This forum exists to so that writers can interchange ideas, advice, opinions, and help. There are very few hard and fast rules. But one, I would think, is that it is inadmissable to insult or bully other users. It therefore came as a shock to find that I, myself, was accused of bullying. I was also [indirectly] accused of laying down – or trying to lay down – arbitrary rules for others. I find this rather ironic, considering that I am one of the house Anarchists. On numerous occasions, when other members have handed down what seemed to me hard-and-fast rules on how to write, I have raised my voice to object: “Creative writing should have no rules. And – if there are rules – just rememember that rules are there to be broken. Countless works of pure genius – in whatever field – are the result of someone brave enough to break the rules.” Beethoven was heavily criticised by traditionalists/purists for sullying the holy art of writing symphonies by adding a choral 4th movement to his 9th Symphony. The world would be a poorer place if he had heeded that criticism.
I originally planned to entitle this article 'An apology for, and in defence of my “outbreak” '. But on reflection, I changed my mind. There is a difference between being sorry and apologising. Apologising signifies an admission that one was in the wrong. I am truly sorry that some people THOUGHT that I was throwing my weight around. But I wasn't. So I won't apologise. I was expressing an honestly held wish. I stand by that wish. Could I have expressed myself better? Yes. Could I have couched my wish in terms that would have made obvious that it was only a personal wish? Certainly. I will attempt to do so further down.
But first let me remind people that the technology of this Q&A section is far from perfect. Unlike “Shared Works”, italics, boldface, and underlining are impossible. Virtually the only way of indicating emphasis is by the use of capital letters... which some readers [falsely] interpret as the printed equivalent of shouting. Unlike “Shared Works”, it is impossible to edit a comment on Q&As once it has been posted.
So to the editng... Instead of writing
“Could people who announce their shared works here on Q&As PLEASE
a) give HERE the URL of the particular work they want comments on;
b) let us know a little about the work here (genre, target reading public, length, etc.)?”
I could have written
“Hi, Toni!
“Thanks for sharing your work!
“You might find that you'll attract more readers (of the type who would appreciate your work) if you would give further details (such as genre, target reading public, length, etc.) of your work here.
“A URL would also help us to find your work more quickly.”
Let me recap a little. “PLEASE” does not equate to “Any halfwit should know that...” or anything vaguely resembling that.
When I was a newcomer to this site, there was a debate (which has been repeated a few times since then): “Should people be allowed to announce their shared work on Q&As?” I honestly can't remember which side I took back then. It's a moot point, because people do it anyway. I have done it myself on one occasion.
Now: the REASON for my wish that people give this information (genre, etc.):
When I feel like surfing “Shared Works”, I go directly to that section of this web-site. I don't know just how many times I have gone there because someone on Q&As has written, basically: “Please read my work” without offering any further enticement, but they certainly haven't reached double figures. Having done so, about a quarter of the times I have been REALLY glad I did so, about a quarter of the time, I have been pleasantly entertained. And about half of the time, I have felt that I was wasting my time.
Aside from my “connections” on this site, there are probably less than half a dozen users whose names would attract me to their “Shared Works”, purely on the basis of an invitation. Because I've enjoyed works of theirs in the past, because they've written thought-provoking comments on Q&As, or because I'm curious just what they'd write as fiction.
I don't know Toni Marshall (to give just one example) from Eve. What would make me make the detour to her work? Now, if she'd written: 'I have posted a comic poem for children on “Shared Works” ', I'd have gone there like a shot. If she'd written: '[…] a 100-word detective (or any other genre) story', ditto. If she'd written: '[…] a 3,000-word excerpt from my epic romance between a vampire and a normal human', I would have known to avoid it like the plague... unless she'd added '(a piss-take on the whole “Twilight” genre)'. But then, she might have attracted a truly appreciative reader in my stead.
I'm sorry that Toni felt that I was shouting at her. I wasn't. You're right, Toni: I don't get to make the rules, I don't own the site. Bloomsbury Press owns the site. They get to make the rules. We're lucky to be able to use it. Many sites akin to it have disappeared.
That Toni should have felt so under attack through my lone comment – even though she received at least one enthusiastic review from Clare Williams – that she erased her work is a shame. But, as I've written, I don't know her from Eve. That Lorraine Swoboda – whom I respect as few others on this site – should have accused me of hectoring (definition: “talking in a bullying manner) and 'authoritarian scolding' really stung.
But I'm not apologising.
Well, if this incident has caused people (not just the principal parties involved) to reflect on just how easily we can be misinterpreted, as well as the folly of jumping to conclusions, then something positive will have come out of it.
Knowing Jimmy, I'm sure that in future he'll take more care in how he expresses himself in writing (which can only be a good thing for a writer). And I certainly HOPE (you can shout that word if you wish) that we all will give others the benefit of the doubt before assuming that "they're out to get me!!!"
Unlike Lorraine, I'd be quite happy to see this thread continue and read others' take on the subject... perhaps sharing their own experiences of misunderstanding or being misunderstood. Au contraire to her opinion that it "does the site no good", i think the site - and all writers - could benefit from the discussion... as long as we take part in it with open minds.
As a personal friend ofJimmy's, I know how much these misunderstandings and accusations have upset him.
As a purely intellectual exercise, let me take Lorraine's 2 comments on this thread and reply to them with the sort of jumping to conclusions that both she and Toni Marshall displayed on the earlier thread in regard to Jimmy's post. I wish to make clear that I, too, respect Lorraine's very generous contributions to this site, and I obviously don't believe in the reading-between-the-lines (which I will indicate within [square brackets] that I am subjecting her comments to. Neither is the Toni-like accusation meant seriously. It and the rest are only given so that you might imagine how Jimmy felt to be treated like that.) We begin:
Lorraine: "[Unlike you, Jimmy,] I come to this site to help people to get the best out of their writing experience - that's it, first, last and always.
"[I don't care if the site doesn't offer italics, etc. That's your problem. Capital letters denote shouting, as everybody knows, and you shouted at Toni! Don't try to wriggle your way out of it.]
"She appears to have removed all her work as a direct result of this matter, which I'd have said was more than a shame. [You and only you are responsible for her flight. You should be ashamed of yourself!]
"I used the phrase 'somewhat hectoring', and that was how it sounded to me. [And if it sounds like that to me, well, you know the saying: 'There's no smoke without fire'...]"
Finally, a Toni-like reply to Lorraine's "Let's draw a line under this now. It's gone on long enough, and does the site no good." In fact, aside from the change in names, the first 2 sentences are an exact quote:
"I just remembered why I don't use Writers and Artists.
"You don't get to make the rules Lorraine, you don't own the site.
"Who are you to tell people that they're not allowed to comment on this any further???"
As I wrote, and with the deepest respect to both Jimmy and Lorraine, this was an intellectual exercise to show how easy it is to misinterpret other people's motives and comments.
Precisely, Jimmy - what you get from me is honesty, and I expect that from you too. So if I see a thing one way, and say so, and you don't, there we have to agree to differ.
I understand that you feel you have been misjudged. Unfortunate use of capitals, as I said, made your post sound stronger than you say you intended. Fair enough. Two people took it that way, and one of them has left as a result. It's all in the interpretation of signals.
There's knowing a poster and knowing a person, and we have never met; we have only commented, exchanged opinions, sparred occasionally; agreed, too. Of course you put in the time and the effort - I have never doubted that or decried it. I know well how long it takes to do the kind of commentary you - and I - do.
My opinion is my own and no-one else's, no matter what I'm referring to. It's not gospel, and it's not set in stone, and anyone has the right to argue with it. That is what I meant by 'what does that matter?'
Let's draw a line under this now. It's gone on long enough, and does the site no good.
Lorraine