Criticism and Published Material

wolviex · 31st May 2006, 12:19 PM

From the Author point of view:

Writing an article or a book is in general a very difficult undertaking. Most of us want to publish something what is the most complete, most 'sourceful' and most actual on the field, and that's why decission to publish may be hard, because it means you have to decide on exact date. You know you will have only some time not entire life to finish the work. After the text is more or less complete it is sent to publisher hands and is verificated by editors who are able to make such terrible things with your text you just can't imagine. From interpratation, to changing of some of the most basis rules! For example: my girlfriend wrote article for the newest Rembrandt catalogue, with description of some of the etchings. Editor changed text without consultation with Author in places where NOTHING should be changed at all like: 'the sitting man' became 'a standing man', 'place' became 'palace' - horror. Editor didn't wanted to show "corrected" text, so it was luck my girlfriend found those errors. But it is not enough, while editor changed some overall thoughts and some of the points in the article!!! Now imagine the Author who is reading review of "his" article/book after edition! So please remember not everything is Author's fault.
Criticism is great, we agree, while it helps author to take a look on some sort of things from different point of view, to find things he didn't think of, etc..., but it is nesessary to let him defend himself during debate. Of course there are many bad and poor books because authors didn't carry it off well.

Rivkin is right: in serious, scientific magazines you can find real harsh reviews, without a pardon! Here I found always only gentleman discussion, with great distance, intuition and comradeship. Normally, we could write serious reviews pointing every error, and it shouldn't be damned by moderators, until reviewer is malicious or incompetent. As an author I always write an article or something else with preparation on criticism, if someone is not prepared for such pain after publish, shouldn't write books at all - it's just a part of author's life. No-one should feel offended if review is sensible and grounded.

Best regards!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

31st May 2006, 12:19 PM	#6
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	From the Author point of view: Writing an article or a book is in general a very difficult undertaking. Most of us want to publish something what is the most complete, most 'sourceful' and most actual on the field, and that's why decission to publish may be hard, because it means you have to decide on exact date. You know you will have only some time not entire life to finish the work. After the text is more or less complete it is sent to publisher hands and is verificated by editors who are able to make such terrible things with your text you just can't imagine. From interpratation, to changing of some of the most basis rules! For example: my girlfriend wrote article for the newest Rembrandt catalogue, with description of some of the etchings. Editor changed text without consultation with Author in places where NOTHING should be changed at all like: 'the sitting man' became 'a standing man', 'place' became 'palace' - horror. Editor didn't wanted to show "corrected" text, so it was luck my girlfriend found those errors. But it is not enough, while editor changed some overall thoughts and some of the points in the article!!! Now imagine the Author who is reading review of "his" article/book after edition! So please remember not everything is Author's fault. Criticism is great, we agree, while it helps author to take a look on some sort of things from different point of view, to find things he didn't think of, etc..., but it is nesessary to let him defend himself during debate. Of course there are many bad and poor books because authors didn't carry it off well. Rivkin is right: in serious, scientific magazines you can find real harsh reviews, without a pardon! Here I found always only gentleman discussion, with great distance, intuition and comradeship. Normally, we could write serious reviews pointing every error, and it shouldn't be damned by moderators, until reviewer is malicious or incompetent. As an author I always write an article or something else with preparation on criticism, if someone is not prepared for such pain after publish, shouldn't write books at all - it's just a part of author's life. No-one should feel offended if review is sensible and grounded. Best regards!