"*shudder* genuine criticism"

I'd agree that "compare my work to having your intestines torn apart by a famished zombie matador" is ridiculously overblown. I don't know about you guys, but when I say "I'm dying with laughter", it's because I really feel in danger of dying: my muscles hurt, I'm red in the face, tearful, with snot, coughing, like, seriously coughing, and have probably literally fallen off my chair and am rolling and pounding on the floor. I think it happened once or twice in my life, one certainly involving Terry Pratchett, the other possibly involving Eliezer Yudkowsky. Or My Immortal.

It is precisely because I understand metaphors and simile very well (learning many languages does that to you, and, also, a book) that I use them deliberately and discriminatingly, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask others to do the same. "Humans work that way?" Only those who can't be assed to be precise about how they feel.

edited 18th May '12 1:17:17 AM by TheHandle

But surely you can also understand that even if you don't use that phrase that way, people often use it as hyperbole?

Oh absolutely. Beep, bop, I cannot...process...abstract...GAAAAH. Nah but seriously, no, "humans work that way" is not connected to that fallacy you linked.

Let me sum this up in the most precise way I can:

1)Rhetorical devices exist in the English language 2)Those devices sometimes allow for people to be slightly abstract. 3)People often use those devices when they speak. 4)People process those abstract situations with social cues. 5)Therefore, that's how humans act.

That's not "Because human nature says X." See, that's another thing about the English language. Context is everything. In this case my sentence meant "The English language works in an abstract way. That's just how people talk."

How many languages do you know besides the English one, and in what depth?

When metaphors are overused, misused, they lose their value. They soon become meaningless. The way to properly understand the language you are using, is to develop a keen awareness of the metaphors you are using at the most concrete, sensory level. When you lose track of how the words are connected to your senses, you lose track their meaning, and soon they become just noise. This may involve some rediscovery via etymology. I redirect you to Terry Pratchett and Friedrich Nietzsche: they do a very good job of reminding you of the full meaning of the words you use, and they're passionate and funny to boot. And yes, I believe they do belong in the same sentence.

edited 18th May '12 2:19:35 AM by TheHandle

It's important to note that you may not be able to get the audience to react the way you want because of something on their end, as well as something being wrong with your writing.

In my opinion a good critique would not just point out what is wrong with a work, but what is good about it. I've had people critique my work before and it gets a bit annoying to have to listen to all the bad stuff and ask "Well, was there anything good about it?" and then get a lot of nice things said. I mean, if you're going to tell a person their weaknesses then they need to know their strengths - not everyone assumes that "if it's not mentioned as a problem then it's not a problem". :/

Failing the "good points" then maybe suggestions on what could be done - that way if they neglect the advise then they really don't have any excuse.

But that is just my opinion - it's how I help people with assignments, but creative writing might need adjustments... but not that many.

edited 18th May '12 3:58:45 AM by StolenByFaeries

It's not insulting, caustic, or abrasive either. Look at things from a business perspective, you don't go telling project leaders, potential dealers/deals, managers, executives and government representatives things in harsh, caustic verbiage regardless if what was said was true or not. The last thing you want is someone retaliating. Remember, business communication to achieve business results. If you want to genuinely criticize someone's writing you cannot be caustic, abrasive or insulting in tone of voice and choice of words. (The piece in question may genuinely suck, possibly worse than Twilight but you don't say that in exact words. Why? Because what happens if that author does improve and it ends up making you look a fool? All your caustic-ness and abrasiveness just blew up in your face and you'll end up with no credibility and worse the author who improved won't like you, which will screw you worse if you are also trying to be in the writing arena.)

Examples of interesting, intelligent and constructive gushing.

I speak English fluently, I also speak Portuguese fluently, and I have a "I could get back to the airport assuming I was stuck in the country for some god awful reason" understanding of French and German. My understanding of French is the awful one that comes with going to Canadian schools, so maybe that shouldn't count. I've read both authors you cited before as well.

The fact that you can talk without using them doesn't make it wrong to use them. The overuse you speak of is a topic that is far from the original argument in this thread. Plus that would be a linguistics argument as opposed to the critic-author relationship the thread is about.

The original argument is that critics shouldn't use rhetoric to explain how much they loathe your work because it's "the same as bullying." My position is that rhetorical devices are commonly used in the English language and that if you don't like them being used against you...well, tough luck really. You responded by saying people don't have to use devices to speak, which is all true but has little relation with what I have been arguing unless you think that the problem isn't with being a jerk but with using metaphors while you are being a jerk.

@Major Tom

From a business perspective, I've received harsh rejection letters from magazines when trying to publish short stories. One of those rejection letters told me very simply that I didn't know how to write endings. This could be seen as terribly rude considering the tone, but this didn't offend me, because those editors are so busy they only give out criticism to those they legitimately think they could do business with in the future. Since their time is so valuable, they just point out what they want that you lack.

I did end up selling a story to that same editor two months later thanks to his criticism.

As for your point regarding "What if the author improves?" I don't really see the issue here. Writing something good in the future doesn't mean your current writing is any better. In fact some writers probably wouldn't be as good in the future if they didn't receive critiques.

If your criticism makes something better...how does that make you look silly? I get the impression you think that critics are bullies who hate poor writers. That's not how it works. It's not a fight. A critic isn't trying to make someone hate himself; a critic is trying to make them improve. If they improve, that's good. That's what they want.

edited 18th May '12 11:16:14 AM by Lestrade

Perhaps we're confusing critics that address the public as opposed to critics that address you personally. How would you have felt if they had published in their journal "Lestrade doesn't fucking know how to write an ending, what a sad clown. Don't quit your day job, Lestrade."?

Rather depends on how terrible that ending actually was.

The job of a public critic is different from that of a private critic - not to help the author improve, but tell their readers what books are worth buying. In those circumstances, 'this is fucking terrible, avoid at any cost' may be both warranted and useful to their audience.

I'd be very confused that they would waste space in their journal with that. If they did it based on an unpublished submission, it'd be illegal and bizarre so there's that.

If say my work was published somewhere and someone openly said what you posted, well, then there are only two possible outcomes for that. One is that my work is not that terrible and people would agree the critic in question didn't have any class, the other is that my work really is that bad and I needed a wake up call.

Either way I've been prepared to have someone call me all kinds of things the moment I decided to start submitting stories to professional magazines.

If the writer does improve, it doesn't make the critic look like a fool, it makes the critic look right.

I have to defend the abrasive school of critism. There will always be assholes. Some of them wear hats that say 'I'm a critic.' If their points are valid, albeit harsh, people will tend to listen to them. If they are only being harsh and cruel people won't take them seriously.

The best thing you can do when recieving criticsm is find the good out of it. If there isn't any? Fuck em'.

I'll take harsh and abrasive words over considerate silence any day of the week.

And you'd be right.

The problem is that people misuse abrasive criticism. Plain and simple. That doesn't mean EVERYONE should stop using it, it's just where problems come from. Basically, all harshness and abrasiveness, with no actual criticism following up.

My point is, if you get past what you consider harsh. There is actually good feedback there. If there isn't, you're just wasting your time. From there you do two things, admit to yourself that said critic is right and improve. Or go somewhere else for feedback.

In a way, the raging assholes are doing you the biggest favor. They're being honest.

Also if what they are saying is relevant to your content(yet rude)... You at least know they read and processed your work. That in itself is a kindness. Even if they were a jerk. You make yourself look really good if you say "Thanks for your feedback," then being the the bigger man and step away.

edited 18th May '12 1:58:44 PM by Dimanagul

You know, I often don't give a lot of critiques because A) I'm bad at it and B)I'm afraid that I would become sounding like an ass when I'm trying to help someone.

Of course, the problem comes when no one else is giving feedback, it can be easy to get entrapped with a jerk who is giving really bad criticism. The problem is everyone's standards are different, and at the end of the day, you want to take the advice of people who would READ your story, not people who would never read your story even if you do take their advice.

edited 18th May '12 2:00:38 PM by MrAHR

A) is true for me. Unless something is infested with obvious spelling and grammatical errors (in which case correcting it would be tiresome), I often find little to comment on when looking at other writers' stories. That's probably because I'm not sure what the rules of good writing are myself.

If that's the case, usually saying "I felt X emotion when Y happened" can help plenty.

Applejack has the best Dixie accent ever.

Ahem. Back on track. The problem with skimming through abrasive criticism is that you need to get past the bile before identifying whether there's anything worth reading in there or not. The worst cases are where the critic leaves just enough actual content to keep you reading, while slowly eroding your energy and tiring you up with the effort of separating the crap from the diamonds. At best. At worst, if you're "thin skinned", it will actually eat at your self-confidence and your courage. Some of them will explicitly encourage you never to write again. Heck, some will encourage you to kill yourself, and, when asked not to make bad jokes, will insist that they mean every word.

It's a tough world. Getting tough is part of growing up. But, honestly, I'm depressed at the fact that I seem to be losing touch with my sensitive side. Becoming callous and numb is a real danger. I honestly fear that I won't be able to represent youthful or innocent characters properly, because it feels like so long ago since I've walked in their shoes.

So, yeah. Bluntness, good. Honesty, good. Bile, not good. One can express that one does not like a work without being insulting or aggravating.

There are critics who want to help you discriminate between what you do right and what you do wrong. There are critics that want to help the public discriminate between what works are worth experiencing, and what works aren't. And then there are those who are mostly trying to prove that they're better creators than you. The worst of them wear either of the two former hats as a disguise, and can be very hard to expose.

Good crticism is, at its heart, not nice. It is and should always be kind, and motivated by love.

Depends on who you're criticising for. Are you trying to recommend good books to your audience, or personally help an author improve? They require slightly different approaches.

Even when you're doing it for the audience, your motivation should be your love and care of the audience, a deep, unshakable intent that what little free time they have, they spend on something that is really worth it. It should not be about listing in how many ways the author sucks.

In fact, most professional critics don't do bad reviews at all, because they might get the creator sympathy. The worst review you can get from a public reviewer is silence.

You're forgetting that they're writing to accommodate a variety of interests. If the work's really that terrible, they'll probably want to detail it for the Bile Fascination crowd.