Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-4833240-20140301051701/@comment-24077689-20140304171310

Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: 41488p wrote: There's a difference between "This fucking sucks" and "This fucking sucks; here's what's wrong with it". Better than either is just "Here's what's wrong with it."

No cookie. No pats on the back. No violent aggression. Just critique.

Which is what this thread is about. Critique.

As for the example you linked to, Callie, if I were to bother spending my time on a review and not just assume it will be deleted (which is itself a mistake being made by many in this thread), I would quantify exactly what was wrong with the writing and exactly what was bad about it. I wouldn't be offering to put it up on the fridge like the author's mother, nor would I be launching arbitrary, undefined attacks on it with standalone statements like "This fucking sucks" or "What a piece of crap."

I would be neutral.

Hear that?

Neutral.

Say it with me, now.

N-E-U-T-R-A-L.

Jesus, people. If you're going to participate in this debate then at least read what's being said.

Everyone has it fixated in their minds that it's either one of two extremes: Either a reviewer has to be a hand-holding sugar-coating friendship-loving pansy or a violent, aggressive, offense-launching douchebag.

This is not the case, so stop acting like it is. Christ. A very fair point. And I feel something that should be taken away from this is that you can be stern without being a total cock.

But in your neutrality, say you write a lengthy and fantastic critique, and the author clearly doesn't read it and merely dismisses it saying "writing is subjective, bro" do you leave it at that or do you counter?

I wrote simply on the way that I review, the way that I've always reviewed. I take college online, I review people's work in the exact same severe manner. I did it this way in in-person classes when I first started college. That's just the way I do it, it's the way I've always done it.