Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-26537256-20160716142055/@comment-26537256-20160718125148

Ok, let me put it this way.

I just want to get my story published on this website, and I've changed and added to it so it make more sense. I've gone through various channels to try and improve it, eventually making this thread to see if the majority of people would understand what I'm trying to get at. Before consulting Jay ten, I tried working with EmpyrealInvective to fix his issues, and he didn't get to read the most recent version due to not being available. Once he understood the story, his main point of concern wasn't the vagueness, but the overall lack of character insight, thus, I tried fixing this by adding a bit more to the second section and rearranging some stuff.

When Jay ten said didn't understand the story, I had got a friend read it who instantly saw the meaning (without prior knowledge), so I was a little confused with his misunderstanding (since then, two people had read it, one who didn't understand the first version [EmpyrealInvective] and another who understood the latest version [My friend]. I then asked "what in particular don't you understand?" to get some clarity on the problems, but, instead, he replied he finally saw the stories message, and implied the problem might just be specific to him ("Let's see what some others think of it without you giving any explanation. I'm more than willing to change my mind.").

Following his suggestion, I posted the story on the workshop, and ChristianWallis, reviewing the piece, basically said he didn't understand it yet didn't finish it ("And as for the second half I literally could not tell you what is happening. I gave up."). I mistook this as literal (a mistake on my part), so I pointed out a section that I thought provided clarity ("What does this tell you?"), and I edited the reply again to give some reasoning for my viewpoint ("I want to know how exactly you interpret my story. An admin here (Jay ten) and a friend of mine both understand it, so why don't you?"). ChristianWallis obviously took this as hostile, which is fair given he had no prior knowledge of the context.

EmpyrealInvective decided to leave a reply, stating I was being "condescending", and then editing his reply again to reflect the neccesary information while not stating context to strengthen his claim (whether he did this maliciously or just to provide clarity isn't entirely clear, but I'll assume the latter, since he most likely didn't know Jay ten read the latest version, or consider the implications from his reply). In turn, I stated part of my thinking behind the reply to ChristianWallis ("You misunderstood the first edition (which is understandable), while Jay ten got it after an hour", "Christian never finished it ... and the end basically reveals what's happening"). I will admit, however, I did not mention Jay ten's reply because I thought EmpyrealInvective was already aware of it.

However, despite my attempts, EmpyrealInvective, without taking into account the rest of Jay ten's message, which might have clarified things, again called me "condescending", highlighting Jay ten's initial reply, even though Jay ten himself implied that his misunderstanding of the story may be specific to him ("Ok, I finally got it. I still stand by my view it will confuse a lot of people ... Let's see what others think without you giving any explanation. I'm more than willing to change my mind."). EmpyrealInvective was basically making assumptions without considering context, and I feel this attitude towards my replies was a little uncalled for.

In reply, I explained my intend behind the messages ("Why do you think why I'm asking for people to be particular about what they don't understand? So I can fix it, simple as that."), yet, he still persisted I was being "condescending" without considering certain implications (When, why, how e.g.). To be specific for the messages he highlighted:


 * "I had a friend read it and he understood it, so I don't really get why it wouldn't make sense." Only two people had reviewed the piece at this point (EmpyrealInvective and my friend), and, as I stated before, "his main point of concern wasn't the vagueness, but the overall lack of character insight". He may have noted a "lack of initiative leaps", but that was a single line. Because of this, I tried fixing the story, I had my friend read it and he instantly understood the message, even without prior knowledge. At the time, EmpyrealInvective had only read the second version, and my friend read the most recent version, so I assumed that I'd addressed most of the problems with the story. Thus, my message was taken out of context.
 * "No, I just don't think you get it since you never finished it." I took "...could not tell you what is happening. I gave up." as ChristianWallis not finishing the story, which he has since clarified. I wanted to actually improve the story, so I was stating my reasoning behind the question. At that time, Jay ten stated he got the story, and implied it was a specific problem to him that it took so long. EmpyrealInvective hadn't got the second version, which is understandable, but hadn't seen the latest version. My friend understood the latest version, so I thought I'd fixed the issues. Again, taken out of context.

That is why I was on the defensive, why I seem to have an "attitude" towards critiscm, and why I appear rigid. I felt I was being insulted personally by EmpyrealInvective, by him taking things out of context to strengthen his point and antagonise me. But, in hindsight, I'm just looking at his comments with as having negative intentions, and I have since forgotten that.

Overall, this should explain everything.