I really did love what you said.

Me, three.

Count me in on the Kristin bandwagon.

t initially typed Kristen, but I've been reading Beaches and know better

You don't look crazy by yourself ever.

Oh, I am bona fide crazy, with a hand stamp and everything (a la The Simpsons). It gives me layers.

I missed the Kristin post (sniff) and I just lurk here, but I wanted to fifth or sixth the "hey, that was an interesting discussion but could we have it in Literary?", and suggest that there be drabbling and writer-talk. And that Deb should come back.

Hey, look. Flying salamanders! Okay, off for thai food. Drabble away.

Well, a bit late to the party, but I'll just say I'm pretty much Deb in this conversation.

Sorry if it seems to dis anyone who's really into the detailed analysis lit crit, but basically it makes my eyeballs itch.

To have to justify why I like or think about a work of fiction intellectually doesn't work for me. I respond viscerally and emotionally. And that's the kind of critique I would look for here in GWW.

I get that some people really enjoy that, and that's what I think Literary's focused on the last time or two I looked.

I've skimmed over most of this argument, in part because what I've read cuts to the very heart of why I don't go into the Literary thread myself, and would not enjoy book clubs. So I leave that to people who's brains work that way and find enjoyment in books by doing the detailed analysis that leaves me cold by its very nature..

I do not believe I have to justify doing differently.

Anyone expecting me to do so will have to live with being thought arrogant.

I do not believe I have to justify doing differently.

I missed the part where anyone was asking for such a justification.

I've been confused for the last 20 or so posts.

I understand I'm not very bright.

I half-regret going into this, but only half. Granted, an in-depth discussion of literary criticism is best held in Literary or the book club. However, what is seen as the dividing line between litcrit and trying to analyze a piece of writing in this thread in order to help the author improve it?

This isn't meant as any sort of incitement, I was just mulling over hte points presented earlier.

I was wondering the same, connie. Sure, when you give feedback here you're face to face (relatively speaking) with the author, but it seems a fine line.

I was wondering the same, connie. Sure, when you give feedback here you're face to face (relatively speaking) with the author, but it seems a fine line.

OK. I got two emails, and I thought I should poke my head in. I'm damned if I want to do this. It makes me want to vomit with stress and frustration.

First off all, ita - not speaking for Astarte, but I sure as hell felt I was being asked to justify it, by rational answers only, please. That, to me, is simply another way of saying "I expect you to accept and approve my way of seeing something, but yours doesn't matter, it doesn't suit my sense of how this should be said, please modify." I have no desire to upset anyone, there is no one here whom I don't like and no one here whose opinion I don't respect, but I felt and still feel pressured to censor myself, to adjust my language so as to better suit a perception and flavour that, on my own palate, tastes false when I try to use it. This is one major reason I've unsubbed to this thread.

Not being a big fan of irony, the idea that I have to censor myself to that degree in a thread that's supposed to be devoted to creativity is making me cry. I dislike crying. So, not going to play. But I hope that answers your question about a sense of pressure, not on Astarte's behalf, but on mine. I am the only person I'm entitled to speak for.

To answer connie's question, which is a good one from where I'm sitting, I'm going to not censor myself here. I'm just going to answer the damned question, in my own words, as seen through my own eyes, and anyone who objects can damned well tell me in email, because I am the hell out of here:

When you are giving feedback directly to the author, you are speaking to the source of the creativity. It's really straightforward, if you aren't trying to cloak it in academic underwear. It goes like this:

I wrote Piece X. I have asked for comments from anyone who wants to comment. Ten people offer to read Piece X, within a certain timeframe. I may or may not have asked beforehand for specific feedback (Susan, for instance, wanted certain feedback, but asked me to comment before I read her specific questions and I did that thing.)

Seven of the ten people get back to me. Three of them all felt the scene on page four went on too long. Four of them had totally disparate takes. All of them caught the same three inconsistencies on page seven.

They haven't told a bunch of fourteen-year-olds how to think about the book, they've told ME. I'm the creator here, I get to weigh - yes, ANALYSE - their comments, in a way that is potentially useful to me, to make the work better.

And if that's not clear, or that upsets anyone, well, I can't help that. It's not my intent but it's no longer my problem. I am shaking and I am out of here, for the time being.