On Dealing with Negative Criticism

When we all submit our first stories for others enjoyment, we always think about the praise, but never the criticism, and especially not the condemnation. On the internet, gaining reviews is easy, but also can jump from massive gushing to scalding lambastion. I had some tips I wanted to pass down to anyone who has submitted their work, and had the crowd boo and hiss at it when it rolled out.

• Don't read your reviews immediately. Being hit with sour reactions might sour your desire to write. Just continue working on the next thing you have in mind.
• If you need some encouragement, ask a friend to read you only a positive one, or helpful one so you can avoid being discouraged by extremely bitter ones.
• Never respond to negative criticism unless you were in the wrong. It is one thing to apologize for mishandling themes, but another to try and defend your work against the readers. Everything you say will be read and used against you somehow.
• Hang the best review you ever had somewhere in your work station. When you feel discouraged or ignored, read it again.

So, how do you guys deal with not-so-raving reviews and responses to works? Ever get a bad review? What was the worst? the most helpful?

My thoughts on negative criticisms.

• You WILL get them. No exception.

• Don't ever make them STOP you from writing.

• Some negative criticisms are actually helpful in improving your writing. Some aren't. Ignore ones that aren't.

Also note that what some people think is horrible about the story, other people will love to death.

Plus, some people will completely miss the point.

I got a review for my main fanfic that was a very short complaint about how "the story had no point" and my style was pretentious and hard to read. The fic has a plot, of course, but I have no idea what they mean by "having no point." My reason for writing it was to make a Decon-Recon Switch about my favorite pairing, and I chose to do a heavily introspective and character-driven piece. Plus I fucking SAID SO in at least a few of the early author's notes!

So... yeah, it technically has no point besides being a character study. And breaking everyone at least a little bit.

Style-wise, most of my other reviewers like it, and for much of the reasons that I intended them to like it. Plus I'm very secure in my style and writing voice, and I'm not going to try changing it just because one person thought I sounded pretentious.

I'm pretty disappointed that they didn't like the main points of my fic SO MUCH that they left a review instead of quietly Rage Quitting and finding a fic they liked better, but I'm not going to delete the fic in sorrow, or delete the review and try to pretend everything's peachy. Some find my writing great, others find it weird and pretentious. That's how the world goes.

edited 11th May '15 6:51:34 PM by Sharysa

My personality dictates that I take criticism personally, which doesn't help. I got a bad critique from a trusted writer friend and it soured me for.. a couple hours. After which, I got back to writing, since I could fix it.

...But I didn't fix it. I thought I did, but the next critique was probably worse and soured me for a day or two before kicking myself back into writing. I'm still working on the said piece but I'm taking a break from it.

I'm not everyone, since more people are secure () and have thick skin. But I love writing and I do want to get better, so that's why I'm still doing this.

By my unfortunate experience, some people are going to continue criticizing a writer for creating an echo chamber of feedback before other people have stopped criticizing that same writer for losing creative integrity and only writing fanservice.

I think that once a creator solves that paradox, the creator's personal style is set, and after that it's just a matter of skill-honing and finding the right audience.

What I've done is to first develop a relationship with the story, as if it were separate from me, and hopefully our relationship will be strong enough to create a cognitive incompatibility with criticisms such as: "(Faemonic)'s writing is the worst piece of excrement that has been excreted by some lowly wormlike creature that only feeds on excrement, and basically you should never write again."

The part of my mind that gets inspired shouldn't buckle down and go, "This reviewer is completely correct, so I'll disappear now and for ever." If I've nurtured that part well enough, its (my? our?) first reaction would be more like, "She doesn't even go here!"

Even reviews that offer constructive criticism sometimes have parts that I can't use to construct anything. I appreciate that sort of feedback much, much more than even vaguely raving reviews full of adulation (let alone the "shite that shite shat" type of feedback) ...but that doesn't mean that I can implement even the most helpfully incisive suggestions. By the same rule, I can't guarantee that I'll continue writing in the specific way that another reader/reviewer really loved.

Examples of constructive criticism:

• "The word you invented to combine 'dryad' and 'druid' is ridiculous. Pick one and stop trying to be clever."
  • I can implement a word change because I was open to the one I used not working. I just wasn't sure that it wouldn't work. I'll keep trying to be clever, though. I just hope that I can hide the effort from this beta-reader next time, but if my effort continues to show, then my beta reader will tell me and I can tweak it, I hope, so that it looks like I'm not trying.
• "This major character is so annoying that I'm not going to stick around to find out why he's secretly sympathetic. He's ruining the story for me. Maybe have him not kick this other character in the groin."
  • That last sentence saved it from being one of those uselessly vague reviews, (because if they just didn't like the character, what was I supposed to do? Rewrite the whole thing without that character, like Garfield Minus Garfield?) but I consulted with my Muse and unfortunately the Groin Attack has got to stay. I can trim some of the other jerk scenes off if my trusty beta reader feels that it's being shoved down her throat how awful this guy is.
• "There is too much exposition and character reflection going on in the first twenty paragraphs of this short story. Maybe start with a hook, like an action scene or a chase scene. Make the character just do something."
  • I revised the piece accordingly, and gave it to my beta-reader, who then gave me this feedback: "I take it back! I take it baaack!!!" Hey, it happens. Reviewers are only human. It was fun to experiment, though.

That's actually the main thing for me, actually, shallow as it sounds: Is the advice going to be fun to take? Constructive criticism that is more general but not vague can become prompts or challenges for the next thing I write, instead. Usually, this is because if I put a thing up to invite reviews, then it's already outgrown the experimental stage of the creative process. By that point, I can only polish...not demolish.

Some stories beg to be demolished even after the reviewing stage, because something about them can survive the process. Some stories are just much more adaptable and resilient. I can't take any credit for that, although I do give a lot to my beta-reader for suggesting I turn the story on its head in the first place.

edited 11th May '15 10:09:48 PM by Faemonic

Basically what you said. If you love writing, go for it. 90% of writing is editing, so determination is very important.

...this thread seems to consist largely of excuses to ignore criticism rather than any other possible reaction. That's...kind of disturbing, honestly.

In truth, no one has ever come down terribly hard on a story I've written. (Though some people once got really upset about non-story issues when I was in my vocal phase of criticizing the AU yaoi nightmare the Gundam Wing section was on ff.net.) That said, one thing in particular was kind of horrific.

This is kind of a terrible way to look at things, because a lot of the time when you get to the non-technical issues that are holding you up, they're not going to be fun to address at all. A lot of them will have to do with things about yourself and how you look at the world, and it's not fun, but it's necessary for every time you try to write someone you don't agree with or a world that isn't the way you'd like it to be.

I've seen plenty of people use the excuse, for example, that they're writing a horrific power-trip character because it's fun. That's great, it's fun for them, and they'll get twenty thousand favorites and reviews from people who think it's awesome and cool, but they've engaged with the weakest and lowest level of the Superman story at best. (Often, though, they haven't managed to get that far; Superman is at least a decent sort of guy.) There's nothing to the story, once that's done; nothing human, nothing interesting for more than a moment. All it does is reveal how catastrophically unready the author is for infinite power.

This is an extreme example, of course. Nevertheless it's illustrative. I'm sure Tomino thought that Victory Gundam was deep and meaningful, and to him it might even have been. But to those of us not party to his particular issues at that time with nihilism, emotional breakdown, and women it is an impenetrable and misogynistic mess.

edited 11th May '15 11:19:03 PM by Night

Well, that's what most writers do in the first place, and that's what many writers advise people to do. Ignore it.

You won't get anywhere if you're always thinking about what X-person said about Y-story, unless there are many people stating common points that they find wrong in your writing. Then it usually means you have something to work on.

If they're on the exceptionally stupid side of criticism (making personal attacks or deliberately misconstruing the work to twist a certain viewpoint), then by all means react to them. Preferably with snark.

But if you get bogged down and actually react to every news article, reviewer on a website, or accidentally having your stuff leaked, then don't go Stephenie Meyer and sulk until your fans make you a quilt to make you feel better. Then you'll just be a laughingstock.

You and I have very different definitions of what's disturbing, horrifying, and fun.

Why not get interested in feedback that actually points out specific flaws in the text? Why not have fun fixing those problems?

Aren't you supposed to avoid negative criticism anyway? You're not going to sell books by being unlikeable.

Actually, that's a lie. I don't care if I'm unlikeable, and vilified. If writing something will give me fans and allow me to write for a living, I'll do it.

edited 11th May '15 11:56:16 PM by Aespai

The idea that criticism unless repeated is without merit does not work on small sample sizes. Hell, it doesn't necessarily work on large sample sizes. Few people are going to take the time to understand well enough to offer detailed critique. Few people will even have the grounding to do so; if there's one thing to learn about the general public it's that they don't really understand writing.

Perhaps. But then I never did say what I thought was fun there. And I don't really write for fun at the ideas and decisions stage the way you describe, because it's an easy way to wander about exposing yourself to the reader rather than your story, and not shutting up when it's time for your story to talk.

My joy is in the craft far more than the contents.

I wonder if it also has to do with how we dish out negative criticism. May I never say, "That author should never write again" and worse, expect that author to never write again just because I said so.

Same with ever giving the feedback that there's too much of a person's worldview or personal style that's railroading the story (in my opinion.) Even if that is indeed the case (that is, an opinion shared by more people than me, but that's no proof of objective fact when crafting fiction,) what I'm criticizing is the text itself. I'd have a different relationship to somebody else's story than I would have to another person, even the one who did write that very story.

And if I'd said once that, "This is kind of a canon Mary Sue...maybe challenge this character a bit, that would add more complex and interesting aspects..." And the other writer either didn't take that into consideration, or took it in an entirely wrong direction, then...

...I've just got to let that go.

They're the ones writing their stories, and I am not.

edited 12th May '15 1:57:24 AM by Faemonic

Surely this is the opposite of what you should do!

It can be productive to react to constructive criticism (by taking it on board if you decide you agree with it). How can it be useful to respond to stupid criticism?

Won't judging criticism based on whether it is fun cause you to overlook the most difficult-to-address problems in your writing? Isn't the most important factor is whether it is incisive?

edit

I appreciate that you might simply disagree with criticism that is well-thought-out and to-the-point. That seems like a reason to put it aside, but not a reason to take 'fun' criticism more seriously.

edited 12th May '15 4:25:46 AM by editerguy

No, because what you and Night seem to call "difficulty" is what I call fun. That the feedback is incisive is a prerequisite for that to even bear considering.

edited 12th May '15 7:20:08 AM by Faemonic

Fair enough. Usually when I know I've written something stupid and can't think how to fix it, I get pretty exasperated. That's cool if you're more equable about it.

Negative criticism ruined my friendship with one of my past guild leaders in World of Warcraft. :( >.<

I suppose that it's possible to negatively criticize yourself, but I thought we were talking about how to deal with negative criticism from others. When we write something stupid and can't think how to fix it ourselves, bouncing it off somebody else can be helpful, even if they agree that it's terrible. If they can be more specific than the one who created that monster and can't see the wood for the trees, all the better. Of course, other times, it can just be a matter of letting it rest at the back of the mind, and coming back to the thing with a fresh attitude and more distance...but that might not be a way to deal with negative criticism so much as negativity in general.

Okay, time to take my chill hat off and put on my thinking hat.

Negative criticism is a very broad spectrum. The market, whom you're writing for, and professional critics, who you're often NOT writing for at least directly, often have VASTLY different desires in what you wrote. Critics focus on detailed things to praise or pan about a work, so they can often be the most "helpful" in terms of letting you know what they didn't like about your work.

However, whether it's helpful or not depends on your own goals for the work: If the critic's review comes out of nowhere and you go, "well, that's not what I'm going for with this story," then it's hard to take them seriously no matter how high of a profile they have and how constructively they put their review. Like, they want you to build this huge sprawling mansion, but you're fine with a nice but basic two-story house.

But Average Joe on social media, if he gets enough people to agree with him, might be able to use the cruddy "this writing is bad and you should feel bad" review to form a huge Hatedom of your work. No matter how much you and other other parts of the fandom know otherwise.

That's why it's safer to ignore criticism, unless you yourself think the critic has a point.

edited 12th May '15 10:47:38 AM by Sharysa

I'm pretty confused by this thread. 'Negative criticism' seems to be lumped in with flames, bashing, hateful rants - you know, complaining, not an actual critique.

Sharysa made great points. I'm going to add that negative criticism should at minimum be someone telling you what they think is wrong with a element of your writing. They don't have to suggest how to fix it, but they need to be more specific than 'This sucks'. And if they are, if they're able to say, 'I don't like X because of Y and Z', you've just been handed some useful insight.

As a writer, you can then choose to use it. Start by understanding who's talking to you. Is this person part of your target audience? Great - pay more attention to them. Are they not? Fine, now you know how your story's seen from the outside. Both can be really valuable to know! And you don't have to do squat with them beyond that.

If you do actually want to work on what they said, really think about (if they don't say so) why they don't like X. Maybe it's OOC. Maybe you weren't clear enough. Maybe you rushed the back story. Maybe they're totally drunk and commented on the wrong story.

After that, you can adjust to - or enjoy! - the opinion of this person. Suppose someone says they hate a character of yours. Good - your character is a bad guy anyway, just like you meant it to be, or awww, I guess this needs more work because s/he's supposed to be likable but won't snop whining.

It's a four step process, and you are free to stop and ignore them whenever you answer 'no' to one of the yes/no questions:

1. Is this person being specific or just angrily ranting?

2. Is this person part of my target audience?

3. Is what that person saying a legitimate observation?

4. Does this need to change or is the story written this way intentionally?

Learn from the people trying to help, and remember that on the internet, not everyone wants to. Some people are just jerks.

edited 12th May '15 11:46:48 AM by Tartra

Right, I mean someone politely tells me 'this part is a bit problematic', on reflection I think 'ah crap they're right, it's stupid', then I sit there flummoxed thinking 'now what do I do?' I find that exasperating.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that some people are actually very good critics (professional or not).

I often find it rewarding to re-examine my preconceptions if someone gives me advice I disagree with, but they've given me really useful feedback in the past. Sometimes, when I try to figure out how to apply feedback I think is missing the point, I improve things.

What do y'all think of "rewrite in e-prime and no adjectives" critique? I like the reasoning behind it well enough, although some of my favorite authors break it and I've heard some fledgling writers just hate it like the flu.

So, E-Prime means no: be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being (art, wast, wert) or ('m, 's, 're, (i'm they're he's she's)

through e-prime, the sentence "the ass was fat" becomes "The current form of ass fatness."

Writing in E-Prime is hard, but considering I just tried it like 4 minutes ago, it's probably not.

E-Prime: Writing in E-Prime enforces difficulty, but considering I just tried it like 4 minutes ago, E-Prime becomes simpler over time.

edited 12th May '15 7:01:49 PM by Aespai

I agree with Tartra. Complaints and dickish behaviour are being conflated with criticism.

"It sucks" isn't a criticism. Nor is "Your [sic] an asshole". Neither "Marsha shoulda got with Mary, not Dennis", nor "It's too science-fictionish".

A criticism goes like "I found the ending somewhat of an Ass Pull" or "the Purple Prose was practically ultraviolet" or "the writing style was too beige".

If such criticisms are common amongst your target audience or from your editor, then they could well be onto something. If you've got a romance reader moaning that there were too many spaceships and too few heaving bosoms in your story, then you can safely discount it (unless you weren't trying to write a Science Fiction story at all...)

Things like "too predictable" and "Ass Pull" can be rather subjective, but if it's a lot of your readers saying it (rather than just some clever dick who managed to work it out when no one else did or some twit who nodded off during the chapter where you carefully foreshadowed the ending or completely missed the blatant Chekhov's Gun on the first page), then - again - they may have something there.

"The hero should've got together with the female lead, not that other bint, BTW, go to www.fanficsRus and see how it shoulda been done, I fixed it for you" is just pure opinion.

"Rewrite in E-Prime" is a personal preference - right up there with "rewrite in third person because I don't like first person narratives" - and a pretentious one, at that. Pretty safe to ignore that - and, again, it's not a criticism.

"I found the heavy use of adjectives hard going" or "I found the language difficult to understand" is possibly a criticism - though it could be just that the person has difficulty with words larger than one syllable.

Anyone have any advice regarding how to give negative criticism? E-Prime is one interesting idea, but I think it goes too far. A better rule, I think, it that any time you find yourself using a form of the verb "to be" ("That's stupid" for example) you should explain your opinion in E-Prime mode, for at least a couple of sentences per opinion.

Giving negative criticism constructively is hugely dependent on explaining WHY you don't like something. "That's stupid" can mean dozens of things: Is a character acting irrational or immature? That means you think the character acts like an idiot.

Do certain plot elements not make sense? That means you think the story doesn't progress very logically.

Do you find the dialogue trite or unrealistic? That means the writing needs better editing or drafting.