Anyways, this whole reviewer argument reminds me of a certain Yami Ryu over at Serebii. To put it short, she doesn't know the definition of tact.
And judging by the way she reviewed me, I'm still doubtful about the quality of her reviews. While she told me she didn't like my story, she didn't say
why.
My entire point of my earlier rant is simply this:
I don't give a damn if you say you don't like a story. In fact, if you want to say it sucks, by all means. I've said a story sucks. Heck, in fact,
feel free to read one where I'm ripping an arrogant author a new one. However, if you're going to say something's wrong, you'd better damn well say
why. Otherwise, if you rant about a lack of detail when you haven't actually gone into detail yourself, you leave the author with a hypocritical view on things. Not to mention the author doesn't know what's exactly wrong. A one-liner doesn't exactly tell them anything.
Reasoning with them and telling them exactly what they got wrong and why it's wrong are two different things. It's your job as a reviewer to do the latter.
Seriously, she's like Simon from American Idol, she's hilarious sometimes.
Simon, if I recall correctly, actually elaborates a bit more than she does. I've been told my fanfiction sucked for the genre, and when I asked her (politely, no less) why, she PMed me a message that essentially stated "I can't shoot you to stardom." Buh what? All I asked is a little more elaboration to an opinion so I can understand what exactly was weak. Otherwise, if you don't tell me what's weak, then I'm probably going to do it again because I
don't know what I should be improving.
And let me just say that from what I've seen of that guy in the first fic Poke Poke posted, he is a n00b, a classic example of one too.
He may have been, but that just means you're going to have to spell things out for him because he's too stupid to understand why you think his story sucks otherwise. Which means he'll go and do the same thing all over again.
I'm just saying that even if you didn't flame them and tried talking to them in a reasonably manner, nothing would probably change. The Nick guy would still have gotten all uptight and called Poke Poke perfect and ignored everything he said even if he had done it in a more reasonable tone.
From what I can tell, he got uptight anyway. Notice how Poke poke mentioned that the kid stalked him until a higher up came along and told him to knock it off?
Not to mention it depends. I've been reviewing with long, detailed reviews for years over on PFU, and aside from the handfuls that are like the kid in the link above, most of them listened to my reviews and improved. You don't need to outright flame someone to get them to stop posting crap.
And to clarify flame =/= concrit =/= reasoning with them. A flame is simply saying "this sucks" without actually saying why. Concrit is saying "this sucks, and I'm going to tell you why as clearly as possible so you see why I think it sucks." Reasoning is saying "this sucks, but I can possibly back off if we talk this over." My
point is that if you're going to review, you give people concrit. Flaming pisses them off and leaves them confused. Reasoning lets them go on their merry way. Concrit leaves them with little to no argument without sounding like a moron who won't change if you flamed them anyway. For the most part, pissing people off does not change them. It's backing them into a corner that does.
Put it another way, let's say it like this. If you tried to work out a complicated math problem, and you did it completely incorrectly, coming along and telling you that you suck at math will leave you still with a complicated math problem that's done incorrectly. When you go try to solve similar math problems, you're probably going to make the same mistakes unless you know exactly what the problem with the first formula was. So, if someone comes along and says, "Look, you're doing this wrong. Let me show you what mistakes you've made so you can see how to work them out later," then you have the mistake in your head and know how to watch out for it further on down the road. N00bs are idiots, yes, and they may repeat mistakes now and then. However, if you highlight their mistakes, underscore it, and smack them upside the head with a lesson a few times, they start to get it after awhile. N00bs are simply sheep. You guide them a little the first time, and they follow where you want them to go after that. Why? Because you're taking advantage of their own stupidity and group mentality. Also, you're avoiding pissing them off, which would have them blow off your review and keep writing crap.
That's just how n00bs are; it's like trying to talk to a rock with them.
Have you ever actually
tried? Because I've actually had some nice successes in my time over on PFU, and let me tell you, PFU's no pinnacle of intelligence.
She's this big optimist who puts faith in everyone and their ability to improve,
Clearly, you don't know me that well. I'm not putting faith in anyone. I'm saying that if you piss someone off, they're less likely to do what you want them to do.
Furthermore, I'm not an optimist. I'm simply telling it like it is, based on past experience.
What aspect of writing do you consider your strongest point?
I've been told I'm good at character creation and that, for the most part, I can create a believable character or an otherwise interesting one without delving into Cliche Land.
