TidBITS, a site which bills itself as presenting the highlights of coverage of Apple products including their iBooks, hosts a mildly amusing and, actually, not particularly negative review of what seems to be a self-published mystery novel called Venice Under Glass, by one Stephan J Harper.

The review includes some comments on the author's use (or lack thereof) of the interactive features available to iBook authors, which become relevant very shortly later.

Now you could be forgiven for thinking that there the matter would rest, but this... is... FANDOM WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK!

*cough* Sorry, sorry, had to get that out of my system. Old meme, won't happen again.

The said Stephan J Harper shows up in the very first comment, and proceeds to go ABSOLUTELY RAVING BATSHIT.

For three-hundred and eight comments, and counting.

(He doesn't even bother to say 'First post!')

A few highlights, in no particular order:
- Possible sockpuppetry (including what I strongly suspect is the author reviewing his own work under a false name)
- Winnie the Pooh jokes
- The author comparing himself to Keats and Fitzgerald
- And accusations of plagiarism, oh my!

There's even a whole thread of haiku. This one's my favourite.

As of posting, he's still going -- oh, and did I mention?

The cast of Stephan J Harper's magnum opus, the epic masterpiece of high literature that he claims to have been working on since 1997... are cuddly teddy bears. Every single one of them.

Feel Stephan J Harper's tiny ursine fury, folks.

Feel it.




Bonus: the Wankee claims to be nearly sixty-four years old.

...Again.

Poor, misunderstood, editorless vampire author Anne Rice (yes, I am going to take this opportunity to take a stroll through the memory lane of Anne Rice's batshittery) is once again demonstrating a skin of solid tissue paper.

According to The Guardian newspaper good ol' Rice Whine has signed a Change.org petition to convince Amazon to prohibit anonymous reviews because, the petition says:

"People have found ways to exploit this flaw in the system and are using it to bully, harass, and generally make life miserable for certain authors on Amazon. These people are able to create multiple accounts and then use those accounts to viciously attack and go after any author or person that they feel doesn’t belong on Amazon or who shouldn’t have published a book, made a comment on a forum post, etc."

Well, yes. I'm quite prepared to accept that people have been using the Amazon comments to troll their authors of choice (apparently Charlaine Harris has had death threats, which I feel suggests the True Blood fandom deserves some investigation over at unfunny_fandom)... the problem is that Anne, of course, has form in the Department of Kind Of Maybe Overreacting A Tinsy-Winsy Bit.

Referring to an (I quote) "anti-author gangster bully culture" when interviewed by the Grauniad doesn't really help disprove that.

And hey, check out the links on this Time article - we got spotted!

[This report cheerfully cribbed, albeit rewritten, from aforementioned Time article. Sep made me do it.]

BONUS PROTO-WANK: She's bringing back Lestat, guys! And throwing some rather side-eye-worthy shade at Twilight while she's at it:

Rice [...] has previously spoken dismissively of the vampires dreamed up by Stephenie Meyer for Twilight, saying she "feel[s] sorry for vampires that sparkle in the sun", and that Lestat "would never hurt immortals who choose to spend eternity going to high school over and over again in a small town – any more than they would hurt the physically disabled or the mentally challenged".

Stock up on popcorn for October, folks!

Thanks to an anon for this.

Anne Rice starts an Amazon forum thread on how to write better fiction reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/fiction/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1X9OILUVOYVZ7&cdThread=Tx3SETGL9XAMJT5

As anyone familiar with Anne Rice would be shocked to hear, it goes downhill rapidly. Rice minimods the thread and scolds people for going off-topic, while straying farther and farther off-topic herself. The fun starts on page four:

The Amazon system, wonderful as it is, is ripe for abuse by the mob when they want to go after an
author. Charlane Harris comes to mind as the best recent example.
Disgruntled Sookie Stackhouse fans on the site for the last novel in the series have essentially ganged up on some positive reviewers. For a long time they "neg voted" in masse any good review.
And you're right, the focus shifts to the author, with piles of personal insults.
I infer from all this that these negative fans have found that it is just as much fun to attack an author and try to destroy a publication as it is to become a fan of a series in the first place.
Of course they cannot bring down Charlane Harris or her books, but I do think they want to ruin the experience for her and others.

Around page 59, Anne is caught trashing commenters from the review thread in another subforum:

One thing is clear to me: these Amazon careerist predatory reviewers are HIGHLY sensitive to criticism themselves. Talk about thin skin! One reason they vilify and ridicule any author who dares to respond to a review is that they simply can't take any kind of response themselves. They can't handle it. That's why they struggle for supremacy in such a situation with the endless lecturing to the author not to dare to respond. Some of them are downright scared to death of criticism.
They've picked their bully neg reviewer role because they assumed they'd be immune to criticism and they are fit to be tied when it doesn't work for them.

She explains herself:

This Forum is not about that topic.
I realize you're determined to derail this Forum.
You've been trying for days to take a positive discussion and make it negative.

Does appealing to you as a decent human being have any effect whatsoever?

Can't you understand that there are different Forums on Amazon for different purposes?
Can't you see that?
Can't you understand why some one in a "Meet the Authors" Forum might address issues
of importance to authors that can't or shouldn't be addressed here?

What is it about this that you find so difficult to understand?

Everyone understands perfectly, backs off, and has a group hug while singing a rousing round of "For She's a Jolly Good Fellow," and all is joy and sunshine in the Amazon forums forever more.

When we last left out heroine she was leafing some thorny mahogany pickle to her partner-in-crime to go to her big movie premiere.

Well the first of the Mortal Instrument movies is out, ladies and gents!

While not doing terribly bad (Sony had nothing to lose apparently), it didn't exactly shine either taking in only $9 million through the weekend and $14 million at the moment.

So Cassie Claire, er, Clare, has had to do a wee bit of backpedaling.
Covered here but the important tweets are at the bottom.

You see, she didn't really have any control over the film and so if it bombs, it's the movie producer's fault. Nope, zero input on the whole dealio.

Will there be a sequel, given the budget versus the income? Will it matter? Who knows. Expect to see the Mortal Instruments t-shirts next month at your local Hot Topic and see Cassie Clare in her next adventure, Dancing With Wool!

(It could be wood again. Or Woof? Woozie? Dancing With Who?)

With a fanbase like Homestuck's, the bar is set pretty high for "baffling" things to say about the comic, but one Timothy Sexton catches creator Andrew Hussie's eye with his review/article/wordpile on Yahoo Movies that clears that bar easily:

"If you remain unaware of Homestuck as an internet phenomenon, then you either don't kids or aren't aware of this here thing called the internets. As George W. Bush liked to refer (and probably still refer) to it. Homestuck is one day going to become a movie of some sort. Comedy is hard. Death is easy. That makes Homestuck a juggler."

You can read the full thing here. You can't read it in its original form on Yahoo anymore, though, because it was removed. According to Timothy Sexton, Homestuck fans got it taken down because it was too intelligent for them and they were jealous, or something. We know this because he says so in his follow-up article, entitled "Homestuck Fans: Not Quite as Hip and Intellectually Gifted as They Think."

"Don't feed the troll? What does that mean?" -dozens of Homestuck fans.

Hussie, for his part, finds the entire thing hilarious.

(Thank you to a mousey at wank_report! I have c/p your commentary verbatim, only adding links.)

Ten days ago, author FelicityGS posted "There's Nothing There" a Loki/Steve Rogers fic, and lo, there was squee...for three comments. [ETA: Added correct link, because I'm apparently a dumbass before coffee.]

Until, that is, the following mild concrit is posted by "J":

"Almost all of the parenthesis and several commas were unnecessary. If a sentence goes on for more than two lines, it should probably be broken up into two or more sentences. You might want to get a beta who is really good with grammar/punctuation. Otherwise, great story. Very cute and well thought out. (:"

Felicity GS does Not Take It Well, and in a series of comments compares her work to that great author "Nabakov", and claims her "style" trumps such things as "proper grammar" and "readability", closing with this flourish:

But do me a fucking favour:

don't fucking tell me I need a fucking goddamn beta who knows grammar really fucking well and that I could get rid of all those fucking parens and had too many fucking commas because I did not use any of those fucking lightly and you are a fucking douche.

Because if the above didn't give it away?

I know fucking grammar. I know style. I am comfortable in my style, I have given thought to my style, and I know the difference between grammar and style. I write fanfiction as a labour of love and to share stories, to hone my craft and to practice what I have been doing since I could hold a pen.

Fuck.

You.

<3

Her commenters are rather boggled, except for an anon who immediately starts rending garments in response to someone leaving a critique on - GASP! - a Yuletide fic:

But you're probably also someone who tells their granny the Christmas socks scratch and the cookies are dusty instead of doing the right thing. What a miserable bunch of hypocrites and nasty bitches claimed Yuletide this year!

Unfortunately, the fic has nothing whatsoever to do with Yuletide, and fellow anons take him/her/zie/them to task for the mistake:

Gift exchange? Yuletide? Also, the author was the one reacting with hostility to a helpful comment-- vile, abusive hostility. WITH AN EPIC NOVEL OF OVERLY DEFENSIVE BABBLE.

I don't even-- what is with your comment? Are you trying to paint me as some sort of hands-rubbing, world-domination-wanting Grinch? Where are you going with this absurd reading into things that aren't there at all?

FelicityGS deflects blame by claiming she was "stressed" and wrote the fic to ease said mental strain. She also complains about the meanness of the author who dared leave her concrit, up to and including misrepresenting the content of the feedback:

"No. It was not helpful nor constructive. It said "this sucks, this sucks, do better, oh and the idea was nice."

That is not useful."

Still active and ongoing, as FelicityGS's comments have hit both Yuletide Coal and Fail Fandom Anon, where, unsurprisingly, is hilarity at FelicityGS's overreaction.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

FelicityGS has taken the wank to her own tumblr (all stylistic choices original):

I.

Love.

Parentheses.

And you can pry them away from me and my style over my cold, dead body.

(fuck you)

(no seriously)

(but not you guys that actually explain why you don’t like parens, you guys are cool)

Commas? Okay, yeah, there are some comma splices in the story. No big. Whatever. I literally typed it up and posted it, and there are some spots I wouldn’t mind smoothing a bit. And I am willing to bet most the commas that you think are ‘unnecessary’ are, in fact, doing things. Like separating lists, or clauses, or, you know, THINGS THAT COMMAS DO.

I actually feel delightfully, refreshingly vindicated and good for breaking down that comment and addressing it in that manner, because I can look at it and see that, no, no, I’m not fucking crazy.

You may not be crazy, sweetie, but you are certainly a wanker.

Scott Jones of the AV Club gave a mixed review of Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception, a hotly anticipated game for PlayStation 3. Jones praised the storyline and dialogue but criticized the gameplay mechanics:

[T]he story still zips and characters are still conflicted, but targeting is as twitchy as ever, bad guys still require three or four shotgun blasts to the head before they’re deterred, and the game’s star, Nathan Drake, still has no clue whatsoever about how to crouch. Two years after Thieves, Uncharted’s gameplay mechanics and conventions are no longer dated; they’re borderline archaic.

His final grade for the game was a C.

( It's like having nuclear launch codes for internet fanboys )

Many thanks to the anon on wank_report for this one; I've used some of your wording in this post. (Note: there are spoilers for an upcoming episode of Glee in the links.)

Pyroclastic, one of the wankier BNF's of the Glee fandom and a former mod of the kurt_blaine community on lj, posts a fic to said community. The drama starts in the first thread when she pretends not to know why a mod has asked her to place the spoilers in her author notes behind a cut:

( Read more... )

ETA: It gets wankier: http://gleewank.tumblr.com/post/10332827277/the-epic-saga-of-p-and-her-pa-attitude

A good old-fashioned author freak-out, courtesy of Burn Notice fandom. Many thanks to the anon on wank_report for the links; I’ve used much of your wording this post. (Please note that while this is funny overall, the author in question does use a particular ableist insult. It has been taken out in the text below but is still visible in the two links marked with an asterisk.)

InvisibleRain is fairly well-known within the Burn Notice fandom, as both a fan artist and the author of Carry Me, a very long fic heavy on angst and, as she calls it, "Extreme Michael Whumpage". She also has a tendency to explode whenever she receives negative criticism, despite her repeated claims that she's open to feedback and wants to improve. Cue the events of this week:

( I have more followers than you think I do )


InvisibleRain is also not above begging for reviews and threatening to flounce if she doesn't get them:

( Just comment autonomously, but your name as the name you log in as )

Getting caught leaving a positive review under a sockpuppet, of course!

Author Dennis R. Upkin Jr. reviews his own book under a sock account and is outed by Amazon.com's credit card verification system. ETA: Review's been removed, but here's a screencap from the sf_drama post.

Copy and pasted text of the four star review, left by "Roz Torres":

I heard about this novel on an online podcast and after constantly forgetting to pick up the book, I finally got a copy and read it.

The story is intense. It's got a lot going on. With the paranormal elements and the real world commentary. Upkins pulls no punches tackling racism and homophobia, but really surprised me was the interesting cast of women. I loved Ruby and Cassidy and it was nice to see women of color be shown in a light you rarely see. But my favorite character hands down was Neely. I wish there were more characters like her in the media. And I say this as a fellow bisexual woman. The little representation we have, most of it isn't good. Good story. And I'll definitely re-read again to see what I missed the first time.

ETA 2: Dennis R. Upkins, Jr. is also known as neo_prodigy on livejournal, and is known for wankiness already. (Link goes to unfunny_fandom.)

ETA 3: Someone on fail_fandomanon has pointed out that it is possible to get an Amazon-verified account with a phony name, although a "Rosalyn Torres" also left a positive rating on goodreads earlier this month (thanks for the link, sakanagi). Also, while the Amazon review is gone, but the account that posted it is still up, so you can see the real name verification for yourself.

Small, and somewhat late, but the mousie who wrote this up for wank_report did such a good job that I thought it had to be done. One caveat, however: due to the vagaries of my internet connection, I cannot access Twitter right now, so I have no way of telling whether or not my links are working. If I've ballsed anything up, please let me know and I will try to fix as soon as I can. Anyroad:

Listen and attend, o my beloved. Once upon a time in a town called Melbourne, just north of Antarctica, there was a newspaper called The Age. And in The Age lived a happy little film critic called Jim Schembri. Lots of people hated him because of his unremitting dislike of Australian films - one film maker famously said "Fuck you, Jim Schembri!" as he accepted an Australian Film Institute award. Schembri once wrote a stingingly accurate satire on bloggers that I post here to demonstrate his acute grasp of new media.

But that doesn't matter right now. Suffice to say, the man has form.

The latest turn in the Schembri saga began when he spoiled the ending of Scream4 in the first sentence of a review that appeared online on the Fairfax news site for around 24 hours, and consequently spent a few hours at the top of the Rotten Tomatoes website. This, predictably enough, caused some online unrest, with upset tweeters saying things like "Douchebag! You spoiled the film!" etcetera. So the review's wording was slightly changed the following day so that the spoiler was not so evident. Fair enough. A mistake was made and rectified. But - and this is where the wank begins - some special internet magic happened.

It turned out that THERE HAD NEVER BEEN A SPOILER. Jim Schembri has a twitter account, notable for the fact that under his "following" tab is the number 0. Yes, he follows absolutely no one. And he posted a tweet which said that those who had seen the spoiler were hallucinating, or something.

Clearly, an Age critic is NEVER WRONG.

In brief: the story continues here and here, as picked up by fellow critic Luke Buckmaster.

But then came the truly bizarre twist: a crazy flurry of tweets in which Schembri started going on (and on) about a time machine - and making a mock, or so he thought, of Luke Buckmaster.

Buckmaster updates the story on his blog.

Much hilarity ensues on twitter, especially as Jim signs his tweets with his own name. But then...

He follows up with a series of breathless tweets promising the TRUE STORY of the Twitter outrage!

And lo and behold, my beloved, in today's Age the explanation is unfolded in its full glory. It was a social experiment! He planned it all along! Jim Schembri "punk'd the Twitterverse!" He's just like Noam Chomsky!

[Editor's note: A hint, dear critic: no-one, but no-one, is like Noam Chomsky. Possibly not even Noam Chomsky is like Noam Chomsky.]

The "twitterverse", naturally, is less than impressed, but highly amused to have its low expectations so richly rewarded. Also puzzled that a once respected Melbourne broadsheet daily is prepared to publish such drivel. How the mighty have fallen.

The moral of the story, children, is simple. See how much more work you make for yourself when you can't 'fess up to a simple mistake? How many keystrokes you waste? How the Will o'the Wisp of Vanity leads you ever deeper into the Swamps of Delusion and Stupid?

Bonus: Max Lavergne on That Time Machine.

Also, Schembri's twitter account

So Sucker Punch came out this weekend and not only did it Fail To Impress, But it also Didn't perform as expected

People give their thoughts around the internet. Most people hated it along with a very vocal few who liked it.

HOWEVER, being a Zack Snyder movie... This shit blows up over at the Spill community.

For those of you who don't know: Spill.com is an internet based film review community (that recently expanded to video games) that gives podcasts and animated film reviews.

So as usual, a review is posted (review in bad taste with rape, skip if you wish )

Usually reviews get a fair amount of comments within their weekly film reviews. But for some reason this weekend SHIT BLOWS UP about this movie giving heated debates on Why this is a bad movie and you are bad for liking it; or you need to calm down and have a good time.

And it all starts here (I posted the link from page 45 since that's where it all started. you may have to go a few pages down until the wanky stuff finally gets started)

If you're not in the mood to read ALL of the mess here is a breakdown of the community:

. Spill members hate Zack Snyder
. Film Causes debate because his name is on it
. Usually in the community everybody likes to automatically agree with the critics despite not having seen said movie for themselves
. Debates are caused on OMG THE FILM INDUSTRY IS COLLAPSING NOW11!!11, stop liking what I don't like, why Zack Snyder is the devil.. the works.
. Comments criticizing the reviewers on WELL WHAT DID YOU EXPECT FROM THE TRAILER? OMG YOU'RE SO UPTIGHT

Oh and there was also a cute little side wank about the audio podcasts being too long


note:I edited the entry to fix a link and tags and warning suggested by commentor (thanks) 

IT'S WHO TIME!!! This report was shamelessly snagged from wank_report. *throws cheese to mousie* I thought it was time for some more author rage. Enjoy!

FYI: I have screencaps of most of this so let me know if anything goes 'missing'.

Author Paul Magrs (as in published, hired-for-money author of real books, thank you) gets the cruelest most entitled review ever written in the history of all humanity. http://unreality-sf.net/reviews/doctorwho/2/findreplace.html

Naturally, Magrs expresses outrage on Twitter. As published authors should always do. http://twitter.com/paulmagrs/status/26729418277 After all, how many books has that guy written? http://twitter.com/paulmagrs/status/26730575254 How many have YOU?

The author of review apologizes. http://brendan-moody.livejournal.com/317662.html

Too late, buddy. Magrs still has chafed butt. http://twitter.com/paulmagrs/status/27030688395 You see, Magrs loves fan dialogues with real fans, but not mean ones. Why can't you be civil like him. http://twitter.com/paulmagrs

Others weigh in.
http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1550164.html
http://community.livejournal.com/who_anon/10535.html?thread=49908775#t49908775

This report is brought to you by Doctor Who fandom: wanking since 1963.

EDIT: Comments of interest-
http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1550164.html?thread=6531924#t6531924
Magrs continues to miss the point of reviewers

A few months back, the enigmatic Confused Matthew reviewed the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. The 3 part video review involved a lot of "This ISN'T A FILM! It's an ART PROJECT!" and "Land scape......lands scape.....land scape....I heart HAL.......colours......space foetus."


People respond to his review and Confused Matthew responds in turn and it all goes quite well.

Until Chase posts a nine part video screed in which he takes the review personally and uses one massive tone argument.

Confused Matthew responds. After a two part video response, Confused Matthew posted a video saying he was halting the reviews in fear of indeed becoming too personal.

Until today, when he posted part 3.

Grab the popcorn, sit back, and watch.

1. Pixar makes incredible, mind-blowing third movie in Toy Story series.
2. Rotten Tomatoes logs over 130 reviews - all positive.
3. Toy Story 3 gets it's first (so far, only) bad reviews.
4. Internet explodes. (Also here.)

The wank seems to be focused on Armond White's review, as he is known for seemingly giving any review that goes against the general consenus. (He inexplicably seems in favour of Transformers 2, for instance.) He also doesn't appear to have actually watched the movie (identifying Hamm as a villain.) His negative review was actually predicted by a number of commenters in this earlier article, asking readers to predict where Toy Story 3 would end up on the Tomatometer rating.

It's all very dramatic, with wank in every corner. But of course, the most important Toy Story-related argument is and always will always be: Buzz/Jessie or Woody/Jessie?*


*Anyone's who's seen the movie will know the right answer to this.

Pop Quiz:

You are R. Malone, a new author who has a book out that is predominately getting reviews in the four to five star range when someone gives your book a review a one or two star. Do you. . .

A) Post an attack on the review (NEW WITH SCREEN CAPS!)
B) Post an article attacking the reviewer on authorsden.com ETA: DELETED NOW WITH SCREENCAP!
C) Send nasty comments and later delete them off of Goodreads (see second edit at the end of this post)
D) Openly declare war on anyone who rates your book poorly
E) Do all of the above until readers are afraid to post reviews DELORTED TOO! ALAS, SCREENCAPS: REBECCA, WE WEILL PROTECT YOU!!

BONUS WANKERY IN SCREENCAP FORM!!!


Credit given when credit is due: Copypasta directly from sf_drama

( THE OTHER 7,256/SCREENCAPS/NAME-CALLING/ACCUSATIONS EDITS BEHIND THE CUT NOW )


EDIT, YET AGAIN:
And what's a wank without sock-puppetry? God I love this woman. Keep up the crazy, please. The lols are great. Where we're been mentioned.

Thanks to the mousie who posted this on wank_report.

r_becca starts the Harry/Ginny fic exchange takingitinturns. Things go well for the most part, despite a small kerfluffle during the exchange over reviews.*

As it turns out, that would not be the last review wank this exchange would see.

almond_joyz posts When You Figure Out You, Come Back to Me as a gift to another participant. The fic receives positive reviews until deadwoodpecker adds her two cents in a rather patronizing manner.

Highlights include her telling the author that their fic - a dramatic story - was an absolutely hilarious "absurdist comedy" and then finishing with this:

And that "ending"! To be honest, I've gotten lazy about endings as well. After writing 30 chapters of Yellow Submarine, I pretty much threw in the towel and said "no more." I think that in another month or two - when you aren't so burnt out - you'll probably find that your little story needs a resolution.

almond_joyz responds in a calm fashion, explaining it was not a comedy and that she is happy with the fic as is.

Then three of deadwoodpecker's friends decided to add their critical reviews, one after another, each pointing out the same flaws in the story. birlan even goes so far as to delete a prior positive review to the fic and repost his review pointing out the same flaws his friends did.

Another of deadwoodpecker's friends, mhersheybar, coincidentally decides to post a rant about the right to leave concrit before anyone reacts. In this post, deadwoodpecker decides it would be a good idea to mock the story and almond_joyz shows up to tell her off. Sadly, mhersheybar decided to disable comments but if anyone has a screencap, it would be much appreciated. IIRC it involved deadwoodpecker showing up just to post *gives erotic massage to paralyzed girl* and LOLing about it.

Elsewhere on the internets, Deadwoodpecker and friends are called assholes, almond_joyz flips her shit and deadwoodpecker decides to mock the author and r_becca some more while gearing up for a flounce.

Finally, Deadwoodpecker tries to explain herself. She was just being honest, you guys. And the old guard in H/G is oppressing the newbs.

* I mention the early kerfluffle because deadwoodpecker was suspected of being behind the review, according to her. Edit: Or because it was a rumor going around!

ETA: The plot thickens...?

ETA II: More history! A while back, after deadwoodpecker and her friends swept the H/G awards, almond_joyz decided to hold her own awards.

And thanks to mariem_1 for the files of deadwoodpecker mocking the fic.

ETA III: More history still! deadwoodpecker had a discussion with loony4lupin during the hp_porninthesun fest. This was over the fest rules which deadwoodpecker assumed singled her out personally. loony4lupin is also the person whose fic was mentioned above as having been trashed by an anonymous reviewer with deadwoodpecker being the suspect.

Thanks, mice!

Remember this wank (also known as this wank) about death threats over Transformer porn?

lady7jane, you were right.

( Cut because this is getting damn long. )

Meet kyuuketsukirui. She writes reviews for SGA on her LJ , and recently reviewed a bunch of stories on mcshep_match. kyuuketsukirui commits the unpardonable fandom sin of saying she's disappointed in the latest mcshep_match stories and will be posting her reviews soon.

Meet lamardeuse. She doesn't approve of kyuuketsukirui's disappointment in the stories or her reviews and says so. Many people agree with her, in the process confusing concrit and reviews. kyuuketsuikirui shows up to politely disagree. lamardeuse and her friends don't respond well. darkrose brings in a bit of Earth logic, but it's not enough to leaven out the massive amount of Unclear On the Concept, alas.

So kyuuketsukirui writes a post clarifying her position on reviews and reviews of fanfic and fandom.

zillah975 makes a post about this whole civility/reviews/concrit situation, including a thread in which anatsuno laments that life on the Nice Side ain't all it's cracked up to be. telesilla does a post too.

No responses from lamardeuse and friends. At least, not publically. That wouldn't be civil, after all.

ETA: Supposedly lamardeuse was responding to lavvyan, though kyuuketsukirui's post seems to have been the back-breaking straw.