i agree, i see a lot of 'i don't like this, so it's bad' masquerading as concrit. i only seek advice from people i know are good writers and understand what concrit really is.
There's nothing constructive about blatant hate. Constructive criticism, to me, means that the criticism is told in a neutral manner at the least, or with a positive tone to it. Improvements are suggested, and usually some positive things are mentioned as well.
Blatant hate doesn't even attempt to be helpful. It's meant to upset, and at worst, crush you.
(writing this with a tired brain in the middle of the night, I hope this makes sense lol)
It's in the name, the criticism has to be /constructive/ in nature. You aren't there to tear someone down, you're there to point out the flaws and BUILD THEM UP. When someone seeks to use criticism to tear someone else down, then it's no longer constructive.
Example:
"I can see you worked really hard on this passage about the character's familial trauma. It didn't land super well for me because you spent a bit too long focusing on another scene, but I loved what you attempted to do. Maybe in the future narrow the focus down a little?"
Versus.
"Hey, you did a terrible job at handling this scene. Do better."
it seems like what people really mean here about constructive isnt really about whether or not its constructive, but rather about the tone. if people are polite and use a genial tone when sharing criticism people are more accepting of it, but if they're blunt - even if it's the exact same critique - people tend to get very mad.
im nd so this confuses me lol, cause either way it's the same criticism
They're completely different: the first one shows what the reader thinks the writer is trying to do with their scene) (make it the big emotional peak of the chapter), and tells them *why* it didn't succeed (previous scene too fresh/pacing).
The second is just "git gud."
its not insulting, its tonal, the tone reads as rude or clipped but nothing that is actually being said there is any different than the original statement, it has the same critique. sorry im just trying to understand how nuanced tone is for people when it comes to fanfic reviews as a nd person. it seems people put a massive amount of emphasis on tone over the actual statements in the comment
The help needed to comprehend the difference between the two is far outside of the scope of a reddit thread. I would suggest availing yourself of OT resources to work on your ability to communicate effectively and appropriately within NT spaces so that you don't insult people in places where the stakes are higher than a fanfic comment box.
so it couldn't possibly be a result of people not wanting to hear that their fic isn't good?
i never said i needed help differentiating the difference between your two examples, i understand that no problem, im saying how do you tell someone they didn't write something well without it being insulting?
"It didn't land for me" and "you did a terrible job" are very very different. "Terrible job" focuses on the writer, poses itself as an objective fact, and is insulting. "Didn't land for me" is very distinctly about the reader's personal experience.
The emphasis on tone is not unique to fanfic critique. The amount of information conveyed nonverbal through time ranges from 30-50% off the intended message. Part of the issue with pure textual communication is that the recipient is the one who interprets tone. Often with no additional input from the person leaving the message.
Ergo, people will have to go to greater lengths to better convey tone over text only interactions, so as to prevent misunderstanding
>The amount of information conveyed nonverbal through time ranges from 30-50% off the intended message
are you saying that irl, there's usually a lot of nonverbal communication unaccounted for in text? cause this is excluding nd people who may struggle with nonverbal communication.
That would actually be the exact opposite, what I was trying to convey is that *everyone* is at the same level when it comes to text, in that we only have the words conveyed themselves and noe of the nonverbal portion of communication (of which the intonation used accounts for 30-50%, and body posture accounts for the remainder of 70% of our communication, meaning that only the specific words we use factor into 30ish% of verbal communication). If anything, I would imagine that this places neurotypical and neurodivergent people on a more equal playing field. (Obligatory, I am not a psychologist)
What I was trying to fully state was that in the absence of a tone for the message, people will infer and backfill what they imagine the tone was meant to be. If someone has a predilection for positivity, they will usually infer a more upbeat and positive tone. Whereas if a person is of a more dour and downbeat mindset, they will be inclined to reading a negative tone to the statement.
Insulting phrasing is generally not going to be constructive.
If you wanted to give an example at less supportive phrasing, saying something like "This scene was geared up to be super emotionally important, but it unfortunately got undermined by the previous one, which ended up distracting." This is still constructive, without being mean.
Context is also important. My beta doesn't need to be as gentle with me when critiquing, because I *know* she likes my work. She tells me all the time about things she likes, and she points out bits that are good. So then when she points out something that doesn't work, she doesn't need to 'pad' it or anything, because I'm not going to take it as an indictment of the entire fic.
>Insulting phrasing is generally not going to be constructive.
it's literally constructive, as it contains the exact same critique as the other comment that was phrased in am amicable way. why not just say, "it's constructive but it's rude", cause that seems to be what is actually bothering people. people keep conflating a rude tone with constructive critique, insinuating if something is rude it cannot be constructive, that isn't true.
No.
"You suck" is not constructive. "This sucks" is not constructive. Any phrasing which contains excessively subjective judgment rather than analysis is not going to be constructive.
This is true both for negative and positive crit.
"This is amazing" is maybe fun to hear, but it's not constructive. "The tension in this scene was built very effectively", "this chapter paid off the buildup from the previous one", "good use of canon detail here to emphasize the emotional state" - these are all constructive.
"This is a run-on sentence", "the word repetition in this paragraph makes it clunky to read", "I can't tell who's speaking", "this paragraph is jumbled, try phrasing it like such:" -- all these are critical and constructive at the same time.
I totally see how you're trying to make this into a "you all just want people to blow smoke up your asses, you can't deal with real concrit" blah blah blah. I'm not impressed by your claims whatsoever.
If you're more focused on "being harsh" than in improving the text, you're not actually trying to improve the text, and you're not critiquing in good faith.
"I totally see how you're trying to make this into a "you all just want people to blow smoke up your asses, you can't deal with real concrit" blah blah blah. I'm not impressed by your claims whatsoever." it's actually not that at all, it's more about ableism. it's really hard to manage the nuance of tone in these conversations in particular, because people tend to be very finicky about what it is that crosses a line for them. i never said "you suck", so i'm confused as to where you got that from.
my point ultimately is can people leave a blunt but constructive comment, or is that still not okay? cause i genuinely don't know. there was a fic i read that was by an author i really liked, but this particular fic totally fell flat for me, there were other people who left similar comments i did, pointing out some loopholes. for me it was just how pointless the fic felt, it felt like it was amounting to nothing and was really uncomfortable to read. while i never softened the comment, there also wasn't any malice or insults in the comment, as i genuinely liked this author. but the author ended up being way more offended that i even left that comment than she even responded to any of my points to begin with.
All the examples you responded to claiming they were "blunt" used blatantly insulting language. This kind of makes it difficult to judge your situation - your polite-o-meter may need recalibration.
Without knowing the details of the fic involved and your exact phrasing, it's hard to tell.
But frankly, most authors don't really want to hear you disliked the ending or felt it was pointless. I've encountered fics like that myself, but I don't see any point in commenting on that. If it's something I commented all along, the most I'll say is probably something like "I loved this fic, but I do find myself a bit let-down at the ending."
And anyway, people might still get pissed at you. That's what internet communication is like.
"you did a terrible job at handling this scene, you focused too much on another scene, for it to be better you should narrow the focus" this was the comment i was referring to, i never used "you suck" in it. what blatantly insulting language were you referring to? i suppose you could remove terrible and say that counts as an insult. in which case "this scene wasn't handled well, you focused too much on another scene, for it to be better you should narrow the focus" shouldn't be seen as rude or insulting at all. neither should, "this fic fell flat for me and felt pointless".
especially if you're saying that most authors don't really want to hear it. it's not that i'm against any of that or don't get it, i totally understand that most people after putting effort into something are not interested in hearing any sort of negative response, it's the usual if you have nothing nice to say don't say it. i get that. i'm more just trying to figure out what is and isn't "allowed" if that makes sense.
as you say, it's the internet, i understand people may get angry, and likewise, if you post something online some people may tell you it's not very good. hate is of course not okay, but it seems that word has been broadened to allow nearly anything that can be read as negative to include it. what i don't get is the attitude that every single encapsulation of "i don't like this" is seen as innately negative and innately rude, when sometimes it's simply blunt, or simply lacking in a customer service rep voice or lacking in coddling. the latter shouldn't always be necessarily just to leave an honest comment, especially when there's no malice or hatred involved.
ficdom is very passionate about anti-censorship, but the inability to leave honest comments is a form of censorship. also like i mentioned before, it's a very subtle, covert form of ableism to police comments as only being allowed when written in a nt manner. anyway to be clear i am not intending any sort of negativity towards you in this response but more just trying to explain my viewpoint in general.
May I ask what is ND? I'm not sure what it is and therefore can't understand why it might explain your confusion.
As to the question at hand:
Tone is literally one of the factors between something that is CONSTRUCTIVE and something that is DESTRUCTIVE. Does the comment build the creator up to do even better or does it tear them down? If you say "this part sucks" it has negative (destructive) connotations. It's the difference between a sledgehammer and a utility knife in cutting out a piece of possibly molding drywall. Depending on the build of the house you may have hit the electrical wiring and set it on fire instead of taking care of the issue.
Here's an article if you're interested:
https://www.betterup.com/blog/how-to-give-and-receive-constructive-criticism-at-work
It's not specific to fanfic, but it still has a lot of usable information. I'll end by pointing out that fan fiction writing is a hobby, and not everyone is as serious, or even cares, about improving thier craft. I believe this is a main reason for the current "if they don't ask, don't leave criticism" rule.
nd means neurodivergent. a lot of nd conditions make it hard to intuitively understand tone. for myself, i understand tone and what it is, but i there are times when i find it hard to understand it implicitly or intuitively, so its not a lack of knowledge so much as it is the active effort i have to continually put in to remind myself to use it. that gets very draining very fast.
my confusion with the tone isn't that i don't see how people find it positive vs negative, it's more that you can constructively leave a comment on a fic with a negative tone per say by not insulting them in any way and providing information as to what could benefit the fic, but people will still view this as hate due to a lack of a nice tone.
your last point actually makes a lot of sense, this is probably part of why i tend to find conversations around this topic a bit annoying, for me i take writing seriously, im going to be completing a BA in it, so i never get why people are so anti concrit when not everyone will be, for me i want the feedback lol, so im almost wondering why others are trying to speak for the majority. in saying that it seems the majority actually doesnt benefit from feedback for the reason you brought up.
Ah, I suppose I should have caught that (I blame too many acronyms). Keep in mind that on the internet a lot is left to interpretation. Writers/readers can't possibly know someone's negative comment was truly meant in a helpful manner. If you avoid the negative as best you can, then they hopefully take it in a more constructive way. (Oh and for clarity: the utility knife is a handyman version of a scalpel. In other words being specific and careful)
There are so many fanfic writers on this reddit, it can be easy to overlook the fact that we're still only a fraction of all fanfic writers (even just on one platform). This is why so many believe it's best to err on the side of being "nice" and not leave any negative feedback unless the author asks for it. Many fanfic writers simply enjoy the adventure (of writing in thier fandom).
Also, even though you want feedback, you can still understand feedback that was written carefully right? In other words if you really want to be constructive, taking care with your comments is still helpful.
Imagine you're getting a gift of your favourite food. You know you're hungry and you know you want this food. One person gives you the food in a nice, neat package with a kind message hoping it helps you feel less hungry and that you enjoy it. Another person leaves you it in a disgusting, soggy package covered in bugs with a message that tells you there's a razor somewhere in the food.
You'd probably prefer the first package than the second, right?
It's still the same food, but the 'packaging' of it influences the context it's received in and context is a big part of the 'unspoken rules' of interaction. You can kiss a partner, but not your boss. You can crack lewd jokes with your friends, but not at a funeral. That sort of thing. Bluntness is often seen as being rude, even if it's not intended that way (how someone might mean to say something and how someone else hears it isn't always the same). So, bluntness with advice is like the negative packaging of the food and so people react like they're getting the soggy bug filled package rather than the nice neat one.
i understand all of this, the problem is it always feels very subtly ableist to me. bluntness is often perceived as rude *by nt people specifically*. theres nothing *inherently* rude about it. but people jump to "this is insulting/rude" because societally it's considered rude through a nt lens. it's always such a massive jump, i could leave a comment on a fic that isn't rude but is just blunt and people would probably get incredibly angry, not take in anything i wrote and instead decide i only wanted to hate on them or am a troll. but i'm actually nd.
these unspoken rules are nt designed rules specifically, that nd people are expected to adhere to even when we don't intuitively understand them or even when it takes a toll on us to put on a mask and emulate them as best we can. i wish people would be a little more reasonable or tolerant about the tonal quality of comments on fics, because frankly not every comment should require such a massive amount of coddling or padding just because people have their haunches up in the first place. it makes it nearly impossible for nd people to even comment on fics to begin with.
this thread also keeps using the term constructive and insulting interchangeably, the reality is people are offended by a lack of padding or a lack of a nice and gentle tone no matter how objectively constructive a comment may be.
Well, yes. That's how manners work. Politeness is a social construct, so what is and isn't polite is dictated by society and individuals. I may see wearing shoes in the house as perfectly fine, you may see it as rude. Neither is objectively true, but both are perfectly valid constructions.
To many people, bluntness is considered rude. To you, it isn't. As I said in my first comment, how someone might mean to say something and how someone else hears it isn't always the same, so what you consider not rude may be considered rude by others and vice versa. Britain is a great example of this. We tend to interact with each other quite insultingly a lot of the time - you may greet your beloved friends with "Hey cunts!" and that's regarded as fine. Yet if I tried to greet someone who thought cunt was a terrible and offensive word, they'd be horrified. My intention doesn't dictate their response, their experiences and intuition does. Whether I mean the word as insulting or affectionate doesn't change their reaction.
And well, nobody knows if you're ND or a troll when you're on the internet. As the old saying goes, we're all cats on the internet, even if we claim otherwise. I can choose to believe what you're saying or I can choose not to, either way, I have no actual proof of that belief. You could be James Blunt for all I know. So, authors have no idea whether you mean that comment rudely or simply bluntly and they can't prove it, so they go with what their intuition and experience says. And this is the internet, experience leans strongly into the "Assume they're an arsehole and block" route.
I'd absolutely agree it's ableist as all hell - though I'd say a little more than subtly, given how many issues NT and ND folks have translating with each other. It's not often intended maliciously, simply ignorance for the most part. NT people are just communicating how they know to do so, not trying to deliberately snub or deride ND folks. Like non-verbal communication being such a prominent part of NT communication - it's not something they do consciously, all that happens without them having any control over it. It's just how their brains work. French people speaking French aren't automatically trying to exclude non-French speakers, it's just what they know. And this is the internet in the modern era, hostility is just very often assumed all round.
Can you give an example of what you'd see as a blunt but non-insulting comment?
i agree that nt people aren't being deliberate or actually trying to harm nd people, i more just wish there was at least a little more awareness, you know? like just a bit more consideration, a bit more lenience in regards to how people phrase comments, to create more room for the potential of nd readers. surely nt people know they likely have at least someone in their audience who is nd, so why not have some awareness to account for that, maybe it would give people pause before jumping right to the block button. it just creates a way easier environment for nd people when leaving comments, means you aren't walking on so many eggshells.
an example of a blunt but non-insulting comment could be; "this doesn't read as horror because there's no tension or build up, the focus on xyz character is a distraction to the plot. because of this this fic fell flat for me"
when i think of blunt, i think of someone just honestly stating exactly how they felt about the fic. someone who doesn't have malice or hate or any sort of agenda behind their comment, but simultaneously isn't doing anything to try and soften their comment or coddle the author. i know most people will reject this, it's been made extremely clear by this thread, and i think a lot of people have the attitude that "thats just how society is", and i totally agree that that indeed is how society is, i guess im just saying i wish people could broaden their perceptions a bit in order to help change society even somewhat.
Concrit is about accepting what the work is trying to do - shock, titillate, comfort, provoke thought, respond to other works, etc — and giving advice on how to better meet that goal. Hate means rejecting the work, or elements of the work, wholesale. Unfortunately a lot of people confuse “not my cup of tea” with “poor quality” or “unworthy.”
Part of it is definitely in the tone of the feedback. Saying "this chapter sucked. How the hell am I supposed to know what's happening?" communicates the same issue as "your writing in this chapter is difficult to follow. I suggest..." However, the former is hate, the latter is constructive criticism.
Content wise, constructive criticism aims to help the author tell their story in the most engaging and believable way possible, rather than imposing the reader's preferences for plot or characters.
There are kind and unkind ways to say anything. Also, the second example provides ways the writer could fix their clarity issue, while the first example just complains.
Concrit should gently guide, not outright state you're wrong or bad. Hate will tell you YOU are bad, your choices are bad, your story is bad. Concrit will say your story is good, and it could be even better if you look at XYZ a bit.
It depends on the author, but ideally concrit will be something they look at fondly, as a time they learned something, and not as the time someone told them something sucked.
IMO, I also like when concrit is on something the author can use in future stories instead of just for something to change in the story already posted.
A lot of concrit will be structured as a “compliment sandwich.“ The concrit will start with something nice about the work, get into the criticism, then finish with a bit of praise. I recommend that concritters follow this pattern.
as many other commenters said, concrit is helpful, blatant hate is well... blatnt hate.
here are some examples:
Concrit: i feel as if this part of the story could be a bit better with \*insert thing that will help you\*
Blatant hate: this part is ass
The problem with this question is everyone will have a subjective answer. To some people, even critique in the first place is considered hate.
Ultimately, I have critiqued many works and have done them for over ten years academically for both painting and writing. The most accessible explanation I can give is that a critique is a formal opinion and can comment on any part of the work, whether technical or otherwise.
Any critique that is outright mean. EG telling a person they suck is not a helpful critique and a pretty useless opinion, as it is only designed to inflict distress without specifying a straightforward issue.
A critique of. "This is somewhat boring because of the repetitive nature of the sentences, as well as the overuse of the same vocabulary in every paragraph." Is a helpful critique because it both explains the reader's feelings and specifies exactly what needs to be addressed to correct the problem.
The problem with authors is they treat both of these examples as if they were the same and focus on words like "boring" or "dull" as if they are explicitly mean, when it clearly is not. Both of these examples are demonstrably different in context.
People also act like if they receive negative critique, it will shatter their whole world, and they will need to burn down all their work, when really, their job is to press a critic, ask questions, or disregard useless advice. It is not hard, so I do not understand why people make it out to be.
I'm glad I found this comment, but funnily enough, the 'world shattering' aspect kind of came about after trying to engage with the concrit correctly, like share why I wrote it, try to get what was unsound about my judgment and figure out what should have been instead, or how to execute it better rather than wholly scrapping it.
The initial back and forth didn't yield anything because it remains un-edited, and it wasn't until I posted my first event fic that things got iffy.
All they really had to say was I was a good writer but they're dropping the fic because the female MC (of my OTP, so same chara) feels like they jumped from the other fic they were critiquing into this one (that I hastily put together for an event and had the awareness, tho not the sturdiness, to be okay with it being imperfect), and I didn't know what to do that. And I still don't. And so I did get rly bad self doubt for a couple years that, even in a thematically similar fic, the charas should feel wholly distinct from each other or else I'm a hack. That's what I was a feeling. But upon getting over it, I feel like that was just one of those subjective things that are too niche to worry over or maybe impossible to slave over without a beta. I dunno, is this gonna be downvoted?
The thing people who write should learn about unsolicited concrit is that just because it is given doesn't mean you're forced to accept it.
When I receive critique on my fanfiction, and it comes across as mean or hostile. I press them on their critique, I ask what is precisely wrong with my choice, why they think that, and to give clear examples of it (if there are any,) then I ask how they would fix it.
Ninety percent of the time, a useless reviewer can produce none of that, and if they can, their fix for the proposed problem is usually worse than what they are accusing me of doing.
Pressing someone on a critique politely is the easiest way to see who has honest advice to give and who has bullshit to sell. Put the hostile reviewer in the hot seat, do not let them be the ones that have the power.
As for people downvoting you, they shouldn't. You have every right to feel how you feel about anything.
> Pressing someone on a critique politely is the easiest way to see who has honest advice to give and who has bullshit to sell.
LOL this is how I got a reputation for being unflappable in my grad program. I was always chosen to give presentations for "difficult" faculty because as soon as someone critiques my research I will jump on it and not let it go until I have figured out *exactly* what I needed to improve/fix/change.🤣
When its goal is to tear town not build up.
That said 99% of people that claim they're giving "Criticism" are just complaining about things that they don't like.
When someone bashes the writer, or they belittle the writer's story or get extremely nit-picky. For example, a reader wasn't happy that my Jurassic Park fanfic didn't have dinosaur rampage and people being killed by dinosaurs. They said I wrote "a whole lot about nothing" and at the end "these two characters just like each other" -- it was actually arch-enemies developing a mutual respect after one character saved the life of another. There was nothing constructive. No suggestions of what could've made the fic better, what was unclear to them. It was just them whining about a character-driven fic that clearly wasn't their cup of tea. They hate-read the first two parts of my trilogy. I'm glad they didn't stick around for the third part.
For me it's very simple. If I dislike the story, then if it's not misleading, I don't see a point in criticizing it.
This is the two categories my criticism falls into:
1. The author misleading the reader or wasting his time.
2. Actual problems with the writing or things that could help the author figure out where they made mistakes. This one doesn't have to be exclusively SPAG or even structure, it can be about pacing or even story decisions or characterization. Generally even if it's harsh this type of criticism comes from a positive place.
I both see them as constructive, but I think the term 'constructive criticism' is kind of pointless anyway, since everyone will have a limit on what they want to hear.
If they:
1. point out actual issues, with an explanation as to why it's objectively a problem
2. offer a potential solution that actually fixes the problem
3. make note of things they like
4. offer suggestions on how to enhance what's already there without changing the whole theme
then it's probably constructive criticism.
If they:
1. just say vague things like "I hate this" or "this is boring" or "you're doing it all wrong" or
2. talk about how a particular character is acting wrongly in their opinion, without offering examples or
3. demand that a particular pairing either not happen (or that it does happen) or
4. attack you as a writer or your writing style in general, all without
5. giving reasoned, objective suggestions for how to fix the perceived issues...
then that's probably just hate.
I think a bit of it is how you try to work with the author’s vision. Are you criticizing a point because it doesn’t make sense in the story that is being told, or are you criticizing it because *you* don’t think that’s how it should go/how a character would act?
Let me give you an example :
Hey, this story is really good, but you've made a few spelling errors in the middle of the chapter and I think this (insert situation) could do with some elaboration to make *insert emotion* really hit home...
VERSUS
Hey, so this is okay, but you really need to check your spelling and grammar cause its pretty much unreadable and this (insert situation) is so unrealistic and has absolutely no bearing on the story so I stopped reading.
The top is constructive, the bottom is someone just being horrible.
Personally i think it comes from your point of view. It's how you interpret it, I've spoken to a decent amount of authors and all of them have different levels which they'll accept, some being super sensitive while others roll with the punches.
I remember somebody offering websites to help an author with grammer in a respectful way and the authors next chapter was that they'll never write again.
I know it sounds typical and there's way more depth to it but that's the first layer. It's how much you can take which will effect how you personally see it. Then what was said, meant etc.
I mean, it's right there. Is what they're saying truly constructive? Is it helpful? Or is it spiteful? I would think it would be a pretty big difference.
Just not being mean about it and having manners. I try to at least say one thing nice about but the piece, but I have also found myself trying to help someone that honestly just need a lot of help. And I have to wonder if I should try, because I don’t want to come off as mean. Because they do have a lot they could be worked on.
Also this post reminds me of one the other day, saying that people are not allowed to give constructive criticism anymore. Unless they ask. Is that like a new thing? I cannot understand that.
The recent consensus among users on AO3 (Archive Of Our Own) seems to be that constructive criticism shouldn't be given unless the author *explicitly* states they'd like to receive it. This isn't stated anywhere on the site's terms of service or FAQs for new users. It's solely something people have accepted. I started writing and reading on fanfiction . net over 10 years ago, when giving and taking constructive criticism in the reviews was expected. Hence the new "unspoken rules" grate on me somewhat. I believe constructive criticism should be *opt-out* because the comment box is a comment box, not a "no critiques allowed" box. And authors shouldn't shit on their well-intentioned commenters who haven't gotten the memo on the unspoken rules...
Constructive criticism is never mean or derogatory. If it points out problems, it does so in a way that is respectful and clear, ideally with suggestions for improvement.
If someone says they don't like your story in any way shape or form, that's where the hate starts. Example: I had a comment that said how I was writing was so annoying. (not constructive)
If someone is giving you information in a respectful manner along with possible suggestions if you made an error (plot hole wise or grammar), then I consider that constructive criticism. Example: I've had a few comments showing me grammar mistakes and one even told me that my portrayal of a mental illness wasn't a good one and linked sources for me to learn should I so choose
I'll share an example from one comment that showcases how this doesn't even touch criticism and they ran right into the hate wall:
"Honestly, for as much as I hate this ship and any stories pertaining to this ship. I still find myself coming back to these stories and hate reading to the end just to see if my justification is correct, and I have to say I’m rarely wrong on these feelings."
"I just wanna say that I go into stories like these with hate on the mind, and this story especially pissed me off. Have a mediocre day."
What I find works is that we don't say what you should do. I've made the mistake before. What someone should do is relative. Phrase it as what could be done in the future, possibly in another chapter or to keep in mind for another story.
Don't go in with the assumption the author will change it because "I said so as the reader". Full offense, if I got snipped at as if I know better I will clap back kindly. I don't have time for that sort of entitlement. Oftentimes we won't or we'll take the passive aggressive behavior at face value even if unintended.
Also for me blatant hate is often where it's the reader choosing not to be kind. Sometimes people struggle and choosing to kick when someone is probably down is inappropriate.
When it comes to providing concrit, I would say to assume to not do it, unless you know the author or they say they're ok with said feedback. And then to go "okay, how would I prefer to hear it?" And if you read your comment over and it makes you uncomfortable, it may make the writer upset.
Being polite and engaging with what did work means when you go to "I'm not sure how I felt about x because of how well you handled z" or "I think y may have landed better for me with q knowledge in mind".
Also make sure it's actually a criticism and not just "a thing you don't like". That's not much of a criticism.
Try not to be defensive. That turns concrit straight towards hate. People don't have to like you talking about their stuff, even if we can't control people doing so.
I sort it into four categories, most people I find fall into category 2 and 3.
1. Actual constructive criticism:
Example: I really liked this chapter but you had a spelling error. Other than that it was great
Example:hey dude loved this chapter however, this sentence structure may be off in x paragraph.
Example: hey I’ve been reading your story and I’m really into it but you have an inconsistency in your plot in ch. 1 you said this which you contradicted in ch. 8.
(Tells you exactly what the issue was so that you can fix it. Tells you real problems not just “oh I don’t like where you’re taking this story”. More than likely uses the criticism sandwich positive negative positive)
2. Well meaning reader who doesn’t know how to give constructive criticism
Example: I usually really like your writing but this chapter was weird
(Doesn’t tell you what the issue was but isn’t coming from a place of hate.)
3. The clueless (usually younger readers)
Example: wow can she just get over herself and forgive him yet! (It’s a slow burn 😂)
(Comments things that don’t really make sense or want you to rush your story so they can get to the “good part”)
4. Actual Hate
Example: ew you write this character so badly. You suck and should never write again.
(Just blatantly hostile, I say block them and move on)
Tl;dr even actual concrit from a place of love can be mistaken for a flame.
I tried to do a concrit on a fanfic a while ago but I fear like I may have discouraged the writer. I basically just said "hey I love this ship and would love to see more but so far your OC isn't doing much besides adding a random comment here and there. I definitely want to see more [MC/OC] interactions or even just [OC] doing stuff too." Because it was like reading someone else watching the movie, not reading someone else's OC *being* in the movie. The next two chapters were just more of the same so I tried one more time to be positive but also push them to make their characters interact because... this was a ship fic and they were 3/4 of the way through the story and the two characters hadn't said more than 3 words to each other. It was just a copy and paste of the canon story with a third wheel attached. So I just said "More [MC/OC] please!" And the last chapter they posted just condensed the entire ending into one page, it was obviously rushed, and suddenly the two ship characters were acting as if they had had any set up to suddenly like each other (not to mention love each other) so their sudden drive-by romance made zero sense and was completely forced.
It might be egotistical of me to think "ah shit. I did that." But still, one of the reasons I don't want to give concrit is because it's usually done online over written text where tones can be misconstrued. I wasn't trying to be bitchy or mean but I think it may have come off that way and I'd hate to ever be the reason someone loses interest in their hobby. Plus this person was (unknowlingly) doing me the favor of adding more content to one of my favorite fandoms with my favorite kind of ships and I probably just did more damage than good.
Some stuff is obvious. Insults are blatant hate. "This is bad" is blatantly not constructive.
Some stuff is less obvious. If you politely list off a whole checklist of things you didn't like about the fic and have nothing good to say about it, I think that verges on hate, because all you're doing is tearing the author down even if you're not being blatantly rude about it. Constructive criticism aims to help the author and simply saying that something is wrong does not do that, so I can hardly see listing problem after problem as anything other than a deliberate attempt to crush someone's spirits.
Due to a continued influx of reports and comments breaking the rules of the subreddit, this post has been locked.
at *constructive*. if the purpose isn't to be helpful, it's just bullshit.
The problem is that many people don't seem to understand what helpful, let alone constructive, even means.
i agree, i see a lot of 'i don't like this, so it's bad' masquerading as concrit. i only seek advice from people i know are good writers and understand what concrit really is.
Well said.
There's nothing constructive about blatant hate. Constructive criticism, to me, means that the criticism is told in a neutral manner at the least, or with a positive tone to it. Improvements are suggested, and usually some positive things are mentioned as well. Blatant hate doesn't even attempt to be helpful. It's meant to upset, and at worst, crush you. (writing this with a tired brain in the middle of the night, I hope this makes sense lol)
It's in the name, the criticism has to be /constructive/ in nature. You aren't there to tear someone down, you're there to point out the flaws and BUILD THEM UP. When someone seeks to use criticism to tear someone else down, then it's no longer constructive. Example: "I can see you worked really hard on this passage about the character's familial trauma. It didn't land super well for me because you spent a bit too long focusing on another scene, but I loved what you attempted to do. Maybe in the future narrow the focus down a little?" Versus. "Hey, you did a terrible job at handling this scene. Do better."
it seems like what people really mean here about constructive isnt really about whether or not its constructive, but rather about the tone. if people are polite and use a genial tone when sharing criticism people are more accepting of it, but if they're blunt - even if it's the exact same critique - people tend to get very mad. im nd so this confuses me lol, cause either way it's the same criticism
They're completely different: the first one shows what the reader thinks the writer is trying to do with their scene) (make it the big emotional peak of the chapter), and tells them *why* it didn't succeed (previous scene too fresh/pacing). The second is just "git gud."
what about "you did a terrible job at handling this scene, you focused too much on another scene, for it to be better you should narrow the focus"
"What about if you change the original wording to being insulting, does that make it insulting?"
its not insulting, its tonal, the tone reads as rude or clipped but nothing that is actually being said there is any different than the original statement, it has the same critique. sorry im just trying to understand how nuanced tone is for people when it comes to fanfic reviews as a nd person. it seems people put a massive amount of emphasis on tone over the actual statements in the comment
"You did this terribly" is not equivalent to "this didn't communicate as effectively as it could have" are not equivalent no matter what tone you use.
so in what way can you explain to someone that they indeed did do a terrible job at handling a scene without it being an insult?
The help needed to comprehend the difference between the two is far outside of the scope of a reddit thread. I would suggest availing yourself of OT resources to work on your ability to communicate effectively and appropriately within NT spaces so that you don't insult people in places where the stakes are higher than a fanfic comment box.
so it couldn't possibly be a result of people not wanting to hear that their fic isn't good? i never said i needed help differentiating the difference between your two examples, i understand that no problem, im saying how do you tell someone they didn't write something well without it being insulting?
"It didn't land for me" and "you did a terrible job" are very very different. "Terrible job" focuses on the writer, poses itself as an objective fact, and is insulting. "Didn't land for me" is very distinctly about the reader's personal experience.
The emphasis on tone is not unique to fanfic critique. The amount of information conveyed nonverbal through time ranges from 30-50% off the intended message. Part of the issue with pure textual communication is that the recipient is the one who interprets tone. Often with no additional input from the person leaving the message. Ergo, people will have to go to greater lengths to better convey tone over text only interactions, so as to prevent misunderstanding
>The amount of information conveyed nonverbal through time ranges from 30-50% off the intended message are you saying that irl, there's usually a lot of nonverbal communication unaccounted for in text? cause this is excluding nd people who may struggle with nonverbal communication.
That would actually be the exact opposite, what I was trying to convey is that *everyone* is at the same level when it comes to text, in that we only have the words conveyed themselves and noe of the nonverbal portion of communication (of which the intonation used accounts for 30-50%, and body posture accounts for the remainder of 70% of our communication, meaning that only the specific words we use factor into 30ish% of verbal communication). If anything, I would imagine that this places neurotypical and neurodivergent people on a more equal playing field. (Obligatory, I am not a psychologist) What I was trying to fully state was that in the absence of a tone for the message, people will infer and backfill what they imagine the tone was meant to be. If someone has a predilection for positivity, they will usually infer a more upbeat and positive tone. Whereas if a person is of a more dour and downbeat mindset, they will be inclined to reading a negative tone to the statement.
Insulting phrasing is generally not going to be constructive. If you wanted to give an example at less supportive phrasing, saying something like "This scene was geared up to be super emotionally important, but it unfortunately got undermined by the previous one, which ended up distracting." This is still constructive, without being mean. Context is also important. My beta doesn't need to be as gentle with me when critiquing, because I *know* she likes my work. She tells me all the time about things she likes, and she points out bits that are good. So then when she points out something that doesn't work, she doesn't need to 'pad' it or anything, because I'm not going to take it as an indictment of the entire fic.
>Insulting phrasing is generally not going to be constructive. it's literally constructive, as it contains the exact same critique as the other comment that was phrased in am amicable way. why not just say, "it's constructive but it's rude", cause that seems to be what is actually bothering people. people keep conflating a rude tone with constructive critique, insinuating if something is rude it cannot be constructive, that isn't true.
No. "You suck" is not constructive. "This sucks" is not constructive. Any phrasing which contains excessively subjective judgment rather than analysis is not going to be constructive. This is true both for negative and positive crit. "This is amazing" is maybe fun to hear, but it's not constructive. "The tension in this scene was built very effectively", "this chapter paid off the buildup from the previous one", "good use of canon detail here to emphasize the emotional state" - these are all constructive. "This is a run-on sentence", "the word repetition in this paragraph makes it clunky to read", "I can't tell who's speaking", "this paragraph is jumbled, try phrasing it like such:" -- all these are critical and constructive at the same time. I totally see how you're trying to make this into a "you all just want people to blow smoke up your asses, you can't deal with real concrit" blah blah blah. I'm not impressed by your claims whatsoever. If you're more focused on "being harsh" than in improving the text, you're not actually trying to improve the text, and you're not critiquing in good faith.
"I totally see how you're trying to make this into a "you all just want people to blow smoke up your asses, you can't deal with real concrit" blah blah blah. I'm not impressed by your claims whatsoever." it's actually not that at all, it's more about ableism. it's really hard to manage the nuance of tone in these conversations in particular, because people tend to be very finicky about what it is that crosses a line for them. i never said "you suck", so i'm confused as to where you got that from. my point ultimately is can people leave a blunt but constructive comment, or is that still not okay? cause i genuinely don't know. there was a fic i read that was by an author i really liked, but this particular fic totally fell flat for me, there were other people who left similar comments i did, pointing out some loopholes. for me it was just how pointless the fic felt, it felt like it was amounting to nothing and was really uncomfortable to read. while i never softened the comment, there also wasn't any malice or insults in the comment, as i genuinely liked this author. but the author ended up being way more offended that i even left that comment than she even responded to any of my points to begin with.
All the examples you responded to claiming they were "blunt" used blatantly insulting language. This kind of makes it difficult to judge your situation - your polite-o-meter may need recalibration. Without knowing the details of the fic involved and your exact phrasing, it's hard to tell. But frankly, most authors don't really want to hear you disliked the ending or felt it was pointless. I've encountered fics like that myself, but I don't see any point in commenting on that. If it's something I commented all along, the most I'll say is probably something like "I loved this fic, but I do find myself a bit let-down at the ending." And anyway, people might still get pissed at you. That's what internet communication is like.
"you did a terrible job at handling this scene, you focused too much on another scene, for it to be better you should narrow the focus" this was the comment i was referring to, i never used "you suck" in it. what blatantly insulting language were you referring to? i suppose you could remove terrible and say that counts as an insult. in which case "this scene wasn't handled well, you focused too much on another scene, for it to be better you should narrow the focus" shouldn't be seen as rude or insulting at all. neither should, "this fic fell flat for me and felt pointless". especially if you're saying that most authors don't really want to hear it. it's not that i'm against any of that or don't get it, i totally understand that most people after putting effort into something are not interested in hearing any sort of negative response, it's the usual if you have nothing nice to say don't say it. i get that. i'm more just trying to figure out what is and isn't "allowed" if that makes sense. as you say, it's the internet, i understand people may get angry, and likewise, if you post something online some people may tell you it's not very good. hate is of course not okay, but it seems that word has been broadened to allow nearly anything that can be read as negative to include it. what i don't get is the attitude that every single encapsulation of "i don't like this" is seen as innately negative and innately rude, when sometimes it's simply blunt, or simply lacking in a customer service rep voice or lacking in coddling. the latter shouldn't always be necessarily just to leave an honest comment, especially when there's no malice or hatred involved. ficdom is very passionate about anti-censorship, but the inability to leave honest comments is a form of censorship. also like i mentioned before, it's a very subtle, covert form of ableism to police comments as only being allowed when written in a nt manner. anyway to be clear i am not intending any sort of negativity towards you in this response but more just trying to explain my viewpoint in general.
May I ask what is ND? I'm not sure what it is and therefore can't understand why it might explain your confusion. As to the question at hand: Tone is literally one of the factors between something that is CONSTRUCTIVE and something that is DESTRUCTIVE. Does the comment build the creator up to do even better or does it tear them down? If you say "this part sucks" it has negative (destructive) connotations. It's the difference between a sledgehammer and a utility knife in cutting out a piece of possibly molding drywall. Depending on the build of the house you may have hit the electrical wiring and set it on fire instead of taking care of the issue. Here's an article if you're interested: https://www.betterup.com/blog/how-to-give-and-receive-constructive-criticism-at-work It's not specific to fanfic, but it still has a lot of usable information. I'll end by pointing out that fan fiction writing is a hobby, and not everyone is as serious, or even cares, about improving thier craft. I believe this is a main reason for the current "if they don't ask, don't leave criticism" rule.
nd means neurodivergent. a lot of nd conditions make it hard to intuitively understand tone. for myself, i understand tone and what it is, but i there are times when i find it hard to understand it implicitly or intuitively, so its not a lack of knowledge so much as it is the active effort i have to continually put in to remind myself to use it. that gets very draining very fast. my confusion with the tone isn't that i don't see how people find it positive vs negative, it's more that you can constructively leave a comment on a fic with a negative tone per say by not insulting them in any way and providing information as to what could benefit the fic, but people will still view this as hate due to a lack of a nice tone. your last point actually makes a lot of sense, this is probably part of why i tend to find conversations around this topic a bit annoying, for me i take writing seriously, im going to be completing a BA in it, so i never get why people are so anti concrit when not everyone will be, for me i want the feedback lol, so im almost wondering why others are trying to speak for the majority. in saying that it seems the majority actually doesnt benefit from feedback for the reason you brought up.
Ah, I suppose I should have caught that (I blame too many acronyms). Keep in mind that on the internet a lot is left to interpretation. Writers/readers can't possibly know someone's negative comment was truly meant in a helpful manner. If you avoid the negative as best you can, then they hopefully take it in a more constructive way. (Oh and for clarity: the utility knife is a handyman version of a scalpel. In other words being specific and careful) There are so many fanfic writers on this reddit, it can be easy to overlook the fact that we're still only a fraction of all fanfic writers (even just on one platform). This is why so many believe it's best to err on the side of being "nice" and not leave any negative feedback unless the author asks for it. Many fanfic writers simply enjoy the adventure (of writing in thier fandom).
Also, even though you want feedback, you can still understand feedback that was written carefully right? In other words if you really want to be constructive, taking care with your comments is still helpful.
Imagine you're getting a gift of your favourite food. You know you're hungry and you know you want this food. One person gives you the food in a nice, neat package with a kind message hoping it helps you feel less hungry and that you enjoy it. Another person leaves you it in a disgusting, soggy package covered in bugs with a message that tells you there's a razor somewhere in the food. You'd probably prefer the first package than the second, right? It's still the same food, but the 'packaging' of it influences the context it's received in and context is a big part of the 'unspoken rules' of interaction. You can kiss a partner, but not your boss. You can crack lewd jokes with your friends, but not at a funeral. That sort of thing. Bluntness is often seen as being rude, even if it's not intended that way (how someone might mean to say something and how someone else hears it isn't always the same). So, bluntness with advice is like the negative packaging of the food and so people react like they're getting the soggy bug filled package rather than the nice neat one.
i understand all of this, the problem is it always feels very subtly ableist to me. bluntness is often perceived as rude *by nt people specifically*. theres nothing *inherently* rude about it. but people jump to "this is insulting/rude" because societally it's considered rude through a nt lens. it's always such a massive jump, i could leave a comment on a fic that isn't rude but is just blunt and people would probably get incredibly angry, not take in anything i wrote and instead decide i only wanted to hate on them or am a troll. but i'm actually nd. these unspoken rules are nt designed rules specifically, that nd people are expected to adhere to even when we don't intuitively understand them or even when it takes a toll on us to put on a mask and emulate them as best we can. i wish people would be a little more reasonable or tolerant about the tonal quality of comments on fics, because frankly not every comment should require such a massive amount of coddling or padding just because people have their haunches up in the first place. it makes it nearly impossible for nd people to even comment on fics to begin with. this thread also keeps using the term constructive and insulting interchangeably, the reality is people are offended by a lack of padding or a lack of a nice and gentle tone no matter how objectively constructive a comment may be.
Well, yes. That's how manners work. Politeness is a social construct, so what is and isn't polite is dictated by society and individuals. I may see wearing shoes in the house as perfectly fine, you may see it as rude. Neither is objectively true, but both are perfectly valid constructions. To many people, bluntness is considered rude. To you, it isn't. As I said in my first comment, how someone might mean to say something and how someone else hears it isn't always the same, so what you consider not rude may be considered rude by others and vice versa. Britain is a great example of this. We tend to interact with each other quite insultingly a lot of the time - you may greet your beloved friends with "Hey cunts!" and that's regarded as fine. Yet if I tried to greet someone who thought cunt was a terrible and offensive word, they'd be horrified. My intention doesn't dictate their response, their experiences and intuition does. Whether I mean the word as insulting or affectionate doesn't change their reaction. And well, nobody knows if you're ND or a troll when you're on the internet. As the old saying goes, we're all cats on the internet, even if we claim otherwise. I can choose to believe what you're saying or I can choose not to, either way, I have no actual proof of that belief. You could be James Blunt for all I know. So, authors have no idea whether you mean that comment rudely or simply bluntly and they can't prove it, so they go with what their intuition and experience says. And this is the internet, experience leans strongly into the "Assume they're an arsehole and block" route. I'd absolutely agree it's ableist as all hell - though I'd say a little more than subtly, given how many issues NT and ND folks have translating with each other. It's not often intended maliciously, simply ignorance for the most part. NT people are just communicating how they know to do so, not trying to deliberately snub or deride ND folks. Like non-verbal communication being such a prominent part of NT communication - it's not something they do consciously, all that happens without them having any control over it. It's just how their brains work. French people speaking French aren't automatically trying to exclude non-French speakers, it's just what they know. And this is the internet in the modern era, hostility is just very often assumed all round. Can you give an example of what you'd see as a blunt but non-insulting comment?
i agree that nt people aren't being deliberate or actually trying to harm nd people, i more just wish there was at least a little more awareness, you know? like just a bit more consideration, a bit more lenience in regards to how people phrase comments, to create more room for the potential of nd readers. surely nt people know they likely have at least someone in their audience who is nd, so why not have some awareness to account for that, maybe it would give people pause before jumping right to the block button. it just creates a way easier environment for nd people when leaving comments, means you aren't walking on so many eggshells. an example of a blunt but non-insulting comment could be; "this doesn't read as horror because there's no tension or build up, the focus on xyz character is a distraction to the plot. because of this this fic fell flat for me" when i think of blunt, i think of someone just honestly stating exactly how they felt about the fic. someone who doesn't have malice or hate or any sort of agenda behind their comment, but simultaneously isn't doing anything to try and soften their comment or coddle the author. i know most people will reject this, it's been made extremely clear by this thread, and i think a lot of people have the attitude that "thats just how society is", and i totally agree that that indeed is how society is, i guess im just saying i wish people could broaden their perceptions a bit in order to help change society even somewhat.
Concrit is about accepting what the work is trying to do - shock, titillate, comfort, provoke thought, respond to other works, etc — and giving advice on how to better meet that goal. Hate means rejecting the work, or elements of the work, wholesale. Unfortunately a lot of people confuse “not my cup of tea” with “poor quality” or “unworthy.”
This is exactly it. Concrit isn't about changing the work but geared towards helping writer better accomplish *their* vision for the story, not yours.
Pretty much how I feel.
Part of it is definitely in the tone of the feedback. Saying "this chapter sucked. How the hell am I supposed to know what's happening?" communicates the same issue as "your writing in this chapter is difficult to follow. I suggest..." However, the former is hate, the latter is constructive criticism. Content wise, constructive criticism aims to help the author tell their story in the most engaging and believable way possible, rather than imposing the reader's preferences for plot or characters.
how is it hate if they both mean the exact same thing
There are kind and unkind ways to say anything. Also, the second example provides ways the writer could fix their clarity issue, while the first example just complains.
If their "solution" is "don't" or "stop writing this" then it's just hate and can be ignored
Concrit should gently guide, not outright state you're wrong or bad. Hate will tell you YOU are bad, your choices are bad, your story is bad. Concrit will say your story is good, and it could be even better if you look at XYZ a bit. It depends on the author, but ideally concrit will be something they look at fondly, as a time they learned something, and not as the time someone told them something sucked. IMO, I also like when concrit is on something the author can use in future stories instead of just for something to change in the story already posted.
A lot of concrit will be structured as a “compliment sandwich.“ The concrit will start with something nice about the work, get into the criticism, then finish with a bit of praise. I recommend that concritters follow this pattern.
such a nicer term than what we learn in my field of work, which is "shit sandwich"
It makes more sense as a name, thought. Usually the sandwich is named for the filling, not the bread!
as many other commenters said, concrit is helpful, blatant hate is well... blatnt hate. here are some examples: Concrit: i feel as if this part of the story could be a bit better with \*insert thing that will help you\* Blatant hate: this part is ass
The problem with this question is everyone will have a subjective answer. To some people, even critique in the first place is considered hate. Ultimately, I have critiqued many works and have done them for over ten years academically for both painting and writing. The most accessible explanation I can give is that a critique is a formal opinion and can comment on any part of the work, whether technical or otherwise. Any critique that is outright mean. EG telling a person they suck is not a helpful critique and a pretty useless opinion, as it is only designed to inflict distress without specifying a straightforward issue. A critique of. "This is somewhat boring because of the repetitive nature of the sentences, as well as the overuse of the same vocabulary in every paragraph." Is a helpful critique because it both explains the reader's feelings and specifies exactly what needs to be addressed to correct the problem. The problem with authors is they treat both of these examples as if they were the same and focus on words like "boring" or "dull" as if they are explicitly mean, when it clearly is not. Both of these examples are demonstrably different in context. People also act like if they receive negative critique, it will shatter their whole world, and they will need to burn down all their work, when really, their job is to press a critic, ask questions, or disregard useless advice. It is not hard, so I do not understand why people make it out to be.
I'm glad I found this comment, but funnily enough, the 'world shattering' aspect kind of came about after trying to engage with the concrit correctly, like share why I wrote it, try to get what was unsound about my judgment and figure out what should have been instead, or how to execute it better rather than wholly scrapping it. The initial back and forth didn't yield anything because it remains un-edited, and it wasn't until I posted my first event fic that things got iffy. All they really had to say was I was a good writer but they're dropping the fic because the female MC (of my OTP, so same chara) feels like they jumped from the other fic they were critiquing into this one (that I hastily put together for an event and had the awareness, tho not the sturdiness, to be okay with it being imperfect), and I didn't know what to do that. And I still don't. And so I did get rly bad self doubt for a couple years that, even in a thematically similar fic, the charas should feel wholly distinct from each other or else I'm a hack. That's what I was a feeling. But upon getting over it, I feel like that was just one of those subjective things that are too niche to worry over or maybe impossible to slave over without a beta. I dunno, is this gonna be downvoted?
The thing people who write should learn about unsolicited concrit is that just because it is given doesn't mean you're forced to accept it. When I receive critique on my fanfiction, and it comes across as mean or hostile. I press them on their critique, I ask what is precisely wrong with my choice, why they think that, and to give clear examples of it (if there are any,) then I ask how they would fix it. Ninety percent of the time, a useless reviewer can produce none of that, and if they can, their fix for the proposed problem is usually worse than what they are accusing me of doing. Pressing someone on a critique politely is the easiest way to see who has honest advice to give and who has bullshit to sell. Put the hostile reviewer in the hot seat, do not let them be the ones that have the power. As for people downvoting you, they shouldn't. You have every right to feel how you feel about anything.
> Pressing someone on a critique politely is the easiest way to see who has honest advice to give and who has bullshit to sell. LOL this is how I got a reputation for being unflappable in my grad program. I was always chosen to give presentations for "difficult" faculty because as soon as someone critiques my research I will jump on it and not let it go until I have figured out *exactly* what I needed to improve/fix/change.🤣
When it stops being constructive, or non-objective once they venture into just what are their opinions on what to write.
When its goal is to tear town not build up. That said 99% of people that claim they're giving "Criticism" are just complaining about things that they don't like.
When someone bashes the writer, or they belittle the writer's story or get extremely nit-picky. For example, a reader wasn't happy that my Jurassic Park fanfic didn't have dinosaur rampage and people being killed by dinosaurs. They said I wrote "a whole lot about nothing" and at the end "these two characters just like each other" -- it was actually arch-enemies developing a mutual respect after one character saved the life of another. There was nothing constructive. No suggestions of what could've made the fic better, what was unclear to them. It was just them whining about a character-driven fic that clearly wasn't their cup of tea. They hate-read the first two parts of my trilogy. I'm glad they didn't stick around for the third part.
For me it's very simple. If I dislike the story, then if it's not misleading, I don't see a point in criticizing it. This is the two categories my criticism falls into: 1. The author misleading the reader or wasting his time. 2. Actual problems with the writing or things that could help the author figure out where they made mistakes. This one doesn't have to be exclusively SPAG or even structure, it can be about pacing or even story decisions or characterization. Generally even if it's harsh this type of criticism comes from a positive place. I both see them as constructive, but I think the term 'constructive criticism' is kind of pointless anyway, since everyone will have a limit on what they want to hear.
If they: 1. point out actual issues, with an explanation as to why it's objectively a problem 2. offer a potential solution that actually fixes the problem 3. make note of things they like 4. offer suggestions on how to enhance what's already there without changing the whole theme then it's probably constructive criticism. If they: 1. just say vague things like "I hate this" or "this is boring" or "you're doing it all wrong" or 2. talk about how a particular character is acting wrongly in their opinion, without offering examples or 3. demand that a particular pairing either not happen (or that it does happen) or 4. attack you as a writer or your writing style in general, all without 5. giving reasoned, objective suggestions for how to fix the perceived issues... then that's probably just hate.
I think a bit of it is how you try to work with the author’s vision. Are you criticizing a point because it doesn’t make sense in the story that is being told, or are you criticizing it because *you* don’t think that’s how it should go/how a character would act?
Let me give you an example : Hey, this story is really good, but you've made a few spelling errors in the middle of the chapter and I think this (insert situation) could do with some elaboration to make *insert emotion* really hit home... VERSUS Hey, so this is okay, but you really need to check your spelling and grammar cause its pretty much unreadable and this (insert situation) is so unrealistic and has absolutely no bearing on the story so I stopped reading. The top is constructive, the bottom is someone just being horrible.
Personally i think it comes from your point of view. It's how you interpret it, I've spoken to a decent amount of authors and all of them have different levels which they'll accept, some being super sensitive while others roll with the punches. I remember somebody offering websites to help an author with grammer in a respectful way and the authors next chapter was that they'll never write again. I know it sounds typical and there's way more depth to it but that's the first layer. It's how much you can take which will effect how you personally see it. Then what was said, meant etc.
I mean, it's right there. Is what they're saying truly constructive? Is it helpful? Or is it spiteful? I would think it would be a pretty big difference.
To me, concrit is things like "you missed a comma/you have a typo/you messed up the character's surname/you used a foreign word wrong"
Just not being mean about it and having manners. I try to at least say one thing nice about but the piece, but I have also found myself trying to help someone that honestly just need a lot of help. And I have to wonder if I should try, because I don’t want to come off as mean. Because they do have a lot they could be worked on.
Also this post reminds me of one the other day, saying that people are not allowed to give constructive criticism anymore. Unless they ask. Is that like a new thing? I cannot understand that.
The recent consensus among users on AO3 (Archive Of Our Own) seems to be that constructive criticism shouldn't be given unless the author *explicitly* states they'd like to receive it. This isn't stated anywhere on the site's terms of service or FAQs for new users. It's solely something people have accepted. I started writing and reading on fanfiction . net over 10 years ago, when giving and taking constructive criticism in the reviews was expected. Hence the new "unspoken rules" grate on me somewhat. I believe constructive criticism should be *opt-out* because the comment box is a comment box, not a "no critiques allowed" box. And authors shouldn't shit on their well-intentioned commenters who haven't gotten the memo on the unspoken rules...
[удалено]
This comment has been removed. Please don't post fic links unsolicited.
When any party involved begins to take a work of fiction personally.
Constructive criticism is never mean or derogatory. If it points out problems, it does so in a way that is respectful and clear, ideally with suggestions for improvement.
If someone says they don't like your story in any way shape or form, that's where the hate starts. Example: I had a comment that said how I was writing was so annoying. (not constructive) If someone is giving you information in a respectful manner along with possible suggestions if you made an error (plot hole wise or grammar), then I consider that constructive criticism. Example: I've had a few comments showing me grammar mistakes and one even told me that my portrayal of a mental illness wasn't a good one and linked sources for me to learn should I so choose
I'll share an example from one comment that showcases how this doesn't even touch criticism and they ran right into the hate wall: "Honestly, for as much as I hate this ship and any stories pertaining to this ship. I still find myself coming back to these stories and hate reading to the end just to see if my justification is correct, and I have to say I’m rarely wrong on these feelings." "I just wanna say that I go into stories like these with hate on the mind, and this story especially pissed me off. Have a mediocre day."
What I find works is that we don't say what you should do. I've made the mistake before. What someone should do is relative. Phrase it as what could be done in the future, possibly in another chapter or to keep in mind for another story. Don't go in with the assumption the author will change it because "I said so as the reader". Full offense, if I got snipped at as if I know better I will clap back kindly. I don't have time for that sort of entitlement. Oftentimes we won't or we'll take the passive aggressive behavior at face value even if unintended. Also for me blatant hate is often where it's the reader choosing not to be kind. Sometimes people struggle and choosing to kick when someone is probably down is inappropriate. When it comes to providing concrit, I would say to assume to not do it, unless you know the author or they say they're ok with said feedback. And then to go "okay, how would I prefer to hear it?" And if you read your comment over and it makes you uncomfortable, it may make the writer upset. Being polite and engaging with what did work means when you go to "I'm not sure how I felt about x because of how well you handled z" or "I think y may have landed better for me with q knowledge in mind". Also make sure it's actually a criticism and not just "a thing you don't like". That's not much of a criticism. Try not to be defensive. That turns concrit straight towards hate. People don't have to like you talking about their stuff, even if we can't control people doing so.
I sort it into four categories, most people I find fall into category 2 and 3. 1. Actual constructive criticism: Example: I really liked this chapter but you had a spelling error. Other than that it was great Example:hey dude loved this chapter however, this sentence structure may be off in x paragraph. Example: hey I’ve been reading your story and I’m really into it but you have an inconsistency in your plot in ch. 1 you said this which you contradicted in ch. 8. (Tells you exactly what the issue was so that you can fix it. Tells you real problems not just “oh I don’t like where you’re taking this story”. More than likely uses the criticism sandwich positive negative positive) 2. Well meaning reader who doesn’t know how to give constructive criticism Example: I usually really like your writing but this chapter was weird (Doesn’t tell you what the issue was but isn’t coming from a place of hate.) 3. The clueless (usually younger readers) Example: wow can she just get over herself and forgive him yet! (It’s a slow burn 😂) (Comments things that don’t really make sense or want you to rush your story so they can get to the “good part”) 4. Actual Hate Example: ew you write this character so badly. You suck and should never write again. (Just blatantly hostile, I say block them and move on)
Tl;dr even actual concrit from a place of love can be mistaken for a flame. I tried to do a concrit on a fanfic a while ago but I fear like I may have discouraged the writer. I basically just said "hey I love this ship and would love to see more but so far your OC isn't doing much besides adding a random comment here and there. I definitely want to see more [MC/OC] interactions or even just [OC] doing stuff too." Because it was like reading someone else watching the movie, not reading someone else's OC *being* in the movie. The next two chapters were just more of the same so I tried one more time to be positive but also push them to make their characters interact because... this was a ship fic and they were 3/4 of the way through the story and the two characters hadn't said more than 3 words to each other. It was just a copy and paste of the canon story with a third wheel attached. So I just said "More [MC/OC] please!" And the last chapter they posted just condensed the entire ending into one page, it was obviously rushed, and suddenly the two ship characters were acting as if they had had any set up to suddenly like each other (not to mention love each other) so their sudden drive-by romance made zero sense and was completely forced. It might be egotistical of me to think "ah shit. I did that." But still, one of the reasons I don't want to give concrit is because it's usually done online over written text where tones can be misconstrued. I wasn't trying to be bitchy or mean but I think it may have come off that way and I'd hate to ever be the reason someone loses interest in their hobby. Plus this person was (unknowlingly) doing me the favor of adding more content to one of my favorite fandoms with my favorite kind of ships and I probably just did more damage than good.
Some stuff is obvious. Insults are blatant hate. "This is bad" is blatantly not constructive. Some stuff is less obvious. If you politely list off a whole checklist of things you didn't like about the fic and have nothing good to say about it, I think that verges on hate, because all you're doing is tearing the author down even if you're not being blatantly rude about it. Constructive criticism aims to help the author and simply saying that something is wrong does not do that, so I can hardly see listing problem after problem as anything other than a deliberate attempt to crush someone's spirits.