Censorship on Literotica

[TadOverdon]

So, someone posted a badly written story on the Internet.

What do you expect to accomplish by subjecting it to an extensive critique?

Reviews of really bad free media can be cathartic for the frustrated reviewer if there is some requirement for them to read the offending material. If the reviewer is a very clever writer, such a review may be passingly amusing for a reader...but they serve no other useful purpose. You are not going to make a terrible writer one bit better - you really aren't, trust me.

You're not serving as a warning to consumers to avoid investing in substandard product because, duh, it's free (any reasonably literate reader can figure out for themselves that something's not working for them in about thirty seconds, if that).

You're not advancing the craft of writing in any way. To make a worthwhile contribution in that area, you'd have to tackle material that has some merit and some ambition, at least in your eyes. The artistic failures of a Hemingway are instructive. The failings of Rosemary Rogers? Worth a sentence at the bottom of a page, somewhere.

I don't know if there's a German equivalent of the colloquial phrase "shooting fish in a barrel," but by your own account it sounds as if this is exactly what you're trying to do.

 

[Auden James]

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.

Your assumption, alas, is wrong. The author, whose story I critiqued, is not a beginner in any sense of the term! He's been published in German short story magazines in the past, just not—as far as his self-presentation is to be believed—erotic ones.

Do you think I would appreciate somebody making a federal case out of my early efforts by writing an exposé?

I don't know you, but since I take your question to be merely rhetorical, I would say that you don't come across as to be too keen on criticism of your writing anyway, be it your past or your present.

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.

Thank you for stating it so clearly! Honestly, I'm just somewhat startled that, generally speaking, critical reviews on LIT (even in the English-speaking part where, after all, the concept of free speech stems from) seem to be as much appreciated as a gippy tummy. Good to know!

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

Personally, I don't think there's anything "ugly" in giving honest feedback or writing literary critiques. Thus, for me, bad writing is definitely worse!

 

[gordo12]

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.

I agree!

Personally, I don't think there's anything "ugly" in giving honest feedback or writing literary critiques. Thus, for me, bad writing is definitely worse!

If you wrote me a PRIVATE email detailing the issues you'd seen, and you were correct, I'd be grateful. One of the major authors here did just that in explaining how my attribution was incorrect and showed me examples. I'll be forever grateful he took the time.

To hoist a flag on me publicly with a withering "you're an idiot" dissing of my writing. I'd be offended.

Then there's the overriding issue of whether or not you're right. I've had plenty of advice from well-meaning readers who are often incorrect! That's a whole other hurdle.

 

[CyranoJ]

Where did I attempt to "lecture" anyone about what makes or breaks a critique?

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).

I did not, by the way, say that you lectured anyone about what "makes or breaks" a critique. I said you attempted to lecture people about what is and is not critique. There's a difference between those propositions.

Where did I claim that I brought special rhetorical or analytical "acumen" to my review?

You didn't. That's simply how I interpret your repeated indignant responses defending your views on what critique is, what a piece none of us can see or judge did or didn't do, and who has any business posting their writing where if they (supposedly) can't handle your species of "critique."

Those are all rhetorical habits consistent with someone who implicitly imagines themselves to be an authority in at least some degree. If that is what you imagine, you are not giving that impression by your words here. At least, you're not giving me that impression. I'm just being honest.

The reasons for that pile up with subsequent posts. If it's important to you that people believe you understand principles like interpretive charity and good-faith textual analysis, for example, probably best not to do stuff like this:

It might just be, as you seem to insinuate, that my "overall skillset" is somewhat lacking

Because, you see, trying to sneak in there that I "seem to insinuate" the opposite of what my post actually said rather undermines your credibility as being able to recognize and engage in good-faith reading and interpretation.

please show me where my analogies are "fallacious!"

It would be fairly simple to Google examples of the informal fallacy of false analogy, compare them to your repeated rhetorical gambits in this thread, and figure out what the similarities are. Work you could do yourself, frankly, and I'm not inclined to do it for you at the moment.

If you really need an explanation when you're in a calmer frame of mind, though, I would be happy to provide it.

Finally:

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!

If you say so. Rather looks to me like you have a considerable problem with someone pointing out even the abstract possibility of your having failed or erred, but I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you further about it.

Either listen to others or don't, I guess? The more you post, the more I have the sense that you came here looking for rote affirmation of your sense of persecution. I can't give you that based on the information I have access to; I'm simply adducing possibilities from impressions of your behavior here because it's literally all I have to go on. There is nothing else.

At any rate, we're done here. Have a nice day.

 

[8letters]

Auden James, write your own story and publish it here. Show the other author how it should be done. When readers shower your story with accolades, the other author is going to be more receptive to your advice.

When you've published your own story, you'll discover that getting unsolicited writing advice is not a pleasant experience.

 

[cuck72]

No Such Thing As Free Speech

This is just my opinion, but I believe there is no such thing as free speech. Sadly people can't speak their mind, and just tell it like it is, say what they want, or say what they believe. So lets be honest, that there is no real free speech. People speak up, and speak their mind, and their out of a job. Sadly we can't have much pushback on subjects of matter, and get to the truth, say what we want. because the shit hits the fan.

 

[CyranoJ]

Auden James, write your own story and publish it here. Show the other author how it should be done.

I wonder if the OP previously had stories posted here (presumably in German) and no longer does? Aside from name-checking Bataille (and his theory of "Erotism," I think), Courbet, Nin, and a few others, their profile bio appears to talk quite a bit about their purported love of critical comments.

[EDIT: If I had dug a little further than their profile, I'm informed that they do have posted stories in German. Thanks to Ruben for the correction/confirmation.]

 

[Auden James]

@ TadOverdon

Thanks for your input!

You might be right with everything you say, but as SimonDoom already pointed out: You are no longer discussing the original subject matter (if it is OK to take down reviews of LIT stories on LIT, or something along these lines . . .) but questioning my motives behind writing a critique on a LIT story.

Still, I find your questions intriguing. Hence, I'll try to find answers to some of your questions.

What I wanted to accomplish, I answered already above: analyzing the story's apparent (at least to my mind) shortcomings and thereby illustrating ostensively what pitfalls to sidestep when writing erotic stories. This I also find useful from the perspective of the reviewer as it helps to sharpen one's eye for shortcomings in one's own writing. I mean, generally speaking, if you cannot detect mistakes in somenone else's writing, how would you want to detect them in your own?

There might also be a somewhat cathartic aspect about it, I wouldn't deny it. Because even if no one else required me to read said story, I, so to speak, required myself to do so because I was curious what kind of story this supposedly non-amateur writer would contribute to the site. And I know, trust me, that I am not going to make a terrible writer one bit better, not even with an extensive critique, which I suspect might be correlated with the often observable fact that terrible writers seldom seem to take criticism very well.

However, even though LIT stories are freely available, it still takes time to read them (even if, as you proclaim, the "resonably literate reader" can decide what is worth reading and what not in merely thirty seconds). Hence, it might still serve as a kind of warning to at least some consumers to not waste their time with substandard writing!

Ironically, the writer of said story changed his tune about his "ambition" after my review was taken down. First, he stated that he wanted to write stories that were "out of the ordinary," now he states that he merely wants to "entertain." Thus I was led to believe, as it were, that I was reading something written by someone with at least some literary ambition! And not some clueless first-timer who just wants to explore his dirty fantasies . . .

I don't know if there's a German equivalent of the colloquial phrase "shooting fish in a barrel," but by your own account it sounds as if this is exactly what you're trying to do.

I'm not so sure about that, to be honest. Have you tried to write an extensive critique of a LIT story (or any other story at that) before? It's not as easy as you might think, especially if you try to base your evaluation on textual analysis and evidence. Well, that is my experience anyway.

 

[CyranoJ]

What's the problem of checking these things yourself, instead of guessing? He has stories, old and new ones. In German.

Noted, and my bad. I couldn't find a link from their profile; I should not have assumed this meant they weren't there.

 

[KeithD]

I don't believe in vigilante critique on Literotica and don't care if the Web site curtails it. First, this is a sharing site, not a critique one, and second, most who give unsolicited critique here aren't qualified to be doing so and are only doing it to puff themselves up. This is a private business. Yes, it claims it supports free speech when It's not practicing that purely, but, no, it has no obligation to do so on its site.

 

[SimonDoom]

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

About this issue, which comes up often, and is an important one:

This is 100% true. Free speech in the constitutional or legal sense is not at issue here. The Site owners have a right to regulate content as they see fit. I for one respect that even if some of the content rules don't make sense to me.

But there are two other considerations.

One is that Laurel has at times stated her support for freedom of speech, and I think it's fair to expect her to stand by that commitment in a reasonably fair and consistent way. My sense is that her avowed stance regarding the content on this Site is that authors and commenters should be fairly free to write what they want, subject to certain discrete exceptions. It's fair to comment if the actual practice differs from the avowed policy.

The other is that, while Laurel has the right to do what she wants, we're also interested parties in this Site and it's fair for us to give our two cents on what the scope of speech here ought to be. We're her customers, and she has an interest in making us happy, and we have a right to let her know if we're happy. There's no point in whining about it, but it's perfectly fair to speak out and let her know if we think the content regulation is capricious or strange or overly restrictive.

 

[KeithD]

There are a whole bunch of policy and rules statements--along with a whole bunch of other features--that were made here over twenty years ago that faded away in time and haven't been redone. The "free speech" is one, because users have gone way beyond the topical bounds of the Web site on this, mostly in the GB. The recent overhaul cleaned some of this obsolete stuff up. Not so with the declaration of "free speech." The Web site has cut back on that, mostly to try to keep contentious activity (which is what the case of this thread seems to be about--vindictive vigilante tearing at a writer's published story) off the Web site. As this is a sharing Web site that encourages creativity and doesn't demand New Yorker quality, I'm fine with attempting to maintain an encouraging "mind our own business and let others enjoy theirs" policy--even when my sails get trimmed on this point occasionally.

I'm pretty sure that I was about the first one to point out that it's the story providers who are providing the raw materials that makes the business here profitable for the site owners and that these free vendors aren't given enough consideration here and have done that consistently in the face of the site owner calling me a troll for doing so, so I think I'm on solid ground in perspective on how much free speech users are entitled to from this private business.

 

[TadOverdon]

@ TadOverdon
I'm not so sure about that, to be honest. Have you tried to write an extensive critique of a LIT story (or any other story at that) before?

Not a LIT story and can't imagine why I would want to.

Professionally? Yes, several times, twenty years ago, as a job requirement. Book trade publication. Thanks for asking.

 

[Auden James]

@ CyranoJ

I get the impression that you are really trying to split hairs now!

Granted, if you want to construe my general statement that attacking someone else is definitely not the sense of a critique as lecturing people about what is and is not critique, whilst I think that there is a meaningful difference between making general statements and lecturing (particular) people, feel free to call it "lecturing" if you understand the term this way. I don't, but now I know at least that we understand the term quite differently!

Besides I thought that my "what makes or breaks" a critique was a reasonable paraphrase of your "what is or is not" a critique in the given context. But perhaps the misunderstanding was inevitable, since we already disagree about whether I even did what you claim I did, see:

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.

Where did I claim that I brought special rhetorical or analytical "acumen" to my review?

You didn't. That's simply how I interpret . . .

Thus you are in fact admitting to—deliberately—making false claims about what I really did do just to fit your "interpretation" of what I supposedly did do!

Well, let me state it this way: I wouldn't call behaviour like that "interpretation," no, not all. I would rather call it "lying," "bullshitting," "blackening," "smearing," etc. Feel free to choose your perferred term, I won't be splitting hairs with you about this one either!

I'm just being honest.

I find it hard to believe that, cf. your admitted dishonesty above.

Because, you see, trying to sneak in there that I "seem to insinuate" the opposite of what my post actually said rather undermines your credibility as being able to recognize and engage in good-faith reading and interpretation.

Says the admitted liar.

Besides do you know the rhetorical concept of antiphrasis? That's exactly what you did there mentioning my "overall skillset." But since you've started splitting hairs with me in true sophist fashion, I don't think that I need to "lecture" you any further on something like this.

It would be fairly simple to Google examples of the informal fallacy of false analogy, compare them to your repeated rhetorical gambits in this thread, and figure out what the similarities are.

Very convenient, isn't it? But I simply don't see how it is my job to refute my own argument when you claim that it is fallacious even after I let you know that I don't see anything wrong with it and asked you to please show me the error with it!

Have a nice day.

You too!

 

[CyranoJ]

Well, this brief example of the OP's notions of good faith and dealing positively with criticism confirmed my decision to be done with this, and how:

I find it hard to believe that, cf. your admitted dishonesty above.

Admitting speculation is not admittingly dishonesty FFS. That framing is itself risibly dishonest, and the subsequent transition to outright name-calling was entirely predictable. Enough so that I'm not wasting time with the rest of your post.

OP: You. Are. Still. Digging. Good luck with that. On the Iggy list you go, this is ridiculous.

 

[Auden James]

Then there's the overriding issue of whether or not you're right. I've had plenty of advice from well-meaning readers who are often incorrect! That's a whole other hurdle.

That's true, but it is not part of the question here! If publishing reviews of LIT stories on LIT should be permissible on free speech grounds, it shouldn't be a question of the reviews' truth or untruth (regarding the evaluation of the base text). I mean, free speech doesn't allow only (proven) true speech, or does it? Isn't free speech rather a way to ensure the possibility of getting to the truth—sooner or later, even against the possible resistance of parties with truth-opposing interests?

Sadly people can't speak their mind, and just tell it like it is, say what they want, or say what they believe. So lets be honest, that there is no real free speech. People speak up, and speak their mind, and their out of a job.

Alas, I tend to agree!

The crux of the matter, concerning the original subject matter of this thread, seems to be that Laurel, as SimonDoom pointed out, has stated at several times that she encourages free speech. I mean, she—who is apparently the "moderator" who rejected the re-publication of my review if I understand the replies in this thread correctly—even stated this in the rejection note! Now, isn't that ironic—or simply paradoxical? Curtailing free speech while encouraging it at the same time!

Professionally? Yes, several times, twenty years ago, as a job requirement. Book trade publication

May I also ask what, if any, the requirements, especially content-wise, were for a professional critique back then? It would be interesting for me to hear someone with professional first-hand experience elaborating on this matter.

Admitting speculation is not admittingly dishonesty FFS.

Try to weasel your way out with one re-definition after another in true sophist fashion, it doesn't change anything about the fact that you—deliberately—made false claims about what I supposedly did do. You didn't "speculate," you matter-of-factly imputed. But I find it all-too understandable that the liar caught in the act is in a hurry to clear the field! Just watch out not to drop into the deep hole you believe to leave behind!

 

[Stillrandy]

.
.
.
Try to weasel your way out with one re-definition after another in true sophist fashion, it doesn't change anything about the fact that you—deliberately—made false claims about what I supposedly did do. You didn't "speculate," you matter-of-factly imputed. But I find it all-too understandable that the liar caught in the act is in a hurry to clear the field! Just watch out not to drop into the deep hole you believe to leave behind!

"Methinks he doth protest too much".

----------------------

And for the rest of the thread readers, I wrote this advice to myself some time back:

The only way to deal with pests, trolls, flamers, and other trouble makers in Forums or Chat is to ignore them.
Do not reply to them.
Do not respond to them.
Do not try to refute them.
Do not try to convert them.
Do not try to answer them.
Do not try to reason with them.
In other words, ignore them completely. They will eventually tire of the game and go away. Put them on your Ignore List or kill-file if you want, but shunning is the best remedy.

 

[TadOverdon]

Okay, so the OP's established that the only point of this thread was "Look at me, I'm the smartest guy in the room!"

And his review still isn't going to be posted. And still, no one cares.

I'm out.

 

[gordo12]

That's true, but it is not part of the question here! If publishing reviews of LIT stories on LIT should be permissible on free speech grounds,

You seem to have a singular inability to understand a basic fact. Free speech is something guaranteed to you by the constitution and the gov of your country. Think Speakers Corner in Hyde Park.

Free speech is NOT guaranteed to you by private businesses. They can do what they want.

This is a private business. Therefore your whining about free speech is meaningless.

I'm out too.

 

[KeithD]

The point some are making, though, is that the Web site espouses sweeping free speech here. This is what the current forum rules states on that:

"Anything else goes. You may post whatever you like. Consequently, so can everyone else. The administrators here don't believe they are anyone's parents nor are they anyone's Jiminy Cricket. It's not their responsibility to make sure that everyone on the site uses free speech responsibly. It's up to individual users to be responsible for themselves. For those who are not, the programmers at Jelsoft have added an ignore function for your convenience. Just go here and add the user you don't want to deal with anymore.

"In short, we believe in the First Amendment, and offensive content will not be removed unless it breaks one of the rules."

As some are noting, this isn't what the Web site is doing. It's not obligated to grant this much free speech here (and it no longer does). The point is that it needs to update its rules statements to come closer to actual practice here.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Okay, so the OP's established that the only point of this thread was "Look at me, I'm the smartest guy in the room!"

And his review still isn't going to be posted. And still, no one cares.

I'm out.

This isn't the first time this bloke has done this, wandered into the AH and slung a few "I'm a wanker" grenades, spectacularly illustrated one or two cultural stereotypes about Germans in the process, then proceeded to dig himself a bigger hole. He's probably broken some kind of record on this one - being put on Ignore by the most people in one day. But there you are, free speech and all that. But the dumper truck's coming, I need to put the garbage out.

 

[Auden James]

Interim Conclusions

Thank you all for your replies!

I want to try to summarize what I've learned from them so far (in no particular order).

• Criticism, especially in-depth text-based criticism pointing out the shortcomings of a particular story, does not seem to be all-too appreciated in general and tends to get construed as ad hominem*.
• If offered at all, such criticism should be shared only in private with the respective writer.
• Wrong criticism, e. g., good-meaning but incorrect reader advice, is "doubly" wrong (one, because criticism is unsought-for to begin with; two, because wrong criticism is even less sought-for, naturally).
• My premise that there is a difference between critiquing a writer's work and the writer's person does not seem to find much, if any, support here.
• Literotica—especially the site proper, not necessarily the forum too—is no place for (extensive) critiques of particular stories, and reasonably so.
• Free speech may be a legal concept of the US constitution but is somehow meaningless in the context of debates about the practical policies of a US website, namely Literotica, whose owners have at several times stated (and still do so occasionally) to encourage free speech.
• Caustic criticism is the worst and cannot possibly be reasonable or justified.
• The rationale behind the general unappreciation of criticism seems to be that criticism, at least negative one, is a personal offense (pretty much a corollary of rejecting my premise above).
• Writers, generally speaking, seemingly cannot stand the (public) confrontation with failures in their own craft.

All in all, I got the impression that writing and publishing in-depth text-based criticism pointing out the shortcomings of a particular story is, at best, risky business because, depending on the weight of the pointed-out shortcomings, doing so seems to virtually guarantuee the critic to make hardly any new friends but, almost certainly, a whole lot of new foes (foremost, conceivably, the criticized work's author). What I find particularly interesting is that all the outrage I garnered in this place has been directed solely at an abstract conception of "negative criticism" (thus rife with projection, etc.), without anyone even considering the possibility that such criticism could be an indispensable part of the discourses of writing, even erotic writing.

-----------------------------------
* I've learned many colorful names to deprecate criticism (in no particular order): "self-sucking via venom," "garbage," "ban-worthy offense," "vendetta," "not cool," "verbiage," "attack," "kvetching," "mean-spirited," "shit," "ugly behaviour," "dissing," "persecution."

 

[SimonDoom]

This isn't the first time this bloke has done this, wandered into the AH and slung a few "I'm a wanker" grenades, spectacularly illustrated one or two cultural stereotypes about Germans in the process, then proceeded to dig himself a bigger hole. He's probably broken some kind of record on this one - being put on Ignore by the most people in one day. But there you are, free speech and all that. But the dumper truck's coming, I need to put the garbage out.

Quite right. I'd forgotten, but Auden J. was the one who started a thread two years ago challenging us all to explain why the current Literotica authors weren't as good as those from the past. And, of course, it was "a self-evident observation" (his words) that writing had declined, although proof was short in coming. So there's a bit of history of grenade-tossing here.

 

[jaF0]

Quite right. I'd forgotten, but Auden J. was the one who started a thread two years ago challenging us all to explain why the current Literotica authors weren't as good as those from the past.

Dang!!!! I sho-nuff cudd'a swore it was more recent than that.

03-09-2019, 09:08 PM

 

[Auden James]

And, of course, it was "a self-evident observation" (his words) that writing had declined, although proof was short in coming.

Not exactly my words, SimonDoom. To correct the matter at hand, I think it is OK to quote myself on this occasion:

But what I talk about is the remaining 10 % and the evident qualitative decline observable in that upper range [..].

You see, I didn't argue that anything was "self-evident," as there is a meaningful difference between the concepts of "evidence" and "self-evidence" (EDIT: well, in a later post I used the phrase "virtually self-evident observation," which was probably a little overstated to make my point clear, still I qualified it with the not all-too unimportant adverb "virtually"). And I also didn't argue that writing in general had declined but specifically the "upper range," the, if you will, fraction of submissions with serious literary pretensions.