Oh the things you can say on Twitter to get you in trouble. Its really hard to mention that everyone online thinks they know everything. When one person is being harassed it opens up to more debate about what is being thrown at the person who said the original tweet. The problem is a lot of reviewers mostly readers think they have the upper hand when it comes to fiction. Yes they do buy books and they do care about what they read but they think in most cases they are the arbiters of what good taste means. This is when the problem of having to remain open about learning what others tend to think is better. If someone is not going to hear what you have to say its best to not talk to them. I made this mistake by opening up with Criticism should be balanced" and its a rule. I guess this person must have become mad since she said Show me where this says this" and I should have just ignored her. This person wanted to fight and I felt like proving in a debate that I would not back down. This is the problem of having too much say online. People can attack you from any perspective and it wont be balanced." If readers only prey on an author leaving nasty comments in their amazon section this is not balanced criticism. This is just shit posting signs of cancel culture" in the wings.
Balanced criticism requires you to know what the unspoken rules of fiction are. The writer is why you read them. Its not because you want a mirror cast back at you." If you want a mirror stand in front of it and look at yourself. So when the rules are certainly unclear to most people they will turn violently against the person who says criticism must be balanced. The reader is selfish in a way too. They think they have all the answers and they must impose their BS on the rest of the world. The problem is: everyones right and everyones wrong. Mostly they are just wrong but in a world where we need readers they can be right too. The problem is that most readers have only one way of thinking and thats because they have been spoon fed or choose to eat only from one buffet tray.
Think about it as a buffet table. Sci-Fi is tofu. Horror is gelatinous cube of protein. Literary fiction is a grilled chicken sandwich. Everything can be consumed but the problem is no one truly gains weight when they eat fiction. No fiction is truly ever bad. The worse kind of readers will think they know everything because they have one way of thinking. Its a problem when the world thinks they are right when only a few who have been on both ends of criticizing novels and being criticized myself. Its a definition that knows no border but the problem of having such a limited viewpoint when having only one perspective pretending that there are bad" works of fiction is why most readers rarely get the idea that they are wrong to begin with.
People think they can criticize a novel because its different. Yes they can but they have to know that the writer who is writing differently probably has tried commercial fiction and its never worked out. You have to want to write the book that you want to read. Criticizing it for being different is not bad its not illegal. The problem is nobody has to believe the reader either or reviewer who holds his phallic opinion on the subject. The idea that someone is already shit posting on authors pages just because they dont like it is a proactive form of harassment. Destructive criticism is when the negativity is unbalanced and when the criticism is not based in the work that they have read and they fail to provide proof that the writer is bad but merely acting from an emotional response they have no real opinion that can be taken seriously.
The problem with literature being too much of a free for all to attack makes the attacker seem like a violent oppressor of sorts. Opinions are not illegal. Some good criticism has helped me look back at my work and see the errors. Destroying someones life because you cant seem to handle their opinion is what these attackers do all the time. Yes we all have been overly critical" at time but does this mean we right?
No. When concerning anothers work of fiction we are rarely right at all. Trying to ruin someones life because you dont believe in what they say is considered a good thing. When you approach someone with your feelings arent facts" that pisses off everyone from here to China. South Parks Band in China is one of them too. Destructive criticism is when it provides no real substance to the idea of the argument and its just destroying the person and then targeted harassment leads into that topic of discussion. The reader when bested by the author online proves that they will act out in accordance with their own perception. They dont want to see it from the authors perspective and maybe the authors sometimes dont want to see it from their end too. Mostly in the insult culture of the Internet an author must stand up to a hater and show them they wont back down in their beliefs. Balance is what makes good criticism meaningful.
Destructive Criticism has nothing to do with the work an author makes at all. The reader screams Allah Akbar" and they put a bounty on the writers head. Yes they can make fun or debate all they want and the problem is posturing is acrid and smells of dysfunction. Its the idea that they have no real priorities at all but they want the writer to write exactly how the reader feels. Most authors dont feel the same way as readers do.
The writer must be their own entity and the reader must exist for them. If they dislike something of another writer fine but dont form coalitions to destroy peoples lives when you have no other life than but to attack people for their opinions. Wonder why someone hasnt responded to you? Its because they have blocked you and the reader is still mad at that. Yes it has become easy to bring people down for what they say meaning twitter mobs.
But when the destruction of a writers life is started by a comment that he has made it only means that its comment on what the difference between the self-destructive reader who thinks they are on a jihad" in their opinion and trying to destroy someone is easy but most of it is because you dont have to respond.
Its a relentless persistence when the criticism is not only destructive but it doesnt allow any growth or change. They cant look back on their criticism and take it back once it turns into a jihad." They are essentially butt hurt that there rantings are not taken as gospel. Its hard for people to admit this. Honesty is a good thing in reviewing work. But when it becomes destructive to the point you pray for the writer to die and you have forgotten about their work its become not a question of how good or bad literature is. Its a witch hunt. Its not about raising good points but trying to start a mob to destroy what you say and discredit what you say and mean. If I write something totally offensive I mean to be that way.
I will not apologize for how I feel or act. Its a problem when readers have to commit to such idiotic beliefs. Socialism for one. Its fine for people to shit on my books based on the fact that they do not like it. Thats freedom of speech. If I can learn from it its fine. Some people sound like the adults in Charlie Brown and all we hear is the wah wah" is the idea that they have their beliefs but writers will work at their own pace. If people hate an entertainer they will pounce on them.
I think they can change but this is clown world we are living in. Cancel Culture runs amok. Writing is about letting all the voices fall to the ground and raise your own opinion higher. If people want to criticize its fine. But the cancel culture attitude hovering over artists is that we cant have an opinion over what people say to us. Yes people are allowed to have opinions and artists must make their art over the general opinions of what people say. Readers dont control artists and artists do not control readers. If people think that artists are a cancer you have really not studied what makes art influential. Destructive criticism is across both sections of politics.
If destructive criticism must be taken seriously Cancel Culture is the heart of what this issue truly means. Destructive Criticism can be met with humor and wit and intelligence. That can destroy Destructive Criticism and help criticism grow out from within. It also means seeing what people see from the other side of the page. Humor is how people can grow but no matter the problem humor can always deflate. Anger makes you more attractive to the victim culture. If you say something humorous and you gain a hateful following it must mean you have done something right.
That is the bright side of destructive criticism. You are the center of the hateful mobs eyes. You hold them in your hand. If they want to destroy you accept it and laugh even harder. The point of destructive criticism is that these people arent trying to debate. The ranters dont want to hear what you have to say anyway. The problem with what you see as ranting is that it cant be based out of the problem in what you want to see anyway. They dont want to hear what you have to say but they want to destroy you from the inside. But its easier to laugh at someone and tell them in a grown up voice I cant debate you unless you are going to stop lecturing me." No one wants to be lectured but if they are trying to use your words against you just be an adult. Millennials do not like the word adult" but it can be fun when you meet an ignorant person trying to critique you and what you know.
Its fun to watch them devolve into the simplest form of ranting you can see. They want to rally people against you but you see what you have to do. Stay calm and know that you can be the bigger person. You can ignore it but it does make you wonder what you want to say to these people. They dont want to listen they just want to argue. Be the adult. Use phrases as Thats not an argument" or mock them. In the online world you have to stand your ground. You have to realize what you want to do and is remain calm. Move on them with age and experience before you start the sentence" as GZA said on Grandmasters.
The problem is that you cant really debate the people you find loathsome but in a way you have to stand your ground. Destructive criticism can hurt the person criticizing you. Its the realization that destructive criticism can not only hurt the person you are criticizing less and hurt you more. Some are expert debaters and they dont feel like this is the problem. It never is. Debaters know what they know and they are going to convince people through persuasion. Manipulation is making fun of people and thinking everyone is going to take your side. The problem is that you dont really have the same level of expertise that most people have. Its not like you wanted to fail when attacking the person it means that the one who you want to afflict becomes the champion. You outwitted them by staying true to your argument and no matter what they say it will never compress yourself to the swelling of the argument between you and the person trying to destroy you.
Diversion is not a part of the same thing but you have to stick to what you want to say and they will ultimately combust because you are trying to compose your thoughts first. Destructive Criticism is when someone is trying to attack you but they look worse in result. Its like ina. Video game when you shoot the bad guy but the bullet that kills your opponent bounces back and hits you it means you are merely just going to hurt yourself in the process. The problem is that people think they have already learned so much that they can about you in a tweet. It doesnt comprise what you have as a human being and no matter what you have its the problem of not knowing when to back down from an argument.
The idea that you have to continue the argument is flawed too. Its a problem when you have to annoy the person even further but they are just responded back with the same thoughts. You must keep your thoughts the same. Destructive criticism without proper knowledge always backfires.
The problem is that Destructive Criticism is like the tarot card Knight of Cups. If someone is holding the criticism too personally it will work out in the favor of the attacked but if the attacker has enough wisdom to walk away and not pursue when the damage has been done it can hurt them too. What Destructive Criticism proves is that it hurts everyone but sometimes the attacker more. Its not like there is a complete profile of Destructive Criticism but it does make sure that you are merely not just the wronged but if no one agrees with the accuser that you have done something wrong it could make sure that the Destructive Criticism could fall by the way side.
If they had any good nature they would just leave people alone but people feel the need to express their opinion no matter good or bad. What the problem is that people need to go back to finding a hobby that they can think about and forget about the idea of destroying peoples lives. The problem of associating such a power against people is what makes it a circular firing squad is that the accuser thinks he is doing good but he is often wrong with most of their opinions. The problem associated with Destructive Criticism is that it doesnt seem to be going away anytime soon. As long as the Internet is around people will constantly try to destroy one another. Its apart of a human foible. Even if they hide their identity they are the reason why most of the attackers think they can tell people what they want but its easy to avoid Destructive Criticism just dont respond.
In summary Destructive Criticism can be avoided with balanced criticism. No one should ever apologize for what they say. Criticism should not be silenced even if you disagree with it and block them like adults. Sometimes Destructive Criticism can hurt the accuser and not just the victim. Finally the best way to combat Destructive Criticism is when you can ignore it.
Oh the things you can say on Twitter to get you in trouble. Its really hard to mention that everyone online thinks they know everything. When one person is being harassed it opens up to more debate about what is being thrown at the person who said the original tweet. The problem is a lot of reviewers mostly readers think they have the upper hand when it comes to fiction. Yes they do buy books and they do care about what they read but they think in most cases they are the arbiters of what good taste means. This is when the problem of having to remain open about learning what others tend to think is better. If someone is not going to hear what you have to say its best to not talk to them. I made this mistake by opening up with Criticism should be balanced" and its a rule. I guess this person must have become mad since she said Show me where this says this" and I should have just ignored her. This person wanted to fight and I felt like proving in a debate that I would not back down. This is the problem of having too much say online. People can attack you from any perspective and it wont be balanced." If readers only prey on an author leaving nasty comments in their amazon section this is not balanced criticism. This is just shit posting signs of cancel culture" in the wings.
Balanced criticism requires you to know what the unspoken rules of fiction are. The writer is why you read them. Its not because you want a mirror cast back at you." If you want a mirror stand in front of it and look at yourself. So when the rules are certainly unclear to most people they will turn violently against the person who says criticism must be balanced. The reader is selfish in a way too. They think they have all the answers and they must impose their BS on the rest of the world. The problem is: everyones right and everyones wrong. Mostly they are just wrong but in a world where we need readers they can be right too. The problem is that most readers have only one way of thinking and thats because they have been spoon fed or choose to eat only from one buffet tray.
Think about it as a buffet table. Sci-Fi is tofu. Horror is gelatinous cube of protein. Literary fiction is a grilled chicken sandwich. Everything can be consumed but the problem is no one truly gains weight when they eat fiction. No fiction is truly ever bad. The worse kind of readers will think they know everything because they have one way of thinking. Its a problem when the world thinks they are right when only a few who have been on both ends of criticizing novels and being criticized myself. Its a definition that knows no border but the problem of having such a limited viewpoint when having only one perspective pretending that there are bad" works of fiction is why most readers rarely get the idea that they are wrong to begin with.
People think they can criticize a novel because its different. Yes they can but they have to know that the writer who is writing differently probably has tried commercial fiction and its never worked out. You have to want to write the book that you want to read. Criticizing it for being different is not bad its not illegal. The problem is nobody has to believe the reader either or reviewer who holds his phallic opinion on the subject. The idea that someone is already shit posting on authors pages just because they dont like it is a proactive form of harassment. Destructive criticism is when the negativity is unbalanced and when the criticism is not based in the work that they have read and they fail to provide proof that the writer is bad but merely acting from an emotional response they have no real opinion that can be taken seriously.
The problem with literature being too much of a free for all to attack makes the attacker seem like a violent oppressor of sorts. Opinions are not illegal. Some good criticism has helped me look back at my work and see the errors. Destroying someones life because you cant seem to handle their opinion is what these attackers do all the time. Yes we all have been overly critical" at time but does this mean we right?
No. When concerning anothers work of fiction we are rarely right at all. Trying to ruin someones life because you dont believe in what they say is considered a good thing. When you approach someone with your feelings arent facts" that pisses off everyone from here to China. South Parks Band in China is one of them too. Destructive criticism is when it provides no real substance to the idea of the argument and its just destroying the person and then targeted harassment leads into that topic of discussion. The reader when bested by the author online proves that they will act out in accordance with their own perception. They dont want to see it from the authors perspective and maybe the authors sometimes dont want to see it from their end too. Mostly in the insult culture of the Internet an author must stand up to a hater and show them they wont back down in their beliefs. Balance is what makes good criticism meaningful.
Destructive Criticism has nothing to do with the work an author makes at all. The reader screams Allah Akbar" and they put a bounty on the writers head. Yes they can make fun or debate all they want and the problem is posturing is acrid and smells of dysfunction. Its the idea that they have no real priorities at all but they want the writer to write exactly how the reader feels. Most authors dont feel the same way as readers do.
The writer must be their own entity and the reader must exist for them. If they dislike something of another writer fine but dont form coalitions to destroy peoples lives when you have no other life than but to attack people for their opinions. Wonder why someone hasnt responded to you? Its because they have blocked you and the reader is still mad at that. Yes it has become easy to bring people down for what they say meaning twitter mobs.
But when the destruction of a writers life is started by a comment that he has made it only means that its comment on what the difference between the self-destructive reader who thinks they are on a jihad" in their opinion and trying to destroy someone is easy but most of it is because you dont have to respond.
Its a relentless persistence when the criticism is not only destructive but it doesnt allow any growth or change. They cant look back on their criticism and take it back once it turns into a jihad." They are essentially butt hurt that there rantings are not taken as gospel. Its hard for people to admit this. Honesty is a good thing in reviewing work. But when it becomes destructive to the point you pray for the writer to die and you have forgotten about their work its become not a question of how good or bad literature is. Its a witch hunt. Its not about raising good points but trying to start a mob to destroy what you say and discredit what you say and mean. If I write something totally offensive I mean to be that way.
I will not apologize for how I feel or act. Its a problem when readers have to commit to such idiotic beliefs. Socialism for one. Its fine for people to shit on my books based on the fact that they do not like it. Thats freedom of speech. If I can learn from it its fine. Some people sound like the adults in Charlie Brown and all we hear is the wah wah" is the idea that they have their beliefs but writers will work at their own pace. If people hate an entertainer they will pounce on them.
I think they can change but this is clown world we are living in. Cancel Culture runs amok. Writing is about letting all the voices fall to the ground and raise your own opinion higher. If people want to criticize its fine. But the cancel culture attitude hovering over artists is that we cant have an opinion over what people say to us. Yes people are allowed to have opinions and artists must make their art over the general opinions of what people say. Readers dont control artists and artists do not control readers. If people think that artists are a cancer you have really not studied what makes art influential. Destructive criticism is across both sections of politics.
If destructive criticism must be taken seriously Cancel Culture is the heart of what this issue truly means. Destructive Criticism can be met with humor and wit and intelligence. That can destroy Destructive Criticism and help criticism grow out from within. It also means seeing what people see from the other side of the page. Humor is how people can grow but no matter the problem humor can always deflate. Anger makes you more attractive to the victim culture. If you say something humorous and you gain a hateful following it must mean you have done something right.
That is the bright side of destructive criticism. You are the center of the hateful mobs eyes. You hold them in your hand. If they want to destroy you accept it and laugh even harder. The point of destructive criticism is that these people arent trying to debate. The ranters dont want to hear what you have to say anyway. The problem with what you see as ranting is that it cant be based out of the problem in what you want to see anyway. They dont want to hear what you have to say but they want to destroy you from the inside. But its easier to laugh at someone and tell them in a grown up voice I cant debate you unless you are going to stop lecturing me." No one wants to be lectured but if they are trying to use your words against you just be an adult. Millennials do not like the word adult" but it can be fun when you meet an ignorant person trying to critique you and what you know.
Its fun to watch them devolve into the simplest form of ranting you can see. They want to rally people against you but you see what you have to do. Stay calm and know that you can be the bigger person. You can ignore it but it does make you wonder what you want to say to these people. They dont want to listen they just want to argue. Be the adult. Use phrases as Thats not an argument" or mock them. In the online world you have to stand your ground. You have to realize what you want to do and is remain calm. Move on them with age and experience before you start the sentence" as GZA said on Grandmasters.
The problem is that you cant really debate the people you find loathsome but in a way you have to stand your ground. Destructive criticism can hurt the person criticizing you. Its the realization that destructive criticism can not only hurt the person you are criticizing less and hurt you more. Some are expert debaters and they dont feel like this is the problem. It never is. Debaters know what they know and they are going to convince people through persuasion. Manipulation is making fun of people and thinking everyone is going to take your side. The problem is that you dont really have the same level of expertise that most people have. Its not like you wanted to fail when attacking the person it means that the one who you want to afflict becomes the champion. You outwitted them by staying true to your argument and no matter what they say it will never compress yourself to the swelling of the argument between you and the person trying to destroy you.
Diversion is not a part of the same thing but you have to stick to what you want to say and they will ultimately combust because you are trying to compose your thoughts first. Destructive Criticism is when someone is trying to attack you but they look worse in result. Its like ina. Video game when you shoot the bad guy but the bullet that kills your opponent bounces back and hits you it means you are merely just going to hurt yourself in the process. The problem is that people think they have already learned so much that they can about you in a tweet. It doesnt comprise what you have as a human being and no matter what you have its the problem of not knowing when to back down from an argument.
The idea that you have to continue the argument is flawed too. Its a problem when you have to annoy the person even further but they are just responded back with the same thoughts. You must keep your thoughts the same. Destructive criticism without proper knowledge always backfires.
The problem is that Destructive Criticism is like the tarot card Knight of Cups. If someone is holding the criticism too personally it will work out in the favor of the attacked but if the attacker has enough wisdom to walk away and not pursue when the damage has been done it can hurt them too. What Destructive Criticism proves is that it hurts everyone but sometimes the attacker more. Its not like there is a complete profile of Destructive Criticism but it does make sure that you are merely not just the wronged but if no one agrees with the accuser that you have done something wrong it could make sure that the Destructive Criticism could fall by the way side.
If they had any good nature they would just leave people alone but people feel the need to express their opinion no matter good or bad. What the problem is that people need to go back to finding a hobby that they can think about and forget about the idea of destroying peoples lives. The problem of associating such a power against people is what makes it a circular firing squad is that the accuser thinks he is doing good but he is often wrong with most of their opinions. The problem associated with Destructive Criticism is that it doesnt seem to be going away anytime soon. As long as the Internet is around people will constantly try to destroy one another. Its apart of a human foible. Even if they hide their identity they are the reason why most of the attackers think they can tell people what they want but its easy to avoid Destructive Criticism just dont respond.
In summary Destructive Criticism can be avoided with balanced criticism. No one should ever apologize for what they say. Criticism should not be silenced even if you disagree with it and block them like adults. Sometimes Destructive Criticism can hurt the accuser and not just the victim. Finally the best way to combat Destructive Criticism is when you can ignore it.