What doesn't kill us makes us stronger

[SimonDoom]

Of course you do. Your fave thing to do.

There you go again. Telling other people what they REALLY believe and think.

 

[SimonDoom]

If that's his or her kink, they'll be sitting in a puddle of satisfaction about their success if they see this thread.

I don't care too much about that. I can't control what gets other people off. The point of the thread is to discuss how we respond to comments. I don't have much regard for Stacnash's opinions, but she has a right to give them and they don't bother me.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

There you go again. Telling other people what they REALLY believe and think.

Go ahead. Deny it.

 

[PennyThompson]

When Carl Sandberg received either criticism or praise for his work, he usually replied with the same stock response:

"Thank you for your letter. I shall try to do better."

 

[SimonDoom]

Go ahead. Deny it.

With you, it wouldn't matter what I said. You will believe what you want to believe. There is no point in engaging in that discussion. I don't even understand your point.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

With you, it wouldn't matter what I said. You will believe what you want to believe. There is no point in engaging in that discussion. I don't even understand your point.

Yes you do. (eyeroll)

 

[Katie_Mae]

Moving away from stancash (18 hours and still no comment, I'm going to be mad if it never posts, lol) and speaking generally.

While I'm interested in feedback from readers, I'm not particularly interested in troll feedback from non readers, or people who have no intention on being readers. I mean, I'm interested enough to laugh at them, but feedback from people who don't want to read your story is only really useful when they are actually skilled at critique and trying to be helpful. (Which happens rarely.)

"I really enjoyed the premise, but I don't like reading first drafts, if you can be a little less lazy and edit your work prior to posting, then I'd be more enthused when you post another story."

is helpful, as it indicates that this person could genuinely be interested in reading my stories, and what I'd need to do to improve. If I get a lot of comments about editing, it would indicate the lit readership as a whole are interested in well edited stories, which could help me grow my readership.

"I don't like incest, it's gross, so I didn't enjoy this."

on a story in the incest category is unhelpful, because... who cares? Not every story is for every reader. A reader who does not read something that is fundamental to your writing is probably not one who's "why I didn't read this" reason counts for anything.

The other thing with troll reviews, is when they burry their actual nuggets under so much vitriol, it makes it not only difficult to extract the helpful information, but more likely for the information to be discredited.

"When writing your dialogue you've used an out dated construct that is atypical of your genre. There seemed no genuine reason to use it. It may confused some readers, especially younger ones. I re-read the first few paragraphs a couple of times before I understood, and while it was easy once I realised, you should consider x...y...x etc"

is useful and the critique comes across as someone who knows what they were talking about.

"I'm in shock. When I read this I couldn't believe my eyes. I had to re-read it three times!!! The way you write your dialogue is wrong! No one ever has ever written dialogue like this! Ever! Not in the whole history of literature has someone thought it was a good idea to do this! I can't believe you think this is how dialogue is written! You are stupid! I'm still in shock by how stupid you are. You are so stupid I'll never read another of your stories ever! I wish I hadn't read this one! Why the fuck would you think this is appropriate to post here! I know for a fact it's against the TOS so I'll be reporting this, expect it to be taken down asap!"

is less helpful. Even though they are critiquing the same, well-established writing construct, they do it in a way that makes themselves look like an idiot. This is not just because it's written in a nasty, trolling way, but because it contains factual errors. Even though you can extract "they didn't like how I wrote the dialogue" it comes across more like "They were too stupid to understand" rather than "I should have gone with the modern construct."

If you get a lot of comments about the dialogue, then this comment could help form a picture that could become useful, but on it's own it would be easy to dismiss it as a stupid troll. Most authors in most categories don't get enough comments to pull trends out of.

---

While I've received genuine critique from readers which was useful, I've never once received a troll comment which was useful. Either because they were factually incorrect, telling me something I already knew, accidently praising me, or so vague to be useless.

 

[Plathfan]

You people are giving her too much credit and importance, which she covets, no doubt.
The part of Lit history where she (and her group?) were important is long over as they don't seem to resort to the same... tactics, shall we call them. Be thankful it is so, and keep in mind that she is just another reader with strong opinions, even if those opinions are far more detailed.

She’s scarred you for life, hasn’t she?

It’s amazing how easily some people etch themselves into others. Their motive is clear: the thrill of leaving a mark, that fleeting rush of power... the closest they’ll ever get to mattering.

Equally striking is the victims’ desperation. Starved for attention—any attention—they bow their heads, practically begging for the brand to burn their skin. Each side feeds off the other’s emptiness.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

is less helpful. Even though they are critiquing the same, well-established writing construct, they do it in a way that makes themselves look like an idiot. This is not just because it's written in a nasty, trolling way, but because it contains factual errors. Even though you can extract "they didn't like how I wrote the dialogue" it comes across more like "They were too stupid to understand" rather than "I should have gone with the modern construct."

If you get a lot of comments about the dialogue, then this comment could help form a picture that could become useful, but on it's own it would be easy to dismiss it as a stupid troll. Most authors in most categories don't get enough comments to pull trends out of.

Personally I have no trouble extracting the exact same critique out of those two dialogue critiques.

The reason that one would dismiss the second as a troll is because they want to dismiss it as a troll. It is the ego stepping in to deflect as much criticism as possible, any excuse to dismiss. We're all human with egos. This happens to all of us. But if you can manage to take a neutral view of the critique, you can sidestep your ego, pick out the feedback from the trolling and see that this feedback is 100% as valuable as the polite comment above it.

It does take practice to do this. Absolutely. The technique to start to learn how to do this is to read it, feel your butthurtness for a minute or five, let it subside and re-read again an hour later, the next day, the next week. Still hurts? Take another break. Read it a third time. Repeat until the trolling bit gets boring and you can easily ignore it. If you do this enough, it becomes natural to pick out the good from the bull first time.

But PSG, why don't we just dismiss all these trolls and only listen to polite comments? But writer, how many legit comments do you want? Comments are like gold. If you get 10 comments and 5 are rude, do you want to throw 5 gold nuggets in the bin? What if you only get rude comments? You will dismiss them all and get nothing.

But PSG, commenters should just be polite. But writer, sure they should but they aren't and we can't control that. We can only control what we take out of the comments. ; ) So kick ass at getting the info out of the comments. Kick ass at side-stepping your ego.

But PSG, I don't think my ego has anything to do with it. I just want to be treated respectfully. But writer, yes, yes it has everything to do with it. And that's okay, it;s only natural. Sure, we prefer respectfulness, but the world is rampant with disrespect. So what? It's your ego that tells you that you should be treated with respect when everyone else isn't. If you respect yourself (in this case just realize that someone is being rude and that's a reflection on themself and not you, shrug it off) then your ego can't make you choose butthurt and you can pick out the info from the trolling with ease. ; )

 

[AwkwardlySet]

She’s scarred you for life, hasn’t she?

It’s amazing how easily some people etch themselves into others. Their motive is clear: the thrill of leaving a mark, that fleeting rush of power... the closest they’ll ever get to mattering.

Equally striking is the victims’ desperation. Starved for attention—any attention—they bow their heads, practically begging for the brand to burn their skin. Each side feeds off the other’s emptiness.

I knew I missed your nonsense.
Scarred me for life... because she bombed my stories on a website where we write mostly for fun and to unleash some sexual fantasies. Right.

I'll admit I was pretty pissed off at the time, mostly due to my inability to fight back in any meaningful way. But what happened also made me realize some things and helped in some unexpected ways. Believe it or not, I have practically no hard feelings for her now. All of the remaining... unresolved feelings, shall we call them, as unsubstantial as they are, are aimed at AH, not at her.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Personally I have no trouble extracting the exact same critique out of those two dialogue critiques.

"When writing your dialogue you've used an out dated construct that is atypical of your genre. There seemed no genuine reason to use it. It may confused some readers, especially younger ones. I re-read the first few paragraphs a couple of times before I understood, and while it was easy once I realised, you should consider x...y...x etc"

"I'm in shock. When I read this I couldn't believe my eyes. I had to re-read it three times!!! The way you write your dialogue is wrong! No one ever has ever written dialogue like this! Ever! Not in the whole history of literature has someone thought it was a good idea to do this! I can't believe you think this is how dialogue is written! You are stupid! I'm still in shock by how stupid you are. You are so stupid I'll never read another of your stories ever! I wish I hadn't read this one! Why the fuck would you think this is appropriate to post here! I know for a fact it's against the TOS so I'll be reporting this, expect it to be taken down asap!"

I think the three points I bolded are both useful and missing in the second critique. Breaking genre conventions might be something the author was actually going for, so that piece of criticism might actually function as affirmation that they've done a good job. Sometimes rules are broken for a reason -- maybe that reason wasn't being adequately conveyed to the readers or wasn't supported correctly, or maybe the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. The third bolded point is a substantiated reason not to write in that particular style, especially supported by the subsequent 'had to re-read before i understood' sentence. That's not present in the second one.

I know they're fake and exist to make a point, but while they make a similar complaint the first is much more useful.

 

[designatedvictim]

This thread's been totally hijacked, but I went through those lists...

I was more than a bit surprised that I recognized over half of the authors' names taken to the woodshed.

(Sorry, I shouldn't admit this, but it's true.)

I didn't recognize them for having read any of their works (aside from LC68 - I have one of his stories downloaded from before I created this account), but because I've seen all your posts here in AH since I joined and sometimes interacted with.

Given the volume of material she could wade through, I find that curious.

It feels like a Who's Who? of active Author's Hangout posters.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I think the three points I bolded are both useful and missing in the second critique. Breaking genre conventions might be something the author was actually going for, so that piece of criticism might actually function as affirmation that they've done a good job. Sometimes rules are broken for a reason -- maybe that reason wasn't being adequately conveyed to the readers or wasn't supported correctly, or maybe the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. The third bolded point is a substantiated reason not to write in that particular style, especially supported by the subsequent 'had to re-read before i understood' sentence. That's not present in the second one.

I know they're fake and exist to make a point, but while they make a similar complaint the first is much more useful.

The first one said that the dialogue structure could confuse the readers. That was the point. The second said that the dialogue was terribly confusing to read. That was the exact same point.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The last (only) time that I checked her profile, the lists were all there, grouped by her rankings.

I meant outside Lit - which was the implication from my conversation with her.

Other than AH members, who else in Lit would stumble across those lists? Not many - I guess folk might be drawn in by the reviews when they pop up in the Recent Comments pages.

 

[ElectricBlue]

She's taking this site way too seriously. I guess you were tongue-in-cheek about a cabal of reviewers and the Eye of Providence? Might be another plot by those mysterious Masons.

No shit, Sherlock .

 

[YmaOHyd]

The first one said that the dialogue structure could confuse the readers. That was the point. The second said that the dialogue was terribly confusing to read. That was the exact same point.

The first one says that there may have been a reason to break genre conventions, and that once the structure was understood the dialogue was easy to understand. There's useful nuance there.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The first one says that there may have been a reason to break genre conventions, and that once the structure was understood the dialogue was easy to understand. There's useful nuance there.

All right, sure. Small bit of extra. Consider that hair split in your favor. What about the rest of my post?

 

[ElectricBlue]

It feels like a Who's Who? of active Author's Hangout posters.

Pretty much. Which is why much of the hyperbole is nonsensical, given that we're not at all representative of your "typical Lit writer". I think the AH is what caught her attention in the first place - it's an obvious place to start.

 

[YmaOHyd]

All right, sure. Small bit of extra. Consider that hair split in your favor. What about the rest of my post?

/shrug

I mostly agree with para 3-6. But you can't get the same thing out of the two criticisms because they don't contain the same information, and that kind of undercuts your point about feedback from trolls being as valuable as feedback from people making a good-faith effort to offer critical analysis.

 

[Plathfan]

I knew I missed your nonsense.
Scarred me for life... because she bombed my stories on a website where we write mostly for fun and to unleash some sexual fantasies. Right.

I'll admit I was pretty pissed off at the time, mostly due to my inability to fight back in any meaningful way. But what happened also made me realize some things and helped in some unexpected ways. Believe it or not, I have practically no hard feelings for her now. All of the remaining... unresolved feelings, shall we call them, as unsubstantial as they are, are aimed at AH, not at her.

You have no proof of those accusations. She struck me as someone too proud to stoop to something as petty as 1-bombing. If she wanted to hurt you, she could do it with her words, quite effectively. Some of her biting critiques felt warranted, while some of her laudatory reviews seemed absurdly overblown, so I figured she was just erratic. As far as I know, she never read you—the ultimate slight.

 

[Katie_Mae]

The first one said that the dialogue structure could confuse the readers. That was the point. The second said that the dialogue was terribly confusing to read. That was the exact same point.

The second critique also stated the way the dialogue was written was incorrect (it wasn't) and that something about the story breached the TOS (it didn't.) The first critique didn't cover these points.

If you get a lot of comments about the dialogue, then this comment could help form a picture that could become useful, but on it's own it would be easy to dismiss it as a stupid troll.

I'm not saying troll comments are useless 100% of the time in all instances, more so that as isolated comments it's hard to know if there's any credit to it.

Consider the second critique as an isolated comment on a story which contains no errors in the dialogue formatting, no TOS breaches and no other comments indicating issues with reading the dialogue. You read your story ten times over, post on the forums asking and have a third editor look it over. Everyone says your dialogue is fine, and no one has issues reading it.

You DM Laurel who responds (!!!) and tells you that nothing you've written is against the TOS.

Finally, the original commentor comes forward. They explain to you that you frequently finish dialogue with a comma inside the quotation marks, followed by a dialogue tag. They state you should have used a period in these instances, and the fact you used a comma confused them.

You explain that what you've done is grammatically correct, they refuse to believe you.

Not all instances of a reader being confused is the fault of a writer. And yes, I've seen a reader complaining on lit how confusing it was when a writer used a comma at the end of dialogue. And yes, when it was pointed out that it was grammatically correct in this instance they refused to believe it, and still insisted it was confusing.

I don't dismiss all troll comments. They don't hurt my ego-- far from it lol. I do read them, and consider them, but I haven't had any which tell me something I don't already know, except for two which are too vague to be useful, or the ones in where the thing "I didn't know" is factually incorrect.

On the same vein, not all polite comments are useful either.

 

[Erozetta]

Something curious happened in the review I got from Stacnash.

She thinks I'm a new writer to Lit. I was here and active on the AH when she got banned from the forum. I don't think she watches the Lit forums as closely as people think. I don't think she keeps a hit list or I likely would've been on it. (I likely got on her radar when I sent her a message complaining that her list was out of order and it was bugging me. She fixed it shortly thereafter and my story got added to her list of stories to review. I've been waiting months to land on her 1 star list for that reason in addition to the fact that the story she reviewed has major flaws because I never edited it. It was written based on a dream I had and enjoyed and wanted to get down, then I submitted it after trying to record it as an audio story and failing because holy fuck, how does 7k words become nearly an hour of talking?!) Knowing she was reviewing a story I thought was shit because I rushed it out the door to get it off my mind was kinda freeing. I knew where I'd land, but I was wrong and that threw me for a minute. Except, in my email to her, I mentioned I knew I wasn't great and was looking to improve. Her review leaned heavily in favor of that idea, that I had the skills, I just needed the discipline to see it through.

She made a comment on my story that seemed to be about a different story. One that's no longer on Lit and one that was reviewed previously by a group, but not through Lit. That story was reviewed extremely favorably while it was trashed in Loving Wives here.

The authors she tends to rank lower often have a reputation that goes along with the story which amps her expectations of the writers ahead of time. If the story fails to live up to that perceived reputation she's much harsher on them. Others I think she does see here giving advice and that colors her view of them as a writer, if their writing doesn't live up to their advice, she marks them harshly, which is unfair as you can know something about writing and not include it in your own for whatever reason. Hell, I know grammar much better than my writing would let on because I often type on my phone or a keyboard that's half-broken from abusive gaming. I'm not fixing all the typos and shit for a free site. That's hours I can be putting into a better story to put up for sale.

I suspect she might be playing to boost and cut egos where she thinks it's needed, but it doesn't work because many of us can look at her lists and tilt our head with the knowledge that many of those in the lower tiers are being judged harshly for no reason while many being praised well above their talent and skill deserves. (I actively agree with her Elite list, but I would put a few other authors she hated up there as well.)

In her critique of my story, her observations were absolutely fair and I agreed with almost every one. (The one disagreement I had was that I "lost the thread". Nah, I never had the thread to begin with with that story. It was based on a dream, it wasn't nearly as deep as she made it seem.) But her praise felt off on that story. I'm fair with character emotions and motivations, but that story wasn't the prime example of my skill with that aspect of writing. The one reviewed by an outside group, however? That one did have that type of characterization and depth. But that depth is also found in my chain story chapter.

I suspect I might know who Stacnash is. But my "certainty" is only about 40%.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

/shrug

I mostly agree with para 3-6. But you can't get the same thing out of the two criticisms because they don't contain the same information, and that kind of undercuts your point about feedback from trolls being as valuable as feedback from people making a good-faith effort to offer critical analysis.

Are you sure about that? Or are you just trying to find an excuse to dismiss my points so that you can continue to find excuses to dismiss rude critiques? Think it over. You don't have to answer here. Just take your time and think it over and answer to yourself honestly. Now, I don;t know you and what;s in your head but I do know one thing. If your first thought is, "I don't need to think it over, I'm not dismissing anything," then that is your ego trying to get you to dismiss me.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Are you sure about that?

Yes, given that you conceded the underlying point.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The second critique also stated the way the dialogue was written was incorrect (it wasn't) and that something about the story breached the TOS (it didn't.) The first critique didn't cover these points.

So these were real comments then.

Consider the second critique as an isolated comment on a story which contains no errors in the dialogue formatting, no TOS breaches and no other comments indicating issues with reading the dialogue. You read your story ten times over, post on the forums asking and have a third editor look it over. Everyone says your dialogue is fine, and no one has issues reading it.

You DM Laurel who responds (!!!) and tells you that nothing you've written is against the TOS.

Finally, the original commentor comes forward. They explain to you that you frequently finish dialogue with a comma inside the quotation marks, followed by a dialogue tag. They state you should have used a period in these instances, and the fact you used a comma confused them.

You explain that what you've done is grammatically correct, they refuse to believe you.

Not all instances of a reader being confused is the fault of a writer. And yes, I've seen a reader complaining on lit how confusing it was when a writer used a comma at the end of dialogue. And yes, when it was pointed out that it was grammatically correct in this instance they refused to believe it, and still insisted it was confusing.

So did all of this stuff really happen?

First, the first comment was then not constructive at all (which you claim that it was) since it was inaccurate. Like 100% inaccurate. Of course commas belong in quotes before tags and not periods. Yet since it was so polite somehow that makes it constructive?

How did TWO commenters both arrive at the same wrong conclusion about your dialogue? And how can one of them be constructive and the other not?

I don't dismiss all troll comments. They don't hurt my ego-- far from it lol. I do read them, and consider them, but I haven't had any which tell me something I don't already know, except for two which are too vague to be useful, or the ones in where the thing "I didn't know" is factually incorrect.

Are you sure about that?

While I've received genuine critique from readers which was useful, I've never once received a troll comment which was useful. Either because they were factually incorrect, telling me something I already knew, accidently praising me, or so vague to be useless.

You have dismissed 100% of your "troll" comments.