If there is criticism that disregards the authors personal style and preferences, It it something that should be considered. But nothing more than that. If criticism forces you to write something that you yourself don't enjoy as much as you could have, then I don't think it will be improving your story overall, but rather improving it for a specific group of people.
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.
That's why it's Venn's-ish. What you're talking about is encapsulated by the fact that the Feedback is the bigger circle surrounding the others.
And ideal things and social constructs do not need to be immediately practical. Are words like "classism", "religion", "abnormal" present in nature or super efficient? Not really. Too ambiguous, almost always require elaboration to be used in context. But they are practical as a sort of "temporary definition" that works because we have no better alternative.
Science works the same way. It's why we call most scientific advances "theories". They can and probably will be falsified in the future when we have better knowledge/equipment to do so. But it doesn't mean they are unusable for now when we have nothing better.
Likewise, all the concepts I put in the diagram. They are all vague approximations of what is going on in the chaotic and undefinable context of "opinionated discussions about art". Are they efficient? Not always.
Is there a better alternative other than to dwell in the "ambiguous undefinables"? Probably. But they will all involve rigid and therefore idealized definitions. And thus, again aren't "present in nature" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They need to be for the sake of this discussion, though. Otherwise, it's just... a nice picture, like I've said
My point is the pointlessness of even trying to classify the reviews (on this site in particular) since people do tend to mix in everything and it becomes just feedback and we get absolutely nowhere.
Yours (post above) seems to be the usefulness of umbrella terms? I'm not sure how the two points relate. It's all very confusing.
They need to be for the sake of this discussion, though. Otherwise, it's just... a nice picture, like I've said
My point is the pointlessness of even trying to classify the reviews (on this site in particular) since people do tend to mix in everything and it becomes just feedback and we get absolutely nowhere.
Ah, sorry! I thought you talked about the picture itself and not how it relates to the OP.
Essentially, the OP asked about whether the reviews/CC are valid or count. I made a picture to illustrate the differences, but above all -- that they're all subjective opinion and thus do not need to matter/be valid at all. However cool/elaborate/competent-sounding/positive/negative/well-argued they are -- still only a subjective opinion. Based on the author's personal likes/agreeableness, they'll just dismiss them.
I put the diagram into this thread because others before me already began discussing how review is different from critique from feedback, etc. My attempt to depict it -- is just a summation of those views because since people make these views all the time (and make them repeatedly -- on this forum, to no avail, it seems) -- I decided that putting it into a more concise picture might be worth it. It's fewer words because it's a picture, duh ^^, and thus might be clearer (?).
Yours (post above) seems to be the usefulness of umbrella terms? I'm not sure how the two points relate. It's all very confusing.
Not umbrella terms, but all language that uses abstract concepts. You said that what diagram depicts doesn't "exist in nature" to which I replied that most concepts crucial in discussions don't, but are useful nonetheless. Again, people before me already touched upon this subject, and my picture was only summarizing their points .
And I am unsure how we can discuss this topic without generalizing and trying to find patterns in feedback behavior . It would imply we need to go case-by-case for each review/feedback/comment/etc and I'm not sure what good it will do +_+.
But thanks for explaining and letting me explain what we meant ^^.
They do though. Religion and classism are existing phenomena of human behavior that can be observed. Abnormality is simply a thing that occurs irregularly (i.e. out of bounds of expectation for that particular thing). Reviews, feedback, and critique are also real things (well, phenomena) and can be observed.
Ideal gas can't be observed, since it's a purely theoretical concept. I mean, sure, we can "develop" the "ideal feedback laws", but their use would be just as limited as the ideal gas laws. Water vapour? Pressure too high? Temp too low? Heavy gas? Those laws are now useless garbage, lets shove them somewhere else.
Now, ideal gas laws have their uses, because gases still follow natural laws and some empiric deduction can be made (in the minuscule amount of actual situations where they're applicable). People? People are random as heck. They barely follow any rules and classifying their behavior on the internet is pretty much impossible. And we have no qualifications to engage in behavioral studies.
It would imply we need to go case-by-case for each review/feedback/comment/etc and I'm not sure what good it will do
Yeah, I kinda try to infer that. Reviews have to be judged on a case-by-case basis since they're deeply personal things in a non-ideal environment, but doing so is utterly pointless. So, that brings me to my initial point: the picture is pretty, doesn't work
Well, the point can be (and was) made that most amateur reviews fall under the umbrella of feedback, but that's about it, I guess?
I've gotten loads of reviews on writing.com, and some of them are in direct opposition to each other on how I should fix my story. Some people want more sex and some people think I have too much sex in my story. I take that as a good sign I'm walking a nice middle road. I'm writing the kind of story I want to read, after all.
No matter what I always say thanks whether I agree with a review or not. "I will take your suggestions into consideration on my next rewrite" is my go-to phrase for when I disagree but don't feel like arguing. Just because I take suggestions into consideration doesn't mean I'm going to actually implement them.
Then there are some people who give me really crappy grammar advice. I'm well aware of grammar myths, so I just laugh that stuff off. I'll look it up if I feel they might have a point, but I've gotten some suggestions that are downright wrong.
“You have to give an editor something to change, or he gets frustrated. After he pees in it himself, he likes the flavor much better, so he buys it.”
I definitely fix things when I get enough comments that something is not working. In my first release, many people said that Marc was too controlling. I talked to one of my friends about it since she actually met the man Marc is based on, and she said Marc was definitely supportive, not controlling, so I changed a few things to clarify that, and since that rewrite, nobody has commented that Marc is controlling.
Sorry for the tangent. +________+ And I might not come back to respond (sorry) because I have a deadline soon and this topic drains my time and writing, >_<. Sorry.
They do though. Religion and classism are existing phenomena of human behavior that can be observed. Abnormality is simply a thing that occurs irregularly (i.e. out of bounds of expectation for that particular thing). Reviews, feedback, and critique are also real things (well, phenomena) and can be observed.
Ideal gas can't be observed, since it's a purely theoretical concept. I mean, sure, we can "develop" the "ideal feedback laws", but their use would be just as limited as the ideal gas laws. Water vapour? Pressure too high? Temp too low? Heavy gas? Those laws are now useless garbage, lets shove them somewhere else.
The words I named were random concepts that can shift based on context and a thousand more could be in their place, so no need to review each on case-by-case here . And while they can be observed, their definitions have changed throughout history and still will. Themselves, concepts are malleable and culture-dependent. The thing that is observed =/= the word that at the current time signifies it. Plus, they are general terms and are useful in discussions when context isn't specified. In the chaotic perception of all observable things, we have to (sometimes) arbitrarily define some of them or we wouldn't be able to discuss them at all .
I can discuss a unicorn penguin. It does not exist and never will. But for the purposes of discussion, it's perfectly valid for me to not only discuss it but to also draw it if I wanna .
I mean, sure, we can "develop" the "ideal feedback laws", but their use would be just as limited as the ideal gas laws.
Where did I say anything about creating feedback laws? +_+ I was merely giving a visual representation to what others before me said. If you have an issue with most people's definition of different types of feedback, your beef is with them, not me.
I am not the feedback police o___o. I just doodled a pic that represents functions of relationships between different groups of feedback. A faulty one, but I said I wouldn't mind suggestion of improvement since nobody did it before me.
Yeah, I kinda try to infer that. Reviews have to be judged on a case-by-case basis since they're deeply personal things in a non-ideal environment, but doing so is utterly pointless. So, that brings me to my initial point: the picture is pretty, doesn't work
People make weird pictures to represent concepts all the time. These pictures not necessarily have much to do with reality. They are models of thinking.
Two dudes once shared their models of perceiving how electrons move around the core. One said it was easier for him to imagine it as a planetary orbit, the other said -- railtracks. In the comment section below them, others shared their ways to do it because it helps with systematizing and perceiving abstract concepts.
It has nothing to do with how reality is. Model thinking is all about providing models for others till they find one that clicks with them. Most of philosophy actually works this way. The pic might not work for you, but then no pic about this subject would. That doesn't mean modeling it is wrong. Just that, for you, this one doesn't click (or any other wouldn't). It's okay, I also find the railroad track of imagining electrons move a bizarre way to visualize that o_o. But oh well.
Agree so hard +_+. Most people I met in critiquing circles just really like to seem useful to you and even if you don't have anything they can criticize in your story -- they WILL FIND IT. Otherwise, why did they even read it if they can't impress someone with their opinion about it?
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.
No, they don't. Religions themselves may change, or classes, but not their descriptor concepts. How exactly the concept of religion being a system of rituals/belief changed with culture/time?
And what do you even mean the word used to describe the thing isn't the thing? That's literally the descriptor's only purpose, to convey the meaning of the thing.
Except the discussion is on the actual penguin's mating habits. "But what if they have horns?" someone asked, and now we have unicorn penguin drawings that have little to do with the actual penguins. Are the pictures pretty? Maybe. Do they work to describe the actual thing? Not necessarily.
Yeah, the ideal gas laws are an approximation of how the ideal gas behaves. But in a form of an equation instead of a diagram. Same thing, really. So, "ideal feedback laws" would be your diagram in this case. Just fyi.
Just like the unicorn penguins, the map you drew has little relation to the reviews per see. One can argue semantics out of it, to refer to specific words and points, but it simply doesn't work beyond a purely abstract notion and can not be applied to anything. Any public criticism becomes a review. Criticism itself is always an analysis, it literally can't leave the analysis bubble, since it is, by definition, an analysis of work based on its perceived faults. And so on.
Who even cares about the original topic anymore, though. Certainly not me.
Nope, just sharing the love! Honestly, if you want to improve, you need to seek as many opinions as possible. Managing a story on multiple platforms can be time-consuming, but if you put blinders on and just stick to one, you'll miss out on a lot. I recommend writing.com because I've tried many platforms, and that's the one where I get the most feedback. WritersCafe is a good place for feedback too.
It's like the old song goes:
When you think you're
looking wide, Look wider still,
Behold the world that lies
outside your window sill:
All creation from the
start becomes a wonderland,
for all who learn to lend
a heart before they lend a hand:
And when you've looked the
world around,
Then look once more, and
find the friendship to be found, beyond your door.
You will walk the earth
with pride, and never look your fill,
When you look, and look
wide, and LOOK WIDER STILL.
Writing.com and WritersCafe have their shortcomings too. The websites look cluttered are difficult to navigate, but once you poke around and learn the ropes, you can get a lot out of them.
I would say "Yes". Any criticism is valid, even if they aren't matching what the author wants to achieve.
To me, a written story is like a conversation between the author telling a story and the reader listening to it. And to each conversation there are four sides: (1) what the author thinks he writes, (2) what the author actually wrote, (3) what the reader actually read, (4) what the reader thinks he read. Any of these four points can lead to a problem. And all of the criticism can help you better one of these points.
E.g. an old, now-deleted story of mine was criticized for how the MC was weak and useless and nothing special in the first ten chapters. Which was actually fine to me, because that was what I wanted to write. The problem was that the reader thought he would get a different story based on the first two chapters which were action-oriented. So while I thought, I had written the story as it was meant to be, I actually wrote the beginning a bit different and so the reader's expectations were off. So while the criticism of my story didn't fit my vision for the story, it still pointed towards a valid point: I didn't make clear, what story I actually wanted to write. And it helped me create a different beginning for my current story that set the overall theme of the story much better.
The same can be said for a lot of things: even if the readers expected different or read your story as something different, there still is the question to yourself: is the story on the paper really the story you wanted to tell? And did you make it easy for the reader (though the right usage of specific words, or story structure, or themes, etc) to set his mindset for the story. There are often also words that mean similar things but can be received different based on the reader's background. Each reader will always bring his past stories and own experiences into your story, so you have to make clear to him, what to use or not to use.
So yeah, any criticism is always valid. Because that criticism points towards a problem a reader had with your story. And it's your job as author to make sure that problem doesn't arrive. Either through changing things in your craft (problems with your story itself) or by adjusting the frame for your story. If you have a "generic waifu cover" with a "generic isekai blurb", people will expect "generic isekai". So if they leave a bad review for your "crime drama story in another world", that's not the reader's fault.
That said, valid criticism doesn't mean that the author has to change anything. It only points towards possible problems with your story. Maybe you want that disconnect from "generic expectations" to "dramatic reveal" and the frame is just right, then the complaining readers have still a point, but one you can ignore. That said, for those readers it still is a "real problem", but one you decided to keep in your story knowingly. To give some readers problems with your story in exchange to win over others. In the end, valid criticism only shows that the story you think you told wasn't communicated clearly in its entirety to the person who read the story. No matter whether it was by design or by accident.
So yeah, it is alright to just say "the reader didn't get it" and go on. And chances are he really did not get it. But you also disregard possible problems with your writing, that might help you grow and better your craft. Back then I also wanted to say "Fuck this person, he has no clue at all!" and just go on. But I personally think, that the review of a person who "didn't understand my story" helped me to write my current story. Because I paid a lot more attention to the frame of my story and made sure, that more people understand my current story...
Look, I do care about this topic. So I'd prefer not to argue with you about this anymore since it's so tangential here. But since you ask, for you personally -- under the spoiler.
No, they don't. Religions themselves may change, or classes, but not their descriptor concepts. How exactly the concept of religion being a system of rituals/belief changed with culture/time?
Common online discussions like:
-- Is scientism religion?
-- Is Stalinism religion? (for NK, Kim Jong-un's cult of persona).
-- "Nyaa! Can BTS be my religion, please?"
Are examples where the definition of "religion" wobble due to context. Also, "is atheism a religion?" is googleable and gives you a cute discussion about the constitutional definition of religion in regards to atheism ^^. Such questions seem ridiculous to some, but not the others. These uses of the word "religion" are subject to contextual bias.
Re: classism
Check out this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura . It's a Soviet example of classism that was not allowed to be called "classism" even though it was actually "classism". But due to "classism" in USSR referring to the bourgeoisie vs proletariat struggle, Nomenklatura was called a "caste system" instead or was even denied that it existed.
Here, the definition of "classism" begins to wobble because of censorship.
One of my friends works in statistics in US education, gathering data from high schools. Trust me, in terms of education and achievements and predictions -- "classism" and "racism" in such statistical research can become VERY muddled. (I.e. it becomes harder to separate instances of "classism" from instances of "racism" and the researches have to make a call to judge it. Sometimes arbitrarily). It's a minefield and the precise definitions/borders of of both shift for every single school because of that.
Re: Abnormal
Easy. "In an asylum, the sane ones are abnormal". Plus the comparativeness of abnormality when by combining different abnormalities together you get a mishmash where "abnormality" itself has to be redefined for clarity.
In general, it's like when people abused the word "literally" a couple of years ago. No matter how much they were told they mean "figuratively" in every instance, they still abused the word. Its meaning shifted with time -- and it doesn't matter if it was hyperbole, satire, joke, or parody. With time, such things can blur. Consult the Postmodernism and its devastating effects about the definitions of words on some concepts in contemporary world. +_+
And what do you even mean the word used to describe the thing isn't the thing? That's literally the descriptor's only purpose, to convey the meaning of the thing.
Or in short, "the map of the territory is not the territory".
No one denies the map is useful, but it's incorrect to refer to one and mean the other.
Also, ^^.
Criticism itself is always an analysis, it literally can't leave the analysis bubble, since it is, by definition, an analysis of work based on its perceived faults. And so on.
In regards to all criticism being analytical in nature, we are probably using different definitions of "criticism". What you are talking about is "critique" -- which is criticism that's analytical and attempting to be factual without connotations of bias. I marked it as such in my diagram. Since the 1990s, (according to Wiki +_+), the word "criticism" generally implies a negative connotation (flaw-seeking) that, in turn, implies bias. Just check out how we, normal people, use both words nowadays:
"I criticized your book" vs "I critiqued your book".
Which one sounds more neutral and less biased than the other?
I do not treat anything heavily biased and unable to acknowledge its bias as analytical, but that's my personal pet peeve ^^. I agree that I can fix the diagram to represent these concepts better. Nonetheless, my point still stands. An analytical type of criticism IS a critique, and I deliberately put it in there while leaving the biased criticism outside.
A debatable point, but I'm willing to change it if necessary.
Since this quote is the only thing that refers to the OP topic, albeit slightly, I'll discuss it here.
Just like the unicorn penguins, the map you drew has little relation to the reviews per see. One can argue semantics out of it, to refer to specific words and points, but it simply doesn't work beyond a purely abstract notion and can not be applied to anything. Any public criticism becomes a review.
It's about validity of different types of feedback, not semantics. And the validity of feedback was what the OP has asked about.
While it may stand, as @LostLibrarian says, that all feedback may be useful (therefore valid) -- there are nonetheless different values of usefulness.
Consider this:
Person A says to person B (the author) that his book sucks in its grammar after being asked to do so.
or
Person A says to person C (not the author) and without meaning B to overhear that B's book sucks in its grammar.
or
Person A writes an essay about how grammar in a book sometimes sucks but the book still succeeds regardless, using B's book as an example.
Do you really perceive it to be of the same usefulness value to the person B? It's "critique" vs "review" vs "analysis". I simply portrayed this relationship in a pic because, again, others started talking about a similar way to represent feedback before me.
And I understand why they did.
There is a reason most big authors who get reviewed a lot advise to NEVER read reviews of your own books. The reviews aren't meant for you and because they are often contradicting each other (because everyone likes/hates vastly different things) -- confusion, depression, and sometimes just "paralysis by complexity" will get to you as the author.
Or the insistence that you absolutely need to listen to criticism because it will help you improve. Which is simply wrong. Not absolutely. If you can take it, please feel free to. But most would be disheartened and frustrated when it's clear that the rules don't apply to everyone and that plenty of people break all rules of writing even without learning about them and succeed regardless! The examples of which, I believe, ~happened here:
I am a very easy going person and seldom let critics bother me but I'm also not a person who lets someone step on me and just walks away. So being unable to publicly respond to the review I came here to vent hahaha. I am self aware enough to know I am an amateur writer who writes solely for...
Last time, I received a review like this in RoyalRoad. Well, I'm just laughing and ignoring such reviews. But then, I noticed that lately, my stats in that site eventually dropped to nothing. Well, I kind of expected such development, since I've received that kind of treatment in that site...
To be honest it is common to encounter hate comments from time to time. Mine are just mostly grammatic errors which can be fixed. To those who say that my characters are stupid and sometimes being called out morons, i just simply replied. "I basically copied their personalities from real...
Curious how cover art plays into people's reading decisions. (I always like playing with min-maxing read stats when I'm new to a site.) As a reader are you more likely to click on something with a drawn art cover? More realistic photo cover? Words on cover cover? Regular scribble hub cover...
So I just got a review on RR [2star]. According to the guy, he'd been with my story since the start and he loves cold, logical MC, but something crossed his line. Up to this, I took it as having different preferences. I've already learned that you cant please everyone; you will have such biased...
It is probably an old question that was answered already quite a lot, how does the trending system work on scribblehub? Because it seems intransparent to say the least. What is the formula behind the ponderation of views, favourites, chapters and time? Because I stumble across stories with a...
My exact experience, I found that classes like that overcomplicated the process by a ridiculous degree, and that people who excelled in those classes weren't particularly better than others who didn't. At the end of the day, it's all about how much time goes into reading/writing/editing, and...
And it's just a small sample from just SHF. I'm too lazy to search for the others... As I see it, people genuinely want to understand how writing works and how they can get by without being crushed by frustration at it making NO real SENSE or is sometimes the opposite of what most feedback tells you to do.
Thus, defining which feedbacks can be easily dismissed for every writer -- is okay because otherwise it's just better to not write at all because someone somewhere is bound to hate it and is going to make you miserable because of it. Claiming we can learn from all of them is, in my opinion, wrong. First of all, it implies we should read all of them without knowing if it will destroy us or help us, especially when it's sometimes not even meant for us to see!
And second of all -- there's not much to learn anyway -- as seen in the other kinds of topics and posts on SHF that emerge just as often:
I can't search for them right now, but I remember a recent one with "Good Grammar doesn't actually matter" statement in it (I think... by @Discount_Blade?). And the rest of them like "Good writing doesn't matter". Just today -- "Plot and Characters do not matter", or the usual "Just write to pander", "Who cares, everyone's taste is trash anyway".
In any case, this forum sometimes gives me heavy Cognitive Dissonance vibes, with people going from "accept all feedback as your savior!" to "I accepted too much feedback and now I don't want to write anymore, ever".
Most people who claim to find value in all feedback have never gotten a truly caustic one*, lol. For every single writer, there is going to be a threshold beyond which the feedback just hurts without any value or meaning to it, which, I believe, is what the OP and all those other frustrated/confused posts were about.
Sometimes, people really are just mean. If someone flings shit at you, no matter how well-phrased, you are not obligated to a) listen, b) even pay them attention in the first place.
*And by the way -- neither have I before someone accuses me of being biased due to all my critiquers being mean to me. But I have given others caustic feedback with the intent to "help" once and I know how much of it is actually BS that you just do because that's what all "serious critiquers" do ^^.
Also please, can we stop this back-and-forth, please? If you really wanna -- there's PMs for a reason. Why busy the general thread with talks about gas and penguins? +_+
And congrats on your uni course! You seem to really enjoy it.
