![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hey, controversy!
Sep. 16th, 2009 03:15 pmRemember a few days ago, I posted a link to an article entitled "I Will Not Read Your F**king Script"? Well, as always happens whenever anyone says the word "fuck" (and I'm not sure why I've been bleeping it out of the article title... the author sure didn't. Guess it's just to preserve the virgin eyes of my flist), people got cranky. In particular, this response.
Now, I'd like to present the appearance of impartiality and let you draw your own conclusions, but... well, I already recced the original article, so I think we know how I feel about it. And I think this response completely misses the point. Josh Olson isn't talking about being pissed off that people ask him to read scripts. I would think this is obvious from the reference to the pile of scripts from good friends that he's agreed to read.
What he's talking about (and what, I think, all the commenters on my post understood, possibly because I cherry-picked the quotes *g*) is people he barely knows asking him to read scripts, and then being unreceptive to the constructive criticism.
I would guess that anyone who reads that article and thinks, "What an asshole," has never been on the receiving end of a truly awful piece of shit on which the author was expecting feedback, only to receive a blow off - or worse, an angry, indignant rant - in response to the time and effort they put into critiquing it. Those of us who have know that Olson's scenario is all too familiar, and exactly how many times do you take that risk, only to be ranted at again, before you give up on newbies altogether?
Laurell K. Hamilton, of all people, gets it and expands on it in her blog.
And if you're interested in a slightly different perspective,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cleolinda has some links, as well as her own thoughts, on the "cuz I might get sued" aspect of not reading other people's work.
Now, I'd like to present the appearance of impartiality and let you draw your own conclusions, but... well, I already recced the original article, so I think we know how I feel about it. And I think this response completely misses the point. Josh Olson isn't talking about being pissed off that people ask him to read scripts. I would think this is obvious from the reference to the pile of scripts from good friends that he's agreed to read.
What he's talking about (and what, I think, all the commenters on my post understood, possibly because I cherry-picked the quotes *g*) is people he barely knows asking him to read scripts, and then being unreceptive to the constructive criticism.
I would guess that anyone who reads that article and thinks, "What an asshole," has never been on the receiving end of a truly awful piece of shit on which the author was expecting feedback, only to receive a blow off - or worse, an angry, indignant rant - in response to the time and effort they put into critiquing it. Those of us who have know that Olson's scenario is all too familiar, and exactly how many times do you take that risk, only to be ranted at again, before you give up on newbies altogether?
Laurell K. Hamilton, of all people, gets it and expands on it in her blog.
And if you're interested in a slightly different perspective,
cleolinda has some links, as well as her own thoughts, on the "cuz I might get sued" aspect of not reading other people's work.
