TFN: Wesa Too Negative!

[Ritterin Sophia]

What's this about negative views? Is this like the 'everyone was mean to Karen so she left' incident, cause I'm still waiting for those retards to show how the dozen of us Talifans* were so rude to her in that thread.

*And assorted sockpuppets.

[Elfdart]

And...

I...

am...

banned from TFN!

Probably for this:

I haven't posted in quite some time and this sort of nonsense is the main reason why.

How many of the people who are complaining about a "toxic" environment have ever read REAL literary criticism? Journals like The New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, London Review of Books, etc, I mean. Books get criticized. Authors get criticized. Both are critiqued harshly at times. But I've never heard of regular authors trading access in exchange for purging hostile reviews. Even local newspapers would laugh if an author were to agree to give an interview -but threaten to walk if letters to the editor or reviews were negative.

George Lucas gives exclusive interviews to Rolling Stone, Newsweek and Time: publications that have trashed him with relish for many years. If he tried to tell the editors of those publications to fire the critics who bashed him or he wouldn't do interviews (or he tried to get them to doctor the reviews), their response would be along the lines of "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." as well it should be.

Which reminds me: The fact that George Lucas and others who don't frequent this website are subjected to a great deal of abuse while authors and artists who do come here can count on compliant mods to stifle criticism demonstrates a grotesque double standard.

If you're going to have rules, they should be applied across the board or they're not really rules, now are they? If someone can give negative reviews of George Lucas and the movies, or Natalie Portman and her acting, then surely the authors and artists making the comic books and spin-off novels can take it, too.

Or maybe this (my quotes in italics):

Mange, since you were curious, I took stuff from the like first 33-40%.

Some people may like this -- I do not. I don't see much in the way of art to it, and it kind of reminds me of something I might see in a youngsters creative writing class.

Insult of Traviss' actual writing style for the sake of insulting. No real point to it.

His point is that he doesn't like the author's style. I didn't know comparing/contrasting was out of bounds -especially since it's the hallmark of any review.

Though not as bad as her previous effort, it often seems as though Traviss forgets what she's already written and makes a lot of mistakes. Most times it's simply little things but there are enough instances of things that affect the story that you have to wonder about the lack of care in the writing and editing processes.

Trying to make an inference on Karen's though processes as well as attributing a lack of care to her. The mods do not allow commentary on the author, only the work involved. This crosses that.

Oh please! If someone were to review Revenge of the Sith and ask "What was Lucas thinking when he cast <insert name of actor>?" it's not anything personal against George Lucas. It's bad enough when someone squeals like a stuck pig when criticized. It's worse when were never stuck in the first place.

[By the way, it's implied not inferred. ]

I've enjoyed Niathal in the past despite the obvious Mary Sue quality of the character, and here it just becomes too much, especially when she becomes the voice of morality questioning how Luke Skywalker lives with himself.

This one, admittedly, is contexutually ambiguous but -- given the usage of the "Mary Sue" term -- it would probably cross a line, depending on how some mods would take it.

So now referring to a character as a "Mary Sue" is "over the line"? Is it over the line to call a character a "hackneyed archetype"? This gets sillier by the minute. First, certain favored authors can't be criticized. Now we have fictional characters who are above criticism!

There's more than one planet in the Star Wars galaxy. To me, it shows a lack of imagination, or perhaps just a lack of interest in a lot of the story.

Inferring Karen has a lack of imagination or lack of interest in Star Wars. Personal commentary.

He's referring to her book as showing a lack of imagination. For all the reviewer nows, the author might have more imagination than George Lucas multiplied by L. Frank Baum, but since it's not shown in the book (in his opinion) he has no way of knowing.

We continue on with the Tony Blair = Darth Caedus show in Revlelation, with Jacen echoing Blair's, "I feel the hand of history on my shoulder," at the end of the book. There's also a reference on page 217 to Jacen's "Ill-defined war on chaos" and the planning session between Pellaeon/Niathal/and Jacen is loaded with clumsy references to Iraq.

So topical!

Traviss' attempts at political commentary are handled with the deftness of a fat kid desperately grasping for the last cookie in a jar that's opening is far too narrow for his meaty fist.

I just find the whole thing kind of juvenile, and quite frankly, low-brow. omg Tony Blair is just like a Sith Lord!!111

Is there really any need for any of this, specifically the lousy attempt at metaphor which serves only as an insult to the writer? Now, I might argue that -- if one is bothered by bludgeoning political commentary (see: Luceno + Labyrinth of Evil as well) -- one might express some dissatisfaction in the reivew. But pretty much these paragraphs serve as a hightlight of the difference between bashing and negativity as has been brought up a bunch of times in this thread.

Look who's engaging in "personal attacks". You accuse the reviewer of writing "a lousy attempt at a metaphor" which, by your thinking, can be twisted into a personal attack. Pot, meet Kettle.

You'd think Traviss could mix it up a little more instead of basically using the same insult twice.

Personal commentary on the author.

He's referring to her word usage, just as you criticized the reviewer's choice of words above. Make up your mind. Either criticizing the choice of words is a personal attack (which you did above) or it isn't. It's pretty obvious by now that you're groping for excuses to justify your unfair treatment of the reviewer and what he wrote.

Constant metaphors made by Mandos comparing Jaina & Jedi to dumb animals. This seems especially odd considering how little Traviss' writing relies on anything as artful as metaphor (go ahead and add up how many times its used in narration), so it seems like she's going especially out of her way here...

Personal insult of the author.

Just because you make a claim a number of times doesn't make it true. Again, he is referring to her prose -not her person. I for one, can't stand it when people use dialog as a verb, but my distaste for their style has nothing to do with what I think of people who talk that way personally.

I had to stop reading after there. I have things to do this afternoon. But, again, it's a loooooooooooooooooong review and my thoughts were that ~95% was an analysis of the book and only ~5% was of the above calibre. Doesn't change my initial post, but when you ask me for proof, I give it to you. I don't make it a habit of making things up. Bad for business...

You haven't shown evidence for anything, other than your belief that critiquing a novel and the novelist's constitute a "personal attack". That's hogwash and you know it.

PS - Good L-rd do I hate going quote-by-quote response style. I realize there's nothing in the rules against it, but you people who do it drive me batty! :p I prefer one big quote and one big response, personally. Makes it muuuuuuuuuuuuch easier for me to read and respond to!

That would be true if people made only one ridiculous or false assertion per post. But when people can't or won't finish a paragraph without making a bogus claim, point-by-point refutation is a must.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You were BANNED for saying that? I'm glad I got out when I did. Ask them why - I want to read the hilarity.

[Darth Wong]

These fucktards don't understand that the basis of all modern progress and civilization is negativity. Someone had to stand up and say that monarchy was a shitty way to run a country. Someone had to stand up and say that religious theocracy was a shitty way to run a country. Someone had to stand up and create a system of thought (namely science) which is entirely based on negativity; one can only disprove a theory in science, not prove one; that's why they call it Popper's Falsification principle. That's why they call reviewers of movies and books "critics" instead of "praisers".

There is nothing wrong with negativity itself; there is only something wrong with negativity without cause. Negativity itself can be a good thing; it is how we separate the wheat from the chaff.

"Oh no, don't call it chaff! You'll hurt its feelings!"

This whole "don't be negative" mindset reminds me of the self-esteem movement in general. Praise even when uncalled for, refuse to criticize even when it is necessary. It's such bullshit. So many young people think it's reasonable because they were raised that way by doting, misguided parents. Well man up, pussies: in the real world, when you make shit, people will call it shit. Except, apparently, on TFN.

[PainRack]

What's this about negative views? Is this like the 'everyone was mean to Karen so she left' incident, cause I'm still waiting for those retards to show how the dozen of us Talifans* were so rude to her in that thread.

*And assorted sockpuppets.

Apparently, you can't even say you don't LIKE a product. It gets extremely annoying since some of said defenders were in on the TPM bashing as well as anti-Mara Jade.

Of course, one could argue that they "seen" the light and no longer wish to engage in fashionable product bashing, but given the history and lack of mention, nah.......

[Illuminatus Primus]

These fucktards don't understand that the basis of all modern progress and civilization is negativity. Someone had to stand up and say that monarchy was a shitty way to run a country. Someone had to stand up and say that religious theocracy was a shitty way to run a country. Someone had to stand up and create a system of thought (namely science) which is entirely based on negativity; one can only disprove a theory in science, not prove one; that's why they call it Popper's Falsification principle. That's why they call reviewers of movies and books "critics" instead of "praisers".

There is nothing wrong with negativity itself; there is only something wrong with negativity without cause. Negativity itself can be a good thing; it is how we separate the wheat from the chaff.

"Oh no, don't call it chaff! You'll hurt its feelings!"

This whole "don't be negative" mindset reminds me of the self-esteem movement in general. Praise even when uncalled for, refuse to criticize even when it is necessary. It's such bullshit. So many young people think it's reasonable because they were raised that way by doting, misguided parents. Well man up, pussies: in the real world, when you make shit, people will call it shit. Except, apparently, on TFN.

Most people seem to be mentioning the VIPs, and I agree that they're great to have around. I always enjoy reading the comments of John and Jan from Legacy, for example. I hope they'll stay for a LONG time and that other VIPs will come back too. But I think we want to avoid personal attacks on all of the posters who are here too. Most of us are here a lot more than VIPs are. Having people say things like "Why do you bother to read the books if you don't like them? " or "You said that in another thread. Why do you have to repeat it here?" or "You're wrong!" any other negative comment that doesn't address the content of the posts, but the posters themselves, gives people a feeling that they aren't welcome. I think that makes a board more negative than any negative comments about the books or comics.

You see Mike, you shouldn't ever tell anyone that they are wrong, because that might hurt their feelings. There are just points of view.

[Havok]

Most people seem to be mentioning the VIPs, and I agree that they're great to have around. I always enjoy reading the comments of John and Jan from Legacy, for example. I hope they'll stay for a LONG time and that other VIPs will come back too. But I think we want to avoid personal attacks on all of the posters who are here too. Most of us are here a lot more than VIPs are. Having people say things like "Why do you bother to read the books if you don't like them? " or "You said that in another thread. Why do you have to repeat it here?" or "You're wrong!" any other negative comment that doesn't address the content of the posts, but the posters themselves, gives people a feeling that they aren't welcome. I think that makes a board more negative than any negative comments about the books or comics.

Correct me if I'M WRONG, but is there any other way to determine if a person IS wrong other then by that content of the posts... on, you know, a message board?
Is this what I would encounter if I ever strayed from SDN?

[Elfdart]

You were BANNED for saying that? I'm glad I got out when I did. Ask them why - I want to read the hilarity.

I filled out the "ban form" and asked why I was banned, since I did not in any way, shape or form violate the rules.

Here's the response:

From: DONOTREPLY@ign.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by ign.com. Learn more
To: elfdart@swbell.net
Date: 6 Apr 2008 15:38:28 -0700
Subject: Jedi Council Forums - Response To Unban Request

No, you merely show up in Lit two years after your last post, which got
you banned, which was itself two years after your previous posts,
which had consisted of movie discussion and stating that you didn't like
the EU.

After thus showing up, you proceeded to troll a discussion about
policy. You're gone for a day.

mailhost.in.snowball.com @ 4/6/2008 3:38:28 PM

So they admit that I never broke the rules, but banned me anyway. For the record, the post that got me banned last time was:

Obviously George Lucas, Rick McCallum and Curtis Saxton are NOT considered VIPs. All three have been the subject of attacks on TF.N boards. I guess Karen Traviss is more important to Star Wars than George Lucas.

Thanks for proving me right, schmucks.

[Darth Wong]

This is the problem with forums that don't publicize their justifications for banning someone. If you make such decisions in secret, with no public display of the incident in question, you can get away with accusing someone of "trolling" even if he did nothing of the sort.

[Elfdart]

It doesn't help that people are trying to change the definition of troll from "someone who posts for the sole purpose of provoking hostility in readers" to "anyone who calls me on my horseshit".

[Darth Servo]

Has anyone posted Wayne's latest masterpiece over there yet?

[Darth Wong]

I wonder if they realize what a bunch of pathetic fawning desperately sycophantic parasites they are.

They literally fall all over themselves trying to curry favour with any SW author who graces them with his or her presence, rushing to kick anyone out of the clubhouse if he dares say anything to offend the hallowed nobility. I have a mental image of the TFN faithful wearing robes and prostrating themselves before their honoured guests, repeatedly hitting themselves in the forehead with hardcover copies of Karen Traviss' latest book as they chant her praises and persecute the heretics.

They react to criticism of a "preferred" author the same way that a young man reacts to someone saying bad things about his first girlfriend. It doesn't even matter whether it's true; the reaction is the same.

[Illuminatus Primus]

They'd be better off simply stating that it was board policy to serve as a medium for fan-VIP interaction at the latter's discretion and regulation. They should just admit they are a clubhouse that will arbitrarily meet any requirements to keep VIPs in, rather than try this pathetic and imbecilic attempt to show how split nonexistent hairs between "insulting" and "critical." There is no objective difference, only the sensitivity of the recipient.

[Stark]

He self-censored the work 'lord' to 'l-rd'. What more needs to be said? That tells us everything we need to know about his critical thinking.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well TFN has a large contingent of fundies and creationists all the way to the top - I think Mike knows more than I. But going into their general discussion forum is a fucking mistake, I'll tell you that. The guys who have the patience to debate those cretins in a Miss Manners forum like that with such dishonest and opaque moderation policy and standards has my respect.

[Darth Hoth]

It doesn't help that people are trying to change the definition of troll from "someone who posts for the sole purpose of provoking hostility in readers" to "anyone who calls me on my horseshit".

Exactly the kind of Newspeak that unimaginative authoritarians have always used to more easily strawman the opposition. Standard operating procedure: find a lowest common denominator for a group that most of the people will agree to hate (whether due to propaganda, prejudice or actual cause), then lump all other opposition together with them, regardless of their actual stance or methods. In Nazi Germany you were a "Bolshevik" if you disagreed with the Party. In the Soviet Union, you were a "Fascist" if you wished for democracy. In Zimbabwe, you are a "racist" if you argue for equal treatment of whites. And on TFN, you are a "basher" if you criticise Traviss and a "troll" if you dare comment on the moderation.

Nothing new under the sun.

[Mange]

I'd say that some of the VIPs there doesn't give a very good impression. I don't see why it would be the concerns of a VIP what the posts looks like.

[Elfdart]

What's really funny is the way the mod threw down a challenge (show me where other SW authors -who don't frequent TFN- are freely attacked) and banned me so I can't respond. It's like Falafel O'Reilly shutting off someone's microphone and pretending he won the argument.

[Elfdart]

I'd say that some of the VIPs there doesn't give a very good impression. I don't see why it would be the concerns of a VIP what the posts looks like.

If you can't take criticism, scorn or ridicule, then the creative arts are not for you. It's as though a pro athlete had refused to do interviews because the fans booed at the last game.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If you're talking about Grand Admiral Jello, Elfdart, I doubt he was the one who banned you or part of the Travissite crowd since he is a registered if sparingly contributing member on this very board. Unfortunately, unlike here, the mods don't have a general policy of saying exactly who it is who banned you. But I doubt it was him, he's a pretty rationalist fan of SW.

[Publius]

GrandAdmiralJello is an esteemed friend and has striven mightily to champion of rationality and critical thought in those forums. It is incredible that he would have done such a thing.

[Elfdart]

I PMed him to complain about it. If it was someone else who pulled the chickenshit I described earlier, then I owe Jello an apology. But his post with the "challenge" was the only one I saw from a mod addressed to me.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I PMed him to complain about it. If it was someone else who pulled the chickenshit I described earlier, then I owe Jello an apology. But his post with the "challenge" was the only one I saw from a mod addressed to me.

I know common fucking courtesy would dictate a mod that banned you would reply and own up to it, but unfortunately that's not taken for granted on TFN. They don't exactly crave transparency and clarity. Don't take the fact that Jello is among the few who would actually man up and address you that he was responsible. The one who did is probably that much the chickenshit.

[GrandAdmiralJello]

It may interest you all to know that YodaKenobi is now a member of TFN Books staff. Your concerns of biased administration and censorship may yet be proven to be unfounded, as I have to imagine that you'd regard this as a step in the right direction.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Good show Jello.