quote:

---

I just hope I don't see any such tone in feedback on this forum.

---

He e-mailed me right after he stopped posting, me for some reason, to grouse about getting the Hatrack boot. He swore he didn't know what he'd done wrong, though I'm quite sure he was so informed. He said all he wanted to do was share his knowledge with a "bunch of novices and wannabees who couldn't recognize talent when it was staring them in the face."

He had no clue about any of the backstory of Hatrack. When I informed him of his oversights, he used that information as the justification for his rejection. He posed political, religious, and social mores that opposed his for the reason why he was unwelcome.

Once more I wrote, that a newly published author might be a one in ten thousand success story, but for that one success (and several lesser ones), he had no preordained right to throw his weight around anywhere. He left me alone after that.

The freshman breakout deserves celebrating, yet the sophomore hump can be just as hard to surmount as the first breakthrough. The junior success begins to show potential writing legs. The senior success, well, maybe on a fourth novel a life-long career might be realized.

Or, as in the case of The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger, 2003, one novel can realize a lot of career potential. 2.5 million copies sold so far, movie rights optioned by Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pit's Plan B Entertainment before the novel even hit bookseller shelves, movie release August 14, 2009, a $100,000 advance from publisher MacAdam/Cage. Though outbid in the auction for the novel by another house, Niffenegger and her agent Joseph Regal of Regal Literary, Inc., who doesn't represent science fiction, chose MacAdam because they foster "authors, not books." If what happened with Stephenie Meyer's Twilight movie and novels happens with The Time Traveler's Wife, book sales figures could double over the next year.

Yet critics panned the novel for it's vacuous imaginative premises and banal sentimentality.

A similar situation, Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain, 1997 Atlantic Monthly Press, performed mightily, made into a successful movie. The sophomore slump caught his second novel, Thirteen Moons, 2006, 750,000 copies sold, no movie so far, but an $8.5 million advance that hasn't yet been recouped by Random House. Critics panned Thirteen Moons for having plotting problems. I understood what the critics were saying, but found the plot issues they referenced demonstrated a lack of insight for the novel's message.

quote:

---

It's a good analogy as far as it goes, because people are going to insult your writing no matter how good it is. But just because it's nice to be prepared for it doesn't mean you HAVE to have endured bad critiques, and it in no way excuses you to be anything other than professional in giving critiques to others, with the idea that you're "helping" them.

---

Natej11, I agree this is not a literal life or death situation, but it could be figurative life or death situation. If a writer is so thin-skinned that he/she's going to run home crying from getting a critique like this, then he/she has no business wielding a pen. Nobody's going to like everything you write, and there will be many who won't like anything you write. That's life. And speaking of life, anyone who starts whining and crying as soon as someone says something negative about their writing, won't last very long as a professional writer.

This does not justify rudeness. However, rudeness exists. Should we outlaw rudeness and lock people up for being rude? The best answer is to rise above it. If one can't get beyond someone being rude, then one should avoid people all together. Write the stories, but never ask for a critique and never send one to an editor. Otherwise, you WILL encounter rudeness, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, what was the point of this thread? Writers can be arrogant? Gotcha. And I know some that are not.
Next question.

---

quote:

---

Well it does seem that the point of this topic is more to complain about arrogant writers or critiquers than to be of benefit to those who read the topic.
How can we gain from this discussion?

---

Well, I don't know. How can we gain from it, Kathleen? You're the expert.

I was enjoying the conversation and was getting quite a bit of info from it. It actually changed my views a bit, but since I'm the only one gaining anything from it, just go ahead and close it if you feel it's taking up too much space on the server or it's somehow damaging.

I think we've concluded that some are arrogant and some are not. (Thanks for that astute observation, by the way, rich).

Please forgive if it rambles a bit.
I have found the thread really interesting.

I think the value of this thread is in the recognition that all communications consist of a series of symbols transmitted by a 'sender' (the writer), and subsequently decoded by the 'receiver' (the reader).

The 'receiver' is never a tabula rasa.

Rather, when reading a certain text, they are already 'written upon', and have a rich history. First by their expectations of the author, (the sum total of their experience with that writer to that point), their social and cultural context (what they experience and have ever experienced in their lives and in their society) and the powerful myths that are common to all peoples.

They receive a message and then decode it in terms of what they know and have experienced, on both a conscious and unconscious level. It becomes a kind of internal intellectual/emotional negotiation about 'what these symbols mean to me.'

Understanding that the reader reaches a determination about meaning via a process of internal negotiation -- affected by social/cutlural elements, powerful pre-existing myths, and expectations -- allows the writer to consciously modify their message in order to induce or elicit the desired response in the reader.

Writing becomes a kind of provocation.

It certainly allows the writer to recognise what symbols to employ in what order to provoke a certain response from the reader.

In my limited experience, not understanding why something affected me the way it did leads to feelings of annoyance, or anger. Understanding it is better.

If KPKilburn were to go through, word by word, the article in question and decipher what symbols were used, the order in which they were presented and how the effect (intentional or otherwise) was produced, he would have a powerful insight into how to produce that effect in others.

The same is true of any effect, if something provokes a certain response in you as a reader then, as a writer, it is pretty important to dismantle the text, look at the nuts and bolts and see how it works.

2¢.

quote:

---

Uncalled for. If you don't want to read it, then just move on.

---

Considering that he started this thread and why, the tu quoque just kills me. If he would only take that quote, put it right underneath his very first post in this thread, I think it would answer his own question.
Like I said, the tu quoque just kills me.

I'm still laughing.

Webster's defines cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, argumentum, and tu quoque.

Noting arrogance as a character trait in another might imply that the messenger is also arrogant. It's not tu quoque. It is at odds with the assertion but not logically fallible. Vituperation, yes. Pointing out the dissonance of complicity with what's under debate is tu quoque, an arrogance in itself. The issue with tu quoque is it creates a persistently illogical feedback loop.

You do it too.
Huh-uh, you do it too.
Huh-uh, you too.
Huh-uh, you too.
Huh-uh.

quote:

---

If he would only take that quote, put it right underneath his very first post in this thread, I think it would answer his own question.

---

Feel free to address me directly, not in the third person as if I'm not here. You're safely behind your keyboard, so don't be afraid. After all, it's only words, right?

BTW, I'm laughing too. When people use big words (or Latin) to impress others, but don't really know what it means, now that's funny.

My interest is from an old adage about preparing for success; fail to plan, plan to fail.

Crank stated my reason simplest and best;

quote:

---

I NEVER want to witness myself behave in that way.

---

The publishing world is brutal enough for its discerning selectivity without piling on unnecessary brutality.
----
Self-censorship or censorship doesn't restrict free speech anymore in a free society. It means not behaving objectionably and causing harm to others, deliberately or unintentionally. Vulgarity, insensitivity, and compulsivity are offensive to a society and its groups and individuals. Foul language, violence, confrontational attitudes, political insensitivity in its myriad of intolerance's forms are censorable because they're harmful to others feelings and persons, restricts theirs and all of ours freedoms.
----
Diplomatic decorum and the rules and mores of a free and open society demand an all-embracing openmindedness to all and each and everyone in every regard.

A diplomatic gentle person concerned in his or her reputation, integrity, and honor in the traditional sense proactively defends honorable institutions of genteel conduct through diplomatic decorum, and only resorts to confrontation as a final option and admitting failure to reasonably resolve a difference of opinion.

Dr. Andrew Burt, Critters' administrator, moderator, and facilitator, composed diplomacy pages offering comprehensive single source recommendations on decorous critique etiquettes. I'm astonished by how few critquers and writers read, understand, and apply these simple guidelines.

http://www.critters.org/diplomacy.ht
http://www.critters.org/whathow.ht
http://www.critters.org/tinywords.ht
http://www.critters.org/diplomacy-math.ht

And one by Edward Bryant;

http://www.critters.org/wstips.ht

And the Critters' library index;

http://www.critters.org/lib.ht

quote:

---

This does not justify rudeness. However, rudeness exists. Should we outlaw rudeness and lock people up for being rude? The best answer is to rise above it. If one can't get beyond someone being rude, then one should avoid people all together.

---

I wrote this just before all the fireworks started. Rudeness has two sides - interpretation and intent. I wrote a "conspiracy theory" a couple of days ago that was perceived as rude. It was intended to be satirical, but not rude. I was very sorry for how it was perceived and was willing to state this openly.

I perceived OSC's critique as blunt, but not rude. I perceived the "test" as opinionated, but not rude. I perceived KDW's statement and question as being authoritative, but not rude. I perceived calling her "the expert" as a form of namecalling, and that I did perceive as rude. I do not know what the intent of this comment was, but I have a hard time giving it the same benefit of a doubt that I was able to apply to the other examples. The words that came after that comment then took on new meaning.

I'd suggest finding venues where you can commune with a bunch of published authors, like a writers conference, and see for yourself. I've been to several (even before I was published) and all of the authors I met were incredibly down to earth, personable, approachable, and very cool people.

As far as OSC, I attended Boot Camp in 2006 and found him to be generous with his praise and criticism when he found a writer's work to be deserving of either. He always addressed the work, never critiquing the person. He was also incredibly generous with his time. He's definitely a guy with strong opinions, but it never seemed to come across as arrogant or condescending.

But I'm a published writer, so what the heck do I know?

quote:

---

Thanks for that astute observation, by the way, rich.

---

No problem. It's what I'm here for.

Another astute observation: OSC's critique was not "acerbic" or "overbearing". As long as the criticism is in regards to the writing itself, then I don't think one can judge the critic's motivations (arrogance, condescending, etc.) against the writer. The writing is being criticized, not the writer.

For example:

"You'll never make it as a writer if you keep writing this kind of ****."

or

"Your writing lacks originality, subject/verb agreement, and indicates you have much to learn about the craft of writing."

I will respect the hard-won knowledge of those who came before and in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the individual and the whole, all measures that are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and indifference.

I will remember that there is science and passion in expressing creative vision as well as art and divine inspiration, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh a critical remark or a deflecting platitude.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call on other resources when the skills of another are needed for insight or recommendation.

I will respect the sanctity of others' emerging creations I am exposed to, for those creations are not disclosed to me so that I may impose my own volition, nor so that the world may know those creations from my capricious impulse. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of acknowledgement, recognition, commerce, and liability. If it is given me to experience a creative work, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to impact a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God nor cause harm.

I will remember that I do not address an unfeeling object, but a creation born of insuperable struggles whose progression may affect its creator's well-being. My obligation includes concern for those related attachments, if I am to respectfully approach a creative vision.

I will practice the highest standards of courtesy for courtesy's sake, to set a worthy example for others to emulate in good conscience, and also will discourage malfeasance and brutality to the fullest of my capacity whenever and wherever they occur. And I will remember that giving insult or injury tarnish reputation most, of an offender as well as an offended individual and the whole.

I will take no pleasure from the misfortunes of others, nor beg sympathy for my own, nor sing my own praises aloud.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those of small or large accomplishment as well as emerging creators.

quote:

---

I perceived calling her "the expert" as a form of namecalling, and that I did perceive as rude.

---

She's a member of the SFWA, which means she's published enough to meet the membership requirements. She's also the moderator of this site, so I think that qualifies her as an "expert".

quote:

---

Dr. Andrew Burt, Critters' administrator, moderator, and facilitator, composed diplomacy pages offering comprehensive single source recommendations on decorous critique etiquettes. I'm astonished by how few critquers and writers read, understand, and apply these simple guidelines.

http://www.critters.org/diplomacy.ht
http://www.critters.org/whathow.ht
http://www.critters.org/tinywords.ht

---

Thanks for the links. These are very interesting and useful. (The endings got cropped somehow, so you have to add the "ml" at the end to make it .html).

I really gained a new perspective on the issue. I know some people are arrogant/rude and others are not, but I now see how crits can be delivered/interpreted differently depending on the perspective.

I also learned some new words, "cognitive dissonance" for example. Very interesting concept that I had never heard of before (at least the proper name of it).