I've seen a number of authors say they welcome "constructive criticism." What does that mean?
Does it mean that the critical remarks must include instructions on how to do it better?
Can some please include an example of "constructive criticism."
What does that mean?
Constructive criticism is a comment that is given to assist you to improve.
Does it mean that the critical remarks must include instructions on how to do it better?
No. - A comment about needing an editor would be constructive, but does not address how to find an editor.
Can some please include an example of "constructive criticism."
Example - You confuse the words "then" and "than". "Then" is related to the time of something, normally a past event. "Than" is used to make a comparison.
Note: The above is a very common error made by many authors.
A comment about needing an editor would be constructive, but does not address how to find an editor.
Such a comment could be constructive, but I don't agree that it necessarily would be constructive.
Such a comment could be constructive, but I don't agree that it necessarily would be constructive.
"Your writing sucks. Get an editor before you post anything else, for the love of God!"
vs.
"I'm really digging the storyline so far and look forward to seeing if it goes where I think it will. That said, a couple of points. One, you've used threw instead of through a few times in Ch 1 and 2. Two, the conversation between A and B in the second part of chapter 3 felt really stilted and, to me, didn't seem to follow the plot very well, given the information that was imparted earlier and what happens at the beginning of the next chapter. Unfortunately, I don't have a good suggestion as to how to fix it, but I'm sure one of the editors on the site would be able to help you out. Keep up the good work!"
To me, "constructive" is anything that is specific enough to be actionable. For example, "Your characters suck," isn't constructive because it is merely an opinion. But, "Your characters suck. For example the harem members never say anything except, 'Master, please take me now,' even though your MC keeps talking about how much they are contributing to the group goal," is a very different piece of feedback.
Even better than constructive criticism is what I call appreciative criticism, modeled after the Appreciative Inquiry model of organizational change. Appreciative criticism looks for what is strong or good in a story and asks how it can become even better. For example, "Your first harem member has an interesting personality and contrast well with the protagonist, but the next three are pretty much the same. Then the fifth is again different from all the others and plays well against both the protagonist and the first harem member. How would it be if you cut the relationship down to a throuple and gave both women much bigger roles in the action?"
but I don't agree that it necessarily would be constructive
Constructive criticism has to do with the intent of the person offering the criticism, not with how effective the recipient implements the criticism.
Constructive criticism has to do with the intent of the person offering the criticism
Yes, but I do not agree that your proffered example regarding the need for an editor would necessarily involve constructive intent.
If a writer has poor grammar skills finding an editor would improve what he writes if the writer is interested in improving their writing skills.
I was such a writer. I hated English when in school for I didn't understand the rules of grammar. To a certain extent, I still have problems. When I took TeNderLion on as my editor, I learned a great deal about what I was doing wrong.
Granted, nothing will help a writer who is not interested in improving their grammar skills.
nothing will help a writer who is not interested in improving
Maybe that's part of it. Those writers interested in improving see the criticism as constructive; those that aren't just see it as criticism.
If a writer has poor grammar skills finding an editor would improve what he writes if the writer is interested in improving their writing skills.
This is true, but again whether it is or is not constructive criticism depends on the precise details of how it is expressed.
"Get an editor moron!" is not constructive.
Does it mean that the critical remarks must include instructions on how to do it better?
No.
Yet in your constructive criticism example, you do give instructions on how to do it better by defining then/than.
Yet in your constructive criticism example, you do give instructions
That is true.
However, there were 3 questions. The example was in response to the request for an example of constructive criticism (the 3rd question), not an example in reply to question 2.
I always thought it was "how" you said it.
"Your writing sucks" is not constructive criticism. It's simply criticism.
"You begin every sentence with 'I' which I find annoying. One way to solve this problem is to…" This is criticism, but also tries to help how to correct it. Some people believe to criticize constructively you must include something positive. So in my example, you might add after "annoying" something like, "because it weakens the rest of your strong writing." That soothes egos.
I think "constructive criticism" is subjective to both the reader and the writer.
For me, Reps example of "You confuse the words "then" and "than"" is more unsolicited editing, rather than 'constructive feedback'
'Constructive feedback' in my mind, is more along the lines of "Your characters are very one dimensional, lacking in personality and character" or "Your characters are poorly thought out and indulging in inconsistent behaviour, like, your vegan character eats meat...". Or comments about the overall plot and how viable/realistic it is, or isn't. Or how the characters are well structured and behave in applicable mannerisms, but, the overall plot is so beige and dreary that it instils in the reader a lethargy that makes the process of continuing unpleasant....
For me, Reps example of "You confuse the words "then" and "than"" is more unsolicited editing, rather than 'constructive feedback'
I believe trying to educate an author as to why they are confusing two terms is constructive feedback because it will help to prevent them from repeating the mistake. Of course, it is also a suggestion to correct the word.
Constructive Criticism is criticism that, no matter how small, is specifically trying to improve the story you wrote without changing the story you wrote.
It's improving on what you've written on the page, from plot, arc, to syntax, to meaning, honing everything to a higher degree of enjoyment and depth.
If you have a character I hate, constructive criticism isn't changing them to make me like them more. Constructive criticism would involve making them even more of the character you've envisioned, regardless if that would make me hate them even more, and that kind of helpfulness would also be applied to whatever else I tried to help you with.
The amount of constructive criticism needed also varies with the level of writing the critic receives.
Last Star Wars Trilogy: Rewrite the entire thing would be constructive criticism because it was so damn bad. I can't even give that trilogy constructive criticism without tearing it apart, so there's no point in even trying. (I found it so bad that I can't even constructively criticize it. Someone else may be able to, but I can't.)
Where as in The Sandman (new series) my constructive criticism would be: The first twenty minutes of dialogue in the show between the characters makes no sense. It's all needless exposition because the characters already know everything they are telling each other and the only reason they are speaking the words they are speaking is to INFO DUMP the rules of the world to the audience. (I stopped watching after twenty minutes so I have no idea if the show got better, don't care either.) From the clips I've seen, there is a lot of INFO DUMPING in the show's dialogue that doesn't draw me into the story.
My criticism would be: Trust your audience and give your characters interesting dialogue that delves deeper into their motivations and relationships.
Anyway, I suppose if something actually helps you, it's constructive.
If you were to do a Google search, the top definition (from the professional coaching website BetterUp) is:
Constructive criticism is clear, direct, honest, and easy to implement. It provides specific examples and actionable suggestions for positive change. This type of feedback also highlights ways the recipient can make positive improvements in their behavior to minimize future problems.
This is not the only way to look at constructive criticism, but I like it because it is short, easy to understand, and covers the major points.
Personally, I would say that the purpose of constructive criticism is to help the creator to improve, while the purpose of criticism is simply to review. Non-constructive criticism can still help a creator, but it is not intended for that purpose.
As I thought about it more, I'd say:
criticism is negative comments or judgments.
constructive criticism is comments that are intended to help you improve. It could be why the reader felt a way. It could be how the reader thinks it could be changed to make it better. Or both.
If I were to write the following to an author, would that be constructive criticism or just criticism:
"Purely FYI, Dr Pepper deleted the period after Dr from its name many years ago."
Sort of, leaning yes. You're offering information that would improve an oversight, but are you really criticizing anything?
I think constructive criticism is mostly a meaningless buzzword. Authors want to improve, we don't want to feel bad, so we ask that criticism -- needed to improve -- be delivered in non-assholish ways.
And often a reader knows something's wrong, but can't verbalize what's upsetting their reading experience. Perhaps they can't make their criticism "constructive." Should they keep their experience to themself? NO! That's why good editors are a godsend, as it is a skill that takes practice to offer constructive critiques. But, when someone says: "Something's wrong." you should go back and take an extra look.
Therefore I think saying "I welcome constructive criticism" ends up being counterproductive.
My preferred choice is: "I welcome all comments: good, bad, and ugly." It encourages people to say "What the fuck did you do here?" Can trigger you, sure, but it's always on you to keep your elephant in check.
Authors want to improve, we don't want to feel bad, so we ask that criticism -- needed to improve -- be delivered in non-assholish ways.
I think you hit the heart of the matter Redsilver.
When I put "I Welcome Constructive Criticism" I am inviting PMs with spelling or grammar errors and such. If there are more serious issues, I would appreciate at least some suggestion; such as: 'Your writing is unprofessional and inconsistent. I recommend you look up the Chicago Manual of Style and apply their guidelines to your story.'
That is sound criticism, and a reasonable suggestion (there are several threads about using a 'Manual of Style' when writing fiction. (I am not inclined to do so, at least not with the attention to detail that I do for college papers or professional writing.) {the US Army has its own 'manual of style' and when I write about asymmetrical warfare, etc., I follow those guidelines.}
By posting I welcome CC, I feel that I may respond to a Rude Jerk in kind. (Even if I shouldn't. Mostly I don't. Mostly.)
In conclusion, I post that I Welcome Constructive Criticism, because some people here are reluctant to respond with even minor corrections of spelling, or other mild suggestions because they have received nasty responses from some authors. By post IWCC I am getting a number of PMs for each chapter that I write. I have seen posts from people whose opinions I respect mention they are sometimes reluctant to send a PM suggesting a few corrections. At least on SoL/Fine Stories posting "I Welcome Constructive Criticism" seems to be the invitation to send PM's about a story.
"Purely FYI, Dr Pepper deleted the period after Dr from its name many years ago."
I don't think that's any kind of criticism. You're simply telling him something.
"Purely FYI, Dr Pepper deleted the period after Dr from its name many years ago."
This implies they dropped the period at some date in the past, but according to Wikipedia they started with "Dr.", later couldn't make up their mind until they finally dropped the period permanently:
The period (full stop) after Dr was used intermittently in Dr Pepper logos until the 1950s, when, after some debate, it was discarded permanently, for stylistic and legibility reasons.
The Wikipedia entry about Dr. Pepper tells me what I some month ago bought here in Germany as Dr Pepper wasn't the original recipe (it tasted mediocre) but some concoction by Coca-Cola and sold as "Dr Pepper".
Dr Pepper and Seven Up merged (creating Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., or DPSU), giving up international branding rights in the process. After the DPSU merger, Coca-Cola obtained most non-US rights to the Dr Pepper name (with PepsiCo taking the Seven Up rights)
Rights to the name, not the recipe!
I feel cheated!
HM.
Line from a story:
"Their seems to be a problem with the scanners captain"
Constructive criticism:
"It might be a good idea to look into the difference of the word 'there' and 'their'."
Negative or destructive criticism:
"Learn to spell dipshit. It's 'there' not their.
this is something I have a great deal of problems with. Though not specifically, there, their, they're. my issues are with other words, homonyms is the term that comes to mind.
But, English was the 5th language I learnt picking it up in regular school. unless you were one of my parents you were playing Russian roulette with the language you would get as I spoke a few.
Learning any language, let alone one with as complicated and convoluted history as English when it wasn't one you spoke, but mostly understood verbally is quiet the adventure.
So there are nearly as many reasons for 'poor' grammar as there are 'rules' in English.
But I agree with the earlier posts. It is not the content of the 'advice' but it's intent and demeanor.
"Constructive" means you are actually trying to HELP someone.
It intimates a goodness of heart from the person criticizing and them doing it completely for the improvement of the person they are trying to help.
Then we have people who can't stand others to succeed.
They tear down continuously and are not genuine.
Usually narcissistic and snarky.
Grammar police and those who think a writer is submitting so that they personally can go over the work and "mark it up in red".
There IS a difference.
And then you get ME.
I'm the guy that is sarcastic and tried to be funny.
Not responding to you in relation to my story (because if you've replied to me sarcastically I've forgotten it), but sarcasm is one of those things that's problematic. I appreciate it, and I have no problem with a sarcastic response, but I may entirely miss the sarcasm absent sarcasm tags or emoticons or the like. It's easy to miss.
I've written fairly long replies to readers who then let me know that their comment was sarcastic or flippant and they actually agreed with me all along. It happens.
For me, both negative and positive comments can be constructive as long as they point out a flaw (real/perceived/arguable/whatever) in the story. A fix isn't required (but might be helpful).
I believe there is no such thing as "constructive criticism"; all criticism is, to some extent, destructive. The person being criticized is being told, "The way you did this is wrong; if you take my suggestions, it will be better." That's just a step or two up from, "I do this a lot better than you do." Criticism, however "constructive", brings a person down from the high he had been on for completing a work. No man is stupid enough to answer "yes" when his wife asks if a dress makes her ass look fat. She spent time shopping for that dress, trying it on and looking in the mirror to see if it flatters her. If it made her ass look fat, she wouldn't have bought it in the first place. The same is true with our storytellers. They spent many hours writing their story only to be told that parts of it suck. If they had wanted criticism, they would have asked for an editor. I have to wonder how many potentially great writers have given up because their first stories were criticized? It's destructive! Control your hidden desires to be a teacher; if you can't praise it, say nothing.
No man is stupid enough to answer "yes" when his wife asks if a dress makes her ass look fat.
The correct answer is "No". Left unsaid is that it's her fat ass that makes her ass look fat. :)
The correct answer is "No". Left unsaid is that it's her fat ass that makes her ass look fat.
The riskier reply is, "you can't blame the dress".
If you try this, then be prepared for one of three possible outcomes.
1. Run far and fast.
2. Rip the dress from her body and fuck her until she passes out.
3. Your reply makes her laugh and thus puts her fear into perspective.
(Some guys choose option 2 regardless) (My type of man) :)
If you try this, then be prepared for one of three possible outcomes.
4. Wake up in a hospital bed with no idea how you got there. :)
If they had wanted criticism, they would have asked for an editor.
That's naive. Although they perform a valuable service, the editors on SOL are amateurs. On the other hand, there is considerable talent lurking amongst the readership, so welcoming reader criticism can elicit some useful feedback.
AJ
I believe there is no such thing as "constructive criticism"; all criticism is, to some extent, destructive.
Although use of the word "criticism" makes this tough, I'd suggest that "feedback" can be offered in a constructive way, at least sometimes and for some authors. For example, "[Character Name] was super interesting and I enjoyed the way you wrote his scenes. I'd like to see more of him," will, in most cases, be perceived as a positive, a "boost," something to feel good about, even if it suggests the story might have been better.
I agree that feedback from readers is different than that from an editor, although perhaps not as much on SOL as for traditionally published authors. When a story is "published" and a reader says something like, "I really was intrigued by the issue of how the coach would react to the MCs decision to participate in another extracurricular activity, and I would like for the story to have explored that more," -- it's feedback for future stories, but, unless the author is going to publish a revised version, it can't help improve the story.
Finally, "constructive" and "destructive" are judgments the author makes about the communication. Some can treat very negatively-worded critiques with no hint of how to make it better as "constructive." Others may be a bit more prone to take even fairly positive feedback as a hit to their confidence and motivation.
I believe there is no such thing as "constructive criticism"; all criticism is, to some extent, destructive.
Criticism requires neither ability nor honesty, any idiot can do it.
Constructive criticism is pointing out the flaws AND suggesting better options. However, it is subjective and therefore of limited usefulness.
Control your hidden desires to be a teacher; if you can't praise it, say nothing.
That is dangerously close to the "everyone's a winner" bullshit.
Just because you have spent months slaving over your manuscript does NOT mean it's worth the time needed to read it. Keeping silent because it is awful isn't honest. It encourages the writer to continue producing effluent instead of rewriting the first story sufficiently to make it at least worth reading.
Honestly means acknowledging that not everyone can write, or be a doctor, lawyer, executive etc. Stupidity is viewing those who can as being "better" than those who cannot.
Constructive criticism is pointing out the flaws AND suggesting better options. However, it is subjective and therefore of limited usefulness.
In the US Armed Forces during our AARs (After Action Reviews) of training (and sometimes actual combat) the moderator would often say: "No Thin Skins." (Meaning do Not be Offended by Genuine suggestions for improvement.)
Our writing here on SOL is NOT a "Life or Death" matter. So, the need to improve is not as vital.
Nonetheless, I believe we need some criticism to improve (at more than just writing). To be "Constructive" it does not have to be "polite" however, it is more likely that people will listen to your critique if you phrase it well.
Control your hidden desires to be a teacher; if you can't praise it, say nothing.
If you can't take well-meaning criticism, don't post stories where the public can read them.
This isn't second grade, you don't automatically get a gold star just for showing up.
You're basically saying "I don't have enough self-respect to bother improving my work, so bug off."
This isn't second grade, you don't automatically get a gold star just for showing up.
Unfortunately it seems in todays way of life everyone gets a gold star age is no limit.
