuitive reason to believe that an anonymous voter is less intelligent or qualified to provide input on a story, so your comment that it would be better for readers makes no sense. Readers don't care. They want scores based on the maximum possible amount of feedback, because such scores are statistically more likely to represent what the entire body of readers actually think.

 

[SimonDoom]

Thick skin is a choice, not luck at all.

I'd take a somewhat more nuanced view. I think some people are born with thick skin, some achieve thick skin, and some have thick skin thrust upon them. We're all different.

But I totally agree that taking this point of view that it's a choice is helpful for an author, for both personal reasons (you don't feel as bad) and creative ones (it enables you to deal with criticism in a productive way).

 

[Bazzle]

Anonymous has helped me a great deal. I am fairly sure it's a known person. BUT the comments about sentence runs etc have meant that I've gone through my work again.

I've listened to Anonymous and wish I could thank them.

To me any feedback is better than no feedback even if they are telling me to stop writing!

 

[ElectricBlue]

I would love the ability to deny anonymous votes... that might help

Turn voting off, then.

What's the difference between an anonymous vote and an account vote? None whatsover. You have no idea whose vote "hurts".

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Turn voting off, then.

What's the difference between an anonymous vote and an account vote? None whatsover. You have no idea whose vote "hurts".

And even if they have an account they are still effectively anonymous. Your choice is between "Anon" and "CrazySwinger41", can't see that it makes much difference.

 

[Comshaw]

And even if they have an account they are still effectively anonymous. Your choice is between "Anon" and "CrazySwinger41", can't see that it makes much difference.

The only difference is that with "CrazySwinger41" one at least can start a discourse. But as a longtime denizen of the GB and later the PB I can say with conviction if they're as far off the rails as some of the registered on those boards, it ain't gunna' make any difference. Crazy is as crazy does, no matter the moniker.

Comshaw

 

[Voboy]

I don't think it's a "sad day" at all.

We all have a lifespan here. Eventually, our writing will stop appearing here. We'll stop for our own reasons, if we're lucky, and on our own terms; if we're not so lucky? We'll pass away suddenly, or our personal situation will change in a way that threatens our contributions here.

I think it's sad when someone is forced off Lit by RL circumstances. That's not what happened to the writer in this case: he/she [I have no clue who OP is talking about] made a conscious choice to reduce their output. I view that as a positive, to the extent that they had enough agency to make the decision on their own. And they did: nobody forced them to post where they posted. Nobody forced them to leave comments on. They decided to do that, and now they've decided not to. Well and good.

We all make choices. Sometimes those choices are unpleasant, or they discomfit others. But they are ours, and the fact that we can make them isn't sad. It's human.

 

[TheOtherTeacher]

I once got a comment along the lines of "the English was terrible, you need an editor." I'll admit my plotting is weak, my characters are flat and my sex vanilla, but I think my English at least is better than most. You know, actually being an editor and all.

I used to get this type of comment until I started stories with the warning that I was using UK grammar and spelling. I think a lot of people don't realise there is a difference, and instead think the writer has made mistakes.