You're Not Important, but your Platform Is · 3:40pm Sep 8th, 2017
This could be a long one, because this is one of those things I think about a lot, but I'll keep this as brief as possible; I have a lot of problems with reviewer culture on this site.
This isn't to say that there aren't reviewers that I don't like and respect, and ways to go about it. But... I think a reviewer got to the core of it in a spat we got into this morning;
You don't need consent to write reviews
This isn't pulled out of context, this is the core of a foundational argument to him; reviewing people is an inherently good thing he puts work into, people like it, ergo if someone asks him to take down a review that was hurtful or detrimental to their work, he has no obligation to do so, and shouldn't; because that's censorship, it hurts him to take down a review of someone else's work, etc.
If that wasn't hypothetical hyperbole, I'd have no need to be writing this, but here we are.
The belief that the author of a work you review is entirely superfluous to the act of reviewing their work.
Now, this isn't an attitude he's alone in, but it's one I've never seen put so succinctly; reviewers have the right to do what they will with a story, because there are no rules against it, because there's a matter of integrity and fairness, because the work has been publicly released to be commented on.
Here is my opinion on the matter;
When you establish yourself as 'a reviewer' you build yourself a platform; you're intent on having opinions interesting enough that you get an audience. That's largely the point. Your marketable product is your opinion, which means you need to establish that your opinion is valid and legitimate and better than most people's; which means when people get bad reviews, it no longer feels that someone didn't like it, it feels like they wrote an objectively bad story, and this is a problem. Especially when that reviewer's opinion is comically incompetent, and the people who actually know better are too busy writing better stories to call them out on it.
I already think this trying to sell your opinion as the end product is narcissistic and problematic in a lot of circumstances, but that's also fine because that's also just my opinion. If you're doing it to give highlight reels and advertising to fics that deserve it, like the Seattle's Angels group does, I think you're a net positive force for good and you have my complete respect. Ditto what Twilight's Library used to be. Oblivion2K used to review the Feature Box in this way; even when it was obvious he didn't like a fic, his scores were silly and he sincerely tried his best to figure out, if the story isn't for him, who its intended audience was and advertise it to them. Brilliant.
Unfortunately, this isn't a universal case.
If you negatively review people's stories without the intent of consent, and you present your thoughts as the objective truth, you're hurting them. You're acting as a parasite here; you value the attention and praise you receive from giving another human a public dressing down at their expense. This is not to say you can't be critical of people's stories -- the comment section of that story, and the author's PM, exist as venues to do that.
If you do that while advertising the negative review with a link back to your review series in that story's comments' section? You are actively leeching off another person's reputation and work to benefit yourself at their expense. It's pretty easy just to put it in a labelled bookshelf to do that; PresentPerfect is an example of doing this perfectly.
This isn't a professional environment. You are not a journalist. You are not the press. This is meant to be a fun, safe, welcoming environment.
And you are hurting and discouraging the people who actually create the content when you do this.
In the words of Tycho Brahe:
There are people who walk on eggshells out of fear, but there is a second type of person who literally distributes eggshells for other people to walk on. Try to imagine how I feel about this second person, who is the negative space around which the exploratory, human work of creativity is allowed to take place.
This is what I would tell you, and you can take this advice or not take it. Its truth is not dependent on your willingness to believe it, so your reaction isn’t super relevant. But goes like this: you will be an observer - that is to say, not a creator - forever, until the day you find a way to stop using creative people as a proxy for your own stunted drives. You can emerge from this cocoon you’ve made, or you can die inside it, half-formed.
Now, the last time I posted this, it was rebutted that "I'm distributing eggshells for reviewers, I'm the person I'm describing". Here's the difference; when an author creates work, they're adding to the creative space. When a reviewer creates a review, they're making a wholly derivative product dependent on authors continuing to work.
Don't bite the hand that feeds.
Oh, and while I have this space, if you've scrolled down;
Horizon is my go to example of my favourite, most wholesome commentor on the site. Even when I disagree with him, I find his understanding of works to be immaculate, he truly cares about authorial intent, and his HORSE system is a work of inspired genius.
I think if more people tried to be like him, and less tried to be like Ben Yahtzee Croshaw, we'd have a much healthier community.
In the interest of not distributing eggshells, it'd probably be best to take his name out. Not because I think you'll hurt his reputation or anything, but because otherwise you're kinda discrediting your own point. You bring his name up in a negative light, with a negative view of his opinion.
Eh, I never read reviews. Just like with movies reviews are usually a waste of time and space. Just the opinion of someone who wants attention. If something catches my attention I'll read the first chapter, then decide if i want to continue or move on. You can usually tell pretty quickly if something is worth your time or not.
I suspect this could be construed as a personal attack blog and may run afoul of the mods. Not saying change it, but be aware of the risk.
I'm not personally going to voice an opinion in the matter,
4662098
On it's own I think it would be fine, but the fact that numerous almost identical blogs (at least one of which absolutely does run afoul of the personal attacks rule), with almost identical titles, have all been posted today targeting the exact same person over the exact same incident... It'll be tough to claim that it's not a personal attack.
There's a difference between review and feedback. In a review you critique the work, not the author. When you give feedback, the goal is to help the author improve his work. Frankly I never bother reading reviews because I want to make my own opinion about the material. I'll be more than happy to discuss a story after I've read it, but otherwise I find it more fun to discover it for myself.
It's easy to dehumanize someone when your only interaction with them is through text on a website. We all need to remember there is a person behind that text, someone who deserves to be treated with respect and kindness. Isn't it what this community is supposed to be about?
4662089 4662098
EDIT: EDITS
That's one of the reasons that I have trouble calling what I do, posting my reactions to stories I read, reviews. They really aren't and are pure opinion and my personal reactions. Just haven't found a better word that means near the same thing. Though I do think that if someone asks me to take down a review I should.
If there was some method in which I could show approval of this (beyond what I am doing now), then I would certainly do so. Well done.
4662100
Actually this was largely me just blatantly plagiarizing Crystal, because I really was more thinking of this as a catalyst event and not targeting a specific person. But you're absolutely correct, and I didn't actually consider it like that; Making edit,
The criticism about "becoming the thing you're criticizing" makes no sense to me, because it's a deterrent response, like punching back someone who punched you.
Once you've committed a slight against another, you relinquish all right to recuse yourself from being victim to the same slight. If free speech enables you to be an asshole to others, it also enables us to be an asshole to you.
The handing out eggshells analogy is misleading because it suggests intent to attack someone or make them feel vulnerable. I'm pretty sure most anybody would agree that going after an author by criticizing their work is entirely unethical.
Oh, and apparently Tycho Brahe has joined the ranks of people who don't know what the word "literally" means.
Here, I feel, is the real issue. Reviews are, by their very nature, subjective opinions. It is literally impossible to have an "objective truth" about a work of fiction. To think or act otherwise is deliberately misleading readers, and hurts all authors and creators, not just the one you're reviewing at that point in time. (Yes, there are some points you can be "objective" on - was punctuation used properly and so on - but unless the review is literally only about the technical points, it still cannot, as a whole, be objective.)
Any reviewer that tries to lead people into believing that they are giving objective, fact-based reviews should be warned away from, period.
You... do realize that fanfic is more derivative, parasitic, and often critical than any review, right?
I mean, it's fine if you hold that view and are against fix fics or fics with negative takes on canon, but criticism is definitely allowed as an exception to copyright as a transformative work separate from the original, while fanfic is a legal grey area because of its inherently derivative nature, so you should be consistent there.
4662118
Nah... you're missing the heart of the matter, which is that if "Friendship is Magic" never produced any more official content, fan fiction of it could continue unimpeded. While fanfic writers used something else as a starting point, the continuing work of others isn't necessary for their own. However, without someone else creating something first, reviewers have nothing to review. They are wholly dependant on another's creativity.
4662137
Be that as it may, if FiM never existed, none of these stories would be written. If FiM never existed, reviews and discussion of art and fiction would continue to exist. If someone has never seen FiM, most of these stories won't make sense, while most reviews are written to be informative especially if you've never read the work in question. Fan fiction is intrinsically tied to the specific creative work of another, while criticism uses that work as a jumping off point for analysis, which is why it's considered transformative.
4662112
Cool beans. (I love that phrase, I don't care how dated it is.)
Anyway, I'm pretty much staying out of this whole thing since I wasn't directly involved in it. As far as I'm concerned, it's not my place to get involved in someone else's argument. I just had to throw that out there since you're one of my favorite authors on here and I've seen people get handed temp bans for less. No sense tempting fate and what not.
4662152
You're playing it both ways with that statement. If FIM never existed, the reviews of Fanfics based on it would never exist either, and Writers are no more chained to the property than reviewers are.
Regardless, Fanfiction cannot be more parasitic than reviews. A parasite requires another organism to live. We are all born of other organisms... that does not make us parasites, even if it takes a while before we can survive on our own. Much is the same of Fanfics... they are born of existing works, but at some point the continued existence of that parenting work is no longer crucial.
Reviews are wholly parasitic in nature. They cannot exist at all separated from an existing work.
4662152
I'm not arguing against analysis -- which can still be done either positively or about not-pony-works -- I'm arguing against negativity.
Like, okay; When you do a review on a story, you're borrowing a chunk of that story's public credibility. And when you say good nice things, you've made a return on investment. Hooray. And when you tell people this story isn't worth reading and is bad you've now given people a negative opinion on a story and advised them it's not worth the time forming their own by reading it -- which is the point of dissuasive reviews. Thus, you're liquidating that chunk of public credibility to power your own platform.
Positivity-focused criticism is no less legitimate as Horizon consistently shows and knocks out of the goddamn park.
Also, to clarify, this is purely in regards to the FimFic community, and not professional environments or non-fan works. All bets are pretty much off there, fair enough.
I absolutely disagree with you. I think your man's reviews are useful, entertaining, and valuable because he's wrong about fucking everything and has never had a good take in his life.
His story analysis is like Megan McArdle's economics writing, Robbie Mook's political instincts or Sargon of Akkad's videos: a reverse compass that always points in the wrong direction. Every time I see him rag on a story that I've also read, I see him waddling around the point like one of the aliens in Third Rock From The Sun, saying something remarkable in its ability to irritatingly contrarian and utterly banal at the same time.
He's truly the Bergholt-Stuttley Johnson of the fanfiction reviewing world, and I for one would be deeply affected if he were to stop.
4662170
Please PM me this person's name! I've got to follow them!
No, I'm serious. My favorite movie reviewer ever was just like that, and it was wonderful to have such a clear signpost pointing away from movies I would love.
All reviewers have their quirks, and the "good" ones have clear and consistent ones. To find good fics (and who has time to waste on bad ones?) you have to take the reviewer's foibles into consideration when reading a review. Many times I've read a bad review and, knowing what I did of the reviewr's tastes, immediately added the fic to my to-be-read list.
The only bad reviewer is an inconsistent one.
4662169
You keep arguing about the platform, which is a side effect. I haven't actually heard your argument against negativity. Personally, if I could exchange all the people bitching me out in comments for one face meltingly bad review from TD, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
But negative reviews in all formats are the flip side of positive reviews, it's really entitled to ask people to put work into telling you good things, but if they think something bad just keep their mouths shut so that... people can continue to write bad things in peace?
Why should people, whatever their platform, do that? They don't want people writing more bad fics, so I doubt the fear of discouraging them from doing that is a good motivator.
I don't think I agree, and it feels like you're so far off the mark here that it makes me suspect I don't understand what your thesis is.
Everypony knows reviews are bound to contain opinion, even to the point of inaccuracy. Criticism does not generally confuse ponies into thinking it is solely composed of objective information.
If you're suggesting that anypony should take down a review upon request, then the authors of bad art would always be able to stifle criticism of that art whenever they please. That denies a valuable service to the potential consumers of said art. This is one of the reasons why so many Fimfic readers react very negatively to deleted comments on story threads: even if the comments were extremely inappropriate and had nothing to do with the story, it looks like the author is censoring criticism, and potential readers want to know that the time they're about to spend isn't going to be wasted because something is wrong with the story that the author is intentionally hiding rather than addressing.
This is an issue of free expression of ideas. Think about it this way. Let's say I write something critical of the government. Should I be obligated to remove what I said because the head of state disagrees with it?
I someone butt hurt about mean options?
imageproxy.ifcdn.com/crop:x-20,resize:320x,crop:x800,quality:90x75/images/e9c5e7ac7307ada3ff5494082d6403f805dccc4fb042491e669da991dcc3468e_1.jpg
If the fiction is good, you get plenty of positive reviews. And critique is good. If someone is just dissing you for shits and giggles you should be able to see that too.
Don't be a wuss. Grow skin tick enough to be on the internet, or get the fuck out, and seek medical help for your crippling autism. Like I am serous. You should get checked over for mental problems if some mean person gets you down for more than few hours.
4662190
Like I said; I'm not against criticism, and specifically said anything left in comments sections or PMs is fair game. I'm against people who use their criticism for personal gain and try to gather a following or position of authority by doing so.
And even then, I'm only largely against that because this is meant to be a hobbyist, non-professional environment. To be taken seriously and respectfully, certainly, but not harshly.
Intent's a big thing here, for me.
Wait, is this about what Carapace is ranting about? If so, I'm curious who the reviewer and reviewee are.
(Apparently there is a popular reviewer on the website who just acted like a tremendous prick to somepony whose story they reviewed.)
4662194
You're contradicting yourself, then. You wrote that a reviewer needs "intent of consent" to review. That's inconsistent with "anything left in comments is fair game". It also suggests that if somepony says "no negative reviews, please" that pony should be immune from critical analysis. I can't agree with that.
Personally, with no knowledge of whatever set this all off, I tend to agree. While I see that great value can come from negative feedback in terms of an author improving his or her work, I find that negative reviews of amateur works are kind of questionable. The main difference being that feedback is directed at the author, while reviews are directed towards his or her potential audience. With no monetary investment on the line from said audience, much of the excuse of warning off would-be readers from substandard work falls by the wayside. In fact, it discourages others from reading, forming their own opinions, and perhaps leaving valuable feedback that would lead to the author's improvement as well.
As such, I have found that the simple up/down vote system gives me an adequate guide when it comes to investing my time in a story, clueing me into the kind of reactions that the story has generated and that I may be looking at something controversial or divisive. I can then usually decide whether to follow through on reading something within the first thousand words, if still intrigued. There is rarely anything akin to "buyer's remorse" when it comes to reading free stories, save perhaps the disappointment of something that goes off the rails long after you started reading it... something that reviews can't help with when stories are released chapter by chapter.
The reviews that I find valuable are the ones that promote a work I might have missed or skipped by, encouraging me to go back and dig up some hidden treat. Many kudos to such reviewers.
4662204
It's not really; if it's left in the comments, the author's got full control over whether it stays up or not. They have to deal with 'comment was deleted' bars, but otherwise it stays up on their implicit okayness. That's implied consent.
If someone does it to their audience, independent of yours, I find that problematic. I don't think people should be immune to criticism I just find telling your own, unrelated audience "This author's story isn't worth reading and here's why" unethical in the context of a recreational website.
4662178
I'm curious about this. I get much more out of multiple ponies bitching me out in comments than I do from a single review. Reviews in general (although some of TD's reviews are longer than most) aren't usually long or detailed, and more importantly they tend to view the story from a single perspective that is often opinionated by how the expectations they had before beginning the read.
4662221
Well, I think it's bad form to do it without telling the person you're doing it. I don't like the fact that I have to read all of PresentPerfect's reviews to find out when he reviews one of my stories (he even told me he specifically doesn't put the summary at the top because he wants to force readers to have to open up each blog post in order to find out which stories he has reviewed).
That said, I don't see the difference. It sounds like you're conflating the ideas of horsefame and service, as though commenting on your blog is somehow 'more selfish' because it could make you 'horse popular'. That has nothing to do with the service a review provides.
4662221
It is moral. If you explain why, its criticism, and the audience they have would likely not have found the fiction unless the guy told them about it.
Also if the guy is any good (and you have to be good to have a following) he will tell what's it about and people that like that kind of thing might see it and check it out.
Bad press is still press.
Author censorship is a bad thing for everyone , but the author, that can trick people into wasting their time with his shit. (Like seriously, there are websites like that. They are fucking retarded, and censor everything for no reason.)
You know who shuts down critics that disagree with him? Kim Jong-un. You are arguing a point that he is an example off it in action. Just no. Like seriously, no. This is historically and scientifically proven to make people resent and even kill you in more extreme cases.
4662235
*whiny dipshit nerd voice* " You know who shuts down critics that disagree with him? Kim Jong-un."
4662241
Thank you, I was going for that, and you totally got it.
By the way you are doing the same thing the critics are, just not calling names because of site rules. You are using your platform to talk about someone, and tell that they are bad, without constructive criticism. You should be censored by him, according to yourself.
The whole point of a review is to share your appreciation of the material so that others will have an idea if they would be interested in it. As far as I'm concerned, a review should be along the lines of "I liked (or disliked) this story and here's why". It's ridiculous that some people think it's okay to tell someone else what they should or should not read.
Well, negative reviews apparently mean to stop the hand from feed crap.
(speaking of unbiased and well-thought review of course - haters gonna hate anyway)
4662278
Nah, a review would be the equivalent of telling others "don't eat this, it tastes like crap". Feedback is the tool you use to tell the author not to feed you crap.
"Don't feed the hand that feeds you"
What if the hand tastes better than the stuff it feeds you?
4662220
I think I would argue that nothing is more valuable or limited than time. Between work, family, other hobbies and obligations I only have so much time to spend reading horse words. If a review of a 50k word story I've got in my "Read it Later" list lets me know that it falls apart 25k in then they have saved me time and therefore that review has value to me.
Can someone PM me what's this all about and who the chucklefuck is that's got a good many people whose works and/or opinions I greatly respect in a tizzy?
Disclaimer: I have no idea what sparked all this off.4662221
As a reader with limited time and literally millions of horsewords to sort through, people doing this type of thing is a valuable service. While I personally prefer going the other route -- looking for positive reviews/recommendations -- I don't see any problem with someone saying "don't bother with this one." Ideally, it would go "don't bother with this one, because [reasons]," but I don't think that's necessary.
I would have a problem with a "reviewer" insulting, denigrating, or otherwise degrading the author or the work. It's fine to say "this story isn't worth your time." It's not fine to say "this piece of shit isn't worth your time."
EDIT: I've now been clued in, and it turns out I'd actually read the review in question already and thought nothing of it. Amusingly, it doesn't fit into any of the categories I discuss above, because it's a positive review: "this story is worth your time, as long as you don't mind [reasons]."
[tangent]
Tycho Brahe was metal. He died because of a burst bladder, because he refused to excuse himself from a banquet to piss.
He also had a pet elk, who died after getting drunk on beer and falling down some stairs.
[/tangent]
So don't push authors through a drill sergeant training they didn't sign up for?
I'd agree reviewers shouldn't try to hit the author in the feels in an uncivil way, but otherwise.
Thing is, a safe haven protected by the gods is to follow the rules of the gods. Now if some reviewers are too naughty, yet follow the rules...
Then you can only act on your own power, and between policing things or showing the enjoyment and ease of proper reviewing I'd prefer the later. Show by example and don't fight. Because raising flags is nice, but buying flags and burning them merely incenses the world.
I think I can agree wih your general ideas, but it's a bit hard to get your precise focus. Also, i think your point is mostly something like 'respect the work of your fellow human'?
In any case, "don't bite the hand that feeds" is a strange lesson here. Because we humans raise cattle and eat cattle, and while some farmhands truly care for our born to be eaten friends, some don't and that's unfortunately normal.
Killing what feeds us is normal beyond family circles.
A reviewer doesn't need to relate to authors to be able to deliver, and I don't think they should be invisibly forced. If a hunter obeys on site rules, he may hunt as he wishes.
Peace, respect and be civil in your profanity if any, I guess. I care for how English is used, but not of who invented it. Lead by example, protect your children, and don't be trigger happy.
That's all I got. Pardon the redundancy.
Well, this became a thing.
4662160
So... Fanfiction has a parasitic larval state?
Hear hear!
I rarely review stories here seriously. If I do it usually just amounts to "I love it! Write more!" But I enjoy the stories here, and in other media, and have encountered instances where a reviewer clearly makes themselves the focus of their review to the subject's detriment, and where a reviewer's careless comment has delayed my enjoyment of something I later find to be to my tastes.
Reviewers who identify as such have a responsibility to use their platform and influence to guide their audience towards something they'll appreciate, to give the original creator constructive feedback on their work, what it does well or poorly, as well as to encourage the production of higher-quality material in future. Failing any of those renders a reviewer either misguided, unhelpful or downright destructive, and should reconsider their place, priorities and decision to review at all.
Granted, I have no real context for any of this, so feel free to disregard my opinion.
I've never really been one for reading reviews.
I've always preferred the passive referral system; where you just browse someone else's favourites.
4662112
Wait, what?
I mean, I know it's not me but I'm curious which Crystal it is.
4662513
Sure, why not? You have the "chest-burster" stage, and then the later stages where the more fully developed fics scurry through the air ducts of the franchise while filled with highly corrosive blood. Meanwhile the clop stuff just sticks to the face-hugger scenes.
I still say the funniest thing about this guy is the reaction you get anytime his name comes up in a chat. It's either groans or utter loathing. There is no "gee, he's a swell guy with some weird opinions." Just hatred.
Or comments about how he's a robot who desperately needs to be reformatted. Personally, I vote for the trash compactor. There are some things even complete reprogramming of a computer will not fix.
4662610
Crystal Wishes I believe.