I'm uncertain where to post a thread that came to mind. It's a spinoff of the 'Share Your First Three Sentences thread,' only instead of critiquing a site member's work we critique the first three sentences of traditionally published stories. I'd like to think many of us could learn something from scrutinizing how proven professionals kick off their books. I was considering The Art of Critique as the best spot for it, but I'd appreciate a second opinion.
Wherever it's placed, I think it's a good idea. I look forward to reading it when it's up and running.
I'd be inclined to say you need @Wreybies to sign off on that - critiquing the work of those who haven't asked for it and aren't here to defend themselves is generally a rule break .. that said we've had 'critiquing the classics' threads before... they generally die pretty quickly because without author feedback there's not much discussion
This, surely? It's a no-brainer. The suggestion the idea needs a green light for fear of upsetting published authors is ridiculous. I'm sure the millions of book clubs around the world don't seek such permission. Just get it started in Book Discussion. If it's in the wrong place it'll be moved.
It's not ridiculous in the least, and this is going to need @Daniel's input, not mine since he is ultimately accountable (which is different than responsible). Fair use comes into play, and fair use is an ever-tightening, yet elusively chimeric concept. We did run such threads in the past, staff-controlled, only ever tapping works in the public domain to play it as safely as possible. I was the one who started that because I see great benefit in looking at published works with a critical eye. I am solidly and unshakably of the mind that giving a critique is a more valuable endeavor than getting critique. When we get critique, we're being given a fish to eat. When we give critique, we teach ourselves to fish. You'll find a more complete diatribe on the above in this thread: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/i’m-not-here-to-make-you-a-better-writer.146679/ But again, the topic in play doesn't have to do with the work that our own members voluntarily put up for critique, thus giving consent. It concerns the work of writers who are not here to speak for themselves and this may have legal ramifications, which the owner, Daniel, must be the one to green-light or not.
Apart from fair use, there is also the issue that book clubs are generally in private - posting a critique is essentially publishing it, so its more akin to the book reviews in a newspaper or a blog … but those reviews are usually solicited (and thus permission is given by the publisher/author at hand) Given that there have been instances where people sue over bad reviews, it seems unwise to publish critiques that haven't been sought … as wrey says It's Daniels name that would wind up on the writ were an author or publisher to sue.. so it needs to be his call. I'd also suggest that theres an ethical issue at stake here - as authors would we be okay with out work being critiqued (and quite possibly ripped to shreds) without our permission or consent ? If we aren't should we do that to others ?
Book clubs, amazon and other online shop reviews. When a book is published the contents of that book are open to critique by whoever, wherever. We're not talking about making scandalous / liabous comments here - but merely sharing our views (critical or otherwise) of the opening lines to already published works. Tell me how this thread would differ from any of the other threads in Book Discussion.
Neither your opinion nor mine is of consequence here. Again, as mentioned, and as I have mentioned endlessly in the past, I see the benefit of it. But we are not the ones who are ultimately accountable. Daniel is. It must be his decision. If he says yes, that's cool. This is his sandbox, not mine. But until he does, there is a clear issue of concern and it will have to wait for his word.
I could link you to dozens of already existing posts that do this. But as you point out, I'm not running this place so these are my views and nothing else.
There clearly are threads that contain references to published work, references that engage said work with a critical eye with regard to whatever point that thread is making. That happens. That's normal. An entire thread dedicated to doing this, in a concentrated manner, is different and is what begins to push the bounds of fair use. There is a difference. Goodness knows I have quoted Delany numerous times with respect to conversations that deal with unusual style of prose or turn of phrase. His genius is difficult to explain and must be shown to be grasped (imo). I also cite his work with respect to accepted conventions. Author, book, page, date of publication, etc. Threads with a core idea like the one in question here have come up in the past, for most awesome lines, best song lines, etc. etc. etc. One thing that is unfailingly true is that within just a few posts, and no matter how many times I come back to the thread and reiterate the need to properly cite, people ignore my words, fail to read my words, (fill in the reason for just not being arsed). I end up having to close the thread in no time because humans are as humans do. That's the history of it. If @Daniel wants to allow it with whatever provisions that I already know will not be met, so be it. Again, his sandbox, not mine.
This is all I was referring to. I wasn't suggesting there are dozens of threads/posts on published works that overstep the mark or break rules.
I think not being arsed is probably a reason in itself That aside I wasn't suggesting that we should never mention a published author, but theres a difference between mentioning in passing that Stephen King is really shit at getting his gun facts right, and posting an indepth critique of say "Cell"
As someone who sees the potential value in critiquing successfully published work, and one against unnecessary self-censorship, I’m included to have no problem with these types of threads, provided that: They are not excerpts of work by site members posted without their approval / consent They are published on a wide / mainstream scale (not unpublished, ideally receiving reviews online) They comply with fair use (excerpt only. They cite the original source, either specifically if citing published copy or with a link if citing an excerpt They are not an attack on the author, but legitimately an attempt to learn from the writing If these are truly critique threads this shouldn’t be a major issue, especially on the U.S., as they are clearly providing an educational value, which is typically one of the most factors. It seems accepted standards that reviews for educational purposes fall under fair use. I believe these threads would clearly meet fair use requirements: Purpose and character of use - clearly intended as a learning tool. Nature of work - a little unclear on the requirements here, but if the work is published and intended to be read, with the expectation of reviews Amount of work - interpreted different ways, but should be limited to only amount required for educational purpose of thread Effect on works value - infringement generally limited to acting as a substitute or harming licensing opportunities. A negative critique likely would not meet these factors. As long as we meet fair use requirements we should be okay. Other considerations / factors that could be legally considered: standard practice by professional communities, which we may be considered. If an author or rights holder has an issue, the first step is usually a DMCA take-down notice. It usually ends there, and we would likely comply even if we consider it within fair use. Of course we can not review each thread to ensure it meets fair use standards, we can only provide guidelines. If we see content that clearly violates fair use, or other copyright law we will of course remove it. As for the ethical issues big moose mentioned, I don’t really see them but I’d be happy to consider them if expressed in more details. Ultimately I see no issue here, aside from potentially frivolous lawsuits, which I believe is not a substantial risk. We could reduce our risk by ensuring ads are not shown on these pages and/or making them private threads, but I’m not sure this is necessary. I understand Wikipedia is a poor source, but I found the attached sections provided some generally acceptable guidance. Quoting / reviewing / critiquing published written work is some of the oldest and most established valid use of fair use copyright law.
Its your site - and i'm fairly sure said thread will wind up closed in short order for the reasons Wrey outlined anyway - so I'm not about to argue. However for information only to clarify the point I was trying to make. Assuming you have a book out, how would you feel if you were idly browsing another writing forum and you found it being reviewed, critiqued and criticised without your consent ? Would you feel happy with that ? I wouldn't personally. However my original point was not "this may not be done, by the power of moose I forbid it" but merely to flag that it needed to be discussed with Wrey and yourself first. If you're happy with it that's fine.
If I'm just little Iain Aschendale with a single Kindle self-pub? Maybe thrilled, maybe scared, after all, somebody bought it, so that's good, but the discussion could help or hurt sales. If I'm Stephen King, OTOH, I'd expect it. My 2yen.
LOL Imagine if governments declared: 'Thou shall not publicly criticize society without its permission'. It goes against the very essence of free speech and freedom of expression. When you publish something, you're making it public. You're putting it out for public consumption and public review. As far as I'm concerned, quoting snippets for constructive criticism is fair game. Authors have more pressing concerns, like getting roasted by book critics (which is clearly acceptable). Also, I think some of you are being hypocritical. When a certain author has behaved 'embarrassingly' and caused a controversy in the blogosphere, I've seen some of you on this forum absolutely roast that person, really laid into them on a personal level; basically pointed and laughed your arses off at them for being nincompoops. Yet all of a sudden you think it's unethical to quote and critique snippets in a constructive and educative way?
