When Keeping It Real On Twitter Goes Wrong ...

[Iron_chet]

It seems to me that if you don't like what you are reading on Twitter, don't follow it. I don't have problem with over-praise even if it is circle jerkish because the end result of me getting to read something that I would not have found is worth it.

Most of my Twiiter feed is stuff that I followed from here that led me to other writers. As a non journo with no ties to any type of this business I am pretty thankful that I can read recommendations from writers whose work I like.

 

[Alma]

I'll never understand why someone's work getting praised -- like in this instance Wright saying Charlie just killed at the GOP convention as a scathing social critic -- pisses certain people off so badly. I mean, who ****ing cares if someone is getting too much love from their friends on Twitter? It's just so stupid to feel this smart allecky obligation to make sure NO ONE gets praised TOO MUCH that I DON'T LIKE QUITE AS MUCH.

If the praise is genuine and you're wary of others' reactions, then the praise should be done in private messages and/or e-mails. Praising on Twitter says "Look at this guy!! He deserves PRAISE!!!!" with a bit of "Look at ME!!!! I'm praising!!!!"

I know: "We should be able to praise without jerkyfaces making fun!!!!!" I disagree completely. Put communication out there publicly, you are inviting anyone to respond, and some responses may be displeasing.

It's somewhat baffling that a group of dudes who make their living disseminating words for others to read, are shocked when not everyone thinks all of their words - or the words of their buddies - are wonderful.

I think it's just the idea of loyalty.

And there's a limit to useful criticism.

Agree 100 percent on the first line.

Disagree on the second. I don't think there's a limit to useful criticism—what I get from my editors, for instance. I'll take all of that I can get. But I don't think mindless snark accomplishes anything. We're arrogant because we love and support each other? Because what, there's already too much generosity in the world? Who the **** are you, O wise cynics, to tell us what we should think of or say to each other? Doesn't that take a spectacular arrogance, to presume that it's your job to oversee us, to keep us grounded and in our place? Who asked you?

You can do better? Go ahead. Knock me on my ass. Make me regret I ever became a writer. Just shut up and do it.

Story 101: Show, don't tell, remember?

In the spectrum of criticism - even some good, spot-on criticism - not all of it is useful. Craggs can be right about something, but deliver his POV in such a way - or with such mind-numbing, repetition - that it has no utility. Then you factor in that he may not actually believe his position - that he's just an elastic, quick-footed thinker looking for a scrape - and it really loses its sting.

 

[typefitter]

I know what you're saying, Alma. I guess my standard for criticism is, Will it make its subject—a story, a building, the political process, whatever—better in some tangible way? Or at least will it help improve the next one? For it to accomplish that, 1) the message has to be useful and 2) it has to be delivered in a way that's constructive. I think if criticism meets both of those standards, then it's almost always good to hear.

This leads us down the road to defining "better," however. I know what I think "better" means, but a guy like Tommy Craggs will probably have a different definition. That's where it gets tricky.

 

[old_tony]

If only Twitter had moderators to delete posts and lock threads.

 

[pseudo]

I do the whiskey drinking part.

Good enough. You're in.

Just wait a ******* minute here. Since when is simply drinking whiskey good enough? No, no, no. You have to APPRECIATE the whiskey. You have to sit on someone's porch and drink their grandpappy's whiskey. And we're not talking some ****ty whiskey you can get from the liquor store down the street. Oh, no. This is FINE whiskey; whiskey that has been passed down from generation to generation. GRANDPAPPY'S whiskey!

Remember. This club is ELITE.

Pretty funny. But last time I saw Jones, he was drinking concession-stand beer out of a plastic cup.

 

[YankeeFan]

I do the whiskey drinking part.

Good enough. You're in.

Just wait a ******* minute here. Since when is simply drinking whiskey good enough? No, no, no. You have to APPRECIATE the whiskey. You have to sit on someone's porch and drink their grandpappy's whiskey. And we're not talking some ****ty whiskey you can get from the liquor store down the street. Oh, no. This is FINE whiskey; whiskey that has been passed down from generation to generation. GRANDPAPPY'S whiskey!

Remember. This club is ELITE.

Pretty funny. But last time I saw Jones, he was drinking concession-stand beer out of a plastic cup.

Oh, so he's a hipster. A ****ing Canadian hipster!

 

[Norrin Radd]

I think it's just the idea of loyalty.

And there's a limit to useful criticism.

On the first: sure. But it reminds me of the 16-year-old athletes getting together to harass some goth kid at lunchtime because he dared to talk to one of their girlfriends in math class. Bullies getting together to swing their members around and pat each other on the back for how cool they are. Goes from Zero to "I've got a better career than YOU!!!!!" rather quickly. But it does lead to some good entertainment from all involved, so hey, neat.

On the second: That limit is often based on the mood of the person taking the "criticism," as well as the mood of those who would act as their "second". The source of the "criticism" matters as well. That's human nature. Too many people think they can tell journalists how to do the job. If I'm a longform sports writer, I wouldn't give a crap what some businessman or coffee guy or someone who toils in obscurity in a dying newspaper industry says about my work. I would also try to avoid SAYING that every time anyone dares to criticize me.

I'm guilty of it; think we all are, to an extent. There are plenty of people here who could attempt to tell me what I should be doing with my own career stuff, and I would dismiss their views out of hand, mostly because I have real-life sources for advice and counsel that are superior to what I can receive here.

So yeah, the limits of "criticism" are the limits of what the person being criticized is willing to take, and from whom they are willing to take it.

 

[Azrael]

How much "useful criticism" can be shoehorned into a tweet? Or even a series of tweets?

Was it Mr. Scocca's intention to deliver "useful criticism?"

 

[Norrin Radd]

How much "useful criticism" can be shoehorned into a tweet? Or even a series of tweets?

Was it Mr. Scocca's intention to deliver "useful criticism?"

Who ever said it was?

 

[Azrael]

I'm not sure anyone has.

But we seem to be spending time and energy parsing the nature of useful criticism given and received when I'm pretty sure "useful criticism" played no part in last night's drive-by.

 

[BDC99]

I think it's just the idea of loyalty.

And there's a limit to useful criticism.

On the first: sure. But it reminds me of the 16-year-old athletes getting together to harass some goth kid at lunchtime because he dared to talk to one of their girlfriends in math class. Bullies getting together to swing their members around and pat each other on the back for how cool they are. Goes from Zero to "I've got a better career than YOU!!!!!" rather quickly. But it does lead to some good entertainment from all involved, so hey, neat.

Who exactly are they harassing/bullying? Praising a friend's work on Twitter is grounds for a flame war? So ridiculous.

 

[typefitter]

I'm not sure anyone has.

But we seem to be spending time and energy parsing the nature of useful criticism given and received when I'm pretty sure "useful criticism" played no part in last night's drive-by.

To be honest, I didn't even get what Scocca was going for last night. It was like he thought he was telling me something I didn't know—after he quoted my own reference to it. I'm actually starting to think it's all some weird performance art that I don't understand.

 

[Uncle.Ruckus]

I'm not sure anyone has.

But we seem to be spending time and energy parsing the nature of useful criticism given and received when I'm pretty sure "useful criticism" played no part in last night's drive-by.

To be honest, I didn't even get what Scocca was going for last night. It was like he thought he was telling me something I didn't know—after he quoted my own reference to it. I'm actually starting to think it's all some weird performance art that I don't understand.

That and, you know, cupcakes.

 

[Versatile]

Tom Scocca went after Wright Thompson. Stephen Rodrick nodded. Chris Jones went after Stephen Rodrick. Stephen Rodrick countered. Tom Scocca went after Chris Jones. Chris Jones winked.

The end result: Tom Scocca directly ripped Chris Jones, Chris Jones indirectly ripped Tom Scocca, Stephen Rodrick wondered what just happened, Wright Thompson shrugged.

This was never about Rodrick or Thompson. It was an avant-garde flame war.

 

[3OctaveFart]

Whitlock belched at some point in the midst of all this.

 

[Zeke12]

He heard about the cupcakes.

 

[Tom Petty]

i'm on the edge of my seat. i mean how does scocca follow that round of posting?

 

[waterytart]

i'm on the edge of my seat. i mean how does scocca follow that round of posting?

With an identical round. Then another, and another.

A good literary feud may or may not be fun for the participants, but it's entertaining for the readers. Scocca's contribution stops with answering the bell.

 

[3OctaveFart]

These feuds seem stagey from time to time.
Hell, maybe they are here as well.

 

[Boom_70]

I look forward to these Jones dust ups. They seem to arrive every few months. Perhaps he's under stress from his assignments or in between assignments and picks a fight out of boredom.

Either way it always makes for an enjoyable read.