User blog comment:AB1997/Behaviors That You Dislike That Aren't Against the Rules/@comment-25052433-20151115042916/@comment-4715955-20151120105737

I don't think my comments were ever a problem before this one author who happens to have a lot of friends decided to blog about it.

I'm not commenting to be confrontational, but I noticed my detractors AND supporters have all gotten negative reviews from me at one point or another, and responded in different ways, which should already prove what I'm about to elaborate upon.

If you read even my earliest comments, I've always given barbed critiques, and the worse the writing is, the harsher I tend to get. It's not a recent thing. I don't throw my weight around because I think I'm a top dog around here, and I don't personally insult the authors (except one who was throwing daily hissy-fits to the point where the admins had to warn her, 'cos fuck that childish bullshit). Some of you folks are talking about my approach as if it involves stalking authors on social media and cyberbullying them until they quit writing, or posting insults without any critical merit. Maybe sometimes I get a little too caught up in what I'm talking about, but I always point out something specific that needs to be fixed, and sometimes even suggest alternatives if I'm not pressed for time. Whether I'm a well-liked author or not (honestly, this is the first I've heard of it) is irrelevant: what I'm saying is the important thing.

You prefer the Bob Ross approach of "building up". If it works for you, then by all means use it. That doesn't mean I should be expected to use the same approach just because you disagree with mine, nor should I be preached at or publicly guilt-tripped about it. While I have people putting me on morality trial here, I have other people messaging me asking for further criticism, so maybe my method isn't as terrible and counter-productive as everyone makes it out to be. Besides, there are plenty of other people here who can leave feedback in other ways: everyone does it a little differently, and variety is good.

Honestly the sweet approach never worked for me, and I find it hard to believe that it's worked for anyone in this Participation Prize culture we live in, where everyone is so sure of themselves and so oversensitive, and people's feelings are more important than their work or their character. When I read terrible writing and leave encouraging feedback, I get a smile and a nod and a "thanks", or worse, a polite justification for their bad writing, and then they don't fix anything or improve anything. I tried that approach here somewhat recently, believe it or not (not within the past month, mind, but recently), and like every other time I was friendly and encouraging, my meek "suggestions" were summarily disregarded, and their writing made 0 improvements. And that's if they don't already have ego issues, which many content creators do. One time (on another site) I praised a girl's poem and had no negative criticism for her; she STILL somehow misinterpreted what I said as an insult and rode my ass 'til the cows came home. Another author went Godzilla on me in the recent past, railing on me through email, talk page, comments, Skype, you name it. My sin? Politely pointing out a few formatting issues and typos (on a wiki where everything is supposed to be transparent) with no insults or barbs thrown. Really, if there's a good chance they'll flip no matter what, may as well tell 'em straight.

I start telling people what I really think with no censorship, and wouldn't you know it? People start listening. The ones whose pastas aren't removed 24 hours after upload, anyway. What is it those authors are always complaining about? "You didn't tell me WHY it sucked!"

I've tried it many other ways and this is honestly the best way for me to get through to people. Make suggestions and get a thank you and a brushoff; make demands and people listen, even if they're angry for a little while. At worst, the writer had expected all the fame for none of the work, and now suddenly realizes their folly, and either gets serious or gives up and pursues a hobby they're better suited for; at best, they go "Actually that's a good point" or "I'll show that asshole!" and start writing more diligently, noticeably improving between works, either way doing it to prove it to themselves rather than anyone else. Meanwhile if someone worse comes along with less useful things to say (an actual asshole who doesn't actually care about what he/she just read and is just looking for a fight), he'll be able to deal with it without making himself look like an asshole in the process, like so many butthurt content creators do (fyi that's not a jab at the OP for blogging about this, although I don't recommend making blog posts about this sort of stuff because it can backfire). I might be a better writer today if only someone had actually sat me down in high school and said, "Look, this sucks, here's why, fix it or start again." Yeah, I'd be mad at first. Who wouldn't be? But then I'd improve. Because I can't help it.

Writers write because they can't help it. There's no fear of turning a real writer off of writing because we're wired that way. It takes a long, long life of nothing but failure to turn someone away from their craft, not one mean critique.

Even if I don't give frank and sometimes harsh critiques, somebody else will, and this sort of discussion still happens. Everyone shakes their fingers at the critic for being so mean, and they say "I liked the story" as if it makes a difference. Lots of people like Hudson Hawk too. And that's okay, although people will probably look down on you for it. What's not okay is telling the writers that they did a good job, when in fact they made a cinematic DeLorean. Back then, you made a Hudson Hawk, you ate shit for it, and deservedly so. The moviegoing public didn't stand for it. Today it's the quality standard, and we deserve better, but nobody seems to realize it or do anything about it.

I also find "art is to be appreciated" a very self-pleasing concept, like the idea that anything is art, or "I can interpret it any way I want". The idea in itself is very anti-criticism, as if the wiki is a preschool finger painting class where everybody is a winner. I feel like if you really subscribed to that idea, you would accept bad writing for what it is and not even suggest improvements.

Anyway, like Something Is Wrong as much as you want. It's still everything I said it was, and it still needs a total rewrite. The author is fully capable of writing better than this, and I certainly never insulted him: I just told him his story was bad in a way he didn't stomach very well. And if I wanna be disappointed in my writing peers for supporting bad writing, that's my choice. Hate me all you want for it. What do you care what I say, anyway? I'm a stranger on the internet.