Talkin' 'bout the work, not the forums, Felix...

Last edited by GPyrenees (06-10-2012 13:42:12)

Felix Urick wrote:

Dear GP,

As you are well aware, my original post was at your request. There was no dogma in it, no sarcasm, no claim that my post was rules or anything else. If I had to do over, I would have never posted a single word and saved all of this from happening. But rather than tell some of the respondents that they may have been over-reacting, it comes down to "lets teach the new guy a lesson." Sorry, but I think your focus is way off base.

Obviously, some people took my words as overbearing. But please note: not all of them did. Deb, Max and Vern expressed appreciation and did not accuse me of being overbearing - which immediately says it came down to interpretation. My answer to the people who did think them overbearing: lighten up folks and stop trying to find fault where none exists.

FYI: I have made that exact same post (copy & pasted) in many other writer forums and have never had the kind of reaction that I received here. Most of the time I do not include the list of filter verbs, but many writers have contacted me privately and asked for the list.

I kept trying to say I was just a sharing, but it seemed some people were absolutely intent on spanking me for breaking some previously established decorum. I didn't bring the "rules" word into the discussion, but I did respond to it. I didn't make fun of anyone else's opinion. I did not add sarcasm to my entries. If you would read all of JE's entries, I think you would see she laced many of them with sarcasm. Why are you not writing a long post suggesting that JE eliminate the sarcasm from her posts? That sarcasm, IMO, is a lot more inflammatory than anything I wrote.

I may be a newbie to TNBW, but I am not a newbie to fiction writing or to forums. Sharing opinions, and differing opinions, with professionals is something I have done my entire career. I'm accustomed to dealing with professionals who do not use sarcasm in making their points. If you require that I reveal my credentials in order for you to consider that I have a valid opinion, then fine, but in the interim please know that I would happily line my credentials up against anyone and not feel the least bit under-credited. Suffice to say that I have 21 years of formal education and have been an adjunct professor at one of the top 15 graduate schools in the US. I am accustomed to dealing with professionals.

I really didn't care whether JE was a female or male, I would've said 'emotional' in either case, so playing the gender card, in my opinion, was uncalled for. There was nothing sexist in my words.

Forums are not tricky places. They are only tricky places if people are geared to be overly sensitive.

I have not chosen JE as an adversary. She has chosen me as her adversary. She did not feel it satisfactory to just state her opinion on the topic and move on. She felt the need to belabor the issue. And when I decided to counter, that only fueled her all the more.

I am sorry this whole uproar has happened, but the water is over the damn. But I do think you are pointing the finger at the wrong person. It appears I have wandered into a clique and the clique has circled their wagons.

But this brouhaha will not drive me away from TNBW. I find it interesting.

I just wanted to quick jump in here and say first of all, there isn't any interest - at least on my part, and I"m certain JLiz's - to "drive anyone from tNBW"...

This line:

But rather than tell some of the respondents that they may have been over-reacting, it comes down to "lets teach the new guy a lesson."

...sort of made me think you confused debating a craft issue with something personal.

Whenever I see a debate about writing as a craft, or grammar rules, etc. I tend to offer my two cents, based on what I've experienced with editors, and what I've experienced as a writer, what has worked for me. And what I've seen in published, successful writing.  Because let's face it, discussion of "craft" doesn't exist in a vacuum. One only has to view published work to see that all manner of craft is used, overused, underused, strangled, etc. in published writing. Every author needs to decide how they'll wield their "craft" to most success.  I've read highly successful, extremely commercial work and thought, "Really?"  And I've read non-published work and wondered why it remained drowning in obscurity. The former often includes well "crafted" work that is so unpalatable, I can't get through a page without groaning, the latter, beautifully executed work that just happens to be not very commercially viable.  And, of course, everything in between.

But, please don't confuse lively debate with "over-reacting" or something personal. I didn't take anything you said about "filtering" personally. I just happened to disagree with most of what you outlined as "amaturish."  As a writer, I found that some of the examples listed as "professional" sounded flat. It's all about reader preference.

Creating involves a fluidity that can't be set to an equation that involves something like: 3 filtering verbs + 2 well chosen adjectives = correct. Anything other than those variables = "unprofessional"

But I love these kinds of debates, even moreso when irony, sarcasm, etc. are used. That just makes the boring discussion of "craft" a little less boring.

Oh, and I am not personally interested in respect, GP. I enjoy being pummelled into submission. Reminds me I'm alive! Particularly if someone I disagree with can debate me and make me really enjoy the conversation. We are, after all, writers. Anything less and I feel cheated

Last edited by Jeni Decker (06-10-2012 13:58:58)

The following is taken from a bulletin sent to the entire professorial staff at a highly regarded institution of higher learning. It was said to be taken from some other source, so noted, but not on my current document.

Ethics of Sarcasm, Issue 1:
Creating unnecessary conflict. Sarcasm is inherently confrontational. When you make a witty taunt, you are setting yourself up as an adversary to the object of your sarcasm, whether that person is present or not. For the sake of a few laughs, you might be creating a lifelong enemy. This callous disregard for relationships with others seems unethical; the cost can far outweigh the benefit (if, indeed, there is any) of the sarcastic remark. Even beyond this ethical issue, you should be considered about the isolation you will experience after alienating everyone in your life through sarcasm. Clever-but-cutting remarks are, by definition, cutting.

Ethics of Sarcasm, Issue 2:
Evading rational debate. Sarcasm can also be a rhetorical tool for avoiding addressing the true merits of an issue. For example, if a colleague makes a good argument to you, you can respond with a sarcastic remark about why the colleague personally would favor that argument. In that case, sarcasm would be used as an attack on the person, thereby evading the actual issue raised. This is only one example of many. The point is that sarcasm can be used to circumvent honest debate. If arriving at truth is important, then using sarcasm to evade the honest pursuit of truth is unethical.

Ethics of Sarcasm, Issue 3:
Portraying yourself in a bad light. With sarcasm, you can easily win the battle but lose the war, because even the most clever of sarcastic remarks will taint you in some way. While this might not be a strictly ethical issue, you commit a wrong against yourself when you use sarcasm to the point that you become known as a sarcastic person. I have known several extremely sarcastic people; the general consensus about these people is that they are clever but unpleasant (due to their cutting remarks). The inherent cynicism in your sarcastic remarks can easily become associated with you personally, and that is not a good thing.

There is a place for clever sarcastic remarks, but it might just be in the movies. In real life, you need to consider the above ethical issues before you unleash a cutting, sarcastic remark.

I try to conduct myself according to these ethics.

I'm so glad we all have Felix here to remind of us of our professional ethics regarding sarcasm. I really could not have drawn one more breath without this crucial knowledge. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Felix Urick wrote:

The following is taken from a bulletin sent to the entire professorial staff at a highly regarded institution of higher learning. It was said to be taken from some other source, so noted, but not on my current document.

Ethics of Sarcasm, Issue 1:
Creating unnecessary conflict. Sarcasm is inherently confrontational. When you make a witty taunt, you are setting yourself up as an adversary to the object of your sarcasm, whether that person is present or not. For the sake of a few laughs, you might be creating a lifelong enemy. This callous disregard for relationships with others seems unethical; the cost can far outweigh the benefit (if, indeed, there is any) of the sarcastic remark. Even beyond this ethical issue, you should be considered about the isolation you will experience after alienating everyone in your life through sarcasm. Clever-but-cutting remarks are, by definition, cutting.

Ethics of Sarcasm, Issue 2:
Evading rational debate. Sarcasm can also be a rhetorical tool for avoiding addressing the true merits of an issue. For example, if a colleague makes a good argument to you, you can respond with a sarcastic remark about why the colleague personally would favor that argument. In that case, sarcasm would be used as an attack on the person, thereby evading the actual issue raised. This is only one example of many. The point is that sarcasm can be used to circumvent honest debate. If arriving at truth is important, then using sarcasm to evade the honest pursuit of truth is unethical.

Ethics of Sarcasm, Issue 3:
Portraying yourself in a bad light. With sarcasm, you can easily win the battle but lose the war, because even the most clever of sarcastic remarks will taint you in some way. While this might not be a strictly ethical issue, you commit a wrong against yourself when you use sarcasm to the point that you become known as a sarcastic person. I have known several extremely sarcastic people; the general consensus about these people is that they are clever but unpleasant (due to their cutting remarks). The inherent cynicism in your sarcastic remarks can easily become associated with you personally, and that is not a good thing.

There is a place for clever sarcastic remarks, but it might just be in the movies. In real life, you need to consider the above ethical issues before you unleash a cutting, sarcastic remark.

I try to conduct myself according to these ethics.

Felix, do feel free to conduct yourself according to these supposed "ethics" but I would note that others aren't required to adhere to the same rules of engagement, nor are we to even agree with Issues 1-3. I find most of what is written rather pompus, but coming from "the entire professorial staff at a highly regarded institution of higher learning" I'd expect nothing less.

I don't believe that sarcasm has to "create unnecessary conflict" (other than to those bent on seeing conflict where there is none) or "evade rational debate" (sometimes witty sarcasm can can add to a rational debate)  or"portray [yourself in a bad light]" I presume this only applies to those unable to use sarcasm cleverly enough for the task at hand.

Sorry, Felix. But I'm beginning to think it's you who's gunning for some sort of fight, simply by overreacting to being disagreed with. While you seem to detect a note of sarcasm in either my or JLiz's comments, I detect a note of condescension in yours.

I wonder what "the entire professorial staff at a highly regarded institution of higher learning" would have to say about condescension? I'd be happy to peruse those bullet points. (And that, my friends is sarcasm!)