Critique of Critics · 11:22am Jun 1st, 2015
A friend of mine was recently telling me about a comment he received on one of his stories. A lot of you here are authors, and you're probably familiar with the feeling. The comment was pretty rude, "blunt." The commenter went out of their way to state that the story pretty much wasn't worth their time reading.
There are wide and varied opinions on literary criticism, but I'm not going to state the other opinions, just my own.
Criticism can be good – especially if it's correct – but it isn't always good, even if it is correct. Criticism delivered badly, no matter how technically correct, is bad criticism. There is a lot of push for authors to just accept criticism and "read through it" because there is always something to be found, but I think it's wrong to always expect the authors to be the ones to grin and bear it.
Being a critic, and having technically correct criticism, does not in any way liberate a person from common decency and tact, but many people seem to think it does. Some authors have learned to look for this, because it makes them feel like someone is being "brutally honest" and making sure they're the best they can be by not sugar-coating anything. It's entirely possible (and worth the time) to be truthful, frank, and just as helpful while still being constructive, encouraging, and tactful.
If someone comes by your story and basically delivers criticism via insult, it's okay to recognize it for what it is. There are people who neither know, nor care about, the difference between offering criticism and slapping you in the face with it. I have offered criticism on several stories here, and I've been the author who wasn't sure what to do with the feelings when someone came by and carelessly ripped my writings a new one in the name of criticism. It can hurt, especially when you have that struggle of, "They were really rude... but it's criticism, and maybe they're right? How do I feel about this?"
Is it true that you can usually get something good even out of criticism that's delivered with a sledgehammer? Yes, sure. And if you can take it, it's okay to be someone who says "I want all the criticism." But let's be honest: usually the people who say they want the criticism are the ones who have already figured out what I'm about to say. It's okay to recognize when someone has criticized wrongly, unkindly, or brashly. You don't have to feel badly about recognizing someone was a jerk. Being technically "right" does not exonerate them; they were still a jerk.
Do you have to call them out on it or react to it? Do you have to start a flame war chewing them out? No. In fact I'd advise against it. I have two goals in writing this: that the authors who struggle with feelings of uncertainty know they don't have to feel badly or rip themselves apart when someone else does, and to encourage the critics who have a desire to be helpful and constructive to look for ways of expressing said criticism in a fashion that builds an author up rather than tearing them down. That doesn't mean sugar-coating and lots of flowery praise, but it does mean keeping things neutral, and not making someone feel like the scum of the earth because they omitted an oxford comma.
We get a morbid kick out of putting others down. I don't know where it comes from, but I think that drives much of the hostile critiquing we see these days. It's almost a form of entertainment to see how creatively we can rip something apart. Admittedly, I thought of several creative criticisms when I found the Equestria Girls 3: Friendship Games promotional image. But when addressing someone personally, I really strive to put away anything malicious. There's lots of things out there that'd be easy to rip apart, but even if something seems worthy of the fires of Tartarus, when offering the person criticism I find no good reason to do so at their expense.
While what doesn't kill you can make you stronger, I'm perfectly willing to do workouts, drink protein shakes, and take martial arts lessons. I don't need someone sending ninja assassins to my door just waiting till one of them good enough to kill me arrives. If you're going to take the time to comment on someone's story, make sure it's worth their time to read it. Simply "being right" doesn't make it worth the time. Being constructive does.
To those critics reading this who already strive with this mindset, you have my honest and heartfelt thanks. I appreciate each person who works to build and improve the lives of others. We need more critics like you.
My biggest guiding philosophy with criticism is that it should aid its audience, be that the creator or a potential viewer. Given that, I prioritize clarity over politeness, and will happily stay blunt In my opining. However, I find there is never really any need for insult, as insult is rarely descriptive or even logically sound. Also, I feel any author would be foolish to ignore any logically sound criticism, even if it is stated harshly.
I agree with most of this and I would gladly offer hugs and encouragement to anyone who was the unfortunate victim of ego-stroking disguised as criticism.
To elaborate a little on what 3117780 said, I do think that being blunt does not necessarily mean being a jerk, and that this distinction is one worth noting.
"Your characters are flat" would be highly preferable to "it seems like your mother sat on their personalities." The first is an observation, and observations can be made with the intent to help. The second exists not to help, but as a sort of masturbatory stroking of the critic's ego. "Look how clever my insults are!"
Now, the real question... Am I a bad critic for criticizing the criticism of critics who criticize in such a manner?
3118630
I agree that not all criticism needs to be candy and roses, but what I'm targeting is basically "the opposite." True bluntness or frankness can be fine, though I'm still of the opinion one should tend to consider the one who'll read it. If I'm actually aiming to help someone by criticizing their work I generally first ask myself (1) how receptive are they likely to be and (2) what are they going to be most receptive to. If I feel someone might be sensitive, but open to criticism, I'll probably look for a way to state things honestly, but also not in a way that's going to push all their buttons. If I think they're going to be open to something that's more "this is the way it is," then I may go that route.
3117780
Most of my reply to Grey applies here. As for the author being foolish to ignore hostile criticism, I don't agree. If someone is overly harsh in their criticism (and I do believe it can be overdone), I think delivery can outweigh content. If an author wants to dig through a pile of junk to find what, if anything, is worth keeping, that's their choice. The criticism might have something good, it might not, and either is a possibility. They're free to do it, but they're also free not to. If they asked for it, then yes, they'd better look for it because they got what they asked for. But for the random critic to decides to grace a story with their enlightened opinion without the behest of the author, it's not something I would blame declining when the delivery itself seems the person criticizing is less concerned about the author's improvement than in their own opinion.
That doesn't make the author faultless. Some authors aren't open to criticism as much as they should be. Some react to criticism more than they ought to, and see attacks where they ought not. Some can't and won't take criticism at all. When we get down to it, we can point fingers in all sorts of directions if we tried.
I want to clarify though, this blog post is more aimed at those who are more or less hostile, rather than just hard-cornered. My own bottom line is this: I believe critics who are trying to help an author should make the effort to pace their critiques to the author. I don't see criticism as a "one size fits all," and like conversation, I think it's most effective when it adapts to the participants. Authors needing to be open to criticism -- including things they don't necessarily enjoy hearing -- is a given, but I don't believe that should mean they also be open to hostility. Frankness and/or bluntness can have their place, and I've used it myself sometimes, but I believe how a critic approaches criticism says a lot about how vested they are in helping the author.
3129303 When I wrote the part about an author ignoring sound criticism, I intend to say that if an author understands a criticism to be sound, they should not use the demeanor with which it was stated as an excuse to ignore it. I didn't mean that an author should read every bit of criticism they receive in the hopes of finding the gems among the drivel.
3131355
Fair enough, heh, and on that note I'd completely agree with you. I'm sorry that I misunderstood, and I do see what you're saying. I was trying to avoid "legitimizing" bad delivery the way many do. The way I see it, when it comes to criticism, there are good/bad listeners, and good/bad deliverers, and they can come in a lot of combinations.
Rejecting good advice that you recognize as good advice is definitely foolish, and... well, for the authors who do that, they usually fall under bad listeners who don't really want the cirticism. Even if it's a situation with a bad listener and a bad deliverer, it just gives a new meaning to "two wrongs don't make a right." It's better to be a good listener who can get advice from bad delivery, than it is to be a bad listener who can't take advice at all.
I'd just add, that is more a principle I'd follow to guide my own behavior than something I'd accuse someone of, generally speaking. It's easy to think of legitimate hypothetical situations like that, but in practice, delivery really messes with how the receiver perceives what's being said, especially if they're more inexperienced and don't know if it's good advice or not. Some things might seem clear to the critic, but to an author who may not understand, the delivery can make it appear like just another negative opinion to be brushed off. A more tactful approach can usually get people to consider things they wouldn't have otherwise. Does that make sense?
3131531
I agree, the aim here is clarity, and communication is always a two-way street.