... I was being sarcastic? Slightly sarcastic or snarky moments with regard to some works? Perhaps. But "unbridled sarcasm"? Hardly. I fail to see how I made a mockery of yours. And since when was I trying to be funny?
I put time and effort into reading the stories and commenting on them, and my views and reviews are honest.
And I was not entirely negative.
But not caring for my reviews is fine.
_"The german quoting guy is a little bit out there." (fleece)[ Parent ]
-- the only reference I made to your reviews was not in my 'reviews' but in my response to blixco, where I mentioned yours and what persimmon has done in the past. But there is no connection between your reviews and mine in other regards. The first part of that response to blixco was clealy tongue-in-cheek.
But I can't help but feel that your review diminished the value of any review in this WFC.
Gedvondur"It is virtually impossible to effectively aim a jellyfish, a creature created by God almost solely for the purpose of not flying."- CRwM [ Parent ]
Don't give him that much credit. His review didn't stop me from posting mine, and it shouldn't inhibit anyone else.-- Do the math. [ Parent ]
If you didn't intend some of your text to be sarcastic, I can accept that. However, be aware that much of it came across to me as sarcastic.
As to your negativity, no, you were not entirely negative. You were just negative enough that it is difficult to read your reviews and not think they are mean-spirited.
... to a great extent.
I take my "introduction" to the 'reviews' quite seriously. This is supposed to be a writing Fun challenge. You know where I saw the most 'fun'? Spike and The Alley. But half the stories? None at all.
Spike and The Alley were followed by Sylvia Endicott, then Hello, What's This? and Broken Glass. Actually, I'm not entirely sure about Broken Glass, but it's what I think right now. There was almost certainly fun had with Connecting Train.
But the rest? They seem like "exercises." It's WFC-time, I need to submit something. There's far too much 'academic fanfiction' -- notice how the only positive things said about Frame of Reference come from toxicfur and ana, who fill-in-the-academic blanks in an otherwise paint-by-numbers exercise? they have an academic background -- as well as the same relationship problems, lost loves, lost loved ones, etc. we've seen in previous WFCs. Enclosed is a story we haven't seen before, which is a good thing.
I write shittastic fiction. The people around here know that. I expect the fiction I read by others to be better than what I can do, and of course most of what we have here is, but if I read something and think "I could have done this" rather than "I wish I had done this" it's already a sort of failure.
I think I reserved "mean spirited" only for Mother's Bible, and I don't feel bad about it. It has nothing to do with the writer as a person (or nickname that will be revealed to me less than a week from now) and everything to do with text encoding, formatting, and writing that simply does not work (in this text). For all the rest I think things are rather clearly separated into 1) what I think the 'text' needs in terms of editing, 2) how I think the story functions/works (or doesn't; mechanics), and 3) how or whether a section/sentence/whatever worked for me, regardless of author intent. The comments were written as I read and each story got two reads, one interrupted by commenting and one not. The comments are a reaction to the texts as they affected me as I read them. Minus the flowery bits.
As you say, "I am not going to get into a specific quoting pissing match." It's not about that, I hope. I figure if people bother reading my reviews (I expect more along the lines of skimming and/or 'oh, bo wrote this: pass'), they'll read your response, then my response to your response, etc., and so for those readers rather than for you or me I find the continued commentary worthwhile. I'm stupidly optimistic that way.
Regarding 'sarcastic' -- well, clearly certain expressions were meant sarcastically. I think just about any use of "precious" as a stand-alone expression (rather than 'precious gem,' etc.) has to be taken so.
"I'm looking for your most offensive film. Several, actually. Let us say that I need copies of your four most upsetting films." "Are you, like, a cop or something?" "Oh, no. I assure that I simply wish to purchase some of your pornography."
How can that be taken seriously?
The listing of schools behind the characters' names. The jaded voice of the framing narrator.
Phrases like "soft hurrumphing" and "A well-regulated and fashionable saintliness was her only rebellion."
Humor's not something anybody can explain into being funny, but I think that Weld was intended as a black absurd comedy.
That doesn't mean every body will find it funny, but it suggests to me that the writer had fun with it.[ Parent ]
... I agree.
Even without a close reading of style (not that close I guess) it seems to me that the authors of Spike and The Alley had fun -- it seems they were having fun with the concept, the fictional worlds they established. Running with ideas (scissors?), expanding and developing.
With "Sylvia Endicott ..." I feel pretty confident that the types of things (text passages) you mentioned were meant to be a type of (slightly dark) humor, and the type of thing that pointed to the author having fun with it. But in this case I didn't want to read too much into 'intent' -- it's one of those things I feel 90% sure about, not 95% (arbitrary higher %), and so I feel less sure saying, "Yeah, this author BLAH BLAH BLAH" rather than "Wow, this really came across as BLAHIGGITY BLAH when I read it." The other thing about Sylvia Endicott ... is that with all the detail and details, about names and places and school, etc., I felt the need not to look things up but to ponder, "Hey, are these significant?" And for me that's actually part of the fun -- reading a text as a puzzle.
You just lost me for a second.[ Parent ]
I should have written something more like:
"The other thing about 'Sylvia Endicott ...' is that with all the detail and details (about names and places and school, etc.) I didn't feet the need to look things up but rather to ponder, 'Hey, are these significant?' And for me that's actually part of the fun -- reading a text as a puzzle."
That is to say, the names & details weren't confusing, but rather chewy Halloween surprises that enhanced my enjoyment. Other details -- or rather (I like the word 'rather') detailing (meant here as the act of providing details) -- felt a bit tacked on: not over-the-top/extreme enough to qualify as a satirical/humorous stylistic quirk, but enough to be almost ponderous. But in stories with a sense of humor I love the "A B, of the $TOWN Bs, married X Y Z of the $CITY -- and not $SHIRE -- Zs" stuff.
Then I ask myself, "Hey, is $LASTNAME relevant or just picked out of a hat?" The answer can be fun; more often it's finding the answer that is fun.
