Reviews that I hate (Page 1 of 2)

Indeed. I feel your pain, dags. I've probably been guilty of referencing my own shite whilst doing a review here and there but I think I'm pretty good about concentrating on the author's work and conscientiously trying to get a good read and thus give a useful critique. And that's the lesson for everybody out there. You can be harsh with your assessment of another writer's efforts as long as you put in a comparable effort to read and reckon their prose. We all get lazy and/or disinterested and feel like we're suffering fools just to accumulate points and whatnot but, if you approach it like it's your honorable duty...

I dunno. What I'm most guilty of, as a reviewer, is that I'll go balls out to express my impressions about a fellow writer's first impression on me and then (if I don't receive an equitable level of passion/dispassion in response, if I don't "feel" a certain correspondent dynamic, that is) I'll forget all about that person after chapter one. I'll just move on to the next big wannabe writer who, I'm hoping, will wanna engage with me more intimately. That sounds a bit needy of me, of course, but I think developing relationships and exchanging ideas and sharing perspectives with other writers is what this website should be all about. And, furthermore, we can afford to be picky when choosing with whom we wish to parry, thrust, and hug. Especially since we're all paying to play here.

On the other hand, and if you're convinced you're writing a bestseller and nobody can tell you otherwise... Well, what was the point of joining up in the first place? I understand that experiencing, first hand, John Hamler's particular brand of condescension is a thrilling and fulfilling rite of passage in its own right, but... Is it really worth $50 a year?

Just kidding. Kinda.

At any rate, I think we can all rate for ourselves the value of the missives we exchange and thusly act accordingly.

Good talk, dags. Hopefully some of the other members will be able to chime in, too. I extended an invitation to everyone with "my connection" status, but apparently there's a limited number of forum groups a single writer can belong to. You actually have to drop one to join another. I dunno. Hang with me.

And let's not forget the so-called 'in-line' reviews that'll garner around 2 credits (or more), with the required 5 comments in the first 3 paragraphs and a quick 'great stuff' bullshit general comment.

And how about those reviewers that'll call the author on his/her 'run-on' sentences while they are (technically) not, but seem to bother the reviewer because they (the sentences) contain more words than, say, 'One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish'?

It used to be quite different here, but that was some ten, eleven, twelve years back. You'd get a considerable stack of critiques, and, perhaps even more importantly, people actually reciprocated.

Howdy, dags!

I hear you, but can't really comment other than to say I'm talking about  '08 and '09. I know the exact years, because I quit writing in May of '09, immediately after our youngest son passed away. Came back last year (under a different pseudonym) when my muse returned. And, yes, I had (and have again) some very excellent reviewers--people who actually read books, I'm sure. But back then you were guaranteed reciprocation. I know several former members I 'met' and exchanged critiques with during those days who've hit the big time since, some of whom (still) have my name in the Author's Notes.

Stay safe!

Ben

The "toxic brew" Dagny bemoans is exactly what life itself is all about, I'm afraid.

No, it's not John. This site is not a reflection of real life unless life is all about nurturing the fledgling writer. This site was set up to help writers find their own writing voices and being encouraged by other writers to exercise that voice. Instead I found an online community of writers who couldn't put their personal baggage aside long enough to give one meaningful review. I felt it with my own novel, people wanted me to change names, get rid of characters and pair Boston up with Nichole, instead of Chip.And that was just the plot. Next I had one review telling me to omit a certain word, and when I did, I got another review telling me to put the word back in. It was writing a novel by committee after a while, taking me further and further away from my vision of what my novel would be like. That's when I decided to pay attention to only a handful of people, writers who had no interest in taking over my novel, but every intention of making my novel a reality.

As for you and I, John, the only quarrel I ever have with you is how you portray women in your stories. Describing women in misogynous slang with words like filthy in front of it, made me stop reading whatever came after. Now, I assume you don't want to alienate half the world's population, the half, I might add, that actually reads, and that is why I am so hard on you about it.

Other than that, we're good.

Well, let me take that last line as a direct invitation to butt into the conversation

When it comes to misogynous and otherwise eff'd-up characters, I absolutely agree that an author shouldn't hesitate to dive head-first into those waters. That's where all the big fish is to be found. And I don't think I've come across many people who have a problem with it as long as the author is aware of it. Because that awareness is reflected in the writing. It's more the case of unconscious bias that can lead to pitchfork-wielding mobs knocking on your door. An author's job is to be aware of the tone of his/her every word, and bias, of any kind, blinds them to it. Writers start revealing things without knowing it and readers can sense what belongs to the story and what belongs to the author. That's why, it seems to me, a writer like Stieg Larsson could write about horrific violence against women without anyone having a problem with it (at least as far as I'm aware of). On the flip side, all another man has to write is 'she was imperfect, but not really *wink wink*' and the whole world descends on him. And it should.

But since this is a group for a bit of conflicted conversation, let me take things a bit further. I want to see what you think about some of the things that have been bouncing around my head for a while.

We all know that the list of misogynistic writers is long and disturbing. I don't think anyone disputes that, unless they themselves belong to that category.

Everyone's talking about how men write women and given how that writing has historically impacted culture, it's no wonder. But no one seems to be talking about the bigger picture: both genders are blinded to the other side by the roles society has given them and it interferes with the quality of writing produced by both men and women.

The other day I was talking to my girlfriend and she said, ''Society expects men to be strong, and women to be perfect.'' And when men write women as perfect, women have a problem with it. They point out the imperfections of their own male characters as proof of their own objectivity. And fair enough.

But when's the last time a woman's written a male character who wasn't strong? See, women will write wildly imperfect male characters, but no matter how low they fall, most of the time these male characters have a strong sense of purpose in life and/or an ability/skill that is unquestionable to the reader even if the character doubts it. Everywhere I go I find women who fantasize about male fictional characters but can't find a single man who can relate to them. So how guilty are women of exercising the same fantasies in fiction that they accuse men of? Women's fantasies are just a bit more complex; men go looking for naked pictures and women go reading Fifty Shades of Gray.

In closing, I'd like to say that this isn't some counter-attack in the Battle of the Sexes. I love reading female authors because it's as though someone took my perspective and moved it two feet to the left. And having been blessed with a strong sense of purpose in life, I've always been able to relate to the characters. But the number of men I've seen turn away from those same stories because they found them unrealistic fantasies with no grounding in the real world, is staggering. Same way women turn away from perfect female characters.

As a writer, I have that same gigantic blind-spot and the more I read the works of others, the more I see I'm not the only one, and I can't help but wonder how I can better bridge the gap between the two perspectives to make my work more... integrated, shall we say?

Cheers,
Jurij

I've come across many people who have a problem with it as long as the author is aware of it. Because that awareness is reflected in the writing. It's more the case of unconscious bias that can lead to pitchfork-wielding mobs knocking on your door. An author's job is to be aware of the tone of his/her every word, and bias, of any kind, blinds them to it. Writers start revealing things without knowing it and readers can sense what belongs to the story and what belongs to the author...That's why, it seems to me, a writer like Stieg Larsson could write about horrific violence against women without anyone having a problem with it (at least as far as I'm aware of)

Jurij,
What a clear definition author intrusion. I didn't learn about that until I got on this site and a writer pointed out to me. I had a few left leaning political views that seeped into my writing. They would just appear out of nowhere and have nothing to do with the plot. I don't think I need to explain to you why Stieg Larsson wrote those scenes, but just to clarify your point: he did that so no one would be sympathetic to the men when the girl fucked them up. lol

Everyone's talking about how men write women and given how that writing has historically impacted culture, it's no wonder.

This reminded me of Jack Nicholson's character in As Good As It Gets when he's asked how he writes women: I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability. When I first heard that, even though I laughed, it was true picture of how some men see women.

The other day I was talking to my girlfriend and she said, ''Society expects men to be strong, and women to be perfect.''

First, SMART GIRLFRIEND! Someone, a non-famous female, once said, "All the men I fall in love with are fictitious." And that pretty much sums up my love life!
But as for the rest , I am guilty of that in my novel. My main characters are attractive, and the men are strong, while only one of the women is perfect. In the next novel in the series, I am going to try and show a more human side to my male characters, however I don't know how to get around not making the men handsome and the women beautiful. It seems to me that no one wants to read about an ugly character unless they bloom into a beauty at the end. I think we have to remind ourselves we are writing fiction, and if we wanted to reflect real life we would write non-fiction.

See, women will write wildly imperfect male characters, but no matter how low they fall, most of the time these male characters have a strong sense of purpose in life and/or an ability/skill that is unquestionable to the reader even if the character doubts it.

JK Rowling under the name of Robert Galbraith writes a character named Cormoran Strike who is a one legged Iraq war vet PI who is an emotional trainwreck but has the uncanny ability to solve crimes the police can't. While I gave my protagonist a lot of emotional baggage, it's nothing compared to Strike, whose childhood and recent break up with his long time girlfriend drips off of every sentence. I love JK Rowling, but to read her Strike novels is like trying to swim through mud. The only reason I stay with them is the murders are meticulously planned and I, having read many, many crime and mystery novels, never guess who the murderer is.
So, while it maybe true women turn away from the strong silent type of man, there are women like me who stick with it because the underlying plot is so good. 

As a writer, I have that same gigantic blind-spot and the more I read the works of others, the more I see I'm not the only one, and I can't help but wonder how I can better bridge the gap between the two perspectives to make my work more... integrated, shall we say?

Good attitude! I enjoyed reading your post, feel free to butt in at any time!

dags

And why is that? Because most consumers of fiction are women. And because, I believe, what most women desire most in life is a magical ability to take a bad boy and CHANGE him into a good man. And a family man, at that.

John--
All I have to say to that is: if that were true, there would only be one story told over and over again. That of a woman trying to change a man. That's it.

You're more intelligent than that, boyo.

Characters change because if they didn't the story would be boring. It has nothing to do with the gender of the character.

And since you don't know all the women in the world you can not say with any degree of certainty what they want. To say that ALL women want is to manipulate a man into coupling with them in a family unit is a broad sweeping generalization not worthy of your intellect. (Not to mention it omits lesbians) In other words, John, you know better.

Which makes me wonder if you aren't a bit of a manipulator yourself.

Well, let's see, John Hamler has written a few reviews that I hated. But not really. He engaged my senses so I liked it.  Sometimes he has this tone that he knows better than me because he's written more or served more time or he's older than me (probably by like 2 months)... but that's just because he truly thinks he's helping. He actually wants me to get better at my craft, even if he wants to squeeze my tits as he's doing it. And he always signs off with cheers.  Which is so lame. Because he probably says "skol" or just farts.  Or makes fart noises while cupping his left arm under his right hairy stinky armpit. Gross.

I have had two authors go off on me after MY review. So, apparently, I fall in the category of reviews I hate.

I definitely leave positive feedback as well as some things to think about that sparked questions in my mind as I was reading... But a few individuals did not care for my harsh tongue.  I did go back to repair the relationship and requested the person give me some specific items to look for as I read their work.  That way, my review could be tailored to what that person was looking for.   Are you looking for a grammar mark up or a rating scale of evocation of feelings whist reading or something a little in between but sugar coated?  As I always say, "Know your personnel, Sister."  That's copywrited by Carrie 2021. So don't steal it and make bumper stickers and other swag out of my brilliance, Bitches.

Maybe TNBW could prompt us in the pre posting blurb... not what draft the piece is... but what specifically we are looking for from our reviewers.  IDK just a thought.

Really my mind is elsewhere as I have court tomorrow as I am petitioning for some custody adjustments with my children.  I think I'll start a new thread because I have to write my thoughts for the judge anyways and I think it's helpful if I'm writing objectively to you guys rather than sobbing emotionally in some notebook.

So feel free to read or delete or comment or send me good vibes.

Carrie, The Cinderella of the Group:)
I like the word Cinderella as it represents a beautiful hardworking woman who comes from behind and gives a big double middle finger in the air to all the doubters and haters.  Booyah!

And I'm more than willing and capable. But you also have to do better than simply admonishing me. That's what this forum is all about. It's what any congress should be all about. I say something controversial (perhaps even irrational) and you retort. We then compartmentalize, compromise, and contextualize until we reach detente.
John--
I did more than admonish you in the previous posts. I gave you examples that blew away your straw man arguments. But in the last post the argument you presented was so ridiculous that I concluded you were playing devil's advocate. I like to discuss things with people who have the courage of their convictions enough to defend their position. I don't like to discuss things with people who abandon their position then try to lure me down another rabbit hole entirely.

For instance, how does Boston navigate the preconceived notions of his suspects and part-players, both usual and unusual? Surely, he's not some enlightened being sent from on-high simply tolerating the frailties and prejudices of humanity whilst getting to the bottom of a murder mystery. From time to time he's gonna have to suffer the effects of the conflicted hearts and minds he's trying to affect in order to dig out the truth and will thus end up being affected now matter how effective his investigation ends up being.
To understand mystery writing you have to READ mysteries. The Maltese Falcon is a good example of what you are alluding to and an excellent read. 

And even then, after all that... What good is the truth, once discovered, if no one is willing or able to accept it?
All Boston does is collect evidence for prosecuting the guilty party. It's up to a jury to consider the evidence and bring in a verdict. From Boston's view point, he's done his job when he's arrested the bad guy and turned over the evidence. It's pretty black and white. Being the writer, the mover of icebergs as Hemingway put it, I can decide if the jury accepts the evidence or not. In other words, in my story, I decide what is truth and what is not.

I know what you're trying to do, John. You want me to get angry and really let you have it. You'll have to look elsewhere. And using Boston to get to me is an exercise in futility. After more than 2000 reviews of that novel on this site, I've read every criticism a reviewer can throw out. I stopped defending my work around review 900 and started thanking reviewers for their opinions.

John--
You don't remember that Boston was infatuated with the murder suspect who happened to be married to the sheriff he had to work with to solve the crime, or that his mother's illness had driven him not only thousands of miles away from her but believing delirium from a lung infection was really schizophrenia, the very mental disorder his mother had.  So, yeah he was 'touched by sentiment' by which I think you mean 'emotion.' But he's always been true to his career, chasing bad guys, and doesn't let his emotions get in the way.

The Maltese Falcon, after all, was painted black in order to hide its true virtue. Was it not?
I don't think you've seen the movie. I think you've just heard about it.
That movie was about a PI and his loyalty to his partner. Miles Archer is killed at the beginning of the movie, and finding his killer is Sam Spade's main goal. The Maltese Falcon is a necessary side story because introduces Sam to Brigid O'Shaughnessy, the murderer of Miles. Brigid is knee deep in hunting the Maltese Falcon with two other treasure hunters, and asks Sam to help her. Sam falls in love with Brigid but in the end turns her in for murdering Miles. He was loyal to his partner, giving up the woman he loved. 
As I remember you posted:
Surely, he's not some enlightened being sent from on-high simply tolerating the frailties and prejudices of humanity whilst getting to the bottom of a murder mystery. From time to time he's gonna have to suffer the effects of the conflicted hearts and minds he's trying to affect in order to dig out the truth and will thus end up being affected now matter how effective his investigation ends up being.
Which immediately reminded me of The Maltese Falcon. 

I'm still the most contemptible man that God ever made (when I wanna be, that is

You remind me of the patient I nicknamed ' naked guy' because he took off his clothes as soon as I got there and lounged around buck naked until bedtime. He would ask me every night if he was the strangest patient I'd had and my answer was always no, and I would regale him with tales of past clients who were stranger. He was disappointed when I didn't agree with him that he was strange.

Likewise, I can think of a few more contemptible people than you. In fact you are mildly contemptible at best. (go to an alt right chat room to see truly contemptible people) To me you are just a person who speaks his mind regardless of who you hurt.

Naked guy was also an accomplished pilot with his own plane and had worked all over the middle east as a security consultant. I told him I thought it might be better if he were known for his accomplishments, than to be known as sleazy naked guy.

You are an accomplished drummer and a pretty good wordsmith. Wouldn't you rather be known for your accomplishments than as slightly rude contemptible guy?

John,
Make a mark? Naked guy was dying of throat cancer and just lost his wife. The only mark he was going to make was in the dirt when they buried him. I was just trying to get him to understand he didn't have to impress anyone by being that guy who shocked people by taking off their clothes. In other words, I wanted him to keep his clothes on during my shift.

I can't believe you're serious about 'septic rhetoric' making things better, Hilter tried that and it did not end well. On the other hand non-septic rhetoric fueled the civil rights movement and got equal rights for people of color. So...do no harm. Yeah, like that's going to happen. You'll never change, John. If you think a sentence, no matter how shocking or how hurtful it might be, will cement your image in someone's brain, you're going to write it. All I am  saying is that there are better ways to be remembered.