Criticism

[Maple-Leaf]

I've seen a few threads about this recently, either that or they just end up going down the path to this discussion.
It has led to the resurfacing to an old question of mine, and I figured I'd ask it.

Is constructive criticism that disregards the authors preferences and style really valid? I know that not all criticism has to be constructive, but the critics that claim to be constructive then proceed to type out a large paragraph of insult laden criticism, mockery, and sarcasm, should they really be considered valid? Clearly the critic doesn't enjoy the book, why should the author feel obligated to adjust their work to suit a reader who's already dropped the story? Should their criticism be ignored? But what if you miss out on helpful advice because you got scared off by the insults? Where's the divide between plain bashing and constructive criticism?
Ah, but this is more of a hypothetical question, I'd have to get a review to personally consider this. Just want to know other people's personal experiences in sorting through reviews.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

I read some thread replies from a related issue that says a 'review' is actually meant for readers, and not for the author. I don't know, but while I honestly don't like negative reviews, sometimes it can help me improve my work...though I pick up what I can use (since I know what direction my story is going to take).

As for the author's preferences, I believe it should be respected. Diversity in writing is what makes literature interesting, and the moment the authors were forced to follow the 'norms', I think it would only do disservice to our hobby. There are just some readers (and fellow authors too) who believe that their views are superior, and go flaunting it around like an a*shole.

Well, we got to develop thick skins. The world of literature is a harsh and unforgiving one. No other way around it. Like what most denizens of SH would say, "Continue on what you're writing." I would also add, "Improve where you must." You'd find your ideal audience in due time.

Edit: On a related note, ever since I left that 0.5 star review in my story @ RoyalRoad, my readers encouraged me to write even more. And I think it was reported too, since a few days later, it was gone.

 

[Ryudo1701]

Well, not that I have a review of my novel till no, but maybe I can throw in some words too.

I find it much more helpful if readers leave some comments directly inside the chapters, as they can quote things inside that seemed weird if it didn't match the overall style of the story (like an unwilled change in character personality one didn't notice, or just mistakes in grammar, typos etc.)

As for criticism at the writing style, or general direction/outlook of the story and such, while they may not like it the author shouldn't change their story to fit them, as it should be something you write your way. Of course such things can, and should be told about in a review, but more in a neutral way and not discrediting the story for it as another person may like a slow pace or such things.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I do what every professional author does.

First step, you denigrate your critics and question their literary skills and intellect. After all, your work is perfect, and they are nothing but imbeciles.

Second step, you accept their criticism behind their backs. Obviously, you never say so. They understand nothing after all.

Third step, you improve your work and pretend as if you had never changed to begin with. You don't listen to critics.

Fourth step and final step, still call them imbeciles.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

I do what every professional author does.

First step, you denigrate your critics and question their literary skills and intellect. After all, your work is perfect, and they are nothing but imbeciles.

Second step, you accept their criticism behind their backs. Obviously, you never say so. They understand nothing after all.

Third step, you improve your work and pretend as if you had never changed to begin with. You don't listen to critics.

Fourth step and final step, still call them imbeciles.

I love this tip. Thanks!

 

[Maple-Leaf]

I do what every professional author does.

First step, you denigrate your critics and question their literary skills and intellect. After all, your work is perfect, and they are nothing but imbeciles.

Second step, you accept their criticism behind their backs. Obviously, you never say so. They understand nothing after all.

Third step, you improve your work and pretend as if you had never changed to begin with. You don't listen to critics.

Fourth step and final step, still call them imbeciles.

I believe I have ascended to true authorhood now.

 

[Queenfisher]

I raised this same topic some time ago, but more from a logical standview of how our biases would always only align with what we like/agree with regardless of how good the actual criticism/critique is. If you don't agree (even subconsciously), nobody in the world will be able to make you.

In short, it's sometimes kind of absurd to even make amateur criticism because the likelihood is that if they disagree, you are: 1) wasting your and their time, 2) kind of always sound like an a**hole to them, 3) they might double down in what you perceive is wrong with their art because you forgot that all art is subjective and author's subjective view is automatically just as valid as yours, thus making your criticism DOA.

And if they agree, they will make the adjustments sooner or later without your help. When they are ready for them. This covers people who want to improve but so far haven't yet gotten to act on it and don't know where or why. Your "agreeable criticism" for them is just pat-pat on the back until they are mentally ready to improve/change with or without your help.

If the criticism is done in a restrictive environment (business, scientific community), it's different because there are now actual objective rules with which to measure success of your art/writing.

In amateur environments -- no such thing. Who yells the loudest is who gets to define what "good art" is.

 

[SailusGebel]

The division between bashing\insult and criticism is in your head. Because you never know what kind of person gives you a critic and how they view it.

The thing that helps me get over with any criticism or mean comments or whatever else is a conviction that no one has an ill intention. They either have a worldview that differs from mine, or they simply didn't like what I've written. That's why you should pay attention to the things you find questionable yourself.

While reviews, in my opinion, are more for the readers to decide if they should give the novel a try.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I raised this same topic some time ago, but more from a logical standview of how our biases would always only align with what we like/agree with regardless of how good the actual criticism/critique is. If you don't agree (even subconsciously), nobody in the world will be able to make you.

In short, it's sometimes kind of absurd to even make amateur criticism because the likelihood is that if they disagree, you are: 1) wasting your and their time, 2) kind of always sound like an a**hole to them, 3) they might double down in what you perceive is wrong with their art because you forgot that all art is subjective and author's subjective view is automatically just as valid as yours, thus making your criticism DOA.

And if they agree, they will make the adjustments sooner or later without your help. When they are ready for them. This covers people who want to improve but so far haven't yet gotten to act on it and don't know where or why. Your "agreeable criticism" for them is just pat-pat on the back until they are mentally ready to improve/change with or without your help.

If the criticism is done in a restrictive environment (business, scientific community), it's different because there are now actual objective rules with which to measure success of your art/writing.

In amateur environments -- no such thing. Who yells the loudest is who gets to define what "good art" is.

Yelling loud is good.

 

[Angry_Clown]

My own stance is similar to @Queenfisher above.

Ultimately the review is done to entertain the reviewer themselves the most. Then to warn/entice the other readers. The author's benefit always comes last in this relationship. Because let's be honest, people never rewrite already extensive works unless they're massively bashed into oblivion by a horde of unwashed and savage readers, no matter how valid the criticism may be.

Yelling loud is good.

Unless you have a terminal keyboard condition. In that case that's another 10$ down the drain.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

My own stance is similar to @Queenfisher above.

Ultimately the review is done to entertain the reviewer themselves the most. Then to warn/entice the other readers. The author's benefit always comes last in this relationship. Because let's be honest, people never rewrite already extensive works unless they're massively bashed into oblivion by a horde of unwashed and savage readers, no matter how valid the criticism may be.



Unless you have a terminal keyboard condition. In that case that's another 10$ down the drain.

Don't get what you are trying to tell me.

 

[Angry_Clown]

Yell a little bit too hard on the internet and your keyboard will be the one to feel the pain

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Yell a little bit too hard on the internet and your keyboard will feel the pain

Ah, now it makes sense.

 

[Queenfisher]

I made a diagram!

Here it is and below is the legend for it:

Spoiler

1. Opinion is there to remind that no objectivity is possible in amateur evaluation of art.

2. Feedback is different from Opinion because: a) Opinion is you liking/disliking a piece of art, b) Feedback is you sharing your like/dislike with others.

3. Analysis is different from Feedback because: a) Feedback is you telling somebody you like/dislike a piece of art, b) Analysis is you explaining why.

4. Recommendation for Others is directed at other potential consumers of the piece of art, NOT for the author.

5. Criticism's definition is that is attempts to define/look at flaws, thus becomes sort of negative compared to neutral Feedback.

6. Critique is a Criticism when done in an analytical manner and while looking at flaws, doesn't necessarily claim these flaws need to be corrected. Just states them as fact.

7. Advice is Feedback directed solely at the author.

8. Constructive Criticism is Advice tinted with the flaw-seeking of Criticism and the assumption something needs to change for the piece or art to improve.

---------------

This is just a temporary diagram and might not be sufficient. If I forgot something in it, please tell *_*. We can improve, or completely rewrite/redraw it with group effort for more clarity in such discussions ^^.

 

[averagewriter]

Criticism is just criticism there is no constructive and destructive, take them as a motivation and they are constructive get defeated by them and give up and they are destructive.

 

[Moonpearl]

If their points are honest, then the criticism is valid. They may suck as a constructive critic (potentially; there's a tendency for authors to read criticism as being harsher than it is because it hurts), but that doesn't mean they have nothing valuable to say.

Back in my second year of university, I had a terrible student lecturer who couldn't give feedback to save herself. I strongly remember working really hard on an essay on Lewis Caroll and, when she returned it to me, one of the only things she'd written was, "Your ideas are shallow."
That crushed me. I doubted myself and everything I had to say for a long time after that and, ultimately, it wasn't constructive criticism in the slightest. Lady had the communication skills of a blunt boulder.
After many years of studying and growing as an academic, I can look back now and realise that what she meant to say was that I had somehow managed to miss the satirical nature of the text I was studying and its commentary on the nature of academia. It was a really huge topic for that area of academia so, by missing it, I had failed to connect with my field of study and provide crucial context and relevance. Further reading would have greatly improved my essay.
But she didn't say that, because she's a spoon. Still, there was a valid element in her uselessness.

As for criticism going against an author's preferences or style, well... I think that's still useful? There are drawbacks to every choice you make as an author, and it's helpful to know what the strengths and weaknesses of those choices are.
When I was writing "Muirgen", I asked my friend who loves GB to read it and tell me what she thought. She gave me a ton of really insightful comments, but I didn't use all of them.
For example, she advised that I should use "she" in the narration for the MC in his second life, because it didn't feel like yuri when I kept using "he".
I personally chose to keep using "he" because I wanted a jarring contrast between the MC's inner narrative and the way he was viewed, since that was a major theme of the story; however, I know that I sacrificed a great deal of yuri atmosphere because of it.

As for one more thing I will add... Some of the best critics of certain literature subjects are actually people who hate that genre. Hate doesn't make them great, but it does make those great critics unafraid to tear the whole thing to pieces to get at its heart and call out its many weaknesses.
Just because they don't like it, doesn't mean that they can't call a spade a spade if they have the skill for it?

 

[Angry_Clown]

@Queenfisher
That diagram is nice but only works in an ideal world with ideal people where they stick to one single point and don't stray into other areas. But ideal people are like ideal gas — not present in nature. So we often have feedback that has every single aspect touched and it's impossible to classify.

Some of the best critics of certain literature subjects are actually people who hate that genre.

Well, if we go by Plutchik's theory of emotion (which I'm a huge fan of) that would be fitting. Annoyance, anger, and disgust make one better at noticing and pointing out flaws.

 

[Maple-Leaf]

Nice, thanks.

 

[lnv]

I've seen a few threads about this recently, either that or they just end up going down the path to this discussion.
It has led to the resurfacing to an old question of mine, and I figured I'd ask it.

Is constructive criticism that disregards the authors preferences and style really valid? I know that not all criticism has to be constructive, but the critics that claim to be constructive then proceed to type out a large paragraph of insult laden criticism, mockery, and sarcasm, should they really be considered valid? Clearly the critic doesn't enjoy the book, why should the author feel obligated to adjust their work to suit a reader who's already dropped the story? Should their criticism be ignored? But what if you miss out on helpful advice because you got scared off by the insults? Where's the divide between plain bashing and constructive criticism?
Ah, but this is more of a hypothetical question, I'd have to get a review to personally consider this. Just want to know other people's personal experiences in sorting through reviews.

The biggest question comes down to if they are willing to engage in a conversation or not. If they just leave an essay bomb and run away, that isn't constructive criticism.

Do note, the point of constructive criticism isn't simply to agree or disagree with the criticism. But to understand other people's perspective.

Whether you wish to meet the expectations of that perspective or not is up to you the author. Cause end of the day, you will never please everyone. But you can still understand the point of view of others. And as you understand others better, you can write a more engaging story.

We have to realize as authors that no reader will ever read the same story exactly the same. They will have different interpretations from you the author and other readers. So even if the criticism is wrong and flawed, you have to ask yourself, did I maybe write something that can be misinterpreted too easily for something else? That is why getting into the heads of our readers is important. Not to please them but to make sure what we are writing is getting to them properly.

 

[ChronicleCrawler]

I do what every professional author does.

First step, you denigrate your critics and question their literary skills and intellect. After all, your work is perfect, and they are nothing but imbeciles.

Second step, you accept their criticism behind their backs. Obviously, you never say so. They understand nothing after all.

Third step, you improve your work and pretend as if you had never changed to begin with. You don't listen to critics.

Fourth step and final step, still call them imbeciles.

Got some ideas now. Noob Writers 101: How to Deal With Critics. Thanks Assurbanipal. Definitely gonna use this.