persephone_kore | What was the question again?

What was the question again?

I've seen posts here and there lately (and I think there might be an active quarrel that I'm blithely ignoring) regarding this question. I don't think I want to get into my thoughts on feedback at the moment -- besides, I think this comes up with feedback but also in wider contexts -- but I've seen the basic question cast something like this...

"Is it better to be nice and dishonest, or mean and honest?"

Nice and dishonest response: Oh, whatever you want to do is fine.

Mean and honest response: What a dumb question. Go away.

Mean and dishonest (not to mention a little paranoid) response: No, you idiot! You're a horrible person and you're trying to ruin my fandom experience. I hate you all.

Nice and honest response: This strikes me as the wrong question.

Sure, there are people I'd like to tell off, and I've had my own frustrations with situations both in fandom and in real life (and probably caused my share as well). I'm aware that definitions differ, that some people will cry "Mean!" at negligible provocation while others sneer that if you don't say anything negative about their story, you're lying, lazy, and useless.

If this is really the choice you find yourself faced with most of the time, however, I would venture to suggest considering a change to either your circumstances or your attitude. If it's a real-life situation, a change of circumstances may not be feasible and I wouldn't ask you to change your beliefs on an important issue merely for the sake of harmony, but you might consider whether "mean" is really what you're after. If it's a hobby, though... okay, you might not want to withdraw, but seriously -- why exactly are you doing something for fun where your honest reaction is usually negative?

If you get your kicks by kicking people, I suppose you've answered the question to your own satisfaction, but if you expect to be fawned over as well then I think you are asking too much.

You'll probably get it, though.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

why exactly are you doing something for fun where your honest reaction is usually negative?

This is something I too have found myself occasionally wondering- if we're speaking about the whole concrit/review debate, which I too have bumped into here and there. At one point I was reading someone going on and ON about how they didn't understand why anyone would write fanfiction and submit it publically if they didn't want tonnes of feedback to impove their writing- and totally unable to understand the couple of people who said "Uh, duh, because it's fun?" As if writers who aren't especially interested in concrit are somehow selfish. *shakes head* I mean, I like concrit a lot because I do want to improve- but I also appreciate comments that say "I loved it!" because who doesn't like that? Really? Personally, if I didn't like anything about a story I a)don't finish it and b)don't comment on it. (half the time I forget to comment anyway, mind you.) The only time I offer constructive criticism is if I liked the story, but there is something simple and/or basic that I think I can mention tactfully. What I dislike is the people who don't bother to mention any of the stuff they enjoyed, and only comment on the aspects they disliked (especially in a non-constructive way.) Because I agree- if they didn't like anything about it why did they read it?

Well, that's part of it, although I think it's been brought up in a broader context and I'm not sure of the details.

I suppose I will get into my views on feedback after all. *grin* I always hesitate to complain about anything other than outright viciousness (though I will tear my hair out over stupidity), because I don't like the idea of discouraging feedbackers -- and discouraging other people's potential feedbackers is just rude.

But... no matter how many people insist that they wouldn't waste their time on a story if they didn't think it "had potential," or whatever, my reaction is going to be that the story must have failed, as entertainment, for any reader who ends up focusing on the flaws rather than the... y'know... story.

And also: YES. I don't like suggesting, as some have, that it's dichotomized to the point that the two sides can't comprehend each other -- it is possible to want both audience-type and editor-type feedback, and it's even possible for the same person to give both at the same time and NOT to be mean; it's not like the two are completely incompatible and never the twain shall meet. But there seem to be a lot of people who don't get it. I hear a lot of complaints and mockery about people who write really badly, then scream and flame and whine if someone mentions this. And then there are the writer's-workshop types -- like the one you mentioned -- who are so far into that mindset that they can't seem to imagine reading amateur writing for fun rather than as a fix-up job.

I have this theory of all people in fandom (particularly the fiction side) as having two sliding scales: the fannish drooling one and the 'good writing' one (for want of a better word, as *some* of 'good' is taste, but there are a few non-negotiables like the spelling, etc. at least being enough to get a message across).

Sure, I'm high on the 'writing' level because, dammit, I'm an editor, but it doesn't mean I can't enjoy a story with a few glitches if it pushes my buttons - and plenty do because my 'fangirl' scale is on the highish side too. I think it's more a question of where the glitches actually throw you (generic you) out. Word misuse (repeated) is one, at least for me. Example: a story that described injuries as 'super-visual' instead of superficial. Another is a complete lack of balance (i.e. first bit punchy, action-based and then a rapid slide into PWP-type sex scene). Characterisation: well, even if I don't see the characters in the same way, if the writing makes me buy into something then no problem.

But of course there are extremes, yup. People who are at opposite ends on the two scale aren't going to understand the mindset of people with the 'opposite opposites', if you get me.

What amazes me is to see the way things get sweeping. One bit of backed-up concrit doth not a troll make (particularly if the concritter is a regular feedbacker not exactly given to flames). Similarly, a major prima donna outburst with friends rushing to gush and refute the slightest negative comment and stirring up a massive kerfuffle to boot doth not a happy fandom make.

I have a long rant on feedback up, if you're interested at: http://www.geocities.com/ariadneswebspace/AStoryaconsumeritem.htm

I think the 'nice vs. mean' thing is one of fandom's recurring Great Debates - one that comes and goes and is triggered by all kinds of incidents. Sadly, I also think that it often creates precisely that situation of extremes that such issues tend to do in fandom: camps form, witch hunts take place, and often it's blown out of all proportion and the facts get lost as people fall over themselves to make sure they're on the 'right side'.

For instance somebody who gives public concrit *once* (that is not a flame, and who usually gives positive criticism or says nothing), suddenly finds herself the Chief Bad Guy of a given fandom ando deserves to be run out of it and finds herself the subject of highly personal attacks and threats (by people who only know half of the story). Others, who trash the story *and* the writer a little more thoroughly and personally, manage to avoid the fallout and join in the pointing and mocking.

I have noticed, too, that a lot of the people who rush to condemn somebody as 'mean' can be a whole lot *more* mean, which somehow lends less credence to what they're preaching.

I've also heard this is happening in a lot of places. I *know* it happened in one, because I gave some (non-flame) concrit - *once* and my inbox exploded with hate that went way beyond what I consider acceptable for a hobby. When the 'nice' camp make threats that spill into RL, including ruining you professionally, *that* is all about getting kicks by kicking people.

So I don't think it's really only about 'nice vs. mean' - I think it's also about using fandom as a vehicle for something far uglier.

I see this from two semi-unrelated perspectives.
First, the reviews. I'm rather torn at this point on the subject of reviewing- I feel reviews are the currency that many authors are paid in- sometimes just knowing somebody is reading and enjoying is enough for an author.

The problems come up with different authorial expectations and how they react. As a reviewer, I have been burned several times in my fandom history- by people who only wanted constructive criticism and were annoyed by my simply saying 'Thanks for the fun story'. And at other times by leaving what I thought was positive but constructive criticism when it turned out that the author didn't want reviews at all.

Sometimes it feels like a no win situation.

As for the people side of fandom and the mean versus nice; It's tricky too, because so much of 'nice' is subjective. I have always aimed to treat people with the same balance of honesty tempered with kindness that I would like to be treated with, but I have been lectured to with the opinion that you should treat people with the level *they* want.
Sorry, but I'm just not that good at reading other peoples minds.

So I muddle through usually electing to say nothing, rather than offend, but I have my limits.

Niceness is a flexible quality, and lately I have seen people skilled in verbal/written communication using the cause of 'niceness' to convince people to shut up and play nice rather than speak up/against things that strike them as wrong, foolish or hypocritical.
In my book, thats anything but nice.

Likewise I believe ones public and private discourse should be equally civil- if you wouldn't call someone something in a public forum, you probably shouldn't be calling them that in private either. I'd rather have debates settled civilly where everyone can see who is saying what and why than secretively. (Where later it becomes a he said/ she said proposition.)

Am I thinking this over too hard? Probably, but recent events have given me way too much to think about. I've acted the fool in the distant and recent past and I admit it- it's on display for anyone who cares to look for the most part, and that I refuse to regret.

"Is it better to be nice and dishonest, or mean and honest?"

FUCKING HELL! I think that came from my LJ! Did you get it from my discourse there? Or has it spread? Scary! (I worte a post on stuff like Fandom Wank a while ago, this Might be the cause of the question. Sorry if it is...)

Great post BTW, especially the Mean and Dishonest one. In general I agree, it is a personal thing. And it is very much a matter of balencing out stuff. I tend to lean towards Nice and Honest myself, or when I can't I lean towards Nice and Quiet. (i.e I don't say anything.)
But yeah, it was just an issue I saw coming up and wanted to comment on, to muse it out as it were. Sorry if the question has been causing any bother...

On the topic of reviews--

If the author asks for reviews, then complaining that the reviews received are too mean*/too nice/too short etc. is kind of crass. It's like complaining about the wine a guest brings to your party. It's different if the author has specifically requested only critical reviews or only compliments or whatever. But when an auther just requests reviews/feedback, then s/he should realize that it's likely to be a mixed bag. Unfortunately, I've noticed that many authors seem to regard any less-than-glowing feedback as flames. I think that this discourages people from leaving reviews, or at least from leaving anything longer than "Fun story."

*Except for actual "This sucks and so do you" flames. That's less "mean and honest" than "mean and obnoxious."

I think I agree with pretty much everything here. Thank you for posting this.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What was the question again?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject