I need to vent... · 9:34pm Jun 14th, 2017
...and I'm little-known enough - and have so few followers - on this site that I probably don't have to worry about being attacked here, so this seems like as good a way as any.
There's a certain fic here that's in the process of being written that I recently took an interest in (not stating what it was, for the sake of avoiding sparking a flame war, as unlikely as that is). It's a bit rough around the edges, probably due to lack of experience on the author's part, but the story itself was good, and the grammar mostly decent, mainly with just a few typos. A few chapters before the most recent, however, had me worried that the story was going to veer into misanthropic rant territory due to a couple of lines in it. I voiced this concern in the comments section in my usual, blunt way, and the author responded, assuring that I was misreading things and explaining what he actually meant. His explanations made sense, and so I accepted his explanation, and that was that.
"But what about this makes you need to vent?" you may ask. Well, just examining this one incident, nothing. Looked at by itself, this was just a mild case of a reader misunderstanding the author's intent and being corrected. But this isn't the incident that I need to vent about. This incident just needs to be known of in order to fully grasp the situation that this rant's actually about.
In the most recent chapter of the story (or at least, most recent as of typing this), the author portrayed Celestia as a nigh-omnipotent goddess. By the time I finished reading the chapter, another reader (not giving a screen name to protect this party's anonymity) pointed out how absurd this portrayal is, citing the fact that unicorns moved the sun long before Celestia actually showed up, how she needed either the Elements of Harmony or Luna's backup every time a previous threat occurred, and how every single one of Equestria's villains would beat her in a fair fight. The author outright stated he refuses to accept this, saying that he rejects the comics and only goes by what he's seen in the shows. Of course, this statement is absurd, seeing as how the proof of Celestia being neither divine nor all that powerful are all in canon. So I, in my usual blunt way, pointed out to the author that all of the third party's data points are from canon, and that if the basis of his keeping his version of Celestia as an almighty goddess is canon, he needs to reconcile this view with all the canon data proving otherwise. The author then dismisses my argument, again saying that he's rejecting the comics and going only by what he's seen in the show, and adding that since he's only partway through season 6, anything past that doesn't apply to his story. I then pointed out that all of the data that I and the third party brought up is from the show, and all from the season 6 premiere and prior, so his argument held no water and an explanation was still necessary. The author then responded in a rather arrogant fashion that it doesn't matter what canon says, and that he doesn't need to explain anything. The observant reader might notice that he's now contradicting himself, as his whole prior argument was built on the (faulty) assertion that his version of Celestia was canon-compliant. So I pointed out his contradiction and called for an explanation once more, pointing out that his original argument was that his Celestia was allegedly canon-based and that canon contradicts his claims. Then the author claimed he made no contradiction, and declared that he refused to respond to any more of my comments, claiming that he refused to listen to someone who took offense at someone enjoying his story, or refused to try to understand another's point of view. "But wait!" some of you might call out. "You didn't mention that you opposed others enjoying the story!" You're right, I didn't mention that. Because I never argued that. I never even implied that. At this point, it was obvious that the author was being either willfully ignorant or intentionally deceptive, and that it was futile to continue arguing either way. Even so, there are some out there who believe that someone who doesn't post a refutation of something is proof that no refutation exists, and the author made false accusations in his last post against me that I didn't want to let stand. So, for the sake of anyone else reading the argument and the sake of my own catharsis, I sent a reply calling him out on his strawman and pointing out that he was the one that refused to listen, and that I actually listened to him the last time I took exception to something he wrote because he had a rational explanation. Then I thumbed the story down and stopped following, then looked for a story I do enjoy to re-read to wash the taste of the situation out of my mouth, as is my way with stories I no longer enjoy.
Except that's not what happened, because I never got to post my reply, because the author blocked me.
No, nowhere in his last message did the author say he was going to block me. He just said that he wasn't going to reply to my messages anymore. "But wait!" You might cry. "Wouldn't that lead some to believe that you haven't been blocked, and that the reason that you didn't reply is because you couldn't refute what he was saying? And wouldn't that lead some people to believe that his strawman is actually accurate?" Now you see why I'm so angry. In a last-ditch effort to get at least someone reading the argument to see that I had a refutation of his last statement, and didn't back down from the argument but was, in fact, censored, I posted my refutation on his user page, with an additional reference to his blocking me and calling him out on the deceitful way he ended his last message before the block.
Except I didn't, because he blocked me from his user page too. And his PM mailbox. So now he's getting away with his disingenuous argument, I'm being made out to be a coward and a fool, and I can't even call him out on it.
You know, it's crap like this that's part of the reason why I'm so adamant that even little things be made right in 'fics where the authors actually give a crap about what I have to say. Because we already have enough people pulling crap and getting away with it in real life. (Or, at least, in this life. The other reason I'm so adamant is because, in real life, I can at least take solace in the fact that justice will finally be fulfilled on Judgment Day, whereas anyone in fiction who gets away with wicked acts - or isn't repaid for evils inflicted upon them - by the story's end will either get away with their misdeed forever or never be repaid. Introducing a confirmed religion to the setting almost never helps there either, as unless it's an expy of Christianity, then at the end of time either there will still be unpunished sin and non-avenged suffering, or everyone in the setting is hellbound).
You've got every right to vent, and I agree with you, the unnamed author is very much in the wrong, and has proven themselves to be in the wrong. As well as petty.
4571393
Glad to see at least someone agrees. Thanks for the support.
4571410 Not a problem.
I've been in a pretty similar situation myself. It seems that a lot of authors react very defensively when you point out problems with their stories, and then refuse to let you explain what you mean once they've dismissed you with an invalid argument. The author I was trying to correct basically said he didn't have to use proper grammar because famous authors have been able to make up words and use punctuation in non standard ways, then blocked me. I was trying to point out typos.