(My) Definition of Constructive Criticism

Recently, I've had a few complaints regarding how I review stories. Well, a couple. Two, one from the author and one from the author's friend. It's your typical hodgepodge of pride and hurt feelings, and it would do well for an internet-based sitcom, if such a thing existed.

I just want to go record saying that my criticisms are mine. Not that other people can't have them, but I'm just going out of the way to say that my thoughts don't reflect the population at large. I'm a far cry from the typical pony-reader, and even if this theoretical "average person" existed, they would still exclude minority thoughts from their critiques. Minority thoughts like mine.

So, recently, I was perusing a story written by someone I had a slight infatuation with - whose name will remain anonymous, so we'll call him "George". George had a story he was proud of, and I might have ripped it a new breathing hole. He liked to censor comments he deemed 'spoilery', which sparked the whole debacle. I wanted to tell him that stifling the comments like that is wrong, and I wanted to know why he felt justified in keeping the story an absolute secret. His reply was, in short, "because I'm the author, and this is what I want."

I went on to critique the story, calling it a "bland, uninspired slog, barely six-thousand words long but still a chore to read." Not with those exact words, but I'm paraphrasing the whole scenario, to protect the identity of those involved. George responded by locking the story, and messaging me to ask about how "genuine" I was being.

So did his friend, we'll say "Gabe".

I told them both the same thing: I give out criticisms freely, and without thought to the author's feelings. I do this for a myriad of reasons. (A) I'm not good at bandying words and sugar-coating things, so I just don't do it. (B) If I find a story is underwhelming or flat-out bad, I want my 'review' to reflect that. (C) If I see something I don't like that doesn't pertain to the story (like squelching spoilery comments), I bring it up. (D) Because I'm 2edge2handle #edgelord.

To get back onto the subject, I would define a "constructive review" as "a review that isn't inherently destructive". A destructive review would, simply, have to be a rant about how bad the story is, but without sufficient explanation as to why you think so. George got his reasons, but he got them on my terms, and decided that I wasn't being "constructive" enough.

Put simply; I don't butt-kiss. I don't pander. I tell it as I see it, and if they don't like it, they hide behind a block. Which is totally fine by me; it's not like I wanted to explain my reasoning, anyway. I'm more than happy to use up another blog space to explain why I do things this way, and why a lack of boot-licking isn't to be considered as "destructive".

TL;DNR - Thin-skinned people shouldn't go on the internet, because there's nowhere to get their boo-boo's fixed.

Disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any drastic decisions that might be made as a result of my criticisms. Reading one of my 'reviews' will forfeit your privilege to complain about it later. As such, all reviews will henceforth contain a spoiler, holding an in-depth criticism, while keeping fluff to the outsides. Reading the 'meat' will forfeit your right to complain about it. Also note that I'm not interested in your opinion of my opinion. Feel free to send me complaints regarding my criticisms, but don't expect to be taken seriously. You have been warned.