Freshman Philosophy Meets FurrySmut Wank!
Do any of you remember Klisoura of intellectual property MEMIC PHYLOGENY fame?

Well, Klisoura wrote a story, posted over on Yiffstar called Sympathy for the Devil, which I read and decided that I liked, and then saw to my horror who had written it.

That's besides the point, though. The point is that on the forums, readers sing endless, endless, endless praise about the story in question, for Klisoura walks on high (but not quite in a 'Creatrix' way, which is good).

Then, Vaccinated shows up, and gives the story actual critique. Klisoura explodes into an Old Faithful of Wank. Results are as follows.



Vaccinated: Well, I read it.

Now, while I can't fault your language (you demonstrate an excellent application of the tools at hand in your writing style, that was a pleasure. Some of your phrasing was a joy to read) I really do feel that the story itself, well, put it this way, halfway through, I was thinking "There's going to be a chick that he'll fall in love with and have to kill."

Was I right? Unfortunately, I was right on the mark. Wherein, for me, lay the problem, it just came across as a terribly convoluted, glib plot, there's only so far you could have taken it.

The gems of this story were in individual paragraphs and the characterisation you put to use (even though I'd predicted it, I still wasn't happy when Katherine (it was Katherine, wasn't it?) got executed).

Overall, I didn't actually rate this story, because any rating I gave would have been unfair. What you've got here in my opinion is a terrible core plot, but you've hammered it into shape fantastically, as I say, linguistically you demonstrate a caucophony of skills, but nevertheless, the foundations were never strong enough to support itself inherently.

Great writing, shame about the plot.

Klisoura: I've actually sort of been putting off writing a response until I recieved some real criticism, which surprisingly enough comes from Vaccinated--that's sort of what I expecting. Again, surprisingly enough.

First off I'm glad that it's generally been well-recieved; my concerns when I first wrote it were that people would find the characters unsympathetic and the plot contrived, and so forth, which does not generally seem to be the case. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Bahumat, you and Kit_Fox note that the furriness doesn't really add much to the story, and that's true--it's my fault; I'm not good at that sort of writing. The anthropomorphisation is a tool; but it's not one that I really feel comfortable expanding my use of, since I don't have a real great grasp of it. Although conversely, I'd feel sort of strange rewriting it as a human-only story, notwithstanding that it could probably fairly easily be converted that way.

Now, Vacc--whom I admit I was sort of waiting for:

You'll permit me a bit of pretension, I hope, since you completely missed the point of the story. As you correctly surmised, there aren't really any plot twists. It's preordained from the beginning. The plot is the backdrop to the development of the central character (I avoid the term protagonist in this case), not an essential element.

We already know that he has doubts about what he does, and that he's told himself that in order to keep functioning he has to submerge them, since calling into question his essential faith that 'the system works' would logically call into question the job he does, which is a job very few people would probably want. At the beginning he says he sees it as a necessity, if not enjoyable.

There are really only three characters; and only two of them really matter, Katherine--yes, congratulations, you remembered her name right--and André. Even Katherine is ancillary, although she functions as a tool to question his faith in the system and, by extension, his own self.

When we meet Katherine the fact that she's going to die is unavoidable, and the fact that he's going to be one of the people responsible for her death follows logically simply because it's an obvious literary technique. But that doesn't matter: the interplay between the two characters throughout is auxilliary, between the point at which they meet and the point at which the final shots are fired.

Whether or not she is guilty or not is deliberately left open--André says as much as the story closes. That's part of the dilemma he faces. His faith that what he does is fundamentally correct is important--he's not a hero, just an average person who can't always explain the way things work, or even the way that they're supposed to work. The central plot issue, if there is one, is this:

He certainly feels guilty about what he did, because he was in love with her, and he probably doesn't know to what degree that obscures his perception of her. Because of what he does, though, he doesn't feel comfortable being guilty if her conviction was just--since the system is objective, he would be compelled to feel guilty about everyone, which he doesn't, quite. He's put in the paradoxical situation of hoping that the system failed, because that legitimates his guilt. He can accept the system failing a little more than he can accept that his feelings were in error.

The plot serves to develop the characters to the point where André's problem is not an abstraction. I intended for his character to be somewhat sympathetic--he's really in a bad situation, philosophically--and if I failed at that, you're right, all the stylistic elegance in the world doesn't save it. And perhaps I did fail.

But put another way, while I understand the criticism you've put forth, it's like complaining that Titanic's plot sucked because you knew in advance the boat would sink. Of course it sinks; that's not the point.

When offering a critique, I do exactly that. I'm sure you'd agree that there's nothing to be gained but frustration for a writer when praise is ubiquitous? I shouldn't think saying someone "missing the point" is a positive reaction for a writer to give, interpretation is often stronger than intention. The satire was glaring, the philosophy obvious, yet my given critique still stands, point "missed" or not. Close reading's a bitch, hmm?

Maybe that's all I'll say, when all I have to offer is opinion, well, what's the point in entering a debate over the subjectivity of said opinion?

Vaccinated wrote:

When offering a critique, I do exactly that. I'm sure you'd agree that there's nothing to be gained but frustration for a writer when praise is ubiquitous?


Yes, obviously; and I said as much, sir.

Vaccinated wrote:
interpretation is often stronger than intention


A point granted freely.

Vaccinated wrote:
yet my given critique still stands, point "missed" or not.


Not really. You failed to note three other things which you might have:

1. The rhyme scheme is atrocious,
2. My illustration plates were, shall we say, underwhelming
3. The near-apotheosis of secondary characters through Biblical metaphor demonstrates a poor understanding of the Old Testament on my part.

Oh, and while writing the introduction in proto-Indo-European languages was a nice concept, my Sanskrit really sucks--I swear, the ablative case kills me every time.

Your defence of your criticism--which, believe it or not, I do welcome--boils down to you saying that you chose to interpret the story in a certain way and were disappointed in that interpretation. Fine; I've been sentenced to enough courses with heavy focus on literary analysis to know the inherent value that lies in reading into stories what the author didn't intend--it's popular in America, for instance, to see L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a parable of populism, the French Revolution, what have you.

On the other hand, my statement is also perfectly valid. I believe I'm entitled to point out that while you're free to interpret as you like, it's a half-assed argument to take that to the next step and reify that interpretation simply by having it. You are in fact quite free to argue that the depiction of the trans-dimensional space beings consuming Mercutio's body in Romeo and Juliet was poorly thought-through and lessed your appreciation of the story; conversely however I think Shakespeare would be free to point out that your antipathy is directed at a nonexistent problem. The application to the present situation is this: the plot in my story is predictable, and maybe even rather weak. Since it's at best a secondary element, however, and possibly not even that I do not feel I have overstepped my authority in noting that your apparent distaste for it is somewhat misplaced in context, given that as a whole it's next to irrelevant.

Look, sir. To be very blunt when I posted this story I waited with bated breath for you to say something, because you're well-respected here--and for an excellent reason. You're a superb author and an honest, intellectual literary critic, and I'm sure most people here would agree with me. I knew that if you read it you would have some sort of criticism, which is as you most astutely note the most helpful thing an author can get.

You're still wrong.

You said, quote, 'What you've got here in my opinion is a terrible core plot.' Although you might disagree, I stand by my statement that the fact that you --as far as I can tell from what you've said--missed the actual core plot makes this opinion at best academic. You can't magically make your critique meaningful by saying that since you successfully isolated the 'plot' you wanted to see, it's a valid thing to say because it's subjective and your opinion. That's a non-starter.

But I suppose I may have phrased my original response poorly, so let me rewrite it:

Your criticism of a secondary and unimportant literary element in a story where it was largely a given that said element would be understressed and was largely auxilliary to begin with anyway was spot on; congratulations.

Your noting that my devaluing of this element is something you apparently dislike is certainly subjective, as you note, and yours entirely to hold without regret.

It's also quite possibly the least constructive criticism I've ever recieved, aside from the person who once gave an oratory I presented a failing grade because she didn't like the way I walked, and I don't feel I was wrong in believing that she missed the point as well. Thus the fact that I responded to it negatively.

Criticism is a wonderful thing; artists would be lost without it. Randomly picking up on unimportant things is criticism, certainly, but neither useful nor particularly clever on your part. I'm not looking for adulation, Vaccinated--that would be foolish and unwarranted. But to be honest, sir--something I've gathered you value--I do have a problem with what you say because in every way that matters to an artist your criticism is worthless. It's worthless because it's useless. It's worthless because it doesn't help me to improve. I can't do anything with it. The point of criticism here especially is to help people, and yours doesn't, frankly, although I know you meant it to, because you were disappointed by something that wasn't there to begin with. You were disappointed by something you invented and you gave meaning to, not I.

You missed the point.

"Regard all art critics as useless and dangerous" ~ Manifesto Of The Futurists

Maybe I'll just say opinion then?

I'm just surprised that you're willing to step out and bluntly call a reader "wrong". Everything else is just interpretation/intention, but Christ, I'd never call a reader "wrong", no matter what they had to say about my stories, whether that range from "dis story sukked" to a detailed criticism.

A worthless opinion then? I've yet to have one of those, be it "dis story sukked" or a detailed critique.

Now to stop playing the baited hypocrite and actually live up to my earlier promise.

Sir, it's your choice to 'stop playing the baited hypocrite.' You've made some vague statement about not wanting to go off-topic and I don't see the risk of that here; but that's your prerogative. I don't consider it unfair; if you think it would be, fine, but it's not my call there.

I said that you were wrong because you are demonstrably so on at least one count. You have apparently misidentified a 'core plot' (your words) that I did not write, the central thesis of your first post. The story lacks a core or overriding plot. It's a character study, and whatever plots there are consist entirely in the narration. I'll admit very freely, that I'm not a philosopher and I'm not well-versed in literary criticism. I'm a bear of very little brain; but from where I sit, it seems highly disingenuous for you to hold to the idea that you're not wrong even after I have said now three times that you've read into the story something I didn't write. Perhaps that's just not the way art critics work these days.

If that wasn't your intent and I'm misinterpreting you, fine. I can honestly say that I'd love to hear you expound on your criticism, which would be helpful and productive. You haven't. Instead you've wandered off on philosophical bents about how appropriate it is for me to be questioning your interpretation. That's also your prerogative.

I'm afraid however that as it stands I can't see what you've said as a matter of opinion. You're not discussing stylistic elements or my poor choice of adverbs. You identified as core something which is not, in my own words. This to my way of thinking is as wrong as if you said that my first name is Ivan, when it is Alex. I think it's highly questionable to persist in calling this a matter of 'interpretation/intention.' The first letter of the actual story is a capital 'N.' It is not a Q and no, I really don't think you're free to interpret it that way. If you said that the first letter was 'Q,' I would say that you were wrong. Whether you personally would dare to call a reader wrong or not is irrelevant.

And I didn't say that your opinion was worthless. Don't put words in my mouth. I said your criticism was worthless and I outlined very, very carefully why it was so. It doesn't help me to improve anything, since you've selected for your criticism an element that didn't really matter to the story. It's not something I can take and use to make my writing better, since the basic premise of your criticism is an interpretation of my work that I have explicitly repudiated multiple times. A worthless opinion? No. Hell, a worthless comment? No. If I were compiling a list of things you've said it would be just as valuable as anything else, I suppose. But as criticism it means very, very little.

I've responded to what you've said perhaps more cooly than you think is appropriate. This isn't because I dislike you, or because I abhor criticism. It's because your critique--your word--is based on an interpretation of my story that lacks a basis, so far as I am concerned, having written the damn thing, and I explained this to you. In terms of criticism, then, yes I do believe that it is less than constructive. It leaves me stranded. Rather than defend what you've said, or expound on it, or make it clear what you meant so that I don't just keep sniping at you, however, you then decided that it was an opinion instead.

Again, that's fine. But, sir, while I respect you I don't believe I'm obliged to give your opinion the same weight, and I can't even adopt it as criticism, since it apparently isn't anymore and even when it was I could see it having little applicable bearing on my writing. Wherefore it's a nice opinion, in a 'Vaccinated's Greatest Hits' sort of way, and it's a perfectly valid comment for you to make note of your interpretation. It's not, though, one I have to agree with, and I'm not even certain what rules of literary decorum go so far as to say that I should take it at face value. Perhaps you could explain?

I mean, what am I supposed to do? Take everything that everyone says, smile politely and nod? When your complaint is that in your opinion I didn't conjugate my Tuvaluan properly, am I not allowed to call you on the fact that the story was written in English? I believe you deserved a response, because I believed that your critique was made after an erroneous conclusion you drew as to what was and was not a 'core plot.' Perhaps I should have kept quiet. Perhaps I should have thanked you kindly, and then discarded what you said without a second thought. I did not do this, however.

I threw this story out into the world. I made that choice. I was looking for criticism; I was looking for a response. I have no problem with either. I've told you that you missed the point, because you did. I know what the point is, because I wrote the story. In missing the point you wrote a thoughtful criticism which I said lacked much relevance, given that the plot was not core and was in fact secondary. In my second response I clarified, and said it was useless in terms of being helpful. Your response has been to imply that I am obliged to concede your interpretation, and that even to some degree I'm wronging you or behaving inappropriately by failing to do so. I disagree.

More and more I'm getting the terrible feeling that we're both misinterpreting each other.


Alright, here's everything put down as simply as possible. My concern was simply this, that you're ready to call a reader "wrong" for finding something in your story that wasn't there in the first place. Fair enough, but I've had that, and I wouldn't say that someone was wrong (although admittedly, I'd correct their position by telling them that it wasn't my intention).

Looking back to my first post after reading the story, I applauded your characterisation, that should certainly be a boon to you.

However, I still can't, personally speaking, feel entirely comfortable with the idea of the plot being so insignificant. I'm thinking of the plot in a holistic sense, in that it's not just the "This happens, that happened, then this happened and this happened the end" aspect of the story, I'm saying that the plot is what is the driving force that actually makes the story, in that it wouldn't be a story without the plot. Which is, essentially, where my gripe originally came from here, I just didn't value the "sequence of events" that occurs (that seems contradictory, but I'll come back to that) in the story.

To expand and expoud on my earlier statements, after that little exposition, it wasn't the characters, or the language that concerned me, it was the situation. Now, you had to, obviously, give them situation in which to react for a character study, but couldn't you agree in saying that the "sequence of events" may have been less...well, I suppose allusionary would be the appropriate word...to the central plot (which, in the terms I've mentioned, would include character development/study). Crucially, one could have a full character study without any sequence of events at all, of course this would be dreadfully Joycian, and in my personal opinion, better avoided in the post-post-modern era of writing.

I suppose then that, with all things, it comes down to a matter of personal taste. The balence between internal and external in this piece was definitely weighted too heavily to the internal for my likings. Hence my consideration about the "sequence of events".

Hmm. I don't know if I can say much more about that.

Hopefully that clears up the situation somewhat, I've done my best to make my point as clear as possible here. I haven't been alluding to something you didn't write at all, which I think is where the misunderstanding is coming from, we've been working on different premises as far as the "sequence of events" idea goes.

Still, I'm horribly aware that this post is based on a single reading of the story, not exactly the most perfect basis to go into a full critical debate of any text I know, which just opens me to more flaws in my statements.

No more rambling on, I'll just reiterate that I hope that this clears things up a little between us.

Come now. There's absolutely no need to be so reasonable about the whole thing.

I can see where you're coming from, for the record, with your first concern--that I'm, as you say, ready to call a reader "wrong." For my part I was blunt, and as I said a little pretentious; on the other hand in my defence I'll note that I viewed your position as beyond interpretation, out into the realm of error. I still do, personally; though I'll try to be a tad more tactful.

Stylistically, I believe we may simply be at odds. It's a general personal belief of mine is that a story with no plot or a poorly-constructed situation but well-developed characterisation is infinitely preferable to the converse; and consequently I write in a way that puts a much greater emphasis on characters.

By extension the stories I write tend to destress situation / 'plot' to a degree that I consider it somewhat ancillary; as I said. For my purposes it's not a whole lot different from, say, punctuation--in some degree obviously necessary, but not the primary focus. This story happens to be the first I've submitted almost entirely because it had any semblance of cohesion that wasn't character-driven. On my hard drive are stories that boil down to little beyond character exposition; in one case seven hundred pages of at best a half-plot, and maybe not even that.

It's a choice on my part. I suppose that may not have been obvious. To me your criticism--in addition to being, so far as I was concerned, a little like complaining that Dumas's writing is 'too French'--betrayed a marked misunderstanding of the intent of the story. Also it seemed like you were isolating an element and noting your distaste for it when it struck me as being terribly irrelevant. I'm still not exactly sure what your problem was with the sequence of events, because as you note from my point of view it seemed like you were going on about something that I had almost deliberately destressed.

But no, that does clear things up a bit. Thanks.


I love when people go out of their way to quote Already Accepted Smart People (tm), and then don't even try to connect them to the point that they're attempting to make...