Quoted from Grandma Bear Actually Breanne, I often mention you when this topic comes up because in my earlier days of writing, you were really really helpful to me. You offered explanations to grammar and word usage that helped me learn a LOT. I still have a long way to go as far as the English language goes, but back then when you took your time to explain to me helped me more than you ever know. Also, come to think about it, back then, no one was rude about their comments. People often didn't like something, but I don't remember any rudeness that drove people away. Maybe my memory is bad? I'd like to think not.

Wow. I'm touched. Thanks for telling me that. I've learned a lot from you too.

Quoted from SteveDiablo I'm never going to insult someone, I just would prefer to say what I feel about what I read. It's called honesty.

Great. But honesty has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not you're harsh. There's no connection between the two.

So polite harshness?



I will never insult a writer, or their writing.
I will say what I feel about what they wrote.

I can't be all kittens and cuddles.

I'm me, and I will act accordingly. I'm not a bad guy, but I won't be told what to write, how to write and certainly not how to feel.

If, (doubtful now, lol), I finish these OWC's, I'm gonna stay true to myself and just write how I feel about them.

Quoted from bert For all the chatter on here, the Bottom Line is really quite simple. This is a message board, and a free one at that.  It runs on people. That's the real currency here.  That's what keeps the engine going. Continue to chase off new writers with purposefully dickish comments, and eventually, the board withers away. If you find this board useful -- and want it to thrive -- don't be a dick. Help to build it up and everybody wins.

What you say sounds perfectly logical. Yet when we look back at all the writers that are still here, I think we all value the negative critiques the most. Those are what we learn from.

I agree there's no need to be a dick, but sometimes we can be dicks without meaning to be. It happens to me all the time. Maybe because I don't use smilie faces or XXX, or write peace at the end of my posts.

I think any type of negativity toward a script can be classed by some people as being a dick. Like I said, i prefer to just say what I have to say without worrying about adding something positive to make the recipient feel better.

I have actually gone in an edited my posts before because I have pointed out everything i see wrong without throwing in some niceties. I honestly believe that by telling the truth I am doing the best thing for that person. To give them my honest reactions.


So, what counts exactly as being a dick? I've been called a dick plenty of times for what I see as providing help. I can be a dick though too, I know that.

Quoted from DustinBowcot So, what counts exactly as being a dick? I've been called a dick plenty of times for what I see as providing help. I can be a dick though too, I know that.

Me too. Sometimes it's amongst the nicer names being thrown at me.

I like to be silly. But I don't think that's what was meant. I certainly hope not. That'd mean half my act out the window. With a large part of the remainder as well.

I think the way Bertie means it is to just be nasty for the sake of it. Wholly negative reviews for new writers are not very helpful. I'm not saying you do that. I don't think you do, not lately as far as I know.

I think it's fair enough not to like something and to say so, but it's dickish not to point out what was good about it. And there has to be something good about it. It's important to let the writer know what worked, as well as what didn't.

I still see lots of reviews that are wholly negative. Even after Don pointed out a lot of the writers would be new. I probably did the odd one myself, because I was tired. I think some do it as it gives them a buzz. They really should try Twitter.

R

Quoted from rendevous I like to be silly. But I don't think that's what was meant. I certainly hope not. That'd mean half my act out the window.

You ought to take your act on the road. Or send a tape to the Wodehouse Variety Hour.

Quoted from rendevous I think some do it as it gives them a buzz. They really should try Twitter.

I never thought of this explanation. In some case, I see it as unconscious insecurity.

Not to throw more gasoline on the fire, but I read this at ScriptShadow this morning where Carson was reviewing San Andreas.

"What I learned: When you’re writing an action movie (or really any “genre” type movie), don’t worry about being too “proper” with your prose. The read is supposed to be easy and light, so your prose should reflect that. I loved the way our resident seismologist’s office was described when we first meet him: “Roger’s sitting behind a desk. Tech shit and books everywhere.” Is this going to fly in a Harvard English Literature class? No. But all that matters in a script is that it tells me what I’m looking at. And I know exactly what this room looks like from this sentence."

Back as you were.  

There's no obvious way to describe the difference between being a dick in a review and being harsh and honest. The difference is really in the attitude of the reviewer and we can usually kind of tell the difference. There are times when the reviewer sets out with the goal of attacking the script. He's not looking for flaws in order to help the writer, he's looking for excuses to attack the work because it gives him pleasure for some reason to do so. Why would anyone enjoy doing that? Who knows, perhaps frustration. Some writers can't raise their own work so they take great satisfaction in taking someone else down. While it's not always easy to tell the difference between a reviewer being harsh and a reviewer looking for excuses to take someone down, veteran writers and intelligent people know the difference often simply based on the criticisms. If those criticisms are silly and meaningless it shows the reviewer was reaching, that he came into it with a nonconstructive attitude. For new writers, that can be unnecessarily crushing. And for veteran writers it can be annoying, and annoyance can drive traffic away from the site too.

Intelligent reviews are useful to veteran writers and make them more likely to participate. Veteran writers want to improve their craft and they want to understand what works better in story creation. Useful reviews, even of other people's work, are worth their weight in gold. Other types of reviews just lead veteran writers to leave the discussion behind.

Quoted from SteveDiablo But build it up on what? That's cockteasing.

Not round our way it isn't.

That's usually dinner, yes you can have fries with that. What, an apple pie as well? Followed by rather a lot of expensive drinks. Then it's oh, is that the time? I've got to be up early in the morning. There's a cab. Call me next week, ok? Byee!

Now that's cockteasing.

R

Quoted from JSimon There are times when the reviewer sets out with the goal of attacking the script. He's not looking for flaws in order to help the writer, he's looking for excuses to attack the work because it gives him pleasure for some reason to do so. Why would anyone enjoy doing that?

I've only done that once and it was to one of Jeff's scripts. I think you can probably understand why. Not that the script didn't deserve it, I just took exceptional pleasure in delivering it. I tried to find something wrong with every line. Took me a couple of hours and three pages but I can honestly say it was worth it.

At least Dustin is being honest.

And actually, Dustin's review yesterday is a good example of harsh but fair:  http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-0515OWC/m-1432484778/s-30/

That's a script by a writer that has a long way to go, but who wants to learn. The review was harsh but clearly intended to help.

Quoted from PrussianMosby It's easy to talk about when you've been through all of that for some years. And most of us are. That society changes has to be recognized. I think as a writer, we'd show sensibility toward others' feelings while talking truth same time. On the other hand we shouldn't talk irresponsible. I don't want to dramatize it; still, writing is the most dangerous profession on earth. Biggest risks, no paid education, nothing. Highly time intensive. Years, decades of unpaid work. Bad Reputation within society. High risk of getting drug addictive because of not getting through themes we handle, injustice, truth, reflecting life. One of the highest suicide rates- That's us, we, our community. Just listen to De Niro at the Oscars about screenwriting. It's truth.

Say what?????

Hi Tony. I just wanted to add something the moment you posted

We could easily include some stylistics into reviews to not come across harsh. You just have to treat like a real person, not like a literal attack. And let something human shine between the line of the review. When it comes to fresh writers, I just can repeat myself in case of my opinion that writing's not a calm path, it could be stormy and much more.

To those we could act more like:
I hope you're aware that you're getting a real critique here because you're amid other writers who give you honest feedback, good feedback. XYZ within your script lacks. Be prepared to get a thick skin in the future because this business works with overcoming rejection every day.
It's always good to point out something positive too.

We shouldn't take their enthusiasm completely but I think it's just honest to foreshadow some problems oneself experienced in the past. And I bet a lot of writers have a lot more problems with their consuming passion to get a story out there than we'd ever admit.

There's a reason the most famous question toward a pro writer in any screenwriting blog

– What advice would you give to an unknown writer to enter this industry –

is permanently answered with:

"It sounds odd but with regards to the luck I had, I must say: Don't do it. Don't jump into this world."


Just to remind of my post about the dark side of writing

Quoted from JSimon At least Dustin is being honest. And actually, Dustin's review yesterday is a good example of harsh but fair:  http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-0515OWC/m-1432484778/s-30/ That's a script by a writer that has a long way to go, but who wants to learn. The review was harsh but clearly intended to help.

Not having a go at Dustin here but this review was done after the writer had outed himself. In his first review Dustin said he was 'out on page 1'. I think, why even bother posting in that circumstance. Even so I wouldn't have bothered making a one line comment like that as it clearly isn't constructive.The anonymity factor of the OWC unfortunately means some reviewers are careless with their comments and it contributes to some (operative word 'some') reviewers being more harsh than they normally would be imh.

I'm not suggesting the OWC should not be anonymous either - everyone knows (except maybe Newbs) if you enter a script you do so at your own risk.

Quoted from PrussianMosby – What advice would you give to an unknown writer to enter this industry – is permanently answered with: "It sounds odd but with regards to the luck I had, I must say: Don't do it. Don't jump into this world." Just to remind of my post about the dark side of writing

Yes. But it's probably better than pornography, the military or bank robbing,

Money may often get tight, but at least writing my next script won't bring me out in a strange rash that's rather itchy, or get me shot.

R

Quoted from rendevous ... writing my next script won't bring me out in a strange rash that's rather itchy, or get me shot.

Yep. And may the force be with you.

It's hard to achieve that Jedi status though.

The dark side is treacherous.