A Note on Sending Me Anonymous Advice

[KeithD]

This is one weird thread.

Is it even possible to send someone messages anonymously? (other than how I'm sure almost all of use use some sort of fake name anyway) I haven't found it yet, if it can be done.

Yes, I've received anonymous message via the Lit. feedback system. As noted earlier, I've also received messages with email addresses that proved not to exist when I tried to respond to them.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I

I had received one of these "I'm a writer" anonymous critique email somewhat recently. It was a fairly lengthy email, going into great details about what they deemed were rookie flaws in my writing. Great! I'm all about constructive feedback, and they made plenty of good points, but then they signed off with the note "you are not as good a writer as you think you are."
And with that single cutting sentence, I recognized that the point of the email was not to help me, but to put me down and perhaps to self-gratify in doing so.

What’s the emoji for empathy?

I’ve found in life that people who excel at something are often generous and humble and encouraging to the less talented.

It happens, for example in rock climbing and bouldering circles. People who climb V14 (like stupidly good) seem cool helping those on V3, or even VB (the B stands for beginner). It’s often that they love climbing and are excited for others to enjoy it too. I’ve met world class climbers and they have all been lovely.

The ones you need to watch out for are the middle-ranking wannabes. Climbing V7-9 and wanting to be at V10-11. The ones who want to get higher up the [metaphorical] ladder and don’t care if that means pushing others off it. They look down on the less able, those starting out, anyone not quite as good as they are.

Those are the types who belittle others - and it’s to try to shore up their own brittle self-esteem. Because, somewhere deep inside, they know they aren’t that good, and are angry about it.

People who are excellent writers know it and try to encourage others. They are secure about their talent. Watch out for the others.

Emily

Note: Obviously some (probably the majority of) mid-ranking climbers are also lovely, but the real assholes seem to be gathered in this range.

 

[Bamagan]

Note: Obviously some (probably the majority of) mid-ranking climbers are also lovely, but the real assholes seem to be gathered in this range.

Probably because being an asshole is an impediment to excelling at anything in life other than shitting on people/things/ideas.

 

[CalebZhass]

On the story side. The Contact tab is how you send messages.

I see, thank you. I never really knew you can also do that without being logged in. And I sorta assumed, that when one is logged in, their user name shows along with the message being sent.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

but then they signed off with the note "you are not as good a writer as you think you are."
And with that single cutting sentence, I recognized that the point of the email was not to help me, but to put me down and perhaps to self-gratify in doing so.

Those sentences sound like something a certain "group" would have said. They thought themselves the foremost literary critics and wanted to rank us, which would have been amusing if they didn't resort to various malicious activities, which included writing anonymous feedback to people in order to "put them in their place" in comparison to authors they truly thought were good.
Lovely group, really. It's a shame they aren't here anymore. Well, they probably are here in one way or another, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they are actually someone's alts or at least connected to them.

 

[HordHolm]

I’ve found in life that people who excel at something are often generous and humble and encouraging to the less talented.

This, 100%.

....the types who belittle others - and it’s to try to shore up their own brittle self-esteem. Because, somewhere deep inside, they know they aren’t that good, and are angry about it.

And sadly this, too, 100%.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Probably because being an asshole is an impediment to excelling at anything in life other than shitting on people/things/ideas.

One can only hope. The energy they spend on denigrating others efforts would be better applied to training or just getting out and climbing.

Emily

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I

What’s the emoji for empathy?

I’ve found in life that people who excel at something are often generous and humble and encouraging to the less talented.

It happens, for example in rock climbing and bouldering circles. People who climb V14 (like stupidly good) seem cool helping those on V3, or even VB (the B stands for beginner). It’s often that they love climbing and are excited for others to enjoy it too. I’ve met world class climbers and they have all been lovely.

The ones you need to watch out for are the middle-ranking wannabes. Climbing V7-9 and wanting to be at V10-11. The ones who want to get higher up the [metaphorical] ladder and don’t care if that means pushing others off it. They look down on the less able, those starting out, anyone not quite as good as they are.

Those are the types who belittle others - and it’s to try to shore up their own brittle self-esteem. Because, somewhere deep inside, they know they aren’t that good, and are angry about it.

People who are excellent writers know it and try to encourage others. They are secure about their talent. Watch out for the others.

Emily

Note: Obviously some (probably the majority of) mid-ranking climbers are also lovely, but the real assholes seem to be gathered in this range.

Climbing, great metaphor for so many things in life that demand effort to accomplish.

 

[Comshaw]

No, you've completely missed the point.

Respect and decency is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly at this point you are just not willing to be objective about feedback and therefore not be objective about your own work. Clearly there is a good chunk of criticism out there that you feel that you are simply above. Any writer who feels that their work is above reproach even in the slightest of ways is not being fully objective of their work or of themselves. You can make any excuses that you want about juvenile anonymous note-passing but you are only fooling yourself. I hope that your skills are as good as your ego tells you they are because without that objectivity it will be extremely difficult for you to improve.

I think perhaps you are the one who missed the point. Yes I understand (and I believe Duleigh does too, if not he can correct me) that by ignoring or deleting anonymous feedback he MIGHT be missing some good advice. It isn't about how good he thinks his work is. It's about where it comes from, from someone who hasn't the honor, fortitude or just plain balls to stand toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball and tell someone else what they think of their work. It's about someone who wants to poke another, heap their opinion on them, and not have to listen to what that person has to say in return, even though it would be through a fake name on this tiny corner of the interwebs. It is all about your first highlighted statement and nothing to do with the second.

I say all that because I feel the same way. If you haven't got the guts to allow me to question you, or let me express disagreement with your assessment, I'm not much inclined to listen to it either. Sniping from the shadows never set well with me. Sometimes we do things not because it's the best thing to do, but because we are human and a thing has hit a hot button with us. I do believe that's the case with Duleugh.

So yeah, I get where Duleigh is coming from. If you're going to offer critique, and you want me to believe that you're offering it in good faith, then put your skin in the game. Give me a name to call you by. I mean you don't have to, but in that case I'm inclined to do as Duleigh does and hit the delete button.

If the anon wannabe critic didn't have a reason to think "you are not as good a writer as you think you are" via your bragging about your skill with the written word (which appears you haven't at all), me thinks perhaps they included that statement because they are butt hurt you are good, probably much better then they are. Jealousy can come out sideways at times. And some people just have to try to denigrate that which they find better then what they can do. It appears to me this is one of those cases.


Comshaw

 

[alohadave]

Probably because being an asshole is an impediment to excelling at anything in life other than shitting on people/things/ideas.

If you're going to be an asshole, you should strive to be the best asshole you can be.

 

[Bamagan]

If you're going to be an asshole, you should strive to be the best asshole you can be.

If there were anything in life I'd recommend half-assing, being an asshole would be that thing.

 

[yowser]

The final word on this phenomenon:

Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, the First Sixty Years by Geoffrey Nunberg

 

[CalebZhass]

I think perhaps you are the one who missed the point. Yes I understand (and I believe Duleigh does too, if not he can correct me) that by ignoring or deleting anonymous feedback he MIGHT be missing some good advice. It isn't about how good he thinks his work is. It's about where it comes from, from someone who hasn't the honor, fortitude or just plain balls to stand toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball and tell someone else what they think of their work. It's about someone who wants to poke another, heap their opinion on them, and not have to listen to what that person has to say in return, even though it would be through a fake name on this tiny corner of the interwebs. It is all about your first highlighted statement and nothing to do with the second.

Let's be a bit more objective here, okay?

It has nothing to with honor, fortitude or balls. It is about EGO and the need to defend it. We all have different levels of sensitivity to how well we can shield ourselves against harsh words or insults. Some have it easy, for others it is hard or impossible. Some people feel the need to go on the defensive about every bit of criticism, and not being able to is killing them. While for others it is fine to read something and never think of it again.

Having a more sensitive EGO is nothing to be ashamed of, it's just a trait to work on improving. So how about instead of calling people who don't want to engage in pointless arguing all sorts of names, we just work on being less sensitive. It's not like those people can be convinced anyway, so what good is arguing with them gonna do? If there is no point in arguing, then does it really matter if someone posts anonymously or with their name attached? It's not like they would share their real name anyway. They had their opinion, they shared it, our EGO took a bit of bruising.. it will heal, let's move on.

With all that said, I also realize how difficult what I am saying is to achieve, so no.. I don't blame anyone for feeling the need to distance themselves from those who might be more ruthless/harsh in their words. I however find it an unhealthy act of self-deception, when someone is demonizing others in an effort to make their own defensive actions feel justified.

I've posted anonymously in the past. I did it to not weird someone I admire out. It had nothing to do with balls, honor, bravery or any of those things. It was a simple act of caring, trying to avoid making kindness and respect seem more than what it is. I never expected an answer to that, nor did I need one. I just wanted to cheer the person up a little. Damn, how evil of me So no, I don't think we should deceive ourselves when it comes to talking about what we do and why we really do it.

Still, after all that rambling, you folks do what you have to do. I'm just pointing out how those things might not be as clear cut as you make it seem. Or maybe they are.. still, food for thought.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I had received one of these "I'm a writer" anonymous critique email somewhat recently. It was a fairly lengthy email, going into great details about what they deemed were rookie flaws in my writing. Great! I'm all about constructive feedback, and they made plenty of good points, but then they signed off with the note "you are not as good a writer as you think you are."
And with that single cutting sentence, I recognized that the point of the email was not to help me, but to put me down and perhaps to self-gratify in doing so.

So yeah, I get where Duleigh is coming from. If you're going to offer critique, and you want me to believe that you're offering it in good faith, then put your skin in the game. Give me a name to call you by. I mean you don't have to, but in that case I'm inclined to do as Duleigh does and hit the delete button.

I used to get those comments. But the joke was on them, it turned out I was better than I thought I was.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I used to get those comments. But the joke was on them, it turned out I was better than I thought I was.

I thought so to. Then I submitted a bunch of 750 word stories...

 

[HordHolm]

I used to get those comments. But the joke was on them, it turned out I was better than I thought I was.

Yeah... I got a comment recently, after grumpy-bollocks had ploughed through 15k words, that my story was, 'not worth reading.' And all I could do was laugh because, as you say, the joke's on them.

 

[KeithD]

Let's be a bit more objective here, okay?

It has nothing to with honor, fortitude or balls. It is about EGO and the need to defend it. We all have different levels of sensitivity to how well we can shield ourselves against harsh words or insults. Some have it easy, for others it is hard or impossible. Some people feel the need to go on the defensive about every bit of criticism, and not being able to is killing them. While for others it is fine to read something and never think of it again.

It can also have to do with why writers post stories here. Once again, this is a sharing site, not a critique site. It is well within the parameters of the Web site's offering to just want to share one's stories and not be subjected to vigilante criticism from some stranger of unknown critiquing ability.

I reject the need some of you see here that a writer here is obligated to pay a bit of attention to critique from some vigilante stranger of unknown critiquing ability.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I had received one of these "I'm a writer" anonymous critique email somewhat recently. It was a fairly lengthy email, going into great details about what they deemed were rookie flaws in my writing. Great! I'm all about constructive feedback, and they made plenty of good points, but then they signed off with the note "you are not as good a writer as you think you are."
And with that single cutting sentence, I recognized that the point of the email was not to help me, but to put me down and perhaps to self-gratify in doing so.

So yeah, I get where Duleigh is coming from. If you're going to offer critique, and you want me to believe that you're offering it in good faith, then put your skin in the game. Give me a name to call you by. I mean you don't have to, but in that case I'm inclined to do as Duleigh does and hit the delete button.

But if you leave off that last line, you get what you need that is so terribly rare around here, detailed honest constructive feedback and that's the gold that will help you the most. Most lit writers never ever ever get a critique anywhere near that or anywhere near so valuable. It's the kind of critique that a serious writer dreams of receiving. Now I'm not saying that you didn't take the critique fully objectively, but my point is that anyone who would dismiss such a golden gift because they didn't like being talked down to or because the advice was anonymous is literally throwing away that golden gift. It's like someone randomly giving you a free white Porsche and you refuse it because you;re insulted that it wasn't a red Ferrari.

 

[CalebZhass]

It can also have to do with why writers post stories here. Once again, this is a sharing site, not a critique site. It is well within the parameters of the Web site's offering to just want to share one's stories and not be subjected to vigilante criticism from some stranger of unknown critiquing ability.

I reject the need some of you see here that a writer here is obligated to pay a bit of attention to critique from some vigilante stranger of unknown critiquing ability.

I never said you should pay attention. But saying you just don't care about feedback is not the same as demonizing the people giving feedback.

The former is a perfectly acceptable personal stance, the latter is pointless and misguided generalization.

But I'm with you on the last bit. Noone should be forced to care about feedback. But if they do, then cherry picking opinions we like while discrediting those we don't is just .. well, to me it doesn't sound right. But that's just me

 

[pink_silk_glove]

This is a sharing site, not a critique site. Did he ask for this feedback? If not, it's unrequested push feedback and I don't feel he's under any obligation even to open it. But I don't think rants on this sort of thing need to come to the discussion board. They can be just privately ignored.

Certainly he has no obligation to take the feedback - his choice, absolutely - but he's foolish to not accept quality feedback based on some arrogant technicality.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I reject the need some of you see here that a writer here is obligated to pay a bit of attention to critique from some vigilante stranger of unknown critiquing ability.

I definitely agree, but I also tend to look at things from a different perspective. So there is some asshole who is trying to put you down and dismiss your writing ability by sending you anonymous feedback. If one can detach themselves from the clear malicious intent of this anonymous person and find something useful in their feedback, and there often is at least a bit of such useful feedback, then the joke is on them.
Finding something useful even in such malicious feedback feels like sticking it to the asshole. The douchebag wanted to put you down yet you profited off their assholeness.
It's not easy to detach yourself like that, but if you can pull it off, it feels like a perfect flipping of the finger.

 

[StillStunned]

I used to get those comments. But the joke was on them, it turned out I was better than I thought I was.

I'm exactly as good as I think I am. The problem is that other people measure by different standards.

 

[Bamagan]

I'm exactly as good as I think I am. The problem is that other people measure by different standards.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Those sentences sound like something a certain "group" would have said. They thought themselves the foremost literary critics and wanted to rank us, which would have been amusing if they didn't resort to various malicious activities, which included writing anonymous feedback to people in order to "put them in their place" in comparison to authors they truly thought were good.

When you are objective and you believe in your work, you cannot be put in your place if you do not want to be.

I've been critiqued. I've been critiqued fairly and I've also been nitpicked over bullshit by someone with an axe to grind. I've never been butthurt by any of it because no one makes anyone butthurt, butthurt is a personal choice.

Butthurt serves a purpose. Whenever you feel insulted or slighted, that is simply a sign that your ego is in the way. You can learn to read the signs, recognize your ego and make it stand down. The more that you do this, the more positive your life experiences will become.

Or you can sit there and pout in the comfort of your butthurtness and not grow learn or improve. Your choice.

 

[Comshaw]

Let's be a bit more objective here, okay?

It has nothing to with honor, fortitude or balls. It is about EGO and the need to defend it. We all have different levels of sensitivity to how well we can shield ourselves against harsh words or insults. Some have it easy, for others it is hard or impossible. Some people feel the need to go on the defensive about every bit of criticism, and not being able to is killing them. While for others it is fine to read something and never think of it again.

Having a more sensitive EGO is nothing to be ashamed of, it's just a trait to work on improving. So how about instead of calling people who don't want to engage in pointless arguing all sorts of names, we just work on being less sensitive. It's not like those people can be convinced anyway, so what good is arguing with them gonna do? If there is no point in arguing, then does it really matter if someone posts anonymously or with their name attached? It's not like they would share their real name anyway. They had their opinion, they shared it, our EGO took a bit of bruising.. it will heal, let's move on.

With all that said, I also realize how difficult what I am saying is to achieve, so no.. I don't blame anyone for feeling the need to distance themselves from those who might be more ruthless/harsh in their words. I however find it an unhealthy act of self-deception, when someone is demonizing others in an effort to make their own defensive actions feel justified.

I've posted anonymously in the past. I did it to not weird someone I admire out. It had nothing to do with balls, honor, bravery or any of those things. It was a simple act of caring, trying to avoid making kindness and respect seem more than what it is. I never expected an answer to that, nor did I need one. I just wanted to cheer the person up a little. Damn, how evil of me So no, I don't think we should deceive ourselves when it comes to talking about what we do and why we really do it.

Still, after all that rambling, you folks do what you have to do. I'm just pointing out how those things might not be as clear cut as you make it seem. Or maybe they are.. still, food for thought.

You too seemed to have missed the point. It isn't about ego, at least as far as criticizing my writing. If it was I would NEVER take to heart ANYTHING ANYONE had to say that was negative about my work. That just is not true. I'd even take the advice of an anon, IF (as I pointed out in my earlier post) it didn't hit a hot button with me just because it came from an anon. And it isn't about arguing with them. It's about the OPPORTUNITY to argue with or question them if I so choose. You have glossed over that second point (question) and exemplified the first (arguing). In actuality, the second is much more important than the first. If I'm left in the dark and have questions, how should I get those answered if the party I must ask them of isn't available?

Will I miss out on some good advice? Possibly, sometimes. However what is good for us isn't what others think it should be, but what we decide it is. So ignoring a person who can't stand up for something they said, or for a point they want to make, is much better for me than paying attention to someone sniping from the shadows. Call it ego, or anything else for that matter. The point is it isn't about being egotistical about my work. It's about being sensitive too and not considering it's worth it to read and absorb criticism from an anonymous source. Because to me that shows anon is too cowardly to do it out in the open.

To a point you made: you posted anonymously to cheer someone up and not weird them out. That is ENTIRELY different than sending a long involved, or short and terse criticism of a story. An analogy to your action would be someone who contributes to a cause anonymously so as not to detract from the cause. An honorable and altogether nice thing to do and not at all like or with the same intent as an anonymous message with an acerbic critique of a story.


Comshaw