Which is Preferable, Hypocritical Praise or Honest Opinions?
Sept 23, 2023 15:02:45 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Sept 23, 2023 15:02:45 GMT -5
Which are Preferable, Hypocritical Praises or Honest Opinions?
By Radrook:
AKA The Banned Two-Star Bandit
By Radrook:
AKA The Banned Two-Star Bandit
Well, in reference to improving our writing ability, the answer should be easily obvious, an honest opinion that will enable us as writers to see our faults and improve by correcting them is preferable. True, we all want to feel appreciated, and to feel that we are stars. But not at the cost of having our flaws remain unmentioned so that we can't fix them and improve.
No, such a good feeling of pride in our writing should only be based on success via good writing and a genuine praise that is inspired by that good writing. It should never be based on opinions that are being forced by forum rules that restrict what can be said or how low members are allowed to rate stories. If indeed so, then the ratings lose all objective value, just as any other opinion that is forced, concerning any other type of performance, loses all objective value.
More specifically, what is the use of having our stories being praised to high-heaven, only to have them unceremoniously rejected whenever we attempt to have them published in some magazine, or have them rejected as viable book material because they are shot to hell with basic errors that nobody dared to mention?
The shock of such rejections, after one has been constantly praised as a great writer, can prove to be extremely baffling. After all, what exactly is it that the editors are detecting that was never mentioned at the mutual-admiration writing forum, where we had been deemed a veritable William Shakespeare?
Well, if indeed such a writer has dedicated years to posting at such a forum, he very probably doesn't have the faintest idea why he is failing in that constant seemingly inevitable way. Why? Simple, because nobody has ever revealed it to him. Instead, everything he wrote, no matter how flawed or how trivial, was constantly lauded as being pure literary perfection.
In short, remaining at such a mutual-admiration writing forum, can lead to to stagnation in a stifling bliss of hypocritical praise. A deliriously intoxicating fool's paradise of sorts, which guarantees literary failure.
No, such a good feeling of pride in our writing should only be based on success via good writing and a genuine praise that is inspired by that good writing. It should never be based on opinions that are being forced by forum rules that restrict what can be said or how low members are allowed to rate stories. If indeed so, then the ratings lose all objective value, just as any other opinion that is forced, concerning any other type of performance, loses all objective value.
More specifically, what is the use of having our stories being praised to high-heaven, only to have them unceremoniously rejected whenever we attempt to have them published in some magazine, or have them rejected as viable book material because they are shot to hell with basic errors that nobody dared to mention?
The shock of such rejections, after one has been constantly praised as a great writer, can prove to be extremely baffling. After all, what exactly is it that the editors are detecting that was never mentioned at the mutual-admiration writing forum, where we had been deemed a veritable William Shakespeare?
Well, if indeed such a writer has dedicated years to posting at such a forum, he very probably doesn't have the faintest idea why he is failing in that constant seemingly inevitable way. Why? Simple, because nobody has ever revealed it to him. Instead, everything he wrote, no matter how flawed or how trivial, was constantly lauded as being pure literary perfection.
In short, remaining at such a mutual-admiration writing forum, can lead to to stagnation in a stifling bliss of hypocritical praise. A deliriously intoxicating fool's paradise of sorts, which guarantees literary failure.
Relevant Questions
Since such an unqualified, mutual-admiration system is so obviously detrimental, why would anyone want to be a member of such a forum? One explanation is that a significant percentage of members are mostly young inexperienced writers, or writers who are learning English, and who don't realize that they are being cunningly hoodwinked and actually believe that the ratings they receive are voluntary and that they truly reflect the quality of their writing.
Furthermore, they are under the erroneous impression that Two-Star ratings of Fair, and the One-Star rating of Poor, are available when they are not. So since they keep getting three-star ratings of Good, they feel OK. Which is of course, why the other two ratings are off-limits, because everyone there must be made to feel like a star, no matter how horrendously mangled their writing might be.
Which raises the question of why would someone set up such a perniciously harmful system? Well, one reason would be because the person genuinely values the emotion of happiness more than he or she values honesty.
Now this viewpoint is nothing new. It was once a respectable Greek philosophical teaching called hedonism, a view in which pleasure was considered the preeminent virtue, justifying all behavior, such as sadism and masochism. In short, if a behavior lead to pleasure, then, from the hedonistic viewpoint, it was good. But if it lead to either physical or psychological discomfort or pain, then it was considered bad.
Now, such an ethical, philosophical view was discarded long ago along with Sophism, which taught that morality is culturally subjective. So it was eventually deemed morally bankrupt as well. However, it obviously doesn't prevent certain unscrupulous individuals from attempting to make money from it via using that pleasure-principle by lavishing undeserved praise on the desperately needy and gullible.
Furthermore, they are under the erroneous impression that Two-Star ratings of Fair, and the One-Star rating of Poor, are available when they are not. So since they keep getting three-star ratings of Good, they feel OK. Which is of course, why the other two ratings are off-limits, because everyone there must be made to feel like a star, no matter how horrendously mangled their writing might be.
Why?
Which raises the question of why would someone set up such a perniciously harmful system? Well, one reason would be because the person genuinely values the emotion of happiness more than he or she values honesty.
Now this viewpoint is nothing new. It was once a respectable Greek philosophical teaching called hedonism, a view in which pleasure was considered the preeminent virtue, justifying all behavior, such as sadism and masochism. In short, if a behavior lead to pleasure, then, from the hedonistic viewpoint, it was good. But if it lead to either physical or psychological discomfort or pain, then it was considered bad.
Now, such an ethical, philosophical view was discarded long ago along with Sophism, which taught that morality is culturally subjective. So it was eventually deemed morally bankrupt as well. However, it obviously doesn't prevent certain unscrupulous individuals from attempting to make money from it via using that pleasure-principle by lavishing undeserved praise on the desperately needy and gullible.