Whitewashing comments

[Oli72]

Now, I can understand if an author deletes comments that are indulgences in senseless profanity. What I cannot understand is authors that delete comments that provide genuine criticisim. Yes, it's looks great if everyone gave you 100%, but if the only way to get there is to throw everyone out who wasn't really convinced, what credibility does such a score enjoy? If a story doesn't compute for me and I specifically state what the factors are that defy my suspension of disbelief, why is it such a bad, bad thing to point this out?

I think it suggests a great deal of personal insecurity if the fact that they cannot please everyone is so offensive to some authors. It should be obvious that not every story will please everyone -it's nigh impossible to always make everyone content. So if someone didn't like some parts of your story, ponder if they might have a point, weigh their arguments, and if you come to the conclusion that you did everything alright and the story apparently simply wasn't to the critics' taste, have the eminence to stand above the criticism. Whitewashing the comments in my eyes only ruins your own credibility.

 

[rgraham666]

Doesn't apply to me. I leave everything up.

Except once. And that was because someone used the comment to badmouth Colleen.

So, bang! It was gone.

 

[sr71plt]

Now, I can understand if an author deletes comments that are indulgences in senseless profanity. What I cannot understand is authors that delete comments that provide genuine criticisim. Yes, it's looks great if everyone gave you 100%, but if the only way to get there is to throw everyone out who wasn't really convinced, what credibility does such a score enjoy? If a story doesn't compute for me and I specifically state what the factors are that defy my suspension of disbelief, why is it such a bad, bad thing to point this out?

I think it suggests a great deal of personal insecurity if the fact that they cannot please everyone is so offensive to some authors. It should be obvious that not every story will please everyone -it's nigh impossible to always make everyone content. So if someone didn't like some parts of your story, ponder if they might have a point, weigh their arguments, and if you come to the conclusion that you did everything alright and the story apparently simply wasn't to the critics' taste, have the eminence to stand above the criticism. Whitewashing the comments in my eyes only ruins your own credibility.

Sometimes "genuine" criticism wasn't all that genuine would be one reason. Sometimes the one giving the comment isn't quite as smart as they think they are.

I also sort of wonder about what's up with giving critical comment and then going back to see if it's been left there or wiped off. Seems to be evidence in being a little bit too much tied up in somebody else's story--and maybe looking for a fight.

 

[Corylea]

I usually get mail, rather than comments; I'm not sure why. I like getting nice comments in mail, but I wish some of those people would make their comments publicly.

 

[Katyusha]

I usually get mail, rather than comments; I'm not sure why. I like getting nice comments in mail, but I wish some of those people would make their comments publicly.

Me too...I'd like more public comments telling me my story was hot.

I haven't received too much in the way of critical comments, but then, truth be told, I haven't received too much in the way of comments period.

 

[Oli72]

I also sort of wonder about what's up with giving critical comment and then going back to see if it's been left there or wiped off. Seems to be evidence in being a little bit too much tied up in somebody else's story--and maybe looking for a fight.

Who says someone went there to see "if it's been left there or wiped off"? There's plenty of reasons to re-read a particular story or chapter, part of which is to reassess your own opinion of the source. It's when in doing so, you realise the comments have been hand-picked that you start forming an opinion that goes beyond the story.

 

[sr71plt]

Who says someone went there to see "if it's been left there or wiped off"? There's plenty of reasons to re-read a particular story or chapter, part of which is to reassess your own opinion of the source. It's when in doing so, you realise the comments have been hand-picked that you start forming an opinion that goes beyond the story.

Just pointing out that there's another side to that coin.

You appeared to be assuming it's a one-sided coin in your original posting.

I've had "critical" comment (not much) on a story or two that was just off the wall and/or indicated the reader didn't really read the story. If that's the case, I sometimes do just delete the comment as being flak thrown up in the air. I was given the power to delete it and if I think it's irrelevant, I will exercise that power if I want to. I'm the one who put the effort into writing the story. And if the comment just attacks me personally or my preferences or choice of story category and comes with a zap vote, I zap it right back.

I do think your reasoning for going back is sort of a stretch, though--and doesn't seem any more likely that what I suggested is often the reason for going back.

 

[Darkniciad]

You're probably barking up the wrong tree in this section of the forum, for the most part. Nearly everyone here leaves up even the most vitriolic comments, even those that have nothing to do with the story the comment is attached to.

Most of the time, those venom-spitting comments are fine advertising that actually attract more readers than they chase away.

The general consensus I've seen hereabouts is that a comment stays unless it attacks another author/reader.

 

[CWatson]

You're absolutely right in your assessment: deleting a constructive comment shows insecurity in the writer's own abilities.

To explain why, I'd like to reference a mechanic, "Aspiration level," from the video game The Sims. In this game, you control little people called Sims, and steer them through their everyday lives--getting a job, going to work, meeting new people, making friends, falling in love, having babies, getting old, blablablah. It's just Real Life As Usual, so why is it so addictive? Anyway, as of the sequel The Sims 2, Sims have "Wants" and "Fears", which represent life events ("Fall In Love", "Accidentally Burn Dinner", "Lose One's Job", "Telephone a Friend") and which alter the Sim's Aspiration level when fulfilled. Wants raise Aspiration level, Fears lower it. Aspiration, in other words, is basically self-esteem or life satisfaction. If it gets high enough, the Sim goes through the day beaming and content; if it's too low, they have a nervous breakdown and the game automatically summons a psychiatrist.

How does this apply to your authors? Here's how: the very act of accepting criticism reduces a person's Aspiration level. This is fine if you have confidence to spare, but (as you correctly identified) not all writers do. For them, facing a painful truth about themselves--no matter how kindly it's offered, no matter how constructive it is, no matter how good it will make them feel about themselves later--would lower their self-esteem below safe & acceptable limits. So they can't. They stick their heads in the sand, because they simply aren't healthy enough to face reality.

It would be nice if this behavior was only true of writers, wouldn't it?

(The only comments I've ever deleted were ones where an Anonymous spammed all extant chapters of my ongoing story. It is being posted here for the first time because I had to abandon it previously, but have finally almost finished it and thus wanted to post it somewhere new. Mr. Nonymous posted a "public service warning" of this on every chapter, and for readers to not be deceived into thinking I would complete the story. He had valid points, but frankly he was an ass about it. I answered one of them and deleted the rest.)

 

[starrkers]

sr, there are other ways of noticing comments have been... groomed.

Some idiots leave up glowing comments that are defending them from a previous commenter, but remove the original comment. It becomes very obvious that something is missing. Doesn't take Einstein to figure out what.

I leave it all up (what few I get) - good, bad and insane. Only comment I've ditched was a duplicate.

 

[sr71plt]

You're absolutely right in your assessment: deleting a constructive comment shows insecurity in the writer's own abilities.

To explain why, I'd like to reference a mechanic, "Aspiration level," from the video game The Sims. In this game, you control little people called Sims, and steer them through their everyday lives--getting a job, going to work, meeting new people, making friends, falling in love, having babies, getting old, blablablah. It's just Real Life As Usual, so why is it so addictive? Anyway, as of the sequel The Sims 2, Sims have "Wants" and "Fears", which represent life events ("Fall In Love", "Accidentally Burn Dinner", "Lose One's Job", "Telephone a Friend") and which alter the Sim's Aspiration level when fulfilled. Wants raise Aspiration level, Fears lower it. Aspiration, in other words, is basically self-esteem or life satisfaction. If it gets high enough, the Sim goes through the day beaming and content; if it's too low, they have a nervous breakdown and the game automatically summons a psychiatrist.

How does this apply to your authors? Here's how: the very act of accepting criticism reduces a person's Aspiration level. This is fine if you have confidence to spare, but (as you correctly identified) not all writers do. For them, facing a painful truth about themselves--no matter how kindly it's offered, no matter how constructive it is, no matter how good it will make them feel about themselves later--would lower their self-esteem below safe & acceptable limits. So they can't. They stick their heads in the sand, because they simply aren't healthy enough to face reality.

It would be nice if this behavior was only true of writers, wouldn't it?

Sounds nice, but again, it presupposes that criticism is legitimate (and/or helpful) just because it's given. I don't see much evidence of posters running around here who have MFAs in creative writing (nor are they needed, IMO. There's a whole range of reader and writer interest here; there's no reason why all stories should be striving for acceptance at the New Yorker).

About half the writing advice I see posted on the forum is off the wall (why, yes, I am a professional--educated and trained--book editor, as a matter of fact) and is more destructive to writing development than constructive. I have no reason to believe that the criticism given directly in comments on stories is any better.

Again, just looking at the other side of the coin which others don't seem to be able to see. I'm sure a lot of the suggestions given is both meant to help and is helpful. It just isn't the "given" I see assumed here.

I think it would be constructive to be able to see exactly what story(ies) set Oli72 off on this posting to begin with--and the wording of Oli72's criticism that was whitewashed away.

 

[jomar]

You can delete the comment, but not the vote. Hell, I think folks should leave the comments up. I've got one story where the PCs got so far off track the commentators were insulting each other before getting back to hammering me. One gave me high marks then actually read the story and re-voted, giving me a 25 only because it was "well written."

 

[R. Richard]

I got a comment criticising me for what I was going to publish in a forthcoming chapter. I deleted it.

 

[gauchecritic]

I never remove public comments. (and I've had some pretty poor ones)

What the author(s) you refer to may have done is think in terms of advertising. How many theatres do you see with advertising headlines that read "Poor Production: The Times"?

And there's nothing wrong at all with checking your own public comments. Writing a story is communication. Public comments are communication. Communication involves others.

Criticism is always legitimate, because the critic (usually) invests time too, even if it's only tapping on the keyboard. And whatever you write, however well you say it, the reader will always bring themselves to your words.

We don need no stinkin badges.

 

[sr71plt]

ICriticism is always legitimate, because the critic (usually) invests time too, even if it's only tapping on the keyboard. And whatever you write, however well you say it, the reader will always bring themselves to your words.

Of course criticism isn't always legitimate. What a crock. Sometimes it's purposely malicious for reasons that have nothing to do with the story and sometimes the commenter is just dumb as a rock about what they are commenting on.

Just because the Internet is the great leveler doesn't mean all posters are either helpful or relevant or equally brilliant.

 

[sr71plt]

And, furthermore, yes, in fact, expertise does matter in this. It may please the commenter to pretend knowledge he/she doesn't have, but that can very easily be damaging to the developing story writer. You may blow that off; I don't. I have more concern for developing writers than that.

 

[gauchecritic]

Of course criticism isn't always legitimate. What a crock. Sometimes it's purposely malicious for reasons that have nothing to do with the story and sometimes the commenter is just dumb as a rock about what they are commenting on.

Just because the Internet is the great leveler doesn't mean all posters are either helpful or relevant or equally brilliant.

So how does malicious and 'noting to do with' come under the definition of criticism? A criticism by definition is relevant.

and there we have it.: "dumb as a rock". I'd love to see the defence for this one.

As I said (in different words that I should have attributed [but Sher knows who she is]) people don't always read the story that you write.

 

[Corylea]

I got this in private e-mail: "I came out of my shorts at 13 and fucked your mother you sick fuck cunt!I bet you are one pretty bitch by now."

If the person had posted it publicly, I would have deleted it, because I don't think that my readers should have to read that. If it had been a negative comment on the story, that would have been one thing, but this isn't about the story and doesn't even really make sense.

 

[sr71plt]

So how does malicious and 'noting to do with' come under the definition of criticism? A criticism by definition is relevant.

and there we have it.: "dumb as a rock". I'd love to see the defence for this one.

As I said (in different words that I should have attributed [but Sher knows who she is]) people don't always read the story that you write.

There you go again. You don't discuss. You harrass and dissemble.

 

[sr71plt]

I got this in private e-mail: "I came out of my shorts at 13 and fucked your mother you sick fuck cunt!I bet you are one pretty bitch by now."

If the person had posted it publicly, I would have deleted it, because I don't think that my readers should have to read that. If it had been a negative comment on the story, that would have been one thing, but this isn't about the story and doesn't even really make sense.

Yep, I would have zapped that comment on a story too.

 

[gauchecritic]

And, furthermore, yes, in fact, expertise does matter in this. It may please the commenter to pretend knowledge he/she doesn't have, but that can very easily be damaging to the developing story writer. You may blow that off; I don't. I have more concern for developing writers than that.

It's a public comment. Someone wants to say what they think about a story you let them read. That's the relationship, the communication, the contract.

What is this? Only you're allowed to say things to the whole wide world without comeback? Only sr71 pilots can read your work?

 

[sr71plt]

So how does malicious and 'noting to do with' come under the definition of criticism? A criticism by definition is relevant.

Webster's definition of "criticism": 1a: the act of criticizing; 1b a critical observation or remark [with, interestingly enough, the example given being "an unfair ciriticism." Note the "unfair"] 2. the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature.

Nope not a thing in the definition about "relevant."

 

[sr71plt]

It's a public comment. Someone wants to say what they think about a story you let them read. That's the relationship, the communication, the contract.

You signed such a contract? Hardly. It don't exist. The Web site gives the author a delete button. You thought that was a wall ornament?

Again, you are just in this for the harrassment value, right?

 

[gauchecritic]

Dic dot com to make judgments as to merits and faults.

surprisingly it doesn't say relevant there either. Oh, neither does it say criticism of.

You might look up "pedant".

 

[sr71plt]

What is this? Only you're allowed to say things to the whole wide world without comeback? Only sr71 pilots can read your work?

Not remotely relevant to anything I've posted here. Once again an example of your "claim a position/statement that hasn't been posted" and then get nasty with harrassment and dissembling "discussion" technique.

You're quite a piece of work.

Again, perhaps you don't care about the constructive development of writers posting stories here. I do. So, sue me.

Beyond that, I've got your number and have weathered more creative trolls than you.