Hostile or Nasty Feedback In Online Writing

Introduction

Not long ago I ran into an online discussion in which someone was asking opinions about whether it might not be a bad idea to respond to some very negative remarks with a carefully constructed reply that might actually serve to benefit the writer and/or the writing (beyond just giving the writer the satisfaction of "letting the person have it", that is). I began offering my own opinion in the discussion but could tell it was going to run long, so I've decided to turn those thoughts into a whole Hub. The Hub probably isn't worth spending any more time on than insults or nasty remarks on writing, or in e.mails, are; but - heck - in a world full of so many more serious things (not to mention so many people that are just, plain, jerks), I sometimes enjoy pondering the meaningless and insignificant matters of life.

On the one hand, we all kind of know that ignoring that kind of thing is really the smartest thing to do. On the other hand, if I get some unreasonable and nasty comment on a Hub (and that's different from just an "opposing-view" or "disagreeing" comment), I get a little charge out of responding in a way that makes the person (whose comment probably contained a bunch of wacky statements and/or poor use of grammar/spelling) look stupid. I pretty much punch holes in whatever the person said (because what isn't reasonable can always have holes punched in it), and then I'm happy to leave their comment, and my reply, up for all the world to see. (LOL) If the negative comment is of the simple "you're a poo-poo head" variety, I may or may not post it but not answer it (depending on whether it's reasonably clean and whether I kind of like the balance it provides in the mix of other comments). :)

I got an e.mail from (I think) a Hubber not long ago. I didn't really pay attention, but there was an e.mail address with a word that kind of stood out; so I went looking for Hubbers with that word in their name, and there were several. A few had really horribly written Hubs. One was kind of suspicious, but I suspect the person could be the guilty party AND a sock-puppet.

I didn't at all mind the part of the message that criticized one Hub, in particular. The person (a woman, I suspect) mentioned that were typos and some "confusing" sentences. The person was correct. The Hub was one I'd written quickly in response to an HP question, so I wrote it more casually and kind of as if I was talking to the person who had asked the question. Of course, readers couldn't know the circumstances under which I'd written it, so the criticism was fair enough.

This individual, however, felt the need to throw in a remark about my saying that I write professionally (so s/he apparently had read my profile). Fine. She said something like, "You're a professional writer?" Then she added something along the lines of "do you even edit?" or "do you ever edit?" (that kind of thing). Well, I was thinking, "Look, you moron. Yes, I edit; but I've written millions (truly millions) of words; and when I write in a "day-job" capacity I'm a real perfectionist. I'm here to get away from the demands of day-job kind of standards; and while I generally take the quality of my writing and grammar seriously, I can't always worry about a few "confusing" sentences or a typo here or there in the occasional Hub." (Cool as we like to be, there's a point where we get aggravated with this kind of crap.)

Even in my willingness to consider that the few sentences I'd found in the Hub in the question could have been confusing, a part of me thought, "Well, I'm sorry if you get confused by sentences that don't happen to be written for fourth-grade readers."

Mildly aggravated or not, however; and still more than at peace with just reading the criticism and taking it for it was, or wasn't, worth; I went on to read the last remark. That was the one that made me 1) think this individual just wanted to be a hostile, nasty, person for his/her own reasons; and 2) want very much to respond.

The final remark from this clown was, "Shame." Well, since use of the statement "shame" is often associated with older women (not always, but often), I came to assume this individual was "some old bag" (probably of my own age, although I'd never use "shame" in that way, which really does seem to make a person come across as an old bag LOL).

Having had it confirmed to me that this individual wasn't out to offer "constructive criticism". She wasn't even out to voice her displeasure with, or disappointment in, finding an article she didn't think was well written. If she'd written, "I hated your article. It's of low quality and doesn't deserve to see the light of day," I would have respected that. Instead, this person went with the personal-attack type of comment, and topped it all off with that "Shame" (maybe "Shame!") at the end of her e.mail.

Well, you know what? The e.mail, alone, which was only a paragraph or two, wasn't typed or written in the most well organized, easy-to-read, way. This was evidence enough for me that this clown can't come up with a decent, simple, e.mail, let alone hundreds of Hubs, thousands of pieces of writing, and millions of words. On top of it (and this isn't something the person could have/should have known, but it's something anyone with a shred of sense might consider thinking about), this person didn't have a clue about how much I work; how much effort I generally put into, not just my writing but, everything I do. Neither did this person have a clue about the kind of worries and crap I have to think about on a regular basis. After this particular aspect of "my side of things" came to my mind I realized the someone else's reply might be, "Well then, don't write if you have too much work and worry to come up with perfect writing." In the conversation that I'd by then been having between myself and someone I could only imagine, my imagined reply to that point was, "S___ You.". (if you know what I mean). To futher justify my own expectation of being given the occasional "pass", considering all the writing I do, my motivations for writing many of the things I write, and the fact that the writing is on a writing site (and not in The New England Journal of Medicine, or something like that); I pointed out (to myself and to the imagined individual, and anyone else I imagined that might come up with that point) that it's a very healthy thing for me to make the time to write for the reasons that I write (which include both making some money in my spare time, but also aiming to offer something that might have some redeeming value to some reader somewhere); and if I've got some flaws in the midst of my thousands of words; well, so be it.

All of this went on in the matter of seconds that it took me to read the e.mail. I took another minute, maybe, to go to the Hub in question and look for what this person was so angered and "nastied" by, see it; and return to think about whether I'd reply to the e.mail or not. I was quick to delete it, and because it had arrived as "junk mail" it disappeared forever. Immediately after deleting it I kind of regretted not looking more closely to see if I could identify the Hubber. One might think this was the end of it, but it wasn't. Instead, I started to imagine making a forum post or writing a Hub to take a swipe at whoever wrote the e.mail.

A little bit of "paranoia light" started to set in, as I wondered why this person wanted to be good and sure she (or maybe he) attacked me on the points of professional writing and editing. Was this person wanting to take a swing a what she knew I took seriously? The person had apparently read my profile, and yet my profile clearly states that I write on HubPages in my spare time. Was this person too stupid to read between the lines and figure out that sometimes a person wants/needs to take a more casual approach to writing (even if she does, for the most part, aim to produce decent enough material), just as way to relax a little in her free time? Was this someone who, maybe, doesn't write professionally and who, instead, takes writing on the Internet a lot more seriously than I do? (Again, it's not that I don't take it seriously; but, honestly, it's not brain surgery. Besides, there was the part of me that thought, "You know what, Lady? Have you seen all the junk writing that's on the Internet? Do you really think the fact that you found about three "confusing" sentences, and a few typos among all my Hubs is the biggest Internet-writing problem about which anyone ought to really be worrying?)

As the "paranoia light" continued to creep in, I started to think, "You know what? This is someone who just doesn't like you, Self, and who was happy to find those flaws in your writing." Upon thinking (yet) more about it, I realized that the Hub in question was about a personality flaw that some people have. I realized there was at least the chance that something I'd said about people with that particular flaw (or personalilty disorder, in some cases) was something that "hit home" for her. Maybe it wasn't that she "just didn't like me". Maybe it was that she was angered but what was in the Hub, and that might have contributed to approach to criticizing flaws that otherwise wouldn't have angered someone else.

Even so many thoughts didn't take all that long a time to crop out, so once I'd addressed the multitude of them that had I moved on within minutes of seeing the e.mail. That was it. As much as I would like to have replied with any number of equally, or more, cutting remarks to this individual; I reminded myself that this was most likely someone who "has issues" and forgot about it. Basically, criticism comes in two forms: The reasonable kind that doesn't aim to do more than be negative about the actual work, and the kind that (even if correct and reasonable enough in some ways, sometimes) apparently MUST be accompanied with nastiness and demeaning remarks aimed at the individual who produced the work.

So, I told myself I was probably correct in assuming that this was a "nasty, old bag" who most likely has issues and axes to grind (or else it's someone young and otherwise mentally OK but who just has a nasty and small-minded personality). I reminded myself of how glad I am that I've never been a nasty person (and how REALLY GLAD I am that, now that I'm "of a certain age", I haven't yet turned into a nasty and demeaning old bag. I thought, "Shame, indeed, Lady. I'm sorry to tell you that I don't feel a shred of shame about a few typos and a few "confusing" sentences." Before I completely moved on, I did imagine trying to figure out a way (in view of the fact that I'd deleted the junk mail). Since I'd already seen the handful of Hubber-names with the word that stood out in the e.mail address, I did regret that I hadn't spent a little more time "investigating". Of the Hubbers I'd found with that name in their user name, there were some with very few, if any, Hubs; but there was one that had a Hub that was kind of related to the subject of the Hub in question. Without mentioning the exact subject, or the angle, of the Hub under suspicion, I'll say that the Hub I did run into did, in fact, seem written by a person who is overbearing and a little too interested in other people's mistakes and/or flaws. I'll never know if I found the right person. That's fine. I don't care.

The e.mail from the the person came a few weeks ago (maybe it's several at this point, and maybe I've just lost track). I haven't thought of it since, but today I went to the HubPages forums and saw someone's thread about responding to a negative comment on a Hub. For the most part, the general consensus was that people should just ignore those things. I thought about the fact that I'd never replied to the "e.mail-person's" message, and about how she'd never even know if I got the e.mail if I didn't reply. Yes, ignoring such things can be a very satisfying thing to do.

At the same time, it can also be pretty damned satisfying to just let someone "have it". (LOL) On the one hand, I see the humor in that; but I'm also serious. There are people who go around the Internet, making whatever remarks they feel like making either because they just want to be "A.H."s (apparently), or because they're angry, small-minded, people who have issues.

Most of the (MOST of the time), I have a healthy perspective on the silliness of hostile and/or rude comments online. We all know it goes on. We all know we can't take it seriously. A lot of us even find a lot of the comments funny. (Well.. the fact that I deleted that e.mail as quickly as I did might be seen as evidence that my claim of not taking seriously comments that are obviously beyond just "negative feedback" and on to "aiming-to-personally-insult".

The thing is, however, that we don't live on the Internet (even if it can seem as if we do). We live an offline life in an offline world. It happens that in my offline life I've had some very serious consequences occur when offline people just decided to carelessly throw out "whatever" words they felt like it because they were angry at me, or at least didn't understand, or approve of, something I did. Words are far from harmless.

It's not just in my own life that I've seen the kind of serious, serious, damage that can be done when people throw out words without thinking of the potential consequences. For example, there are people who end up in prison for years (maybe even life, maybe even on Death Row) because someone was a little too careless with words. False accusations, inaccurate court testimony, gossip, or any number of other things can include words that ruin lives. What's awful, too, is that so many people are quick to whip up whatever words come to mind and fling them out there.

So, the other side to the fact that online insults aren't worth thinking about and should be ignored is the fact that there's a point where some words shouldn't be left unaddressed. In fact, if there were a way to hold some people accountable for their words that would be one way to get some people to think twice before being so free with their words. Again, Internet insults don't matter. At the same time, however, maybe the point isn't whether they matter or not, but whether we all should be so willing to just let words go unaddressed. Maybe there's something to be said for at least insulting someone back, and doing our best to verbally flatten them for a few seconds. Most often, of course, we can't hold them accountable; but I'm just not always all that sure that even the mildest and most insignificant variety of verbal and/or online bullying ought to be so complacently accepted and ignored.

You know how I said I'd forgotten about the e.mail? Well, that's true. Something happened that made me recall it again, though, when someone online raised the issue of whether or not to respond to insulting comments appearing on one's writing. It may seem kind of strange that, when I know how many "zillions" of insults and verbal attacks go on online, just one person's remark would get me thinking about the e.mail again. (I'm sure it was just the timing of the other person's remark, so soon after I'd received the e.mail.) With all that goes on online, do I think there's a way to police that stuff (or do I think it's even worth any more time than the fraction of a second it takes to delete it)? Of course not.

The person who raised the issue was considering whether he should just delete or follow through with something he'd written in reply to the insulting comment. This individual had reasons to see some benefits (other than the sheer "joy" of hurling back an insult) in responding in a certain way. That's what got me thinking, no so much of any individual insults sent to any individual writer; but about the whole matter of whether it's always the best policy to just delete and never respond.

For the most part (and just as I did before getting that e.mail I mentioned), I still think these things aren't worth bothering responding to. Then again, after giving the whole subject a little more thought - I'm not sure that policy is the best one in all instances.