Constructive Criticism Does Not Exist

[Queenfisher]

I was just lurking around all the threads about misunderstandings, reading outside one's interest, opinions, etc, and realized that I always had this problem with writing and reading in writer groups.

The notion of Constructive Criticism. By this, I don't mean punctuation and grammar. And I don't mean obvious plot holes either that are fixable/dismissible based on how much of the story they break or improve by existing. Neither of these is something that gets justified as being Constructive Criticism (tm) -- so I only mean here the vaguer, much less objective perceptions of what is solid criticism and what isn't.


Please ask yourself if you should comment in this thread if:

1) you ONLY think this is a rant or that it is a rant fueled by my personal issues with someone who I disagreed with (false. I am a researcher first and foremost. I have a curious mind. I like expanding my knowledge with Good Faith arguments);

2) you do not know what Good Faith argument is;

3) you do not know what a philosophical essay is and how to struggle with definitions of concepts that are loose and vague and fall apart when the conventional beliefs are introduced in the equation and when trolls can abuse such muddy concepts for their benefit;

4) you think I want this to be /changemyview. No. I want to refine my arguments and gain insight on how to approach formulating my thoughts in a more accessible manner if I want to actually publish a real essay on the same topic one day;

5) you think that I argue against opinions. I am not. I argue against the need to give weird and pretentious names to ordinary opinions for no reason -- which the moniker "Constructive Criticism" is, to my perception.



#


This concept can excuse almost everything that can be labeled as negative criticism, the definition only depending on who uses it.

If it's Critiquer ---> Author , then he can excuse with it any offense he might give to the latter. For example, not liking a certain genre or even understanding how it works might give a particular reader a leeway to say literally any crap about it. Escapist wish-fulfillment would be the most famous example where most people who criticize it for stupidity and cliches, don't read for the same reason its intended audience reads it. Therefore, their CC is not that Constructive. Say, if I criticized Vanilla Ice Cream for it not being Chocolate-flavored, that would not be CC. I would only be trying to make it something it isn't, no matter how bland or tasteless I might find it.

If this concept is flung around by the author, Author ---> Critiquer (where the author claims something is NOT CC) -- it's a way for him to dismiss any feedback he doesn't agree with.

In my personal experience -- NO criticism that I've received in my entire life has ever been Constructive by this logic:

If you agree with it, then it isn't that Constructive to you because you would have fixed it anyway. If you disagree with it, no amount of persuasion, coercion and calls to reason from your Constructive Critiquer will budge your opinion or make you change your story. Thus, neither is truly Constructive. The only thing the latter will do to you is ruin your mood without changing anything. The former one might help but is not necessary -- you already know if something is wrong by yourself.

#

Example:

a) usually, I get the best critiques when I ask for something specific. If I feel there is something missing or something wrong with my book and I ask someone's opinion (in a Yes/No format) -- then it is not CC. It's useful to me, but literally it's either confirming or dispelling the doubts I already have;

b) if the CCquer gets something wrong about my book that will potentially improve it, yet I fundamentally disagree -- he will not be able to convince me whatever he says. Unless a significant amount of time passes and I naturally come to the same conclusions on a separate occasion. I don't know how this works exactly but not once did a CC change my opinion. My opinion changed from being exposed to positive examples encountered "in the wilds" rather than from this one instance of targeted negative CC. When I came back to the book that had received this kind of negative CC, I already became the person from the above point (a). Where I see something wrong with my book and want to fix it -- not somebody else. Reading a CC in that way will only confirm or dispel the doubts I already have. But before I have the chance to grow or change my perspective, all this CC is doing is depressing me, stopping me from writing, and antagonizing me. Nothing more.

(Also the huge factor in this is the storytelling approach. I have not seen truly bad approaches to storytelling in fiction. Only different traditions that each necessitate an acquired taste. So whenever I think back to CCs I have received in the past that I have later grown to agree with, they had always been pushing me to move from a niche-tradition of storytelling to a mainstream one. That's basically it. So I can't really say it is an improvement as much as it is conforming to a more accessible taste).

c) as an author, when you receive a "CC" that you disagree with heavily -- all you can do is think about how this person wants you to write something you are NOT writing and something you might not even enjoy writing. In which case you just get annoyed at them because most "CC" advice is about how this specific reader's taste differs from yours and what you can do to alleviate that. Even when they are trying their damnedest to convince you -- they can't. You can almost always use the mental shield of "do they not get what I'm trying to do here? Did they not give my story the good faith of trying to understand it instead of twisting it into something it's not? Well, then how can they expect me to give their "CC" the good faith treatment in return? I might just dismiss their CC as they had done to my book."


#


It certainly takes time and patience to learn from CC. But all I'm usually learning from them is to dismiss them in order to be the bigger person out of the two of us (an author who is thankful for any feedback vs the Reader who has no idea what he is reading and why and wants to make you write differently... just because). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have never seen truly good advice come from them that I couldn't acquire elsewhere and in a much more natural and receptive state.

Which, to tl;dr people out here:

All "Constructive Criticisms" I have personally encountered have been ego-trips for the Critiquer to attack me with. And the ones I've given out to fellow writers, too. There is simply no way to make a CC that doesn't fall into the [Author already agrees with you and would change the story regardless of your critique ==> the Critique is not Constructive] or [Author disagrees with you and will not change their opinion. You can do nothing about it].

Thus, Constructive Criticisms don't exist.

Then again, that's just me. Can any of you define CC in a way that wouldn't fall into the two modes described above?

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.

 

[BenJepheneT]

If only there were someone in this world to tell you that criticism is a form of opinion and that one can either be persuaded to agree or disagree, it would've saved you a Hella lot time typing this out.

 

[Queenfisher]

Read the title again.

This is not about criticism. This is about the people defending their opinions and arbitrary criticisms with "This is Constructive Criticism! (tm)". I am only trying to give a refutation to such claims, not dispel the existence of opinions as is. (Opinions always existed and always will. The popular and unnecessary defense of CC, however, did not).

Oh, and this is somewhat ironic for the OP itself because you tried to make my argument something it is not when it is exactly what I said typical CC is ^^. (I guess outside of writing critique, it can also be called an allegorical Strawman -- but I wonder if you put Strawman in such bizarre metaphors, it stops making sense... ).

Also... seriously? On a site for people who type too much -- you wonder about me typing too much? ✍

 

[ShrimpShady]

i dunno what you're expecting out of criticism.

do you want them to reveal the eldritch truths? but it seems like you wouldn't need said knowledge as it appears you magically know every single thing worth criticizing about your writing, which is strange because if you knew, why would those elements be there in the first place? idk.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

The irony is that as much as I read here about the true spirit criticism and etc. , so far I have encountered few criticisms directed at me during my modest writing career. Just some people complaining I am too verbose, but otherwise ...

In general, we seem to suffer from a lack of feedback rather than bad feedback.

 

[Discount_Blade]

If only there were someone in this world to tell you that criticism is a form of opinion and that one can either be persuaded to agree or disagree, it would've saved you a Hella lot time typing this out.

This. I was literally about to type this very thing out and then I saw you already did the leg work for me. Cheers. You win the internet for the day.

Also, currently my biggest issue is several readers have pm'd me saying I'm not revealing the world quickly enough. They say its good that I'm not info-dumping, but I'm still stagnating on how much i reveal what the world, when I reveal it, and how often at any given time I reveal it. I disagree. You either reveal bit by bit, or you info-dump the hell out of it. That's it. If there are other ways to do it, then tell me, otherwise what do you want from me?

Current examples of criticism I've received lately. Not to say that its inherently incorrect, but I am saying I will not be able to satisfy this requirement that these select few seem to prefer.

 

[Queenfisher]

This. I was literally about to type this very thing out and then I saw you already did the leg work for me. Cheers. You win the internet for the day.

Also, currently my biggest issue is several readers have pm'd me saying I'm not revealing the world quickly enough. They say its good that I'm not info-dumping, but I'm still stagnating on how much i reveal what the world, when I reveal it, and how often at any given time I reveal it. I disagree. You either reveal bit by bit, or you info-dump the hell out of it. That's it. If there are other ways to do it, then tell me, otherwise what do you want from me?

Current examples of criticism I've received lately. Not to say that its inherently incorrect, but I am saying I will not be able to satisfy this requirement that these select few seem to prefer.

Hmmm. I feel like the point of my Ted Talk seems to promote Strawman's arguments rather than be able to stand on its own as a thesis. Do not take my reply to you the wrong way (I'm not dismissing you, just curious as to why you believe I was talking about opinions rather than a very specific, nearly professional subset of them? I explained the concept I was discussing in the OP).

Anyway, the "Constructive" in Criticism likely means when the person critiquing your writing perceives there to be an Objective solution to the issues you are having, right? And that they believe they are perfectly aware of what these objective issues are. Otherwise it's just opinion or criticism that doesn't require more from the author as well -- a point that both you and BenJephenet made.

(It's lucky that I never made an argument you or he are accusing me of. Just to clarify this).

Or am I missing the "Constructive" in this description? If it's just a criticism or opinion, like I said -- then of course there is no point in taking it seriously.

Think of it this way: Constructive would imply it's given with the weight of it being Professional, Specialized, or judged more respectable. And unless I am paying someone (editor/my agent) for that specific purpose where even them attacking me (or being very negative in their feedback) is not out of limits -- what the majority of strangers who offer you the so-called Constructive Criticism imply is that they want you to take their criticism much more seriously than just an opinion.

Therefore, it is not treated as just an opinion. It is something above that. And in my interaction with other writers (writer groups) -- it was never used to improve my writing but rather to learn to appease specific people, and little else. In the end, what people call a CC tends to be _just another way for people to opine_ and nothing else. My essay here is a way to combat what I perceive as misadvertisement or at least a very vague and muddled definition.

Words mean things. Why call it what we think it isn't? Why have a separate title for something that's just another synonym for a discardable and subjective opinion?

---------------
Tl'dr:

If it's called opinion = I don't argue and I believe nobody would argue with it.

If it's called Constructive Criticism = people need to be held up to some kind of a standard of what it is because it stops being a vague and abstracted and subjective opinion and implies something beyond that. But because there are no such standards, the words "Constructive Criticism" are usually used to bully people with the same old subjective opinions but with the supposed more... flair? respect? Dunno.

The OP is actually a logical refutation of the concept rather than attack on Opinions as they are. Hopefully this makes it clearer?
----------------

As by Wittgenstein, I just dislike the lack of clarity to this concept and that the definition is abused left and right, that's all. I am a bit autistic, so when people around me use concepts I am unsure the meaning of, I get cranky, especially if it becomes apparent they are simply using the ambiguity for... nefarious purposes, I guess.

Plus, after spending a lot of time in writer groups that did it to each other, I just wanted to have a thread that refutes this practice (and as a way of apology to my writer friends I did this to because "everybody did it, why shouldn't I?". I now know it was a complete moot point and is not much different from just opining in general).



p.s. Oh, and please do not worry about me typing so much! It's nice of you but I'm fine as long as I can discuss stuff I care about.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Hmmm. I feel like the point of my Ted Talk seems to promote Strawman's arguments rather than be able to stand on its own as a thesis. Do not take my reply to you the wrong way (I'm not dismissing you, just curious as to why you believe I was talking about opinions rather than a very specific, nearly professional subset of them? I explained the concept I was discussing in the OP).

Anyway, the "Constructive" in Criticism likely means when the person critiquing your writing perceives there to be an Objective solution to the issues you are having, right? And that they believe they are perfectly aware of what these objective issues are. Otherwise it's just opinion or criticism that doesn't require more from the author as well -- a point that both you and BenJephenet made.

(It's lucky that I never made an argument you or he are accusing me of. Just to clarify this).

Or am I missing the "Constructive" in this description? If it's just a criticism or opinion, like I said -- then of course there is no point in taking it seriously.

Think of it this way: Constructive would imply it's given with the weight of it being Professional, Specialized, or judged more respectable. And unless I am paying someone (editor/my agent) for that specific purpose where even them attacking me (or being very negative in their feedback) is not out of limits -- what the majority of strangers who offer you the so-called Constructive Criticism imply is that they want you to take their criticism much more seriously than just an opinion.

Therefore, it is not treated as just an opinion. It is something above that. And in my interaction with other writers (writer groups) -- it was never used to improve my writing but rather to learn to appease specific people, and little else. In the end, what people call a CC tends to be _just another way for people to opine_ and nothing else. My essay here is a way to combat what I perceive as misadvertisement or at least a very vague and muddled definition.

Words mean things. Why call it what we think it isn't? Why have a separate title for something that's just another synonym for a discardable and subjective opinion?

---------------
Tl'dr:

If it's called opinion = I don't argue and I believe nobody would argue with it.

If it's called Constructive Criticism = people need to be held up to some kind of a standard of what it is because it stops being a vague and abstracted and subjective opinion and implies something beyond that. But because there are no such standards, the words "Constructive Criticism" are usually used to bully people with the same old subjective opinions but with the supposed more... flair? respect? Dunno.

The OP is actually a logical refutation of the concept rather than attack on Opinions as they are. Hopefully this makes it clearer?
----------------

As by Wittgenstein, I just dislike the lack of clarity to this concept and that the definition is abused left and right, that's all. I am a bit autistic, so when people around me use concepts I am unsure the meaning of, I get cranky, especially if it becomes apparent they are simply using the ambiguity for... nefarious purposes, I guess.

Plus, after spending a lot of time in writer groups that did it to each other, I just wanted to have a thread that refutes this practice (and as a way of apology to my writer friends I did this to because "everybody did it, why shouldn't I?". I now know it was a complete moot point and is not much different from just opining in general).



p.s. Oh, and please do not worry about me typing so much! It's nice of you but I'm fine as long as I can discuss stuff I care about.

If you want I can try to give you constructive criticism. I will try my best to limit myself to technical aspects.

 

[BenJepheneT]

Think of it this way: Constructive would imply it's given with the weight of it being Professional, Specialized, or judged more respectable. And unless I am paying someone (editor/my agent) for that specific purpose where even them attacking me (or being very negative in their feedback) is not out of limits -- what the majority of strangers who offer you the so-called Constructive Criticism imply is that they want you to take their criticism much more seriously than just an opinion.

Therefore, it is not treated as just an opinion. It is something above that. And in my interaction with other writers (writer groups) -- it was never used to improve my writing but rather to learn to appease specific people, and little else. In the end, what people call a CC tends to be _just another way for people to opine_ and nothing else. My essay here is a way to combat what I perceive as misadvertisement or at least a very vague and muddled definition

Alright I see the problem

this thing people keep using to improve themselves doesn't work on me at all, so it doesn't exist

Sour grapes much, my guy?

Let me sharpen the definition of this Constructive Criticism you like muddling about so much. Let's take Constructive first. It's something that's intended to be taken with a beneficial intent or purpose. So stuff like people complaining about power fantasy in a power fantasy novel doesn't count, but people complaining about info dumps or overreliance of POV switches that otherwise dampens the pacing and reaching experience are one of those.

I don't get your previous logic of "if it helps, it doesn't because I would've changed it myself/if it doesn't help, it only ruins my mood". I've received criticism that helped me see my story from a different perspective I've otherwise never have gotten, and also criticism I deflected because I truly believe it reflects my writing style, and so on. All of these are Constructive; A.K.A - Beneficial.

And now onto the Criticism part.

I will repeat myself again.

Criticism is a part of an opinion. It's someone's opinion on your work of art and voicing their displeasure around certain angles that they feel that, if changed, would elevate the reading experience.

The problem here lies in you thinking CC should be this big black-and-white objective critique spewed out by a perfectly calculated machine when in reality, if anything were to be judged by that, we'd just be writing the same thing over and over again for the rest of history.

CC is a disapproving opinion given by people to improve your work. Some aren't pretty, and some are godsend. They're not meticulously calculated to be as beneficial as possible, but damn are they still helpful.

Just because your high and mighty Majesty didn't agree with all of the CCs you've received in your life, doesn't mean they aren't any less of what they are. You just sound like some trumped-up version of Gordon Ramsay going sitting in McDonald's and calling everything in the menu "not burgers". Sure, they don't fit your holy palette, but that's what they are on the fundamental level.

What you need isn't a change of the term but to look past your giant ego and admit you're the same as the rest of us: people with different perspectives in what makes a good book. Stop looking at everything in such a heavy black-and-white tone and thinking everything should be as white as you deem it to be. The world is much more grey than you think. Not everything is as objective as it gets. Your opinion isn't higher than anyone else as to denounce an accepted term just because you've never received either side of what the term entails.

You're just another fox in the grape vineyard but it's not that you can't reach it, but that you've judged the whole vineyard on the dry, tiny, shrivelled morsels you've tasted that dropped on the ground from the fresh pickings above.

 

[Queenfisher]

i dunno what you're expecting out of criticism.

do you want them to reveal the eldritch truths? idk.

Mmm? I don't. That's the entire point. See this thread, for example: https://forum.scribblehub.com/threads/your-first-novel-should-suck.1531/

It is an explanation of why NO feedback truly works on both the side of the critiquer and the side of the writer. Also check this manual out -- it has other chapters in it as well and they are very comprehensive about this topic.

Who said anything about eldritch truths? No. I just said that for me personally no advice had really been that helpful. Maybe my previous critiquing partners who engaged in so-called Constructive Criticism weren't that good (as critiquers, of course. They are great writers), I don't know. But if you noticed, I didn't say Criticism.

I said "Constructive" Criticism. You have no idea how much crap I've received from others (strangers included) by the guise of "Constructive" Criticism. And when I told them nicely to stop harassing me, they would accuse me of not caring about the quality of my work. The thing is -- this word 'Constructive" seems to be used as a means to put people down. Maybe those who use it in such ways feel more professional? And therefore try to go the J.K.Simmons in Whiplash route of browbeating everyone around them with "Truths about Writing"? I don't know. My experience was that these people did not know or understand writing any better than I did (or still do, and I continuously repeat that I am only learning however much time passes). Yet driven by the desire to prove that they are smarter and they definitely know what is wrong with every book ever -- these people just straight out bully others and then refuse to take a "Please leave me alone" for an answer because "Then you are not serious about writing! You cannot even take Constructive Criticism!"

In the end, yes, they are only giving the general "opinionated critique" where they don't necessarily know what's wrong any better than a random stranger on the street does. My issue in the OP is with the concept of such IDEAL Criticism existing where most people engaged in writer groups with Constructive Criticism goals pursue finding that Ideal method of critiquing rather than genuinely trying to help.

(Um... for a very tasteless metaphor: they are Masturbatory Critics rather than real advice givers. And there are so MANY of them out there +_+).

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

Tl;dr -- When someone tells you "but this is Constructive Criticism!", chances are, they are driven by their own ego and desire to be proven right (or just accepted as right) rather than to help you write better.

And as is stands for every other of my posts in this thread. Again -- I do not mean general opinion or general critique. I mean the Concept with this vague and ambiguous definition -- "Constructive Criticism" in the title, and only it.

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

but it seems like you wouldn't need said knowledge as it appears you magically know every single thing worth criticizing about your writing, which is strange because if you knew, why would those elements be there in the first place?

Please do not get "magical" with me . We are not that well acquainted to go there yet.

I accept your counterargument, though. Because it is the most logical and actually to the point counter that's in here and doesn't Strawman for no reason. Thanks!

I do need knowledge, but critiques are not the best (or at least, the most efficient) method of delivering it. Consult the first thread I linked to in this very post. What it says is that no amount of other people telling you what's wrong can compare to even the smallest of researches and advances you make naturally, by yourself. So if those people truly care about you and your writing, they would use their critiquing resources on actually helping you get there by yourself rather than trying to impress you with how smart they are.

So, for me -- the best type of critique is a non-targeted one but one that directs me to materials to self-discover and self-improve. The best I've found myself is to read 1 and 2-star Reviews on goodreads and amazon for books in the same genres as the ones I write. Thus, I don't get antagonistic or unreceptive to even the most aggressive attacks, and I can filter through all that toxicity to something I might potentially use or learn from. I rarely do, though (because almost every single bad review on those sites can be refuted with "Have you actually read the book you are critiquing? Dude, your arguments against it are weak as hell") but nonetheless, it's a great way to tweak your perception of mainstream audience and its tastes, which, as I said above -- I do value. But I also believe it's only the question of exposure, habit, and training yourself to appease and appeal to a very specific set of people -- not necessarily improvement of writing in general.

(Don't even get me started on writing short stories for specific magazines by studying what stories they usually publish there and essentially just copying their voice, style, composition and sometimes even themes. Magazine publishing business is not about Improving anyone's Writing, or good writing per se. It's all about "do exactly what they tell you. Here's by-the-numbers manual if you can't do it naturally").

Another good way to critique is when the critiquer has actively done everything in their power to understand what you are writing, why, and what it is meant to do or say in the end. Whenever I critique, I try to go this route. *Try -- is the main word here). The issue, though -- is that when you actually manage to do that -- the majority of issues to critique about disappear by themselves.

This might need a bigger explanation. Let's look at an example most people know: Fifty Shades of Grey. It seems easy to suggest corrections to that book but the moment you try to assess what it wants to say, do, and achieve, you realize you can't actually even add much against it. Especially when you couple it with its intended audience in mind. I might believe the book would be improved with a tighter or more sophisticated style or a more profound exploration of themes, but really -- there IS nothing wrong with that book when you take into account everything the author is trying to say with it. Constructive Criticism of it would be futile because it will always lean toward the biases of the Critiquer rather than trying to understand and solidify the biases of its author. But once you do that, your "Constructive Critique" evaporates -- at least in my experience.

#

Of course I am still learning to write! No, I don't "magically" know every issue I have with the book I create. Here is why I said in the OP that critiques I find most helpful are the ones I personally and voluntarily ask for. Usually done by "Yes/No" questions because it minimizes the bias errors of specific readers and only focuses on making my original points clearer and better.

What I do dislike -- is the words "Constructive" abused by non-professionals who simply like the feeling of superiority over another person without anything to prove that with. Check out how many of the negative reviews of RR, for example, are given under the guise "But this is Constructive! A true author wouldn't mind Constructive Criticism! So you must be only a wannabe."

So how is that at all relevant to the critiques that don't abuse this method? I wasn't even talking about them, honestly...

Hope this clarifies my point a bit, and also thanks for engaging with my actual argument instead of dismissing it ^^. I am not here to stir trouble, only to talk about stuff I genuinely find fascinating -- pseudo-philosophizing about the meta of creativity and its execution "in the wilds". So if you have other counters for me, please share! I can eat them and grow in my argumentation skills (or the lack of them +_+, I guess).

 

[Discount_Blade]

So......who wants to drink margarita's and get fucked up?

 

[Queenfisher]

Alright I see the problem

this thing people keep using to improve themselves doesn't work on me at all, so it doesn't exist

Sour grapes much, my guy?

Let me sharpen the definition of this Constructive Criticism you like muddling about so much. Let's take Constructive first. It's something that's intended to be taken with a beneficial intent or purpose. So stuff like people complaining about power fantasy in a power fantasy novel doesn't count, but people complaining about info dumps or overreliance of POV switches that otherwise dampens the pacing and reaching experience are one of those.

I don't get your previous logic of "if it helps, it doesn't because I would've changed it myself/if it doesn't help, it only ruins my mood". I've received criticism that helped me see my story from a different perspective I've otherwise never have gotten, and also criticism I deflected because I truly believe it reflects my writing style, and so on. All of these are Constructive; A.K.A - Beneficial.

And now onto the Criticism part.

I will repeat myself again.

Criticism is a part of an opinion. It's someone's opinion on your work of art and voicing their displeasure around certain angles that they feel that, if changed, would elevate the reading experience.

The problem here lies in you thinking CC should be this big black-and-white objective critique spewed out by a perfectly calculated machine when in reality, if anything were to be judged by that, we'd just be writing the same thing over and over again for the rest of history.

CC is a disapproving opinion given by people to improve your work. Some aren't pretty, and some are godsend. They're not meticulously calculated to be as beneficial as possible, but damn are they still helpful.

Just because your high and mighty Majesty didn't agree with all of the CCs you've received in your life, doesn't mean they aren't any less of what they are. You just sound like some trumped-up version of Gordon Ramsay going sitting in McDonald's and calling everything in the menu "not burgers". Sure, they don't fit your holy palette, but that's what they are on the fundamental level.

What you need isn't a change of the term but to look past your giant ego and admit you're the same as the rest of us: people with different perspectives in what makes a good book. Stop looking at everything in such a heavy black-and-white tone and thinking everything should be as white as you deem it to be. The world is much more grey than you think. Not everything is as objective as it gets. Your opinion isn't higher than anyone else as to denounce an accepted term just because you've never received either side of what the term entails.

You're just another fox in the grape vineyard but it's not that you can't reach it, but that you've judged the whole vineyard on the dry, tiny, shrivelled morsels you've tasted that dropped on the ground from the fresh pickings above.

B-but I wasn't even arguing against opinions? Have you not read my OP again?

Also -- second strike, seriously. Now it's Ad Hominem? For a debater who tells me to start seeing the points of views of other people better you are not displaying the same capacity thus far. Where have I said that I want some Super Objective and Truthful Criticism? I instead am trying to dispel that such a concept exists in the first place... you are losing me, dear person.

So though I do not engage with Ad Hominems generally, I will in this case because it's also an interesting point to look into:

That you think I wrote this because I received a critique I disagreed with. What gave you such a perception of me? It's actually the other way around, ashamed as I am at saying this. I have been in a toxic critiquing environment that praised JK Simmons-Whiplash take downs of people around and... well, I actually believe this is how it's supposed to be done back then. So I did it to others, too.

(OH, but Gordon Ramsay comparison also works! Thanks! Let me rephrase my OP in this way -- Gordon Ramsays critiquing people's writings like they're the best chef in the world deserve this to be done to them --

. Jump to 3:00 for the specific moment).

Ad Hominem-wise and my experience with CCs is this: Overall, I have received terrible critiques in the past, yes, and sometimes I cried from them because they were genuinely not about my stories but someone else's idea of my stories that they wanted me to change for them to consider it better. It's unfair but you learn to accept the fact that other people will not necessarily care about anything other than themselves. They might not even give you the good faith in not dismissing you and your story outright. The skill to learn here is to recognize such people quicker so that you can dismiss them without too much waste of your time.

But back then, I actually have never received Constructives about pacing or POVs or style (Voice -- I have received critiques about. I have been called "immature" in them, and I don't even view that as a negative crit), odd as it may seem to you. I dunno why. Maybe those people weren't interested in these specific aspects of writing... Most of my negative crits came from people who misunderstood the point of my short stories. As in literally the main theme or the ending didn't connect with them and they tried to prove to me that their view of it was objectively better. Back then, I would have died for a crit about my world-building or pacing but no such luck (and those rare ones I did receive I always accepted gladly. I just didn't see them as Constructive because I already knew where the issue lay and only needed someone else's confirmation that I am not crazy). Do you think I came from this too salty or sour grapes to allow ALL criticism to exist? No, just a personal experience with fellow writers/teachers/critiquers who are too selfish to care about your writing rather than about showing off how smart they are.

So please tell me in which way do you believe am I claiming that all criticism is wrong? Or, to quote you from earlier, that all opinions are wrong? I am a bit tired of repeating myself, but I never claimed that.

So why would you believe I was painting everything with black and white if what I am trying to do is the direct opposite?

TT____TT


#

What I do feel I should thank you for is your review of my (a) argument, yes. Finally, you are engaging with my actual arguments instead of Strawmanning me or Ad Hominem-ing me. Thank you. Right now, this argument is still a bit wonky, alas (And taps a bit too much in the psychology of how arguments work and how people tend to behave in general opinion sharing. We respond positively only the the stuff we already agree with even if we don't realize we do. So I used this concept for my (a) argument. But I suppose it might need some tweaking to get clearer or simply better. If you would help, I wouldn't mind it!)

Essentially, I was only saying that for the writer -- there aren't many real opportunities to see a CC unless they already agree with it. Thus -- yes, I considered that it doesn't exist. I'm unsure if it still does after your "beneficial" argument -- because, as my OP point stands -- the Critiquer doesn't control whether the Critique is or is not Constructive (or beneficial). The author who's being criticized does.

And from the POV of this author, a crit he already agrees with cannot be constructive because it only affirms or denies his doubts. A crit that the author disagrees with will generally just be any arbitrary opinion that's easy to dismiss.

Thus -- Constructive can only be called such by the author. Yet in the majority of cases I have seen it done to me (or even by me), the Constructive part was claimed by the Critiquer instead. Which made me believe it is some kind of a scam rather than a real thing.

This is only my application of psychological concepts for my argument making. I do agree that it needs heavy refinement to be accessible. And hey -- I'm trying! But at least I manage to stay on topic mostly.

#

Regarding " this thing people keep using to improve themselves doesn't work on me at all, so it doesn't exist " --

It depends on which people keep using it and why.

This argument is very nice (I like it, really) but it can go the way of "This weird civilization people's god that "answers" these people's prayers and makes them feel better about themselves through placebo effect doesn't help me because I know of the concept of placebo. But that god still doesn't exist" might be somewhat of the same variety...

So is The Emperor's New Dress. Even if all thousand of people claim to see it, it is perfectly fine to question its existence for the person who genuinely can't see it. Otherwise, how would we improve as a society if we took on blind faith everything that happens without delving into why it happens and how it works? Just because a hundred prairie dogs jumped off a cliff, should I? and NO -- before you hop onto this comparison, I do not compare anyone who likes CC to prairie dogs or to religious zealots. I am only saying that there can be use in questioning concepts that seem to be helpful to others by trying to understand what are the mechanisms that make them work on the most fundamental levels rather than to blindly accept the typical placebo effect as a prayer answered by God.

Tl;dr: For my (a) argument, CC works in the writer's POV because of the psychological roots of how people argue and how they share opinions with each other (in general, it's "agree with what you already agree with"). But CC doesn't necessarily exist beyond that -- especially in the mind of the Critiquer no matter how well-meaning they might be. After all, they are not the final arbiter of what Constructive is.



And lastly -- DRUMROLL -- in my OP, I asked for people's views of my arguments and how they can/might be refined. Not to attack me. Not to dismiss me. Not to make fun of me. But only if they believed they didn't make sense or if they did. I'm unsure how debates work in this forum but what is wrong with asking to think together?

 

[Queenfisher]

So......who wants to drink margarita's and get fucked up?

... Only if they're Virgin...

Man, these people. First they poke your arguments from weird sides, now they are trying to get you drunk. Please return to the topic because I am interested in what you have to say about it. Unless it's going to be an Ad Hominem or something like that, in which case -- no thanks +_+.

But if you mean that we can drink Bruderschaft-style, then I wouldn't mind. I heard it can help discussions progress. Placebo-like ^^.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

... Only if they're Virgin...

Man, these people. First they poke your arguments from weird sides, now they are trying to get you drunk. Please return to the topic because I am interested in what you have to say about it. Unless it's going to be an Ad Hominem or something like that, in which case -- no thanks +_+.

But if you mean that we can drink Bruderschaft-style, then I wouldn't mind. I heard it can help discussions progress. Placebo-like ^^.

What is Bruderschaft style? Gaudeamus igitur? Iuvenes dum sumus?

 

[Queenfisher]

What is Bruderschaft style? Gaudeamus igitur? Iuvenes dum sumus?

*_* Post iucundam iuventutem!

Nah. It's a Russian adoption of a German concept. In my country (meant to be said with a very rrrhotic r, of course), when we argue with others in the kitchen*, we drink Bruderschaft to move past the first awkwardness of the argument being such that people would rather cling to their views than try and appreciate the other's argument for what it is. Appreciate as in "this argument is dumb but goddamn, I am amused and want to try and dig deeper in it with you. Just because I respect you, Brotha! Let's drink Brudershaft". Even Devil's Advocates can advance past the initial rejection. Because arguments on bizarre topics are cool. No other reason needed.

Brudershaft looks like this: you hold a glass with vodka in your right hand. I loop my right hand through yours and hold my vodka glass in it. Then, linked in such a brotherly way, we drink. Three kisses afterwards are optional but usually everyone does it anyway >_<.

(One on each cheek and one on the lips. After this, we are now Brothers! Congrats).


-* Arguing on the kitchen is what inteligentsia is said to be doing all the time. It's because in Soviet Russia, the kitchen was a public forum for several families living in one apartment. So it did get treated as a sort of a debate central for all those drunk pseudo-philosophers of the era.

 

[Ral]

Okay. Here is what Wikipidia says to this:

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.

I pretty much agree to this.

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.

In my personal experience -- NO criticism that I've received in my entire life has ever been Constructive by this logic:

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

If you agree with it, then it isn't that Constructive to you because you would have fixed it anyway.

Then why is it there?

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

If you disagree with it, no amount of persuasion, coercion and calls to reason from your Constructive Critiquer will budge your opinion or make you change your story. Thus, neither is truly Constructive. The only thing the latter will do to you is ruin your mood without changing anything. The former one might help but is not necessary -- you already know if something is wrong by yourself.

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.

If it's Critiquer ---> Author , then he can excuse with it any offense he might give to the latter.

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.

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.

If this concept is flung around by the author, Author ---> Critiquer (where the author claims something is NOT CC) -- it's a way for him to dismiss any feedback he doesn't agree with.

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.

usually, I get the best critiques when I ask for something specific. If I feel there is something missing or something wrong with my book and I ask someone's opinion (in a Yes/No format) -- then it is not CC.

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

if the CCquer gets something wrong about my book that will potentially improve it, yet I fundamentally disagree -- he will not be able to convince me whatever he says.

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.

as an author, when you receive a "CC" that you disagree with heavily -- all you can do is think about how this person wants you to write something you are NOT writing and something you might not even enjoy writing.

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.

 

[GDLiZy]

So what's the point of this thread?

 

[OliviaMyriad]

I was reading the thread, and then halfway through Ben starts lacing insults into his replies and then the whole thing turns degenerate. Thankfully, Ral saved the thread.

 

[Ace_Arriande]

If you agree with it, then it isn't that Constructive to you because you would have fixed it anyway.

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 you disagree with it, no amount of persuasion, coercion and calls to reason from your Constructive Critiquer will budge your opinion or make you change your story.

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.

The only thing the latter will do to you is ruin your mood without changing anything.

Or you can just not give a fuck. It's much better for your mental health if you learn to not give a fuck about things you won't consider listening to in the first place. I mean, there's no point in wasting that much mental and emotional energy on it, you know?

The former one might help but is not necessary -- you already know if something is wrong by yourself.

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.

There is simply no way to make a CC that doesn't fall into the [Author already agrees with you and would change the story regardless of your critique ==> the Critique is not Constructive] or [Author disagrees with you and will not change their opinion. You can do nothing about it].

Thus, Constructive Criticisms don't exist.

Then again, that's just me. Can any of you define CC in a way that wouldn't fall into the two modes described above?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[gaylolis]

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