Failed promises

[Belen]

No, but:

• " it bored me to hell. Dull writing, unimaginative content..yuck! "
• "crappy "
• "The biggest stinker for me"
• "the twin abominations...."
• "I'm so sick of writers giving us their vision...."
• "fills me with dread..."
• "Horrible horrible book."
• "It did, in fact, suck worse than the previews suggested."
• (Product) "was crap."

...and that's just from the first two pages.

Hardly what anyone would call civil.

Most of those comments are directed at the books themselves, not at specific people. And, if you have ever read a novel or saw a movie that sucked and purposely decided not bash it, then you're a saint.

 

[diaglo]

Most of those comments are directed at the books themselves, not at specific people. And, if you have ever read a novel or saw a movie that sucked and purposely decided not bash it, then you're a saint.

Peter Jackson's vision of the LotR....

i'll be civil and just say i disagree with him.

 

[GVDammerung]

Only in gamer-internet-land would someone actually make this sort of claim to somebody who has actually worked in the field for more than a decade, with extensive first-hand knowledge of how things are actually done.

Unbelievable.


Well, since over a decade of game industry experience isn't enough to sway you that I might actually know what I'm talking about, let's just "agree to disagree." (Which is a polite way of saying that I'll be over here, bashing my head against a wall in disbelief.)

Not only does it not go too far to call what you're saying a "fundamental misunderstanding" I'd put a little finer point on it and describe your comments as "woefully uninformed".

GMSarka (and Vigilance),

Your experiences are, obviously, your own and I cannot pass judgment on them in any particular.
You assume, however, that your experiences are normative. That does not necessarily follow.

You also assume your knowledge and experience are superior to those to whom you address yourself. That does not necessarily follow.

Things are likely somewhere in a middle ground. I’ll leave that there.
Your description of the writing and publication process would have the writer a non-factor in their own writing, immune to criticism because all major decisions are the publisher’s or editors, not the writers. The writer in your description becomes just a tool for the expression of the publisher’s or editor's creativity and their ideas. You describe the writer as mere scribe.

Perhaps, you are and have been nothing more that a scribe, as you describe. Perhaps, your publishers and editors have found it necessary to direct/rewrite your work in minute detail. You seem to suggest that this has been your experience. Maybe, you have just had bad experiences. Or use hyperbole for emphasis. I suspect the latter.

What I believe I can know is that such an extreme description is an exaggeration, at best, when applied beyond your personal experiences. Yes. Publishers will set guidelines and will ask writers to follow them. Yes. Editors will edit. Neither will, however, generally so confine the writer that his or her work is not his or her work to the greatest degree as compared to the publisher’s or editor’s input. Your description is so strained to make your "point" that you make writing for a publisher sound like confinement within a Dickensian workhouse. You blow too hard upon your horn, unless you really have worked for one E. Scrooge, Publisher or his like.

You need to differentiate between direction from a publisher/editor and the publisher/editor all but writing the work themself. There is a vast difference you seem to overlook. One does not need "10 years" experience to detect the strong perfume of exaggeration in service of a failing point, that now flails and fails all the more for having been caught out as an overstatement. If your point is that publishers and editors are _sometimes_ responsible for what sees print and not the writer, you are correct, I think. If your point is that publishers and editors input is generally so great/pervasive that it practically absolves a writer from any criticism for what was written, you are in error, I believe.

In any event, assuming arguendo that your "point" has validity at least as to your own personal experiences, as another has pointed out - you take the credit with the criticism.

I do not mean to seem harsh here but the posture you have chosen to assume bespeaks of little regard for a reader’s native intelligence, let alone their experiences. I think we wander from a basic point of agreement into the bushes.

I think we agree writers should be spoken to with civility and recognized as people, not faceless monoliths. And vice versa. I think there is some disagreement as to what constitutes "civility" within the confines of a message board.

It is a truism, if not an excuse, that people will generally express themselves on the internet in ways they might not in person. That may be bemoaned but it remains a truism to which we must accommodate ourselves. As I attempted to illustrate with the anecdote about Mr. Baker, I think a writer can make their life very much easier by looking to get to the source of criticism rather than simply denying its validity (or they can absent themselves or assume a "nom de guerre," "nom de internet?" if the heat proves too hot). If there is no source other than personal preference, which is legitimate even if a particular expression may be questioned, that will soon stand out in sharp relief. If there is something more there, it can be gotten at to everyone’s advantage.

The writer/critic relationship is adversarial at some irreducible point. It need not, I think, be antagonistic or hostile. Both parties need to be generous in allowing their counterparts fair leeway in the expression of their feelings, mindful that there is no writer without reader, nor reader without writer, at least in any meaningful sense.

IMO

 

[Belen]

Peter Jackson's vision of the LotR....

i'll be civil and just say i disagree with him.

lol!

MY point is that saying book x sucks is not then same as saying Wil Upchurch, Monte Cook, or Keith Baker is a bad writer and should burn in hell.

 

[eyebeams]

Well I guess I am the Village Idiot that bought a book before I had a chance to thoroughly research it or wait for 5 or 6 reviews to come out. Just because I am a fan of the genre and game. But that does not prohibit me from critiquing the said material or making my feelings know. I like to discuss on this board if I liked a gaming product or not. Heck, I have bought books that I never will never to use in a game setting but because I LIKE gaming in general and would like to just read the sucker!

So having chosen option 3 (Buy without thinking ahead of time, because if you bothered to think about it, you might make a mistake anyway, so why bother?), what exactly makes it defensible?

You can feel whatever you like. You merely cannot reasonably said to have been "promised" something you didn't get -- unless your definition of "promise" involves really likeing a logo, reading omens about the product from animal entrails and so forth. If your definition of "promise" includes the latter, then you may be of a mind with a few posters here, but again, it doesn't end up being particularly meaningful, either.

 

[GVDammerung]

Out of about a half dozen things I've seen someone take exception to in my published work, only one was an editor's decision; all the others were all me. Now, I'm not saying I agree with the criticism in any of those cases, just that it was, in fact, my 'fault' as a writer.

That's not years of industry experience speaking, but nor is it unpublished fan gripe. I'm published in this industry and have been in others (electronic RPG and sports journalism) where the fans were vastly more insulting.

I didn't take exception to them, either.

I don't expect to take 'crap' because I'm a 'public figure;' I expect to take 'crap' because I'm providing a good or service that isn't always perfect, and I expect to pass said 'crap' on to any other screwups who are equally, or even more, extreme in their imperfection.

The other side of the story! Thank you.

 

[eyebeams]

Can I just declare your post poppycock so the discussion can get back on track?

It would certainly be more convenient than actually mapping yourself to the answers, wouldn't it?

 

[Kanegrundar]

lol!

MY point is that saying book x sucks is not then same as saying Wil Upchurch, Monte Cook, or Keith Baker is a bad writer and should burn in hell.

My point exactly. Just because I may speak out against one book or another, and even outright dislike an author's vision on said books, it doesn't mean I mean them harm or wish them to burn in the fires of Hell.

Kane

 

[eyebeams]

My point exactly. Just because I may speak out against one book or another, and even outright dislike an author's vision on said books, it doesn't mean I mean them harm or wish them to burn in the fires of Hell.

Kane

This is odd. I didn't think that the author was a factor at all in this thread. But I suppose it's a more comfortable diversion than actually discussing what constitutes a "promise" from a game.

 

[Storm Raven]

It would certainly be more convenient than actually mapping yourself to the answers, wouldn't it?

Given that no one cares about your answers, it seemed much more expedient.