Criticism

[Maple-Leaf]

I want to say something but I feel like there's little I can add here without repeating the same things everyone else has said except with a smaller vocabulary. So...

Thanks for the responses, I think I've got my answer now

Spoiler: Answer

None of this even matters if I never get a review.

 

[ForestDweller]

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.

That's the difficult part. I don't know how to do that, which led to a bunch of bad reviews related to that.

It's because in the usual isekai story, even when the MC starts out useless, he quickly becomes a badass that will never falter again. That's what the audience expects. But I'm not going to that direction. And I don't know how to signal that early on.

Once, I put an outright spoiler on the summary of the story regarding that plot point, but one of my readers say to take it down. And so I 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.

Doesn't apply to authors around here for sure when they barely get any reviews in the first place.

 

[Angry_Clown]

@Queenfisher now you're just arguing semantics, which is extra pointless.

Doesn't apply to authors around here for sure when they barely get any reviews in the first place.

And when they do get a negative review, they post on forums to show off to everyone. "Look, poor peasants, I've got a review! I'm rich so mad I've got trolled!".

 

[Ral]

I would like to give reviews but most of them would be negative. Then the authors would go Alice-Shiki on me.

 

[Maple-Leaf]

I'm an absolute trash critic so if I review things you should probably expect five stars. It's just what I do. Even if I feel like dialing it down so that it'd seem more genuine I end up making it five stars in the end just because I feel like less stars doesn't really fit. I either read a book I like, or I drop it. There usually isn't any half enjoyment.

People like me might be the problems. But we're good for motivation I guess.

 

[Queenfisher]

@Queenfisher now you're just arguing semantics, which is extra pointless.

Which was what I told you we'd be doing from the very start of the tangent -- but you didn't believe me +_+. Why did you think I kept pushing this discussion down and calling it "no good"?

I'm an absolute trash critic so if I review things you should probably expect five stars. It's just what I do. Even if I feel like dialing it down so that it'd seem more genuine I end up making it five stars in the end just because I feel like less stars doesn't really fit. I either read a book I like, or I drop it. There usually isn't any half enjoyment.

People like me might be the problems. But we're good for motivation I guess.

I disagree. People like you are what makes writers keep writing. Just look at the threads about insecurities (every author has them!) and the statistic of how many people (75% on SH) drop writing their stories (partly due to these insecurities).

It's easier to write a negative nitpicky criticism than to write an inspiring one. I also never rank anything below 5 stars and would never write a bad review. Every book can be enjoyed/hated based on just my mood at the time. The author is not at fault for my mood being cranky and me wanting to poke them with criticism just because. So I force my perspective into one where I'm in a nice mood and can apply good faith to their art.

And once there, I find it hard to dislike it, thus I can't crit the story badly...

Like I would never criticize someone's cooking either. That it's not working for me atm says nothing about their actual dish or cooking skills. What if my tastebuds are just so fried from all the junk food I consume? What if I was in the mood for salty, but they gave me sweet? It's not their fault at all, so why kick them for no reason?

Erm... in which way do you see that as a problem?

 

[Angry_Clown]

Like I would never criticize someone's cooking either.

But what if they serve you the dish sprinkled with literal shit? And then claim it as an epitome of haute cuisine?

And hey, writing an inspiring review isn't hard at all. Just be prepared to stain your nose brown a bit, that's all.

 

[Maple-Leaf]

Erm... in which way do you see that as a problem?

Oh I hadn't viewed it as a problem, but people seem to dislike how freely five stars are given out. My unwillingness to hurt the author's feelings could insult people who don't like it, and I don't give any valuable advice except, yeah your book is good. My compliments are severely lacking too, just ask Hans.

And hey, writing an inspiring review isn't hard at all. Just be prepared to stain your nose brown a bit, that's all.

There's a difference between inspiring and reiterating the same praises repeatedly for an entire paragraph. Which is what I do, and most of why I look down on myself as a critic. I do get salty sometimes and write negative reviews though, which is essentially the same thing except in reverse.

 

[Queenfisher]

But what if they serve you the dish sprinkled with literal shit? And then claim it as an epitome of haute cuisine?

Lol, why would you eat shit? o_o You know you can just............

.........not eat it, right?

*sigh*

Are you arguing semantics of the term "cooking" now? Please do if you like it but I'm not going to participate in that one.

And hey, writing an inspiring review isn't hard at all. Just be prepared to stain your nose brown a bit, that's all.

And no -- writing an inspiring review that's cohesive, analytical (elaborative), potentially useful for its audience, and not needlessly painful to the author is not easy. If you think it is, you have never tried to.

See for yourself across the lit world. There will always be people who enjoy the story regardless of how it's told. If you just apply their framework to the book you are reviewing and try to understand the author and his goals, (it's called empathy), voila -- you are suddenly able to transcend your own bias and help both readers and writers enjoy something.

Just be honest with what works and why, and it will naturally filter out those who know they will not enjoy these things. Facts > nitpicky/overjoyous emotions.

For ex, I naturally dislike Neil Gaiman. I dislike Dickens. I dislike Tolstoi. I dislike some Shakespeare plays but not the others. I dislike postmodern gibberish. I dislike romance novels that have rape in them. I dislike harems. I dislike many, many things by ~gut instinct.

But can I also apply logical reasoning to my own bias and try to move past it?

Yes. I always at least attempt to. Can I rationalize the existence and usefulness of all these authors and their stories I listed above?

Yes. All it takes is the effort. Sometimes I'm in the mood for it, others -- I'm not. There are literally hundreds of books here on SH i wish to read and review and try to understand by learning the unique perspective of their author. I do it slowly, but I will manage at least some of those. Why not if I can?

At least I know I'll help someone instead of just bully them with my biased and unfounded ego by doing a negative crit... I've done the negative route for years in toxic critiquing circles, and all it gives you is destroy all your faith in humanity...

Personally, I never write a review without being able to back it up with analysis, usually based in literary/genre traditions. If I can't explain why the book can work for its potential audience -- I am doing my job as a reviewer wrong and shouldn't write a review advising people to read/not read something. The majority of positive reviews do exactly that, btw. As long as they elaborate at least something, they are analytical and helpful for both the readers and the writer.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Lol, why would you eat shit? o_o You know you can just............

.........not eat it, right?

*sigh*

Are you arguing semantics of the term "cooking" now? Please do if you like it but I'm not going to participate in that one.



And no -- writing an inspiring review that's cohesive, analytical (elaborative), potentially useful for its audience, and not needlessly painful to the author is not easy. If you think it is, you have never tried to.

See for yourself across the lit world. There will always be people who enjoy the story regardless of how it's told. If you just apply their framework to the book you are reviewing and try to understand the author and his goals, (it's called empathy), voila -- you are suddenly able to transcend your own bias and help both readers and writers enjoy something.

Just be honest with what works and why, and it will naturally filter out those who know they will not enjoy these things. Facts > nitpicky/overjoyous emotions.

For ex, I naturally dislike Neil Gaiman. I dislike Dickens. I dislike Tolstoi. I dislike some Shakespeare plays but not the others. I dislike postmodern gibberish. I dislike romance novels that have rape in them. I dislike harems. I dislike many, many things by ~gut instinct.

But can I also apply logical reasoning to my own bias and try to move past it?

Yes. I always at least attempt to. Can I rationalize the existence and usefulness of all these authors and their stories I listed above?

Yes. All it takes is the effort. Sometimes I'm in the mood for it, others -- I'm not. There are literally hundreds of books here on SH i wish to read and review and try to understand by learning the unique perspective of their author. I do it slowly, but I will manage at least some of those. Why not if I can?

At least I know I'll help someone instead of just bully them with my biased and unfounded ego by doing a negative crit... I've done the negative route for years in toxic critiquing circles, and all it gives you is destroy all your faith in humanity...

Personally, I never write a review without being able to back it up with analysis, usually based in literary/genre traditions. If I can't explain why the book can work for its potential audience -- I am doing my job as a reviewer wrong and shouldn't write a review advising people to read/not read something. The majority of positive reviews do exactly that, btw. As long as they elaborate at least something, they are analytical and helpful for both the readers and the writer.

I agree. A careful review requires an in depth understanding and analysis of the text, something that is very hard to achieve if you are not the author as understanding is reciprocal and processual in nature.

As for authors I like. I like Brecht.

 

[Queenfisher]

I agree. A careful review requires an in depth understanding and analysis of the text, something that is very hard to achieve if you are not the author as understanding is reciprocal and processual in nature.

As for authors I like. I like Brecht.

Nya!!! *_* Brecht is , yes. Albeit also based on my mood. Sometimes I'm cranky and want to poke him for being too twee/overstating things . But generally, he's one of the best ones.

Like I say, my likes/dislikes waver entirely based on my mood (and sometimes on the work I read just prior to the current one. Like, if I just ate an amazing chocolate cake, I will hate a pickle put into my mouth afterward. Just how it is... and definitely not the pickle's fault).

 

[Angry_Clown]

Lol, why would you eat shit?

I wouldn't. You're the one doing the eating since you brought up the cooking analogy yourself.

And no -- writing an inspiring review that's cohesive, analytical (elaborative), potentially useful for its audience, and not needlessly painful to the author is not easy. If you think it is, you have never tried to.

And no — writing a destructive review that's cohesive, analytical, potentially useful for its audience, and hits all the painful spots of the author is not easy. If you think it is, you have never tried to.

At least I know I'll help someone instead of just suck up to them with my biased and unfounded righteousness by leaving a positive review.

See? Two can play this stupid game and win all the stupid prizes.

 

[Maple-Leaf]

At least I know I'll help someone instead of just suck up to them with my biased and unfounded righteousness by leaving a positive review.

That's like slapping someone across the face to knock them out of the road where a and attentive truck driver who may or may not hit them is currently driving.
Unless the critique you make is incredibly vague, and frankly, unhelpful, it will be biased in some shape or form. That's not necessarily a bad thing as it's still demanding a change in the book, but not always a good one, just one you'd prefer.
Positive reviews don't always have to be baseless praises, and critique doesn't have to be a hodgepodge of insults and mockery. It's up to you to decide whether you want to make that potentially life saving slap.

I think it'd definitely be better to hurt someone and save their life, but in a situation with less dire consequences, I'd change my mind. Are you willing to hurt the author's feelings and hit them where it hurts to clarify their understanding of your understanding of how bad their book is? Or is it better to trust the truck driver, by deciding that there will be no future problems if the author writes a mediocre story, and make them happy?

It's all personal opinion at the end of the day and probably won't change no matter how long the argument goes on.

What I meant by my question is, what is you personal experience in sorting through criticism? What kinds of things have you made use of and what have you discarded?

 

[Angry_Clown]

Unless the critique you make is incredibly vague, and frankly, unhelpful, it will be biased in some shape or form.

Yeah, that was exactly my point. I.e. "both styles are hard when done properly, and shit when they're not". He just hand-waved the whole side of negative reviews by implying that they're "eAsY aNd NeGaTiVe".

And I've said earlier, but I don't believe reviews (both negative AND positive) will change the work in any way, shape, or form, unless it's in its early stages. Is the author willing to rewrite a whole bunch of chapters, all because of a single negative review? Not bloody likely. How about an onslaught of negative reviews? Eh, they're more likely to remove and/or abandon the story altogether. What about positive reviews then? Well, the readers are satisfied, why even change anything. And thus, the "inspiring" review becomes nothing more than an advanced technique of e-peen stroking.

With that being said, the review will not affect the quality of the work for which it is made. It may affect future works. So the life-saving slap metaphor doesn't really work in that exact way. We're addressing the other spectators here, not the author. So, maybe our offhand comment will get the author to change and employ different tactics when crossing the literary road next time. But with the attention span of your average reader being about 1.5 seconds, it won't matter for them. So, you write your review to catch the attention of other readers, not the author.

Are you willing to hurt the author's feelings and hit them where it hurts to clarify their understanding of your understanding of how bad their book is?

Absolutely. I do enjoy writing biting and mocking reviews and try hard to slip as much humor there as I possibly can. Because I don't write it for the author. Hell, I expect the author to see that it's negative and skip it completely. I don't expect the author to change the story either. That is not the purpose of the review and never was.

Now, that was my perspective as reader/reviewer.

As a person who occasionally wrote stories and came back to it only recently, I would say that negative reviews sparked A LOT more discussion and thought on the merits and demerits of the story than any "positive" review ever did. Positive ones were good for your casual ego-trip, that's for sure, but did I ever change anything based on them? Nah. They went right into my "read and occasionally jerk off to" bin.

The actually useful (i.e. not entirely dedicated to simply insulting me and my work) negative reviews, though, were great food for thought.

That being said, if you do wish to read the reviews at all, you should take them on their merits. Take out what's valuable and ditch the rest. Tone, mockery, praise, and general idiocy can be simply ignored. If the point the reviewer/critic made is factual, then it is valid. Everything else can be discarded since it is not useful.

 

[Queenfisher]

Or is it better to trust the truck driver, by deciding that there will be no future problems if the author writes a mediocre story, and make them happy?

Personally, I agree with you about the lack of benefit of the "potentially life-saving slap". Because "life-saving" grace in such a hobby as writing is... what, exactly?

Failing to find readers? Succeeding with finding readers but being called "pandering" by others because of it? Being dropped by your publisher/agent? Hating yourself for "selling out"? Not receiving Nobel prize for literature/Pulitzer/Hugo? Not being recognized as a nonconformist l'artiste outside of the mainstream? Not receiving a book deal as a ghost writer of a generic novel sold in the airports? Not getting a pat on the head from my mom?

Like, all of these are different outcomes and thus, the slap from one such "truck death" might be an actual push under the wheels of the other.

What I meant by my question is, what is you personal experience in sorting through criticism? What kinds of things have you made use of and what have you discarded?

Personally, for me? I put the book and the feedback down for a while. A long while. (No less than 1/2 a year, preferably longer). Being an author, I simply cannot ignore my own themes/tricks in my stories until enough time passes by and I can ~forget it a little and look at it with fresh eyes. Then, most feedback for it no matter how harsh, is just water under the bridge. Doesn't hurt, doesn't matter anymore because so much changed and so much time passed.

Usually, by the time it takes your author's perspective about a story to fade, you already improve as a writer by reading other things a lot and writing a lot. When you go back to your older story, you might reuse some of the old feedback given to you about it, but usually I find it doesn't apply anymore. I have changed/improved in some new aspects so I edit and rewrite the book majorly at that point, thus essentially discarding most of the original feedback .

 

[Ral]

People are confusing reviews with other form of evaluation like critiques or editing. People are talking like they are all the same thing.

 

[Maple-Leaf]

People are confusing reviews with other form of evaluation like critiques or editing. People are talking like they are all the same thing.

True.

 

[Generic.Archdemon]

this thread is enduringly fascinating

well done @Maple-Leaf

 

[Maple-Leaf]

this thread is enduringly fascinating

well done @Maple-Leaf

I feel like I contributed the least in that aspect.

 

[cmr]

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.

Just my 2 cents ...
I didn't like the book (or author's preferences and style) or I loved the book (or author's preferences and style) are personal judgments that can bias criticism.
Condemnation (bashing) or the opposite aren't critical evaluations. If the reviewer can't be bothered to offer reasonable, accurate feedback, why should the author bother with it?

In other words, if the reviewer hasn't done his or her own homework, hasn't learned to communicate well enough to express beyond praise or attack, the author isn't obliged to do it for them.

No one's obliged to adjust anything based on that kind of feedback. And even if there might be something useful in it, it's not worth the work to figure out what it might be.

On the other hand, writing an accurate, objective review might not be one of the hardest things to do ... but it's up there.

Sigh. Sometimes just a rating system with no commenting sounds good.