How descriptive to be with romantic scenes.

[Ban]

Just to reiterate once more, my stance is against meekly accepting outright falsehoods and slander by (theoretical) reviewers, not misinterpretations, different point of views, different interpretations based on a reviewer's background or anything of the sort. Considering I am alone on this side of the aisle, I want that to be absolutely clear as they keep returning to the conversation. This gives me the idea (illusion I hope) that some might believe I am arguing for such callous call-outs (in which case, please refer to the initiating comment at the top of page 3). Broadening the discussion to include those aspects is fine of course, but once more, my stance does not involve arguing with any and all reviewers for any and all reason. I tolerate addressing a reviewer in a specific situation.

 

[The Dark One]

Just to reiterate once more, my stance is against meekly accepting outright falsehoods and slander by (theoretical) reviewers, not misinterpretations, different point of views, different interpretations based on a reviewer's background or anything of the sort. Considering I am alone on this side of the aisle, I want that to be absolutely clear as they keep returning to the conversation. This gives me the idea (illusion I hope) that some might believe I am arguing for it. Broadening the discussion to include those aspects is fine of course, but once more, my stance does not involve arguing with any and all reviewers for any and all reason. I tolerate doing so in a specific situation.

Where do you draw the line though?

One person's misinterpretation is another person's lie. Hard always to detect the thought process but what you can certainly detect (sometimes) is bad faith or even malice.

Even those I ignore. (Thankfully, there haven't been many but I'm aware my writing can be polarising.)

 

[pmmg]

Just to reiterate once more, my stance is against meekly accepting outright falsehoods and slander by (theoretical) reviewers, not misinterpretations, different point of views, different interpretations based on a reviewer's background or anything of the sort. Considering I am alone on this side of the aisle, I want that to be absolutely clear as they keep returning to the conversation. This gives me the idea (illusion I hope) that some might believe I am arguing for such callous call-outs (in which case, please refer to the initiating comment at the top of page 3). Broadening the discussion to include those aspects is fine of course, but once more, my stance does not involve arguing with any and all reviewers for any and all reason. I tolerate addressing a reviewer in a specific situation.

Its not meekly accepting. Its by strategy and policy, making a play for a larger audience and a future positioning in the market. One future you may want more. I am not sure the right answer, and maybe there are cases where you have to go stand up for yourself, but....I feel I must side with those who say, the best policy is to say nothing and let them float on by.

You know what beats a bad and ugly review? A bunch more saying it was a good read. Everyone knows some people just cant be pleased.

And are you alone? Do you not belong to a writers community? Maybe instead, if it happens, come over here and complain, and maybe some of the community will find other answers for you.

 

[Ban]

Where do you draw the line though?

One person's misinterpretation is another person's lie. Hard always to detect the thought process but what you can certainly detect (sometimes) is bad faith or even malice.

Even those I ignore. (Thankfully, there haven't been many but I'm aware my writing can be polarising.)

If there is no ground whatsoever to base the accusation on. My point with this tangent was to demonstrate an instance in which breaking the veil between author and reviewer would be warranted. A previous example I gave in this thread was if a reviewer claims there is a puppy slaughter scene, where there simply isn't any. This is an extreme example (intentionally), to showcase an instance in which an author in my opinion is allowed to step forward and correct the reviewer.

 

[Ban]

Its not meekly accepting. Its by strategy and policy, making a play for a larger audience and a future positioning in the market. One future you may want more. I am not sure the right answer, and maybe there are cases where you have to go stand up for yourself, but....I feel I must side with those who say, the best policy is to say nothing and let them float on by.

And are you alone? Do you not belong to a writers community? Maybe instead, if it happens, come over here and complain, and maybe some of the community will find other answers for you.

The "alone" refers to this thread, but more importantly I enjoy entertaining the speculative. As a response to a comment by Lowan, I described a theoretical instance (which I later clarified) in which I would conceive it to be tolerable for an author to outright address their reviewers. This is not to indicate that I am personally facing any issue, or that I anticipate such trouble. My stance is that there is indeed a line beyond which addressing a reviewer publicly is an acceptable course of action. It is fine to disagree with that, but the core of my tangent is discussing potentials, not active problems.

 

[The Dark One]

If there is no ground whatsoever to base the accusation on. My point with this tangent was to demonstrate an instance in which breaking the veil between author and reviewer would be warranted. A previous example I gave in this thread was if a reviewer claims there is a puppy slaughter scene, where there simply isn't any. This is an extreme example (intentionally), to showcase an instance in which an author in my opinion is allowed to step forward and correct the reviewer.

If there were no dogs in my book I would probably want to correct any allegations of puppy slaughter.

There was certainly sex in my previously mentioned book so an allegation of rape is much greyer. I know it wasn't (and I am a lawyer so you'd hope I'd know the difference) but consent is one of the most difficult concepts there is - requiring an analysis of the subjective with a different subjective. And it can change at any moment.

I chose to comment on that occasion (which turned out as well as I could have hoped) but my general policy is to let it pass.

 

[LittleOwlbear]

The likes of Hemingway argued with critics all the time and they have more mystique than most of us will ever muster.

But is it worth it?
I'm not a fan of officially publishing anyway, outside of smaller / hobby sites and circles of people you can have a personal discussion with.

Arguing on the wide world of the internet over something you officially published will always create dumb drama.