Assuming the worst with writers when online.

Actually, the one I cited was from a "harsh" critic, as in, not a flamer or anything.

Do people overreact?

Yes.

Does that mean people shouldn't react at all?

No.

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:03:46 PM by AtticusFinch

oddly

Why should they react at all? If someone's genuinely and unmistakably just hurling insults at your work, then just ignore them. I have to say though, I've almost never seen it happen to an amateur writer. It's almost always all about overreaction. And I often get very surprised about very nice and mild critique being lashed out on. The way I see it, thin-skinned writers are poisoning the critique-well for those who want some real brutal honesty.

I've often felt this way as well.

thin skinned writers just shouldn't write at all.

I can see why people would feel bad when given bad critique, but I don't get why they feel as bad as they often do. Just because someone doesn't like what you've written doesn't reflect on your value as a person. Besides, it's not like one person's opinion is the be-all-end-all opinion. You don't know where they're coming from, after all. For all you know the only book they've ever read is Twilight, what the hell do they know? You should take others opinions into account, but you should also try to stick to your guns and trust your instincts.

SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)

@Fanty: Because everyone is different, and you can't use your own emotional reactions as a standard. Some people are more emotional than others. There is nothing wrong with that. Some people are indeed too harsh, without the insults. Some people can handle them, some can't.

@Cats: ...no?

Noir: Keep in mind, this is a small community, so we usually DO know where the critting is coming from. In my example, it came from someone I highly respected, which is what made it sting.

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:09:40 PM by AtticusFinch

oddly

Yes and no. People often assume that "honesty" is immediately one in the same thing with "brutality" all too often, or believe that because people are incapable of "truthful" criticism, that they must mollycoddle them. There is not often enough a happy medium. So the problem's a bit on both ends.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Well, when you use such strong language as "poisoning the well"...

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:10:41 PM by ohsointocats

I was just speaking in general terms, because I see this happen in more places than just this forum.

SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)

True, but this thread started out as dealing with the problems on this website. Other websites are much more huge and impersonal and have a million examples of everything.

I don't think it's wise to focus on them, just because we'll be making blanket statements either way.

oddly

I think the reason why people might feel hurt at some types of criticism is because they think, "Okay, I spend all this time trying to make my work perfect, smoothing out the flaws and making it enjoyable."

Then, when someone tells them that there's something wrong with it, they think, "Don't you appreciate all the work I've done on this? Don't you realize that nothing's perfect? Why are you expecting perfection from me?" They probably feel like the critic is asking them to do the impossible, maybe? (I don't know if that makes sense or if anyone even thinks that way.)

I'm an elephant. Rurr.

We still don't always know where an opinion is coming from, though. Someone might just have a bad day and cut into you way harder than they might on another day. We know each other better than other places, but we don't know enough to eliminate the unknown from a critique.

I understand why they would feel that way, I just think they shouldn't. I don't really approve of being overly emotional about much of anything.

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:19:55 PM by NoirGrimoir

SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)

I think Black Elephant has it right — if it's a constant reviewer.

It's one thing to get one harsh review.

You get it, you move on or ignore it, and that's life.

But if someone constantly reviews negatively, no matter how hard you try to improve, and they never focus on whether you DID improve or not, you can easily feel trapped or suffocated.

oddly

The way I see it, every time someone lashes out on critique they get, or even simply comments on a mild piece of critique as being "harsh", a yet another critique-provider lowers the amount of critique of provide, because they are apprehensive of the reaction they are going to get, and because they have to put in the effort to sugarcoat everything.

Ponting out mistakes and suggesting fixes is already hard enough and takes effort, expecting everyone to be nice close to the point of uselesness just makes sure that there will be even less people who are willing to put in that effort.

I know this happens because I myself often don't post thoughts I have on other people's work simply because I don't have the infinite time in a day needed to sugarcoat every single word of mine. I have my own stuff to work on, and that's the case for most people who provide critique.

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:22:05 PM by fanty

I know some people do that, but not everyone who lashes out is doing it because of a few mild words. I think you're strawmanning a tad here.

oddly

I don't really like "bug-fix" critiques. I prefer reviewers who can look at my work as another reader would, and share with me their impressions what it is. More, I like it when they're able to help further the vision. Getting rid of all the "bugs" doesn't necessarily make a more interesting work - just a less error-ridden one.

I think when people think of critiques, they tend to over-emphasise the "bug-fixing" too much over the writing as a whole.

^^The way I see it, the phrase "lashing out" implies the fact that the action is unwarranted. English is my fourth language though, so...

^I tend to give general-impressions sort of critique. Or "you lost me at point X" sort.

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:28:13 PM by fanty

I don't really think people lash out at mild critique. The example I gave earlier, with the "You need to work on.." was worse than I thought; now I think I should provide a better one.

Mild critique: "You need to work on characterization." (Side note: this is pretty vague, so it's also not very good critique, but it'll do as an example of mildness.)

Harsh critique: "Do you even know who these characters are? I could do a better job writing these people than you."

Does this sound about right?

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:27:30 PM by BlackElephant

I'm an elephant. Rurr.

It's a sudden flare of emotions, sometimes warranted, sometimes not.

oddly

How about, "Your characterisation may need some work. It comes off as inconsistent, due to the similarity in voice; variety is your friend here." versus "Your characterisation is just bad. Everyone sounds the same; do you even know who these people are?"

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:31:46 PM by JHM

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

^^^ People on here lash out on mild critique. I myself have been lashed out at on this very forum.

^ Those both sound perfectly fine to me. There's nothing inherently awful about the word "bad". Some things in this world are, indeed, just bad. Some of those things were written/drawn by me, too.

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:33:40 PM by fanty

Just because people do that does not mean everyone does it without reason. That's just silly to assume. There is no clear cut case, and just because you personally might not be offended by something, does not trivialize those who are, because some do indeed have legitimate reasons to. Not all, but some.

oddly

I don't disagree with what you are saying there, but to copy-paste myself: Ponting out mistakes and suggesting fixes is already hard enough and takes effort, expecting everyone to be nice close to the point of uselesness just makes sure that there will be even less people who are willing to put in that effort.

Referring to something as "bad" in an attempt at constructive critique comes off as obnoxious and dissuades the person from continuing. The point is to help them improve, not insult them. Plus, if it really is bad, there are subtler ways to say it.

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:38:01 PM by JHM

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Being nice is not the same as being respectful. You don't need to sugar coat everything you say in order to be respectful.

oddly