Constructive Criticusm

Just read a FOORBES article about it and winced.

Its writer is 22 years old who recently took a leadership seminar at work. She hated the constructive criticism part of the seminar, and wrote a rebuke for the magazine. Age says critics must earn the trust, esteem, and respect of those they criticize. The seminar instructor advised twisting yourself into a pretzel to make a point. Kiss ass, don't kick it. The snowfkales got us by the balls.

My way is to go with best from the start. I don't so 2nd chances or do-ivers. All of us know what to do...then don't. I estimate 90% of criticism points to resistance to duty. You what to do and wont.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-JXOnFOXQk

Creativity is getting the arena and getting your ass kicked.

I sampled a few constructive criticism vids, and all are HOW TO KISS ASS tutorials.

Western Civilization loves docile pleasant people and castrates itself to that end. We hate the truth more than anything, because it exposes the problem like an autopsy or med school cadaver dissection. People are lazy
and resent prompts to do better.

I sampled a few stories. One writer launched a dozen stories with POINDEXTER LOOKED. There may be more stories like that but 12 was enough for me. reader somments kissed ass tho. IT WUZ WUNNERFUL! Only if youre a blockhead with zero taste.

The criticism part of seminars is crap. People say what they think will either curry favor with fellow (possibly superior) coworkers in the seminar, to make them think they're looking good to the leader of the seminar (and themselves), or to go along with the criticism everyone else is heaping on one unlucky person - in a gang rape of criticism.

Most of the seminars I had to attend were run by people who didn't know what they were talking about. Just wasted time, orchestrated by wastes of time.

49greg said:

The criticism part of seminars is crap.... Most of the seminars I had to attend were run by people who didn't know what they were talking about. Just wasted time, orchestrated by wastes of time.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I've been going to weekly writing workshops for the best part of a year and a half and I find the critiquing component a waste of time. Most of the participants aren't that good at writing themselves and they critique based on their own views and likes and dislikes. It's tough getting anything worthwhile out of it. I've got better results working from books on how to review and edit and just cherry picking a few key items, then working to apply those. And repeat.

I don't believe in writing by committee either--especially in face-to-face writing critique groups, where it usually is the blind leading the blind and those making comments having more on their agenda than the content of the work being discussed. I'll take written critiques by writers I know are better than I am and have a good grasp of what good writing is, but not even a group of those face-to-face, as they all will be busy trying to establish their own presence and place in a pecking order.

Deleted

LeandraNyx said:

It's a fact of life that not everyone's opinions are made equal; we sift through the good and the bad advice by first identifying those we respect and trust for their expertise.



You don't have to be an asshole to provide constructive criticism. I find that most people who bitch and moan about "political correctness" are really just upset that they don't have carte blanche to be a dick without consequences; they want to have their asses kissed for their opinions, without having to account for how they state those opinions. If you're articulate and have something meaningful to say, the power of your words should be maintained without the need to be a douche.

Although, admittedly, being a douche is sometimes fun.

Click to expand...

You just captured JBJ perfectly.

This is the best model for constructive yet sensitive feedback


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3_iPskjxk

TxRad said:

You just captured JBJ perfectly.

Click to expand...

I think JBJ has fun all the time. Lol. He's had me snorting my coffee more than me once. But my sense of humour is a bit weird.

LeandraNyx said:

It's a fact of life that not everyone's opinions are made equal; we sift through the good and the bad advice by first identifying those we respect and trust for their expertise.



You don't have to be an asshole to provide constructive criticism. I find that most people who bitch and moan about "political correctness" are really just upset that they don't have carte blanche to be a dick without consequences; they want to have their asses kissed for their opinions, without having to account for how they state those opinions. If you're articulate and have something meaningful to say, the power of your words should be maintained without the need to be a douche.

Although, admittedly, being a docuhe is sometimes fun.

Click to expand...

I guarantee nice people are hated as much as us assholes, but we're immune to your liberal guilt trips. Get a job, bum.

constructive criticism

Generally speaking, human nature loves to look good and usually takes the path of least resistance--so few will complain about a rave review.

Problem with anything led by people is the maturity and experience or lack thereof determine how successful or not said activity is. No doctor, mechanic or translator (as examples) are all at the same level of their peers in their respected fields even when they have the same educational level or experience level: you have some few that are clearly superior (in the 2% range); some are very good (about 8%); the rest (90%) will fall at average or lower. Where do I get this? The Canadian government commissioned a survey about 1976 that queried at least 10K public and private businesses on their employees, specifically how they performed and what they got was this: 2% were leaders, exercising all the innate and needed characteristics that fulfilled said definition; 8% had latent qualities but would need training/support to become leaders; 90% simply did enough not to stand out nor be noticed for performing poorly.

I had professors for my Masters that fell into that: most wanted criticism but they wouldn't force people to back up the weakness with fact (by providing a solution to the problem). There was 1 that was so bad he would pit everyone against each other and gleefully take notes for his lecture because he never came prepared and then never offered advice on how to analyze/criticize a text properly. But one wouldn't let me nor anyone else get away with a thing: if you stated a position, you had to have at least 2 pieces of advice on how to fix a problem with appropriate reasons ("because I like this" wasn't acceptable) and state the analytical approach you used. Thankfully he was the one that taught the "Research, Theory and Writing" class.

The best advice for constructive criticism I've found is to "don't be a part of the problem; be a part of the solution." Remember a writer or speaker is most vulnerable after completing a work and if a person possesses any compassion at all, he/she will proffer the good and then the not-so-good in a way one can swallow yet build on and improve from.

Laurel gave good guidelines for constructive criticism here. I'm sorry I forgot about it.

My best advice is not to give what you think is constructive criticism unless someone has asked for it. (And then if you're going to give it the way JBJ does, just keep your mouth shut.)

Comentarista82 said:

Remember a writer or speaker is most vulnerable after completing a work and if a person possesses any compassion at all, he/she will proffer the good and then the not-so-good in a way one can swallow yet build on and improve from.

Laurel gave good guidelines for constructive criticism here. I'm sorry I forgot about it.

Click to expand...

I suspect that if you start out by qualifying your criticism to make it palatable to the author, it must inevitably be pap and therefore useless.

I run a business which collects and collates scientific data and critiques it in the context of applicable law and regulations. It is very tempting sometimes to go beyond the brief given by the client but that must be resisted.

So on a similar basis to that suggested by Pilot I only criticize if asked to, but if asked the criticism has to be fearless . Consideration should be given to any brief specified by an author, but without that, the feelings of the author should and must be ignored, otherwise the criticism is without integrity.

Laurel's comments are substantially to eliminate abuse.

ishtat said:

So on a similar basis to that suggested by Pilot I only criticize if asked to, but if asked the criticism has to be fearless .

Click to expand...

I think this is key. I see a good bit of vigilante criticism, especially as comments on stories, here, which I totally reject as being constructive--and then I see some spitting when it isn't appreciated. It's simply false that everyone posts stories here to further develop their writing or for anyone to tell them how to do it better (with many of the commenters knowing no more about good writing than the original author does being an additional point--even when they think they do.--Yes, JBJ being a case in point, but he doesn't give critiques; he gives isolated little jabs, many of which are incoherent and even more being wrong or off base. He's also intellectually dishonest because it's usually obvious that he hasn't even read what he comments on).

Writers come to the Feedback forum and ask for critique. It's fine to give it there, I think, because they asked for it--with the note that the writer should take into account that a good many of those giving critique don't know what the hell they're talking about. There's no requirement that they do for them to give a critique. But if you put a critique on a posted story without establishing that the author is posting to be given critique, then I'll cheer if the author tells you to go to hell.

I know this is a blunt way of saying it, but I've found a majority who feel they have the ability and right to slap their view of a "construction" critique as a comment directly on stories here without considering the motives of authors for posting stories here really dense on what is and isn't their business.

NOIRTRASH said:

This is the best model for constructive yet sensitive feedback


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3_iPskjxk

Click to expand...

Full Metal Jacket with R Lee Ermey--where it's "constructive" in breaking down mental barriers/resistance so they learn to act the same by having the same haircut, dress and hopefully performance for purposes of the armed services. ROFL

ishtat said:

I suspect that if you start out by qualifying your criticism to make it palatable to the author, it must inevitably be pap and therefore useless.

I run a business which collects and collates scientific data and critiques it in the context of applicable law and regulations. It is very tempting sometimes to go beyond the brief given by the client but that must be resisted.

So on a similar basis to that suggested by Pilot I only criticize if asked to, but if asked the criticism has to be fearless . Consideration should be given to any brief specified by an author, but without that, the feelings of the author should and must be ignored, otherwise the criticism is without integrity.

Laurel's comments are substantially to eliminate abuse.

Click to expand...

When is being considerate "useless"? I respectfully disagree. Now if you mean if someone excessively praises a work and does only that, then you can claim that is invalid by the logical fallacy of appeal to flattery (as an example). In my profession the claim is usually made that "this new program (or piece of technology) will revolutionize how people learn" and that's invalid by logical fallacy of appeal to novelty. How much people learn is proven to be based on if they choose to, not necessarily what tools they have.

The site "regulation" (posting here or on comment boards for stories outside the forum) is basically keep it civil, no flaming, stirring the pot, bigotry, spam, unsolicited advertising, etc. and posts are allowed and welcome. Because of that, I reported posts earlier where a poster in a thread employed racial slurs against a poster to denigrate instead of addressing the content of the post.

Certainly if someone says "I want a brutal, no-holds barred assessment" or we mean a critique of a scientific theory or invention that could harm or kill others because it's so critical, then that's a horse of a different color. I speak of standard speech curriculums and programs where directors tell people to have 1 good thing and 1 thing to improve upon for speech critiques, which is what I referred to on that last part; that's in high school and the time limit is 30-45 seconds. In graduate school lit/writing and speech, it can go up to 2/2 but you still only have 90 seconds to 2 minutes so you have to give something that helps the author/presenter and gives them something to work on. In neither case can it be only 'well I liked this but I didn't like that." If you dare present something so weak in graduate school, the professors rightfully excoriate the person for not using the tools they're learning to glean relevant information from the item to give back to the speaker/writer/presenter.

That dovetails into what Laurel wrote. If it were to eliminate abuse, the post would have only said "feel free to delete any post that abuses you or other posters." Instead it said to "consider" posters input where they said what was good and what was something to improve where they gave a possible solution or remedy (she mentioned confusing POV). A fresh pair of eyes never hurt.

But are you a vigilante critiquer, Comentarista82? Do you go around putting writing critique on stories in the story file when the author has not requested critique? Are you one of the folks here who assumes that everyone who shares a story on Literotica is doing it to develop their writing skills and welcomes critique from someone with unknown bona fides for giving writing critique?

I don't see just being civil as being the point. The point is making a false assumption that everyone posting a story here is even trying to be a writer over and above just having the enjoyment of sharing a story, written as best as they want to.

But I also see actually having the ability to give constructive criticism as a point too. I don't see critiques here all that often that reflect having obtained the expertise to be giving constructive criticism that goes much deeper than "there's a difference between its and it's."

You don't have any stories posted to Literotica. For instance, then, where did you get your masters in fine arts in writing? How is anyone here to know that you have any knowledge of good writing when you give them an unsolicited critique? (And before you try to turn that back on me--yes I'm a trained professional at it--although I won't do it unless asked and then not often here anyway, as I'm not on a busman's holiday here--and I have vetted with the Editor forum moderator and some others here.)

I gotta say that there's a sentence in your profile that extends my claws: "If you as an author are so close to your 'creation' that you can't accept positives and negatives, then why are you writing?" Who are you to judge why anyone else chooses to write and share--especially on a story site like this? That's pretty out there arrogant and wrongheaded, I think.

sr71plt said:

But are you a vigilante critiquer, Comentarista82? Do you go around putting writing critique on stories in the story file when the author has not requested critique? Are you one of the folks here who assumes that everyone who shares a story on Literotica is doing it to develop their writing skills and welcomes critique from someone with unknown bona fides for giving writing critique?

I don't see just being civil as being the point. The point is making a false assumption that everyone posting a story here is even trying to be a writer over and above just having the enjoyment of sharing a story, written as best as they want to.

But I also see actually having the ability to give constructive criticism as a point too. I don't see critiques here all that often that reflect having obtained the expertise to be giving construction criticism that goes much deeper than "there's a difference between its and it's."

You don't have any stories posted to Literotica. For instance, then, where did you get your masters in fine arts? How is anyone here to know that you have any knowledge of good writing?

I gotta say that there's a sentence in your profile that extends my claws: "If you as an author are so close to your 'creation' that you can't accept positives and negatives, then why are you writing?" Who the hell are you to judge why anyone else chooses to write and share--especially on a story site like this? That's pretty out there arrogant and wrongheaded, I think.

Click to expand...

I figured you directed those comments at me, but "vigilante"? Wow, that's "out there" to use your words. That's definitely ad hominem crossing over into genetic logical fallacy later. To my knowledge, I have never taken exception with you nor even disagreed with you until now. So I see no basis for such a reaction, especially since I address the matter at hand only.

I won't debate your personal experience, especially since that is not the point of this thread. Your perception is your truth and I cannot debate that. Besides, if I tried to, some could consider that flaming and that would violate the TOS. Not going there.

Everyone "judges" something, but just as you or I decide on what clothes to wear, we "judge" what would look best or be most appropriate for the occasion. That hardly means we condemn the other clothes in our closet as worthless or to a fate of never being worn again. We "judge" how others appear to us either subconsciously or actively although we may never voice that estimation to them. It is therefore condemning something that is wrong--the "you suck and your story sucks" (i.e. flaming) which should rightfully lead to a person's comments being deleted and the person banned where there is no value to the statement and it's clear it's an attack.

The point of the rules is to be civil. Unless I'm mistaken, every author can disable comments on a story and limit it to "feedback only." Unless that option no longer exists, they still have that control and I have relationships with several authors that only communicate that way. The entire point of the thread and Laurel's listing was that if a poster wished to comment, the ideal was this and the author could decide based on a, b, and c whether that comment was useful or if abusive, to delete it.

So I can understand you're passionate about writing, but this post deals with constructive criticism and dealing with that. I know I've never read one of your stories but I'll commit to saying if I do read one I'll avoid commenting on it. You react as if I'd somehow "gone after" your stories or something. I could certainly understand your reaction if that were the case.

Unless I'm mistaken, part of this site's banner is about "free speech"; if we accept that, then all are free to speak so long as it doesn't degenerate into forbidden conduct. If membership in the site required "providing credentials" like transcript copies, etc., I'm sure the site creators would have required that. They didn't, so no one is required "to prove" what credentials they have. Now if you wish to create and manage your own site and require that to join, more power to you and you are free to do so. If I manage to find the article written from Dr. Thomas Sowell that proves 2-3 different ways "demanding credentials" is wrong in such a case, I'll provide the link. I'll leave you with this, which seems very apropos since effectively the argument is I have no right to speak unless I'm invited to. Here's a great speech from a fictional character giving a very true speech about free speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smdqe2eluEI

I don't know you, but while I disagree with your stance toward me you are welcome to your opinion in a free society. Please extend the same consideration. Thank you and have a good night.

sr71plt said:

But are you a vigilante critiquer, Comentarista82? Do you go around putting writing critique on stories in the story file when the author has not requested critique? Are you one of the folks here who assumes that everyone who shares a story on Literotica is doing it to develop their writing skills and welcomes critique from someone with unknown bona fides for giving writing critique?

I don't see just being civil as being the point. The point is making a false assumption that everyone posting a story here is even trying to be a writer over and above just having the enjoyment of sharing a story, written as best as they want to.

But I also see actually having the ability to give constructive criticism as a point too. I don't see critiques here all that often that reflect having obtained the expertise to be giving constructive criticism that goes much deeper than "there's a difference between its and it's."

You don't have any stories posted to Literotica. For instance, then, where did you get your masters in fine arts in writing? How is anyone here to know that you have any knowledge of good writing when you give them an unsolicited critique? (And before you try to turn that back on me--yes I'm a trained professional at it--although I won't do it unless asked and then not often here anyway, as I'm not on a busman's holiday here--and I have vetted with the Editor forum moderator and some others here.)

I gotta say that there's a sentence in your profile that extends my claws: "If you as an author are so close to your 'creation' that you can't accept positives and negatives, then why are you writing?" Who are you to judge why anyone else chooses to write and share--especially on a story site like this? That's pretty out there arrogant and wrongheaded, I think.

Click to expand...

I’m with Pilot.

If I could sit across the table from one of my readers, the main question I would have is: ‘Did you find reading the story in some way satisfying, entertaining, thought-provoking?’ I certainly wouldn’t be asking someone I didn’t know: ‘How could I have made it better?’ Apart from anything else, ‘How could I have made it better?’ would have to be ‘How could I have made it better for you?’ And that would lead to: And what about the other 17,201 readers? (Yeah, I don’t get the mega readership. But what the hell?)

Comentarista82 said:

Full Metal Jacket with R Lee Ermey--where it's "constructive" in breaking down mental barriers/resistance so they learn to act the same by having the same haircut, dress and hopefully performance for purposes of the armed services. ROFL

Click to expand...

Partial credit.

Boot camp eliminates lotsa variables for the drill instructor to deal with when IRL comes to the party and creates a crisis for most recruits. One of life's enduring truths is: LITTLE CHANGES WITHOUT A CRISIS. People respond to trauma.

SamScribble said:

I’m with Pilot.

If I could sit across the table from one of my readers, the main question I would have is: ‘Did you find reading the story in some way satisfying, entertaining, thought-provoking?’ I certainly wouldn’t be asking someone I didn’t know: ‘How could I have made it better?’ Apart from anything else, ‘How could I have made it better?’ would have to be ‘How could I have made it better for you?’ And that would lead to: And what about the other 17,201 readers? (Yeah, I don’t get the mega readership. But what the hell?)

Click to expand...

I'm sort of in between on this. I actively solicit feedback and comments in the notes at the start and end of most of my stories and I'm good with anything and everything. The sort of feedback that Commenterista gives is just fine with me - I'll take it on board or discount it as I see fit but I'm always saying, I'm here to learn to write and to get better at it on a live audience - and I'll take in anything constructive that that audience has to say. But I also generally say that up front and do my best to encourage feedback and comments.

I'd guess there are quite a few authors who aren't interested in comments other than the "wow, that was great" sort but I think most of us are just grateful to get any kind of positive or semi-positive comment back at all - and a comment from somebody whose taken the time to actually think about what I've written and to go into those details - well, that's something I'm even more grateful to receive.

I cant recall seeing any useful feedback at LIT. Readers hate or love our efforts and cant articulate why. I get no feedback. I don't encourage it. I submit stories to try odeas for results. For me its Kitty Hawk and the Wright Bros. I wanna see it fly. I cant care less if TEX likes how high it flies or if its length impresses LOVECRAFT.

I'm surprised at some of the statements made here, especially Pilot's. I suppose I assumed that most authors here WOULD want to receive constructive criticism of their writing. I know I do. I welcome criticism from all readers, and I don't care what their qualifications are. I have received useful and interesting insights from readers whose English credentials were suspect. I'm glad they went to the trouble.

But let's suppose Pilot's right, and that many authors don't care to receive criticism from their readers. Does that make it improper, or presumptuous, or impolite to offer a critique anyway? I don't see why it would. Reader response is as much a feature of this website as anything; the site creator's specifically set up the tools on the site to let readers score, comment, and choose authors and stories as their favorites. I don't see anything inherently presumptuous or improper about offering a critique of a story, whether the critique is solicited or not. If an author doesn't want a critique, he/she can turn off comments, or ignore any critiques he or she doesn't want to read.

As a group, don't we want to encourage as much reader response as possible?

SimonDoom said:

.....But let's suppose Pilot's right, and that many authors don't care to receive criticism from their readers. Does that make it improper, or presumptuous, or impolite to offer a critique anyway? I don't see why it would. Reader response is as much a feature of this website as anything; the site creator's specifically set up the tools on the site to let readers score, comment, and choose authors and stories as their favorites. I don't see anything inherently presumptuous or improper about offering a critique of a story, whether the critique is solicited or not. If an author doesn't want a critique, he/she can turn off comments, or ignore any critiques he or she doesn't want to read.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's my view. If you as the author don't want comments, turn them off. Leave it on, take what comes, trolls excepted. Me, the only comments I delete are the truly offensive trolling. I don't object to readers being rude, critical or ripping apart my writing at all. I even enjoy the gook slut ones, they're always good for a giggle.