I occasionally engage in some borderline snarky discussions on a site (Garden of Ithilien) where I have often posted unfinished work for criticism and help.
But that's so different from what flamers do. One of the writers whom I respect the most on my flist is also one with whom I've had discussions about writing that might, in the end, be accurately described as "teeth and nails." We both tend to be are stubborn and know that the other doesn't mind a spirited debate, so when we disagree, I suppose that it can look ugly to an outsider.
I will also challenge betas and reviewers on points with which I don't agree. Sometimes, this can reveal where the real problem is or help me to understand what I need to fix … or help them to understand why I don't. :)
But that's totally different from trashing a new or young writer simply to make myself look more impressive.
if I do engage in such activities it is in private or semi-private and with writers who are better than me or at least think they are...and are more than able to defend themselves.
Exactly. I have no qualms with knock-down, drag-out arguments over stories … but I insist upon a worthy opponent who's up for that sort of thing. :)
If I offer criticism (even pointing out typos or grammatical errors) I don't do in a public forum
Exactly. :) Another question I have asked of flamers and never gotten a decent answer to is why it is so hard to type a comment, email, or PM asking, "Are you open to concrit?" Because one of the arguments flamers use is that they are only frustrated with authors ignoring or outright rejecting their concrit, so they turn to flaming the person instead as a "wake-up call" about how truly bad their stories are.
But as I like to point out, there are many reasons for not making suggested changes that have nothing to do with the perceived worth (or lack thereof) of the concrit. Most stories that I post on the Pit, for example, have been going through revisions for months. Many have been read and critiqued already on my LJ or by a beta. I am done with that story. And while I never mind concrit, I'm also not looking to leap into another round of revisions. So I usually thank the reviewer but rarely get around to making the suggested changes.
There is an assumption in fandom (that I find strange, again, being as it is at odds with the "real writing" world) that everything posted on an archive is undergoing constant revision. There is the perception that fanfic works are never finished. We lack a clear terminus--like getting an o-fic story published--that indicates that a story is done, both in terms of writing and revision. Many of my fanfic stories have reached that point, yet I will continue to get concrit and continue to annoy people when I'm not rushing to apply it.
Just last night I commented on a story on the Pit of Voles that had a lot of errors and could be greatly improved by a strong edit, but it had content and heart.
And you know what else? I don't think that picking on typos is really a critique at all. It's a copyedit, and a person can have that done professionally for a small fee. It is the more insightful comments and critiques that make a review or beta-read worthwhile.
So I never pick on typos unless the author specifically asks for it.
I'd sooner read a story with content and heart that misses the occasional comma or forgets "I before E except after C" than a technically perfect piece that is utterly bland.
But that's so different from what flamers do. One of the writers whom I respect the most on my flist is also one with whom I've had discussions about writing that might, in the end, be accurately described as "teeth and nails." We both tend to be are stubborn and know that the other doesn't mind a spirited debate, so when we disagree, I suppose that it can look ugly to an outsider.
I will also challenge betas and reviewers on points with which I don't agree. Sometimes, this can reveal where the real problem is or help me to understand what I need to fix … or help them to understand why I don't. :)
But that's totally different from trashing a new or young writer simply to make myself look more impressive.
if I do engage in such activities it is in private or semi-private and with writers who are better than me or at least think they are...and are more than able to defend themselves.
Exactly. I have no qualms with knock-down, drag-out arguments over stories … but I insist upon a worthy opponent who's up for that sort of thing. :)
If I offer criticism (even pointing out typos or grammatical errors) I don't do in a public forum
Exactly. :) Another question I have asked of flamers and never gotten a decent answer to is why it is so hard to type a comment, email, or PM asking, "Are you open to concrit?" Because one of the arguments flamers use is that they are only frustrated with authors ignoring or outright rejecting their concrit, so they turn to flaming the person instead as a "wake-up call" about how truly bad their stories are.
But as I like to point out, there are many reasons for not making suggested changes that have nothing to do with the perceived worth (or lack thereof) of the concrit. Most stories that I post on the Pit, for example, have been going through revisions for months. Many have been read and critiqued already on my LJ or by a beta. I am done with that story. And while I never mind concrit, I'm also not looking to leap into another round of revisions. So I usually thank the reviewer but rarely get around to making the suggested changes.
There is an assumption in fandom (that I find strange, again, being as it is at odds with the "real writing" world) that everything posted on an archive is undergoing constant revision. There is the perception that fanfic works are never finished. We lack a clear terminus--like getting an o-fic story published--that indicates that a story is done, both in terms of writing and revision. Many of my fanfic stories have reached that point, yet I will continue to get concrit and continue to annoy people when I'm not rushing to apply it.
Just last night I commented on a story on the Pit of Voles that had a lot of errors and could be greatly improved by a strong edit, but it had content and heart.
And you know what else? I don't think that picking on typos is really a critique at all. It's a copyedit, and a person can have that done professionally for a small fee. It is the more insightful comments and critiques that make a review or beta-read worthwhile.
So I never pick on typos unless the author specifically asks for it.
I'd sooner read a story with content and heart that misses the occasional comma or forgets "I before E except after C" than a technically perfect piece that is utterly bland.
Reply
Leave a comment