Three laws of internet communication.

[Art, Stay home, stay safe.]

Ed wrote: "..the author pulled it from publication because some advance reader spread the idea on the internet that it is racist..."

That is similar to the review I originally had quarell with.

In my opinion while someone has the freedom to exercise their right to post a ridiculous review, then another person may exercise the right to ridicule that review. However when it turns personal and offensive there should be no tolerance shown towards the offender.

Ed wrote: "There is a recent article on io9 by Charlie Jane Anders where she says, in effect, we don't need more "Strong Female Protagonists", we need more "Complicated Female Characters". I fully agree

Amen to that.

[Antti]

Ed: couldn't agree more. When people get vocally offended, people will be more careful. To a certain point that is a good thing, since then people will not say blatantly offensive things so easily, but I feel like we're well past that point already. Nowadays some folks seem to get a bit too easily offended. I even think that some people intentionally try to find fault in books, so they can get to act as Shining Knights, who will smite evil wherever they find it, or whatever.

The problem is, if someone is vocal enough, they can in worst care start an internet mob. That can have really bad consequences for the target. I don't blame any authors who feel they are walking on eggshells right now. And I'm afraid it *will* lead to more boring books - in fact, I kinda feel it already has.

[Nick]

Art wrote: "In my opinion while someone has the freedom to exercise their right to post a ridiculous review, then another person may exercise the right to ridicule that review.."

The problem is that what counts as 'a ridiculous review' is subjective. If you say 'let's all ridicule things we find ridiculous' there's a lot of nasty trolls and psychopaths out there who will take it as permission to ridicule the vulnerable. Lots of political zealots who will take it as permission to start a flame war.

One reason why I like goodreads better than other social media like tumblr or twitter is that, generally, there's a culture of civility here.
That's why I think ridiculing a friend for a bad review is fine because you've got some good-will built up between you. Jumping on a stranger and opening with ridicule is never helpful. It won't change their mind, it will just convince them that everyone who opposes them is an asshole and they're the good guy.
If you want to change someone's mind then polite and respectful dialogue is the way to go. Attack them, and they'll just get defensive.

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

I just want to add that I second what Ed and Nick said. re Antti's remark about shining knights, I also sometimes got similar impression.

[Kateblue, 2nd star to the right and straight on til morning]

well, we shall see if anyone jumps all over me for the review I am about to post for The Only Harmless Great Thing

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

Kateblue wrote: "well, we shall see if anyone jumps all over me for the review I am about to post for The Only Harmless Great Thing"

I have to read it, for it was free from Tor.com and is eligible as a novelette

[Kateblue, 2nd star to the right and straight on til morning]

Go for it. Let me know. We will probably disagree. Fortunately, according to one of the GR reviews, it's only a hundred pages

It seemed interminable to me!

[Kateblue, 2nd star to the right and straight on til morning]

Also, I thought it was a novella, though you think it's a novelette (I believe you.) It's on the GR novella list, though. I'm glad it was really short.

[Art, Stay home, stay safe.]

Nick wrote: "If you say 'let's all ridicule things we find ridiculous' there's a lot of nasty trolls and psychopaths out there who will take it as permission to ridicule the vulnerable"

Now let's not exaggerate it there. You cannot really believe that that remark promotes anything of the sort.
In a year that I've posted on Goodreads I haven't attacked anyone and in my 1k posts I have been reasonably respectful towards everyone. Nor in fact I intend to attack anyone or tolerate anyone doing it within this group.

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

Kateblue wrote: "Also, I thought it was a novella, though you think it's a novelette (I believe you.) It's on the GR novella list, though. I'm glad it was really short."

I use this resource because Nebula and Hugo use the same breakdown https://www.sfwa.org/forum/reading/3-...

it is listed as a novelette

[Ed]

Art wrote: "In a year that I've posted on Goodreads I haven't attacked anyone and in my 1k posts I have been reasonably respectful towards everyone. Nor in fact I intend to attack anyone or tolerate anyone doing it within this group."

Well, that is subjective isn't it?

In our group discussion of 2001 I felt uneasy when you said this about my offhand comment:

Alright, seems like leaving previous post (whatever its meaning was) unchallenged was a mistake of its own.

It wasn't that what you said was an attack, but that it sounded like you were getting ready for an attack. Since I don't know you, and the internet has some awful people on it, I wasn't sure what was coming next. Luckily you turned out to not be a flaming troll and all is good.

Peace, Love, and Chocolate Chip Cookies!

[Ed]

For reference, here is the article on io9 I referenced about complicated female characters.

[Nick]

Art wrote: "In a year that I've posted on Goodreads I haven't attacked anyone and in my 1k posts I have been reasonably respectful towards everyone. Nor in fact I intend to attack anyone or tolerate anyone doing it within this group."

Oh sure, I wasn't meaning to have a dig at you personally at all!

I was thinking of it more as a matter of principle - what counts as ridiculous is very subjective. One person thinks they've made a good point which has been rudely attacked - another person thinks they've made a silly point which has been deservedly laughed at.

It's a transitive verb, isn't it:

I joke
You mock
He attacks

[Oleksandr, a.k.a. Acorn]

Nick wrote: "It's a transitive verb, isn't it:

I joke
You mock
He attacks "

Here is Russell Conjugation in action :) more here: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/...

[Nick]

Oleksandr wrote: "Here is Russell Conjugation in action"

Yes, that's what I meant! 😂

[Nick]

Ed wrote: "For reference, here is the article on io9 I referenced about complicated female characters."

Ed, it's an interesting article! I think I agree with it in general, but funnily enough, SF is the one genre where it bothers me less. After all, Heinlein's men were as much card-board cut-outs as his women. I like his stories because they're so often about people who are already fully-matured and competent doing something. The story is about what they do, not who they are or how they become.

[Cynthia]

Thanks, Oleksandr. I agree with the article, have noticed many examples in real life over the last 10 years or so, and I've bookmarked that website... never encountered it before now.

[Ed]

Nick wrote: "[Heinlein's stories are] about what they do, not who they are or how they become."

And that's fine, too. Sometimes I want stories about character development. Sometimes I want stories about things happening. I crave variety.

[Nick]

Ed wrote: "I crave variety."

Amen to that!

[Cynthia]

I also crave variety... but I want it all to be very well-written.

[Art, Stay home, stay safe.]

Nick wrote: "Oh sure, I wasn't meaning to have a dig at you personally at all!"

My apologies, it sounded much more defensive than what I intended it to be. I get that it wasn't a jab at me, my point was that it is also a matter of principle for someone to be able to post a sarcastic flaming review or a comment without people going ballistic over it as long as it is not made just to be offensive.

I see these days that there are too many potentially interesting people get offended too easily, shutting down whatever discussion there could ensue just because someone said something they believe to be offensive. I do not promote mocking, snarking, baiting or pointless arguing on the net, those things are definitely negative when used to attack anyone on a personal level. But neither I suggest those things to be banned. Just look at the state of stand-up comedy and what the overzealous campus self-policing brought us.

As for opinions and their similarities with human organs, you know how the quote goes, everyone has one. Not every opinion matters, only the ability to express them does.

As for the subjectivity, the same goes for being offended. Some people get offended for the silliest of things, some get offended just at the thought of possibility of getting offended. In my years of my traveling across the globe I've learned that people of various cultures get offended at things you and me would never even think twice of. Basic common sense and respect towards fellow men however is pretty much universal.

[Nick]

Art wrote: "I see these days that there are too many potentially interesting people get offended too easily, shutting down whatever discussion there could ensue just because someone said something they believe to be offensive."

I absolutely agree with this.

I think the internet is a uniquely bad medium for encouraging a sort of seige mentality in people. I've noticed that a lot of people who were relaxed and friendly online a decade ago are now much more likely to take offence. I think its because there are a lot of trolls and bullies out there. People get bullied, it makes them senstive. They get mobbed, it makes them feel outnumbered. They start noticing patterns of behaviour in their 'enemies'.

Then some innocent comes along and makes a simple joke or uses a particular word and the 'victim' is highly offended, not because the joke is objectively offensive, but because it's the sort of joke 'One of Them' would make, and 'They' are hateful, therefore the joke is Hateful because of the connotations, and the joker is 'One of Them'.

And there's only one way to respond to Those People: blocked and reported.