posted
Paul, could you consider maybe deleting this thread? It's not going to a nice place.
Tom- Sorry. I was wrong. It just seemed like there had to be more to it. *shrug* You have occasionally made me angry, too, but my livelihood was never in question.
So, I admit I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.
Home everyone has a nice weekend, 'cause I'm done! Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he'd written that in the other thread, I don't think I'd have had a problem with it. It's harsh, but he makes it clear what he doesn't like about the criticism and why. That's the OSC that I'm used to.
Zeugma, bad form, shaking the TOS at the owner of the site. That's like telling the sheriff that guns are illegal.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if my thoughts are value added or not but I'll put them out here and then take cover for safety
I read this thread first and was curious so I went and read THE thread in question and looked at the new web site of OSC.
I'm glad OSC is doing the site so that people get the chance to get published. Kudo's to OSC for enabling people.
Now, as for locked and loaded...
There seems to be a new paradigm shift that intrigues me to no end and that is this...
Why do people who either own a web site like this, or start one or post on others or blog or, or, or...whose comments are placed in an open environment that everyone in the world could access, feel threatened, bugged, p***ed, attacked, hurt, or whatever when their words, works, attitudes, paradigms, belief system, web pages etc. are discussed?
How is it that we've even migrated to a paradigm of "spying on someone" if we follow their postings without them knowing?
As the internet grows so does the capability to be exposed, critiqued, ridiculed, supported, taught, loved, informed and helped like never before.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you put it in the internet it's open for discussion, good, bad, or indifferent from anyone anywhere.
Having said that I fully agree with the concepts of decency. I hope that I treat any subject I comment on that way.
So, the bottom line is as an innocent bystander (honestly!) I didn't think Tom's thread was insulting, but an attempt to be constructive.
If I or OSC are willing to put it out there for all to see, we ought to be ready for people's reactions in this forum or others.
Posts: 56 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
At least Tom's critisism was better then what I got, and only ONE PERSON said it was "a solid article.. but..."
IP: Logged |
posted
I have a lot better understanding now that I read OSC's second response. The mag is a fragile enterprise, like trying to start a fire with no matches. Extreme caution is needed when trying to massage a spark into a flame, and any little breeze will kill it, and you'll be cold and hungry. Looking at it from that point of view, I understand what he's saying.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I doubt Jay or OSC have read all of Tom's 22,000+ posts. I've certainly heard him say positive things about OSC's work.
And though I'm not unfamiliar with his patented sneer/grin combo, I didn't see it in this thread, nor the last. *shrug*
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I thought Tom's thread was tacky. The attitude toward OSC is next to the attitude in religion threads on the shelf of Things That Don't Jibe With What I Know of Tom. Tom's never that rude towards other people's creative endeavors, so I figured there was something else going on that was none of my business.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to talk about myself. I don't really know enough about Tom or OSC to contribute much to their self-knowledge.
As for "why didn't OSC say that in the other thread" I don't think the shoe analogy had been presented. But I haven't gone looking for the other thread.
And I really really apologize for contributing to the criticism. Though... Tom's thread did get me to go see the site.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I design shoes -- to continue with this metaphor -- for a living. It's a significant part of what I do. It is, in fact, one of the very few things in the world that I am formally trained and certified to do, and almost certainly one of the few things that total strangers give me money to do for them.
Even when I'm critical of specific choices made in your books, I don't say "you know nothing about writing." And you know what? A perfectly valid response to any of my criticism of, say, Mack's marriage in Magic Street would be something like "Tom, you know nothing about writing. This was dramatically necessary for reasons you don't understand." And I'd have to suck it up, because, y'know, compared to you, I DO know nothing about writing. That's a body blow I'd take -- and while I'd stagger wheezing around the room, I'd be grinning at the justice of it.
But I DO know how to design webpages. I also know how to write in AP style, manage layer 3 network traffic, and make the red squiggly lines stop appearing in Microsoft Word.
If you're going to yell at me for giving you unsolicited advice in a rude way, fine. Like I said earlier in this thread, back when I was begging people not to let this thread turn into what it turned into, that's something I deserve. But please don't yell at me because I gave you bad or uninformed advice, because I didn't.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And what's worse is that these people KNEW ME face to face!
Bah, I'll make sure to use spell check and stuff but any spelling mistakes in my article is hardly worth going overboard over, everyone one in the newspaper has spelling mistakes so why me??
IP: Logged |
posted
Father Time, I think you misinterpreted OSC's post. He fully explained why he feels those criticisms are unfounded right now, and I have to agree with him. In addition, OSC didn't see anything that was actually constructive about the criticism. Whether or not we feel OSC's response is appropriate, he has every right to feel that way.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"and make the red squiggly lines stop appearing in Microsoft Word."
lol, anybody with a brain and younger then 40 can do that.
IP: Logged |
quote:You still don't get it, Tom. I ALREADY BOUGHT THE SHOES. And you know nothing about shoes, or what I'm buying this particular pair of shoes FOR.
Actually, Tom knows quite a bit about the "shoes" being discussed. And many of the suggestions made later in the thread could be implemented quite cheaply and easily, so it's not like they are too late to do any good.
But leave that aside. There is ZERO risk that anything Tom said is going to get anyone here not to go to your site. In fact, the thread has already alerted at least one person who hadn't heard of the new site. If one is worried about the viability of a web enterprise, one ought to care about how the site is perceived. And right now, a lot of very experienced web designers who happen to be very loyal fans have noticed some problems with it.
Finally, I strongly suggest using http://validator.w3.org/ on every page of the site before it goes live. Because when this site is linked at SlashDot, you'll really get a chance to see what hateful harsh criticism looks like.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's that old saying...Substance over style.
Side-stepping all of the above discussion, I don't care how ugly the site is if it contains something worth seeing. Personally, I have no doubt that whatever its final form ends up being, it will be worth paying for.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpreted "you know nothing about shoes, or what I'm buying this particular pair of shoes for" to mean "you know nothing about web design, or what I'm buying this particular web design to do." If that's not what he meant, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
And no, unless he signed a very unconventional contract, he has not bought the shoes. He's told everyone that he's got some new shoes, has invited them all around to his house to see them in mid-October, and has even put a sketch of the shoes in his front window so that people curious about the shoes can get a peek. But -- to abandon the metaphor for a moment -- most design contracts aren't "per piece;" in other words, it's safe to assume that he could change as much as he wanted -- if he wanted -- prior to the launch date. In many cases this is possible at no extra cost.
--------
quote: I don't care how ugly the site is if it contains something worth seeing. Personally, I have no doubt that whatever its final form ends up being, it will be worth paying for.
I'm almost certain to pay for it. I believe in the project, I like a number of the people who're involved, and I think it'll be a great source for new material.
But I really want an online sci-fi mag to succeed. I believe it's the wave of the future, essentially. (And if one is going to succeed, I'd like it to be OSC's, because -- no matter how wrong he gets this one -- I'm fond of the guy and generally respect his work.) Sadly, not everyone out there is already a die-hard OSC fan. Those of us who ARE will overlook the site design and shrug off the interface and sink our teeth into the content without more than a moment's regret. But...
It's like buying Crystal City. Those of us who wait with bated breath for every new Alvin book rushed out and bought it even though it looked like a Harlequin novel. But while I don't have access to the sales figures, I know from anecdotal conversations at least eight people I had to talk into buying Card books because, based the covers of CC and Heartfire, they thought he wrote romances.
The web design for the Medicine Show is, to throw another metaphor on the fire here, its cover. 80% of all casual browsers -- and this number comes from fairly hard research -- are going to hit that site and decide whether to spend money on it based solely on whether they like the look of the site and can navigate through it smoothly. People stay for the content, but people don't even flip through unless they like the cover.
I want people to stay for the content. That was the whole intent behind my original post, and my biggest regret here is that I didn't make that clearer somehow.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how continuing this thread can produce anything positive or constructive. Tom, I would perhaps suggest making further replies to OSC in private. That way people won't take sides and argue about who they want to support in this matter.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As OSC said in his last post, he already bought the shoes.
And here's where the metaphor breaks into a thousand shiny pieces: the shoes can be changed, without discarding most of what's there. That's what's so great about the web.
Look, the way it looks isn't going to stop me from subscribing. But it will stop some, and it will affect the way the site is perceived.
quote:He's saying you're ingorant of what's still to come, and that's impossible to debate.
So the shoes aren't actually finished, then. And comments are far more useful before the rest of the site is done.
I take people, including Tom, to task for the way they post about OSC as much or more than anyone. But OSC's fears that this will affect the viability of the enterprise are unfounded, and his comments about Tom's motives are wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I apologize for deleting my post. I decided I didn't want to get into this, and hoped I'd cleared it out before anybody could see it, but I think a lot of people are watching this thread too closely for that to happen.
Looks like Dag caught most of it, though.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom wrote: "Look, I'm not going to dilute an apology by implying that OSC misunderstood me." Am I the only one who sees that by saying that he is EXACTLY diluting his apology by implying that I misunderstood him?
Zeugma, there have been thousands of posts here that are critical of me and of my work. To the vast majority of them, I have said nothing.
I even stayed away from the site for many years in order to avoid responding to the negatives that people seemed to feel obliged to post.
But Tom Davidson made it personal months ago, with prickly, nasty little posts about how I was neglecting him. He made it a project to goad me then. It didn't work. So he moved on to attacking my religious faith and now to attacking my fledgling commercial enterprise. Now he has a personal relationship with me, as he was demanding all those months ago.
I'm not attacking. I'm naming Tom's attacks on me for what they are, despite his attempts to characterize them as 'well-meant.' They are not well-meant. If Tom were well-meaning, he would have backed off long ago. Instead, he probes for ways to savage things that are important to me. And he has found a couple of them - attacking my religion, and attacking a fragile commercial enterprise. There is NO good motive possible for any of his postings on those subjects. He's a vandal, as far as I can see, spray-painting across whatever I try to make.
Have I ever reacted to ANYBODY else or ANYTHING else on Hatrack in this way? No, not even close. Have I shown myself to be prickly and angry at the criticisms and sneers directed at me and my work on my own website? Largely I never even respond, and when I do, I almost invariably try to do it with humor and a light touch. Have I not proven myself to be extraordinarily tolerant here?
Can you not conceive of the possibility that the difference in this case is not in ME, but in Tom Davidson's outrageously, deliberately offensive behavior? He pretends not to know what all the hooplah is about, but he knows, and he intended it. He virtually announced, soon after I started posting here regularly, that he was determined to get me to notice him, as he whimpered about the fact that I didn't answer him sufficiently.
Well, now he is getting the answers he demands, because he is attacking my vital interests, and doing it consistently and unrelentingly. I name his actions for what they are. He has succeeded, this "pillar of the community," in getting my undivided attention and sucking hours out of my life in order to defend the things I value from his mockery (which is, of course, the most effective and hard-to-answer form of criticism, though it is also the emptiest).
But if I use my forum on my website to defend my enterprise from a habitual predator ... I'M the attacker?
Remind me, someone, of why I spend thousands and thousands of dollars maintaining these sites. Oh, yeah ... an active author website is supposed to promote his work. Boy, I'm sure getting my money's worth!
Well, relax. I'm certainly not banning Tom Davidson. It's obvious he has an intensely loyal following. The Hatrack community has, as I intended, a life of its own; but I'm obviously NOT a pillar of it and ...
I think I'll just ban myself and go back to never visiting this site. Then everybody will have the same relationship with me: none. And I'll get a lot more work done.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Camus--you are right about my comments. This thread is growing faster than I can read it! By the time I type this anwswer there will be 10 new comments! Posts: 56 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dave is not responsible for the oval in the upper right corner. That is still just a placeholder, and we're still working on it. We're quite aware that the greens don't match. But what part of "Coming Soon" is hard to understand?
Then I'm a happy camper. Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*hugs OSC* You're incredibly loved, you know. So is Tom, but you're the author. You're OSC.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Indeed, you've never stoped being the pillar of this community Mr Card, in fact your pretty much the only reason why I post on Hatrack, alot of my post is somewhat akin to crying out for attention and hoping to get noticed, and I think I've succeeded once or twice in getting noticed. "The was brilliant Sid" and something else I don't remember but is from my actual name account thingy.
posted
So let me get this straight Blayne. The main reason why you are posting to hatrack is to get attention from OSC?! Do you realize how little he actually reads this forum? I think the odds of him actually reading Tom's original thread were somewhere below 20%. Admitedly 20% is higher than nothing, but the odds are still against you. Particularly on this side of the forum.
posted
Scott, I wasn't around when the posts you're referring to were written, so obviously I'm judging your response without a big part of the story. For that I apologize.
And perhaps that's why is difficult for me to understand why he deserves to be so vilified today.
I get a chance to talk to people who's work I greatly admire every week. I know I can be pretty annoying. I try not to be. But if one of these "heroes" were to respond by posting on our forum and write about me what you've written about Tom, I would be devastated.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original thread was an attempt to get attention from OSC. Considering this is a fan site, that does make sense. *grin*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Tom Davidson made it personal months ago, with prickly, nasty little posts about how I was neglecting him. He made it a project to goad me then. It didn't work. So he moved on to attacking my religious faith and now to attacking my fledgling commercial enterprise.
*blink* Hm. This explains your response, I suppose. I think you've misconstrued some things, and disagree almost entirely with the assumptions you've made about my motivations, but I don't know how to go about proving that to you.
I will say that the last time you posted something hostile in my direction -- when you accused me of making "deadly insults" in a thread on Mormon belief when the only posts I'd made in the entire thread were basic and value-neutral statements of fact about Mormon belief that were actually corroborated by follow-up posts from Mormons -- I E-mailed you and asked you directly on the thread to clarify what you found insulting. I was baffled at the time that you did not reply.
About two years ago, when you called me "a waste of life" for a post you mistook as an insult to Kristine -- whom I deeply respect and adore --which in fact was exactly the opposite, I first emailed both you and your wife to clarify, just to make sure you both knew that I'd never say anything of the kind. Kristine wrote back, saying that she'd understood my original point and apologizing for your response; I never heard back from you, which was (as with this later incident) a bit off-putting.
It makes sense, now that I understand that you felt I was in some way just trying to get a response from you. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, though, since the only two times I can ever recall having expressed frustration about being "ignored" both happened in two threads that referenced the latter incident. So I'm not sure where that feeling of yours originated.
I understand now why you've seemed so angry at me, Scott; I honestly had no idea, which is why I've sent you an email or two over the last few months asking that very question. (But, again, I suppose replying to an email of that sort would, in this context, have been like letting the terrorists win.)
I don't know how to fix things with you. I certainly hold you no ill will, and I suspect that your hostility towards me is based largely on a suspicion that I'm motivated by something which, I assure you, I am not. But I can't prove that to you, of course. There's no way to demonstrate that I criticize your politics because I find them wrong-headed, not because I want attention; I criticize the LDS church (about as often as I praise it, actually, as your son will tell you) when I find it wrong-headed, not when I think you might be looking; I criticize your writing on a board you maintain about your writing when I find parts of it wrong-headed, not when I think the odds are good that you'll respond in anger. And I criticized this website of yours because something I want to see succeed is going live in two weeks and you've put the page up for the public to see already and what's there doesn't look particularly impressive, not because it might drive you from your own site in frustration and finally get you to insult me in a variety of interesting ways.
Look, I'm sorry. Do I need to make up for that criticism by listing all the things I like about you? I'm not being entirely facetious about that, either: do you really want me to explain why I'm at Hatrack, and why I still buy every book you write, and why I read your columns, and why I'm almost certain to pay money to visit this website regardless of how it looks? Despite the fact that you have made a habit of insulting me more directly and more "mortally" than I've ever come close to doing to you? It occurs to me that a lot of the places I defend you aren't places you visit; you may not realize quite how ardently I do in fact argue for your intelligence and reason and sensibility and so forth. Maybe I should do that here more often than I do.
But if that won't do it, if my being here -- if my being LIKED here -- is going to make you feel unwelcome on your own forums, I would far rather leave than prevent you from enjoying something beautiful that you were instrumental in creating. Because the community here at Hatrack is beautiful, and while not everyone might give you credit for it, I do. As far as I'm concerned, this is your Crystal City, and I owe you a LOT of slack for making it possible here. I don't want to play Calvin; I'm not here to tear this place down because I'm stuck in your "shadow."
If you'd like me gone, drop me a line and I'll go. I'd miss the place, but I'd still buy your books.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
How would you react if someone said, "I think this work of yours is s*%t, which is a shame, because I really want it to do well?"
Of course it's easy to say, "I'd see past that and take the criticism in the sense it was obviously meant." Except that it wasn't necessarily obvious what was meant by the criticism. On the face of it, I think it is quite reasonable to perceive hypocrisy. I don't, however, think that Tom actually was being hypocritical. I just think 'eye-crushingly ugly' is part of his style.
Dude, the man can't even post a pre-cursor to a future website without getting a new mudhole stomped in him. On his own website, he can't do that. I'd be upset, too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And bought books for other people to... hint hint. *SotG cough*
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Blayne, it's safe to say that if I'm not reading Hatrack, you'll have to email me if you want any more free books. *wry laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Ya, I meant that sentence to prove that you do good things and stuff, like would you really not like Mr Card if you bought his books not only for himself but for other people?
Buuuuuut.... there are a few more Forgotten Realms books I'm interested in... j/k I have a job now I'll pay back yuor generosity and buy my own books.
IP: Logged |
posted
Tom polite? Have you read many of his posts? He makes a point to be as rude as possible while wiping you off the bottom of his shoe.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Ya, I meant that sentence to prove that you do good things and stuff."
I appreciate the thank-you, but I think "Hey, Tom's really a good guy" posts in this thread would be a very bad idea.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you'd like me gone, drop me a line and I'll go. I'd miss the place, but I'd still buy your books.
And we'd all have to pretend not to notice the newbie named TimThomason, a shrimp boat captain from Madagascar.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Jay, then that's something you and he have in common. 'Cause putting yourself up as a paragon of politeness is nothing less than hypocritical.
As for the subject of this thread--I'm amazed, quite frankly. Tom has gone out of his way to answer vitrol with calmness, to try and steer this thread out of the path of mudslinging, and to generally be a decent dude. I have little to say on the original thread--I never saw it before it got wiped. But, from what's gone on in this one, I'd say that Tom is getting an butt-kicking he doesn't deserve. But that's just the opinion of a lurker.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the community is what I'd miss, slinking back as an anonymous pseudonym lacks all appeal. But I was amused for a few seconds trying to think of what I would call myself, if I could call myself anything.
------
Okay, I'm going to make this clearer, since not only are my hints not getting through to people but OSC is misinterpreting them as sneaky attacks:
PLEASE do not criticize OSC and/or compliment me (at least in an either/or fashion) in this thread. Please. I don't need the defense, and he certainly doesn't need the attack. I appreciate the good vibes, I really do, but let's face it: I've got enough ego for ten normal people and can make it a few more minutes without positive affirmation.
I don't know why this thread exists. I don't know why this wasn't handled in a more private way. But understand that OSC has it in his power to wave his hand and make this thread go away entirely. He could write something UNDER MY SCREENNAME, post it to the top of the board, sticky it, and lock it. He can make us all unable to post anything with more than five letters, or ban any use of the word "the." He has posted in this thread, clarified his position, and then courteously left the thread open to permit discussion, which incidentally also opens him up to criticism. Please don't repay that courtesy by waving the User Agreement at him or calling his posts here "vitriol" -- because, make no mistake, it IS courtesy.
I don't want him to ever regret posting here, 'k? It's certainly not worth MY pride, which is generally invulnerable to all but armor-piercing rounds anyway.
posted
The original thread never got wiped. It's right there on page 2. It's the one with the lock on it.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The fact that Tom can use "wrong-headed" so many times in his attempt at reconciliation shows something other than calmness.
It shows he really doesn't understand what's happening.
His apology basically consisted of, "I can list some things I like about you, too, if you want!"
There has been nothing in this thread to suggest OSC worries about whether or not Tom likes him. Obviously, Tom's interested in him, or he wouldn't be here.
Like Zeg, if something I wrote here offended OSC this bad, I would be bending over backwards to try to make it right.
In fact, I am. A while ago, I told someone where to find the peice that gives a bunch of stupid reasons why Ender is based on Hitler. A few days later, OSC posted a request that links to bad reviews no be linked to from his site.
As "pennance," I've begun writing a literary dispute of the article I hope to publish soon, and have stayed away from that topic.
Because I appreciate this guy, and everything he does. And the idea that I might have unintentionally hurt him would be soul-crushing to me.
I'm getting none of that from Tom. I'm getting, "Hey, I'll leave if you want, but I still like you." Which isn't an apology so much as an attempt to keep looking like the good guy while refusing to back down.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Dagonee--I had no idea this was being started, and I am excited about it. I like the artwork that is on the site. I do apologize for my comment about the colors.
What will distinguish the online magazine and draw attention and respect to it, IMO, is the quality of the content. You could have it in plain text with no graphics whatsoever and it would do just fine if it were worth reading, which I expect it will very much be.
And geez, OSC, please don't remove yourself from the board. I for one appreciate it very much when you post here. I think you are quite central to this community. Plus, I just like seeing your name. You've been one of my favorite authors ever since I started reading science fiction in my pre-teens and it's always been an honor to be in communication with you like this.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
