A Rant about Feedback

[Teloz]

I only have one story posted so far, but anticipating some of the comments you've received, here's my header to the story:

"Please note, this is written in English English, by an Englishman in England, consequently all spellings are English, measurements are metric, dialogue is in single quotes and there are English expressions and slang terms that may be unfamiliar to American readers, but then, that's part of the fun! Isn't it?"

This may divert some of the trolls, but I seriously doubt it!

As noted before, most Americans don't know some British styles are different from American styles--in this case the issue with the quotes. To their eyes these are wrong and, yes, they would be distracted by them. This doesn't make them idiots, just not fully informed--as you are if you don't know there's a difference that will quite possibly distract American readers. It doesn't mean you should stop writing as you do (either way will distract someone)--just that you should be aware that there will be differences that will, in fact, be distracting to some readers. Who aren't idiots just because it impinges on their reading of your story.

Hence the header to my story! If people go on to read it, knowing they may be distracted, that's fine, after all, I don't bitch about having to read stories that use words like color, gotten and cum. I have to be honest though, 'gotten' is an English English word, it's just fallen into disuse in the UK.

If I was going to get off my lard arse and bitch about something, it would be that you all say you speak English, when actually it's American English!

 

[polynices]

As noted before, most Americans don't know some British styles are different from American styles--in this case the issue with the quotes. To their eyes these are wrong and, yes, they would be distracted by them. This doesn't make them idiots, just not fully informed--as you are if you don't know there's a difference that will quite possibly distract American readers. It doesn't mean you should stop writing as you do (either way will distract someone)--just that you should be aware that there will be differences that will, in fact, be distracting to some readers. Who aren't idiots just because it impinges on their reading of your story.

Hi, I called the commenter an idiot because of his (?) insulting tone. I couldn't quote the comment verbatim, unfortunately, because I deleted it, but it was very short. Reconstructed from memory, it went something like this:

'Unreadable because of wrong use of speech marks. ' instead of ".

(I'm not absolutely sure of the accuracy of my version of the first sentence, but the final part is exact and I know I'm pretty close overall.)

My point is that this is both arrogant and rude. It's also counter-factual. The story wasn't unreadable just because of my choice of speech marks, even if it 'distracted' the reader as you say. I also find it hard to believe that he'd never seen single speech marks used before. My own theory - unprovable, I know - is that, at some point in his life, this commenter had a rigid pseudo-'rule' drilled into him by an inflexible teacher and came to the conclusion that this was the way things should always be. (Perhaps the teacher commented on one of his high-school efforts with 'Good use of speech marks' and he became so puffed up with pride at the compliment that he's considered himself the expert on speech marks ever since.) But that doesn't excuse the commenter from the charge of inflexibility - and his way of stating his view was decidedly rude, as I said before.

So I really do think 'idiot' is an accurate description. Anybody with a fully functioning intelligence would either have simply ignored what is at most a trivial issue, or would have stated his view in a much more diplomatic way. This was a comment intended to wound and to assert the commenter's superiority - and, given that he was doing this in response to what was essentially a free gift - a story on Literotica - I think he deserves censure.

- polynices

 

[sr71plt]

The story wasn't unreadable just because of my choice of speech marks, even if it 'distracted' the reader as you say.

The writer doesn't determine what is readable and what isn't--the reader does. Let's start from there, shall we?

I'm not saying you can please all of the people; I'm saying you're too far in the other direction--at some point you become no better informed, no less rude than the one you are ranting against.

 

[polynices]

The writer doesn't determine what is readable and what isn't--the reader does. Let's start from there, shall we?

I'm not saying you can please all of the people; I'm saying you're too far in the other direction--at some point you become no better informed, no less rude than the one you are ranting against.

I agree with what you say in general - the writer doesn't determine what's readable for any given individual. Yes. I also agree that one can't insist that a reader like a story, or even that s/he reads it in the way one expects it to be read. But here - in the example I've given - we're talking about a reader going out of his/her way to publicly condemn a story simply because of the difference between ' and ". And that is simply ludicrous.

Literotica's motto is 'free speech' and I agree with it. However, free speech can be abused, and it often is here. You'll know from experience that writing any kind of story demands considerable effort, irrespective of the literary merit or otherwise of the eventual product. And that effort deserves at least a bare modicum of respect, I think. But Literotica authors routinely accept extremely abusive feedback as a given - usually without complaint. We accept people posting insults in the name of 'feedback' as if they have a 'right' to do so.

I agree that nobody can stop it happening - but that certainly doesn't make the abuse 'right'. And it doesn't mean that the authors should always refrain from responding to the insults given.

I'm afraid I don't accept that I've become 'no less rude than the one I'm ranting against'. (Sorry for mangling the syntax there.) I'm simply - and unusually - expressing what must be a common feeling among authors here, that some commenters are essentially rude and arrogant and that the intention behind their feedback is to wound, not to help or inform. And I don't know how I can express that idea without using pejorative language.

I also warned people at the start of this thread that it would be a rant. Rants are necessarily polemical. I think this one is wholly justified, though I accept it may also be tedious to many in its sheer obviousness. So I apologize for stating the obvious, but not for the sentiments I've stated.

- polynices

 

[Epmd607]

The writer doesn't determine what is readable and what isn't--the reader does. Let's start from there, shall we?
...

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying something silly philosophers would argue over in Vienna Circle meetings. It would make more sense saying neither the writer nor the reader determine what is readable. Either the writer's following the rules of the language or they're not, and the reader understands the rules or they don't.

 

[sr71plt]

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying something silly philosophers would argue over in Vienna Circle meetings. It would make more sense saying neither the writer nor the reader determine what is readable. Either the writer's following the rules of the language or they're not, and the reader understands the rules or they don't.

What you mean is that it doesn't make sense to you because either you haven't thought about it or you can't move your perception out of the "author" brain. I, however, think it's axiomatic. And beyond that, I think it would save the writer a whole lot of stress and ranting if they recognized it.

I'm a book editor. Sometimes I get an author telling me, "It makes perfect sense to me even if it doesn't to you." That's the idiotic statement, though. The writer is writing to be read by someone else, or they might as well stick it in a drawer and pat themselves on the back about what a great writer they are, sans a reader. Writing is all about reader comprehension and interest.

 

[sr71plt]

I think I'm only in this, polynices, because of your characterization of someone commenting on your punctuation style distracting their read as an idiot. They may be an idiot for the way the tell you, but they aren't an idiot for being distracted (or even for telling you so, so you can process that in relationship to the reader base). I think using the "idiot" button on this goes too far and primarily causes YOU stress and therefore rants that aren't quite spot on.

You're going to have to live with a reader base that includes a lot of folks who think the British style is wrong. (God knows I have to live with a lot of commenters who read high school English back to me when I write and edit commercial prose professionally--and these ain't the same animals). That's something for you to take into account and decide whether it's worth going ballistic over when it happens. (I suggest it isn't--and that it isn't going to change by you going red in the face.)

If a comment irritates me this much, especially when I think it's ill informed rather than voice a legitimate--to me--perspective, I just ignore it or delete it (which is a nice feature here) and move on.

 

[CharleyH]

This is going to be just what the title says – a rant. I’m pretty sure I have nothing particularly original to say, so please ignore me if you’ve already had your fill of complaints about stupid readers’ comments. However, if you share my irritation over idiot responses to stories and you feel like wallowing in it for a moment, please stay with me.

I'm not especially turned off by readers who make, what I feel, are fast judgments and idiotic comments like 'you didn't get me off' or aka 'that was the worst story ever'. As far as I am concerned, they spoke their mind or spoke from their libido on a story I or you wrote.

However, I do have a problem with people like you complaining about your readers. I think you don't really listen to your readers (they do want you to do better). You also show no respect for them by posting this. Show respect for your reader. Don't take a complaint to us (who never read your work), take a query to your readers -ask them outright and honestly why they adore, or do not adore your writing.

 

[Epmd607]

What you mean is that it doesn't make sense to you because either you haven't thought about it or you can't move your perception out of the "author" brain. I, however, think it's axiomatic. And beyond that, I think it would save the writer a whole lot of stress and ranting if they recognized it.

I'm a book editor. Sometimes I get an author telling me, "It makes perfect sense to me even if it doesn't to you." That's the idiotic statement, though. The writer is writing to be read by someone else, or they might as well stick it in a drawer and pat themselves on the back about what a great writer they are, sans a reader. Writing is all about reader comprehension and interest.

What's "readible" means 'What can be comprehended by any reader within a language.' Not, 'What appeals to this or that reader.' The critic told the original poster that his story was not legible in the English language because of his misuse of quotation. I think that's what the critic meant by what was provided by OP -- he was saying "Gee, I wish I could read this story, but it doesn't follow the conventions of language that I'm used to." Shouldn't mean anything to a writer using near-universal conventions of grammar.

 

[sr71plt]

What's "readible" means 'What can be comprehended by any reader within a language.' Not, 'What appeals to this or that reader.' The critic told the original poster that his story was not legible in the English language because of his misuse of quotation. I think that's what the critic meant by what was provided by OP -- he was saying "Gee, I wish I could read this story, but it doesn't follow the conventions of language that I'm used to."

Distraction speaks directly to readability; I haven't discussed "appeal" on this thread at all (I don't think). Not following the reader's known conventions of language is also readability--and is directly what I've been posting, I think. I've also said that you can't standardize this on Lit., and you'll forever have readers going different ways on convention.

And, sorry, writers here need to be just as aware, if not more aware, as readers that British and American conventions are different--and not rail against a reader for not knowing that.

What I think we've got here is some writers not willing to be objective and look at issues from the readers' perspective--and being much too quick on the "idiot" switch.

Fine if you have no desire to go commercial and are happy stressing with your head in that ditch.

 

[Epmd607]

...
Fine if you have no desire to go commercial and are happy stressing with your head in that ditch.

I've no interest in the commercial, whatever that may mean. I doubt most authors on this site have an interest in writing erotica commercially. We've taken pleasure from reading stories on this site and most want to share that with others through our own writing. There's no reason someone should tear down someone else who's providing them with free porn.

 

[sr71plt]

I've no interest in the commercial, whatever that may mean. I doubt most authors on this site have an interest in writing erotica commercially. We've taken pleasure from reading stories on this site and most want to share that with others through our own writing. There's no reason someone should tear down someone else who's providing them with free porn.

OK, fine, rant at your readers (as long as they stay around) if that gives you buzz of superiority.

If such rants are posted here, though, I'll comment, giving the ranter a chance to readjust his/her head and get rid of that much self-perpetuated high blood pressure.

Don't want lecture #302, don't post rant #3.

 

[Epmd607]

OK, fine, rant at your readers (as long as they stay around) if that gives you buzz of superiority.

If such rants are posted here, though, I'll comment, giving the ranter a chance to readjust his/her head and get rid of that much self-perpetuated high blood pressure.

Don't want lecture #302, don't post rant #3.

Who comments on seemingly every thread, daily? You usually appear as the voice of reason, but just as quickly you devolve into an amicus or scouries in terms of your willingness to educate at will. You have to reply to everything, this isn't scouriesworld it's sr71plt fiefdom.

 

[Teloz]

As noted before, most Americans don't know some British styles are different from American styles--in this case the issue with the quotes. To their eyes these are wrong and, yes, they would be distracted by them. This doesn't make them idiots, just not fully informed--as you are if you don't know there's a difference that will quite possibly distract American readers. It doesn't mean you should stop writing as you do (either way will distract someone)--just that you should be aware that there will be differences that will, in fact, be distracting to some readers. Who aren't idiots just because it impinges on their reading of your story.

I think if you look back, the original poster never accused the anonymous critics of being idiots, just rude. I believe it was York who introduced the term 'idiot'.

 

[driphoney]

Hence the header to my story! If people go on to read it, knowing they may be distracted, that's fine, after all, I don't bitch about having to read stories that use words like color, gotten and cum. I have to be honest though, 'gotten' is an English English word, it's just fallen into disuse in the UK.

If I was going to get off my lard arse and bitch about something, it would be that you all say you speak English, when actually it's American English!

You know, I'm really sorry that apparently so many American readers pick on British versions of grammar and spelling (or 'grammer' as one of my critics said.)

That being said, I have to say that when I open up a story, I don't mind if there are author comments, and in most of my chapters I've done it myself, but I when I see a warning like yours over and over on story after story it gets to feeling a bit un-welcoming or off-putting, like the author has a chip on his/her shoulder. This does NOT start me off in the right frame of mind for enjoying the story that follows.

When a reader opens your page that first line is the welcome mat. Do you look welcoming? Or bitchy? Do you want the majority of your readers, who are usually nice and considerate, to have the best impression possible, or does it matter? Do you want to pump them up and make them feel like they and their votes matter to you or beat them up before they even get started? Over spelling? Is it worth it? You can choose to ignore and even delete comments, that is something you have control over, but you can't control voting other than to win the reader over with your story and maybe your attitude.

Because I can't help but comment to my poor readers, I'm starting to put anything, like editor acknowledgements, at the end of my story. You might consider putting a gentle reminder there. After all, it's usually just after they've finished reading that they vote and comment. It might slow down some of those who would pick on your grammar and spelling.

By the way, I've been told (and they might just be wrong) by a linguist that the 'u' in British spellings were added after America had split away. If that's true, then even 'color' was originally British.

(I didn't have time to make it through all the comments on the thread, so I hope I'm not piling on.)

 

[Teloz]

I honestly don't think that most readers would be put off by my comment, but if it saves one of the twerps sending me rude comments as I haven't conformed to his standards, then I'm happy and he's happy.

Anyone with a mental capacity marginally higher than that of a starfish would adjust to single quotes within a few paragraphs, and would Google terms they didn't understand, as I have to when reading the work of American authors.

 

[sr71plt]

Seems to me that it's some British writers here who like to cross the line from snobby to snotty.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

From the Sage, Jenny Jackson -

If you piss off your trolls badly enough that they blast you with their illiterate bullshit, you are doing something right.

 

[Teloz]

Seems to me that it's some British writers here who like to cross the line from snobby to snotty.

Who? Me? Moi? What have I said?

 

[JamesSD]

There's a fairly sizable grammar police out there. I've gotten private feedback that was positive, yet felt compelled to point out the occasional mistake that would slip past spelling/grammar chieck (like misspelling "Pinot" of "Pinot Noir").

I'm amazed someone took the time to post feedback saying your story was "boring". I've read the start of hundreds of stories on this site I found dreadful and dull... and I backclicked and forgot about them.

The British vs. American thing is silly. It does occasionally cause some miscommunication, as "knickers" sounds silly and juvenile in American yet I guess has very naughty connotations in British (my understanding is the British view "panties" in the same way).

Finally, I am firmly in the camp that "to come" is a verb, but "cum" is a noun. "Cummed" doesn't look or sound right; the past tense is clearly "came". I don't have a problem with someone who uses "come" as the noun or "to cum" as the verb, but my own personal preferences fall that way.

 

[bronzeage]

There's a fairly sizable grammar police out there. I've gotten private feedback that was positive, yet felt compelled to point out the occasional mistake that would slip past spelling/grammar chieck (like misspelling "Pinot" of "Pinot Noir").

I'm amazed someone took the time to post feedback saying your story was "boring". I've read the start of hundreds of stories on this site I found dreadful and dull... and I backclicked and forgot about them.

The British vs. American thing is silly. It does occasionally cause some miscommunication, as "knickers" sounds silly and juvenile in American yet I guess has very naughty connotations in British (my understanding is the British view "panties" in the same way).

Finally, I am firmly in the camp that "to come" is a verb, but "cum" is a noun. "Cummed" doesn't look or sound right; the past tense is clearly "came". I don't have a problem with someone who uses "come" as the noun or "to cum" as the verb, but my own personal preferences fall that way.

I am firmly in the camp that the word "cum" should never be used, except when a character speaks it. The same for "pre-cum", except that no one ever speaks it, either.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

And I am a firm believer that "cum" is an industry term, and that anyone that avoids using it is a snob

 

[Darkniciad]

And I am a firm believer that "cum" is an industry term, and that anyone that avoids using it is a snob

*laugh* I'm fine with it until running across "cummed" or one of the other horrible conjugations of the word.

It was looking at things like that on the page when I typed them that made me stray away from it as a verb. I still use it as the noun, with no reservations.

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

Another English word I'm afraid, spunk is a common term for semen in the UK, so if you tell an English person your mother/sister/daughter has "spunk" don't be surprised if they snigger!

Hmmm...so if I say I want a guy with 'spunk' they'll probably laugh their asses off?

 

[Big_Kahuna_69]

As a Yank...

...I take a certain umbrage at the tone of this thread. Is there still some resentment left over from the War of British Aggression?