Kevin's Watch

It's when Donaldson starts pandering to the whims of fans that his work will really begin to suffer. Why should Donaldson respect what we have to say? What credentials do we have as fans? Besides I'm sure he gets plenty of constructive criticism from people who are a little more specific than (your storytelling is now)"less effective" and "reigned in". Personally i think it's an insult to advance such a vague and bland critique to an author of Donaldson's experience and proficiency. Preston will find far more accomplished appraisals of his work on this forum.

Meh, I'm not expecting him to pander to anyone. Our credentials as fans? Ummmm, we pay his salary by buying his books.

Quite frankly I think (or thought, at least) SRD's response was beneath him. Apparently I was wrong.

Cail wrote: Quite frankly I think (or thought, at least) SRD's response was beneath him. Apparently I was wrong.

I thought Preston's critique was beneath Donaldson.

But your right. As fans we should have some say. But I just think if your gonna approach Donaldson with criticisms of his work you sure as hell better be veeeery specific and concise. Preston is a dud.

Well, I'd just say that he is "human". I think that even constructive criticism (while being helpful) "hurts" in one way or another. We all seek approval. We all want people to say "that's brilliant" and that's not always the case. But, if you care for someone (or respect someone) you do it in a way that shows that you care/respect that person.

Marvin wrote:

Cail wrote: Quite frankly I think (or thought, at least) SRD's response was beneath him. Apparently I was wrong.

I thought Preston's critique was beneath Donaldson.

But your right. As fans we should have some say. But I just think if your gonna approach Donaldson with criticisms of his work you sure as hell better be veeeery specific and concise. Preston is a dud.

Agreed.

Marvin wrote:

Cail wrote: Quite frankly I think (or thought, at least) SRD's response was beneath him. Apparently I was wrong.

I thought Preston's critique was beneath Donaldson.

But your right. As fans we should have some say. But I just think if your gonna approach Donaldson with criticisms of his work you sure as hell better be veeeery specific and concise. Preston is a dud.

Yes: if you're going to say something like that, in my personal opinion you should spend quite a few page explaining yourself!

It's when Donaldson stops pandering to the whims of fans that we end up with crappy book titles like "Should Pass Utterly".



Dammit, SRD! Pander to my whims! Oh, and kill Linden. Thanks in advance.-jay

kevinswatch wrote:It's when Donaldson stops pandering to the whims of fans that we end up with crappy book titles like "Should Pass Utterly".



Dammit, SRD! Pander to my whims! Oh, and kill Linden. Thanks in advance.-jay

Well, I'm a "fan" of sorts and I'm happy with "should" AND with Linden!

Linden should pass utterly.

Well, ok. Then can he just just pander to MY whims?-jay

kevinswatch wrote:Well, ok. Then can he just just pander to MY whims?-jay

No, just to mine!

I think SRD should [edit: shall] pander to each whim on a whim-by-whim basis, with each proposed whim to be pandered to be given a popular vote, where the most popular whims get pandered first.-jay

oh kevinswatch, that avatar is awesome! I despise that scene in episode iii, but you put it to good use!

kevinswatch wrote:I think SRD should [edit: shall] pander to each whim on a whim-by-whim basis, with each proposed whim to be pandered to be given a popular vote, where the most popular whims get pandered first.-jay

But then they couldn't really be called whims. More like...ummmm...convictions. SRD can pander to my conviction not to pander to the whims of fans.

Let me put it to one and all:

Donaldson didn't have an issue with Preston writing a criticism of his book. Lots of people have. If anything, Donaldson understands what critics are for, as he relates in other GI questions. And he has a very specific idea about what critics can do *for him*.

What he had an issue with was Preston sending a criticism to him in the GI. Which, you have to admit, requires a certain "I think you really need to know my opinion to be better off" attitude.

This is why he says "Criticism isn't what the GI is *for*."

And "Criticism here serves no useful purpose." (emphasis mine).

And "*Uninvited* criticism exists solely to feed the ego of the critic." This is especially true here: Preston was feeding his urge to tell Donaldson something that he thought Donaldson should know. That is 'ego'. That's why Donaldson points it out as exemplary even.

I put it to anyone who's ever submitted a question to the GI: there's a real temptation to not only ask a question, but also to tell SRD something. Usually it's something like "I want you to know how much I enjoyed ...". Sometimes it's more urgent. But it is easy to feel a desire to reach out and communicate.

I think Preston just took it too far. He used the GI to unload his "wisdom" on Donaldson. It is the wrong vehicle. The wrong target. And the wrong reason.

All that may be true, but SRD chose to post Preston's critique in the GI, so apparently that's exactly what it's for. If SRD doesn't want critique in the GI then he shouldn't post it.

He didn't post it to post a nice critique. He posted it to provide "an apt demonstration of my point" that "*Uninvited* criticism exists solely to feed the ego of the critic".

You have to admit: it will certainly discourage further uses of the GI in this way... could be what he is trying to achieve.

I get that, but to say, "The GI isn't for critique", then to post critique.....I dunno, I think that was a dick move. Had SRD simply hit the "delete" key he would've been that much more effective.

It's obvious SRD doesn't give two craps about what his fans think of him (unless they're stroking him), but he lost a ton of my respect by posting that.

nah, I understand Mr. D's point.
Uninvited critisism doesn't really serve any purpose for the author. It helps promote discussion and understanding for those who wish to partake of it. But for the 'artist', it is only annoying if unrequested, as he/she does not wish others to try and derail/misunderstand his or her intentions ans creative impulses.
If you don't agree with the author/film maker/painter, then just don't support his work. Telling him that you thought it sucked serves no purpose for the artist. Such an artistic person will usually ask opinions of those whome he respects or knows have insight that can help his own ideas and perspectives and goals ...

(OK, I rambled, but I totally agree with SRD's point, regardless of how he may come across in the GI.)

Usivius wrote:nah, I understand Mr. D's point.
Uninvited critisism doesn't really serve any purpose for the author. It helps promote discussion and understanding for those who wish to partake of it. But for the 'artist', it is only annoying if unrequested, as he/she does not wish others to try and derail/misunderstand his or her intentions ans creative impulses.
If you don't agree with the author/film maker/painter, then just don't support his work. Telling him that you thought it sucked serves no purpose for the artist. Such an artistic person will usually ask opinions of those whome he respects or knows have insight that can help his own ideas and perspectives and goals ...

(OK, I rambled, but I totally agree with SRD's point, regardless of how he may come across in the GI.)

me too. and what wayfriend has said i agree with as well.

SRD made an example of Preston, Cail. that's why he posted it. and it IS and exemplary example. and who knows how many of those he gets as he says he doesn't post them, but i'd imagine he gets a LOT of it. there's a lot of know-it-all's out there who'd just LOVE a chance to tell an actual published author how they screwed up.

i liked SRD's response. i thought he was right on.