My point is that, contrary to popular belief, I'm not
that nitpicky. Coherent grammar should be standard-issue; I only ask for that, some remotely interesting ideas and a palatable execution of these ideas.
See here and judge my critiques for yourself.
I just don't think it hurts to be at least a
little gentle with each other, no? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Actually, I consider my criticism of
The Adorant relatively gentle. The initial post: no snark, no assumptions about author's intelligence/lack thereof, etc. I repeat: I attack the writing, not the writer. (Unless the character of the Adorant is an author avatar or something.)
You or I could doubtless rip each other's work to shreds, for example - but why would we want to? What would it achieve? Would either of us feel better for having done so? I know I wouldn't, and I doubt you would either.
Whether we could take the criticism or not, neither of us would be improved by it.
Eh. If somebody took the time to rip my work to shreds, he/she would be doing me a favor.
All writers, without exception, have room to improve - you know this as well as I do. But you did not reach your current standard (Which is pretty good, IMO) overnight, and neither does anyone else.
Query: have you actually read my writing...?
Lastly -- let me put it this way: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. So don't worry, as there won't be a third time. When critiques are requested of me, I give them -- and it
was requested the first time; it's a bit annoying when the author does nada with it except hide behind the "it's my style!" excuse. (Don't ask, unless you do it in PM.)
