A "rebuttal" to the claim that i do not listen to constructive criticism
Note: No one responded to my email seen below.
IF the members of our writing group really were compassionate, concerned and cared about me, they would have been happy to help me understand why they are 110% sure that they are right - and i'm wrong.
The Difference Between Criticism and Constructive Criticism:
Criticism Isn’t Bad…
… as long as it’s constructive. If the goal of the critic is to help me improve at my craft, then I want to hear every single suggestion they’re willing to offer. Please! Tell me what you think. I want to grow every way I can.
Sadly, most critics I encounter have more self-serving motives. The worst ones seek to control, increase their power, and even gain advancement by diminishing the work of those around them. They attempt to look good by making everyone else look bad.
The Difference Between Criticism and Constructive Criticism is EMPATHY...
Stephen Salgaller <[email protected]>
Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 10:13 AM
To: Tony, Julius, Tee, Dale, bcc: Randi
During the live comment part of our December 5, 2020 writers group meeting, a member claimed that my following script dialog was, shall we say, in "error":
"...Finally, the question was asked: what will the value be for us here on Earth to go to the Moon. Just think; If we can land a man on the Moon, it will give mankind hope that we can accomplish other difficult tasks: like ending war, oppression & poverty. That optimism would be well worth communicating world wide.”
The woman said that, In Her Modest Opinion, giving the world hope was, shall we say, in "error".
My "rebuttal":
1) Note that US Army Major Roger Healy *is* correct - as the famous Jerry Seinfield comedy routine points out, once we got to the moon, America - and the world - could no longer claim that a difficult task was impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHngY3iJBCo
2) In scene 2, America *is* about to do exactly what the woman said was impossible: plan to bring peace to the Middle East.
The fact, mentioned clearly in scene 2 - that such a goal - while very important, is also next to impossible. Neither me nor my characters claim that peace is easy - in fact, you will see that the plan to overthrow the sovereign Nation of Iraq, and install a "puppet dictator" is the *wrong* way to get peace - and, as Jeannie later says - *will* result in the death of millions of people.
You *can* argue - as Jeannie's husband, USAF Major Tony Nelson will, that the US .gov plan is fair and reasonable - and, in his modest opinion, no one will eventually die due to our 'meddling' in Iraq.
Let's check back - as Jeannie says, in 25 or 35 years from 1968 - and see how Iraq in the year 1993 - or 2003 - is doing.
So i hope that you see that i *did* listen *carefully* to what the reviewer said; i did *not* ignore her - but i *do* point out that her 'objections' are not sustained by the evidence.
Tony A. has sort of 'claimed' that my refusal to "bend over" and completely change my beliefs because what a reviewer says is correct, and I am wrong - could also be said about Jeannie or her husband, right?
Finally, another reviewer was very upset that Jeannie was not in scene 1 or 2. While I *am* listening, I point out that, in the old TV show, Jeannie was not always in the first scene; Example: In the pilot episode, Tony's rocket malfunctions, and he has reenter Earth's atmosphere - ditch in the Indian Ocean - and survive for a few hours on a nearby deserted island while waiting for rescue. No Jeannie at first.
In my story, Jeannie *is* an integral part of the plot; in fact, i give her a new "magical power" - that of divinely inspired wisdom - when, at the end of my movie, she *correctly* concludes that, while very messy, democracy in the Middle East - NOT dictatorship - *is* the *only* hope we have for real & lasting peace.
This reviewer says that, because she knows about 'Hollywood', my "refusal" to 'bend over', and do as she says means that i am wrong - and i am 'stubborn'.
NO. I am NOT. And I am not.
While i *do* value expert advice, i have carefully considered what all reviewers have said.
Example: I deliberately 'scour' old reviews of movies & TV shows that I am writing sequels to. For IDoJ, there were two big problems:
One was that Tony and Roger live, work and train in Florida, while, back then, all NASA astronauts HQ were in Houston.
*i* explain (in scene 1) that both men are active duty military officers. While they *do* work *with* NASA, they do not directly work *for* NASA.
Two: Jeannie has light skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. A woman born in Baghdad (in 64 BCE - or even today) would have jet black hair, dark skin, and maybe green eyes.
IMHO, i *cleverly*explain this seeming inconsistent 'error' - and even use the "error" as a critical part of my plot.
So i *again* hope that you see that i *did* listen *carefully* to what the reviewer said; i did *not* ignore her - but i *do* point out that all 'objections' are not sustained by the evidence.
Finally, I ask if any other member has ever been 'subject' to such an "intense" review - especially the claim that not doing 110% of what they are told means that they are 'stubborn'.
I have been with the group for at least 5 years, and no other writer has ever been 'required' to do as they were told.
IF the critics were upset that giving humanity hope also gave humanity hubris - believing that there are easy solutions to extremely difficult problems - good !
See, i DO listen ---
What? All my critics suddenly shut up? Funny how that happens!
However, IF you all read my more of my work, you see that your 'lesson' is - eventually - learned - it IS indeed learned by the imperial hubris of America...