Censorship on Literotica

[Auden James]

I've had my first experience of outright censorship these days on LIT!

What I was trying to do was to get a review (written in German) of another LIT story (written in German) re-published (in the "Reviews & Essays" category, of course), but the re-publication was denied by the "moderator," giving the following reason:

We do not publish works whose primary intent appears to be criticizing or targeting another Lit user or identifiable real-life person.

What did I actually write? I wrote an in-depth, text-based review of the story in question, analyzing six of its major pitfalls, including logical errors, failed similes, and POV mistakes. Naturally, my review wasn't full of praise, but since when is there no difference between criticizing a text—using strictly textual evidence, mind you—and critizing a person? The two are not identical—never were and never will be!

And how on earth would the "moderator" know about the "primary intent" of something written by a complete stranger in a language the moderator doesn't even speak a single word of?!

I think that probably the author of the text I reviewed reported my review after its initial publication because he simply could not stand to see his bad writing exposed. So he simply got it banned. How is that OK? How is it OK to ban the truth—even if it is just about low-quality smut! Just since when is bad porn a protected class that cannot be criticized?

Hence, I'm really curious what your—if any—experiences have been with censorhip on LIT (without, e. g., breaking the infamous under 18 rule)! Please, come forward and let me know! Or may I be the first case of someone whose writing is being censored on LIT without breaking any rules?

Take care,
AJ

 

[NotWise]

I weep for you.

What did I actually write? I wrote an in-depth, text-based review of the story in question, analyzing six of its major pitfalls, including logical errors, failed similes, and POV mistakes. Naturally, my review wasn't full of praise, but since when is there no difference between criticizing a text—using strictly textual evidence, mind you—and critizing a person? The two are not identical—never were and never will be!

What you're saying you did sounds exactly like what "the moderator" said she wouldn't publish.

You might be able to take your opinions to the story review forum here, because the rules are different.

 

[CyranoJ]

I've had my first experience of outright censorship these days on LIT!

Since few of us have access to the text or can read German, I guess we're meant to take this assertion on faith? I certainly can't speak to the claim, seems to me it's a problem between you and the site admins.

I will note a couple of things, though:

- It's pretty hard to make a case for a free site declining to publish something you've written as being "censorship," a word that gets tossed around far too loosely.

- Your reference to the under-18 rule as being somehow "infamous" isn't a great sign.

- Your apparent animus toward the writer of whatever story this was -- as per, for example, your instant willingness to assume they reported you out of simple butthurt -- also isn't a great sign.

- As far as I can see, the Reviews & Essays section is not, in fact, designed to be a stage for launching broadsides against specific stories of this or that author.

- "I was critiquing the text, not the author!" is not quite the ironclad defense it seems to some. For one thing, a "text-based" and "in-depth" review of a story can perfectly well engage in bad-faith readings or distortions of the text without appearing to personally attack the author themselves. That would still amount to LitE publishing a piece which the author might feel compelled to spend time and energy rebutting, and it is perfectly possible that LitE's definition of "targeting" another user takes this into account. If so, your complaint that you "broke no rules" could well be incorrect.

Again: no idea whether I would think your piece crossed any such line if I had a chance to read it. Not really my concern. Your post does not, however, much motivate me to rally in righteous defense of your outrage.

 

[KeithD]

This is a private, subscription-free business. This is not a free speech venue--and the users aren't entitled.

 

[Bramblethorn]

- "I was critiquing the text, not the author!" is not quite the ironclad defense it seems to some. For one thing, a "text-based" and "in-depth" review of a story can perfectly well engage in bad-faith readings or distortions of the text without appearing to personally attack the author themselves. That would still amount to LitE publishing a piece which the author might feel compelled to spend time and energy rebutting, and it is perfectly possible that LitE's definition of "targeting" another user takes this into account. If so, your complaint that you "broke no rules" could well be incorrect.

I'm aware of some sites which have, as a ban-worthy offense, "behaviour that requires us to expand the list of ban-worthy offenses". Because it's impractical for admins to anticipate and codify every possible form of objectionable behaviour in advance.

 

[wanderingsinink]

I've had my first experience of outright censorship these days on LIT!

What I was trying to do was to get a review (written in German) of another LIT story (written in German) re-published (in the "Reviews & Essays" category, of course), but the re-publication was denied by the "moderator," giving the following reason:



What did I actually write? I wrote an in-depth, text-based review of the story in question, analyzing six of its major pitfalls, including logical errors, failed similes, and POV mistakes. Naturally, my review wasn't full of praise, but since when is there no difference between criticizing a text—using strictly textual evidence, mind you—and critizing a person? The two are not identical—never were and never will be!

And how on earth would the "moderator" know about the "primary intent" of something written by a complete stranger in a language the moderator doesn't even speak a single word of?!

I think that probably the author of the text I reviewed reported my review after its initial publication because he simply could not stand to see his bad writing exposed. So he simply got it banned. How is that OK? How is it OK to ban the truth—even if it is just about low-quality smut! Just since when is bad porn a protected class that cannot be criticized?

Hence, I'm really curious what your—if any—experiences have been with censorhip on LIT (without, e. g., breaking the infamous under 18 rule)! Please, come forward and let me know! Or may I be the first case of someone whose writing is being censored on LIT without breaking any rules?

Take care,
AJ

What I read here is that you are angry that your "glorious outrage" and "unparalleled keen sense of logic and wit" were not allowed to stay posted to the story mentioned. I don't know the other side or the entire story of this situation and I don't care to. You weren't providing criticism or a review, you were self-sucking via venom.

Blech.

To the original author or any author - ignore the fucking caustic critics. Ignore all of them, but read what they have to say and think on it if it is honest - but delete the garbage like above.

"because he simply could not stand to see his bad writing exposed...." FFS, really? lol. EXPOSED, I tell you EXPOSED!!

 

[ElectricBlue]

What did I actually write? I wrote an in-depth, text-based review of the story in question, analyzing six of its major pitfalls, including logical errors, failed similes, and POV mistakes. Naturally, my review wasn't full of praise, but since when is there no difference between criticizing a text—using strictly textual evidence, mind you—and critizing a person? The two are not identical—never were and never will be!

Did the other author ask for a critique?

If not, what was your motive for a long, critical, unsolicited review?

It sounds like you're splitting hairs by claiming "a critique of a story" isn't an attack on the writer in the circumstances you're describing. Sounds a little like a vendetta, to me.

 

[lovecraft68]

I believe lit has been censoring comments, and any story that seems to be political-but only if it doesn't agree with their politics.

But in this case, I don't think I'd say censorship, maybe more like ethics? As in not cool to post an entire piece reviewing-and negatively-another author's work.

That's what private feedback can be used for.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

There is a Story Feedback forum - it's very low-traffic and a post in German would be even more so, but it does exist.
Or you can comment on the original story or PM the author, if you really want to ensure the author is confronted with your opinion of their work.

Private website doesn't accept verbiage in the wrong place? Not censorship.

So ein Pech...

 

[Auden James]

Interesting

Thanks for your views, all!

I take it that I mistook this site to still encourage "free speech" (as the claim at the top of this forum reads), instead it seems to have become just another "safe space" for whomever thinks he needs it. (The free speech claim is the reason why I think of the take down as censorship, for making your opinion of a piece of writing heard is a prime example of making use of free spreech, IMHO.)

And where do I find the rule that there is no place for story reviews—specifically critical ones—in "Reviews [!] & Essays?" You see, part of what I find objectionable is the apparent ad hoc reasoning of the "moderator" (Laurel?).

My reason for writing the in-depth review was the story itself because it works almost as a textbook example of writing mistakes many smut writers—who are mostly hobbyists—unintentionally make, e.g., logical errors, POV mistakes, etc. The comment section, I think, is not necessarily the right place for poetological analysis, or is it? Furthermore my review counted more than 1.5k words—not the ususal comment length exactly, right?

@ CyranoJ

I referenced the 18 rule because it is a hard rule clearly stated in the publishing FAQs that everyone can look up instantly. I described it as "infamous" because quite a few writers on here nonetheless seem to have had some problems with it although it is a clearly stated hard rule whereas the "moderator's" reasoning for taking down my review is nowhere stated on the site (at least, I couldn't find it) and is itself quite unclear (as it is in need of interpretation, see below).

It is no assumption of mine that the author of said story was "butthurt," since he clearly stated his animus towards me on the German board.

Of course, a reviewer can engage in "bad-faith readings," but the fact of the matter is that I didn't do that! As I said, I was analyzing six major writing pitfalls in the story that anyone could check because I provided textual evidence for every single one of them. If I was—unintentionally—"distorting" the text, it would have been easy-peasy for any reader to expose these distortions. But no one did! Including, of course, the "moderator" who doesn't speak a single word of German anyway.

And about the "targeting" because the "targeted" might want to write a rebuttal: just take this random LIT review (in English), for example, "Review: Silence is Golden," which apparenty provides a not all too positive critique of an episode of Beverly Hills Bordello. Couldn't the makers of said episode feel compelled by this review to spent their time and energy in writing a rebuttal? Hence, shouldn't this LIT review be taken down too because—by the same logic—it "targets" identifiable real-life persons (the reviewer even named the stars outright)?

@ Kumquatqueen

My "verbiage" wasn't placed in the wrong place, it was a review and where else than in "Reviews [!] & Essays" what you publish a review on LIT?

 

[SimonDoom]

There's a balance to be struck at a website like this between a) encouraging and allowing a very wide range of expression, b) avoiding potential legal problems, like defamation and obscenity charges, and c) providing a positive environment that encourages authors to joint and write. I can see why the Site would not want to publish articles that provide unsolicited critiques of a particular author's work.

At the same time, I think there are legitimate gripes about how confusing, and sometimes ad hoc, the Site's content rules are. The Site badly needs to update and clarify its content rules.

 

[Auden James]

I can see why the Site would not want to publish articles that provide unsolicited critiques of a particular author's work.

That may be so, but I think the site owners should make it clear then if there were such a policy. I mean, just take my random example above: the not all too positive review of Beverly Hills Bordello appears to be unsolicited too, and it too could—theoretically—lead to a defamation charge (or some such thing)!

And, still, where is the difference between a critical review, published as a stand-alone article, and a critical comment? Why would the latter be OK on LIT, but not the former? And why would it be OK (even for the "moderator"!) to post a critique in the forum, but not on the site proper?

I mean, following the "moderator's" logic, it would be OK to "target" another LIT user in the forum, but not on the site proper? What kind of logic is that?

The Site badly needs to update and clarify its content rules.

I agree completely.

 

[NotWise]

And, still, where is the difference between a critical review, published as a stand-alone article, and a critical comment? Why would the latter be OK on LIT, but not the former? And why would it be OK (even for the "moderator"!) to post a critique in the forum, but not on the site proper?

The author can delete a critical comment if he wants to. He cannot delete a critical review published by the site.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Thanks for your views, all!

I take it that I mistook this site to still encourage "free speech" (as the claim at the top of this forum reads), instead it seems to have become just another "safe space" for whomever thinks he needs it. (The free speech claim is the reason why I think of the take down as censorship, for making your opinion of a piece of writing heard is a prime example of making use of free spreech, IMHO.)

Ah, another post for the political boards. There is a forum for almost every thing you want to say. The story side has rules. The forum side is place to go where you can express yourself freely. The story side is not a place to post a review of an author or a story posted here at Lit. There is a forum for that.

And your story/review wasn't taken down because they don't appreciate free speech, it was taken down for violating one of the rules of the site. Their site, their rules.

They provide you with an outlet to post your critique of a story, it's called the comment section or a private comment. I feel you wanted the world - mainly German speaking readers - to see your comment on a story that the author couldn't delete or just ignore.

And why in German? Was the story written in German?

As for free speech there are few rules her on the forums, yet there are rules in some of them and they have a moderator(s).

The only Moderator on the story side it the owner, Laurel. Her site, her rules. Go find them and read them. They are in here somewhere, I remember reading them, but that was a long, long time ago and I have forgotten where.

 

[SimonDoom]

That may be so, but I think the site owners should make it clear then if there were such a policy. I mean, just take my random example above: the not all too positive review of Beverly Hills Bordello appears to be unsolicited too, and it too could—theoretically—lead to a defamation charge (or some such thing)!

And, still, where is the difference between a critical review, published as a stand-alone article, and a critical comment? Why would the latter be OK on LIT, but not the former? And why would it be OK (even for the "moderator"!) to post a critique in the forum, but not on the site proper?

I mean, following the "moderator's" logic, it would be OK to "target" another LIT user in the forum, but not on the site proper? What kind of logic is that?


I agree completely.

While I dont agree that the Site censored you, exactly, you have a point. It's sometimes hard to make sense of what the Site allows and what it doesnt allow.

 

[Auden James]

The author can delete a critical comment if he wants to. He cannot delete a critical review published by the site.

He can, apparently; he just needs to report it, see my taken down review.

 

[CyranoJ]

I take it that I mistook this site to still encourage "free speech" (as the claim at the top of this forum reads), instead it seems to have become just another "safe space" for whomever thinks he needs it.

Other bad signs: conveniently absolutist defenses of "free speech" when one has not gotten one's way; mocking "safe spaces" as if having any form of ethical standards or making publishing choices is some kind of weakness.

You see, part of what I find objectionable is the apparent ad hoc reasoning of the "moderator" (Laurel?).

As Bramblethorn correctly notes, it is not reasonable to expect site owners to explicitly codify every possible form of objectionable behavior up-front, and probably not smart to give them reasons to have to add to what codification does exist.

(EDIT: I will note that neither Literotica's FAQs nor its submission guidelines pretend to be exhaustive documentation of every possible reason a piece might be rejected. They do spell out steps that you can take if you need clarification or further info: unsurprisingly, what's never listed among those steps is "come to the AH forum and complain that you've been 'censored.'" Also not surprisingly, I have never heard of this tactic leading the site to actually change a ruling.)

For my part, the basic generalist mission of "Reviews & Essays" is reasonably clear from its basic description. It actually would not have occurred to me that people would try using it to attack other Lit authors until you popped up here. Now that this has been clarified for you... I guess you'll need to decide whether further kvetching is worth it or not. I don't see how it would be.

It is no assumption of mine that the author of said story was "butthurt," since he clearly stated his animus towards me on the German board.

Okay? I am not interested in the question of who did what to whom first. Let's just say that I am not at all surprised to learn the two of you have some kind of history.

Of course, a reviewer can engage in "bad-faith readings," but the fact of the matter is that I didn't do that!

I have no way of knowing and it's not my judgment of the question that matters.

Including, of course, the "moderator" who doesn't speak a single word of German anyway.

Maybe they know somebody who does, and had them review the text? That much at least is something I could manage were I to be tasked with reviewing a situation like that, and cared.

And about the "targeting" because the "targeted" might want to write a rebuttal: just take this random LIT review

It's not a review of another Lit user, which I take to be the really important part of the feedback you received. Understandably so, since the fairly obvious intention of the ruling is to prevent "Reviews & Essays" from being used as a stage for inter-author shitfights. And much of what you've said here tends to reinforce the impression that that's exactly what you were trying to use it for.

Another bad sign, by the way: when a rule is clarified to someone (or elaborated for them because they have made it necessary), the person in question creates absolutist interpretations of it that they immediately attempt to weasel out of on technicalities.

All of this does not give me confidence in your reassurances that the review the site objected to was 100% good faith readings and entirely above board. Maybe the criticisms seemed that way to you but don't appear so to someone who is less invested in your conflict with the author? Again, not a question I can actually rule on or not with the information I have. I'm just telling you how you're coming across.

 

[Bramblethorn]

And where do I find the rule that there is no place for story reviews—specifically critical ones—in "Reviews [!] & Essays?" You see, part of what I find objectionable is the apparent ad hoc reasoning of the "moderator" (Laurel?).

My reason for writing the in-depth review was the story itself because it works almost as a textbook example of writing mistakes many smut writers—who are mostly hobbyists—unintentionally make, e.g., logical errors, POV mistakes, etc.

From your posts here, I'm not sure whether the point is to write a review of one particular author's work, or to write advice for new authors.

If your interest here is in teaching other authors "here are some common mistakes you should avoid!" then it's unnecessary to put the spotlight on a specific author. If they're common mistakes, it shouldn't be too hard to modify examples enough that the source material isn't obvious. Targeting a specific author comes across as mean-spirited and risks distracting your audience with an interpersonal squabble, rather than having them focus on the lessons you wanted to impart. Make it a How-To and file off the names and serial numbers.

OTOH, if the object is to call your readers' attention to the failings of this one story in particular, then that definitely starts to feel mean-spirited, and likely to cause drama. There are plenty of threads in the AH to demonstrate how messy it gets when authors start taking shots at one another; I can imagine Literotica not being keen to have that happening over on the story side of the site.

Of course, a reviewer can engage in "bad-faith readings," but the fact of the matter is that I didn't do that! As I said, I was analyzing six major writing pitfalls in the story that anyone could check because I provided textual evidence for every single one of them. If I was—unintentionally—"distorting" the text, it would have been easy-peasy for any reader to expose these distortions. But no one did! Including, of course, the "moderator" who doesn't speak a single word of German anyway.

It's not terribly hard to get enough of a translation to understand the gist of a piece.

And about the "targeting" because the "targeted" might want to write a rebuttal: just take this random LIT review (in English), for example, "Review: Silence is Golden," which apparenty provides a not all too positive critique of an episode of Beverly Hills Bordello. Couldn't the makers of said episode feel compelled by this review to spent their time and energy in writing a rebuttal? Hence, shouldn't this LIT review be taken down too because—by the same logic—it "targets" identifiable real-life persons (the reviewer even named the stars outright)?

The chances of some random TV show's makers even noticing criticism on Literotica, let alone deciding to engage with it, are several orders of magnitude lower than the chances of a Literotica author noticing criticism here and responding.

My "verbiage" wasn't placed in the wrong place, it was a review and where else than in "Reviews [!] & Essays" what you publish a review on LIT?

If the point is to highlight "writing mistakes many smut writers make", How-To is a fine place to post that kind of content.

At the same time, I think there are legitimate gripes about how confusing, and sometimes ad hoc, the Site's content rules are. The Site badly needs to update and clarify its content rules.

Absolutely no argument with that.

 

[TadOverdon]

I've had my first experience of outright censorship these days on LIT!

What I was trying to do was to get a review (written in German) of another LIT story (written in German) re-published (in the "Reviews & Essays" category, of course), but the re-publication was denied by the "moderator," giving the following reason:



What did I actually write? I wrote an in-depth, text-based review of the story in question, analyzing six of its major pitfalls, including logical errors, failed similes, and POV mistakes. Naturally, my review wasn't full of praise, but since when is there no difference between criticizing a text—using strictly textual evidence, mind you—and critizing a person? The two are not identical—never were and never will be!

And how on earth would the "moderator" know about the "primary intent" of something written by a complete stranger in a language the moderator doesn't even speak a single word of?!

I think that probably the author of the text I reviewed reported my review after its initial publication because he simply could not stand to see his bad writing exposed. So he simply got it banned. How is that OK? How is it OK to ban the truth—even if it is just about low-quality smut! Just since when is bad porn a protected class that cannot be criticized?

Hence, I'm really curious what your—if any—experiences have been with censorhip on LIT (without, e. g., breaking the infamous under 18 rule)! Please, come forward and let me know! Or may I be the first case of someone whose writing is being censored on LIT without breaking any rules?

Take care,
AJ

Fascinating.

 

[Auden James]

Q & A

Thank you all for your thought-provoking answers!

I don't follow any "tactic" to change any ruling. How would that even work? Laurel has given her ad hoc reasons for rejecting my submission after I re-submitted it and explained in the comment section why I think it doesn't break any rules, and that's it. What interests me here is what other LIT writers think about her reasoning and if they might have had similar experiences in the past!

I take it that apparently most of you folks think her ad hoc reasoning is correct because you seem to anticipate that otherwise "critique" would become a misused label for attacking other users (which is definitely not the sense of a critique). Now that really is the point in question! Is a criticial review of another LIT user's story an attack on said user? I don't think so. Even an unqualified comment like "Your story sucks" is not the same as "You suck" because the story and the story's author are not the same (never were and never will be)!

But I want to stress that my review was not simply such an unqualitified statement but analyzed particular sentences and passages of the story, supporting my evaluation with plenty of textual evidence. If you feel yourself attacked by something like that, then, IMHO, you are not really fit to post your writing on a site like LIT for anyone to read and comment on!

Maybe they know somebody who does, and had them review the text?

I don't think that Laurel would go to this length; not on a piece with just 10k views (simply not worth the hassle).

bad sign . . . fairly obvious . . . inter-author shitfights . . . weasel out of on technicalities

Your word choice here is so loaded, at least to my mind, as to be, effectively, begging the question. But, in fact, it is neither obvious that "Reviews & Essays" is no place for reviews of other LIT stories (since reviewing virtually anything else is apparently perfectly OK there) nor what Laurel's ad hoc rule actually precludes and permits, nor that writing a critique of another author's story is equivalent of inter-author shitfighting, nor that checking a given reasoning for logical soundness is equivlant to weaseling out of on technicalities. That is all just rhetorics on your part, not scrupulous ratiocination, IMHO. No offense intended, just my impression!

From your posts here, I'm not sure whether the point is to write a review of one particular author's work, or to write advice for new authors.

My intention was to do both: critiquing that particular story in question and thereby illustrating ostensively what pitfalls to sidestep when writing erotic stories.

OTOH, if the object is to call your readers' attention to the failings of this one story in particular, then that definitely starts to feel mean-spirited, and likely to cause drama.

Now, why is that? Does that mean that every (critical) review—be it literary, cinematic, or whatever—comes across as mean-spirited if it "targets" (quite loaded word choice again in the present context) a specific author's work? What about guys like Robert Ebert and Gene Siskel: Were they mean-spirited because they called their readers' attention to the failings of particular films by particular directors?

There are plenty of threads in the AH to demonstrate how messy it gets when authors start taking shots at one another; I can imagine Literotica not being keen to have that happening over on the story side of the site.

Again, why is it apparently OK then to have something like that happen in the forum, but not on the site proper? I am asking because CyranoJ mentioned "ethical standards" in defense of safe spaces and the like. If, hence, the site proper ought to be a safe space for authors to be spared from (literary) critique, why then is it OK for readers to post the vilest comments in the first place (which the author nonetheless needs to read before he can reasonably delete them, hence being not safe from them) and for other users to—I take your word for it—openly attack other users (including authors) in the LIT forum? How is any of that reconcilable with those "ethical standards" (which ostensibly justify the take down of my literary critique)?

The chances of some random TV show's makers even noticing criticism on Literotica, let alone deciding to engage with it, are several orders of magnitude lower than the chances of a Literotica author noticing criticism here and responding.

Laurel's reasoning didn't refer to any "chances" of anything happening but was made on general principles (see my first post in this thread), and these principles are the same, no matter if a critique deals with a random TV show or a random LIT story.

 

[CyranoJ]

That is all just rhetorics on your part, not scrupulous ratiocination, IMHO. No offense intended, just my impression!

None taken. And in a similar spirit, I've been at pains to point out that I make no definitive claims about whatever happened with the review and that my "loaded" language is simply describing my impression of what you've provided here.

A further impression along those lines: I simply haven't seen you demonstrate the degree of rhetorical or analytical acumen in this thread that you claim to have brought to the review. Or indeed that would allow you to lecture others about what "critique" is and is not.

I make no claims about your overall skillset -- or indeed about the review in question (which again, I have no access to) -- on that basis. It could be I'm just not seeing you at your best on this particular occasion. But if you think you're providing a masterclass in intellectual probity that establishes beyond doubt how far above reproach your review technique was... I'm sorry, that's simply not what's happening. From what I can see here, what's happening is that you're digging a hole.

For example:

What about guys like Robert Ebert and Gene Siskel: Were they mean-spirited because they called their readers' attention to the failings of particular films by particular directors?

The difference between this and Lit authors using the reviews section to snipe at each others' work was clearly explained to you by at least two different people, and where this involved a certain amount of speculation Bramble even supplied the on-forum context for bringing that angle up. That you're still trying to evade the implications of this with fallacious analogies is not impressive in the least.

IMO you should stop attempting to do things like that. And if this was the quality of thinking on display in your review, then frankly, it probably wasn't as worthwhile as you imagine it was. As you say, just my impression, of course.

 

[gordo12]

I think that probably the author of the text I reviewed reported my review after its initial publication because he simply could not stand to see his bad writing exposed. So he simply got it banned. How is that OK?
AJ

Right there in the bolded print is where your real attitude comes out.

You could go back to my first stories and probably write the same criticisms. But like a lot of beginning writers, I've worked to improve. Do you think I would appreciate somebody making a federal case out of my early efforts by writing an exposé? Authors already take a lot of shit here for making their efforts public. Just read the comment sections.

Frankly, in my opinion, you went too far. And that has nothing to do with censorship, free speech or anything else other than ugly behaviour on your part.

So ugly behaviour or bad writing! Which is really worse?

 

[Auden James]

I simply haven't seen you demonstrate the degree of rhetorical or analytical acumen in this thread that you claim to have brought to the review. Or indeed that would allow you to lecture others about what "critique" is and is not.

Where did I attempt to "lecture" anyone about what makes or breaks a critique? Where did I claim that I brought special rhetorical or analytical "acumen" to my review?

As far as I can see, I did none of what you claim I did! I did simply state the fact that I structured my review by anaylzing six of its major pitfalls. Of course, I think my analysis was correct (otherwise I wouldn't have tried to get it published in the first place, re "ethical standards"), and in the few days that it was online no errors in it were pointed out to me.

But if you think you're providing a masterclass in intellectual probity that establishes beyond doubt how far above reproach your review technique was... I'm sorry, that's simply not what's happening.

What makes you think I would be thinking something like that? I didn't even make any qualitative statements about my "review technique," I simply described my "technique" (if you want to call it that) in factual terms, i. e., what I did, not how well I did it. I have no problems with someone else pointing out my own failures!

The difference between this and Lit authors using the reviews section to snipe at each others' work was clearly explained to you by at least two different people, and where this involved a certain amount of speculation Bramble even supplied the on-forum context for bringing that angle up.

It might just be, as you seem to insinuate, that my "overall skillset" is somewhat lacking, but I, as a matter of fact, do not clearly see a difference—as far as the act in question, writing and publishing a critique, itself is concerned—between Roger Ebert or Gene Siskel calling their readers' attention to the failings of a particular film by a particular director and some LIT user calling his readers' attention to the failings of particular story by a particular writer (who, as chance would have it, just so happens to be another LIT writer). Of course, you could refer to circumstantial differences—Ebert and Siskel getting paid for their reviews, etc.—but these do not touch the point in question: If the act of critiquing someone else's work must necessarily feel "mean-spirited?"

Thus, please show me where my analogies are "fallacious!"

 

[SimonDoom]

There's a point in a thread's life when it's no longer about the original subject matter, which has been sufficiently covered and discussed, and it's just about the good faith and motives and qualifications of the participants. At that point, the thread has stopped serving its purpose.

We're at that point here.

 

[Candy_Kane54]

There's a point in a thread's life when it's no longer about the original subject matter, which has been sufficiently covered and discussed, and it's just about the good faith and motives and qualifications of the participants. At that point, the thread has stopped serving its purpose.

We're at that point here.

Therefore, we need a Monty Python reference ...

Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one... stayed up And that's what you're gonna get, lad the strongest castle in these islands.