"*shudder* genuine criticism"

Some people like to think that critics should be allowed to be as caustic and abrasive as they want. Belittling the ambitous, intimidating the brave, dismissing the hard-working, these people are little more than bullies.

They do have their use. Once a work is almost finished, it needs trimming, cleaning, streamlining. Tempering it under a cold shower can be the right thing to do.

But not in the early, development stages. I say this as someone who has worked in design: at that point, you need all the positive feedback you can get, all the enthusiasm you can muster, all the freeflowing ideas, without restrictions, without shame. It's called brainstorming.

If you kill every idea as it hatches, the person will be less and less willing to risk putting forward a new idea. If you encourage them to come up with as many as they can, no matter how silly, the total output will be much greater, and so will the total amount of good ideas from all the rubbish.

Only once you've reached a critical amount, and something good has emerged, will you begin to hack and slash at it. But this is where genuine criticism differentiates itself from bullying. You point out what is wrong. You can be as blunt about is as you want, but be 100% honest. Don't use hyperboles. Don't exaggerate. Don't be cruel. Don't be mean. Strict, yes. Unforgiving, yes. A critic is something of a teacher. Students love a Stern Teacher, they thrive and achieve under them. Students loathe a Sadist Teacher, and all that results from their unbridled malice is stifled mediocrity.

My previous guild leader in World Of Warcraft could have used this lesson.

I used to be way more caustic than I currently am, and all I will say is this, if you avoid personally attacking the writer, if you're going to be uber-caustic, you better also back it up with a balanced look. As in, no Accentuate the Negative and that crap.

Actually, early criticism can be even more helpful than using it to make finishing touches. It keeps you from heading in a poor direction or getting too attached to bad ideas.

I suppose we must then get into the detail of "how early is too early". I wouldn't want to do this from scratch. Does anyone here know of some work that makes a proper general typology and systematization of the process of creative thought (regardless of whether it's to design/create a book, a song, or a toilet seat).

I don't think it's ever too early. It's up to the author whether or not criticism is listened to, although if you get the same remarks by multiple people they're probably on to something.

If you're taking from multiple critics, you'd better watch out for Me Too! and Follow the Leader phenomena. Or, for that matter, swarm tactics.

edited 17th May '12 2:28:11 PM by TheHandle

If an author is so thin skinned that they label anyone who doesn't give them 100% positive feedback as a big mean bully, quite frankly they shouldn't be writing. No matter what you write, there will always be people who genuinely dislike it, and it's not because they're stupid malicious meanies.

edited 17th May '12 4:33:10 PM by Vox

Again with the hyperboles. Have you read anything of what I said? Negative reviews are fine, malicious reviews aren't, and nowhere do I conflate the two: in fact I've taken pains to emphasize the distinction.

No, you really haven't. You cannot without confronting actual reviews.

I cannot what?

And that's not me. I'm probably the opposite, too thick skinned.

Avoid conflating the two. Or distinguish them. This is platitudes and hyperbole itself; more useless than overly harsh criticism, since at least no matter how harsh criticism actually informs you something went wrong between you and the critic.

This...simply speaks in generalities, offers advice that is not advice because it pertains to no actual situation, because it is inherently squishy and easy to misinterpret as a reason to dismiss the critic.

One enlists a critic for the strength of their cruelty. How criticism is presented matters less than that it is substantive. Care not that the critic curses you out; attempt to divine why they did so, and only if you cannot may it truly be said they offered you nothing of value.

edited 17th May '12 5:28:21 PM by Night

I've got to hand it to you, MT, you might be the world champion at never backing down. 

One only ignores criticism at one's own peril. But one listens to it at one's own peril too. When a critic shows evident bias, that their effort is towards propping themselves up by bringing you down, rather than, say, sharply pushing you in the right direction so you can recover your proper balance... that's when the payoff for listening is beneath the energy saved by not doing so.

Cruelty and Ruthelessnes are not the same thing. Neither are Tact and... "Marshmallowness"?

edited 17th May '12 5:31:31 PM by MarkThis

Yeah, I think your seriously strawmaning here Handle, though the whole FUCKING CRTICS attitude on this site a lot of the time irritates me anyways. I mean "bullies"?

Yes just telling someone that they suck doesn't help anyone, but saying WHY they suck, what they did wrong, offering ways to improve, that is geunie crticism. Honestly somone who's willing to devote time to critique your work probably cares more then someone who's just all GREAT WORK DUDE XD.

^ There's one other thing. Just telling that something sucks and possibly how to improve isn't enough. You not only need to tell why it sucks and how to improve but do it in a tone that does not come across as caustic or abrasive or worse outright insulting. A caustic/insulting/abrasive demeanor gets you fired in business, it does nobody any good in critique regardless if what was said was true or not.

edited 17th May '12 7:24:55 PM by MajorTom

I agree with this.

Truly effective criticism is at its core not kind. It is not generous in overlooking faults, not forgiving in dealing with errors. Bluntness and harshness are necessary traits.

One must come to terms with abrasive criticism, with harsh criticism, because it is the one from which the most may be drawn. You dream of some kind of total separation of the critic from the criticism, but more fatally, you dream of a separation of the author from the work. It will never happen. Effective criticism will always be abrasive to someone who has poured genuine time and effort into that which is being criticized.

Put another way, your advice leads only to giving authors excuses to impugn the critic rather than to improving his output. Only by overcoming your desire to be spoken to kindly on this matter will you learn what you have done wrong; for telling you that you have done wrong is not something you will consider a kindness.

edited 17th May '12 9:42:51 PM by Night

I can't speak for Major Tom, but I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing.

Criticism can be constructive without being abrasive. One should not have to soften one's words, of course, but coarsening them artificially is just as silly and rarely anywhere close to necessary.

Forgive the lack of content but yeah, this. It does hurt, it's natural and you shouldn't hide from it, but you should also be willing to suck it up. Pussy footing around what's wrong with your work only breeds mediocre writers.

Personally, I think if a work makes a critic wants to vomit, he should be allowed to say so. If it is so terrible he needs to invoke strangely specific metaphors to adequately express his disgust, then by all means, compare my work to having your intestines torn apart by a famished zombie matador.

If you ever intend to sell your work, it's best to get used to ridiculously harsh critiques before you are published than after. Unless you think your customers are going to refrain from using hyperbole to express how much they disliked your writing to avoid hurting your feelings.

edited 18th May '12 12:25:01 AM by Lestrade

What happened to that last sentence? Candle Jack?

A very important thing one shoud pay attention to is whom the work is geared to. Whom it intends to please. You can't possibly please everyone. And you shouldn't. But you should know what your target audience wants, and understand that part of the public doesn't want that.

So, that you didn't like what I wrote interests me. If you can help me identify what kind of person you are, how your tastes work, how common they are, I can choose whether I want to gear my writing for a broader appeal, or whether I want to go even further in alienating a certain class of reader in favour of giving great enjoyment to another.

What I am not interested in the slightest, are your (generic you) feelings, and the absolutely ridiculous metaphors which you don't need. Concerning one metaphor mentioned earlier, I had a family member die in an industrial accident, their guts were all over the floor, they told me he cried in pain as he tried to put them back in.*

You cannot possibly have felt that way by reading my work, because you wouldn't have been able to finish, because you would have collapsed on the floor, crying and howling like a lamb at the slaughter. It is simply impossible. It is a lie. I am interested in fiction, I am not interested in lies.

Forgot to edit out part of the sentence before hitting post, thanks for pointing that out.

You...very much should be interested in the feelings of your readers. If your writing doesn't evoke the feelings you want it to, then that's a rather big problem.

You don't need ridiculous metaphors to express an opinion, yes, but that's sort of how human beings communicate.

...What?

When somebody says they are dying of laughter, they aren't really dying, just laughing a lot. When somebody says they're on fire, they aren't really on fire. This also applies to "This work makes me feel like X."

If you are taking issue with the fact that they most definitely did not feel like that, then you have to be missing the point on purpose. I mean the meaning behind those ridiculous comparisons is always pretty clear. They are not meant to be taken literally. Jesus, it feels weird to even be arguing this.

FYI, being unable to understand metaphor and simile is also a big problem for a prospective writer.

edited 18th May '12 12:44:28 AM by Iaculus