[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by Sammie
If you'd like all the discussion about rules moved elsewhere then we can do that also.

Sounds good, there are some points I am not really clear on, and since no further discussion in this thread is allowed could you split off the relevant posts? I wrote a very neutral and carefully-worded post this evening on the topic of author criticism for this thread, but it was deleted, so if we can continue in another thread that would be good.

I would like to discuss the difference between reasoned and objective criticism of an author and how this differs from personal attacks upon said author. Both may displease said author should be read them, but even though 'negative', the first type should not be deleted or censored on these forums. 'Drawing the teeth' of forumites and quashing posts critiquing important authors in the genre would make these forums a far less valuable resource. If current policies are not a move in this direction, then this is good news : but we won't really know unless the matter is discussed clearly.

(Editted so as hopefully not to be deleted. :D )

[Hobbit]

As requested, i've set this up as a new thread.

I would like to discuss the difference between reasoned and objective criticism of an author and how this differs from personal attacks upon said author. I think the point here is that reasoned objective criticism of an author's work is acceptable.

As you have quite rightly said, Ouro, there becomes problems when the line is crossed, so that comments become personal and possibly objectionable towards an author.

As far as I know, most authors are happy to listen to criticism. As part of the writing process it can be good to get others views on work, and yes, though it is nice to here the positives, authors usually are interested in other people's OPINIONS about their work.

Previous experience here is that if you can be polite and objective in your criticism, you tend to get better responses, both from other members and authors. It doesn't always work, but it often does. :)

If you have thought about what you mean in the criticism (rather than give the impression that you are doing it to take cheap shots at an author), and/or can give examples to illustrate, but at the same time accept that your view is no more than that and that you might see it differently to others (but that's OK), then we move the discussion along.

Whilst you can say that 'Character X sucks' it is usually more conducive to discussion if you explain why you didn't like Character X, though you must always remember that it is the nature of the discussion that you usually will get a positive comment which is the opposite response of yours from other members. Such is the way of discussion.

What is usually not acceptable is a post that says, 'Author X, you are a crap writer'. A comment such as this leaves no room for further discussion, and sometimes gives the views that the poster is unwilling, unable or unresponsive to other's views. The discussion then becomes closed, because others will either feel intimidated to respond to such a post or feel that the poster would be unwilling to accept that there is another different opinion.

We can always agree to disagree, as long as we do so in an unthreatening and unaggressive manner.

This is common sense to me. as well as being the policy of the Forum, and as such has never changed, as far as I know. It is also one of the reasons why we have the long list of members that we have, the majority of whom are happy to contribute in such an environment.

This does not 'draw the teeth' of Forumites, as you put it, but I would argue leads to the opposite - a more open discussion with all feeling that they can contribute, regardless of whether the points are positive or negative. You can still critique an author, providing that the fairly basic and commonsense guidelines are followed.

The bottom line is - if you think it will cause offense, don't post it, or be prepared to have it taken out.

Posts are therefore only usually quashed, if a complaint has been made to a member of staff about it or it is felt to be 'unfair'. (Unless of course it is completely off topic too). Then a member of the staff will deal with it, in the interests of the Forum. We don't like removing posts, and try not to, but sometimes it's got to be done. The majority of members are usually trusting in our judgements. Has always been the way.

Hobbit

[Ouroboros]

Hello all-

Perhaps the fates were trying to send me a message last week, as on the evening of my posting the base post on this thread lightning struck my phone line and fried my modem (but happily not my hard drive). So after a rather forced rest period, here I am...

Briefly, I am satifised with Hobbit's clarification of what kind of criticism will remain welcome at SFFworld, and look forward to a continuing healthy tradition of 'questioning everything' as regards SF and fantasy work on these forums.

[Eurytus]

I do not understand the following policy;

1. An author believes that people should hold true to rigid policies about what is “right” and “wrong”.
2. To illustrate his beliefs he writes a fantasy book which shows why policies should be so black and white.
3. To further illustrate this he gives a real world interview in which he states that since a drug dealer blew up a plane full of people that all people who take illegal drugs are a party to mass murder. Effectively stating that a pensioner, crippled by arthritis who takes cannabis to sooth the pain is a party to the aforementioned mass murder.

Therefore the path follows from author’s belief, through to the book, through to a clarification of his belief by using a real world example.
Now I do not think I am alone in feeling that this type of thinking is uses overly binary thinking, is flawed and indeed is downright offensive to a great many arthritis sufferers.

From PM’s I have received I have discovered that this is not allowed to be debated here. Indeed I have been accused of hate speech for doing so.
I fail to understand why, when an author makes his philosophical viewpoint the core of his books, that his philosophical viewpoint is out of bonds.

If he believes his books to be works of philosophy, which he seemingly does, then the point of philosophy books is invariably to stimulate debate. Though that is not allowed here and this saddens me greatly.

[Sammie]

No-one has said that author's philosophical viewpoints, and their relation to their novels, may not be discussed here.

However, you are the first member in a long time to show themselves to be utterly incapable of discussing this matter without being either offensive, aggressive, or appearing to be attacking the author rather than their product at every turn.

Your responses were achieving exactly the negative consequence that Hobbit has said we wish to avoid - an intimidating, unpleasant, atmosphere, that limits open discussion. That is why YOU have been asked to drop the subject. We will not be asking again.

I suggest you check your private messages.

Sammie.