# I like constructive criticism...



## KlownyChuby (Aug 29, 2018)

I said it. I like constructive criticism. IDK why I love it so much but, why are people so afraid of it? What's so wrong with hearing someone's own opinion if it's meant to help a writer? I've heard of the nightmare that was "Empress Teresa" and it's pompous creator but, why is it so hard for people to accept concerns and tips?


----------



## Phil Istine (Aug 29, 2018)

KlownyChuby said:


> I said it. I like constructive criticism. IDK why I love it so much but, why are people so afraid of it? What's so wrong with hearing someone's own opinion if it's meant to help a writer? I've heard of the nightmare that was "Empress Teresa" and it's pompous creator but, why is it so hard for people to accept concerns and tips?



It's the case that some people become so wedded to what they've written, offering an alternative view is taken personally.

Maybe it's a bit like commenting on someone's cooking, driving, or religious beliefs.


----------



## KlownyChuby (Aug 29, 2018)

That makes sense to me! I just don't get it sometimes though. I was watching a webcomic that has been so boring lately and the characters are so bland. Like, I want to know what flaws the book I'm writing has and if I should add more substance to a character. I wouldn't want to be insulted, no one wants to be but, I would love directions and tips on how to build a character in ways I may have missed out on changing them or build my story in ways that I may have missed a chance at doing before. People can be so sensitive to the subject and I wish some of them would listen more.


----------



## Annoying kid (Aug 29, 2018)

Constructive criticism early in a project is great. However such criticism later on when much is already done and retroactive changes are extremely difficult to make, is daunting as you know they've added alot to your workload.


----------



## Phil Istine (Aug 29, 2018)

KlownyChuby said:


> That makes sense to me! I just don't get it sometimes though. I was watching a webcomic that has been so boring lately and the characters are so bland. Like, I want to know what flaws the book I'm writing has and if I should add more substance to a character. I wouldn't want to be insulted, no one wants to be but, I would love directions and tips on how to build a character in ways I may have missed out on changing them or build my story in ways that I may have missed a chance at doing before. People can be so sensitive to the subject and I wish some of them would listen more.



Once you've reached the 30-post threshold, maybe you'd like to seek some critique on it.  The fiction workshop will appear to you at that point which means that it will only be visible to members rather than to search engines.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 29, 2018)

That makes sense to me! I just don't get it sometimes though.

'Just' is one of my pet hates, it rarely adds anything and is a mongrel word with all sorts of meanings, 'though' also adds little or nothing to this sentence, consider 'I don't get it sometimes'. For me that is cleaner, more direct, and to the point

I was watching a webcomic that has been so boring lately and the characters are so bland.

On the face of it this is unconnected and unrelated, and why the repeated 'so' ?

Like, I want to know what flaws the book I'm writing has and if I should add more substance to a character.

Beginning a sentence with 'Like' is reminiscent of a teenage conversation rather than writing.

 I wouldn't want to be insulted, no one wants to be but, I would love directions and tips on how to build a character in ways I may have missed out on changing them or build my story in ways that I may have missed a chance at doing before.

A long and convoluted sentence without much punctuation, I would separate not wanting to be insulted from the elements you do want, then be sure you are clear about them and list them separately, with commas between the different elements

 People can be so sensitive to the subject and I wish some of them would listen more.

'To the subject', or 'on this subject'?


Sorry, couldn't resist that


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Constructive criticism early in a project is great. However such criticism later on when much is already done and retroactive changes are extremely difficult to make, is daunting as you know they've added alot to your workload.



There it is.  If I've dropped an hour into a bit of flash fiction and someone points out an area of improvement, well and good.  If I've spent years of my life writing a novel and only then find out it has massive fundamental issues, it doesn't matter a bit how constructive that criticism is.  It's heartbreaking.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Constructive criticism early in a project is great. However such criticism later on when much is already done and retroactive changes are extremely difficult to make, is daunting as you know they've added alot to your workload.






Gamer_2k4 said:


> There it is. If I've dropped an hour into a bit of flash fiction and someone points out an area of improvement, well and good. If I've spent years of my life writing a novel and only then find out it has massive fundamental issues, it doesn't matter a bit how constructive that criticism is. It's heartbreaking.



You can look at it that way. You can also look at it that they just potentially saved you from quite a good deal of embarrassment as well as yet more wasted time. More often a cause for relief  than heartbreak, I think.

Provided there's no rational reason to believe people are trying to intentionally sabotage you (which almost never happens...) surely all feedback is to be welcomed -- constructive or not -- at any time?

Maybe certain things aren't ideal, but on the other hand the kind of critique we want isn't necessarily what is good for us. Some work is sufficiently poorly conceived and executed and the author's opinion of it so wildly out of whack with reality that so-called constructive criticism probably isn't going to help, may even make things worse. The OP mentioned Empress Theresa by Norman Boutin which is a great example of a "writer" who definitely needed told some pretty brutal truths before he unleashed his work. Not only about the book he was writing but his approach to the craft generally. It might not have worked...but it might have.

Either way, the world does not owe you constructive feedback on your novel any more than they owe you constructive feedback on your driving, your table manners, or your marriage. When it comes to poor writing with no redeeming features (yeah, I think that exists) authored by arrogant, defensively-minded writers (those definitely exist) I have zero problem with saying what I think with little or no regard for whether it is constructive. I consider the most savage dismantlement of work far kinder than simply ignoring it.

As far as "why" people react the way they do, I think it's pretty simple. People don't want to face up to their weaknesses, even the ones they are aware of. People prefer to be validated more than they want to actually improve. We are all guilty of that to some degree and most of us grow out of it, at least mostly. It becomes a problem when the delusion becomes toxic and festers into alienation of those who might actually help. I have met so many writers who have skills but lack the self-awareness and humility to listen and do the work.


----------



## KlownyChuby (Aug 29, 2018)

You're fine! The review of my comment made me giggle a little. I was tired when I wrote the reply but, your input actually does give insight to my excited comment and how much I need to stop and think about what I'm typing. 
Thanks so much! I can't wait to share some of my story's content so I can read other's point of view.


----------



## KlownyChuby (Aug 29, 2018)

Whoops, I meant to reply to Olly Buckle.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 31, 2018)

There's no right or wrong feeling about criticism, feedback or critique. Each person's feelings come from a unique personality, perspective and background. Feelings are always valid.

The actions taken because of the feelings have societal tolerances to contend with. I can be upset, but responding with violence is unacceptable.

I usually find that those who claim not to be bothered by certain things, anything, not just critiques, are the ones who lash out more often in response to the very things that supposedly don't bother them. When a person tells someone else not to be hurt/annoyed/upset by something, that person usually reacts much more than average, in my experience. It's kind of funny (odd) how it often works out that way.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 31, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> You can look at it that way. You can also look at it that they just potentially saved you from quite a good deal of embarrassment as well as yet more wasted time. More often a cause for relief  than heartbreak, I think.



What embarrassment and wasted time? If my story is great, there's none of either.  If it's bad, I guarantee a publisher's rejection will be much more succinct than a proper beta reader's review.  And either way, I'll have to spend the same amount of time fixing the issues once I'm made aware of them.

The heartbreak isn't from thinking I'm perfect and finding out I'm not; it's from thinking I can put something to rest and learning there's months or years left of work still ahead.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2018)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> What embarrassment and wasted time? If my story is great, there's none of either.  If it's bad, I guarantee a publisher's rejection will be much more succinct than a proper beta reader's review.  And either way, I'll have to spend the same amount of time fixing the issues once I'm made aware of them.
> 
> The heartbreak isn't from thinking I'm perfect and finding out I'm not; it's from thinking I can put something to rest and learning there's months or years left of work still ahead.



My point is that finding out very late in the process when you think you are getting close that months and years of work still ahead doesn't HAVE to be viewed negatively if one takes the view that it is still better than if it was to come later. 

I'm not trying to gloss over the pain, I promise. It is very easy to talk about taking criticism well when it's not you & your work that is in the firing line. I get it. Nevertheless I still think that any pain or heartbreak or whatever adjective one would use to describe getting blindsided by negativity toward your work is still better than letting it go on a second longer.

I definitely don't think it makes sense to say it doesn't matter if its a publisher or a beta reader who delivers the verdict. Firstly an agent or publisher's rejection note can take several months or sometimes longer to finally give you the same answer a beta reader will, and will likely not give you any real information as to where the issue was. Secondly there are likely only a limited number of agents and publishers around who will be right for your work. A lot of them have restrictions as to how frequently you can submit. You definitely don't want to get known for submitting flawed or unconvincing work and having it kicked back. Pretty soon they just won't read it. Oh and they almost never re-read something...so if its a story you love and you go and trip over your shoes  that's it. It's over for that piece and that agent/publisher. Do we really want to say that being told works is bad at _any _point before submitting it is not a net positive regardless of how it makes us _feel_?

Hypothetical: Imagine you finished the book, sent in the query and first few chapters. Several weeks pass. The agent or publisher then asks for a full reading. You're buzzing. You know you need to keep it together, that nothing is set in stone, but you're also human and in the back of your head you're thinking "this is it!" You send in the full manuscript. You wait. More months pass. By this point we are close to a year since the query. And now you get a letter/email. The letter/email says thanks but no thanks following review of the entire manuscript. They don't say why, but when you read back through the work you realize an entire section of your plot did not make sense or was just weak. 

This hypothetical is what I remind myself of whenever I get negative feedback from a beta reading. Relief not disappointment - I am glad I found out _now_. I think it is important try to look at ONLY the positives and never allow oneself to feel too stung. Writing, lest we forget, is not a means to an end, its an end in itself.


----------



## Annoying kid (Sep 1, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> My point is that finding out very late in the process when you think you are getting close that months and years of work still ahead doesn't HAVE to be viewed negatively if one takes the view that it is still better than if it was to come later.



Just because it's more disappointing to miss a systemic problem even further down the process doesn't make it somehow not disappointing that it wasn't caught earlier. The relief at having not shown it to publishers would be there, but that is a separate feeling that can exist concurrently or parallel with the negative.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Sep 1, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Just because it's more disappointing to miss a systemic problem even further down the process doesn't make it somehow not disappointing that it wasn't caught earlier. The relief at having not shown it to publishers would be there, but that is a separate feeling that can exist concurrently or parallel with the negative.



The relief might occur a bit later, even. It should be OK to admit to feelings of disappointment, frustration, hurt, whatever. If you can't commiserate with fellow writers...


----------



## Nicola (Sep 1, 2018)

If the aim of writing is to be published and eventually be widely read, any constructive criticism and feedback, although disheartening after having spent so much time working on one project, can only be a good thing. 
If anything can be improved in order to make it more appealing to readers, or if it'll never work because it's just plain rubbish, then this knowledge should be taken on board. 
Not all readers are writers, but ultimately, they are who will be buying your story. 
If you are to ignore any criticism that is offered, surely there is no point in showing people in the first place?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 1, 2018)

Nicola said:


> If you are to ignore any criticism that is offered, surely there is no point in showing people in the first place?



You are probably a nice person, but believe me there are those who seek only sycophancy and adoration. That is why they are posting and what they are looking for, the product rarely meets their expectation though.


----------



## jenthepen (Sep 1, 2018)

KlownyChuby said:


> You're fine! The review of my comment made me giggle a little. I was tired when I wrote the reply but, your input actually does give insight to my excited comment and how much I need to stop and think about what I'm typing.
> Thanks so much! I can't wait to share some of my story's content so I can read other's point of view.



You have a great attitude, KC and I look forward to reading some of your  work very soon. It's refreshing to find a writer with the  self-confidence to welcome critique and recognise the value of it. :salut:



Nicola said:


> If the aim of writing is to be published and eventually be widely read, any constructive criticism and feedback, although disheartening after having spent so much time working on one project, can only be a good thing.
> If anything can be improved in order to make it more appealing to readers, or if it'll never work because it's just plain rubbish, then this knowledge should be taken on board.
> Not all readers are writers, but ultimately, they are who will be buying your story.
> If you are to ignore any criticism that is offered, surely there is no point in showing people in the first place?



I couldn't have put it any better than this. Welcome to WF Nicola.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 1, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Just because it's more disappointing to miss a systemic problem even further down the process doesn't make it somehow not disappointing that it wasn't caught earlier. The relief at having not shown it to publishers would be there, but that is a separate feeling that can exist concurrently or parallel with the negative.





Jack of all trades said:


> The relief might occur a bit later, even. It should be OK to admit to feelings of disappointment, frustration, hurt, whatever. If you can't commiserate with fellow writers...



It's human nature to regret any failure/failing to a healthy level and feel disappointed. That's not the point. 

The word that specifically prompted my post was the use of "heartbreaking" to describe response to criticism. Perhaps you'll disagree, but when I hear somebody describe something is heartbreaking I don't think of them as meaning merely disappointed. We would hardly describe most people as "disappointed" when their spouse leaves. That isn't what the word means. Heartbreak implies some kind of emotional breakdown. Overwhelming distress. A kind of self-destructive nadir. 

Maybe that doesn't apply to yourself or to Gamer or to Jack Of All Trades or really anybody else involved in this conversation. I don't know. But it absolutely is true for many, many "writers". I think we all know those people: They flip out, counter-punch, spit out their pacifiers and rage against the dying of the light.

_Those _people need a wake up call. They need to grow up and do an urgent reassessment of priorities. Some of them have no business being writers at all. It's bad for them, bad for those around them, and bad for an industry that relies on community. It's an outlet for narcissism, plain and simple, and the reason moderators have to go trawl through workshops daily looking for where some unhinged legend-in-his-own-lunchtime went nuts and called somebody else playground names because they couldn't take somebody saying their magnum opus was a snore-fest. _That_ is the kind of sentiment I am talking about. It has nothing to do with "disappointment".


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 1, 2018)

I'm gonna have to agree with Nicola on this one.
If you want to get better as a writer then you will need to get feedback.
The more we write, the better we get. Compare the first Harry Potter to the last and you will see a quantum change in her writing.
As a writer, we have blind spots for our own work.

And no, an editor or agent will not provide succinct feedback. They will simply turn down your book with a copy/paste form reply.
It is extremely rare that you get any kind of feedback from publishers.
Hence, the use of beta readers.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 1, 2018)

I was in a forum once, and this guy used to post chapters of his post-apocalyptic book. 
It was AWFUL. No character development, all the characters spoke with the same voice, scene illustration was drab and non-existent.
So I took his first page, added brush strokes and a proper introduction for the character, and posted it for him.
The guy copped a total attitude, said that he had written 9 books and knew what he was doing, and he didn't need my help.
I tried to take the high ground and didn't point out that based on his writing I had been sure he was a first-time novelist.
Instead I pointed out that it had been he who had posted the material in a public forum for feedback. I had simply provided some.

After that the discussion went downhill. Even though his books, all 9 of them, had terrible reviews (like people typing in all caps "DON'T READ THIS BOOK IT IS AWFUL") he had no interest in taking feedback.
But the point I am trying to make is that I was likely not the first person to offer feedback to this guy.
Since he thought he was too good to take advice, his books will continue to suck.

Feedback is critical to your development as a writer.  Don't be THAT guy.


----------



## Annoying kid (Sep 1, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> It's human nature to regret any failure/failing to a healthy level and feel disappointed. That's not the point.
> We would hardly describe most people as "disappointed" when their spouse leaves. That isn't what the word means. Heartbreak implies some kind of emotional breakdown. Overwhelming distress. A kind of self-destructive nadir.



Disappointment can range from mildly annoyed to heartbroken. Take for example the following post by   Ralph Rotten. 

Quote: 


> It was AWFUL. No character development, all the characters spoke with the same voice, scene illustration was drab and non-existent.
> So I took his first page, added brush strokes and a proper introduction for the character, and posted it for him.
> The guy copped a total attitude, said that he had written 9 books and knew what he was doing, and he didn't need my help.



Is anyone really surprised at this reaction? Lets say It took him 20 years to write 9 books. Then someone says his writing sucks in what's supposed to be a constructive way. I would argue that at that point it is no longer constructive. Because construct what? What is he supposed to do? Accept that he wasted 20 years and go back to the drawing board? To do what? Invest more years of his mortal life relearning to write so he can write more novels that might get the same reaction? Of course  he's going to react with denial, because if he accepts it, he's done. Enthusiasm, drive, and belief all gone. So such critique is for all intents and purposes saying "Quit. You don't have it.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 1, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Is anyone really surprised at this reaction? Lets say It took him 20 years to write 9 books. Then someone says his writing sucks in what's supposed to be a constructive way. I would argue that at that point it is no longer constructive. Because construct what? What is he supposed to do? Accept that he wasted 20 years and go back to the drawing board? To do what? Invest more years of his mortal life relearning to write so he can write more novels that might get the same reaction? Of course  he's going to react with denial, because if he accepts it, he's done. Enthusiasm, drive, and belief all gone. So such critique is for all intents and purposes saying "Quit. You don't have it.



I appreciate the spontaneous detour into pop-psychology...but I have NO difficulty understanding the reaction. Nor does it surprise me. I just don't _care_. 

Your entire post reads as a wholesale embrace of narcissism. Whether you intend it or not, by trying to analyze why he threw a tantrum (and making veiled snipes at Ralph to boot) you are rationalizing, and IMO potentially feeding, a disease. That is your right as a citizen to do. It may even materialize as a well-intended bit of white-knighting. In any case, it is a view that probably belongs on a psychology forum, not a writing one. Because if you want to apply that sort of understanding at all consistently to the field of critique then ultimately we arrive in a place where anything goes, where one's attitude not important and the whole brave business of earning your way, of picking yourself back up, of responding to contempt and dismissal with determination and redoubt yields no advantage. A place where criticism itself becomes hollow because "feelings". 

The guy Ralph mentioned had no business soliciting feedback....because it wasn't actually what he wanted. What he _wanted_ was unwavering adulation. There is no other explanation that makes sense. I don't think you get to expect such things. Not in the guise of wanting "feedback", certainly not without getting "hurt". If you want to be understood go book yourself a counseling session. If you want to be adored then have your mother read your malformed drivel. But if you want to be a successful writer you must absolutely be willing to listen to what people say *whenever and however* they choose to say it. Value it for what it is, and respond through the work you create, not internet grandstanding. 

This line of yours in particular "_...such critique is for all intents and purposes saying "Quit. You don't have it._"" sums up exactly what is wrong with this whole discussion: You are making it about the writer, not about the writing.

I don't have time to flog this dead horse much further and won't allow it to degenerate into an argument: You can believe whatever you want to about critique and those who supply it. All I will say is find me a single successful writer who spent their formative years sneering at critique and I will buy all nine of that guy's crappy books in hardcover tomorrow :smug:


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 1, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> The guy Ralph mentioned had no business soliciting feedback....because it wasn't actually what he wanted. What he _wanted_ was adulation. There is no other explanation that makes sense. I don't think you get to expect such things in the guise of wanting "feedback", certainly not without getting "hurt".



Well, the other explanation could be that his writing was serviceable, effective, and generally well-received, and the "corrections" supplied may have turned a tightly written first page into a bloated one filled with purple prose.  I don't know.  I can't say.  I haven't read either the original or the correction.  I do know that my own writing has received feedback across the board, saying anything from "it's too wordy" to "it's too sparse" - for the same writing.  Also, I've read many popular published novels with prose that made my eyes water, but clearly there's a market for it and plenty of people like it.  So yes, the fact that the guy has written 9 novels is significant, and if he's gotten a largely favorable response to his writing over the years, it's little wonder that he had trouble accepting the one dissenting opinion.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 2, 2018)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Well, the other explanation could be that his writing was serviceable, effective, and generally well-received, and the "corrections" supplied may have turned a tightly written first page into a bloated one filled with purple prose.  I don't know.  I can't say.  I haven't read either the original or the correction.  I do know that my own writing has received feedback across the board, saying anything from "it's too wordy" to "it's too sparse" - for the same writing.  Also, I've read many popular published novels with prose that made my eyes water, but clearly there's a market for it and plenty of people like it.  So yes, the fact that the guy has written 9 novels is significant, and if he's gotten a largely favorable response to his writing over the years, it's little wonder that he had trouble accepting the one dissenting opinion.



"_Even though his books, all 9 of them, had terrible reviews (like people typing in all caps "DON'T READ THIS BOOK IT IS AWFUL") he had no interest in taking feedback._"

Nine novels? Not significant whatsoever as far as establishing credibility. For all we know that is simply nine half-baked NaNoWriMo attempts hurriedly "published" at next to no cost through CreateSpace or whatever. I see that stuff all the time. Unless there are some decent sales figures and positive reviews to back it up, appealing to the body count of one's work doesn't work as far as proving ability.

But! Let's pretend the guy's a genius and Ralph a bloat-artist who knows nothing about his own genre: The notion this would justify the copping of an attitude and general unpleasantness is rancid, isn't it? Sort of brings to mind the tiresome old cliche of the tortured genius whom nobody understands because they're _stoooopid__. _Or the temperamental French chef who throws paying customers out of his kitchen because they dared to salt the food. That person, to the extent they exist in real life, is almost always a feckless nobody. Successful writers learn from their critics, not the other way around.


----------



## Annoying kid (Sep 2, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> I appreciate the spontaneous detour into pop-psychology...but I have NO difficulty understanding the reaction. Nor does it surprise me. I just don't _care_.
> 
> Your entire post reads as a wholesale embrace of narcissism. Whether you intend it or not, by trying to analyze why he threw a tantrum (and making veiled snipes at Ralph to boot) you are rationalizing, and IMO potentially feeding, a disease. That is your right as a citizen to do. It may even materialize as a well-intended bit of white-knighting. In any case, it is a view that probably belongs on a psychology forum, not a writing one. Because if you want to apply that sort of understanding at all consistently to the field of critique then ultimately we arrive in a place where anything goes, where one's attitude not important and the whole brave business of earning your way, of picking yourself back up, of responding to contempt and dismissal with determination and redoubt yields no advantage. A place where criticism itself becomes hollow because "feelings".
> 
> ...



Let me get this straight. Ralph Rotten put his actions forward as an example, so critique of his actions becomes "veiled snipes" whereas arguing with an author who clearly rejects the severe critique is fair game? That's a double standard.   

The writer can't be separated from the writing. Because the writer makes the writing. You can't improve the latter by destroying the former. I used to think like you, until I had a writer quit because of my critique. Then I realized one needs to spare a thought for the human being. Just because a writer posts their work up for critique doesn't mean they're after the most severe kind. It's only common courtesy to stop after he's made it clear that the feedback isn't welcome. Arguing with him beyond that point- the critic has made it about winning instead of helping. 

You armchair diagnosing narcissism in that writer isn't "pop psychology"? Expecting him to just calmly take it and respond with "determination" and "Pick himself back up" after a wasted 9 books regardless of the severity of critique is a complete disregard for the human factor. You can belittle it as much as you want, but people do things for rewards and a novel is an exercise in delayed gratification. ONE novel takes a tremendous effort, and expecting someone to keep going after 9 after you so generously make them realize they have no reward and no improvement to show for it is presuming absurdities. Even you'd quit, unless you like spending vast swathes of your life labouring at something for no reward whatsoever. If you would, you have to recognise it's peculiar and not something to be expected in others. 

So the bottom line is this. If a writer doesn't tell you in their OP to go nuts with the critique, then you should be finding out what kind of critique he or she wants. And then even if you take them to the cleaners initially - which is acceptable - then if they react badly, you leave it alone. The role of a critic is not to win an argument. It's not to convince a writer of their flaws if they don't want to hear it. Because once the writer has gotten defensive, you're not convincing them anyway.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 2, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Let me get this straight. Ralph Rotten put his actions forward as an example, so critique of his actions becomes "veiled snipes" whereas arguing with an author who clearly rejects the severe critique is fair game? That's a double standard.
> 
> The writer can't be separated from the writing. Because the writer makes the writing. You can't improve the latter by destroying the former. I used to think like you, until I had a writer quit because of my critique. Then I realized one needs to spare a thought for the human being. Just because a writer posts their work up for critique doesn't mean they're after the most severe kind. It's only common courtesy to stop after he's made it clear that the feedback isn't welcome. Arguing with him beyond that point- the critic has made it about winning instead of helping.
> 
> ...



"The writer can't be separated from the writing. Because the writer makes the writing." <- Easily one of the most absurd statements I think I have ever read, certainly on this forum. 

Of course the writer can be separated from the writing, that's what critique is all about. There's no such thing as "nice critique" and "not nice critique", there is only "honest critique" and "emasculate bullshit". It's never personal and anybody who takes it that way is unequipped for the adult world. You know who's really, really mean with their critique? Agents are. Publishers are. The paying public definitely is. So when do _you_ propose the would-be novelist learns to take it on the chin? When do we take off the kid gloves? Do we ever? I wonder, do you think Stephen King or John Grisham or whomever else cries themselves to sleep at night and considers quitting because somebody somewhere who read their latest book told them it was a steaming pile and perhaps tried to offer a suggestion? Do you think they _ever _did?

Don't know what you're talking about with the whole "leave them alone if somebody tells you to stop..." thing. I am not advocating harassment or bullying or maltreatment. I can see that is clearly what you want to pivot to and I'll ask you kindly to cease and desist on that score lest you cross a line into character malignment. I see nowhere in Ralph's anecdote where he continued to lambaste the work after he realized that was not what the guy wanted, and based on what I see of his critiquing here I am positive he did not. I personally would never do that either. For one thing, it would be a damn waste of time. If somebody doesn't want to listen, fine by me, it doesn't make it wrong to tell them the truth when they ask for the truth and it does make them wrong to get a bee up their butt.

As far as the whole "what if I make them quit?" thing...If somebody on the internet is able to talk you out of your dream, your _calling_, through a strongly worded assessment of your writing, guess what? You never really wanted to be a writer. You simply wanted approval. Call it armchair psychology if you like, call it being a Grade A jerk. I care not. 

There's another thread on here somebody started that lists some quotes from rejection letters famous authors received. Some of them are bloody devastating. Again, and for the final time, *find me a single successful writer who spent their formative years getting bottom-sore at critique and I will buy all nine of that guy's crappy books in hardcover tomorrow.
*
I have nothing further to add to this discussion as it stands. Be well.


----------



## Annoying kid (Sep 2, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> "The writer can't be separated from the writing. Because the writer makes the writing." <- Easily one of the most absurd statements I think I have ever read, certainly on this forum.
> 
> Of course the writer can be separated from the writing, that's what critique is all about.



No, critique is about improving the writer's abilities to write. This implicates the writer. Completely divorcing the writer from the writing ignores the author function. Which is not always warranted.




> There's no such thing as "nice critique" and "not nice critique", there is only "honest critique" and "emasculate bullshit".



"Honest critique" can be further subdivided into critique that's antagonistic toward the writer and critique that co-operates with the writer. The latter is what any of us should be going for. Critique can be honest while relying primarily on positive reinforcement. Meaning this is good, lets have more of this, and no so much this is bad, less of this. 



> It's never personal and anybody who takes it that way is unequipped for the adult world.



That's just a meaningless disclaimer for people to be as inconsiderate as they want. 




> You know who's really, really mean with their critique? Agents are. Publishers are. The paying public definitely is.



As said before, an agent/publisher is likely to simply reject it and not give deep critique.  The difference with the public is that a book will almost certainly have it's fans too. So the negative is more balanced with the positive. So I don't agree that the public are inherently more mean.  



> So when do _you_ propose the would-be novelist learns to take it on the chin? When do we take off the kid gloves? Do we ever? I wonder, do you think Stephen King or John Grisham or whomever else cries themselves to sleep at night and considers quitting because somebody somewhere who read their latest book told them it was a steaming pile and perhaps tried to offer a suggestion? Do you think they _ever _did?



They easily could have. If Stephen King wrote 9 books and didn't have his fans and was self published and had severe critique which he internalized and believed, that his writing hasn't progressed at all, then it's very conceivable he might quit. To think otherwise is hero worship. 

Huge labour investment for little to no positive reinforcement at the end is why people quit anything. If you think it's your role to toughen them up, then you are taking the human being into account, just the opposite way. 



> Don't know what you're talking about with the whole "leave them alone" stuff, rambling about "if somebody tells you to stop...". I am not advocating harassment or bullying or maltreatment. I can see that is clearly what you want to pivot to and I'll ask you kindly to cease and desist on that score lest you cross a line into character malignment. I see nowhere in Ralph's anecdote where he continued to lambaste the work after he realized that was not what the guy wanted,



I do, right here: 

_I pointed out that it had been he who had posted the material in a public forum for feedback. I had simply provided some.

After that the discussion went downhill.  - Ralph Rotten.

_Why is he debating this writer? After it's been made clear it's not wanted, you move on. You don't try to embarrass the writer  by pointing out "You're the one who posted it on a public forum" That's snark. And it's not helpful. 




> As far as the whole "what if I make them quit?" thing, I cannot help but snort in a rich mixture of amusement and despair. If somebody on the internet is able to talk you out of your dream, your _calling_, through a strongly worded assessment of your writing, guess what? You never really wanted to be a writer. You simply wanted approval. Call it armchair psychology if you like, call it being a Grade A jerk. I care not.



He didn't talk him out of his dream because he responded with denial, which is a defence mechanism. If he accepted that he sucked despite all that work, he might have actually done that. You seem to think you can make someone believe they suck despite trying their best for a long time and them shame them for not being "tough enough" to take it on the chin and keep going. The lack of empathy is astounding. 



> There's another thread on here somebody started that lists some quotes from rejection letters famous authors received. Some of them are bloody devastating and I suppose you have a problem with that, too? Again, and for the final time, *find me a single successful writer who spent their formative years getting bottom-sore at critique and I will buy all nine of that guy's crappy books in hardcover tomorrow.
> *



Laurell K. Hamilton. 
 She's a successful writer who got very sore over critique post publication. So presumably she never learned to take it on the chin pre. 

Now go buy those crappy books. 



> I have nothing further to add to this discussion as it stands. Be well.



You know, saying you don't want to argue while still arguing is just fishing for the last word. But if you want it that bad, go ahead.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 2, 2018)

Wow, this thread spun out of orbit.

Lemme put it back on path: If you wanna be a writer then you need to learn to take feedback.  I was very polite with this guy, opened the review by complimenting him on the story idea, then gave him a page of his own work with brush strokes included.  I did not tell him he was an awful writer.

The problem began when he copped a tude and started demanding my credentials.  Even after I totally trumped his credentials, he persisted in being an arse.  
And to this day, his books generate terrible reviews (people actually return his eBooks--and yes, you can return eBooks.)


*But lemme tell you the flipside of that story: I was once 'that guy'.*

Here's the story: like 20 years ago I was in a forum, and back then I had freelanced a few articles for some gun magazines, and published one really bad book*.
I gave some [bad] advice to someone wanting to know how to get published in magazines.
Another member corrected my advice.
I went high & right, was an arse, and tried to flame her.
Turns out she was a national book award winner, and regularly published in about a hundred magazines. And I don't mean that euphemistically; she published in dozens and dozens of magazines, and made her living writing.
Not only that, she had recently been through a bad divorce, so she was in _man-hating mode_.
She tore me a new asshole, and a couple of other unwanted orifices.
Not long after that I deleted all my posts, and force-quit that forum (at least my alt did, anyhow.)


But I learned from this, and 20 years later when *Bayview *was cutting me to ribbons over a query I'd posted for feedback, instead of lashing out, I read her profile...then I looked at her books...then I shut my mouth and accepted her feedback with grace.
Ordinary people learn from their own mistakes, but the wise man learns from the mistakes of others.









*so bad that I had to change my name and move to another state!


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 2, 2018)

Edit: I realize in the following that I'm not addressing much of what you said in your last post. That is because it has little or nothing to do with the topic of discussing critique, which we are going to stick to going forward.



Annoying kid said:


> No, critique is about improving the writer's abilities to write.



I probably should have posted this before but, per the Merriam Webster dictionary:



> Critique: The act of *criticizing*
> 
> Criticizing: *1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate He asked me to criticize his drawings. *2 : to find fault with



^ Nowhere in the definition does it say anything about the purpose of criticism being to improve the writer's abilities to write.We certainly don't see anything about positive reinforcement. That said, of course that's what we all want. We want to help people, or else there's no larger point, right? To expect anything less would be to show, as you say, a "lack of empathy". But! Just because that is what critique is _for _does not make it what critique _is. 

_The difference, if I need to explain it, is that if you consciously tailor criticism of a piece to cater to the wishes and perceived mental state of the _person_ you will likely underplay the problems with the _work_ and therefore not give a clear evaluation. How many pieces  on this very forum are there which we all know, privately, need serious attention and yet when you read the comments you see near constant platitudes, likely because we kind of like the writer? You know what I mean: "I like the title!", "I love the setting!" "Ooh dragons! I love dragons!". In this so-called critiques often minimal attention/emphasis is paid to the problems beyond a token "I'm not sure if I like three headed aliens, maybe try two heads?" which, of course, has minimal benefit in a piece that lacks basic chops. We see this all the time. All. The. Time. That is what I am talking about when I say I think positive reinforcement has the potential to feed a disease.

So let's stick to examples we can all judge: I just left a very extensive and, at times, fairly brutal critique of a mentor's work on here. You can easily find it. At no point was the intent to ONLY look for good things nor was it to ONLY look for bad things. I think I addressed both according to what I felt was fair to the work and my opinion of it. But I did not hold back on what I felt was letting the work down. She may not enjoy reading it. She may respond and disagree vehemently. She may even get upset - I hope she doesn't, and I don't think she will. I hope it is at least partially helpful and she can appreciate I took a solid forty-five to read and hammer out my thoughts, but I will not argue with her however she chooses to respond. I don't need to do that because I already told her what I thought and explained it. To me, that is what a critique is for. That is all that it is for.

You may feel differently. You can absolutely prefer a different, more _maternal_ route if you want. That doesn't mean you have more empathy. It doesn't mean I am lacking "the human factor" or don't care about the person, either. It doesn't make you a better human being and it certainly doesn't make you a better critic.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 2, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> *I was once 'that guy'.*



I think we have all been that guy, Ralph.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 2, 2018)

I feel that writing, and critiquing, are both skill sets.

Yes, if you want to be a good writer, it definitely helps to learn how to handle feedback on the manner in which you write. If someone complains about your writing style, it probably means you have room for improvement.

At the same time, if you want to be a (good) critiquer, then you need to learn to accept feedback upon the manner in which you critique, as well. If someone complains about your critiquing style, it probably means you have room for improvement there, too.

Even if your feedback is accurate and insightful, if it's delivered in a way that makes the writer defensive or hostile, you've wasted both your own time, and the writer's. :grief:

A little tact can go a long way.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 2, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I feel that writing, and critiquing, are both skill sets.
> 
> Yes, if you want to be a good writer, it definitely helps to learn how to handle feedback on the manner in which you write. If someone complains about your writing style, it probably means you have room for improvement.
> 
> ...



Not up to me, but I think this would be a good place to conclude the conversation: Tact is always good, but it goes both ways and should never be used to dilute or otherwise weaken truth. Thanks Kyle.


----------



## KlownyChuby (Sep 3, 2018)

Wow, this thread got popular. It's all good to read and gather opposite and similar opinions though!


----------



## Sir-KP (Sep 3, 2018)

I think everyone likes constructive criticism. The problem is that not everyone can give one. At the same time, there are also people who flat out think they are perfect and only accept compliments despite saying "opinion/critics are welcome".


----------



## Bayview (Sep 3, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> But I learned from this, and 20 years later when *Bayview *was cutting me to ribbons over a query I'd posted for feedback, instead of lashing out, I read her profile...then I looked at her books...then I shut my mouth and accepted her feedback with grace.



Oops. Sorry! Hope there was something valuable in it, at least!


----------



## Ace (Sep 3, 2018)

Some of the problem is that we don't know how to provide constructive criticism, and when we do, it's negative and downgrading rather than constructive.  It's a case of not what you say but how you say it.  I prefer the sandwich method, in which case you provide something they did well, something they can improve on, and something they did well.  For instance, actual conversation I had with one of my students recently is quoted below.  The context is that the student is attempting to organize an after school club which needs my approval (I'm responsible for students on school grounds).


> [Student] Mr. X [me], can you take a look at this club charter I want to get approved?
> [Me] Of course, here let me take a look.  [After reading the charter]  Okay, , so firstly your plan is well organized and fairly well thought out.  I need to know who your teacher sponsor is and where you would plan on having your meetings.  Remember that clubs have to have at least a monthly meeting in order to remain in effect.  Otherwise, looks like you have a good game plan to start getting this club together.



In this case, I told him that I liked how it was organized and well thought out.  But I was also up front with the information that he still needed to add and what needed to be fixed.  I finished the conversation on a good note, and sent him away feeling not that I was going to shut his club down just because of some lacking information.  It could have gone like the following.



> Mr. X, can you take a look at this club charter I want to get approved?
> [M] Sure, let me see it.  [Reads said charter] Nope sorry, your charter is denied.  Try again when you have better information.



In this case, I just outright denied his charter without providing a why or what he needed to fix.  I told him to try again with better information, which is a quite snarky answer, but it doesn't say what information I needed from the charter.  And the last way the conversation could have gone is below.



> Mr. X, can you take a look at this club charter I want to get approved?
> [M] Sure, let me see it.  [Reads]  This is terrible, [student], I'm missing far too much information.  You need to take another look at this and try to do better in the future.



In this case, not only was I very ambiguous about what information was needed and suggesting that he take another look and try to do better, I tell him that it's just terrible.  Which then he walks away feeling and probably thinking "Wow, what an asshole."

(By the way, the first one was how it actually went.  I don't usually speak to students as in the second and third examples.)


----------



## Annoying kid (Sep 4, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I feel that writing, and critiquing, are both skill sets.
> 
> Yes, if you want to be a good writer, it definitely helps to learn how to handle feedback on the manner in which you write. If someone complains about your writing style, it probably means you have room for improvement.
> 
> ...



Exactly, as soon as it becomes a wang measuring contest as to see who has the bigger credentials, then it is no longer a co-operative, constructive critique or discussion and it's an argument from authority. Credentials mean nothing whatsoever in the value of a critique. It either stands on it's own or it doesn't, and it's for the writer to decide how it applies and can be integrated in the work. The writer. Meaning if the writer doesn't like it or think it applies, the critic needs to leave it alone. The critic is only seeing a small part of the work the writer sees the whole. The unnecessary abrasiveness of a critique is directly proportional to the critic's projected personal problems and the degree to which they want to feel life a big fish in a small pond. 



> I probably should have posted this before but, per the Merriam Webster dictionary:



Who needs philosophy when we have dictionaries? Truly the supreme treasure trove of meaning.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 4, 2018)

I just hope when I provide a critique others share the same opinion in the same thread (opinions of what is wrong). Then I feel absolved by them thinking my critique was not a bad critique. Maybe the author learned something not working with their work after people chime in with the same conclusion. Obviously to grow as writers feedback is essential. I think I try to be tactful but sometimes forget to include the positive. It is the message whether it worked for me or not. I understand writers and even give them some examples if possible. One of the maxims of teaching is that you must provide examples. It is these examples writers must show if they can't provide a good explanation. Feedback measures our reaction. I am usually concerned when I provide them feedback and they feel offended. I like to make sure I am understood. Focusing on grammar may benefit some like me. But balancing good and bad comments that are merited is needed. I understand people feel frustrated after working on their story for a while, not to receive a compliment.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Oops. Sorry! Hope there was something valuable in it, at least!



Yes, it was very valuable feedback.

For the rest of you mugs:
Sometimes Bayview says things that are harsh, but they are usually true.
She is sorta the Simon Cowell of this forum.
Which makes me...Paula Abdul?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Exactly, as soon as it becomes a wang measuring contest as to see who has the bigger credentials, then it is no longer a co-operative, constructive critique or discussion and it's an argument from authority. *Credentials mean nothing whatsoever in the value of a critique*.




Not true at all!
Although I try to evaluate ALL feedback, it is not all weighted the same:

If an experienced writer (multi-published author with lots of 4+ star reviews) tells me something, I can take it as fact.

But when an ordinary reader gives feedback, I have to study the motivations behind what they said. Just because they suggested an alternative ending doesn't mean I am going to take their idea.  It means that my ending was underwhelming and I need to think of something better.

It would be nonsense to treat a writer with a million published words the same as an ordinary reader.
One is a seasoned professional, the other likes to read.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Sep 4, 2018)

Even a good writer can have personal motives to give a very negative, though unwarranted, critique. And anyone can publish a fifteen books, if self publishing. Also family and friends can be called upon to give four and five star reviews, which are not necessarily merited. So it makes sense to be a bit discriminating about advice. If it resonates, use it. If it feels wrong, then it's not for you. Even if the advice would work for you at a different point in time, if it's not right now, then it's not right now.

Keep in mind that every writer's voice is unique. And authors have a tendency to try to project their voices on the work of others.

In addition, even if the advice would make for a best selling book, that doesn't mean that your way would NOT result in a best selling book.

Readers are great for pointing out WHERE a problem lies. They can also be good at defining WHAT the problem is, without trying to force a particular solution on the author. That's why I value reader feedback.

I would be wary of anyone forcing his or her advice on me. That usually indicates insecurity. A confident person says, "Here's what usually works best; make your own decision," and walks away. Why? The confident person has less emotional interest invested in you following the advice. The insecure person needs the validation of having the advice taken. A really insecure person also needs thanks.

Narcissists, by the way, are usually more insecure. They also don't like talking about emotions and may even deny the existence of emotions. They do, on the other hand, claim to care about, love, etc others, but their actions often scream the opposite.

In general, I prefer getting feedback from real people, instead of online groups. I can read the body language, in addition to hearing the words. It also eliminates the chances of the same person giving the same advice as two or three different people, as I suspect was going on at another site. I also prefer to build relationships before getting advice.

I think each person should give and receive critiques the best way he/she knows how and move on.


----------

