Bitchy fic back at WX was one thing... sending things somewhere where people I didn't KNOW might read? Eep! I was quaking in my boots.

Wrod.

Mad blind self-confidence or mad blind foolish trust that the universe is a friendly place where no one would ever, ever dream of whispering a word that isn't supportive and loving and agreeing that you're just the most wonderful writer who ever appeared?

Heh, snerk.

Oh, sorry. Back to our regularly scheduled supportiveness.

Oh my goodness. The TWoP Banner Ad click through just broke me.

Ple, I am afraid to click through that banner ad.

That's a funny page.

I am afraid to click through that banner ad.

Oh, don't be afraid. The site it takes you to is perfectly hysterical. And horrid-looking. But perfectly perfect, all the same.

I hate the mouse trail, but I might go back later and see if there's anything else fun there. My OTP.

You know what the thing on BBF reminds me of? The Smallville fic board on TWoP. Where there was one person, with her own little cult of sychophants, who made broad sweeping generalizations about very thing and then also lambasted "BNF" for having live journals or only having hangers on or followers that only praised them. "There all *mean* they have a cabal, they hate the little people" whine bitch whine bitch.

I wanted to say "dude!You're a big giant cauldron calling the kettle black." But of course I didn't, mostly I kept my mouth shut, got bored and left.

BTW the site behind the banner was hysterical.

Consuela, that's interesting. And I do understand there are "professionals" and "amateurs" at fic, and of course you wouldn't criticize them the same way -- just as you don't judge your Uncle Ernie's painting with the same eye as a Picasso.

But assuming critics center their comments on the work, not the author, I think even the most delicate flower of a writer *should* be able to take being told that their Spike voice is off or they need to work on their grammar. And if not, frankly, I think writing for an audience (which is ultimately all about being told "no, that doesn't quite work, do it again") may not be their thing.

And as a follow-up question: Do you think readers should find out how much someone has published before giving negative feedback, and then tailor their words depending on if it's a first story or a fiftieth?

and then tailor their words depending on if it's a first story or a fiftieth?

Ideally, you'd be able to tell from the writing, but...

I find that the better the story, the more specific and maybe nit-picky my criticisms are likely to be. Because there's not a whole lot of point to a long, detailed criticism of something that's barely readable anyway, so if I'm inclined to send something at all, it'd be along the lines of "I'm having a hard time picturing Spike speaking and reacting that way, and I wonder if you might have gotten off track there. And a beta reader might be helpful with some grammatical quirks."

I'm of two minds on the experience question. Individual works should stand on their own, but expectations aren't so high with a newbie. If Stephen King produced something full of typos and grammatical errors and glaring mistakes, I'd think he'd handed over his first draft and his editor was out on strike and the typesetters were all blind, though I might also wonder if he was backsliding on the recreational substances issue. A new person would get a bit more forgiveness from me, especially if their plot or characterization showed the sparks of greatness.