praise in public/ criticize in private

Freedom of speech until you say something I don’t like.

 

I think criticism in public is alright, so long as it's not excessive or mean. It may embolden other users who believe in that criticism, but are too shy to say anything. Then the writer may see that a larger portion of their readership feels a certain way. Hell, maybe there could be a "Like" system for comments, I bet that would increase reader participation too.

 

It's nice to have some honest negative feedback, and of course it's gentler to have the blow delivered by someone you know and like, but all I really, really care about is DETAIL. If you're writing erotica, a lot of it is going to be silly, stupid, or gross to some subset of people. I would say that step one is to pretty much get over that. That doesn't ever mean that clear harassment or downright personal abuse is ever called for, but if someone says "Yo, this shit is gross," like, you have to kind of be psychologically prepared for that at some level and just let that go.

Things like "this sucks" and "this is stupid" aren't so much hurtful as they are just entirely devoid of anything to work from, but we should also let commentary like that pass over us like water.

I write some weird niche things...like to the point where if someone says "Yo...this is really weird and I don't get it," that statement is pretty fair and actually makes a lot sense to me.

Does it contain actionable critique? No, it obviously doesn't, but it's the person's reaction. It is what it is. If they aren't your audience, and you weren't writing for them...then, shit man, let it go. If it's something short-and-sweet, and it seems mean to you, consider that it might just be a prima facie reaction...something visceral. Don't take it personally. (Especially if you have a fetish for a particular thing! Like--being weird to MOST people is going the space you occupy!)

More than anything, I wish we would stop trying to weed out or disallow simple negative commentary, because it a) doesn't stop the trolls that are bound to troll and it b) keeps generally polite but thoughtfully harsh people from taking the time to say something like this:

"Okay, so, the whole 'things coming to life and talking' REALLY isn't my thing(1*), but even if it was, I would have a hard time keeping up with what's speaking in the scene(2*). You have some consistency issues about the rules of what's happening and which objects 'get' a speaking voice, which seems equally distracting(3*). You don't need to use exposition to EXPLAIN these rules directly to the reader, per se--but you do need to stay internally consistent for the sake of your readership, who typically want to KEEP READING without having to suss out the apparent contradictions of your own conventions(4*). I get that magic is magic, but we need SOME framework to keep us inside the world you're building, especially if it's kind of wacky. It can be wacky, but there should be some regularity as to the grounds of that wackiness, if that makes sense(5*)."​

Soooo, the above is a pretty scathing conviction, but it is CLEAR about what the critiquing reader finds missing. It contains:
1. A fair allowance that while they might not be your target readership,
2. they've spotted a possible clarity problem in your prose that might merit some consideration.
3. They've zeroed in a little more on the possible root of this clarity issue, and
4. explained that this might be corrected without a ham-fisted solution like straight up clumsy exposition and explained further as to why this could be worth your consideration, along with
5. offering some room to admit that things of this nature might go part-and-parcel with your style or genre, while restating what they see as the possible weakness.

A more thin-skinned author, on the other hand, could read this as
1. Kink-shaming,
and end their assessment there, forgoing any attempt to re-read their work from the eyes of someone who isn't a fellow fetishist or avid supporter, and maybe spot some aspect of their work that could be tightened up.

I'm not saying that we as authors need to take every note we get as gospel, but I am saying that the more we cultivate a culture of "NO NEGATIVITY," the more we miss out on the few rough-but-fair people that would be willing to put some thought into telling us what doesn't work for them, and in my experience, this is the ONLY thing that has improved me drastically other than practice, practice, practice.

Yes, plain and undetailed negative commentary sucks, but I would rather weather 50 shitty negative comments to find ONE negative but insightful gem rather than promote a "if you don't have anything nice to say..." rule that will leave me with zero insightful comments, and 5 jackasses that will leave shitty negative comments no matter how much we push the "no negativity" dogma.

(I now look forward to as many of you flaming my fiction as possible in order to test my conviction on this principle. )

 

I usually don't go headhunting folks, but come on, how can I resist here?

Feel free to apply to Marcie and Gina reads for some sick burns

https://forum.chyoa.com/threads/marcie-and-gina-read-chyoa.3327/

 

Very well put.

 

There's no reason the same commentary couldn't be given in a more polite way, which would be my preference. That said, I am not advocating to disallow or prevent anything, only offering insight into my own commenting behavior and what types of comments I would like to receive if I have my choice.

Some of that advice is pretty good!

 

I think positivity is often construed with “yes man” attitude where I only want to hear good things like “good job” or “nice try” or some kindergarten level comments, but I don’t think that is true for 99% of authors. But at the same time we don’t want to just hear “u suck git gud” or whatever. I think that what people are asking for is maybe just a politer approach to critique. You don’t always have to say that “This has to be a NY bestseller #1” or whatever, but you can say. “I thought that this sentence here could maybe be phrased a bit better because I think that it lacks some clarity. Perhaps you could try describing what this scene looks like or what this person looks like a bit more in depth. I’d love to be able to really visualize her movements or his physique.” Versus “this is so bad. Needs more detail”

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Nobody in this thread has suggested that negative commentary is strictly or even generally bad. As for beliefs in the wider community, I have noticed the opposite trend: the growing idea that it is wrong to be critical of criticism, that is, that criticism should be taken at face value. I don't personally handle reports, but from what I've seen it appears that we're receiving more and more reports to the effect of "this story is bad because X" or "I dislike these types of stories" rather than "this story breaks X rule". There is also the issue that, just as most CHYOA writers are not particularly talented (by definition of talent), most CHYOA critics are not particularly accurate, either. I think, based on my own experiences, that preference, subjectivity and incompetence taint the slight majority of negative comments.

The comment you quote is actually exemplary criticism, in my opinion. It is polite, accurate, useful, attempts to be objective, and is reasonably actionable (though the assumption that their entire readership is affected is arrogant). Yes, an immature author might mistake it for kink-shaming, but that does not imply there is value in actual kink-shaming. If, for instance, the comment read:

"Okay, so, the whole 'things coming to life and talking' REALLY isn't my thing(1*), and frankly I'm sick of seeing shit like this on the front page(2*). Why can't you just write a story where everyone is a normal human being for once(3*)? I just looked through all of your stories and it looks like you're just an incompetent writer(4*). Also, I can't read this because it's set in Adelaide, which is where my ex-boyfriend was born, so it brings up bad memories(5*)."

Here, it is also CLEAR what the critiquing reader's grievances are:
1. A strange admission that they invested time and effort into a story with full initial knowledge that they could not possibly enjoy it.
2. A complaint for which the author is not responsible nor has any control over, and
3. a related piece of advice that obviously does not help the author in improving their story since it would involve not writing it.
4. A generic insult with no further explanation - what makes them incompetent?
5. Whatever the hell this is? I don't know why people keep making comments like this. I'm not a psychologist.

Sometimes there is deeper information to read in a negative comment, and sometimes that comment is simply less valuable than a creative work could ever possibly be.

The issue with 'rough-but-fair' people is that almost nobody is actually capable of being completely brutally honest. I don't mean this emotionally, but intellectually. The problem begins with the fact that most people who try to be brutally honest are not doing so with good faith, that is, they do not see the brutality as an unfortunate necessity but as their primary motivation - a free pass to be an asshole, essentially. This stops them from actually reaching the whole truth. A pessimist might see things an optimist misses, and vice versa, but neither of them are even a little close to understanding the full picture. Then, they're only willing to be brutal toward their target; if the discussion at hand involves some unpleasant truths about themselves as well, they will be discarded, because introspection just isn't that fun. True brutal honesty is something that arises incidentally, either when the truth happens to be unfortunate or when an insult happens to be accurate. You do not aim to be both brutal and honest, but only one of those things, and pick up the other along the way. As such, there is no such thing as a legitimately brutally honest person, only honest people who sometimes end up being brutal, and brutal people who sometimes end up being honest.

 

Im gonna out and say it, personally, i feel like there’s no such thing as “constructive criticism” as criticism is usually presented. Usually the most constructive feedback someone can receive is called “review” and that’s not to say reviews can’t be critical, they often are. It’s just that “criticism” is usually presented as an entirely negative opinion, and that’s just no good.
I believe when attempting to help another in bettering their work it’s very important to highlight the positives of their creation in contrast to the negatives.
If the feedback you’re giving someone makes no mention of what you enjoyed about it, I don’t see how that can be helpful.
This is obviously not the case when talking about purely technical failures, there’s nothing wrong in correcting someones spelling for example.
But if you just comment “This plot makes no sense” and leave it at that without any further feedback, let’s be real, you’re only attempting to insult them, there’s zero value in such comments.

 

I just recently came by one of the oddest comment wat I have see in a while, it ended with also one of the longest commet I have ever seen on Chyoa, that was pratically a nervous breakdown over the spark of a recollection(bad recollection) caused by reading a story.
It felt wrong to read it somehow because etiher if was professional, elite level trolling, or it was a heartfelt confession, which I know anonimity sometimes can foster, but was really, really out of place.

I think in his intention, the reader wanted to give weight and entitlement to his critique with that (and then it maybe it got a little out of hand), because nowdays if something offends you... well, that is percieved like a legit starting point to tear down things.

 

I guess the question is what IS constructive criticism? By definition it is “the process whereby an individual expresses his or her well-reasoned opinions about a particular thing , subject , person or action whether involving both positive {good} or negative {Bad} comments in a pleasant manner .”

I think people often assume that constructive criticism is just detailed criticism, which it is not. You can have detailed criticism that is just plain rude that does not make it “constructive”. Constructive criticism serves the purpose of benefiting the author by conveying a problem, but not in manner of which it cannot be applied or fix. For example:

“Incomplete sentence. This makes no sense”
Is not constructive criticism.

likewise, taking every single line and dissecting it with similar comments is not constructive either.

So how would the same information be conveyed in a constructive manner?

“I liked the premise of the story, but the sentence structure could use some refining. In this one sentence you seem to cut the sentence off before it was complete. Perhaps you could add blah blah or you could try thinking about being more descriptive with her stature. What does she look like? What’s her attitude like? I think adding just a little bit more would help clarify some of my confusion.. I think the description on this scene isn’t really realistic, as I don’t understand how one can be put into this said position.”

it’s basically conveying the same idea but in a much more polite and actually useful kind of feedback while also not putting the author on blast for what might have been a genuine mistake. That is more constructive than tearing something apart for scraps.

I think some people also think that constructive criticism is also playing the editor role and marking every error. Editors are paid workers who are assigned to give the author feedback because they ask, they don’t need to be nearly as constructive and there is an understanding that there will be red ink.

But if I’m not asking you to edit, then doing so on your own pro bono means, doesn’t necessarily give me an opportunity to at least give my consent on receiving such detailed feedback. It then just feels like you’re here to lecture me rather than give some advisement which is what I generally take criticism as. If you’re going to play the editor role, ask. If you just want to give some helpful advice I think that’s a bit different and more tolerable.

And then if you do the editing work, there is this unspoken expectation for to actually do what you said because other wise you just “wasted” your time on something I’m not even interested on implementing. It kind of creates a righteous attitude that makes everything much more awkward than if you just asked me if you could edit and fix some grammatical errors for me or whatever.

 

Praise publicly on the story/chapter, work with the writer as a story editor, gripe here in the forums once a year.

Unsolicited criticism from me seems like a pointless effort.

 

I didn't realize I was supposed to come after people in the thread.
I interpreted the title to be posing the question: "Is it better to send critique directly to the person rather than to comment in public?" If that didn't warrant an answer to the question...sorry, I guess?

This is a legit perfect storm of every trope in a useless story comment. I've never gotten the #5 example, but I have seen them out there. They kind of have to just make the recipient laugh and go "wtf does this have to do with my writing?"

Hey, that's fair. Listen, I'm not saying we shouldn't shit on people for stupid comments. I'm really more saying that if it's a shit criticism, then that's usually clear just by its own content--and I would rather live in landscape where people are encouraged to run their mouths JUST IN CASE someone intelligent has something helpful for me to improve my prose. Maybe my setup was roundabout? We mostly seem to agree with each other.

 

I think we can all agree there is a huge difference from negative criticism versus asshole demands. The problem is a lot of people confuse the two with each other.

 

Should criticism only be pointing out the problem or should there actually be suggestions on how the author could solve the problem?

 

If you want the criticism to be actually constructive, it should propose a solution along with the problem, after all the point is to help improve right? So why point out a problem if you don’t have a solution to fix it? Even if it’s just a suggestion, it could spark an idea in an author’s mind that they may not have thought of.

For example: If someone tells me, “this scene needs more detail.” That’s a bit vague. What kind of detail are you talking about? Appearance, whose appearance, everyone’s? Or is it just one character that is lacking detail? Or do you mean the scene in general and if so, what are you talking about? “Needs more detail” is a very vague empty form of criticism that a lot of people like to use even editors and teachers. But what does it mean?

Now let’s try something else.

“I think this scene is lacking detail. Have you thought about adding more descriptors to Natasha’s appearance? What does her chest look like? What’s she wearing? What style is her hair cut? How long is it? If you say “long hair” how long do you mean? Is it at butt level? Middle of the back? If you say “short hair” how long is short? Buzz cut? Chin level? How tall is she? How tall is tall?”

See now, I at least know what you’re talking about. And I can say. “I’m being vague on purpose to leave it open ended for other authors and readers to interpret.”

or

“I actually didn’t consider that. Thanks for the feedback. I’ll consider expanding on it later.”

Not only is there valid criticism, but there’s also a polite suggestion of how to improve on what is being complained about. It also doesn’t sound like I’m being ordered to change the scene and it doesn’t sound rude and cryptic either.

Does all criticism have to have detailed solutions? No, but would it hurt that if you do have a problem with something to also suggest a way of fixing the problem instead of leaving the author wondering what the hell you’re even talking about.