Nonnie blesses our inbox with something truly twank worthy.
We’re not going to go into the specifics of what a good review is, but why would we, when mac214 has already done the homework for us? In her blog entry titled, The Lost Art of Constructive Criticism, mac teaches us what an acceptable review is. AND HER BLOG IS WEARING OUR DRESS, BUT ASIDE FROM THAT… According to her,
The art of constructive criticism seems to be lost on those in the fandom who consider themselves qualified enough to leave it. Most of the time it seems designed to make the writer feel like shit instead of genuinely helping them improve their writing.
This would seem to imply that not only is everyone not qualified enough to constructively criticize a Twilight Fanfiction, but also that most negative reviews (which are likely a generous 5% of all FFn reviews) are only being left to bring the author down.
re·view (r
-vy
)
v. re·viewed, re·view·ing, re·viewsv.tr.1. To look over, study, or examine again.2. To consider retrospectively; look back on.3. To examine with an eye to criticism or correction: reviewed the research findings.4. To write or give a critical report on (a new work or performance, for example).5. Law To reexamine (an action or determination) judicially, especially in a higher court, in order to correct possible errors.6. To subject to a formal inspection, especially a military inspection.7. Given for the sole purpose of aiding the subject of said criticism to improve.One could argue she was only referring to constructive criticism and not reviews as a whole. It’s not like she picked a negative review, threw it up on her blog, made an example out of a reader who was just leaving an honest and not at all hostile opinion, and then took it upon herself to correct them.
Or maybe she did.
Last night someone complained about the accent in Coming Through the Rye in a way that was less than constructive:
I’m sure you really won’t care about this review but I can’t believe you have someone Scottish helping with this dialect. You’re mixing different Scottish dialects throughout, also the only people who sound that broad are farmers and people over 70, and the glossary is hit or miss too. For a start “teucher” is absolutely not a highland term, it refers to people from NE Scotland. Black Pudding? NOTHING like a sausage, the texture/taste is so different that calling it this is ridiculous. As a Scot it pains me to see this as a representation of Scotland.
Combative. Rude. Arrogant. Did I miss anything? I thanked the reviewer for her opinion, but shockingly this particular reviewer HAD to assure me of her superiority and correctness, which led to me letting out a tiny bit of snark. I probably would have reined it in a bit if she’d just been insulting me (I’m certainly no expert at Scottish slang and accents), but she’s also insulting Claire, my prereader who lives in Glencoe, Scotland – and what kind of idiot implies I wouldn’t know a sausage if it bit me in the ass? Not to mention, if you’re going to dispute the glossary definitions, be sure googling the term “teuchter” doesn’t immediately take you to page after page that defines it as a word referring to people in the Highlands. Considering Claire’s people refer to themselves as “teuchtery”… well, I don’t think the reviewer in question could have outed herself as a true troll and absolute moron any more if she tried.
How might this reviewer have transmitted her viewpoint without coming off as a complete douchebag?
Mac then proceeds to reconstruct (we can’t make this up) what she felt the review should have been. Anyone got a facepalm gif handy?
“I like that you’re writing a Scottish Edward. I live in Scotland, though, and your portrayal of the accent doesn’t seem quite right. To my ear, the accent appears too heavy and the slang is wrong for a person of that age group. Perhaps you might add an additional Scottish person to join your prereading team to offer a second opinion – I would be happy to step in if you’re interested. You may also want to consider rewording your description of blood pudding. It doesn’t seem very sausage-like to me – it’s not quite as firm and meaty. Thanks for putting so much effort into your fic!” It gets the point across, offers solutions, and doesn’t imply the reviewer is schmuck.We’d point out that instead of looking like a schmuck, now it just looks like the reader has her tongue glued to your anus, just the way you like, but we won’t. You’d probably make an example out of us too.
Twank Roundup:
Blog Post: Contests are unfair and only the popular girls win (Even though she only made the blog post to announce she’s placed in one)
Blog Post: Teaching the world about the evils of homophones (You can leave links to any homophone errors present in her fics in the comments… we don’t read…)
Blog Post: Tax deductions for fic research (Just no)
Blog Post: Your BDSM fic is boring and only popular because it’s trendy (Not that we disagree, but her fic list isn’t exactly screaming INTRIGUE)
Blog Post: Just everything.
Profile Page: “Thinking about leaving negative feedback? Consider whether your review is constructive or abusive. My policy is to ban anyone who leaves abusive criticism and make fun of them publicly for being a douchebag.” (Should we remind you what she considers “abusive”?)
We didn’t look at her Twitter, but we ‘magine it goes something like:
*SELF-IMPORTANCE* *SELF-IMPORTANCE* *SELF-IMPORTANCE*
.
Twankhard 