On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Andy Skuse wrote:

	Is it just me or is there something ironic about the parallel
threads of
'what happened to public C&C' and the acrimonious sniping that seems to be
occuring with a lot of that public C&C?

Sniping is sniping. C&C is a different thing altogether. It's up to the
individual to choose whether or not to stray from commenting on a story to
"snipe" about a story.

I think that one of the main reasons why this has come up is that most
people have lost sight of the purpose behind C&C.  As such, the C&C they
give is colored by other things.  Before I go on, I'd like to say that
I've been guilty of this myself.  I am trying to improve, though.

Anyway...

C&C is not to 'trash' someone else's work.  It is to help the writer make
a better work, in some way or another.  This means keeping the vision of
the writer in mind; making a suggestion contrary to that vision is not
helping in any way, shape, or form.

However, who defines 'helping'?  Is it helpful to criticize a different
characterization interpretation, just because it happens to disagree with
your own?  Chances are, the writer knows as much about the series as the
critic - and, yet, I have seen critic after critic push the
characterization argument too far, usually on the simple basis that it
disagrees with their own interpretation.  As such, the writers themselves
have been forced to be on their guard, ready to defend their work to the
death if need be.  (Read: Trigger-happy.) 

I guess my point is this: A good critic, one who is willing to work with
the writer rather than order them around, is a rare thing anymore.  At the
same time, a writer who isn't jaded enough to be unwilling to accept help
from public C&C is equally rare.  As such, we have flamewar after
flamewar.

Which leaves us with one question: What can be done to stop it?

A possible answer (maybe I'm too much of a dreamer; I dunno):

The critic must ask if what he or she is writing is for the good of the
work in question.  Will his remarks help the work?  If not, why not?  Is
there a way to state concerns while showing where those concerns come
from?  Finally, is the critique offensive, in a way that is preventable?
If it is offensive, would it be better to post privately, rather than in a
public forum?

The writer... I guess the best way to put it is that the writer must have
a more positive viewpoint on the work.  If a troll comes by spouting some
garbage, no matter how eloquently spoken, let it be.  On the other hand,
if it looks like there are some useful hints in the work, acknowledge that
to the critic.  And, in cases like this, thank them.  

Finally (and this goes for both sides), if there is a post that just
infuriates you, wait 24 hours to cool down before posting.  One of the
main reasons why I sounded like a raving lunatic last week was because I
was; I was letting my passions color my intellect, and made a few
accusations that, while I still agree with most of them, were not said
tactfully, nor were they said in the proper context of the relevant
argument.  Had I waited, the argument would have gone quite differently,
and not resulted in so many hurt feelings.

Essentially, take responsibility for your words.  Remember that others
will hear them, and will be affected by them.  

Could it be that I've stumbled onto a connection?  That is, public C&C is
becoming less prominant partially because of the public 'abuse' received for
posting it.

	- Greg
	(Not wanting to start another thread.  Just want y'all to think
about it.)

Here's something else to think about... if someone abuses you on this list
by flaming you or your comments about a story, you always have a choice:

Ignore them. You have this choice. Use it.

A difficult thing to do, when it's your work on the chopping block.  And,
yet, the critic has a lot of freedom to say whtat they will, all in the
name of C&C, no matter how faulty.  

Hence the importance of personal responsibility on both sides.

Andy Skuse

-- Nick