Forum: Author Hangout

No one enjoys being treated as a punching bag without being allowed to hit back. That is what a huge number of the anonymous users were doing.

I doubt it's a "huge" number. Rather, the exceptions tend to be especially onerous, and thus stand out more than the hundreds of positive messages. Each of us can name, out of hand, our worst email message, but few can remember how many positive messages we've received.

Although I've never used it, I'm in favour of anonymous feedback. It allows readers to reveal their honest opinions without the fear of being castigated for them. In a way it's a welcome contrast to the requirement for reviews to be supportive. Readers have no idea whether authors are receptive to criticism or likely to throw their rattles out of their prams.

AJ

In a way it's a welcome contrast to the requirement for reviews to be supportive

That's why I set to allow it. But way too many people use the anonymous email to be abusive only - and that's caused a problem.

I don't know how hard it would be, but if Lazeez could set up a system where he knew who sent a message but the recipient didn't, then people could still feel safe about sending valid anonymous mail, and the authors would feel safe about letting Lazeez know about abusive ones and having it dealt with.

I'm a bit thicker skinned than some, so i don't worry about it. However, I don't like it when a person send a question by the anonymous email system and then later sends another email getting angry with me for not replying.

How do you encourage authors to write better stories if you don't let them know what they're doing wrong?

AJ

We'll have to disagree on that. When a story would be better if the paragraphs were less than a page long, or the tense didn't keep changing, or it's not clear who is doing or saying what to whom, I think it's better to tell the author.

I appreciate such criticism myself. For example, I would probably never have realised I'm susceptible to dangling participles if a reader hadn't told me.

AJ

susceptible to dangling participles

the big problem with them is when they break and fall on you.

the big problem with them is when they break and fall on you.

Aha, that would explain my headaches and brain damage!

AJ

We'll have to disagree on that. When a story would be better if the paragraphs were less than a page long, or the tense didn't keep changing, or it's not clear who is doing or saying what to whom, I think it's better to tell the author.

That's who he sees as the great 'not to be encouraged'. He thinks they're SO bad, he'd rather NOT encourage them to get any better!

A writer can be a great storyteller despite being ignorant of the basic mechanics of story construction. I think those people are worth encouraging - the help of editors and proofreaders may well turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

This touches on something that came up in my local writers' group. The course junkies were adamant that, if they went on enough courses, anyone could be taught to become a great writer. That's not an opinion I share.

AJ

This touches on something that came up in my local writers' group. The course junkies were adamant that, if they went on enough courses, anyone could be taught to become a great writer. That's not an opinion I share.

There are ... hundreds of intelligent college professors, cranking out one paper after another on "How to Write", yet virtually none has ever written a best-selling novel. Knowledge does not equal a knack. It's always been said: Great Writers are born, not trained. It takes a feel for language, a familiarity with technique and an ability to communicate one-to-one with readers which few possess.

I have seen however people who start as mediocre, writing competent but frankly boring books. Back in the day when midlist was a thing, many of them stopped after one of two books. Some, however, persevered, honing their craft, selling just enough to be picked up for another book. A few of those became truly exceptional authors, where their book 30 or forty actually became one of my favorites of all times (and won awards, etc.) Only a few, but it shows there is more than one path to greatness.

Sorry, I should have clarified, but by "born into it", I meant your second category, those whose story shows promise. For everyone who has the capacity needs to keep at it, as it takes a long time, both to learn, and also to hit on a winning combination that captures the public eye.

In the old days of traditional publishing only, we never saw anyone until they'd been writing for years, honing their skills, now we see the raw talent, cranking out weak novels as they struggle with their craft, but generally, you can tell by their very first story if they're decent storytellers or not. Plus, with a big publisher, a decent editor can make a world of difference (assuming they get along well).

I believe that all criticism is destructive and that "constructive criticism" doesn't exist.

"I would have done it better than you" isn't criticism of any kind, it's praising oneself for something you've never accomplished. Instead, constructive criticism is: I love your story, but XXX doesn't really work for me because of YYY.

That's not a negative approach, and it provides information authors often need to understand how their stories impact readers. Even if it's only a subjective opinion (i.e. others don't agree with it), it at least keys the author into how it impacted that reader, and why he felt obligated to score it lower than he otherwise would have.

As long as there's a valid reason because most criticisms, I don't think most authors have an issue with it. It's the personal attacks (ex: "You suck because your writing is stupid!") that stand out as abusive, however the author personally takes them.

I've mentioned here before that I neither send negative feedback nor assign low scores.

I know, and never said you did otherwise. I simply mentioned others abuse the system, and that affects the whole ability to sue the system while discouraging some from using it. Thus it's not your fault, but all get tainted by the misuse.

Although I've never used it, I'm in favour of anonymous feedback. It allows readers to reveal their honest opinions without the fear of being castigated for them. In a way it's a welcome contrast to the requirement for reviews to be supportive. Readers have no idea whether authors are receptive to criticism or likely to throw their rattles out of their prams.

I don't mind honest reviews or complaints, but most sites which feature anonymous posts are notorious for their trolls, as the one leads directly to the other. On the other hand, for whatever you think of it, LinkedIn has remained one of the cleanest sites (for Troll abuses) simply because every uses valid emails, and are aware future employers are likely viewing their comments. That doesn't prevent honest criticisms, but it precludes outright abuse.

That said, I've never limited anonymous comments. However, rather than generated abusive feedback, more often it leads to questions with no hopes of my providing answers, or more commonly, questions with invalid emails--which as you might guess--tends readers to assume I don't 'care enough' to answer their queries. In short, anonymous feedback rarely serves the purpose it was designed for.

So, just how in Hades do I make myself NON-anonymous?

If Lazeez is true to his word, hopefully that's been (will be) solved. If only members can send messages, and Lazeez forces everyone to send signed mail (i.e. he attaches their email to it, or alternately, allows authors to contact them through SOL), then you wouldn't need to 'confirm' your email. If your email didn't work, your message would never be sent.