I'm one of those people who can best be described as an extroverted introvert (sometimes spoken of as "extraverted."); that is, I'm completely introverted, but quite capable of performing the functions necessary to be thought of as the opposite.
Most people acquainted with me would find this remarkable, if not incredible. I'm outspoken and opinionated. When the opportunity presents itself, I'm not shy. But it's true - I'm an introvert.
Jungian theory, as ably presented by David Kiersey et al. in Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence, explains this minor personality trait as a preference, a comfort zone, rather than a defining characteristic. If you've never taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test, I strongly encourage you to do so.
But...to my point. Although I'm well past the half-century mark, I have to remind myself that the concept of "friend" has to be loosely defined. In my most recent life incarnation, I fell into the trap of believing that most of my relationships were friendships. If I admired someone and was able to hold a substantive conversation with them, I assumed they were my friend. Even as an introvert, because I was willing to extend friendship to others, I assumed that those others were my "friends."
This despite the evidence of a lifetime.
My beloved and lovely daughter has, I am sure, dozens - scores - hundreds of friends...a genuine myriad of people who consider her an important and critical part of their lives, even if only temporarily. I, on the other hand, am certain that while I extend friendship generously, I have a very limited circle of people whom I could call my friends. I might be theirs, but few are mine.
I've learned to live with that and for the most part have not been ungenerous in continuing to extend my friendship. After all, the word means little if it consists entirely of an equitable exchange, a barter of equality.
To me, a key component of "friendship" is loyalty, a willingness to leap to the defense of those we consider to be our friends. Honesty, too, is a key component of friendship.
Within Open Salon, as in other social networks, the concept of friendship is complicated by the peer pressure (or the user interface) that channels us into either/or channels of communication.
Nonetheless, defending a friend is, to my mind, a duty.
Julie Tarp, one of my OSticates, caught mitigated hell over the past few days, and I think it's imperative that I defend her.
She banged out a relatively harmless rant about how we might want to be less profligate in granting the encomium of "great" to random OS posts. It was brief. It contained sufficient caveats and exclusions. It singled out no single poster (Julie wouldn't do that, anyway). It merely asked, somewhat plaintively (and I'll paraphrase), why we (you) would post a comment along the lines of "this is such a great post" out of some sense of correctness or courtesy.
That's it. No poster was singled out. Julie merely asked for commenters to show true solidarity by lavishing praise where it is merited and refraining from lavishing superlatives where it is clearly not.
She was astute enough to finish with "Am I wrong?" but not astute enough to foresee the inability of readers to distinguish her call for higher standards, nay, for honesty, from a) censorship, b) elitism, or c) grammar snobbery.
For her honesty, Julie was rewarded not only with some fairly vicious criticism in the comments, but a growing number of independent characterizations of her rant as something it was not.
This OS contributor says "Thanks, Julie." Far too much was inferred from your post - things you did not say and things you did not mean, much less imply - and you do not deserve the crapstorm that descended on you.
Julie was not snarky. Her respondents were. If anyone is guilty of intending to cast a chill on free commentary, it wasn't Julie.
As one OSer said with regard to censorship: "OS has published everything I've submitted so far." All Julie asked was why anyone would be so lazy as to say "You are a great writer" when a more measured and accurate comment would be "I appreciate what you've written and encourage you to continue."
Are we so shallow as to give out the highest praise to everything we read???
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Barbra anne
hyblaean- Julie
Frank Apisa
m. a.h
Chicago Guy
Lea Lane
Salon.com
Comments
And this is actually a lot more important than snobbery or elitism.
Whether it's writing, playing music, making art, your job, cooking, or social relationships, the only way to improve your skills in anything is for someone to point out why, and to what extent, you're a screw up.
There is a community called Open Salon where people read each others' writings. When one person denigrates your work, you can call them a jerk, and thank them for helping you develop a writer's thick skin. When a bunch of people denigrate your work you can thank them for proving that you are before you time, or thank them for showing you how you need to improve. In any case, if anyone ever says anything bad about your post, even if it's not meant as constructive criticism, the appropriate response is to thank them for helping you become a better writer.
;0)
so, my friend, what's up?
Nada, I'm trying to keep up. Please receive this as a compliment when I say I'm intimidated by your writing. I suppose "good morning" is appropriate?
Someone is sitting in the audience
-who just lost a pet
-who had an argument with someone they love this morning
-who lost their job this week
-who is being treated poorly at work or underpaid
-who has a terminal illness that they have not disclosed
-who wonders how they are going to pay the bills
-who just accepted a marriage proposal
-who is planning on climbing a mountain soon
-who paid their own way through school
-who is still angry with their parents even though they are older than when their parents first pissed them off
-who thinks everything you say is for them personally
-who thinks you may not take their feelings or ideas seriously
-who is projecting their feelings upon you
-who doesn't get where you are coming from--at all
-who thinks you ought to think the way they think about the subject matter
-who never heard a word that you said, but somehow, will go home satisfied.
So I wonder, giving just a hint of what a motley crew an audience actually is, how we can even begin to do what we do, except to satisfy ourselves first and to accept that others are going to think what they do without any regard to what we have written. We are here to prove their point.
Many years ago I worked at the Securities & Exchange Commission with a wonderful lawyer named Frank Razzano. Frank had edited the Law Review at Georgetown University and was a profoundly able writer and editor. I was his legal secretary-paralegal. A cashmere-coated, ivy league snob temporarily working as a junior attorney, without having ever met or worked with me, decided to engage in a bit of self-aggrandizement and snobbery at my expense, and made the mistake of doing so in front of our legal team. Frank very articulately explained the chain of command for the case we were all working on, making sure that this fellow knew that he fell far beneath my station, and then ensured for certain that this fellow knew, and that the team knew, that he had just committed the equivalent of declaring himself to be a pissant.
It was a tremendous lesson to everyone there. No doubt this pissant has gone on to make quite a lot of money, but I imagine he has been ever more, far more respectful of the company he keeps.
Anybody can sign up for membership here. The fact that so many are such excellent grammarians is remarkable. However, as someone who changed schools 27 times before dropping out of high school, only to take the GED and go on to earn graduate degrees on my own dime, I no doubt still have some holes in my education and in my knowledge of grammar. I trust that those holes are not the facts about me that are most interesting, that given the interesting life I've had, that what I have to say about life itself is of far more value.
So, anyway, I do not entirely agree with you that Julie was not snarky, but I don't think that she meant to be or was very much. I think she failed to take note of who was in the audience and rendered herself unintentionally harsh.
But then, most people don't tell me "You are a great writer." Usually they comment on the topic at hand, or they say thanks. Not once has anyone but GordonO ever commented on my writing skill or grammar in a negatively critical way, and he was doing so because he is an asshat, and not because he meant to lend me a hand.
I appreciate the comments I receive and try to contextualize them according to the post to which they refer and within my experience of the commenter him or herself. Most people I have encountered here are pretty engaging and kind. I appreciate that very much.
"Are we so shallow as to give out the highest praise to everything we read???"
I don't think anyone is actually doing this insincerely.
It is not about GRAMMAR but about quality. There are ways to praise a piece of writing without saying Great Writing.
We need to hone our own critical thinking.
I respond to what I like, what moves me or is memorable about what I read here. If nothing stays, I usually say nothing. Case-by-case.
Sometimes I want to encourage someone. Sometimes the ideas matter, the prose is not relevant.
Sometimes -- and consistently for some OS'rs -- the prose IS the thing: subtle, powerful, authentic, sly, expert, exceptional.
Sometimes someone is just so sweet, or brave, or funny, the piece shines.
I strongly support meritocracy, but of the grass-roots, sustained from within type that OS offers, as is.
My tentative conclusion is: make your comments better. Ignore the vapid, the preeners, the utterly inept. Encourage strivers. Respond with generosity to Good Writing. Give full throat to how the Great posts move you, impress you, what they make you think or feel.
If this means we give some slack to the off-post, to the earnest but unschooled, the experimental, I can live with that.
That said: never write the words Good and Writing in any combination unless you mean it, and if you do, don't say "Good Writing", say what matters to you, cite details, attempt a textual Shape to their talent or accomplishment.
Be generous. Have criteria.
I read Julie's post and the comment thread that followed. I appreciate the written word, an interesting twist of a phrase and the well crafted story. This, combined with a topic/subject/story that interests/intrigues/moves me (subjective) is what makes for good writing (in my opinion). If all those elements are in place, I comment on the WRITING.
If, however, I read something that is funny, fluff, cool (or, fill in the blank) and I appreciate it for its entertainment value, my comments reflect my enjoyment or appreciation rather than the quality of the writing. Either way, they are both completely subjective thought processes.
It would be interesting to have a separate rating system for quality and skill of writing versus merit for entertainment value. This way, everyone could learn if they are being rated for their skills (without being devastated by honest critique in comments) or for honesty/entertainment by the eyes of the readership (which of course, is still completely subjective). Just a thought.
I also think Julie's post got misinterpreted. I both agreed and disagreed with her (as reflected in the comments I made after her post) and felt she brought up stuff that could make for an interesting discussion but that soon got lost in hurt or angry feelings that many people had.
I also think she was not saying anything much different from what other writers have blogged about here (usually in regards to what posts get most ratings and covers) and yet somehow those posts get applauded and hers got criticized. I can't quite figure out why.
If it moves you - great. Comment: This moved me.
I'd like to respond to Susanne in regards to "know your audience". Yes, you are correct in that there are all kinds of people on OS. And alot of the audience agreed and understood the intent of the post. Why do I need to cater to the ones who did not? Just to be clear, my "tone" wasn't one of contempt, simply confusion. I think you're reaching that on the basis of the comments and not of the post itself. As Randy pointed out, I'm just not that way.
You are a king among men in my book, Randy.
Thanks for having my back - yo!