Actually, what he said about KW is that he doesn't come here often because of two reasons: first, because he doesn't want to go too much into detail with fan speculation, and second (and most importantly) because he doesn't want to feed his ego, which is what would happen if he came in here and read hundreds of praises, in-depth analyses, and so on. He never said he doesn't come here because he doesn't want to hear criticism, as far as I remember.Malik23 wrote:[I know, he uses that phrase to mean "a warrior against his own writing fears," and not to mean "warrior against criticism." But I'd say he's lying to himself if he doesn't list facing criticism as a fear. After all, he's basically said that's why he doesn't read the Watch very much.]
And, Cail, there is a very big difference between coming to the Watch and actively going through it, and receiving criticism in the GI. It's the same difference you'd notice between going out to a certain shop to see what they sell, and receiving spam in your mailbox advertising that shop X sells item Y. I think most of us, if not all of us, would rather not receive unwanted criticism, especially if it is not constructive: criticism is good only when it actually is intended to help the author, not to dictate him how to write or to make it appear like the critic believes himself much smarter than the author. Preston's criticism was the latter kind: it was phrased that way, as has been pointed out earlier. His basic message was, "your writing started sucking, here's how you should proceed." As a writer myself, albeit an amateur one, I'm pretty sure that receiving this kind of unrequired criticism in my mailbox, from someone who doesn't know where I plan to go with the story and who obviously has not even read my other books (which are a pretty effective denial of his criticism), but who pretends to know better than I do how I should write, would rather annoy me.
SRD has readers who go through his manuscripts before they are published: these people don't just read the manuscripts seeking punctuation mistakes, but are also supposed to tell him "it seems to me this passage is too lengthy" or "perhaps this passage isn't focusing on what you wanted to convey". In short, he already sends his book through criticism before it is published, so as to make it better. Like Seareach, I agree that if Preston had phrased his criticism differently, as a question or at least a personal opinion, SRD would likely have answered. As it is, it is likely - and we cannot know - that SRD answered Preston in private. In fact, it is even possible that he actually answered Preston and asked him whether he could use him as an example. I'm not saying it is likely, only that we shouldn't discount the possibility.
But honestly, as Wayfriend also said, the GI is a great effort on SRD's part, and he does it without asking for anything in return. It's a generous effort, and it does require at least courtesy on the part of those who interact with him through it. If you want to state a personal opinion, clarify it is not intended to be a suggestion or a request; above all, if you want to criticize, do so constructively and check all your sources before stating your point, because something (like the GAP cycle) could make your point moot.
)
