[ Closed ] Good job! (Page 1 of 2)

I agree with RK. I probably make more suggestions when I review than most, but I still most times add that it is a good job overall. There is nothing contradictory or patronizing about pointing out what might be improved within an otherwise well written piece. There is always some redeeming value to a work in progress and a spoonful of sugar.... Take care. Vern

Randall and Vern, You misunderstand. Of course we're giving each other suggestions.
I'm talking about the phrase itself. "Good job!" sounds like you're patting a puppy on the head. The reviewer is "treating with apparent kindness while betraying a feeling of superiority," taken from the definition of patronizing.
Vern, your phrase, "A good job overall" doesn't have the same bite. Although I could call it damning with faint praise.
Anyways, we all have our opinions. And that's all they are -- opinions.

True. You should communicate to them in no uncertain terms they've done bad. Fallen short. Failed to measure up.

Further to voicing subjective opinion upon the accomplishment of other people's heartfelt industry; I think the reviewer is obliged to ridicule the perpetrator of percived bad prose publically.

I feel that we should have a 'bad writer' list. A league table of authors whose prose, other people feel the compulsion and justification, to 'tear to threads'. 

It would let everybody know exactly where they stand within the assessment of an individual's subjectivity.

If what I'm reading is so bad I can't find anything positive to say, I don't review it.

Hi Karen

BTW: I notice that your manta is "edit, edit, edit" and that you have severely edited your introduction to this thread since you first posted it. That is bad form. The replies are based upon your initial statement and you've radically changed that statement since people replied. It throws the whole thread out of context and kilter.

Anyway, I wondered what type of reviewer you are with your "torn their work to shreds" proclamation. Thankfully you answered my questions by reviewing an old piece of mine;

https://www.thenextbigwriter.com/update … 451/#start

You confine your review to the first few paragraphs and certainly (within your own mind at least) ‘tear the work to shreds’.

In one sense I feel vindicated upon the writing you feel is so awful. The piece you selected actually won 1st place within the competition for which it was written; so, although you might not say 'good job' it matters not because ultimately the judges did and the prize money was nice.

You pick up little or no valid technical issues but lambast my word choice and expression. Subjective to say the least?

You appear to demand that my literary voice conforms to your literary voice for no reason other than it is your personal preference for all writing to sound like your writing?

I am a British author from London England. I speak and write in the language I know. This story is set in London England and the characters are native.  You clearly do not understand the lingo. As with many US reviewers you assume my ‘British/London’ English language to be invalid, flawed or mistaken, insisting that colloquial expressions and regional dialects should be confined to a West Coast American version of English.   

You reviewing style is very bluntly assertive, insistent and authoritative. I feel this is in danger or appearing arrogant and ignorant.

Some snips from your review;

I write;
…O'Toole spluttered, fear weaving a tremolo into his voice.  He retreated further into the shadows.

Your editorial comment;
further? what do we have to compare it to?

Nearer? 

I write;
As the watery London dawn broadened into something brighter.

Your editorial comment;
brighter than what?

Brighter than it was previously? 

This from an author/editor who proclaims her mantra is ‘less is more’ ?

I write;
He balled his left fist and landed a vicious sideways jab to the neck of the prisoner whilst maintaining eye contact with O’Toole.

Your editorial comment;
an old-fashion version of while

It might be old-fashioned to you swanky Americans but it is actually how we talk here.

‘While’ is an expression of time. ‘I haven’t seen you in a while.’  ‘It’s been a while since I enjoyed a pint of beer.’

‘Whilst’ is used to express concurrency.’ Can you please watch my beer whilst I go for a piss.’  ‘I need to cover my arsehole whilst I bend for the soap.’

I’d say; ‘I saw her snoozing for a while, whilst at her desk, supposedly working!’

Following your editorial advice, you’d have to write; ‘I saw her snoozing at her desk for a while, while supposedly working.’

You see; your modern multiple use of a single word is not only confusing to English/English speakers… it can also require more wordage to fit into a sentence because you need to define in which context the otherwise explicit word is used.

I love to dissect and analyse prose. You said you like to ‘tear work to shreds’ and I’ve seen how you go to town. Well you are in luck. We have a ‘Shred Thread’ here, where we conduct deep inspection analysis upon sample prose.

I’ll stick your review of a piece of my piece in there so as I can fully appreciate your editorial guidance.

The game is afoot (at this point I imagine you staring indignantly down your leg to the appendage at the base whilst stating vociferously, “How can a foot be a game!”

I’ve had a quick random look at your product, and almost the first line I come across;

“A nearby apple tree was replete with apples hanging from its boughs…”

Now then, I’m not going to remark upon ‘replete’ being an old fashioned word just because I personally wouldn’t use it (or hear it) within a sentence. Nor am going to ask ‘Nearby? To what can we compare its nearness?’ I won’t at this point delve into the redundancy of being informed that the apple tree is full of apples (what not grapes?) nor that those apples upon the apple tree hang from the boughs as opposed to say, the trunk or the roots.

No, I’ll wait until I have the time to give your stuff a proper gander within the Shred Thread. This is great; I was bored and now I’m not.

It’s a game we can all play and the devil is — as you pointed out to me within the review and demonstrated within your own prose — most certainly within the detail.

Me, too.

What is more poisonous and destructive than destroying amateur writers with your sanctimonious flawed and totally subjective reviews?  What makes you so authoritative?

You start an inflammatory thread here and then changed the nature of that thread within the title post, after people have responded to the original comments that now, no longer exist.

You submit an inane review upon my work that is supposedly created in order to expose my poor writing skills and showcase your superior editorial skills.
In your own mind it obviously made you feel superior. In reality it just made you look slightly arrogant, ignorant or maybe just plain stupid. 
You review of my work is there for everyone to read. People can make of it what they will.

Everything I’ve said is in this thread.

I responded with exactly the same reviewer attitude to one line of your work that you lavished upon four paragraphs of mine.
You are obviously another one of those precious adult children who feel totally entitled to criticize as they like and whenever they feel fit, but if the same attitude or actions they extend toward others dare be legitimately returned toward their own work, they are mortally wounded and have a psychotic episode.

Okay, you have stated that I am ‘the most poisonous, destructive person you’ve come upon in a long while.’

Fair enough, that is your unfettered opinion and you are most welcome to it. Although having said that, you must realise and accept that by the same token I am also entitled to say exactly what I feel about you?

You seem completely deluded, possibly psychotic. For God’s sake don’t look in a mirror.
Who is the vulnerable party and how are they attacked?

Look at what you said in this thread (originally) and within the review of my work, then re-read what I’ve said in reply. Show me the destructive poison. You show me mine, and I’ll show you yours.

I think that secretly you agree with me all of the time, it's just that most of the time you can't face the truth.

Seriously. I never claim to be right, I just express my current opinion. I am the first to admit I am often wrong, biased and inappropriate. It has been proved to me over and again. Sometimes, I love to be proven wrong, being shown a light, a better argument, swayed by superior logic or bested by superior intellect. They are fine moments in time, when the lights go on. Several members here have changed my interpretation, opinion and understanding upon a number of things. I realised a long time ago that if I don't let myself be educated by others, then I'll never move forward.  Okay, it's a slow job, heavy work and I'm probably not worth it; but there it is....

I'm here to further my writing skills, not wage petty war with ridiculous people.
You don't like my opinions - fine, go on with your day.
You don't want me to review your work, just let me know. I won't. No skin off my nose.
Just keep at it. The only person you're exposing is yourself.

Jeez, Dill. Chill out a little, okay? This is a writing workshop site. It's for honing one's ability as a writer. The name of the site says it all. It's not supposed to be a platform for supporting gonzo literature, though writers in this vein have certainly found following. I'm sure there are places on the Internet where like-minded writers can get together, drink espresso, and rant against the establishment as they look fondly (and misguidedly) back at such meetings of iconoclastic literary minds as the Algonquin Club. But it shouldn't be here. Here is where writers come because they want to publish their stuff, and reviews are supposed to help them get their foot in the door - so it won't be closed by the conventional wisdom types who guard that door. Once past the gatekeepers, they can go for the style they really want. Sorry, but you gotta pass the core curriculum before you can take the electives.

But we're in agreement on one thing: a reviewer who, by intention, arrogance, or stupidity crushes the life out of an aspiring writer has no place on this site. That's for the know-it-all agents and Big-Five editors to do. When I give a review - almost always in-line - I point out grammatical and punctuation errors, some of which I didn't realize until having joined this site. I want reviewers to do that for me, because I want to publish the damn thing and have to get it past the first checkpoint in the submission process, so that is what I do for the reviewee. I also make suggestions for phrasing, word choices, etc. - not as some expert, but as a reader. And also based on what editors have told me along the way.

I've been here since 2008, and I'm happy to have found this place. I've workshopped all my books here and I've learned a lot in the process. As has been expressed here by others, if I find a work that I find terrible, I don't review it. But there have been many pieces I've weighed in on that were REPLETE with grammar, punctuation, and phrasing issues because I saw the potential and/or I liked the premise of the story. So my reviews have looked like a patchwork of blue at times. But once I've committed my time to a review for the above reasons, I'm obliged to give the writer encouragement in my closing statement, despite the number of nitpicks I had to land on his chapter. Because I saw potential in it and want the writer to know that. Saying "good job" without backing it up in any way is a worthless comment, in my view. Perhaps not patronizing, but certainly not helpful without annotation.

You've expressed your opinions, and I think I know where you're coming from. I actually don't really disagree with what you've said in this thread, though I thought you could have been more measured in the way you said it. Karen probably means well and so was shocked at your diatribe against her. But your message was certainly delivered.

All this because I dared to share my opinion that the phrase "Good job!" is patronizing, and I didn't give your prize-winning vignette a rave review. tsk tsk