![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shalannaI only have a few minutes before I have to go do my tutoring and then run an errand, but this is important.
I've just discovered that I may have hurt several kind people's feelings with one of my recent posts about the help and consideration I received over at Edittorrent. When I made my post, I concentrated only on the one somewhat puzzling (to me) grammar comment I got and completely neglected to mention that the other feedback (about how the opening line created the expectation in some readers that it would be a family saga, that even a mention of a trope such as an angel might imply that this would be the focus of the story, and many other invaluable things to learn that I would NEVER have thought of on my own) was VERY HELPFUL. The impression got back to them that it hadn't helped me and that I hadn't appreciated all the comments (even the ones I was still probing to understand), and that is NOT the case.
I don't know where they got the impression, unless it was just from my continuation on that thread. Over here, in one reply to Pamela, I expressed some frustration with the way critiques in general work (saying, in effect, that when you say "Look at this" people almost feel obligated to find SOMETHING wrong, even if it gets blown out of proportion by the end--if they *don't* find a major problem, they don't say that.) I kind of forgot I wasn't just talking to one FidoNet friend there--but it's flattering to know that people keep up with my comments threads, as I thought they were ancient history within a day or so of their posting. I'll get back to this in another entry later today, but suffice it to say that I wasn't talking about Alicia or anyone in particular when I vented to Pamela.
I never intended to upset anyone or hurt feelings. I always question what I've heard and probe at it by discussing it or trying to explain what I was going for and so forth, and that may not have been appropriate here--although I believe that several people on the comments thread didn't mind my blather, and two of them actually did come up with a good alternative to my sentence that didn't add a lot of words and didn't change the feel very much (the same way that Fairieem did in a comment here.) This seems to have come across all wrong. For that I am heartily sorry. In our family, we are the Bickersons . . . we're like the characters in the old sitcoms who question everything and bicker and so forth, but we're used to it. We're accustomed to explaining ourselves and getting fine-tuned responses. I suppose that may contribute to the way I handle feedback. (I thought that when I titled the entry here "GLOAT," it might register that I was pleased to have been chosen for analysis. Oops.) I don't believe that I was rude or nasty on their site or here, but if others heard it that way, may I ask what I can do to make it up to everyone?
I am hoping that the increased traffic to their site is pleasing to them, at least. I realize I didn't make the typical response of saying that everything is immediately clear, but I don't believe in a false front. If I think that additional discussion of a point will help me or someone else, I usually pursue it. Maybe that gets me into hot water, but it often brings a lot more information and help out into the open, too. I'm not going to go over there and say anything, at least not right now, because I've GOT to run, and I don't know what it would be; I may be mistaken, anyway. But I didn't want to be the cause of unhappy thoughts (well, at least not as far as I can prevent it--too bad about my poor victim--er, student if she hates factoring polynomials. *grin*)
Let's give a big hooray for those who are brave enough to put their work up for scrutiny (I'm not including myself, because I'm not brave, just crazy) and another even bigger hooray for those who try to help them by giving a close reading and feedback!
Now, off to the pre-algebra/algebra wars.
I've just discovered that I may have hurt several kind people's feelings with one of my recent posts about the help and consideration I received over at Edittorrent. When I made my post, I concentrated only on the one somewhat puzzling (to me) grammar comment I got and completely neglected to mention that the other feedback (about how the opening line created the expectation in some readers that it would be a family saga, that even a mention of a trope such as an angel might imply that this would be the focus of the story, and many other invaluable things to learn that I would NEVER have thought of on my own) was VERY HELPFUL. The impression got back to them that it hadn't helped me and that I hadn't appreciated all the comments (even the ones I was still probing to understand), and that is NOT the case.
I don't know where they got the impression, unless it was just from my continuation on that thread. Over here, in one reply to Pamela, I expressed some frustration with the way critiques in general work (saying, in effect, that when you say "Look at this" people almost feel obligated to find SOMETHING wrong, even if it gets blown out of proportion by the end--if they *don't* find a major problem, they don't say that.) I kind of forgot I wasn't just talking to one FidoNet friend there--but it's flattering to know that people keep up with my comments threads, as I thought they were ancient history within a day or so of their posting. I'll get back to this in another entry later today, but suffice it to say that I wasn't talking about Alicia or anyone in particular when I vented to Pamela.
I never intended to upset anyone or hurt feelings. I always question what I've heard and probe at it by discussing it or trying to explain what I was going for and so forth, and that may not have been appropriate here--although I believe that several people on the comments thread didn't mind my blather, and two of them actually did come up with a good alternative to my sentence that didn't add a lot of words and didn't change the feel very much (the same way that Fairieem did in a comment here.) This seems to have come across all wrong. For that I am heartily sorry. In our family, we are the Bickersons . . . we're like the characters in the old sitcoms who question everything and bicker and so forth, but we're used to it. We're accustomed to explaining ourselves and getting fine-tuned responses. I suppose that may contribute to the way I handle feedback. (I thought that when I titled the entry here "GLOAT," it might register that I was pleased to have been chosen for analysis. Oops.) I don't believe that I was rude or nasty on their site or here, but if others heard it that way, may I ask what I can do to make it up to everyone?
I am hoping that the increased traffic to their site is pleasing to them, at least. I realize I didn't make the typical response of saying that everything is immediately clear, but I don't believe in a false front. If I think that additional discussion of a point will help me or someone else, I usually pursue it. Maybe that gets me into hot water, but it often brings a lot more information and help out into the open, too. I'm not going to go over there and say anything, at least not right now, because I've GOT to run, and I don't know what it would be; I may be mistaken, anyway. But I didn't want to be the cause of unhappy thoughts (well, at least not as far as I can prevent it--too bad about my poor victim--er, student if she hates factoring polynomials. *grin*)
Let's give a big hooray for those who are brave enough to put their work up for scrutiny (I'm not including myself, because I'm not brave, just crazy) and another even bigger hooray for those who try to help them by giving a close reading and feedback!
Now, off to the pre-algebra/algebra wars.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 07:01 pm (UTC)Since I made one of the comments here, I'll try this one.
It was obvious that you were pleased to have been chosen for critique, and I truly believe you did not mean to dismiss the responses you got. But do give some thought to your tone in your responses. I know you're "musing" on the possibilities, but when your "musing" takes the form of rejecting every word in the critique (whether that is what you intend or not) then you cannot blame the critiquer for feeling you've wasted her time.
A little further down you address the critiques by suggesting that you have a different type of brain from today's reader and maybe modern readers just don't understand you. The fact that your original critiquer was then moved to point out that she reads and teaches 19th-century fiction makes me think she read your comment as dismissing her opinions as those of one who isn't... I don't know, advanced enough? to understand your style. When in fact, what she seems to be saying is that she is quite conversant in the style you're aiming for, and she simply thinks you missed.
It's a matter of tone, and I don't think you do it on purpose but you do seem to have a problem with identifying the tone of your own posts sometimes. There is a running note of self-congratulation underlying even your most self-denigrating posts--not that I think you should denigrate yourself, but you do write a lot of posts that say things like "I'm out of step with current publishing/writing/reading" in a way that strongly implies that your way is better, and if only readers and editors were smarter and more literate they would certainly see that.
When in fact, in a lot of cases the issue is that the readers get what you're going for, they just think you're not there yet.
Remember Uriah Heep, talking on and on about how "'umble" he was, and how proud he was of his own supposed humility? Just have a thought for whether the natural impulse to protect yourself and to celebrate what's good in your writing doesn't turn into an equally natural, but unhelpful, impulse to conclude that any other viewpoint or perspective is inferior to yours.
I'm hesitant to post this and I really do not want to hurt your feelings, but over the time I've been reading your journal I have come to see that self-protective, everyone-different-from-me-is-wrong attitude as one of the major impediments to your development as a writer and your journey toward publication.
My thoughts, for what they are worth.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 11:40 pm (UTC)The next time you are tempted to post a sentence like "I think everyone else just goes around trying to find something wrong and prove something by picking everything apart. go away, write the sentence in a blank document, look at it again, think about how you would feel if you had been one of the contributors, AND THEN DON'T POST IT.
You're using commonplace statements a lot. Readers want. People in writing groups say. Editors will complain. Agents won't. And you've got a very strong image of your readership - you tend to address them from a position of experience and skill. Well, you don't know who reads your posts and blog comments. Your readers might have as much, or more, or much more intense experience than you do. And they're going to start out on the wrong foot if you explain how the industry works, particularly when their experiences are completely different from yours, *particularly* if they happen to be a member of a group you have just set in a less than favorable light.
I realize I didn't make the typical response of saying that everything is immediately clear, but I don't believe in a false front.
Look at that sentence again.
I realize
This only has value if the rest of the sentence parses to true. If it doesn't, you're building a strawman.
I didn't make the typical response
Has there been a typical response? I think I've read most of the posts, and some writers have responded, others haven't, some have entered a dialogue, others have simply said 'thanks, I'll think about this'. You're falling into a typical pattern again: you vs everybody else. And obviously you're on the side of the angels.
saying that everything is immediately clear,
Definitely a strawman. You're building everybody else up to be yesmen, awed by authority. (I wouldn't rule out that a number of people really *do* go 'of course' - they're very articulate ladies with a good grasp of language and the ability to explain.) But you're not implying that you're batting your head against a wall and could you please have further explanations, which is where *I* would have been in your situation, you're implying that _nobody_ - or at most only a few people - will immediately understand what the problems with their openings were,
but I don't believe in a false front.
And there you have it. People who say immediately that they understand what was explained to them are putting on a false front. So now you've annoyed everybody who *did* get the explanation and said 'thank you' (because their experience was real, not a false front); you've annoyed everybody who *didn't* immediately say 'thanks I got it' because they're gonna go "but I never exhibited this behaviour she's assigning to 'everybody,'" you've annoyed everybody who doesn't buy into your moral superiority, and you've annoyed everybody who has been _giving_ advice, because you've indirectly mocked _them_ - the advice you saw was not of the kind that it could have created an honest immediate 'I got it, thanks' response.
And the last point is that you're investing behaviours with moral judgements that started out as perfectly neutral: it's not a contest between getting a point immediately and asking for clarification; a person engaging in one is not morally superior to a person engaging in the other, _and nobody has suggested so_.
I know. A lot of fuss over a single sentence, but that sentence is exemplary of why you're running into brick walls so often. You're a writer. Apply your skills to the blogosphere.
a gentle suggestion
Date: 2008-03-08 11:35 pm (UTC)http://www.critters.org/diplomacy.html
http://www.critters.org/whathow.html
Yes, they speak specifically to critiquers, but to my simple mind it seems that they also apply to those who receive critiques and respond to them.
I'm sure that in the verbal discussions that you mention that the people are 'arguing agreeably' and that there are rarely, if ever, hard feelings - but I suspect that the people involved know each other and are giving each other non-verbal cues that take much of the confrontation out of the words. Heck, I'm New Yorker enough to agree that that kind of discussion is a lot of fun with the right people. Unfortunately, the impersonal nature of the Internet makes it hard to use that style successfully, at least in my experience. (For what it's worth, I was on the 'net before the World Wide Web was invented, back when we thought Usenet and Gopher were the future.) Your comments were NOTHING compared to a Usenet or web forum flame war, but they could be perceived as projecting a different, more confrontational attitude than I suspect you really intended.
I hope this is at least as helpful as the little rewording suggestion I posted on edittorrent.
Dave Shaw