• Member Since 25th Jan, 2012
  • offline last seen 11 hours ago

Kkat


More Blog Posts235

Sep
22nd
2013

Regarding Criticism · 12:19pm Sep 22nd, 2013

A recent thread in which I participated prompted me to revisit my advice on dealing with critics. For those who have followed me for a while, this is nothing new. But I have gained enough new followers that restating this advice might prove helpful.

:twilightsmile:

Whether an author, an artist or any other sort of creator, you need to welcome and listen to helpful feedback. Quality feedback and criticism are invaluable tools for helping you improve.

But remember that not all feedback and criticism are quality. Feedback which is just praise may make you feel good, but "I love all of it" is possibly the most useless feedback you can receive. It gives you no means of improvement, nothing to work with, and doesn't even highlight for you what you did right.

Likewise, not all criticism is equal, and it behooves an artist to separate the good from the chaff. Any good critic has a few goals in mind, and the most important of those goals is to help you improve. If you do have the privilege of getting comments from good critics, listen to them. Take them to heart. Assess everything they say and see if applying their advice will help improve your writing. Sometimes criticism can hurt, but don't allow that to make you defensive and don't push the advice away.

You might not want to apply every bit of advice you get from good critics -- not all advice from good critics is good advice. But remember that you are your own worst proofreader. By nature, you are too close to your own work to really see it objectively. And the good critics are generously taking time out of their day to write to you, to try to help you. Such selflessness is rare enough that it should be treasured.

A bad critic's goals are usually to make themselves feel good by trashing your work, to promote their own work, to play to an audience for laughs, or to insult or attack you. Such comments are not an act of generosity, but usually stem from pride or envy or cruelty. Listening to them is likely to do you more harm than good. So don't, no matter how starved for feedback you may feel.

Bear in mind that the burden is on the critic to prove that his or her goals are those of a good critic. A critic is a solicitor. Critics are trying to get you to buy something: their critique. Like any solicitor, it is the job of the critic to sell their product. If they want you to give their voice attention and their opinion weight, then it is on them to engender your receptiveness and convince you that what they have to offer has value. If the critic fails to do so, you have every reason to reject what they are trying to sell as bad goods.

Some critics will claim that even if their behavior is vile, their advice might still be useful or their opinion valid. Even if this is true, it does not matter. Even if a river of feces might contain a diamond, you are not required to jump in and swim through it in an effort to find that diamond. Nor are you under any obligation to give the river's contents the benefit of the doubt.

Remember: on the internet, everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them... but they are not entitled to have you pay them any attention. You do not owe anyone an ear, and you are not beholden to consider every critic's opinions as if they might hold weight. You do, however, have a responsibility -- to yourself, your art and your fans -- to listen to good critics and their advice, to try to improve and to avoid listening to advice that will do your work harm.

:raritywink:

Report Kkat · 2,563 views ·
Comments ( 34 )

I agree with you! Have some nostalgia!

Even if a river of feces might contain a diamond, you are not required to jump in and swim through it in an effort to find that diamond.

this made me laugh. :rainbowlaugh: It's so true.

Thanks for sharing your point of view Kkat.

Feedback which is just praise may make you feel good, but "I love all of it" is possibly the most useless feedback you can receive.

Garrrgh! That is the worst. Comments like those are nice and all, but I just know that my writing has at least a dozen flaws and plotholes that I missed and does not deserve nothing but praise. Personally, I feel a little dumb for not having anything productive to say about a fic. More often than not, I don't leave a comment at all.

That's a valid point of view, and I mainly agree; however, sometimes, you will want to dig through a particular river of feces if you really do value that patricular 'diamond'. What I mean is, if a person whose advice you cherish, provides criticism in a rather cold and harsh manner (a manner very common for, exempli gratia, photographers, or some buddhist gurus), you will still find the point, the ground on which you are being criticised, and pay attention to it. But yeah, that's just my point of view.

Oh, and I had trouble getting the 'solicitor' example. I just stared at the screen, thinking, "What. How come?... Oh, American English." In Britain, a 'solicitor' is a lawyer, and, naturally, not all critics play that role. :raritywink: (A British word for 'solicitor' would be just 'salesman/saleswoman/salesperson'.)

Personally I think one of the worst useful feedbacks to recieve about your writing skills and fic progression would be this,

"Lol."

Even worse, it's more useless if the genre you're writing is a comedy where that's usually the expression you're trying to aim for in your readers' reactions to the fic. Well, at least there's the thought that the fic was a good time to read. Though based on the lack of anything else, you can't tell if it's like one laugh (e.g. HAAAAHAHAHHHAAHAHAHAAA BWAHAHAAHA!) or another laugh (e.g. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha...)

Then again comments are wonderful things made up of imagination and unique creativity. :trollestia:

I have only been critiqued a few times, but when i did, it was mostly hurtful seeing how many glitches and errors I made. Now when I look at it I do appreciate the fact they gave their time to write that out to improve my work.

It is nice to see you post a blog about this again, since there are so many things I do. :twilightsmile:

Heh, "behooves".

Some critics will claim that even if their behavior is vile, their advice might still be useful or their opinion valid. Even if this is true, it does not matter. Even if a river of feces might contain a diamond, you are not required to jump in and swim through it in an effort to find that diamond. Nor are you under any obligation to give the river's contents the benefit of the doubt.

The attitude that authors should be dealt "tough love" and overly blunt criticism is extremely common among the more, uh, dedicated critics on the site. This piece of advice from you, Kkat, should be much more common. Rule number one of being a decent social creature is "Don't be a dick" - this applies to criticism and reviews as much as any other interaction.

Regarding the actual giving of criticism, I always make certain to offer about as many compliments as criticisms, and when making a note of something that needs work, I always try to give concrete examples. This both shows the author that you really do want them to succeed - why else talk about what you liked? - and shows them that you do in fact know what you're talking about. You have to have a certain knowledge of literature (or at least the mechanics of literacy) to offer useful advice - a lot of the reviews I've seen on here come from people who have no idea what they're talking about, and I don't see these as being particularly useful to authors.

As a critic, and an author I enjoy pointing out all of the things that need to be improved to better the creator. After all, no one got better by being told what they were doing was perfect. Because nothing is, and even if there are things that are good you can help them expand on that area.

I'm so glad you said all this. There seems to be a widespread opinion (on this site and probably elsewhere), that criticism itself is above criticism, and that an author (or musician, artist, etc.) should bend over, take it, thank the critic, and ask for more. As you said, feedback is good, and can help one improve. But there's good criticism and bad criticism, and that's not said enough. There are people on this site (and again, elsewhere - many professional critics, for example) who aren't in it to help the artist improve, but to make themselves look better, to be "scathing" or "witty" or "edgy", and even to earn the respect of other critics. And, as you said, an author has every right to dismiss such criticism as useless.

Thank you for this, Kkat. :pinkiehappy:

But remember that not all feedback and criticism are quality. Feedback which is just praise may make you feel good, but "I love all of it" is possibly the most useless feedback you can receive. It gives you no means of improvement, nothing to work with, and doesn't even highlight for you what you did right.

I'd have to disagree with that. While it's true that flattery without substance will not directly help you improve, it still has one major benefit.

It's encouraging.

If you know that people like your stuff, even if they suck at expressing it :ajbemused:, then you're more likely to get back on the horse and keep going. A bit part of being an author is motivation, the will to continue, and sometimes a little bit of dumb praise mixed amongst your more constructive comments can be just as helpful in that regard.

On that note, "insult" critics are most definitely the most useless feedback one can receive. On top of a general lack of good intent or constructive substance, they make you less willing to try again. And that, regardless of one's position, can only be damaging to an author.

But apart from that, I agree. Constructive critique is the best possible thing an author can hope for, and it should be treasured.

I enjoy "LOL" or "Loved it" comments, but it's true they don't help me improve. I get 2 kinds of useful comments:

- Long comments pointing out specific problems, e.g., Aquillo on Loyalty, FiddleBottoms on Twenty Minutes, Chrysophylax on Sisters. Some sound wrong to me, but to get better, you have to try out some things that seem wrong.

- Comments that tell me what readers felt when they finished. Sometimes they let me know the story had the specific effect that I wanted to. These can be long comments, like Cerulean Starlight and maskedferret on No Regrets. Or they can be just a few words, like Skywriter on Long Distance. I had comments on Twenty Minutes saying "heartwarming and heartbreaking" "heartbreaking and uplifting", "beautiful & heartbreaking", "beautiful & sad", " beautiful & horrible", which was exactly what I wanted. Two words can be enough.

Sometimes this kind of comment shows me the story had an effect I didn't want it to. I got a lot of these on Mortality Report.

Many famous authors deliberately avoid reading reviews of their novels. Perhaps this is why novelists often don't get better after their first novel.

1368643

The most helpful and most highly treasured comments, for me, are those like Borg has been doing for each chapter of Fallout: Equestria. I am blessed to have had several people start doing that about halfway through writing the story. While the feedback I got before was wonderful and helpful and very motivating, those comments were an order of magnitude above. My only regret is I didn't have the benefit of such comments from the very beginning... imagine what the story would have been like if I had!

:raritystarry:

At the risk of sounding somewhat ironic, I agree with all of this :twilightsmile:

"This is great!" comments actually kind of irk me. I'd rather be told I did something wrong than receive pointless praise on something. I've gotten comments such as. "I likes X because you did Y with Z and XXXXX something else." Point is, those are the best comments, like, ever.

Even the bad ones are good as long as they're not just out to insult.

Since I have read and heard all this so many times before, I think I will just nitpick some of it this time... :trollestia:

But remember that not all feedback and criticism are quality. Feedback which is just praise may make you feel good, but "I love all of it" is possibly the most useless feedback you can receive.

WRONG. To me it means someone has decided to read it, did not quit halfway through, and was so impressed that they expressed it with a comment, as opposed to just, say, a vote or a favorite. Sure, it might not contain as much information as a 1000 word critique, but I still find it more exciting than any other form of feedback you can get here, especially since there's always the possibility of starting a conversation.

Of course, when one gets to the level of dozens of comments every day, that might become a bit difficult, although at that point not getting enough critique will probably be the last thing you will worry about...

Bear in mind that the burden is on the critic to prove that his or her goals are those of a good critic.

I am not very fond of that kind of attitude. To me, this is about two steps away from the "if you don't like it, then why are you even here?" kind of response. Every type of response is valuable feedback, even the "unprofessional" ones. At the very least it is actual feedback, giving you a chance to find out how one particular member of your audience was affected by your work. If they say they like it and don't point out anything in particular (bad or good), then that means they did not find anything in it that needed to be pointed out. This means that, on a certain level, you have already succeeded. After all, even the least experienced reader can recognize a really badly written story, and would probably mention it if they decide to comment at all.

In fact, I would much rather say the burden is on the writer to impress the critics. To put this into perspective, if I wrote a fic where someone from the show dies, and then someone in the comments just tells me to go to hell for killing off their favorite pony, then I will agree with them. I have failed to create a story that is good enough to be able to impress someone even when their favorite character dies in it, so I need to improve my ability.

There. That's my two cents... :duck:

Every type of response is valuable feedback, even the "unprofessional" ones.

This is extremely and dangerously incorrect. :trixieshiftleft:

You missed something that's super important---the good-bad-good technique that lots of critics like to use when judging a work. It's one of those small exceptions to the rule of not being vile to people, from my perspective. Mainly due to that fact that we're all a lot more likely to take cruel words for the best if they're said after and before things that are positive. That's always how I've preferred to have criticism given to me, 'cause it helped me both take the cruelty with a light and professional tone, as well as showed me the humour present in the abuse. I've learnt to not be discouraged by censure with that in mind, and I find that if people still would like to use a Ben Croshaw approach (as I call it), that's a very good method to consider.

1370624

There is a difference between a critic pointing out that something is wrong and a critic being rude and horrible towards a writer or artist. Pointing out what is good as well as what could use work is definitely a strong method for a critic to use, and I don't have any issue with that. However, that's a far different animal than using unwarranted hyperbole for laughs, littering your critique with personal insults, tearing someone down, being vulgar or destructive, etc. Cruelty is never called for. Worse, it is the lazy go-to method for people who don't actually have the insight and skill to write a worthwhile critique.

I personally don't think there should ever be an exception to the "don't be vile to people" rule. (And if there is a proper exception to that rule, it's reserved for dealing with monsters who have committed far more severe moral offenses than badly written fanfiction.) Most people who claim that acting vile is acceptable in some circumstances are doing so as a way to avoid behaving correctly when they don't want to or to avoid facing the repugnance of behavior they enjoy.

Again, if someone's critique isn't done in a mature, civil and constructive manner designed to help you improve, then don't waste your time reading what they have to say. (And don't give what little you read reaching that conclusion a second thought.) If they can't behave themselves -- if they can't take the few minutes necessary to actually be a good critic -- why give them any degree of influence over your writing?

1370688 Well, then I believe that's something I don't see eye to eye with you on. If I ever saw this method hurting someone emotionally or even as a writer, I would not use it. I try to be humourous enough to make a distinction between mindless hate and good-natured bashing, but it seems you don't admire either, and I can't really see why. As I said, I squish harshness between two exceptionally appealing praises every time I do this, so the whole "won't read if you come across as an asshole" argument doesn't quite hold up.

Heck, I used this method when I reviewed your story, itself.

1370726

:unsuresweetie: To be fair, I do differentiate between rabid hate and good-natured bashing. While I have absolutely no respect for the former or those who engage in it, I agree that the latter has it's place, and can very much make for an enjoyable review to read. I can respect it when done well. But, no, I couldn't say I admire it. And I caution against a writer or artist taking such a critique to heart (or at face value). The critic is clearly using hyperbole and embellishment for the sake of humor. Often, this is because the reviewer playing to an audience rather than focusing on helping the writer or artist. There's nothing malicious about it, but there is a danger in adjusting your writing based on criticism that you recognize is intentionally inaccurate.

PS: I loved your review. :heart:

Yeah, really do agree with you. Glad you liked my little review project and hope it wasn't just mindless praising.. did have a few people say they wouldn't read it for that reason.. at least I explain WHY I loved everything... at least as best I could.

But really, need to save

Bear in mind that the burden is on the critic to prove that his or her goals are those of a good critic. A critic is a solicitor. Critics are trying to get you to buy something: their critique. Like any solicitor, it is the job of the critic to sell their product. If they want you to give their voice attention and their opinion weight, then it is on them to engender your receptiveness and convince you that what they have to offer has value. If the critic fails to do so, you have every reason to reject what they are trying to sell as bad goods.

for future use. It's so perfect a way to describe how it should be, and how more people need to treat it.

I can't stand Yahtzee, or reviewers like him that just do almost nothing but rant about how bad something is and be assholes. Yeah I do love the Nostalgia Critic, but only for the entertainment value of his stuff, never as a good source of review for something. Versus my by far favorite internet reviewer, and the one I tried to base the style of my own on, SF Debris. Yeah he will eviscerate something if it sucks, but will also point out exactly why it sucked, what went wrong, what could have been done better, while praising anything that was done right.

1370484

Why? Beggars can't exactly be choosers, you know... :trollestia:

For me, in a way, even a troll would be a positive thing, since that would mean my work managed to convince them to spend their time to bother me. :derpytongue2:

Someone who only comments "I love all of it"? I can assume that means I succeeded in not making my story an incoherent mess that would turn every reader away in an instant.

Someone saying the opposite? Apparently, there is no need to point out anything specific, since the whole thing sucks...

The common thing in both cases is that you always have the opportunity of starting a conversation with the commenters, and you might end up with a bit more extensive feedback. I must mention, though, that "unprofessional critics" are not the only reason for a great abundance of short responses. For example, the story could be much too simple, and does not manage to elicit very interesting reactions from the readers. Or (sometimes in my case), the story could be "perfect" in their opinion, and they don't really have any criticism to offer. Either way, even a short response can offer plenty of information, so there's no need for a negative (or ignorant) attitude toward them. It certainly says a whole lot more than just an upvote or downvote... :ajbemused:

And besides: Any feedback is confirmation that your story is not being ignored... :duck:

I think when I see something really good, it's a good thing to say it.
It's true it's not criticism, and maybe useless, but what bad can it do to show how we appreciate something. The lack of true crticism just prove that nothing need to be changed.

As for negative criticism,, well, when the piece is good rated and have a lot of good appreciation, it can be bad to point what some may think is bad.
But for pieces that are already bad and need great improvement, I think negative criticism is the only way to understand the errors and make something better. It is ot always a mean to help the ego of the crtic.

1372587
1372373

I think when I see something really good, it's a good thing to say it.

Someone who only comments "I love all of it"? I can assume that means I succeeded in not making my story an incoherent mess that would turn every reader away in an instant.

I absolutely agree. Even though "I loved all of it" may be useless for improvement, it is wonderfully helpful in many other ways. It is uplifting and encouraging; it lets you know people are reading or viewing your work and enjoying it.

But for pieces that are already bad and need great improvement, I think negative criticism is the only way to understand the errors and make something better. It is ot always a mean to help the ego of the crtic.

As the essay above tries to point out clearly, there is a difference between criticism and bad criticism. Good criticism will be designed to help the author, not boost the critic's ego. Now, it is possible that a critic wants to help, but just doesn't know how to write criticism in any way other than being awful... but if that's the case, a writer still shouldn't listen to that critic. Why? Because you shouldn't take advice on how to write from anyone whose ability to express themselves is that severely limited. They have nothing to teach you.

Why? Beggars can't exactly be choosers, you know... :trollestia:

Artists and authors absolutely can be choosers. And for the sake of their art, they should. Always. No matter how starved for criticism they might feel.

1372682

Ah, ok, I agree with that.

1372682

As the essay above tries to point out clearly, there is a difference between criticism and bad criticism. Good criticism will be designed to help the author, not boost the critic's ego. Now, it is possible that a critic wants to help, but just doesn't know how to write criticism in any way other than being awful... but if that's the case, a writer still shouldn't listen to that critic. Why? Because you shouldn't take advice on how to write from anyone whose ability to express themselves that severely limited. They have nothing to teach you.

Ah, yes. But then comes the part about deciding what counts as "bad criticism." If a critic is already attempting to be constructive, but has poor ability to express themselves, that still does not immediately mean that their ideas are bad as well, and one should always be open to an external perspective.

I wrote a story a while back that got its first extensive review from someone who completely "missed the point" of the story, and thus thought I had made a few mistakes along the way. I still did not call it a useless comment (far from it), since it offered an entirely different interpretation of my story, and that alone made it interesting.

Artists and authors absolutely can be choosers. And for the sake of their art, they should. Always. Not matter how starved for criticism they might feel.

I think our main point of disagreement lies in the attitude toward feedback. In my opinion, during the time that someone only gets a total of three to five comments per story, one should treasure every single piece of feedback that they can get. And since FimFic is not a "one-way system," one should attempt to communicate with their audience as much as possible, no matter how small it may be and how little its members have to say. Keeping up a good relationship goes a long way. :twilightsmile:

All that said: Yes. Ignore "useless," two-three word comments. Block trolls. We get it... :ajsmug:

If you ask me, this thread might have been a bit more helpful if you offered us insight on what the feedback to Fallout: Equestria was like, and how the experience brought you to the conclusions that you have now detailed to us here. :raritywink:

1372958 Personally I disagree with some of your points. Specifically

In fact, I would much rather say the burden is on the writer to impress the critics. To put this into perspective, if I wrote a fic where someone from the show dies, and then someone in the comments just tells me to go to hell for killing off their favorite pony, then I will agree with them. I have failed to create a story that is good enough to be able to impress someone even when their favorite character dies in it, so I need to improve my ability.

People deal differently with death and have different levels of tolerance. There are also various peripheral factors which can have an effect on these comments. The person could have had a bad day or their [insert beloved family member/friend/pet here] just died. No amount of clever storytelling will change the fact that you just killed off their favorite character and now they have a legitimate target to vent their frustrations on in the form of "criticism." Not everyone is out to ensure you become a better writer.
Writing to impress your viewers can easily make a slave out of you. I've seen it happen to others in the past, and not just in writing either. I believe that both sides need to be careful about how they conduct themselves. Those who chose to highlight a story's flaws and successes need to keep their attention on the writer's work, not the audience. The writer accepts constructive criticism to become a better writer. What if the person who said that they hated your story because their favorite character died said that the only way to make the story better was to have that character live? Would you change that story for the sake of the critic in spite of all the people who enjoyed it the way it was? There's a serious danger in taking some bad/unprofessional criticism to heart and it may reflect in your work if you do so. Listening to their ideas is fine, but be smart about it and don't let your critics force you into something you don't think is right. At the very least get a second opinion. :unsuresweetie:

3414720

I didn't say "start pandering to every comment you get." I said "don't throw them away, even if they don't look too appealing". I see too many threads where people get off on patting themselves on the back for standing up to "trolls" who badmouth their stories, and never once do they assume that their own work could indeed have been at fault. In other words, just because the comment you got was poor, it doesn't guarantee that your story did not get criticized for legitimate reasons (even if the person making the comment wasn't good at pointing them out.)

People deal differently with death and have different levels of tolerance. There are also various peripheral factors which can have an effect on these comments. The person could have had a bad day or their [insert beloved family member/friend/pet here] just died. No amount of clever storytelling will change the fact that you just killed off their favorite character and now they have a legitimate target to vent their frustrations on in the form of "criticism."

Some people have written songs where the "narrator" of the song talks about committing suicide. Later on, fans of this song would write in saying they were suicidal, but this song gave them strength to fight on. One should take both sides of the coin into account. Yeah, so the person making the comment is having a bad day, and they lash out. On one hand, it could be that they just read the wrong story at the wrong time. On the other hand, the story could have made them happier (good premise, good characters, etc.), but ultimately the writing failed to accomplish that, so they lash out.

Again, there's no need to start beating yourself up if someone calls your story "crap" and says nothing else. But one should not just brush it off because it's not the kind of comment they'd like to see. Personally, I think being able to get any written feedback is a great reward, since the writing managed to capture one's attention for long enough to earn a comment, instead of just a click on the up/downvote button, or not even that.

Login or register to comment