Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
Authors writing reviews of books they didn't like
A.K. wrote: "As I stated before, I have seen so many Internet forums blow up, so many readers put off, by some negative action taken by an author on another author. And you say we shouldn't pay attention to tha..."Hey A.K., keep up the great work, keep writing, keep interacting, never be scared of anything (not even ugly threads). I am sure that it is all going to be alright!
At the same time, I will never forget the moment when I received my first review from a website. It's a little post-apocalyptic affair but still this was the place I had sent my first copy for review. Of course, it took ages for the people there to do it. Then, one day, on my way to work on a subway, I, according to the custom, open my mailbox and there is one line: the review has been posted. Nothing like, well a good review has been posted or you stink and the review that was posted will sink your ship,,,nothing! It was my heart that did the sinking then because somehow I was sure that the review was going to be awful. I got to work, opened the browser with shaking hands, clicked on the link...the review was actually very positive. I was reading it and re-reading as if trying to find where exactly the biting and bashing would start but it never did. I think it is a feeling common for every author, indie or not because we are all the same and the difference between the self-pub and publishing house published person is one contract in three copies. In the core, we are all human beings who have expressed themselves and would like to be appreciated for it.
Then this is as I pointed out, an example of people reading into things which are not meant as such. To me, your statement of only reviewing things to which you gave 5 stars implied that you also only rate things as 5 stars or not at all.
I disagree (to a point) about this being about you being able to take a critique, as you are refraining from posting reviews based on the fear of being judged. Which as I've stated before, people are going to do regardless.
I would ask what was it you actually expected in this discussion, particularly from people who disagreed with your view?
Shaun wrote: "I would ask what was it you actually expected in this discussion, particularly from people who disagreed with your view? "Not for nothing, but you were a bit confrontational in earlier posts. calling someone's viewpoint "garbage" and whatnot.
This type of interchange breeds misunderstanding because you make it an offensive/defensive judgmental interchange.
Maybe this is the major disconnect:I am not refraining based on a fear of being judged, in the sense that, oh, this person doesn't like me what am I going to do with myself?
I am refraining based on a fear of being judged as having broken a social moire that is common knowledge and commonly adhered to. I didn't know whether or not this moire existed, hence the question. The same reason I don't walk into an elevator with one other person in it and stand as close to that person as possible. In America, personal space is valued and breaking it is rude. In some countries, isolation is rude and they would stand closer. It's an issue of social behavior and I stand by my original assumption that the question itself was acceptable to ask.
I got from this discussion exactly what I meant to get from it; that is, multiple varying opinions on how individuals would interpret the situation presented.
And I agree, people are going to judge regardless. Like in this thread. No one knows me personally and no one has any idea how I react to criticism in general or how much criticism I've taken already and how I've reacted, and yet for some reason I've been told that a harsh reply to my question was due to irritation at indie authors being unable to appropriately absorb criticism? I don't understand how that applies to me, nor do I understand how it has anything to do with the topic. Does it upset me that my personality was so quickly (and erroneously, I might add) deduced from a couple of paragraphs? No, of course not, why would it? It's curious to me, though. I don't understand its point or relevance to the topic at hand. As I have enough data now to populate a general thesis regarding an average social interpretation to the original posit, I have, as you asked, "gotten what I expected" from the thread.
A.K. wrote: "For the record, I said I don't REVIEW books I gave fewer than five stars. I have reviewed 2 books. I have RATED far more than that. I am not talking about RATING a work, I'm talking about giving wh..."FWIW, A.K. I think you've been fine in this thread. Don't let some people make you defensive because they don't know how to debate a topic without making it personal, for some unknown reason.
at any rate, I do think the majority of this thread has been very enlightening, and I will think some more on how I review and what I want to accomplish by doing so.
Bottom line is we should all do reviews as we think they should be done, ignoring as much as we can the "what ifs" that make us flinch when doing so.
I will endeavor to do that from now on.
A.K. wrote: "I am refraining based on a fear of being judged as having broken a social moire that is common knowledge and commonly adhered to. I didn't know whether or not this moire existed, hence the question. The same reason I don't walk into an elevator with one other person in it and stand as close to that person as possible. In America, personal space is valued and breaking it is rude. In some countries, isolation is rude and they would stand closer. It's an issue of social behavior and I stand by my original assumption that the question itself was acceptable to ask. "That is exactly how I understood your question.
also, forgive a pet peeve of mine: it's "more" not "moire" Moire is an optical effect created when two complex patterns instersect and create a third unwanted pattern. There are other definitions.
Hehe, but that is completely offtopic and unimportant!
well, moire could be very well used to describe a thread where two opposite flows of conversation intersect and create a third flow, so I vote for letting moire be :)
John-I've been spelling it wrong my whole life! Thanks! :D
Vardan wrote: "well, moire could be very well used to describe a thread where two opposite flows of conversation intersect and create a third flow, so I vote for letting moire be :)"hehe... fair enough.
also, I purchased your book, as it benefits a charity. Put it into my "want to read" queue.
Have you read A.K.'s The Burning of Cherry Hill? I recommend it because its also a dystopian novel, and quite good
A.K. wrote: "John-I've been spelling it wrong my whole life! Thanks! :D"
no, you've been spelling it correctly, you've just been using the wrong word :)
they are homonyms, after all!
John wrote: "Shaun wrote: "I would ask what was it you actually expected in this discussion, particularly from people who disagreed with your view? "Not for nothing, but you were a bit confrontational in earl..."
As I stated in an above post, I certainly grant that some of my comments were angrier and more personal than they should have been and I apologize for that.
I will, however, stand by my statements with the opinion that such ideas are false for the reasons I (and others) have given.
Shaun wrote: "John wrote: "Shaun wrote: "As I stated in an above post, I certainly grant that some of my comments were angrier and more personal than they should have been and I apologize for that. I will, however, stand by my statements with the opinion that such ideas are false for the reasons I (and others) have given."
fair enough. However, I'm not the one that has to forgive you, but I appreciate your apology and the understanding it helps bridge toward.
(now THERE'S torturous prose!)
John wrote: "Vardan wrote: "well, moire could be very well used to describe a thread where two opposite flows of conversation intersect and create a third flow, so I vote for letting moire be :)"hehe... fair ..."
thank you John! I do appreciate your support. I have added A.K.'s book to my to-read list and am hoping to get to it very soon.
In the meantime, I do hope you enjoy reading The After/Life at least half as much as I enjoyed writing it and I'm really looking forward to hearing your opinion about it!
And THOSE opinions, Shaun, regarding the social acceptability of critical reviews between authors, are exactly what I was hoping to get out of this thread. Thank you. :)
Vardan wrote: "In the meantime, I do hope you enjoy reading The After/Life at least half as much as I enjoyed writing it and I'm really looking forward to hearing your opinion about it! "..."
might be a while, might not. I am fickle about what order I read next!
John wrote: "Vardan wrote: "In the meantime, I do hope you enjoy reading The After/Life at least half as much as I enjoyed writing it and I'm really looking forward to hearing your opinion about it! "..."
mig..."
reading and order are mutually opposite especially if you are dealing with fiction. Take your time, John, and read it when you feel like it. One thing that could move it up on your list could be (or could be not) the fact that it is actually the first ever post-apocalyptic sci-fi novel by an Armenian author and I am hoping to pave the way for other crazy Armenians like myself who want to write something beyond hystorical fiction or romance that is basically the description of the modern Armenian literature.
P.S. I apologize for straying from the topic :))))
I've come to this topic a bit late, but from my point of view I think I'd rather have a constructively built negative review than no review at all just to spare my feelings. I recently read someone else's thoughts about this, and they pointed out two things which I think are pretty valuable:1) No book is ever going to be liked by everyone who reads it, so if your book has both positive and negative reviews, it boosts its credibility. As long as the positive ones outweigh the negative ones, it shouldn't harm the book on the whole.
2) If the negative review explains why the reviewer didn't like it, those reasons in themselves might make someone else want to read the book. For instance, if the review said 'this Fantasy book is too much like the staple 'young boy goes out on quest to save the world', then someone else might go 'hey, that's exactly the kind of book I was looking for!'
I am a writer, and until I read that blog post, I would have gone with the 'don't say anything if you can't say anything nice' camp. I have now changed my mind - as long as the negative review isn't a personal attack on the writer, and isn't a simple 'I hated this book' without a reason why, I think no one should worry about posting it. Yes, some people might think you arrogant, but you can't please everyone.
Erica wrote: "I've come to this topic a bit late, but from my point of view I think I'd rather have a constructively built negative review than no review at all just to spare my feelings. I recently read someone..."Hi Erica, viable arguments, definitely second them! Although, we should point out here that on the whole many of the reviews we read are subjective to a point that it blunts the facts and arguments and just leaves either joyful raving or baleful cursing :) At the end of the day, all of us enjoy a good round of debating (I will give up my favorite dessert for a decent debate) but the quality of the debate overall and review process should be a subject of improvement for people who want to share their opinion and basically give a grade to someone else's work.
This issue is, of course, now complicated by the fact that Amazon has aquired Goodreads, and it is in Amazon's review policy that authors are not allowed to leave negative reviews of works in the same genre they write in. No word whether that policy will spread.
I never knew that...do you think that is a just policy?
Joining the discussion kind of late ("Hi, everybody!" *shuffles to back of classroom*) but just a curiosity-satisfier; regarding this Amazon policy, where is that posted? That's the first I've heard of it, and while I suppose I can contemplate valid reasons for it - to avoid authors going around starting smear campaigns against their theoretical competition, for one - it also seems to me that it would be more useful to have it open... especially, as was noted earlier in the thread, because someone who writes in a given genre is likely going to be more attuned to the resonance and potential issues than someone who doesn't, and thus catch things others might miss.Plus, I tend to look at it this way: A smear campaign is usually pretty obvious, consisting mostly of attacks on the work, often with little in the way of evidentiary backup. A negative (but honest) review or critique tends to be more reasonable, going from point to point and explaining precisely what the review author had taken issue with and why. Yes, some of it's going to be subjective - just as it would be in a "good" review - but reading is an inherently subjective field anyway. Just my 2 cents.
Kaine wrote: "Joining the discussion kind of late ("Hi, everybody!" *shuffles to back of classroom*) but just a curiosity-satisfier; regarding this Amazon policy, where is that posted? That's the first I've hear..."Two cents accepted :) I do think that the review sphere should be de-regulated to allow adequate expression of opinion and in accordance with the right to the freedom of speech. At the same time, one has to really look into and see the statystics of smear campaigns and how many of those were actually carried out by enbittered authors and how many were just simple cases of trolling.
This conversation has me so intrigued. I invite any of you to message me and I’ll send you a copy of my debut novel,Entrusted,for review. I want honest reviews of my work. I am very well aware I am no literary genius, I feel my strength is making readers “feel” That being said; I know my writing is not for everyone. I’m struggling with writing reviews on other authors because this industry is brutal. I have a certain genera of taste as we all do. I may love a movie and you may hate it. Does that make it a bad movie? Certainly not. But to write a bad review on another authors hard work? I’d rather opt out. I think there is beauty in all creativity. I recently read a novel that was on the best seller list, very dark, not my genera. I opted out of writing a review. I didn’t like the vulgarity of it, but….not my place to judge. Now if a friend asked if I would recommend it? Sure I would share my feelings. But to write a review? Nah, better off to spend that time working on my next novel.
If the reader doesn't like the book why take the time to leave a negative review? And NO negativity never helps anyone. I'm waiting to see the changes Amazon makes to reviews on Goodreads, it should be interesting.
Chelle wrote: "If the reader doesn't like the book why take the time to leave a negative review? And NO negativity never helps anyone. I'm waiting to see the changes Amazon makes to reviews on Goodreads, it shoul..."Eh. I would disagree, but possibly because I may be misinterpreting the word "negative." To me, a 1 or 2 (or even 0) star review isn't inherently negative. It means the reviewer didn't like it, that's all. Negativity, to me, would be "I hate this book, it sucks! It's stupid!" Ditto hostility. But leaving a 1 star review and saying "I didn't like this book; I found it hard to care about the characters, because they seem to be one-dimensional and don't have realistic or plausible reactions to events," that I can get behind. Because then there's a frame of reference that the author can at least attempt to understand, that explains what the issue was.
Sure, it's possible the author WANTED the characters to appear one-dimensional. In that case, the reader just didn't get the message.(And that's okay! Not everyone needs to pull the same concepts, ideas and messages from every book!) In other cases, the author might realize something might need to be adjusted, either in a reprint or just for general knowledge for later works.
Now, if that person hadn't posted that "negative" review, the author might continue traipsing along with no knowledge that their characters might be lacking something, leading to more potentially "broken" individuals, which are never noticed because the only "allowed" reviews are the shining reviews that say they got everything right. On the flip side, readers who may come in looking only for character development and who don't care about (or find it to be a secondary concern) a well-crafted sentence or an elaborate plot can be forewarned that they may not enjoy the book because that's its weak point.
Actually negative (in the "I hate this cuz I can") stream reviews, yes, I agree. Those should probably not be up there. (Though I'd note that reviews in the stripe of "Oh my god, this book is Amazing, I cried the whole time!" without any further explanation are just as detestable to me and should likewise be pulled or verboten.) But not allowing someone to have their opinion and point out the reasons why isn't really helping anyone... in my opinion, anyway. ;) (See what I did there? XD)
Again, just my 2 cents. (That's adding up quickly...)
S. wrote: "I don't mind posting a bad review of a book by an established writer if it reflects my honest opinion, although I usually find something likeable and enjoyable in most books I read. But I struggle ..."I'm with you! I want the reviews of my books to be honest and genuine, and several times I've been put in the position of writing a great review for other people's books that I didn't think were worth it. It's really awkward. I'd rather not write them at all if i have to lie-- especially since they deserve a chance to sell their work-- whether I like it or not!
Brijit wrote: "S. wrote: "I don't mind posting a bad review of a book by an established writer if it reflects my honest opinion, although I usually find something likeable and enjoyable in most books I read. But ..."Yes, I totally agree. There's a big emotional cost to anyone who writes an undeservedly illustrious review. It's far better to say nothing, and fairer to potential readers.
I agree with others on here. We were all readers before we were writers. If we review a book, we aren't doing so through an author's lens. I like to think there are very few people out there vicious enough to tear down someone else's hard work just to give their own story a marginally better chance at success.I recently gave a 3 star review, and that's the lowest I'll ever give a story. If I'm in 2 star territory, it means I didn't finish the book. 1 star would mean I didn't even get more than a couple of chapters in.
The reason I don't give terrible reviews is emotional, admittedly. I browsed some indie books on Amazon, saw a bunch that reviewers had torn apart with 1 star reviews, and I felt awful for the authors--so much that I actually requested copies of their stories.
To date, I haven't received replies. My assumption is that these authors were driven away from Goodreads, or from writing altogether. Which is upsetting. I think if a book is badly edited, I'm honor bound to contact that author and advise them to get a professional editor. If the editing was sound, then I'll assume the book just isn't for me, and I leave it for the proper audience to rate.
Thomas wrote: "I agree with others on here. We were all readers before we were writers. If we review a book, we aren't doing so through an author's lens. I like to think there are very few people out there viciou..."My feeling is that, if I received a barrage of negative reviews, I'd think long and hard about continuing to write for the public. Possibly I'd go back to the drawing board, read many more titles, and try to extract some writing tips from reliable sources.
It seems possible that the person from whom you requested copies is worried that another negative review may be in the offing.
I agree with the idea of being honest while giving reviews. Before I purchase a book I usually go through its reviews, if suppose I read a bunch of great reviews and all 5-star and 4-star ratings, but the book doesn't make much sense to me, I would feel cheated and disappointed. Besides what's the point of the whole reviewing system if it's not done honestly.Though I do make sure that I am not being too harsh while writing my review. The lowest I have given a book is a 2-star rating, but in that I tried to outline all the good aspects of the book too, and then specified the parts that didn't sit well with me!!
A book I don't like can always end up being a favorite to a lot of people.
In case of friends though..I always give great reviews. My way of trying to support them in their attempt, to encourage them and most importantly I feel very proud of them. Good or bad I just like the book, since they wrote it, and I love them..and I am biased. I do tell them though how they can make it better, or what I expect to read in the next book in the series...but it's still always a 5 star rating!!They do tell me that it's okay if I don't like it but well...*shrugs*..I guess I just can't help it!!:D
Ironic that you commented about how reviews should be honest, and then say you give your friends five stars.
Abigail wrote: "Ironic that you commented about how reviews should be honest, and then say you give your friends five stars."that struck me as a little confusing, also.
An author reviewing another author should surely be reviewing as a reader first. An author of, for example, fantasy might read another fantasy book and dislike it. Not for any reason of competition they may simply not enjoy it. A good review may not be good from the point of view of the author in that it doesn't have 5 stars but it is helpful, both for readers looking to find a suitable book and an author if he or she reads it to know what a reader thinks. Honest reviews are valuable and informative.A review, is of course, an opinion and what one person hates another might like. I might be friends with someone but not actually enjoy their book, not because it is rubbish but because it wasn't right for me.
3 star reviews are not bad, they are middle ground and often useful. "This and this were good, but I felt this and this didn't work for me." Every book has its flaws to someone and hopefully every book has its merits.I often read 3 star books, enjoyable but not un-put-downable, or maybe the story is good but the editing or writing style is not fantastic.
I admit to being a bit biased here. I give them a good rating..though in my reviews I mention all my reasons for liking the book and all the ways I think it could have been better. I never put false praise in words. I write a detailed account of all the things I really really like and those that strike me a bit odd. But in the end I always put it in that I enjoyed reading the book which is true.*look shamefacedly* Like I said I just can't help it!!
Alexandra wrote: "3 star reviews are not bad, they are middle ground and often useful. "This and this were good, but I felt this and this didn't work for me." Every book has its flaws to someone and hopefully every ..."I agree to that. Now when i think about it I have read a lot of 3 star books I have really enjoyed!!
Funny... I'm also a writer (Science Fiction); but I don't feel at all uncomfortable giving a Big Name SF writer a bad review (if I think he/she deserves it); nor would I hesitate to say why I didn't like the book. At that level, I think my review is hardly going to hurt the writer, but it might prevent other readers from being disappointed as I was (and yes, I am a writer, but in this context I just think of myself as another reader).I'd feel less comfortable giving a newbie writer a bad review on his/her first novel. I don't want fellow readers to be disappointed; but by the same token, I don't want to discourage another writer who is just getting started. I think I'd probably look for some good things to say about the book, while trying to maybe slip a little constructive criticism into the review.
Looking at it with my writer's hat on, yes... bad reviews hurt; but you can learn something, particularly if a number of reviewers are telling you the same thing. And one bad review among a bunch of good ones is just proof that you can't please everyone.
John wrote: "Funny... I'm also a writer (Science Fiction); but I don't feel at all uncomfortable giving a Big Name SF writer a bad review (if I think he/she deserves it); nor would I hesitate to say why I didn'..."You can't please everyone, because opinion is subjective. Even the greatest writers, as judged by reader popularity and/ or critical acclaim, have scored less than the maximum five stars by some reviewers.
Shaun wrote: "If you feel the comments are turning into personal attacks, then you're missing the whole point in making a thread to have a discussion, and you're proving my point that people will read into whate..."I really enjoyed this rant. Also..if a book is bad..generally I will give it low stars...it has to be really painful for me to give it a bad review on top.
If I really slam a famous author...and he has bujillions of fans....and they all slam my work, just don't feel it's worth the risk.
The only book I've given a one star review was to a book whose readership specifically targeted writers. It was a guide to help marketing, but I found it totally unhelpful, and I wanted to let other potential readers (writers) know about it. On fiction, particularly in the genre I write, I won't post less than a three star, and I also let people know that I'm pretty stingy with my 5 stars as well. I've been asked to review books before and if I know it's going to be a two star I let the writer know that I just can't review their book. I also let them know why, in a nice way. One of them was because I didn't realize the book featured vampires, and I'm sorry, but I'm so freaking sick of vampires these days.
I once worked as a waiter at a fancy restaurant, and - while I can now look back on my experiences there and laugh - at the time it was an absolutely horrible job. Thus, knowing what they go through, I find it difficult to give a waiter a bad tip these days, even when I don't receive service that's quite up to par.In that same frame of mind, I have a hard time giving an author a bad review now that I'm a writer myself, because I know how difficult it is to write in the first place. It is not an easy process, and it can be quite draining in a lot of ways.
Nevertheless, it does seem to me that as long as I give a fair and honest critique my conscience should be clear. Moreover, I feel like I have to start giving out some of those bad reviews (assuming they are merited); otherwise, it may start to look like I just rubberstamp everything with 4 or 5 stars, making readers think I lack discernment.
Nevertheless, it does seem to me that as long as I give a fair and honest critique my conscience should be clear. Moreover, I feel like I have to start giving out some of those bad reviews (assuming they are merited); otherwise, it may start to look like I just rubberstamp everything with 4 or 5 stars, making readers think I lack discernment. ^^^^THIS!
Yep. And accepting said negative reviews.
If we Indies don't start honestly and fairly policing ourselves and stop with the public freak outs when such reviews occur, then we have only ourselves to blame when no one takes our work seriously a year or ten from now.
Jacqueline wrote: "If we Indies don't start honestly and fairly policing ourselves and stop with the public freak outs when such reviews occur, then we have only ourselves to blame when no one takes our work seriously a year or ten from now. ."although I philosophically agree with this sentiment, I'm at a loss logistically of exactly HOW to "police" other indie writers who freak out.
John wrote: "Jacqueline wrote: "If we Indies don't start honestly and fairly policing ourselves and stop with the public freak outs when such reviews occur, then we have only ourselves to blame when no one take..."*applause*
Linda wrote: "John wrote: "although I philosophically agree with this sentiment, I'm at a loss logistically of exactly HOW to "police" other indie writers who freak out...."Maybe by not defending them. Maybe ..."
excuse me but your post seems to be a little "freak out" on its own. Should I police you? :)
I edited to add that I checked out some of your books, the reviews thereof and your blog. I even read the "take a look" preview of the beginning of one of your books. I'm not a romance reader normally, so it's not my genre.
and far be it from me to offer advice. I've only written one book compared your half a dozen or so. But every once in a while, I'd say take your mission to write a little less seriously, and have a little fun with the whole process.
Life is short. Hell, I even invited people to give me a low rating. How dopey am I? LOL.
Thanks, John and T.K.I've made a promise this year to read and review honestly at least one Indie author a month. I've given out two 2 stars so far and two 3 stars. I've written very thorough, honest and often blunt reviews. I try very hard to be pleasant and respectful during my reviews, and I've even gained a new author friend through one. I truly believe in constructive criticism not destructive criticsim, and I believe we Indies can provide a valuable service to one another and to readers by creating a professional structure of support through positive reinforcement.
IMO, the authors who freak out should just be ignored. Flatly, blatantly ignored to the point of being ostracized and shunned. I've seen the back and forth. I've seen the behavior of both sides and the name calling and the ranting and raving. Bad behavior only begets more bad behavior. And stress, migraines and bad stomachs. How can anyone being enjoying this? How can an author be in a positive writing mindset during these episodes? Just reading some of them makes me stressed out. I can't imagine wanting to participate. Yuck!
When someone freaks out about a bad review on the internet if everyone took a deep breath and just ignored the immature moron, then where would it go? If they continued to post and no one responded they would only make themselves look dumber. Eventually they would shut up.
As far as their poor writing... readers aren't stupid. Bad books will find their non-audiences just fine. Bad books will flounder and die. We don't have to help them.
Remember, any PR is good PR. The more we rant and rave about the bad ones, the more PR they receive. How about we spend all that time on finding good books and calm, rational authors who play fair with each other in the sand box?
How about setting the right example for the moron authors to follow? Mabye, just maybe they'll get the message. If they don't, then that's their problem.
When I say policing ourselves, I mean reading to review each other in a positive, concrit manner. I mean privately messaging each other when one crosses a line to say what they're doing wrong. I've messaged a new author who was spamming the boards back to back. Just a friendly hint that she might not want to do that. She thanked me and stopped. I didn't rant at her or publicly embarrass her, just helped her out. Is that so difficult? She hasn't repeated the mistake.
Linda wrote: "I'll certainly take you less seriously."There ya go! that's the spirit!
Jacqueline wrote: "Thanks, John and T.K.I've made a promise this year to read and review honestly at least one Indie author a month. I've given out two 2 stars so far and two 3 stars. I've written very thorough, ho..."
I think you have some practical, reasonable advice, there.
And to answer your question, yes, I absolutely have seen authors get turned on for that same thing.
I would also like to point out that at no point in this thread or in my life has either the sentence nor the (extremely annoying) sentiment "Only give me good reviews cut me slack I didn't have a big six!" left my mouth or crossed my mind. This thread originally had absolutely nothing to do with me being able to take critique, and it's that change of topic toward one more directly aimed critically at, not my writing, but me, personally, as a human, that I don't understand in this discussion.