Constructive Criticism Does Not Exist

[thedude3445]

Not gonna read the replies, just the OP, but this is all just blatantly wrong. Constructive criticism is the very basis of fundamental aspects of the writing process in every single field. Peer review for academia, editing/review rounds for business and technical institutions, and the beta reading and editor reviews of any traditionally published work, whether that is fiction, nonfiction, or a dang cookbook.

Criticism in a broad sense, the literary analysis sense, is not directed to the author; it's just discussing a work and not necessarily its quality (e.g. that cool video essay you watched on Youtube). "Constructive criticism" is not exactly the same thing, then, but is equally necessary and vital.

I can say with 100% certainty that I only exist as a writer today thanks to constructive criticism. People who read through early drafts of my novels and commented/reacted to the storylines, whether that be positive or negative, have had a fundamental impact on the development of my writing. These are always people I already know, people who may be biased in favor of my work, but who aren't afraid to tell me when my stuff is crap in their eyes and never short of ideas of how I might (keyword MIGHT) want to change that. I don't always change it! But having that feedback is vital regardless.

There are two specific moments in my life where constructive criticism in a negative way have really changed my writing, both pretty close to each other in early 2013. I had started a challenge to write a short story every single day for the entire year (I only wrote like, 60 of them), and posted a link to the first one on Reddit. Some random anonymous commenter, clearly knowing I was just some kid making some experimental work, told me about what they thought the story was missing and really opened my eyes in a big way to some narrative issues I had missed for a work so short. The second time was one of my friends, also participating in that challenge, who thought one of my half-assed stories was so bad he made fun of it by writing an extensive, comedic review about the problems it had. I was honestly pretty embarrassed, but in response I remade the story, doubled down on the stupidest parts to make them even worse, and learned so much about myself as a storyteller through it.

Even if I disagree with something, the kind of feedback one can receive from someone reading a WIP is absolutely vital in my eyes. Even if their suggestion is to take the story in a completely new direction, you can see what one person views your story as. You get a glimpse at your story through someone else's eyes, and that is something you rarely get a chance at otherwise. Not all constructive criticism is useful! But for the most part, it's so important.

 

[Queenfisher]

First, I will answer to all the people who are a bit off the topic (not that any of you are! Just you are either saying something that was already answered by me previously or are asking for the clarifications and so are not really advancing the discussion others are doing. Hope it's not too bad I will double-post because of this??? I hear it is sometimes a no-no on this forum).

So what's the point of this thread?

What is the point of Critique of Pure Reason? What is the point of Carnivalization in Dostoyevsky's Writing? Or even Stephen King's non-advice-related ruminations in On Writing? (And before somebody attacks me again with calling me Majesty for drawing allusions to Kant -- it is a template. I am quoting a template that everybody knows because everybody knows it. It has nothing to do with my argument other than them sharing a field of study).

Discussing things and making essays about stuff that is interesting to at least some of people is not pointless. Philosophy, for instance, as is literary theory are all about asking questions about the status quo of the opinions and beliefs we are currently holding on these topics and how we can conceptualize them differently -- or if we are able to, in the first place.

But due to the derailment and the Ad Hominems I have received here, I think I should summarize what this thread is about:

Me: This particular instance of a cultural concept seems to do more harm than good by being defined so loosely. I perceive it as an instance of the Emperor's New Dress. Who can discuss this with me?

First few posters: 1) The Dress exists -- and you have eyesight problems! (ignoring the fact that Emperor's New Dress is an allegory therefore I cannot truly have eyesight problems but rather lack faith), OR 2) Please shut up, OR 3) You are attacking the entire Fashion Industry?!?!? (which is a strawman rendition of my original point, of course).

Later posters: Actually valid arguments and examples of respectful discourse even if I might not agree with some of the tangents from what I perceive as my original point. I will address them in the next post because those replies are actually what I was looking for when I began this.

if constructive criticism does not exist, i wonder if you would refer to them as 404 from now on.

I refer to them as "opinion", which they are (and which I said already several times in this thread). It's the Constructive part that I have the issue with because it's like calling a watermelon a fruit. Watermelon is a berry but the majority of people do not call it that. Why? Convention. I do not mind that people continue calling watermelons fruit -- let them. What I would mind if a specialist who studies botany calls watermelon a fruit because science requires more strict rules of definitions. Conventions should not matter there.

So here, I simply want to lay logical foundations for why Constructive Criticism is a moniker that's vague at best and doesn't make sense at worst if you (like myself) enjoy studying literature and the meta of literature on a level deeper than the surface.

Call a spade a spade. Constructive Criticism is not different from an opinion. The question is why do people prefer to call some (and only some) opinions as CC, and how they define the difference if it even exists. So far, I have not seen an argument that would explain it to me in a satisfactory manner. All definitions still sound exactly like a "general opinion", which is exactly what I've been saying in the OP.


--------------------------

Question to all participants of this thread!

If I, say, provided a Constructive Criticism to the concept of Constructive Criticism (which I might just treat this thread as, from now on) -- how would you be able to tell that this is a Constructive Criticism and not my subjective, mistaken, and utterly no good, wrong, batshit insane Opinion instead?

So what I ask here is how can you tell if an opinion stops being an opinion and becomes Constructive Criticism? Preferably without generalizations because Constructive Criticism cannot really dwell in generalizations, can it? As both Ral and Ace_Arriande pointed out (which repeats my Original Point, too) -- it is always going to be subjective and judged only the the author as fulfilling the requirements of being Constructive or not. Thus, generalizations would apply only at the most basic levels (see below).

In the end, generalized definition of CC to me sounds exactly as "CC is an opinion about your book that you like/agree with". Which... doesn't exactly make it that different from ANY opinion you agree with. "Your book is amazing! Especially the smut!" is one such opinion. What makes it outright non-Constructive if all it has to do is 1) support you,

2) give you feedback that you find useful,

3) has good intentions of improving your work (also, how you define good intentions if you have no insight to another person's mind? Just because they say so? Well, a troll might also say so, then),

4) provides an alternative view to your book (let's say there was NO smut in your book. Yet someone just told you this. For sure, it becomes a VERY alternative view of your book and might improve it because now you know that there are readers who enjoy whatever you've written in this specific manner). So... how is this example not CC if it fulfills all the requirements?

Also, I added an edit to the bottom of my OP that explains what this thread is about. ^^

 

[yansusustories]

I haven't read every single post in this thread either and only skimmed most of them but I think the problem here is really just a difference in what people define "constructive criticism" as.

Now, I think we all agree that criticism is a form of opinion. The question still left to be answered would be which ones are constructive and what about those that aren't? Now, to me, there are two forms of criticism:

1. Constructive criticism
2. Destructive criticism

Looking at those two next to each other, I guess it should be obvious what the difference is: The latter is used to put the one receiving the critique down. That is probably what you received @Queenfisher if you say people attacked you. Those guys simply threw "constructive" somewhere in there to defend themselves.

As an example:
The statements "Your story is shit." / "I hate harem story." / "This novel is boring." are all destructive criticism. That is because they simply attack the author and/or story. They are biased (but, well, everything is) but even worse, they aren't specific and they don't explain.
The only one that has a slight value would be #3, "This novel is boring", albeit it also fails to explain why the story is perceived as boring. It's something that can be worked with though. Which, btw, is my recommendation if this happens in comments (or sites where you can respond to reviews): If somebody makes a statement like that, ask them why they think so, what made it boring for them, and what would have needed to be different for them to think it wasn't boring. If you stay polite in that, you'd be surprised at the responses you sometimes get. Nobody says that you have to change anything afterward but you might learn something about either the story and/or your readers.

Now, if the readers take the answers to those questions in consideration from the get-go, #3 could have been constructive criticism. It could be something like this:
"I read X chapters of this story and while I liked the plot overall, everything seemed to be happening reeeeeaaaaaally slowly. The author describes lots of details that weren't really necessary for me to understand what was going on, some things were repeated in, like, at least five of the chapters, and then everything is like being told by somebody else. I just don't feel like I'm actually experiencing this. Sorry."

What's the difference with this take?

• It is made clear that it is a personal opinion (e.g. "I read" and "I liked") - this part is probably the least important in making it constructive but it helps with making even the most defensive author stay calm
• It addresses specific problems the reader had with the story (too many descriptions, repetitions, passive writing style)
  • by doing this it also points out (albeit not explicitly which would be relevant in, let's say, a critique somebody asked for in the forums but not in a review) what could be changed to make the story more attractive for other readers (toning down on descriptions, cutting out at least some of the repetitions or avoiding them altogether, maybe switching to a more active writing style by avoiding passive constructions and swapping verbs)
• Edited in: You also know what's not the problem (you might have thought the reader found the plot boring but now, it's explicitly said that this is not the case)

Now, this doesn't mean that the author would have to change anything. As the author, you can totally say that this is simply not the kind of reader you intended your story for and keep everything as is. But you are also free to check your story, look at the mentioned problems, and then see if you want to adjust somewhere. The decision is with you but the constructive criticism gives the opportunity because it names possible problems.

 

[Queenfisher]

Constructive criticism is about the intent or purpose, not the result. They are merely a suggestion and the receiver is in their right to not accept it.

Yes, but like I said many times over: the perception of intent and purpose is in the eye of the beholder. Who defines intent and purpose of any given argument? If it is only a suggestion, then why does it have a label that implies it is something beyond "just a suggestion"? And on that note -- what would make CC different from "just a suggestion"?

Again, I am not arguing against opinions or suggestions in general. I am not crazy. I argue against CC as a concept that seems to hold up to some rules when, as you say it, these rules are only really governed by "I identify this opinion as CC" -- "Okay, why not?/Nope, it isn't".

You made your own definition of what something is. I think this is a No True Scotsman fallacy or Equivocation.

But... you just said that it is only defined by the Giver identifying his intent as positive and the Receiver choosing to accept it. In no way had there been a definition of the CC itself, only of a specific instance of it. If a carve a very ugly flower out of wood (that objectively doesn't look like a flower) and gift it to somebody who accepts it -- would that automatically make it a flower just because I say so? What is they accept it, but just refuse to view it as a flower, then?

So what happens if the Giver does NOT identify his CC as CC but it nonetheless has good intentions of improvements and the Receiver accepts it? What happens if the Giver identifies it as CC and claims it has good intentions but the Giver not only doesn't accept it but also doesn't accept the identification of the intent as positive?

Which makes me go back to my OP. Is there really a definition of a CC other than "he said/she said"? In whose mind does the concept of CC actually dwell -- the Giver or the Receiver? In my personal experience (and by this I mean by empirical "research", so to speak, since this is an essay about a somewhat-scientific definitions in a specialized field) -- CC mainly solidifies as this concept in the mind of the Giver. But then, the intent cannot be objectively defined outside of that mind. Thus, there might not be a truly objective definition of CC -- which is why I use my own ("CC = pretentious way to call an opinion that suggests something nicely").

The thing about No True Scotsman is that Scottish people do exist and they are numerous. You can touch them even if you can't make generalized statements about them ^^. CC is a concept that is vague and its definition moves like goalposts depending on the specific situation. While I agree that a notion of an Idealized concept of CC should exist, I simply do not see the purpose behind CALLING its instances that. The concept existing and the specific instances being labeled as such are not the same thing. I argue that every time it is used in real life, the definition implodes due to there being no rules of what makes it CC and what doesn't, and thus cannot apply.
So, while the ideal concept might exist somewhere (like an idealized definition of Capitalism surely exists somewhere) -- the particulars are not it. And almost nobody would benefit from CC being called something else instead for the purposes of clarity (opinion. Suggestion. Both good names for what it actually is).

Where I have heard, however, the label CC being thrown a lot -- is by the people who give opinions the Receiver dismisses or disagrees with who then press on to shame the Receiver for not accepting a CC. (Or by the Receiver asking to ONLY receive CCs which seems to automatically identify some specific instances from the rest, but due to vague definition, it's impossible to tell what that can be, and thus, any Giver's opinion can be classified as such just because).

Essentially, the practical usage and the insistence of usage of the CC label tends to devolve into opinion wars. If you want to give someone a CC, there's no real need or harm in not labeling it as such. It is, after all, not that different from an opinion or suggestion.

Then why is it there?

Not to mention, sometimes you just miss things. Another eye is helpful for this. To see what you missed.

This is the issues of the Receiver now. This point in the OP was badly formulated because I was worried about my rambling too much (I still do, but oh well). I used the notion of psychological undercurrents that govern how we perceive opinions and arguments. We are only likely to agree with stuff we already agree with (sounds insane but it's true). We might not be aware of our biases and prejudices or of how we are conditioned toward certain points of view more than to the others.

Thus, it may appear as though you are accepting a completely alternative point of view, but in most practical instances, it is not so.

So if I have, say, a super angsty chapter about a character and I know it's angsty but I wonder if maybe, maybe I'm just seeing things -- when somebody points it out no matter how aggressively they might sound, I would agree. Because I already agree with it. I just needed confirmation, and before somebody else confirmed it, it had existed in a Shroeddinger's cat situation where I could do either way solely depending on the response of the readers. (I believe it happens a lot without necessarily being conscious, too. Sometimes I want to use a specific word but I forgot it. And only when my reader tells me about it can I remember and have that eureka! moment. The ingredients were with me all along, I only needed a suggestion to see them. Note -- the opinion or suggestion. Not CC because... how would it be different from either, again?). If somebody says my character is super angsty but I know that there is some symbolic/thematic/foreshadowing point only I'm aware of, I will disagree no matter how politely or convincingly they keep telling me.

In regards to stuff I ALWAYS agree with: pacing problems. If someone tells me I have pacing problems, I will agree with them. I will not see anything constructive about it -- I know I have it. The problem will be only that most people do not offer solutions to the issues even you know about, or ones that they offer are generally unusable, to me, at least (because the readers only know of the 25% of any story's iceberg (even 75% if they have finished it in its entirety. Yet nobody but the author can know 100% of the story). Only when I prod and prod and prod my readers with yes/no questions, will I find a solution by myself that I will then check with the reviewer and they will tell me if it will be better or not. My point has always been here that the author is the final arbiter and that the author is much likelier to make a brainstorming breakthrough on their own for improving their writing rather than somebody telling them. At best, you get motivated by a responsive supporter, at worst -- they will waste you and their time coming up with solutions and suggestions that will probably not really work.

Neil Gaiman's famous quote: When your readers tell you something isn't quite working -- they are probably right. When the reader tells you THEY KNOW what isn't quite working and how to fix it -- they are almost always wrong.

What he seems to imply is that breakthroughts of improvement are always made by the author. Not even solutions and suggestions can be nearly as good as basic support and willingness to answer prodding questions from the author. But by that point, I'd say it is less of a CC and more of a back-and-forth with the Author in the lead. So what is so CC about it?

Lastly, the biggest suggestions I take from my real life friends -- is when I brainstorm plot and structure. The issue is -- there is literally nothing to criticize yet. It is brainstorming (and quite a lot of fun), and mainly consists of "what if?" questions and their yes/no answers. I am unsure how this can at all apply to the definition of CC, though. But if one asked me -- this is the MOST objectively constructive part of my writing! It's just not criticism.

Hopefully, I explained this point a bit better? I do have a weird logic on which I operate, I'm sorry. But I do want to talk about it --- HEY, it was actually you who inspired me to write this essay in the first place. ^^

You aren't required to agree with criticism, even constructive ones. If you disagree then don't take it. Just ignore it and move on.

The wrong thing to do is to argue with the person who give the criticism. They very much understand that you might not agree with them. They give it in good faith that it would help. Arguing with them would just destroy this good faith and develop antagonism.

This is the very issue why I don't give a review or stay silent if anyone ask for a critique. You can not tell what will offend them.

This is not what any creator should do! They are just ruining their reputation and antagonize their readers. There is a very good reason why there are Public Relations Teams, to avoid these kind of PR disaster.

And you are in the right not to agree, but please don't tell the critiquer that he is wrong or you disagree. Just say thanks or something and move on. They very much understand that you might not agree with what they say . . . and that is all right.

That is fine with pretty much everyone . . . as long as you don't say it to their face and argue with them. It is not what you think but what you do that matters.

Yes, and this is my point, too. I also do not give critiques at all now. No matter how well-meaning I might be -- NOBODY ASKED my opinion, which I may call a CC, but it still won't be anything more than -- a general opinion the reception of which as such you have no control over.

Oh, and I never said to respond to criticism! I wouldn't, myself. Ignoring is exactly what I would do. The point of this thread is distilling the definition of what CC is and what it isn't. So it is a bit Ivory Tower as it doesn't necessarily correspond to any real example. Really, I just like talking theory.

The thing is, it pretty much depends on the receives/author if they get offended or not. People can actually be deliberately offensive and the person receiving the offense would shrug it off. On the other hand, a man can say to a woman "Hey!" and the woman would be offended and berate the man for being sexist.

Things becomes offensive because you see them as offensive.

Again, the typical eye of the beholder which I argued originally. Do the practical instances of CC even exist if anything can be either identified as CC on a whim or dismissed as "not" being CC on the same whim/offense? CC itself becomes an Ivory Tower concept. But it is the popular convention of what it is that's abused by so many people in real life, not the Idealized Ivory Tower concept. I see no real harm in calling all practical instances just an opinion with a funny and very arbitrary label because there is no way to prove it isn't, so... q.e.d?

This is actually a very common advice when you ask for criticism. Be specific. Tell them what you are looking for.

But here is where I diverge from the official definition the most. If I ask, if I think, if I am the one who comes up with the solution, then I don't really treat it as CC. It is not critiquing anything. It's answering yes/no questions and maybe talking some meta about my book or the writing in general. This may be the weakest point in my argument as I feel like you would treat this as CC (do you, though?), but it, again, would not be different from any general opinion sharing which I originally argued for.

So my main question still stands -- what makes CC different from an opinion you agree with that also fulfills all the requirements of a formal definition of CC but can sound as ridiculously surface-level as "OMG! YAAAAAAAS more Gays!" (because it: 1)supports you, 2) it tells you how to improve your story. 3) it has good intentions, 4) it provides an easy solution to... something, I guess)? Should we call this CC just because it fulfills all the requirements? Should we call it just because the Giver calls it so? Or just because the author chooses to accept it?

 

[Ral]

All definitions still sound exactly like a "general opinion", which is exactly what I've been saying in the OP.

It is not.

There are specific and general terms/words (I think those where the terms). For example, Animals is a general term, Dog is a more specific term, Collie is even more specific. It is correct to say a Collies are Animal, but it is really wrong to say that Animals are Collies.

What I would mind if a specialist who studies botany calls watermelon a fruit because science requires more strict rules of definitions. Conventions should not matter there.

berry
[ ber-ee ]
noun, plural ber·ries.
1)any small, usually stoneless, juicy fruit, irrespective of botanical structure, as the huckleberry, strawberry, or hackberry.

2)Botany. a simple fruit having a pulpy pericarp in which the seeds are embedded, as the grape, gooseberry, currant, or tomato.

Berries are fruits. People aren't wrong to call watermelons fruits, because they are.

how would you be able to tell that this is a Constructive Criticism and not my subjective, mistaken, and utterly no good, wrong, batshit insane Opinion instead?

So what I ask here is how can you tell if an opinion stops being an opinion and becomes Constructive Criticism?

It is actually difficult to tell sometimes. You can be sure they are constructive if it comes from a professional who do this kind of job (like your teacher in writing school). In, the internet however . . . not so clear. Most aren't actually good nor have any professional skill in giving criticism.

The best you can do is to assume that they are trying to be constructive. Don't take what they say personally, and try to look at their criticism impersonally. Take what is useful to you and ignore the rest. Don't go out and argue or attack them. It would not benefit you in any way.

In the end, generalized definition of CC to me sounds exactly as "CC is an opinion about your book that you like/agree with".

No. Again, here is the Wikipedia definition of it:

Constructive criticism

aims to show that an intent or purpose of something is better served by an alternative approach. In this case, making the criticism is not necessarily deemed wrong, and its purpose is respected; rather, it is claimed that the same goal could be better achieved via a different route. Constructive criticisms are often suggestions for improvement – how things could be done better or more acceptably. They draw attention to how an identified problem could be solved, or how it could be solved better.

This part is quite confusing . . . Well . . .

1) support you,

Actually, a constructive criticism doesn't have to come from someone who supports you or be supportive of you. The best criticism are actually those that are objective and critical.

2) give you feedback that you find useful,

No, you don't need to find the criticism to be helpful or useful.

3) has good intentions of improving your work (also, how you define good intentions if you have no insight to another person's mind? Just because they say so? Well, a troll might also say so, then),

What people say has no bearings to what their intentions are. A murderer would say that they would not harm you but their intentions are the total opposite.

4) provides an alternative view to your book (let's say there was NO smut in your book. Yet someone just told you this. For sure, it becomes a VERY alternative view of your book and might improve it because now you know that there are readers who enjoy whatever you've written in this specific manner). So... how is this example not CC if it fulfills all the requirements?

Okay. They just tell you facts. That is in no way a criticism. It is like saying the protagonist is a male, the plot is about a girl fighting an evil witch, or the setting is medievalist. Not a criticism at all.

Yes, but like I said many times over: the perception of intent and purpose is in the eye of the beholder. Who defines intent and purpose of any given argument?

Okay. First, cc is not an argument.

And no one defines the intent and purpose. They are just facts. Though, there is the problem of information. You can't often can't tell what is the intent and purpose of other people.

If it is only a suggestion, then why does it have a label that implies it is something beyond "just a suggestion"? And on that note -- what would make CC different from "just a suggestion"?

It does give you suggestions, but given in the context of critiquing with the intent to help or improve. The suggestions are just part of the criticism, it is still criticism after all. It still has to criticize.

Again, I am not arguing against opinions or suggestions in general. I am not crazy. I argue against CC as a concept that seems to hold up to some rules when, as you say it, these rules are only really governed by "I identify this opinion as CC" -- "Okay, why not?/Nope, it isn't".

No.

I understand that it can be difficult to tell if someone is being helpful or not, but something doesn't become something just because you identify it as such. An apple doesn't become an orange just because you identify it as an orange. If someone lies to you and say that you are a pervert doesn't make you a pervert.

But... you just said that it is only defined by the Giver identifying his intent as positive and the Receiver choosing to accept it.

No.

Seriously. Please. Don't put words in my mouth. Quote the relevant passage if I really did say this.

Where I have heard, however, the label CC being thrown a lot -- is by the people who give opinions the Receiver dismisses or disagrees with who then press on to shame the Receiver for not accepting a CC. (Or by the Receiver asking to ONLY receive CCs which seems to automatically identify some specific instances from the rest, but due to vague definition, it's impossible to tell what that can be, and thus, any Giver's opinion can be classified as such just because).

Well, they might have actually given it in good faith that it might help you.

And again, don't argue with them. If you dismiss it or disagree, don't argue about it to them. They don't expect you to agree with them. Heck, they might not agree with each other.

If you argue with them and things becomes rather nasty . . . well. As I said, they give their criticism in good faith. They don't expect you to accept it and they don't specially expect you to argue with them. It is contrary to good faith.

Essentially, the practical usage and the insistence of usage of the CC label tends to devolve into opinion wars. If you want to give someone a CC, there's no real need or harm in not labeling it as such. It is, after all, not that different from an opinion or suggestion.

Again, don't argue! It doesn't benefit you in anyway. You are just destroying goodwill.

If things devolve, well, it devolved. The initial situation is different. The start actually might be the the person giving constructive criticism . . . it just devolves into something else.

This is the issues of the Receiver now. This point in the OP was badly formulated because I was worried about my rambling too much (I still do, but oh well). I used the notion of psychological undercurrents that govern how we perceive opinions and arguments. We are only likely to agree with stuff we already agree with (sounds insane but it's true). We might not be aware of our biases and prejudices or of how we are conditioned toward certain points of view more than to the others.

I don't really get this.

So if I have, say, a super angsty chapter about a character and I know it's angsty but I wonder if maybe, maybe I'm just seeing things -- when somebody points it out no matter how aggressively they might sound, I would agree. Because I already agree with it. I just needed confirmation, and before somebody else confirmed it, it had existed in a Shroeddinger's cat situation where I could do either way solely depending on the response of the readers. (I believe it happens a lot without necessarily being conscious, too. Sometimes I want to use a specific word but I forgot it. And only when my reader tells me about it can I remember and have that eureka! moment. The ingredients were with me all along, I only needed a suggestion to see them. Note -- the opinion or suggestion. Not CC because... how would it be different from either, again?). If somebody says my character is super angsty but I know that there is some symbolic/thematic/foreshadowing point only I'm aware of, I will disagree no matter how politely or convincingly they keep telling me.

Well, the person pointing it out helps you see it right? I mean, you need a suggestion. If the suggestion doesn't exist, then you would lack the push that would actually move you there.

Neil Gaiman's famous quote: When your readers tell you something isn't quite working -- they are probably right. When the reader tells you THEY KNOW what isn't quite working and how to fix it -- they are almost always wrong.

What does this have to do with everything?

And dude it's a quote. It not a proof or anything. It is just something someone says (though popular). In fact there are a lot of terrible quotes.

Yes, and this is my point, too. I also do not give critiques at all now. No matter how well-meaning I might be -- NOBODY ASKED my opinion, which I may call a CC, but it still won't be anything more than -- a general opinion the reception of which as such you have no control over.

You are posting something online. By the very act, you allow people to talk about it. If you don't want their opinions, then don't post it anywhere.

And you have control. Don't post it in the internet, or anywhere at all. There! No opinions.

Again, the typical eye of the beholder which I argued originally. Do the practical instances of CC even exist if anything can be either identified as CC on a whim or dismissed as "not" being CC on the same whim/offense? CC itself becomes an Ivory Tower concept. But it is the popular convention of what it is that's abused by so many people in real life, not the Idealized Ivory Tower concept. I see no real harm in calling all practical instances just an opinion with a funny and very arbitrary label because there is no way to prove it isn't, so... q.e.d?

It is not on the beholder.

I know it might be difficult to tell but doesn't mean it is in the eye of the beholder. Someone saying its constructive criticism doesn't make it a constructive criticism.

And just because it is constructive criticism doesn't mean people have to like it.

And just because there is no way to prove it doesn't mean it don't exist.

But here is where I diverge from the official definition the most. If I ask, if I think, if I am the one who comes up with the solution, then I don't really treat it as CC. It is not critiquing anything. It's answering yes/no questions and maybe talking some meta about my book or the writing in general. This may be the weakest point in my argument as I feel like you would treat this as CC (do you, though?), but it, again, would not be different from any general opinion sharing which I originally argued for.

Uh . . . you know what critique is right? It is not a survey.

So my main question still stands -- what makes CC different from an opinion you agree with that also fulfills all the requirements of a formal definition of CC but can sound as ridiculously surface-level as "OMG! YAAAAAAAS more Gays!" (because it: 1)supports you, 2) it tells you how to improve your story. 3) it has good intentions, 4) it provides an easy solution to... something, I guess)? Should we call this CC just because it fulfills all the requirements? Should we call it just because the Giver calls it so? Or just because the author chooses to accept it?

I already answered this.

Seriously. We are just arguing semantics.

If you think that constructive criticism don't exist, well, you're you. It doesn't hurt anyone so . . . I made my points and if you don't agree with them, then, okay.

 

[Queenfisher]

This is implying that authors are constantly aware of every single mistake that they would want to fix. Not to mention that it's possible a reader might offer advice that gives the author a new way of looking at something. For example, if an author writes about a serious subject that they're not familiar with, and somebody with experience in the serious subject offers "CC" regarding it that the author wouldn't have otherwise thought about, how is that not constructive criticism? Also, I know you said you're not counting typos/grammar/obvious "plot holes," but - I mean, no? All of those fall under constructive criticism if they're being pointed out with the intent to help the author. These are things that have always counted as constructive criticism to the vast majority of people whether it fits your personal definition or not. But if only personal definitions matter here, then I believe that apples don't exist. What you and everybody else thinks is an apple is actually just a red orange. If you try to bring up the actual defintion of apples and oranges, you're relying on logical fallacies while hiding your ill intent behind the guise of constructive criticism. From now on, there are no apples. Only red oranges.

If CC is everything good an positive and fluffy then anything can be CC. But I've never really seen people claim typos and grammar as CC they are looking for. As I said -- I don't have a problem with that but I am trying to understand what people mean when they use CC to mean something beyond just this surface level.

CC as a way to improve your Writing, not the OS that you write on (I mean OS here in a very metaphorical sense. I view my improvement with grammar through the years as a mechanistic type of improvement. When I receive crits based on such mechanics, I... gladly integrate them immediately into my stories, of course!)

Also, grammar and typos are dismissed from my definition because they are an objective truth about writing in general. Like 2+2 in most cases. It's not Constructive as much as it is -- "buy yourself a textbook of English, please". Would you say Textbook of English gives you CCs every time you open it? I wouldn't. How is it a criticism or an "alternative" opinion or suggestion as Ral put it? Rules are rules.

Also, to go back to my small point of "if you accept it, you already agree with it and would have incorporated it anyway => not a CC". With grammar and typos it's exactly like this. Nobody is perfect and we should all take care to improve on such basic points, this is why I discarded it from the discussion of subjective parts of CCs.

This implies that all authors are so defensive with their stories that it's impossible for their opinions to change. Are there plenty of authors like that? Sure. There are also plenty of authors who are perfectly normal people who would be happy to discuss points of disagreement regarding their series that may result in them changing their minds. I'm one of them. I'm not perfect and I know it, so why shut people down just because my default want is to disagree with them? I personally know plenty of others who would be open to such exchanges, too, without being so stubborn that they refuse to budge on their stances. Heck, taking Assurb's side on Trending matters recently was far, far harder than admitting an upset reviewer was right about something I didn't even realize I was wrong about until discussing it with them.

No. I did not mean defensive as to it becoming impossible to change your story. I meant exactly what I told Ral above: psychology of argument and opinion sharing is such that people RARELY accept opinions they don't already agree with whether they are aware of it or not. Actually, what you said about Assurbanipal's reasoning and your accepting it is the eternal issue in philosophy best described by Wittgenstein:

People rarely actually disagree. Their definitions are rigid and suck at the original impact of their perceived differences in the same argument (and usually even on the same argumentation's SIDE!). Only through reasoning and deeper conversation can people realize their definitions are floaty and can easily integrate their opponent's with some caveats. But most don't do that. Also, in the end no arguments in philosophy even make sense because no one is really arguing, in the first place!

Like see my and BenJephnet's points. He said that opinions are opinions and have always existed. He perceived my argument as being such that I disagreed with that, but I didn't. Most arguments go the same route in general. What allows you (by you I mean general "you") to accept another's reasoning and see the point in it is usually because you do agree with them. You did not suddenly change your mind (that rarely happens to people) -- you just both found a more or less compromising definition of the terms of your argument that you both agree on. And suddenly, everything clicks together. The terms have changed through discourse and the desire to find truth together rather than attack your opponent simply because you want to be proven right.

This makes the crucial difference between an educated philosophical discussion (wanting to find truth or at least attempt to) and a WWE debate takedowns that accept fallacies and the reign of the arena crowd as valid methods of argument's success (it's mostly about showmanship and mic-drops rather than actual argumentation that wants to arrive somewhere).

So my OP still stands due to this inherent bias of what we view as arguments we agree with. Even if we might not be aware of out biases (as most are not. Many ways in which our opinions are shaped are hidden from us and only manifest marginally).

Well, I appreciate that you think all humans are perfectly logical beings who are constantly aware of every single one of their flaws. All humans are aware of how to do every single thing perfectly at all times. Nobody ever does anything short of with masterful execution. Somebody writes a military novel where they base it off of what they see in video games and movies, and then an actual veteran offers some constructive criticism regarding the military aspects of the story? Well, that veteran is just a silly old fool, I say! Clearly, if the author was wrong, the author would have known so and would never need such advice in the first place! Same with authors who might write about their characters undergoing traumatic, real experiences only to be given advice by people who actually lived through those experiences. You are a very optimistic person with amazing faith in human intelligence and critical thinking skills. I genuinely wish I could be as optimistic as you and believe that every single author is a constant, logical, calculating writer who is forever analyzing and self-critiquing their own stories so that nobody else ever has to.

You said up above that you're a bit autistic. If somebody writes something portraying an autistic character, but they only have information regarding autism based off of memes from the internet and have no idea that they're being insensive and spreading false information, and you try to correct them about that because you want to help them, then you would be giving constructive criticism whether they agree with you or not. Even if they say "fuck u no ur wrong im right," print out your review, record a video of themselves burning it, then flush the ashes down the toilet, that doesn't change the fact that you gave constructive criticism.

Never said humans are perfect or even that logical. Btw, I received a private message that said that they consider me to have "high standards" (in a kind of a complimenting way, mind you!), and it made me blush because... nu-huh. I have ridiculously low standards. I have argued with someone that Transformers are good movies with philosophical subtexts once (I was doing a Devil's Advocate . It was very fun). I think (?) I can try do this for Fifty Shade of Grey, too. Or any book/story in existence. I would not look down upon something just because many others do. Everyone deserves a fair chance of being given Good Faith to what they do and say.

(And if you say that it's a waste of my time. Well, so what? Yes, it's a waste of my time but it helps me refine my argumentation skills and my literary analysis skills. They can be useful elsewhere... I think...)

Your examples are not CC am arguing against either because they are, again, falling into the Objective Truths vs Subjective... huh?. As with all the Truths, once you know of it, you would agree. Yes, it goes back the whole "You agree with what you agree". I believe it can be said that things you are not aware of you can nonetheless agree with. Say, do you agree with all the precise steps a surgical operation has? You might not know what they are (and you would gladly clarify/solidify these steps in your novel once you are exposed to them in more in-depth manner) -- but you probably agree. It's the same thing.

The only thing that's stopping you is the barriers and gatekeeping to certain fountains of knowledge. Not that you disagree with their contents. Once the gatekeeping is pushed aside, you probably incorporate everything in there as naturally as you would if you had access to that knowledge, to begin with.

So, again, this becomes more of a Textbook rather than CC. If you read a textbook about piloting and incorporate elements form it into your writing, would you treat the textbook as having given you CC?

My personal take on constructive criticism (which lines up with the actual defintions of it): any critique that is done with the intent to help the person being critiqued improve while acknowledging both the positive and negative.

I talked about it in Ral's post ^^. The gist of my argument is --

-- 1) who defines intent? The Giver? What if they are a troll but still identify it as CC?

-- 2) what makes CC different from any opinion or suggestion that might be considered helpful? ("Please stop writing GL. Your book is amazing, the themes, the concepts, the language! But it will improve so much without those pesky lesbians while having more male furries instead!" -- is it Constructive or not? How is it different from any random opinion? "Hot daaaaaaaamn! More of this but less of the whole humor thing please?" -- is this a CC when you have no way to tell what they are even positive about (they didn't specify, and for the purpose of me questioning your definition -- they will never specify afterward either)? Who defines "Constructive" in this sense, then?

Point out some typos and mock the author for being a shit author because they make simple mistakes? That's not constructive critique, that just makes the critiquer an asshole.

Point out some typos with the intent of helping the author because you care about the story and want to see it at its best? Congratulations, you've just given constructive criticism!

Nothing I disagree with here. Yet it's not quite what I was talking about because the 2+2 is of no real arguing value to me. The "snow is blue on wintery mornings" is the level I am more concerned about in this discussion because it doesn't specify what most of the terms in this sentence mean and why and who judges whether these terms are applicable.

You can apply that to anything. If somebody reviews something just to be a negative little asshole, then no, they're not being constructive. If they review something with the intent to help the person being reviewed improve, acknowledging both the positive and the negative, then it's constructive criticism whether you agree with it or not. And heck, sometimes somebody can sound like a total asshole but give good advice and genuinely mean to help somebody. For example, there are some people who just sound like assholes no matter what because they don't give a shit about how others perceive them, but they still mean to genuinely help others no matter how dickish they might sound. That would still count as constructive criticism.

Not necessarily. I once argued with a person who read a pseudo-xianxia with me and they claimed that the book would improve from conforming to Western standards of storytelling. Mind you -- not just Western standards of fantasy storytelling. But the TS Eliot mindf*ckery symbolic psychological allusions postmodern references, etc standards of storytelling.

Also check out this https://law.ubalt.edu/downloads/law_downloads/IRC_Shakespeare_in_the_Bush.pdf . This is an essay that tells how a woman shared with tribal people Hamlet and how they DEMOLISHED it. They genuinely had good intentions at heart when they critiqued it. I think they believed it would be CC to Hamlet (if they accepted the conventional definition of CC you use). The question here is what is Constructive when you know these people's Constructive is different from yours.

Which goes back to my main question -- what makes a Constructive different from ANY general opinion you agree/disagree with other than the person who gives it labeling it at such vs a person who gives it who is NOT labeling it as such? Is there a concept of CC that is not entirely in the Eye of a particular Beholder? Is there a standard? Is a toddler telling me "Cool picture. More ladybugs please? And make them purple, not red. Red sucks" -- a CC?

Now, the problem with that is how authors perceive the intent of reviewers. I've seen many authors talk about how they got some horrible, scathing review that was a total attack on them that made them feel horrible while the reviewer was being rude and condescending and blah blah. The vast majority of times where I went to go and see what the big fuss was... it was a perfectly normal, fair review. Nothing rude nor condescending about them. Fair, gave praise and critique in the same review, wished the author well, said they would continue reading, and so on. Wonderful reviews. Yet, the authors made these reviewers sound like they were going to stalk them down and kill them in their sleep.

The intent behind the CC is the biggest issue I have with this concept. Who judges intent when a troll claims 100% they possess the positive intent? Again, I do not argue that I should listen to any random "CC" I've received. No. I am arguing for the definition of CC that is not 100% subjective or dependent on particulars. As a researcher rather than a Receiver or Giver of CCs.

Also, we all know the old adage of "the road to hell... good intentions, you know". Good intentions do not matter for the label that exists outside of the mind that gives out the CC. There is supposedly some sort of judgment (by convention or tradition or common sense, I guess?) about what makes a CC and what doesn't even if all the basic requirements for it apply. I want to know what those parameters are besides the basic requirements because these basic requirements:

a) do not specify the difference between CC and any general opinion/comment which makes the label CC useless;

b) heavily lean into "it's subjective" which only further pushes it into the territory of "so... just a general opinion, then?" Because Constructive implies something beyond "just an opinion" and I really want to know in which way. See my example with the toddler above.

I've gotten reviews before that I thought made absolutely zero sense - reviews from people who clearly missed something obvious that everybody else understood. However, they were still respectful and reviewing because they wanted to help. Even if I didn't gain anything from their reviews other than being reminded that no matter how obvious you make something, people will still miss it, it was still constructive criticism because it was criticism with the intent to help. I've also gotten reviews from people who absolutely tore into me and criticized me on points that I didn't even consider before reading the reviews, but they also gave me praise for what they believed I did right and they wanted to help no matter how blunt they might have been. I actually did learn from those reviews. Those are constructive criticism, too.

Still the same "I agree therefore I agree". Sorry if I sound like a broken record . What you agree with is that some readers will just misunderstand your story. That's the truth of life. Shrug emoji ^^.

The last one is actually interesting, though.

Most recently, I had a reader on Patreon criticize the belief of one of my character's in a chapter about how everything was technically predetermined and that, if you had all available information on par with that of what a god would have, then you would be able to predict the future. Nobody had true free will and everything was set in stone no matter how free people might have perceived themselves to be. Then the reader critiqued it with Bell's theorem which I had never even fucking heard of before that would have served as an amazing counter-argument within the scene, but I can't exactly have a character counter-argue with something if I don't know that it exists in the first place, can I? Boom, congrats, an example of constructive criticism that isn't a typo, isn't pointing out an obvious plot hole, isn't correcting grammar, and that I--as the author--am going to include because of the reader, not because I was already planning on doing it. If it wasn't for that specific reader bringing up some random little piece of information that they knew, then I might not have ever learned about it.

More of a 2+2 that you didn't know of prior to someone else sharing it with you. You can agree with something you haven't been aware of. But to me, this is interesting because you are mixing the improvement of your writing with your improvement as a person (the author). I would not consider someone sharing a fascinating "Did You Know That..." a CC, because it's not a critique of what I wrote. It's a critique of how I think or how little I know in the world outside of my writing (in this specific instance). But again, you improving as a person or as a scholar can help you improve as a writer of a specific book!

Take this thread, for example. Have you read my book? No (hopefully +_+ it's... um, weird). But did your opinions and suggestions on my knowledge in general about the concept of CC influence my persona overall ==> influence my writer's abilities ==> influence my book and probably in a positive manner? Yes.

Should I treat you and me talking in this thread as your CC to my book, then? I... dunno. Should I?

So, tl;dr: authors who can admit that they're wrong and who aren't aware of every mistake/poor job they do exist

tl;dr pt. 2: everything is subjective so constructive criticism only exists if you choose to believe it exists. I believe constructive criticism exists, therefore it exists. You don't believe it exists, therefore it doesn't exist to you. /thread

tl;dr pt. 3: go post this on /r/changemyview

Not about my beliefs but about how we can tell (as scholars of art and art criticism) whether something can be viewed as CC on objective terms? Because while criticism in general IS subjective, the label seems to imply something beyond subjectivity. I merely want to know what.

Also this is not /changemyview. It is a thesis, peer reviewed by you all till it can get better and more refined and make me a paper on the Conventional Attitudes to CC and How It Influences the Discourse in Practical Application. (for instance. I haven't yet decided on a title ^^).

Also thank you so much for actually engaging with me ! ^^

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ace_Arriande]

Also thank you so much for actually engaging with me ! ^^

I can't really think of much to say that wouldn't just be a repetition of what I've already said. I did read your entire post to both me and Ral, though, so thank you for taking the time to answer in such depth.

As a member of the "literally everything is subjective" gang, it really just comes down to having a difference in beliefs regarding the concept itself. When I try to be a bit more objective about it, all that matters is the critiquer's intent. The receiver of the critique may not agree that it's constructive criticism, so to the author, it's not. The author might think that the critiquer has purely ill intent. However, if the critiquer has the intent to help the author, then it's constructive. And I don't just mean people claiming to be constructive to hide their assholery. I mean the people who genuinely have the positive intent of wanting to help.

So I guess to simplify it a little bit:

The objective part of constructive critique is whether or not the critiquer has the intent of helping the one being critiqued. The subjective part of it is how everybody else perceives the critic seeing as how nobody but the critiquer themselves can know their true intent. I'm a simple man. Literally all that matters to me is the critiquer's intent, not how we perceive their intent. That one thing alone determines whether or not it's constructive criticism to me.

If I say, "I think you are a wonderful person," and I mean it as a compliment, then it's a compliment. There is no changing that. I intend to give you kind praise and brighten your day, so it is a compliment. You are a wonderful person. However, you might also be a person who takes that statement and interprets it as an insult. To you, it is not a compliment, but an insult. To other people reading this, it's not a compliment, it's just a bad example from me trying to make a point. To everybody else in the world, it's not a compliment. To me, however, it is as close to being objective as something possibly can be because I know my intent and my intent is to give praise. My view on whether or not constructive criticism is the same. So yes, you are a wonderful person for wanting to actually have such thorough discussions on the forum instead of just shitposting like most.

Because Constructive implies something beyond "just an opinion" and I really want to know in which way. See my example with the toddler above.

how we can tell (as scholars of art and art criticism) whether something can be viewed as CC on objective terms? Because while criticism in general IS subjective, the label seems to imply something beyond subjectivity. I merely want to know what.

Personally, I've never viewed constructive criticism as any more objective than anything else when it comes to the actual critique being given. I don't care whether somebody is a renown scholar, a famous critic, somebody who has never picked up a book in their life before, a world-famous author, or whatever. All of their opinions/critiques, constructive or not, are of equal value to me. So, I don't believe that there is even a slightly non-subjective thing about constructive criticism beyond the critiquer's intent, and that's only "objective" to the critiquer. So if you're trying to find out if there are objective terms to constructive criticism and claiming that it does not exist because you cannot find any, then I'll jump onboard with you and shout until the end of the universe that constructive criticism is but merely a meme that has never existed nor ever could exist.

But in the end, to me, literally the only thing that changes an "opinion" into "constructive criticism" is whether or not the opinion is given with the genuine intent to help regardless of how others perceive the opinion.

 

[Queenfisher]

@Ral, yansusustories, Ace-Arriande and thedude3445 (yes, I see you, too) thank you all -- but I have to goooo! I'm sorry I cannot answer to all of you right now.

Thank you guys, I will review your answers later because now I simply don't have time to do so.

Also to Ral specifically,

my bad about the watermelons. I mistranslated Russian botanical terms into English because fruit has two different words in Russian (one for sweet -tasting, big plants specifically, and one for any ...fruit borne by a plant), but only one term in English. What I meant to say with it as an example was idiomatic (to Russians) which I didn't even think wouldn't come across correctly in English. We say this about watermelons because convention and common sense is 100% wrong about the scientific term so it became sort of idiomatic, but apparently only in Russian. I had no idea prior to this moment because one of the words for fruit (fruct) sounds very close to the English term so I mistakenly assumed it would translate perfectly. It didn't T_T.

*Mind blown jpg*

See you later guys and thank you all again!

Also, @Assurbanipal_II -- I didn't see your original suggestion to discuss this at all. Sorry >_<. I lost it in all the noise in the beginning of the thread...

 

[zerogoddy]

"Author disagrees with you and will not change their opinion. You can do nothing about it"

I don't think the change is an instantaneous thing. So, it should still have an effect but not immediate. Some people are truly not open-minded but the majority would take a drop of knowledge from that rant and use it in the future, conscious or not.

 

[Ral]

my bad about the watermelons. I mistranslated Russian botanical terms into English because fruit has two different words in Russian (one for sweet -tasting, big plants specifically, and one for any ...fruit borne by a plant), but only one term in English. What I meant to say with it as an example was idiomatic (to Russians) which I didn't even think wouldn't come across correctly in English. We say this about watermelons because convention and common sense is 100% wrong about the scientific term so it became sort of idiomatic, but apparently only in Russian. I had no idea prior to this moment because one of the words for fruit (fruct) sounds very close to the English term so I mistakenly assumed it would translate perfectly. It didn't T_T.

I still really don't get it.

It is, as you say, an idiosyncrasy of the language. We have similar things in English, like Peanut being called a Nut, when it isn't. After all, there was a time when science is still poorly developed. When the earth was flat, when sickness are caused by spirits, and peanut was thought to be a nut. Now the earth isn't flat and sickness is not caused by spirits but we still call peanut a nut.

Not necessarily. I once argued with a person who read a pseudo-xianxia with me and they claimed that the book would improve from conforming to Western standards of storytelling. Mind you -- not just Western standards of fantasy storytelling. But the TS Eliot mindf*ckery symbolic psychological allusions postmodern references, etc standards of storytelling.

Well, most Xianxia I come across are really terrible.

However, I don't think this is a constructive criticism. In the first place, they argue with you and not the author. They don't seek to help the author that they would improve the story but to discuss aspects of it with you, another reader. And even if you are the author, they are still mostly arguing with you. While they have criticisms, they use it to support their arguments. The whole argument you have with them is not criticism, only parts of it.

Also check out this https://law.ubalt.edu/downloads/law_downloads/IRC_Shakespeare_in_the_Bush.pdf . This is an essay that tells how a woman shared with tribal people Hamlet and how they DEMOLISHED it. They genuinely had good intentions at heart when they critiqued it. I think they believed it would be CC to Hamlet (if they accepted the conventional definition of CC you use). The question here is what is Constructive when you know these people's Constructive is different from yours.

Pretty much the same thing here. They aren't being constructive. Hamlet is a really old story and the author is long dead. They are discussing interpretations. They do have criticisms (most often they criticize the woman's interpretation) but they pretty much use them to support their own arguments.

Which goes back to my main question -- what makes a Constructive different from ANY general opinion you agree/disagree with other than the person who gives it labeling it at such vs a person who gives it who is NOT labeling it as such? Is there a concept of CC that is not entirely in the Eye of a particular Beholder? Is there a standard? Is a toddler telling me "Cool picture. More ladybugs please? And make them purple, not red. Red sucks" -- a CC?

It seems like you might not exactly know what criticism is and you are confusing it with other stuff like arguments and discussions.

And what is this eye of the beholder stuff. You kinda keep repeating it. It is very pointless. Everything is kinda in the eye of the beholder. Is earth flat? Yes, according to some people and the ancients do believe earth is flat. Does that makes the earth actually flat? No, but in the eye of these people, especially the ancients where they don't really have the science and technology we have now, the earth is flat. It is really incredibly pointless to discuss such kind of things.

"Cool picture. More ladybugs please? And make them purple, not red. Red sucks" is not criticism (of any form). "Cool picture" is a compliment. "More ladybugs please" "And make them purple, not red" are requests. "Red sucks" is the toddler stating their taste/preference. Taken as a whole, it doesn't really do any criticism. The closest one is "Cool picture" but it seems to be done to make you do what they wanted instead of actually judging the work.

 

[Sakura.nobody]

Ok! I actually do not use scribble hub much nor its forum, but this thread was really deep (at least I perceive it as such) and because I invested a hefty amount of my time analyzing (half way through, so I may not have a complete grasp of your want from this, but I will try my best) and I thought I should also place my criticism in here. (I’m using criticism because though this is solely based on my opinions - if one were to say - it could/would also be viewed as a criticism and because I do not want to use “constructive” to this mix)

So I will go down my list. 1) the labelling of constructive and why would/should something be perceived as such
You are asking why should criticism be perceived as “constructive” when the other forms could very well be just an opinion or suggestion. (More emphasis on constructive because I feel that is where the main focus lies) On a mix of personal opinions and knowledge, it is a mix of the intent of the receiver and giver. But I honestly see it more on the receiver. As no one can clearly define what the true intentions of another are unless you are them themselves or for some reason you can look deep in their thoughts or heart, intentions are not a black and white matter. Most definition of intentions are made from the Receiving end. (I’ll be labeling them as RR from now) RR is naturally going to receive what has been shared/given to them (words, sounds, etc) and then change it to be able to fit to what RR would most likely deem it as such. Basically, RR would be the final deciding factor of this. (I’ll be going to my definition of constructive - which inevitably would also be an opinion)

My definition of “constructive” is something that is supposed to help you grow. Whether the giver meant it negatively or positively, as long as I, the RR, views it as something to grow from, it shall be constructive. Now you may argue that this is just my point of view or how do you /really/ know if its a universal definition for constructive. (I absolutely did not know how to phrase this better, so I really hope you can somehow piece some sort of understanding) All I can give in reply is that, “That’s exactly it.” You do not know the clear defining line between the two if something is actually constructive or not.

I understand this thread was made solely for the purpose of curiosity (and maybe a little bit more) and I enjoyed the posts because I got a great amount of knowledge here. And in no way were you trying to get a black and white answer, but thats what “Constructive“. It is something that will have a different “definition” because no one will be able to understand what is your “definition”.

(This post may be going here and there with no specific order, but I’m going down a list which has no specific order, so it’s understandable)

Reader vs Author
This is an example. Most of the time, the readers are the ones giving out CC to the author. (And I’ll ask you another simple yet complex question since CC is also a simple and complex question: why is it usually readers who give out CC? Is this because it is the norm or some other complex underlying puzzle) And it usually is about “what the reader ‘thinks’ they understand and reviews/criticize from” vs. “what the author truly knows and displays” I will go back to previous point, no one truly knows the other’s true intentions. Yes, you can catch a glimpse of it, but that it. You aren’t the worm in their stomach. (I think that‘s how it goes??) But we all have deeper thoughts that are linked to our surface level thoughts. (Another question you can delve on: what is actually the basis for why we have everyday thoughts? Is it linked to our past experiences, or something else?)
- basically, for example. You can have thoughts of wanting to eat a pizza for lunch. But have you ever wonder what drives you to such thoughts. If you really tried to link everything, it may come as this. [pizza for lunch - cravings - haven’t had pizza in a while - I was trying to be healthy - doctor said so - etc.]
What I’m trying to say is that you do not actually know what’s another’s true intentions so you can not understand if what they are saying is “constructive” or not. Because the RR will be the one to say so.
So as the readers, the readers may understand 25% of what you are trying to convey, but would not fully understand your true intentions. As the author, you get the final choice to say whether something is “constructive” or not. (even if its the worst constructive for me [add more smut], to you, it may just be the constructive you want/need]

And this moves to my next point: choice of agreement and not
How do you decide if the criticism is actually not a reaffirming of your thoughts. From where I understand, you think that constructive criticism falls under two categories: agree (I’m just reaffirming doubts) and disagree (I won‘t acknowledge until I acknowledge it myself later). And it seems the disagreeing category even if it leads to improvement will not be your definition of constructive (because you reached there yourself). I would like to first ask to give some credit to the criticism, because regardless of whether you would eventually reach the conclusion later on, it was a part, albeit minor, on the path. (This is also my own personal mentality of credit is due whether credit is small or not: If someone (a) pushed me to liking a brand and someone else says something, I would have said (a) helped me to like it. Don‘t care how unnecessary the comment was, I was putting faith in the golden rule. I treat your small credit outwardly, so treat mine too; this is about me, but I’m sharing what I’ll share) And this all falls into a big bowl call intentions. It is the RR call to say whether you had doubts to begin with. And it is also the RR call to say whether a sentence is deemed not “constructive” and to disagree. And all I have to say is to go out with an open mind when reading these reviews/etc. In the end, to say all reviews are not constructive is wrong, and to say all are would also be wrong. But it is going with an open mind, debating it across the mind a few times, and then deciding the “constructive” use of it that you will later see all things have “constructiveness”. If you think something confirms your doubts, then it is constructive per my definition (to make you grow; this growth is you clearing doubts; credit due no matter how small) If you think something is absolutely wrong, but later come to terms, thats constructive (credit due no matter how small). If you simply disagree, look at it openmindly. (Find that one constructiveness; example coming.)

(example: [add smut] My story doesn’t have smut, so why? What the heck it making them think this, to write this???? what? Does my story need some romance? Does my story have romance that‘s making them want smut? I‘ve been wanting to add some more romance, just didn’t know if it needed more (affirming doubts, still going to credit this comment; even if I am personally mortified that this is one of the reasons why my story has more romance). I’m... just going to put this idea on hold. Because I don’t want to add smut. But romance is good, right? Etc.)
In that weird example, you can see I was trying (emphasis on trying) to be openminded. Trying to find that construtiveness. The thing at was going to help me grow. Even if I grow the wrong way. (Just think as this decision either going to make my roots grow nicely or crooked. either way, its roots. That grew.) And if I agreed to the comment, and I affirm my doubts, going by my own psychological habit, I would have given it credit. Albeit not openly because it’s embarrassing.

And this is also another point. Coming to terms first. You mentioned that we agree to what we find agreeable and less likely to agree with what is not agreeable. That is where intentions comes again. Though we cannot have a full understand of another’s intention, it should not stop us from trying to further the understand. (Which I conclude is one of the basis of this thread :to understand: and possibly one of your true intentions) Onde we further this understanding and find some similar terms (you’re basically negotiating to make profit for both sides) that is where “constructiveness“ will be. Because you will grow.

Now I will critique my own post. If we look at some main points of mine, I talk mostly about intentions. Because I believe intentions is important. And while I do want to be helpful in your search for answers, I must say that the post is lace with “opinions” than “facts”. And I put quotation marks on some words to make it emphasis the difference of what the definition could/would be. Which is also another “intention”. I also try to understand your intentions, as a reader. (Reference to one my points) I can not fully understand what is your search, but try my best to interpret as much as I can. I would love to say that I was useful, but that will be your call (RR). I added some cute questions in the mix because I thought they might entertain your thought cycle in you, but that was also me interpreting your life and intentions basically. You can interpret my intentions as a passerby who was intrigued and lured in. And if you must also know, I have spent more than an hour on this thread. (Reading posts[not all, but the much of it] and typing this). And no. This was not a complete waste of time. It was part of a waste because it was impulsive to spend so much on a thread, but open-mindedly, I was ____ (I forgot the word, but it‘s like a world opened up or something.) And please reply, for the sake of my impulse And if you really want to point something out, this could also be called constructive criticism. But it would be your call. Your intentions. And further more, based on my own definition, if you grew or something, whether it be on your search for the answer, or whether it be your understanding of other‘s understanding, this is constructive.
P.S: if in any way i sounded mean or something, please understand. It was not my intentions. (See, intentions)

 

[Queenfisher]

Ugh, it is so hard to answer to so many people at the same time +_+. Sorry that I can't do it all at once. I do have a lot of work to do and this post alone took me 2 hours and a half to write!

(O____O the hell? I didn't expect it would take me so much tiiiiime!!!)

@Ral,

I thank you for doing this analysis for me (and with me). I like that you can put down your prejudices to see the reasoning of your opponent, thanks. I will do both your posts in one, okay?

It is not.

There are specific and general terms/words (I think those where the terms). For example, Animals is a general term, Dog is a more specific term, Collie is even more specific. It is correct to say a Collies are Animal, but it is really wrong to say that Animals are Collies.

All I was saying is that saying CC is an opinion is okay.

But claiming that an opinion is CC is not.

The question is "how can we tell when the second situation happens because due to CC's vague definition it is bound to happen A LOT and there seems to be no way to objectively disprove it".

It is actually difficult to tell sometimes. You can be sure they are constructive if it comes from a professional who do this kind of job (like your teacher in writing school). In, the internet however . . . not so clear. Most aren't actually good nor have any professional skill in giving criticism.

Not really. Human error. I had professors who were objectively wrong when I was objectively right (citation, for example. Theirs was old, or misattributed), yet they would get into tangents and loopings of arguments to avoid being proven wrong. The thing is -- in humanities, a lot of "objective" truths accepted in studies are... sometimes very wobbly. Human error and bias in leaning more toward one without any solid reasoning justification is a thing.

Now apply this to a "non-objective field, which is art", and the problem worsens times 100.

It puts me back to my OP argument that the majority of the so-called CC (the vague and the subjective part of it) that I considered genuinely "Constructive" was nonetheless a push from someone who knew a specific market better than I did. For example, when I wrote a short story for a specific place, I was given the advice to only care about the AWESOME beginning. Like, literally, most people do not read anything past the first paragraphs in a magazine. The cohesiveness or even staying within the same genre or plot or premise by the end of the story does not matter. (And I have actually found proofs that this is true in the already-published stories I researched -- most of published stories in "a specific genre I will not name" change genres, styles, even the themes of the story midway without it contributing or improving the story. Sometimes, they end up being nonsensical. The beginning and the end sometimes seem like they're written by different people )and I do not mean plot twists or cool artistic tropes! Literally it's changing it midway because you know the beginning was only clickbait and the actual story can't keep up with it!).

Did that improve my writing? No. It actually kicked it in the balls because I went through a serious bout of depression knowing the "creative" writing part doesn't matter as much as marketing skills. Was it something I consider CC? Yes.

But it has nothing to do with writing. If anything, it is more of a CC for a market-researcher or advertiser. Not a writer. The majority of writing teachers also do this. They want you to conform to rules that, most of the time, have more to do with group-ideologies and exclusivity than actual writing. It's one thing when you want to learn how to market, and wholly another when you actually come for WRITING advice and they just feed you with "get more connections in the field! Start befriending famous authors if you truly care about your writing! Write in a different genre and let me destroy your book because it's not that genre I like! (Also I have no idea what makes a book in your selected genre good or bad, so I'm just going to apply the rules of a totally different genre to yours because of this ^^)".

The best you can do is to assume that they are trying to be constructive. Don't take what they say personally, and try to look at their criticism impersonally. Take what is useful to you and ignore the rest. Don't go out and argue or attack them. It would not benefit you in any way.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. I have to assume they are trying to be constructive. But since there is no real definition of constructive that two people can agree on at the same time that would 100% apply to a practical instance of it, that assumption is literally me:

"I hope they are just" or "I hope I am just (when writing a CC)". And nothing more than that... Compared to my argument about what CC is, the philosophical argument about what "just is" is over 2000 years in the making and still hasn't arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. For the conventional standard, "just -- is defined by laws (legal or moral)". It's good that through these last 2000 years we have amassed some semblance of such rules most can follow.

The CC, however, did not. Its definition in an "Ideal example" and its definition of a case-by-case basis have little to do with each other. And in the end, like you say -- I have to hope/assume that my OPINION will be considered CC when I give it. Or, as an author, I have to hope (and then act like) any OPINION given to me about my book will be CC.

If I agree with a CC given to me (no matter how acidic or mean or irrelevant it might be) -- then it's CC. If I disagree*, then no matter how nice, polite, relevant, or well-meaning it is -- it will not be CC.

[*agree/disagree I explained above. It's the inherent bias of how our opinions and worldviews are, whether we are consciously aware of them, or not].

Likewise, as a CC-giver. Literally every single opinion about what would make a story better that I have about any book in existence will be CC in my eyes. I'm sorry, the only way I can try to make it more CC is to phrase it in a polite way. There is no standard of "CC" vs "no CC" when I think of how a book can become just a tiny bit better. And the caveat is such that if I read a book -- I will always have an opinion of how it can get better. That's how my human mind works (I'm unsure about others but my guess is that most people's thoughts wander about either style, themes, or plot points and how each can go better/worse when they consume art. It's called taste. Or literally -- just an opinion. I'm unsure how can a person not have an opinion about a specific book they've read X_X. It seems to be impossible even if the opinion is only "It's okay. It's a book". Which does seem to imply there can be ways to improve it! Which then can make any of your opinions about it into a potential CC!).

Actually, a constructive criticism doesn't have to come from someone who supports you or be supportive of you. The best criticism are actually those that are objective and critical.

Objective is a word that doesn't have much purpose in art evaluation. Due to the fact, for example, that the majority of writers lie to each other. I forgot the title of the article I read, but it was essentially about how editors, agents and publishers can not say anything honest about each other's books at all, even when they are reviewing, recommending, or criticizing them.

Because even a small fraction of the art industry does this (and let's be real here -- it is not a small fraction, either) -- this puts the entire notion of "objectivity in art" into question. Add to this the fact that some critiquers simply repeat the advice they have heard from others without truly ingesting or understanding it. Show Don't Tell is one such advice most commonly abused. Kill Your Darlings is another. Most people struggle to define either in a way that everyone would agree what those mean.

No, you don't need to find the criticism to be helpful or useful.

Yet...

"Don't take what they say personally, and try to look at their criticism impersonally. Take what is useful to you and ignore the rest."

If my interaction with CC is "to find what is useful and ignore the rest" then I can do it to any non-CC opinion in existence, too. The concept of CC, therefore, doesn't seem to do much other than specify that "some texts that you find something useful in and ignore the rest in" have the arbitrary CC label on top, while the others do not.

What people say has no bearings to what their intentions are. A murderer would say that they would not harm you but their intentions are the total opposite.

And no one defines the intent and purpose. They are just facts. Though, there is the problem of information. You can't often can't tell what is the intent and purpose of other people.

It does give you suggestions, but given in the context of critiquing with the intent to help or improve. The suggestions are just part of the criticism, it is still criticism after all. It still has to criticize.

Exactly. So what makes a CC a CC if even the intentions of making a CC do not make one such? The only thing we made an advancement on in this argument is this --

"given in the context of critiquing with the intent to help or improve"

-- but see, the intent is problematic because other than to rely on someone's words of what it is, there is no way to tell (what you say about the problem of information above). It does not matter outside of one's head, therefore cannot make an opinion a CC automatically. There needs to be something else that makes it so, something that can be much more objectively-identifiable.

I like the "context of critiquing", though.

Critique -- a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

Says nothing about advice or suggestions or improvement. BUT! --

Criticism (wiki) -- is the practice of judging the merits and faults of something. The judger is called a critic.

Criticism (meriam-webster) -- the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing.

Now this becomes more interesting because the first term is not giving a judgment of wrongness, but the two others do. All I'm saying is that in the system of the other two used, the so-called judges can be pretty incompetent. But if they have an opinion that "expresses disapproval and nothing the problems/faults of a thing" -- their opinion's existence is enough to count it as criticism.

Add to this the "I hope this will help you improve" and voila -- now it is a CC by the conventional standards. I know you gave me the reasoning why you wouldn't count a toddler giving you his sincere opinion about how to improve your drawing as CC but your take down of it was arbitrary, sorry. I do that too. I use my notions of what counts as CC and what doesn't in an arbitrary way. But there is no rules or guidebook that can disprove my arbitrary reasoning about an Opinion that claims it is made in the "context of critiquing with the intent to help or improve". Again, if the intent cannot be assessed outside of a Giver's head, all we can assess it with is his words.

And thus, saying "I just want to help" will justify any opinion in existence as CC by that logic. You may disapprove, but you can't disprove that it is a CC nor prove that it is one.

"provides an alternative view to your book (let's say there was NO smut in your book. Yet someone just told you this. For sure, it becomes a VERY alternative view of your book and might improve it because now you know that there are readers who enjoy whatever you've written in this specific manner). So... how is this example not CC if it fulfills all the requirements?"

Okay. They just tell you facts. That is in no way a criticism. It is like saying the protagonist is a male, the plot is about a girl fighting an evil witch, or the setting is medievalist. Not a criticism at all.

Wait but my argument was that there was NO smut in that book. Their interpretation that it does and will improve from having more of it (a thing you perceive as non-existent in the first place) is an evaluation and approval/disapproval and a suggestion of improvement. YOu may disagree with it but by the definition of CC, it applies.

1) State a fact (your book has a male protagonist OR smut even if the latter doesn't, but due to their interpretation, it may).

2) Say that this fact is what makes this book good. (Your protagonist is amazing. Your smut is really getting me hard and want to reread your book again and again -- kudos!)

3) State that from capitalizing on this fact or employing more of it in your book will improve it. (I wish to see more of your awesome male protagonist. He's the sole reason I'm reading, after all! I wish to see more of the smut! Please author! It's literally the thing that makes your book a masterpiece!)

-- combined, all make it seem like fulfilling the requirements of a CC.

Okay. First, cc is not an argument.

Mmm... I know you'll hate me for this, but it... kind of is? Not in the sense that the Giver or the Receiver have to engage in an argument about it (GODS NO) but in a sense that

Argument -- a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

it can be. Coupled with the definition of Criticism from above (judgment of disapproval or perceived issues) a CC is also a form of an argument. You see something the author doesn't. You make a thesis/analysis/hypothesis about how it can be done better.

That makes it formally an argument with the intent to persuade that this will help/improve something. Not the intent to persuade them that you are right (!) but that it can help them. Still an act of persuasion accompanied with your reasonings as to why or how.

I understand that it can be difficult to tell if someone is being helpful or not, but something doesn't become something just because you identify it as such. An apple doesn't become an orange just because you identify it as an orange. If someone lies to you and say that you are a pervert doesn't make you a pervert.

And again, don't argue with them. If you dismiss it or disagree, don't argue about it to them. They don't expect you to agree with them. Heck, they might not agree with each other.

If you argue with them and things becomes rather nasty . . . well. As I said, they give their criticism in good faith. They don't expect you to accept it and they don't specially expect you to argue with them. It is contrary to good faith.

Again, don't argue! It doesn't benefit you in anyway. You are just destroying goodwill.

I never argue with anyone about the practical instances of CC (now I don't, but when I was a beginner, I did. I quickly outgrew that). This discussion is not about me or my interactions with CCs at all.

Seriously. Please. Don't put words in my mouth. Quote the relevant passage if I really did say this.

I was paraphrasing, sorry. You are also putting words in my mouth (quote above) but that's to be expected in a discussion done in Good Faith. While I admire concise replies and good, short arguments done by others, I myself am verbose precisely because short, concise answers can be vague and misleading. I usually have to prod my opponents to elaborate just because their shorter statements sound too ambiguous.

"Constructive criticism is about the intent or purpose, not the result. They are merely a suggestion and the receiver is in their right to not accept it. "

Sounded vague to me, sorry. Intent of what? Of CC? Of the book in question? The result of what? Accepting it or non accepting it? Making the book better? Receiver is in their right to accept what? Intent, or the CC? Or the opinions inside the CC? Or the notion that they are within the "context of critiquing" at all?

It's okay. This entire thread is me elaborating on the point that had been much shorter (for me, I KNOW, not for most people) but at the same time much more wishy-washy and muddled because I didn't take time to go in-depth on the first try. Happens.

You can just correct me if my attempt to paraphrase you to understand your position misfired. I do the same to you.

Well, they might have actually given it in good faith that it might help you.

If things devolve, well, it devolved. The initial situation is different. The start actually might be the the person giving constructive criticism . . . it just devolves into something else.

"Might" is not objective. I might tell someone that I think their book might improve from better grammar or Show Don't Tell even without reading it. Does that make for a CC? Apparently yes.

Well, the person pointing it out helps you see it right? I mean, you need a suggestion. If the suggestion doesn't exist, then you would lack the push that would actually move you there.

I like this one. I just don't see how anyone's opinion on the street with the same result would be different from the officially-labeled CC. Or how me reading 1-star reviews on amazon about the book that shares genres with mine suddenly becomes a CC of mine if their suggestion inspires me to change something in my book.

What does this have to do with everything?

And dude it's a quote. It not a proof or anything. It is just something someone says (though popular). In fact there are a lot of terrible quotes.

It was a template useful for getting you a glimpse into my mindset regarding brainstorming ideas for the improvement of books. Sometimes you can't really make someone understand your model of something but you can give them another model to help them see yours better. (Like, I was talking once with a guy about how electrons move in an atom and the way he only understood them through someone else's model of railroad. Better model thinking sometimes requires you to look into several different models to pick one that finally clicks with you. So I tried to provide one such). That is the intent here.

What does it have to do with anything? I was merely answering your question about agree/disagree and how suggestions only become beneficial for those who have the mindset to receive them. No matter how good someone's argument is -- if you disagree, it will fall on deaf ears. With writing, it is almost always so (at least for me and some others, seemingly including Neil Gaiman) --

In short, no suggestion can get past your initial "valid/not valid" that is 100% subjective to you. But defining something as valid solely by your own standards makes the notion of CC seem irrelevant past the point of "an opinion that you happened to like/find useful".

And no, whether this opinion is done in "context of critiquing" or not doesn't matter. Any opinion done outside of it can have the intent to improve your book and can help you actually achieve that. Any opinion done inside the "context of critiquing" can have the opposite intent and the opposite effect. There is no difference other than in the name, therefore what power does this name hold?

Anything objective?

You are posting something online. By the very act, you allow people to talk about it. If you don't want their opinions, then don't post it anywhere.

And you have control. Don't post it in the internet, or anywhere at all. There! No opinions.

Sigh. Yes, I agree. But this has nothing to do with the concept of CC, does it? I never said "no opinions", by the way. I said -- YES to opinions. Just why bother calling only some of them CC? And what separates a small section of ALL opinions into being a CC while dismissing the rest as non-CC? My entire argument here

Also this type of reasoning might go very badly in the context of "what is just?" I talked about above. By the same logic, a Lamborghini left in a bad neighborhood for fifteen minutes allows people to steal it. Yet our legal system disagrees with that.

Even worse -- the proverbial pretty girl in a mini-skirt, a phone that shut down, an alcoholic drink in her hand while being at a frat party... you know the argument. It still doesn't make it self-evident or non-ambiguous. Both above examples depend heavily on the concept of "what is just?" So does posting your work online and hoping people will be "just" toward it.

It is not on the beholder.

I know it might be difficult to tell but doesn't mean it is in the eye of the beholder. Someone saying its constructive criticism doesn't make it a constructive criticism.

And just because it is constructive criticism doesn't mean people have to like it.

And just because there is no way to prove it doesn't mean it don't exist.

If we can't prove it yet it exists, then there should be a way to group the practical instances as such where both the Giver and the Receiver agree that it is, indeed, a CC and not just an opinion they both agree on. Once we can do that, we have proved that it exists.

I dunno. I'm trying to come up with a way to make it more logical than "sometimes... it just works... other times... don't think too much about it".

Also the way you say that "someone saying it is constructive doesn't make it constructive" seems to imply you can more or less judge "it when you see it". Is that so? I am genuinely interested because I want to do a small survey/demonstration in this thread but I do not know if people would be able to participate as judges of CCs vs not-CCs.

Uh . . . you know what critique is right? It is not a survey.

I never said it was.

Also, critique or criticism? Supposedly, they are different (I didn't know this either before today -_-). The thing is -- CC has criticism, not critique in its title, whatever that means @_@.

And you said yourself that the best crits we receive is when we ask for specific things we are interested in.

" This is actually a very common advice when you ask for criticism. Be specific. Tell them what you are looking for. "

To me, that is more of a survey because it rules out the potential of misunderstanding my questions or goals. People elaborate on my questions, of course, and I love it. But it kind of becomes more of a meta-talks about art rather than critiques/criticisms.

Seriously. We are just arguing semantics.

TT___TT.

My first major in college was linguistics so arguing semantics is... kinda what we did a lot? Yet you say it like it's a bad word.

I don't mind practical instances of CC being used. The world wouldn't end all of a sudden if I say I am studying the planetary system and I don't expect it to. But should I not study it just because it keeps moving outside of my studies?

I am a scholar apart from being a Reader and an Author. I love literary theory and philosophy of art as much as I love stories and characters in general. What's wrong with uniting two fields of my interest to inquire deeper into what makes art as it is?

For instance, my current studies are more concerned with the perception of quality in visual art (paintings and sculptures, ESPECIALLY in postmodern and conceptual art) -- but CC in general is a very intriguing concept to me because so much of the perception of quality in art stands alongside the perception of Constructive in Criticism.

If you think that constructive criticism don't exist, well, you're you. It doesn't hurt anyone so . . . I made my points and if you don't agree with them, then, okay.

And I thank you for it. It was nice to read and helped me improve and refine my own arguments (sometimes in wholly different areas). ^^

I still really don't get it.

It is, as you say, an idiosyncrasy of the language. We have similar things in English, like Peanut being called a Nut, when it isn't. After all, there was a time when science is still poorly developed. When the earth was flat, when sickness are caused by spirits, and peanut was thought to be a nut. Now the earth isn't flat and sickness is not caused by spirits but we still call peanut a nut.

The difference is in the name vs perception. We can call it whatever and by common sense, it's fine for the 99% of the population to both call it such and even perceive it as such. But for those who want to approach studies and more in-depth learning of how human thinking works or for scientists that require more precise labels, it is crucial to not rely on the common sense only.

Well, most Xianxia I come across are really terrible.

However, I don't think this is a constructive criticism. In the first place, they argue with you and not the author. They don't seek to help the author that they would improve the story but to discuss aspects of it with you, another reader. And even if you are the author, they are still mostly arguing with you. While they have criticisms, they use it to support their arguments. The whole argument you have with them is not criticism, only parts of it.

Thought experiment. Look at the same argument as though it was done to me in person for a xianxia book I wrote. It becomes automatically a CC because it wants me to improve it according to what they perceive as an improvement.

How such a criticism can be constructive? Easy. Let's say there are two ways to do Xianxia:

1) core, or straightforward,

2) subversive or reactionary to the core ones.

If you read a Xianxia story and you perceive it as belonging to one of the two (while itself, it might be the opposite or even using the tropes of each at different points of time) -- you might give a CC on how to "achieve the goal you perceive in a better or more efficient way". In such a situation, it would be very easy to confuse the goal you see with the author's goal. Thus, you kind of might shit all over their goals by perceiving them as wrong which ends up making your "CC" potentially a very polite way of saying "This (1) or (2) type xianxia is shit, do the other".

Is it not CC if it sees "some goals" it believes to be trying to improve the efficiency of?

Also in regards to Xianxia being terrible *_*. That's funny but what about people who come here, for instance, from RR or WN to tell their stories of being dismissed for their novels being generic Xianxia? The thing is -- it might be constructive (it might not be), but there is no real way to tell, is there? Even if you, the judge, will go and decide for each individual case, it will only be your word against theirs. How are they less wrong or right about their judgments of it being/not being CC than you?

Pretty much the same thing here. They aren't being constructive. Hamlet is a really old story and the author is long dead. They are discussing interpretations. They do have criticisms (most often they criticize the woman's interpretation) but they pretty much use them to support their own arguments.

Author being dead or the story being old is of no matter here. CC " aims to show that an intent or purpose of something is better served by an alternative approach. In this case, making the criticism is not necessarily deemed wrong, and its purpose is respected; rather, it is claimed that the same goal could be better achieved via a different route "

-- which those tribal chieftains do. It says nothing about the author being alive or the story being old. I mean -- nothing stops me from writing a CC of Iliad. Why shouldn't I? I would not necessarily even be critiquing Iliad per se because most of what we know of it is translations and interpretations. But even so, how is it different from critiquing an author who is alive right now, is writing in Inuit, and writes something I can't possibly really give an in-depth critique of because I am not versed in his culture? Or what about an author who is next to me but is writing about fox-cat-hybrid harems -- a genre I have zero understanding of and therefore will be shooting just as blindly as with the contemporary Inuit story?

All of them would be based on interpretation only. Also, that woman's interpretation might just be THE Hamlet these people perceive, It does not matter what Hamlet really is because they are not interacting with it. But her version of Hamlet is still being given a CC by that logic. And a CC that has no real interest in improving her goals with it but rather what these people perceive her goals should be.

It seems like you might not exactly know what criticism is and you are confusing it with other stuff like arguments and discussions.

And what is this eye of the beholder stuff. You kinda keep repeating it. It is very pointless. Everything is kinda in the eye of the beholder. Is earth flat? Yes, according to some people and the ancients do believe earth is flat. Does that makes the earth actually flat? No, but in the eye of these people, especially the ancients where they don't really have the science and technology we have now, the earth is flat. It is really incredibly pointless to discuss such kind of things.

I know what a criticism is and now we all do ^^. It is different from a critique and does involve "judgment". I only ask what are the rules of judgment being made in order to see it as anything other than opinion, that's all.

Comparison with "earth being believed as flat" vs "the earth actually being something else for the majority of people in an obvious, 2+2=4 way" is a good one. Now do it for the CC.

CC -- is something "this person believes his instance of an opinion X". But in actuality, for the majority of people it's objectively, 2+2=4 kind of... what?

Hence my question. I understand that, for now, we are in the area of ancients who have no capabilities of statistical data that can give us answers about what people actually believe quality, justice, etc is and what they follow as convention. I know. But talking about these thing is not pointless! Otherwise many part of the fields of philosophy, sociology and psychology would be pointless!

Having technology to help us gather quantitative data to determine such "pointless" things is crucial, yes. But before we can gather quantitative data, we need to define qualitative categories into which this data will go. Most of such "pointless" discussions simply try to determine the qualitative categories in question.

Which is what philosophy has been doing for millennia, so... why not? Philosophy of art is understudied, in my opinion, and its interaction with common sense and conventional understanding of art are very interesting topics.

"Cool picture. More ladybugs please? And make them purple, not red. Red sucks" is not criticism (of any form). "Cool picture" is a compliment. "More ladybugs please" "And make them purple, not red" are requests. "Red sucks" is the toddler stating their taste/preference. Taken as a whole, it doesn't really do any criticism. The closest one is "Cool picture" but it seems to be done to make you do what they wanted instead of actually judging the work.

Cool picture = I approve. May be a compliment, but may be a judgment.

Make them purple not red = suggestion of potential improvement.

Red sucks = an unsupported statement that can be generalized to the entire section of the audience with this toddler being its representative. It may be a personal preference, but like "all xianxias of type (1) or (2) garner negative results from the audience -- by being SHIT!" might be phrased to be less argumentative and more rhetorically-convincing. The gist wouldn't change, only the phrasing, though. Now imagine the "red sucks" has fifteen paragraphs proving to you that it objectively sucks in the eyes of the audience and would improve from a different color. Would this now become a CC?

 

[Queenfisher]

Not gonna read the replies, just the OP, but this is all just blatantly wrong. Constructive criticism is the very basis of fundamental aspects of the writing process in every single field. Peer review for academia, editing/review rounds for business and technical institutions, and the beta reading and editor reviews of any traditionally published work, whether that is fiction, nonfiction, or a dang cookbook.

Criticism in a broad sense, the literary analysis sense, is not directed to the author; it's just discussing a work and not necessarily its quality (e.g. that cool video essay you watched on Youtube). "Constructive criticism" is not exactly the same thing, then, but is equally necessary and vital.

I can say with 100% certainty that I only exist as a writer today thanks to constructive criticism. People who read through early drafts of my novels and commented/reacted to the storylines, whether that be positive or negative, have had a fundamental impact on the development of my writing. These are always people I already know, people who may be biased in favor of my work, but who aren't afraid to tell me when my stuff is crap in their eyes and never short of ideas of how I might (keyword MIGHT) want to change that. I don't always change it! But having that feedback is vital regardless.

There are two specific moments in my life where constructive criticism in a negative way have really changed my writing, both pretty close to each other in early 2013. I had started a challenge to write a short story every single day for the entire year (I only wrote like, 60 of them), and posted a link to the first one on Reddit. Some random anonymous commenter, clearly knowing I was just some kid making some experimental work, told me about what they thought the story was missing and really opened my eyes in a big way to some narrative issues I had missed for a work so short. The second time was one of my friends, also participating in that challenge, who thought one of my half-assed stories was so bad he made fun of it by writing an extensive, comedic review about the problems it had. I was honestly pretty embarrassed, but in response I remade the story, doubled down on the stupidest parts to make them even worse, and learned so much about myself as a storyteller through it.

Even if I disagree with something, the kind of feedback one can receive from someone reading a WIP is absolutely vital in my eyes. Even if their suggestion is to take the story in a completely new direction, you can see what one person views your story as. You get a glimpse at your story through someone else's eyes, and that is something you rarely get a chance at otherwise. Not all constructive criticism is useful! But for the most part, it's so important.

Thank you for sharing, but it is more about the practical side rather than the theoretical that I am interested in here. I also benefited from many things in my writing "journey", but I would struggle to call all my breakthroughs due to CC because most of them were given by, like, my boyfriend who wasn't in any way trying to be constructive. He just talked shit and some of it stuck. Other times he was trying to be constructive because someone else doing it impressed him with its "cool factor! I'm a critic now!" and all of it sounded not at all different from the general "talking shit some of which sticks".

Heck, my mom telling me to stop walking around my apartment "thinking deeply and profoundly" about my work but rather "sit down and write it already!" is a CC by that logic. And so is Stephen King's book On Writing. And so is my neighbor talking about how much he hates David Yates' Harry Potter movies because some of what he said could be applied to my writing too.

What I am talking about is that the majority of things and people that helped me in my writing weren't necessarily calling it CC. And the words CC used unironically I usually met only on only three occasions:

1) discussions about the theory like this one where everyone chimes in with their subjective definitions or personal experiences of what it is;

2) the critiquer trying to defend their position by claiming "this is CC" which does not actually give them more points of validity compared to a general opinion that is not claiming this label. (So what is the difference and why group only some opinions under CC as compared to others?) I have not seen an opinion or suggestion from a Reader/critiquer/reviewer benefit or become more useful with the application of this label. If anything, it can go the route of being more polite, but politeness doesn't mean much on the surface if their opinion is offensive on its own;

3) the author either asking for CC-only that again, doesn't specify what he means by that other than "try to be fair to me", or sometimes "try to be nice", or in other times just "say nice things or none". You cannot tell by their general statement which one they mean. For a seasoned writer such as you -- you might always mean only "try to be fair and objective", but a beginner author (and especially the younger one) will usually mean "like it, please" and nothing more. Thus, there is no objective standard even when authors use this label.

(Check out the reception of Hemingway's novel Across the Riven and into the Trees where even his close friends said they warned him the book sucks yet he disagreed, probably believing they didn't "get it". Objectively (to conventional taste) the book sucks, but Hemingway would not consider any of these so-called objective criticisms as Constructive, I can bet).

3,5) the author claiming that some criticism he received was NOT CC. Also not very inspiring as to what is and what isn't CC.

In the end, the label of CC seems to exist separately from what most people perceive as "being CC". Which is my argument in a nutshell. The label is overused by people who won't necessarily give you a CC. The actual criticism you might consider constructive or helpful or insightful will not necessarily come under this label.

Or in even shorter terms, CC would be a great idea if most people agreed for sure what it is and that didn't open a can of worms of idiots using this ambiguity as a shield for attacking and harassing others.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Thank you for sharing, but it is more about the practical side rather than the theoretical that I am interested in here. I also benefited from many things in my writing "journey", but I would struggle to call all my breakthroughs due to CC because most of them were given by, like, my boyfriend who wasn't in any way trying to be constructive. He just talked shit and some of it stuck. Other times he was trying to be constructive because someone else doing it impressed him with its "cool factor! I'm a critic now!" and all of it sounded not at all different from the general "talking shit some of which sticks".

Heck, my mom telling me to stop walking around my apartment "thinking deeply and profoundly" about my work but rather "sit down and write it already!" is a CC by that logic. And so is Stephen King's book On Writing. And so is my neighbor talking about how much he hates David Yates' Harry Potter movies because some of what he said could be applied to my writing too.

What I am talking about is that the majority of things and people that helped me in my writing weren't necessarily calling it CC. And the words CC used unironically I usually met only on only three occasions:

1) discussions about the theory like this one where everyone chimes in with their subjective definitions or personal experiences of what it is;

2) the critiquer trying to defend their position by claiming "this is CC" which does not actually give them more points of validity compared to a general opinion that is not claiming this label. (So what is the difference and why group only some opinions under CC as compared to others?) I have not seen an opinion or suggestion from a Reader/critiquer/reviewer benefit or become more useful with the application of this label. If anything, it can go the route of being more polite, but politeness doesn't mean much on the surface if their opinion is offensive on its own;

3) the author either asking for CC-only that again, doesn't specify what he means by that other than "try to be fair to me", or sometimes "try to be nice", or in other times just "say nice things or none". You cannot tell by their general statement which one they mean. For a seasoned writer such as you -- you might always mean only "try to be fair and objective", but a beginner author (and especially the younger one) will usually mean "like it, please" and nothing more. Thus, there is no objective standard even when authors use this label.

(Check out the reception of Hemingway's novel Across the Riven and into the Trees where even his close friends said they warned him the book sucks yet he disagreed, probably believing they didn't "get it". Objectively (to conventional taste) the book sucks, but Hemingway would not consider any of these so-called objective criticisms as Constructive, I can bet).

3,5) the author claiming that some criticism he received was NOT CC. Also not very inspiring as to what is and what isn't CC.

In the end, the label of CC seems to exist separately from what most people perceive as "being CC". Which is my argument in a nutshell. The label is overused by people who won't necessarily give you a CC. The actual criticism you might consider constructive or helpful or insightful will not necessarily come under this label.

Or in even shorter terms, CC would be a great idea if most people agreed for sure what it is and that didn't open a can of worms of idiots using this ambiguity as a shield for attacking and harassing others.

Don't write you to death.

 

[Queenfisher]

Now, I think we all agree that criticism is a form of opinion. The question still left to be answered would be which ones are constructive and what about those that aren't? Now, to me, there are two forms of criticism:

1. Constructive criticism
2. Destructive criticism

Looking at those two next to each other, I guess it should be obvious what the difference is: The latter is used to put the one receiving the critique down. That is probably what you received @Queenfisher if you say people attacked you. Those guys simply threw "constructive" somewhere in there to defend themselves.

Exactly. It's the ease of throwing in the label that bothers me. People who want to help another author will not necessarily use that label, but almost everyone who wants to bully the author will want to use the label as an easy way out to talk shit while pretending to be "objective".

In short, those who insist on using this label toward their own criticisms are likely trying to harass you (they might genuinely believe they are in the right and that the book will improve with their criticism, but they have no control over the author's willingness to accept their position. Bullying them with The Label of Objectivity when no opinion about art has any right to objectivity, to begin with, is the main gist of why the label is redundant at best and actively harmful at worst).

Btw, I love your argument of contradiction. Yes, it does become more obvious when we go into the semantics of the words "constructive" and its natural antonym "destructive". Thank you! I love doing these (as a linguist, of course I do ^^). But then we have to wonder what to do with those that are neither and use the elements of both...

And also with the sure definition of "destructive", too.

As an example:
The statements "Your story is shit." / "I hate harem story." / "This novel is boring." are all destructive criticism. That is because they simply attack the author and/or story. They are biased (but, well, everything is) but even worse, they aren't specific and they don't explain.
The only one that has a slight value would be #3, "This novel is boring", albeit it also fails to explain why the story is perceived as boring. It's something that can be worked with though. Which, btw, is my recommendation if this happens in comments (or sites where you can respond to reviews): If somebody makes a statement like that, ask them why they think so, what made it boring for them, and what would have needed to be different for them to think it wasn't boring. If you stay polite in that, you'd be surprised at the responses you sometimes get. Nobody says that you have to change anything afterward but you might learn something about either the story and/or your readers.

My issue with those and CC is that DC can easily be turned into a faux-CC just by being nicer. For example, "your story is shit" can really be said in a 20k word essay with plenty of allusions and examples and even comparing you to the greatest authors in existence as though favorably. Rhetoric can do wonders even for the most vile arguments in existence.

John Milton was a master of this. He could justify murder on an innocent just like that. Many others did later, too. Heck, Milton justified literal concept of evil being "you know, what if on Tuesdays evil is sad sometimes?" (I am exaggerating, of course, but the point still stands). A good rhetorician can make you agree with black = white, or that sometimes 2+2=5.

How can we separate DC-in-a-sheep's-clothing from a CC in that sense? Er... I am mainly asking for myself as a practical advice. Like I said in one of the earlier posts, I did DC as CC once. Not because I was trolling or bullying but because I genuinely believed my help would improve the author's work. I have a marginal knowledge of how to make DC appear CC (mainly for my villainous characters who have the propensity to claim that "black = white" in my stories ^^. But sometimes I don't notice when I use their methods in my own real life arguments >_<).

So what I want to know is how to absolutely make sure you are not doing a DC under the guise and label of a CC? Just politeness and elaborations won't necessarily cut it because I did hurt people with elaborating of what I felt would help them get better understanding of what I perceive as wrong in their story. They still did not change their mind, even after elaborations they asked for. It was everyone's waste of time.

Now, if the readers take the answers to those questions in consideration from the get-go, #3 could have been constructive criticism. It could be something like this:
"I read X chapters of this story and while I liked the plot overall, everything seemed to be happening reeeeeaaaaaally slowly. The author describes lots of details that weren't really necessary for me to understand what was going on, some things were repeated in, like, at least five of the chapters, and then everything is like being told by somebody else. I just don't feel like I'm actually experiencing this. Sorry."

What's the difference with this take?

• It is made clear that it is a personal opinion (e.g. "I read" and "I liked") - this part is probably the least important in making it constructive but it helps with making even the most defensive author stay calm
• It addresses specific problems the reader had with the story (too many descriptions, repetitions, passive writing style)
  • by doing this it also points out (albeit not explicitly which would be relevant in, let's say, a critique somebody asked for in the forums but not in a review) what could be changed to make the story more attractive for other readers (toning down on descriptions, cutting out at least some of the repetitions or avoiding them altogether, maybe switching to a more active writing style by avoiding passive constructions and swapping verbs)
• Edited in: You also know what's not the problem (you might have thought the reader found the plot boring but now, it's explicitly said that this is not the case)

But how is this different from any general opinion, then? What does CC label add that couldn't be accomplished without it? And btw, yes, this kind of criticism is what we all probably want to see as authors! Yet, alas, depends on the authors. Like I told thedude above, a young author will likely still cry from receiving this type of criticism and be depressed about it afterwards. Might even consider it destructive. While a seasoned and (more cynical) author would just dismiss it as "not everyone will like your writing. Whatever". And there might even be behemoths of book writing and publishing that you can't say anything to because they already achieved everything (and their billions) by writing exactly the opposite of how you propose (or believe) they should write. In a way, your CC would be DC in this sense because they have already proven that their method is better.

-(((.

Now, this doesn't mean that the author would have to change anything. As the author, you can totally say that this is simply not the kind of reader you intended your story for and keep everything as is. But you are also free to check your story, look at the mentioned problems, and then see if you want to adjust somewhere. The decision is with you but the constructive criticism gives the opportunity because it names possible problems.

That's my method of dealing with any opinion about my book, actually. Even my RL friend's "what the hell is this shit???" (lol). Ask for elaboration, ask a guided question, talk some more ^^. But again, the label seems to be divorced from the practice, and people who insist the most on using the label on their criticisms also tend to be the only assholes who need to use the label to be taken seriously in the first place.

Also THANK YOU so much for being thoughtful, kind and positive in your argument!! It is so good and helpful overall, eve if not for this topic then in general. T__T

 

[Queenfisher]

Ok!

Thank you so much for noticing that this discussion can not be entirely pointless or endless semantics *_* fellow sophist! (or philosopher? Same thing sometimes, which I personally do not mind).

But may I answer you later? I cannot answer to so many replies at once (I have work and other RL responsibilities) and I want to give your reply a respectful and in-depth commentary!

Sorry again >_<.

 

[yansusustories]

as a linguist, of course I do ^^

Hahahaha! Just trust these forums to put two linguists together to harp on semantics

But then we have to wonder what to do with those that are neither and use the elements of both...

My take would be: There's pure theory in which there is constructive criticism which is always great and then there's destructive criticism which is bad and nothing else. But it's just a model, after all. In reality, we're unlikely to find something like that which - I believe - might be what you're struggling with here. Sure, we can say on paper what is constructive and what isn't but people will have different perspectives on that depending on - as you just mentioned - their experience, for example. But also just their general likelihood of an emotional reaction to anything happening can play a part. It's just not that easy in real life and, most likely, both the one issuing the criticism, the recipient, and even those bystanders might have a different take on whether something is constructive or destructive.
Truth be told, humans have a bit of trouble not getting emotional when it concerns something they're passionate about and most people are very passionate about their art. So even if you're really, really gentle with phrasing your criticism, there will still be some people feeling hurt about it. The thing is though: They might also look back in a few years and realize it wasn't as bad as they thought it was because perceptions can change over time as well.
Looking at what some of the others wrote (I'm at least skimming everything in here. Unfortunately, I'm super bogged down by work this week so I can't read everything in detail.) this might be where we would take the intent into consideration but even that doesn't (and probably can't) cover the complexity this has in real life.
Which would be what leads me to this:

My issue with those and CC is that DC can easily be turned into a faux-CC just by being nicer. For example, "your story is shit" can really be said in a 20k word essay with plenty of allusions and examples and even comparing you to the greatest authors in existence as though favorably. Rhetoric can do wonders even for the most vile arguments in existence.

I'm not sure if there can be such a thing as a 'faux-CC'. Like, if criticism is an opinion and the constructive or destructive part is determined by intent and/or the way the criticism is delivered, then writing a '20k word essay with plenty of allusions and examples' would make this - imo - into constructive criticism. Like, what is destructive about it? Where would you draw that line? If it is just by the fact that somebody might be offended by it, then I'm afraid everything in the world is destructive criticism because there will always be that one person hurt enough by any kind of negative opinion on their work.
I think that just because somebody has a negative opinion of a story (and, for example, thinks that it's shit), that doesn't mean automatically that the criticism has to be destructive. Not liking something out of whatever reason is not destructive per se. The deliverance is what makes it destructive/constructive in my eyes.

Like, let's look at it this way: My original point was that "Your story is shit" doesn't add anything of value because it lacks the critical info of what about the story is shit in the eyes of the reader. Now, if that is added, then the author does have the opportunity (regardless of how hurt they might be) to look at these things and determine if they want to change something and how. So, to me, it is about giving that opportunity. If that is there, then - to me - it's constructive so the 20k word essay in this example would be constructive as long as it has that and isn't just rambling (because we all know we can say nothing at all in 20k words ). Lacking those things would make it destructive instead.
Edited in: There's also this concept of 'nonviolent communication' that should be taken into consideration here. Like, the deliverance of the opinion does definitely need examples but I guess phrasing might play a part as well. This is also why I would say that not just the intent is important even though it definitely plays a major role. /the end of my edit

So, if you give somebody what you perceive as constructive criticism (edit: with the intent, the necessary examples and the nonviolent form) and they cry, then ... they likely haven't learned to deal with criticism. That's a problem but not on your side but on theirs. Unfortunately, I feel like that is a problem that is getting more prevalent nowadays. (And I sound old now ...)
Seriously though, people don't just magically know how to deal with criticism. That is a skill that needs to be learned as well. You bet I was devastated when I got my first bad reviews and 'mean' comments. Looking back now ... Yeah, sheesh, I was just young and didn't know shit. By now, I'm mostly able to shrug it off. But that is on me, not on the person giving the criticism.

But how is this different from any general opinion, then? What does CC label add that couldn't be accomplished without it?

I'm sorry to say this but: Nothing I don't think 'constructive criticism' was ever intended for a general audience when someone came up with it. I didn't look at the history of the term (one of us should do that I think ...) but I could imagine it might have been used in the context of - for example - teaching, coaching, or anywhere else really where feedback needed to be given.
The problem is that the idea trickled down to everybody else and now you have a meaningless buzzword that people throw around. I won't draw a comparison here because that'd just be opening another can of worms but just look at political discourse or reddit discussions about relationships or that kind of thing. You'll see lots of terms bend so far out of shape that you can't even recognize them anymore. People think they know what the terms mean but half of them don't, half of them do but don't care and then there's the small rest who does it right (and those who don't care).
In general: IMO constructive criticism is used to give an opinion and it is a necessary term in certain contexts (like, if you discuss the giving of feedback) but in most cases outside of that, it frankly isn't needed as a term and just having an opinion would be enough indeed.

Example here: I was teaching at university for a few years. You bet we discussed how to give feedback to our students without utterly destroying them. Were some of them still totally incensed when they got it regardless of how gentle you told them? For sure. Here, we just get back to 'humans are emotional especially when they're passionate about something'. So yeah, nobody really wanted to hear how I justified their bad grades and were more interested in finding a loophole and arguing with me.
IMO, it's the same with authors just that the thing they are arguing for is less tangible. (Mostly their ego.) They will be hurt and try to fight against whatever you say because they feel attacked because to a lot of them (especially the young ones or first-time authors) those stories are a part of them that they can't separate themselves from. 'Attacking' the story is attacking them. Saying the story is shit is saying that they are a hopeless, shitty author who will never amount to anything. And that's harsh especially if they still have those grand dreams of becoming a full-time author later in life and winning the novel prize ... or something like that.
Which is - once again - just the matter of learning to take criticism. Sometime down the line, they'll likely learn that no, they are not their story, everybody has different opinions, and nobody is actually attacking them when they're given actual, valid, constructive criticism. They'll learn to see the difference.

 

[Discount_Blade]

A lot of you people should've been politicians. You're all saying more or less the same damn thing in different ways and basically verbally sparring in trying to be the most elegant to say a whole bunch of nothing. I say a bunch of nothing because nothing about this thread has changed since it's inception. Seriously, a political science major is calling you guys. Answer it.

 

[yansusustories]

A lot of you people should've been politicians. You're all saying more or less the same damn thing in different ways and basically verbally sparring in trying to be the most elegant to say a whole bunch of nothing. I say a bunch of nothing because nothing about this thread has changed since it's inception. Seriously, a political science major is calling you guys. Answer it.

Haha, I think the main problem might be that this thread seems to consist of several discussions between two or three people at once instead of just one discussion between everyone as it would normally be. And with the posts getting so long, it's even harder to keep an overview on what's been said.

 

[thedude3445]

Thank you for sharing, but it is more about the practical side rather than the theoretical that I am interested in here.

I think arguing about the theoretical aspects of criticism will turn, and kind of already have turned, this thread into an endless loop of debating definitions and semantics, because the term "constructive criticism" doesn't have one set definition or anything like that. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the definitions of some really stupid stuff and that's probably the furthest you can go when it comes to definitions that can't be debated. But then in real life you get stuff like, Bill Clinton getting into a perjury fight over what the word "sex" means, or even worse, what the word "is" is. Those are pretty concrete things, but "constructive" and "criticism" are both so subjective of terms that I fear there will never be a consensus reached in this thread.