Kevin's Watch

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.]

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.

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.

SRD opens up a forum like the GI and doesn't expect or want criticism? He'd be better off without it then.

All he had to do was delete Preston's message, instead, he came off like an ass.

That'd be a matter of opinion I'd say. I think he was a little harsh maybe, but I don't think he came off like an ass.

Oh, of course it is. Hey, I just think that if you're a big-time, professional author that takes the time to answer fans' questions that you should be above SRD's petty response. Either answer the criticism or delete the message.

Cail wrote:Oh, of course it is. Hey, I just think that if you're a big-time, professional author that takes the time to answer fans' questions that you should be above SRD's petty response. Either answer the criticism or delete the message.

The GI is not a forum, it's an ongoing Q&A session. Its very name should tell you it is an interview. When doing an interview to anyone, be it an actor, an author, or whatever, you ask questions, you may even ask them whether they agree or not with somebody's criticism, but you don't see interviewers asking their subjects "by the way, your book sucked. I think you should write it this way." I'm pretty sure that if an interviewer said something to that effect, the author/actor/whatever would, in the best case, simply walk away.

As you said yourself, Cail, KW is SRD's forum; the GI is something different. If you intend to post there, then you should respect the fact that the GI isn't for criticism. It's to learn more about what he says and writes, but not to tell him what he should do better. I know it is tempting to criticize through an avenue that reaches the author directly, but it's simply not the purpose of the GI. And SRD also mentioned this several times, including how there were lots of criticism messages he didn't post on the GI because they defied the GI's purpose. It might well be that Preston's question was the straw that broke the camel's back - that it was the final criticism that annoyed him so much that he had to post it, just to make sure people understood what he should not be sent through the GI. At least,t hat's my idea.

That's not at all what Preston's post said.

I don't care if it was the first or the hundredth critical email he got, his response was petty and it made him look like an ass.

I'm stunned that this many people are defending his completely inappropriate response, and I'm hereby withdrawing myself from this discussion before I insult half the Watch.

I’m going to try one more time, and then drop it.

Look at it this way: his “guest at a dinner party criticizing the food” analogy is horrible. It’s so horrible, I can’t believe a writer of his caliber could make such a drastic mistake. It is NOTHING like being invited to a dinner party and criticizing the food. That analogy doesn’t fit the facts; it’s grossly inaccurate.

The situation is more like this: you go out to a restaurant, you pay for your meal (his books), and then the chef comes out and gives you little comment cards (the GI) for the explicit, sole purpose of writing questions and composing comments about the meal for which you just paid(his books). You can say anything you want, ask any question you like, as long as you don’t say anything critical or negative about the meal--even if you make those comments in good faith with the intension of making future meals better.

Then he reads them aloud and answers them. But in this process, he has the choice whether or not to reveal your comments to everyone. In fact, he actively prunes and deletes what people write all the time. He’s the master editor of this “free” exchange of ideas. If you do say something bad about the meal, even something respectful and full of asskissing platitudes and "best regards," he will call you out in front of everyone and make an embarrassing example of you, so that everyone else is sure to be intimidated into refraining from complaining about their meal. Did I mention you just paid for the meal? Good. Oh yeah, he makes his living by selling you food you like. And he distributed the comment cards himself, inviting your comments.

Now, would you go to a restaurant where the chef embarrassed you in front of everyone when you write a respectful complaint about the quality of your meal on your comment card? How about when he disingenuously pretends the that this meal you've just paid for was a "free dinner party," and he publicly makes this argument to the entire restaurant so that no other customer gets any wise ideas? And even though we all know that we just paid for this meal, the other customers jump on the "free dinner party" analogy as if it were perfectly apt, and applaud the chef for his silly, pretentious, inaccurate analogy and they publicly shout down the guy who complained. Sound like a place where you'd eat?

I tell you, the more I think about it, the crappier I feel. I think I’ll stop thinking about it now.

(double post. sorry .. I erase this one...)

Xar, you made some amazing points that I wholeheartedly agree with.

i see The Watch and the GI as two different things.
criticism here makes sense, we dissect and discuss here.
criticisim in an INTERVIEW does not make sense to me.

exactly.

And don't forget Luci, this is the "official" SRD forum, and we know he comes in here every now and then. So should we not criticize his work here too?

If SRD chooses to come here, he takes what he finds. That's his choice. In this case he is choosing to take the bad and good. And anyone who complains about anything SRD has said or done can be found here. So he will willingly expose himself that too. But it is his choice. The GI is SRD's incredibly kind gift to fans: to answer questions about his stories...
...

If you don't see the difference between SRD coming over to the Watch and looking for some criticism... and someone putting some criticism in the Question bin ...
If he has rules, like don't send me criticism, or say please, or refer to me as "Your Authorness" ... heck, I'll do it. If I don't like the rules, I won't use the GI.

bang on ... except the part about "your highness" ...



(boy, this thread has gotten a "Tank" feel now, eh?.. )

Xar wrote:

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.]

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.

Yes, he did say something like that. But he also said this:

I never browse Kevin's Watch. In fact, I seldom visit; and when I do, it's always for a very specific reason. By nature, I'm not a web browser. And I avoid browsing Kevin's Watch in particular because I don't want my own thinking to be, well, tainted by my reactions (positive or negative) to what I might read there. Various possible reactions: 1) "Ha! pitiful mortal. You cannot begin to conceive my cleverness." 2) "Now that's just plain insulting." 3) "How did you guess?" Well, none of that could possibly be good for me. Positively or negatively, my ego would be affected--and I've tried to explain that I consider ego antithetical to creativity.

For the same reason, I don't read reviews (unless they're forcibly thrust at me). I never check what people are saying about my books on Amazon. Doing what I do is already hard enough: I don't need to make it worse by getting myself entangled with glee, umbrage, or chagrin.

(04/13/2005)

Clearly, an unwillingness to face negative opinions is a factor. What's strange is that even though he claims that postive remarks--praise, if you will--are EQUALLY disruptive to his ego, he has no problem posting fans' praise on the GI. Curious . . .

Think about it. What would you prefer: someone to criticise you or someone to praise you! He's human. Give him a break!

As long as he continues to write great books i wont care how much of an ass he may or may not be. And if he stops writing good books I'll stop buying them-I wont go bitch about it in the G.I.

Malik23 wrote:the chef comes out and gives you little comment cards (the GI) for the explicit, sole purpose of writing questions and composing comments about the meal for which you just paid(his books).

I have no idea where you got the idea that the GI is for people sending comments to SRD.

Malik23 wrote:But he also said this

Thanks for posting that. I wanted to mention it earlier, but I did not find it. The point it makes is that Donaldson keeps reviews -- all reviews, regardless of positive or negative -- at arms length in order to operate effectively. He doesn't want it thrust at him without invitation. Which is the point he was trying to make by posting Preston's "question".

Malik23 wrote:Clearly, an unwillingness to face negative opinions is a factor

Wow. How you can read the words "positive or negative" in black and white, and retain only the word "negative" ...

Storm in a teacup (had to figure out what danlo was talking about in A&S). It's SRD's court; he can play whatever game he wants in it. He doesn't like criticism. ****, who does? At least he's honest about it.

BTW, KW is not SRD's court. Whereas srd.com was put up at his request by a personal friend and all that, KW was not. It's just sanctioned by him, and it was around before that. If it came to that, it'd be around after.

Syl wrote:It's SRD's court; he can play whatever game he wants in it. He doesn't like criticism. ****, who does? At least he's honest about it.

Statements like this leave me wondering ...

Main Entry: crit·i·cism
Pronunciation: 'kri-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : the act of criticizing usually unfavorably <seeking encouragement rather than criticism> b : a critical observation or remark <an unfair criticism> c : CRITIQUE
2 : the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis <an anthology of literary criticism>
3 : the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

When Donaldson uses the word "criticism" (as in "this is not the place for criticism"), I am positive that he means it in the sense of 2, "evaluation and analysis of works of literature". There is no connotation, in this sense of the word, that it is positive or negative. It is any form of evaluation or analysis.

However, I wonder if some here think he is using "criticism" in the sense of 1, "unfavorable criticizing"? If so, it would be possible to interpret Donaldson's response as rejecting only unfavorable comments, with the assumption that favorable comments are okay.

I am positive that this latter interpretation could not be more wrong. His other responses in the GI bear out this opinion.

And so, Syl, it is not that Donaldson "doesn't like criticism 1". It is that Donaldson avoids and has no use for criticism 2, and considers anyone who delivers criticism 2 via the GI to be egotistic.

[edit]There are plenty of other examples in the GI where people have commented about things that they don't like, and his responses have always been a cool, level, "then don't read the book".

1) On some level, it's always true that you have to allow the writer his/her chosen premises. If you can't accept what a given writer chooses to write about, don't read. Reading stuff that doesn't make sense to you just infuriates you to no purpose.


(07/19/2005)

What's strange is that even though he claims that postive remarks--praise, if you will--are EQUALLY disruptive to his ego, he has no problem posting fans' praise on the GI. Curious . . .

the "praise" usually comes accompanied by a question. Yes, he could simply edit all praise from an email quesiton, but that's asking much. He generally responds only the the quesitons asked of his writing, not the praise.

And you are right, Syl, it's a kinda "mountain out of a mole-hill" thing here. <shrug>
But in a forum where Hasselhoff is given god-like status by some this kind of fun can be expected ...

I don't know what my toughts have to do with this discussion but I agree that the Gradual Interview is not intended to be used for criticism. If SRD was saying to Preston, in a convoluted way, "I'd like to see you do better." so be it, move on. SRD does not read the Watch, in fact it was a few people here who lobbied for the Watch to be the official discussion forum. I believe SRD agreed to this so that any criticism would be channeled here and remain here. I know he likes the "ideal" of the Watch and he has given it props at least three times during his readings at Bubonicon. But that's when I was there and that's just to little crowds in stinkin' Albuquerque NM as opposed to, say, four times as many people at World Con in San Diego...

I can also tell, in my few meetings with him that he does appreciate criticism. In fact, during the last Bubonicon, he sought me out the next morning to ask me what I thought of the read. I don't know about you but that just blew my mind. As far as the sales of Donaldson's books go, that's a whole 'nother issue. IMHO Bantam/Spectrum has a very fickle record of how they go about promoting their books in general, and don't even get me started on media-dependant and literary-lazy prospective science fiction fans. I even agree with Malik that the Gap Cycle was technically SRD's greatest work. IOW quality, to me, is much more important than sales. I won't waste my time looking up sales figures, but remember that Reave the Just and Other Tales did win the World Fantasy Award.

So enough of the dicussion of the quality of Donaldson's work declining. I have only read Runes once and liked it. I don't know if it was the excitement of returning to the Land that clouded any negative criticism, but I have a feeling that when I read it again I'll appreciate it even more. And I don't need to defend Donaldson, but crap after 20 odd years to return to the Chronicles without Covenant appeared to me be a Heculian task and I'm impressed with how well he handled it. I admit I felt it hit some glitches and that Linden's impersonation of Mel Gibson in Ransom became a little tedious. However the history was addressed, the setting was achieved, new characters and situations were created and now we're ready to move on. I do believe that the last third of the book was some very impressive writting.

It's like jumpstarting an old car, nowadays we have fuel-injection, in those days you still had to use a crank. I've always said that I view Runes as a great "set-up" book or "reintroduction" in that it establishes what's to come next. It isn't necessarily "what comes next" and in that regard it's sort of like The Real Story. More of a "launch pad" than part of a series. SRD knows his readers expect more from him after Runes. I don't want to say that he used Runes to find his footing but from what little I've heard at his Fatal Revenant readings he's definately back to form and he'll only get better and better.

The real third series begins with Fatal Revenant but things are going to be different--the power of Covenant's character and the emotional beauty of the Land (in the first chronicles) are very hard things to recover, if at all, but I know we're going to be in for an incredible ride. I don't know about you but if I was this committed and involved in writting such a series I wouldn't have time to look at criticism. If what SRD was doing was hanging up a "Do not disturb" sign then good for him.

Perhaps we should look at the Gradual Interview in a diffent way-ok he's immersed in the process of rewritting the second book and ideas are shooting through his head for the third. He looks at the questions and says, for example, "Well, what about the Creator's role in things? How should I reintroduce him? Wow that was good feedback! Maybe that developes a different slant on things that I can use later on." Damm I better stop, that didn't make total sense to me--but you see what I mean--if we look at the Gradual Interview as feedback that causes him to reexamine characters, helps him flesh out new characters and situations it gives him an expanded potential "palette" for future ideas...

Wayfriend wrote:

Malik23 wrote:the chef comes out and gives you little comment cards (the GI) for the explicit, sole purpose of writing questions and composing comments about the meal for which you just paid(his books).

I have no idea where you got the idea that the GI is for people sending comments to SRD.

Well, I got the idea from the fact that he posts hundreds of comments sent to him. Since he doesn't edit out the comments--leaving only the questions--it seems like approval, doesn't it? Can we agree that whatever he chooses to post has his approval? I don't recall SRD ever making a set of rules at the outset of the GI. The rules have to be gleaned from the practice of participation, inferred by both implicit and explicit comments Donaldson has made in the ongoing process. Well, my participation has informed me that part of the purpose of the GI is to make comments, offer praise, and ask questions--at least, if you use what he chooses to post as a guide. What else do I have to go on?

Wayfriend wrote:

Malik23 wrote:Clearly, an unwillingness to face negative opinions is a factor

Wow. How you can read the words "positive or negative" in black and white, and retain only the word "negative" ...

It's not a matter of what I retained, it's a matter of what I emphasized. Xar left that bit out, so I filled in the missing part. So clearly, an unwillingness to expose himself to negative opinions is A factor in his actions. Not the only factor, just the one Xar left out in replying to me, the one Xar was explicitly arguing didn't exist.

Usivius wrote:But in a forum where Hasselhoff is given god-like status by some this kind of fun can be expected ...

It's OK Waddley, he didn't mean you......