\"Writing.Com
*Magnify*
SPONSORED LINKS
BY ONLINE AUTHORS
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/nurdee6
Review Requests: OFF
59 Public Reviews Given
412 Total Reviews Given
Public Reviews
1
1
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 13+ | (3.0)
I really enjoyed reading your views on reviewing. In your description, you mention this is for people that have been reviewed by you... I have not but decided to read this anyway. The piece was well written from a technical standpoint and I think it flows well.

There are a couple of reasons I didn't rate it higher:
1. I don't think your feelings on this subject are well thought out. There seems to be some conflict. At first it sounds like you've come to terms with people giving honest criticism, but it ends sounding like you're not quite sure about it.

2. It makes me sick to read over and over again the idea that a review is just an opinion. This sounds like a defense mechanism to me. You're taking what someone carefully thought up and wrote (for your benefit alone) and labeling it as 'just an opinion'. I feel you're a thankless writer that's coming off as 'holier than thou'. A review may be a mix of opinions and true statements (it all depends on what's in it). Regardless, your attitude towards what people say about your work, minimizing their efforts, does not come across very well.

It reminds me of a review I gave recently. I give the piece a good rating and my review had a few minor comments that I felt would have helped it. It was not a negative review at all. I received an email from the writer saying 'your review, your opinion'... No response would have been better. Most people that respond say 'thanks for the review' or explain to me why they wrote what they wrote (or clarify their point). But to just dismiss what I took time to carefully write (for their benefit) by stating 'well that's your opinion' is just sad. I won't review anymore of his work.

Overall, this piece left me feeling like I never want to read or review your work in the future either. That's not how I really feel though... but that's what this piece is doing to me. I don't think that was your intention. In some ways, it reads like a letter you're writing to yourself just to feel better about getting bad reviews. I think the writing is clear with no obvious grammar mistakes... but I'm not sure what the use is for other people.

These aren't criticisms, just an old man's thoughts
2
2
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.0)
This was a well written essay about your take on public reviews. I think you presented your case well. You are clear, organized and appear to be serious about what you're writing about. My rating is based solely on the writing aspect and not on the content (i.e., your views on public reviewing), but I'll comment on both.

Comments on writing:
1. It sounds like this piece was written because you felt that there were too many unfair public reviews. It looks like something prompted you to write this. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I thought when first reading it. I recommend telling us specifically what inspired this piece.

2. What people consider 'hateful' is somewhat subjective. I think this piece would be stronger if you include some specific examples. You may think something is hateful, while other people may think the same thing is dry but useful. We can't tell if you're being reasonable unless we see something concrete.

3. I think there needs to be more explanation regarding the 'argument against content in public' section. For a non-fiction piece or a fiction piece with real information, accuracy of the content is critical and should be brought up. There's no reason not to bring that up in public... we can all learn something from it.


If I were to rate this piece on content, I would have rated it quite a bit lower. In general, I agree with what you're saying, but I have some specific issues with the piece.

The content issues are:

1. You mention very early that:
Being informative means the review contains reasons why someone should or shouldn't read the item.

For the most part, I agree with that statement. I'm not sure it belongs at the top though. I don't think the best aspect of the public forum is to advertise good pieces and dissuade people from bad pieces. In fact, I shudder at the notion of someone not reading a piece because I gave a low rating on the public forum.

The best aspect of a review is to help the writer. The best aspect of the public forum is for writers to share critical thoughts with each other. For example, I see many reviewers bring up the same issues. "Your piece lacks emotion" or "Your character is flat", etc. These comments remind me that I have to pay attention to these things in my writing. Sometimes I forget that I need to pay attention to changes in POV, etc.

2. If you treat your writing as a 'baby' and take personally criticism of it, no matter how harsh, you're likely going to disregard serious/constructive criticism. If you read autobiographies of well published writers, they all say the same thing... don't take criticism personally. I'm not advocating hate, or useless comments, but let's be honest, this is public forum. If you put your work out there for people to see, you can't pack it up if people send negative comments to you.

I can even comment on this firsthand. I'm not stingy with 4.5 and 5 stars (my average is something like 4.3). Occasionally I give a low rating if a piece is really bad. I've given low ratings a couple of times. I remember two in particular. They were both for poems I thought were awful. I didn't say that in the reivew. I explained specifically why I gave the low rating. It was based on style, flow, content and emotion. I also gave suggestions and included some positive things.

One responded: Maybe I'll just quit writing. The other: I'm not a poet and never said I was.

That was it. That said to me that they couldn't take criticism... and these were longtime members of WDC. I think that's a more serious problem than a few haters that give useless ratings.

In short, I disagree with this part of your piece and think you should have taken the opportunity to tell writers to 'toughen up'. After all, haters won't pay any attention to sound advice.

In summary, I think you did a good job writing this piece in a clear manner. I think your advice is good, but could be improved with some minor changes.

These aren't personal criticisms, just an old man's opinion.
3
3
Review of Choices  Open in new Window.
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 13+ | (4.0)
That was a great poem... I really enjoyed reading it. I came away feeling sad and I think that's a good sign. I liked that you kept it relatively simple and didn't pack in a lot of adjectives. I also like you didn't use rhyme. I've read many poems of serious, emotional topics that didn't sound right because the writer used a silly rhyme.

I have a couple of minor comments:
1. the part about the lines (on the test) is a little bit too long. the one, then another, and then another seemed little tedious.

2. I'm not really a fan of the last line. The last stanza is good and gives it some depth. I think it matches well with the positive test from the previous stanza. It's like 'wow, what have I done?'... but then the last line is a little out there on it's own... I can't see how it relates to the rest of the poem. Did you feel a similar relief after the test? Maybe something along the lines of saying that relief came later, that everything was going to be okay would be more consistent.

3. Finally, the poem starts off about your emotions (which comes across well) but then after reading about the accident... well, the word 'reckless' comes to mind and distracts from the sadness...

4. The 'And' in 'And when I looked...' doesn't make sense to me... this line does not follow the same thought as the previous line, so I think the 'And' should go.

these aren't criticisms, just an old man's opinion.
4
4
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 18+ | (1.0)
I really liked this thing you wrote... whatever it is... It didn't make any sense but the words almost suffocated me with emotion. I'm an old man and I think I cried.

Not only did this piece not flow well, it had no description (who needs it), no action (not necessary either) and left me feeling like I wanted to visit my in-laws.

What else is there in writing???

I call this, the complete package.

Will there be a part 2 to this?? Pretty please
5
5
Review of Light Bodies  Open in new Window.
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (3.0)
This is an interesting poem. I think the message is coming across well.

I didn't rate it higher because of the rhyming you used in the beginning. it wasn't natural. The word 'delight' is often used just for the sake of rhyming and I cringe when I see it used like this. And 'just right'??? that's and awful phrase.

I know this is for writer's cramp, and you don't have much time to write it... so why not keep the whole poem free verse??

There's no reason to put rhyme just for the sake of it.

These aren't criticisms, just an old man's opinion.
6
6
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 13+ | (3.0)
I really like short pieces that are simply written and get their message across in a thoughtful way.

I had a hard time understand the message of this poem. Perhaps a short description at the beginning or end will help.

1. I don't understand what it means, when you say God stands before science. Is the message God is more important than science? Is there a conflict to begin with?
2. He/She 'is a helix' doesn't make much sense to me. I don't get that.

I think some introduction would help, otherwise it sounds like a bunch of cool sounding words strung together

These aren't criticisms, just an old man's opinion.
7
7
Review of What I am  Open in new Window.
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (3.0)
This was an interesting little piece. Short poems with few words are something I really enjoy... I'm biased. Your idea for the piece is interesting... the progression from writer to author.

but... with these short pieces, the words must be carefully chosen...

I didn't rate this so highly because this poem, ironically, misses something critical to poetry... inspiration. It may inspire someone who writes catalog entries, but not other writers.

This line: "Describing, adding, informing" reminds me of what an accountant does.

In my opinion, this is the most important line of the text, and unfortunately, these words represent the least important aspect of being a good writer.

Writing is not to add or inform (unless you are writing tax codes or catalog entries)... writing it to elicit an emotion, to inspire, to cause refection.

This poem didn't... it's ironic because of the poem's theme.

These are criticisms, just an old man's honest opinion.
8
8
Review of Red Butterfly  Open in new Window.
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.0)
This was a nice poem. I liked that it was simple yet told a story. I can picture a caterpillar becoming a butterfly and the 'feelings' matched the actions.

The only reason I didn't rate it higher was because it was very abrupt the transition from 'Rainbows everywhere,' to 'Suffocation in fresh air.'

For me that doesn't match. If it had a smoother transition I think it would work better. Even in nature, the transition to cocoon (if that's what it meant) is slow.

This isn't a criticism, just an old man's opinion.
9
9
Review of The Sociopath  Open in new Window.
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.5)
this was good too. keep writing them.

One sign of good poetry is when they convey a message without saying it. That's why many of my reviews, I recommend people take out stuff. Simple is good. it can leave a question in the reader's mind... makes them wonder. Of course, if not done well, the reader will be confused and not like it.

In this poem, if you take out the 4th stanza it leaves us to question a little what's going on in his mind. not too much though, because it's obvious from the rest of the poems. when you tell us directly, it takes away a little. in your case, we already know he enjoys it because of the word 'humorous'.

this one needs some proofreading too:
cry's --> cries
Its --> It's
10
10
Review of After Life  Open in new Window.
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.0)
i enjoyed reading this poem. thank you for sharing it. It tells a story which is always a good thing.

I didn't rate it higher because I think the tone didn't match the story. The way I read it, is that it's a story of passing on and being free in death, but the tone feels more of a rapid anger. I don't know if that's what you intended or not. The feeling of peace or freedom does not mach the tone, as I read it.

This isn't a criticism, just an old man's opinion.
11
11
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.0)
thanks for bringing the rest of us down too... just kidding... that means you did a good job. your emotions came across well, which is not easy to do.

I liked you used free verse, which matches the tone. The poem is simple. That also matches.

I didn't rate it higher because the ending was a little too much. I think the poem would be better without the two last lines. we already know what the poem is about... there's no need to reinforce it directly at the end. I know some readers may be dense, but it's looks like you're saying 'well if you didn't get it, let me give it to you'.

this isn't a criticism, just an old man's opinion.
12
12
Review of The Note  Open in new Window.
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.5)
That was a nice poem... I can see how it could have been a song. I really liked that you kept it simple and were able to wrap it up at the end.

The reason I didn't give it a 5 is because I thought the 3rd stanza is a little rough. I'm not sure it's even necessary. If you want to keep it, maybe you could consider working on it a little more. If you take it out, we will never know what that note is about... and that's much more exciting than what you're telling us is written in the 3rd stanza.

This is not a criticism, that is just an old man's opinion.

13
13
Review of Easy as Breathing  Open in new Window.
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.5)
That's a nice poem, with a quick pace. It was easy to read and ended really well... the 'almost like breathing' is very clever. It's good to end a poem with something strong. At the same time the end comes abruptly which matches the theme of the piece.

One has to ask though... are you okay? We are your anonymous friends... if you are calling out, please tell someone.

woukld --> would
14
14
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (3.0)
This piece was very well written and your thoughts were easy to understand.

I would like to point out some 'flaws' as I see them. Of course, I did not rate your piece based on your opinions, only the writing.

1. "Science can only deal with the present."

That patently not true. Scientists can get plenty of evidence today that can explain what happened thousands of years ago. Do you doubt that native americans lived here before the europeans arrived? do you doubt the ice age ever happened? if we stand in front of a giant crater, should we doubt a meteor ever hit it? that's almost like standing in front of a giant oak tree and saying 'no one will ever know if this tree was ever an acorn because no one was around when it started growing'.

2. "However, a natural process capable of producing life without the intervention of some intelligence would likely have produced a wide variety of different cells."

This is conjecture, unless you have some evidence. I've never heard anyone say that the 'spark of life' only happened once. Ever heard of natural selection? Besides, without any single evidence for intelligent interference, how can a scientist honestly consider it? I'll remind you that no scientists claim they know how life started. There are a few hypotheses, but no real theories.

3. "...random genetic changes has a probability of zero..."

this is an old creationist argument that has no real merit- consider:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.h...

4. "The media have been claiming that “embryonic cells provide the most promising source of cures” for all kinds of dread disorders without providing any evidence that embryonic cells can be used to treat any human disorders. The claim itself should raise a red flag. It’s the same approach once used by patent medicine sellers who promised their products would cure everything from snakebite to lumbago."

This is kinda silly. if scientists can't study these cells, how can anyone know their potential? If you're going to belittle scientists, at least use something more substantial.

5. "Based on scientific evidence, adult stem cells are clearly more deserving of the accolade of being “most promising” than are embryonic cells."

Of course, without federal funding, no one could really study embryonic cells. Again, you are dismissing them before anyone can even find out what they can do. That's not very honest. To be against them for religious grounds is one thing... to dismiss their potential without evidence is wrong.

Science as a religion is not a new idea. Religious groups always try to claim this because they like to think science takes some kind of faith, or belief. Perhaps instead of opposing science, religion should embrace it. It's embarrassing for the church... and it is reminiscent of the time when the church kept telling people that the heliocentric theory (Earth orbits the sun) was a lie.

By the way, there is less evidence to support that theory than there is to support the theory of evolution.

From: A scientist.
15
15
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (3.0)
I think this is pretty well written and I'm happy to see that you were respectful to both sides. It was great you put the footnotes.

It could you some organization. Consider heading or subheadings.

I would like to take this opportunity to take issue with a few things you said. Scientists are not out there to prove or disprove anything supernatural. Of course, your friend is free to argue whether science supports a God or not. Science is about explaining the natural world. Spiritual conclusions come from others, not scientists.

You are correct that science can not prove or disprove the supernatural. but the lack of proof does not mean something exists only for that reason. in other words, with this argument, one can say three gods exist, that pink aliens playing video poker exist... the list can go on and on ad infinitum. Whatever you can think of, must exist because we can't show otherwise.

Because I can't see invisible flying superheroes that live in the hall of justice near alpha centari, must mean they exist.

You mention that "Thus, when a Supernaturalist maintains, “There is a mode of existence, and a Being who exists in that mode, which operates independently of the cause-and-effect system on which science depends in order to prove or disprove anything...” Here you are creating something, defining it, without knowing it exists. How do you know there is a mode of existence like this? What evidence do you have? You can repeat that it's out of the realm of science, but that's make-believe. Anyone can say anything under those rules.

Because I define something the way I want to doesn't make it real. I have an imaginary friend sitting with me. He's real. You can't prove he's not real, so he must me. What can you see or hear him? He only talks to me and only I can see him. He's beyond your perceptions.
16
16
Review by Krobotica Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (1.5)
I think if you're going to write something against evolution, you need to know more about it than you seem to. There are too many incorrect statements in this letter to make it credible. It's great that you included references though.

1. "Creationism and Intelligent Design are credible alternatives to evolution..." In a scientific sense, they are not credible, as there is no experiments that can test the presence of an intelligent designer.

2. "The theory of evolution has never been proven scientifically..." Scientific theories are never proven. That's not how theories work. Since you don't have this basic understanding, it's hard to believe anything else you write. Math uses proofs. Science does not. Scientific theories explain and connect pieces of evidence. Those pieces may be made up of observed facts, but that's different than the theory.

3. " ...but scientists cannot create observable experiments using the scientific method to prove evolutionary theory as fact." Evolution has been witnessed by scientists (links are below). Again, a theory is never proven.

4. "...course of 3.5 billion years by random chance." Creationists love to say this. Evolution does not occur by chance, and no scientists claim that. Natural selection is not chance. You are making a straw man argument.

5. You bring up mathematical probability... again that is another creationist deception (see link below).

6. "Evolution is the only widely accepted scientific theory that keeps God out of the equation of how man and the universe were created." No scientific theory incorporates God. Can you imagine scientific experiments measuring God, his intentions, when, where, how he does something. It is scientifically impossible. No scientific theory requires God. How can you teach something without any possible science in a science class. That's really absurd.

7. "...cannot be proven that the theory of evolution is anything beyond that, a theory..." Again you obviously don't understand the word theory in a scientific sense. Gravity is a theory, the sun being the center of the solar system is a theory, germs causing disease is a theory. it doesn't get better than that in science. A theory is at the top... it is an explanation of evidence. it will never become a law or anything higher.

8. Evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists across the world... people that spend their lives studying science. Are you suggesting they are all ignorant, foolish, or liars. It would have been better to write that.

9. "...no link can be made between man and ameba [sic] or monkey." Why don't you download their genomic sequences and look for yourself.

If you understand what a scientific theory really is, that's one thing. But to keep writing about something being proofs is really silly.

Refs (all of these have references within):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Another excellent resource on evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
16 Reviews · *Magnify*
Page of 1 · 25 per page   < >
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/nurdee6