criticism and unfair prejudice.

[rae121452]

i'm afraid the unfair prejudice is my own.

whenever i receive criticism on a story, no matter how mild, my first response is to look at the critic's profile page. if they are someone who hasn't published anything, i automatically think, "...so what could they know?"

i just caught myself doing it again.

 

[gordo12]

i'm afraid the unfair prejudice is my own.

whenever i receive criticism on a story, no matter how mild, my first response is to look at the critic's profile page. if they are someone who hasn't published anything, i automatically think, "...so what could they know?"

i just caught myself doing it again.

I left criticism on stories for years and heard that comment come back at me many times. I've written hundreds of web pages and several health books. I just never wrote anything to post HERE.

Even anon comments sometimes come with little gems. The only cure is a thick skin or turn the comments and feedback emails off. Something I will not do. It's surprising the shit they catch that went right by me.

 

[gordo12]

AAANNDDD just to add to my day. Somebody dissed me twice with comments on a couple of stories this morning. Guess who added themselves to my list of followers right after

Chutzpah!

 

[Bramblethorn]

i'm afraid the unfair prejudice is my own.

whenever i receive criticism on a story, no matter how mild, my first response is to look at the critic's profile page. if they are someone who hasn't published anything, i automatically think, "...so what could they know?"

i just caught myself doing it again.

"I never laid an egg, but I'm a better judge of an omelette than any chicken."

Authors are perhaps in a better position to give useful criticism, if only because they've usually had experience on the receiving end. But it doesn't mean they have a monopoly on useful criticism.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think I've done this. Authors may be better critics, but, after all, we write for readers, not authors, and their viewpoints count, too, even if they don't write a lick. A lack of submissions of their own doesn't really say much about whether they're qualified to comment or not.

 

[KeithD]

This is a venue of anonymity. Having also written for posting here, especially in the genre being commented on and also having something you can check out yourself on the commenter's own skill, another writer's comments naturally are potentially more valid than knowing nothing about the commenter at all or someone giving comment who has nothing you can validate.

 

[Areala-chan]

I look at it the same way I do other sorts of reviews. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Roger Ebert, for instance, never made a motion picture. He never wrote a screenplay, he never sat behind the camera, he never worked as a gaffer, or a production assistant, or a even at the craft services table. By virtue of this fact, yes, there were things he "could not possibly know" about what it takes to actually make a film. I don't see how anyone could argue that he was ill-equipped to critique film despite a lack of experience in this area. Ebert made for a wonderful critic, because he understood the languages of film, he understood the amorphous boundary that exists between a bad film and a good film, and he possessed enough skill and wit as a speaker and writer that he could communicate his views, week after week, month after month, year after year, to a willing and receptive audience.

I think many readers are in the same vein. They may not know what it takes to write a story, they may not have the ability or the skills necessary to produce a good one, they may not even be able to pin down what makes a story "good" or "bad" in their own eyes. But they know when something feels right, and when it feels wrong. As long as that's the angle they're coming from with their criticism, then it's hard to say they have no right to say it.

 

[TriadWriter]

It's a valid thought (OP), but that really isn't the point in either case. The point is whether they bring a valid concern that applies to your story. If it does, then it's constructive criticism, and should be taken into consideration.

I personally don't put much stock in people who've shown that they don't know what they're talking about, but I still double check to see if any concerns about my work are valid or not. If they are, then it's something to look for later in future stories, but if it isn't a big deal, or doesn't actually exist, then I disregard it.

As a writer, I'm not concerned with those who complain solely for the sake of doing so. I only care about my stories, and whether they need improvement. I've even had some rather nasty comments before, that brought valid concerns about my stories, that I've taken to heart. Their comment is still deleted, because they were nasty about it, but that hardly means I don't at least check.

 

[Maeven_quinn]

i'm afraid the unfair prejudice is my own.

whenever i receive criticism on a story, no matter how mild, my first response is to look at the critic's profile page. if they are someone who hasn't published anything, i automatically think, "...so what could they know?"

i just caught myself doing it again.

If they're not authors, then they are our audience. Or they are at least potentially the audience.

It's not always about impressing your peers -that is people who have spent the same amount of time learning to write as you- but impressing people who don't write at all, and enjoy reading.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Roger Ebert, for instance, never made a motion picture. He never wrote a screenplay, he never sat behind the camera, he never worked as a gaffer, or a production assistant, or a even at the craft services table. By virtue of this fact, yes, there were things he "could not possibly know" about what it takes to actually make a film. I don't see how anyone could argue that he was ill-equipped to critique film despite a lack of experience in this area. Ebert made for a wonderful critic, because he understood the languages of film, he understood the amorphous boundary that exists between a bad film and a good film, and he possessed enough skill and wit as a speaker and writer that he could communicate his views, week after week, month after month, year after year, to a willing and receptive audience.

I agree with the general point, but Ebert did have a few writing credits, in particular for Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls".

I liked his philosophy of reviewing things according to their prospective audience: "When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher."

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree with Areala-Chan.

In general, a person's authority is a bad thing to look to if you want to determine the merit of what the person is saying. It's better to look to the quality of the criticism itself, and the reasons and evidence given in support of the opinions. Whether or not someone has written anything creative tells you nothing about that.

If the critic claims knowledge that a non-writer wouldn't have, that's different. But that's not usually the case here. A good careful reader can understand plot and character and prose, etc. and be able to opine on these things even without any experience writing. Writing and critiquing are two different skills.

 

[Athalia]

There was a critic who, when asked why he could present himself as a film critic when he had no direct experience with the trade, replied "There are those who know the way, but cannot drive the car." I take this to mean that you can know whether the route you're traveling may lead you astray, even when you're in the back seat, so to speak.

 

[ElectricBlue]

i'm afraid the unfair prejudice is my own.

whenever i receive criticism on a story, no matter how mild, my first response is to look at the critic's profile page. if they are someone who hasn't published anything, i automatically think, "...so what could they know?"

i just caught myself doing it again.

It depends on how much they pontificate, to a great extent. If they're intelligently expressing their views and are literate and coherent, then good, keep on tearing me to bits, because that's good critique, give me more. But if they can't string a sentence together, I'll often go check out a body of work. Amusement kicks in when I open up a random story (if there is one, because usually there isn't), and they don't practice what they preach... oh dear, really?

 

[SamScribble]

If the criticism is useful, I don't really care if the critic is a writer, a reader, or the daring young man on the flying trapeze. And if the criticism is not useful, I ignore it; so, again, it doesn't really matter who left it.

 

[Pocketshaver]

its more about the butt hurt most of you feel when someone pisses in your cheerios.

Sure there are good stories, and bad stories. Critics with good points and critics who got no fucking clue whatsoever offering commentary on something.

Problem you need to realize is that not everyone is going to be a fan of what you write, or the subject matter within it. Meaning, you may just love some so called artists photo exhibit last week in LA... but the local unknown online critic may say the ability to take photographs of urine samples may not be much of a skill..

its like 99% of medical shows and movies, most average person street who ever read an army or marine corp field manual on combat wound tending knows more then the writers of said shows and movies do.

 

[Areala-chan]

I agree with the general point, but Ebert did have a few writing credits, in particular for Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls".

I liked his philosophy of reviewing things according to their prospective audience: "When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher."

Ah, my mistake! I stand corrected. Thank you, Bramblethorn!

 

[KeithD]

I think the point is that Ebert built a reputation that could be researched and checked. That isn't what you have with those leaving comments on Literotica. The tendency to check what the commenter has written her/himself here is because it's pretty much the only way to do any validation at all.

I do chuckle when stress is put on a writer gauging what comment was valid/helpful when given here by whether it makes sense to them. For many writing issues, If they knew what guidance was good and what was bad they wouldn't be asking for it here in the first place. Without any way to validate advice given (e.g., what shows in their own writing? or how has their advice given to others held up in the discussion, and with citation of authorities?), it's just the blind leading the blind (and often the more blind leading the less blind).

 

[gunhilltrain]

I think the point is that Ebert built a reputation that could be researched and checked. That isn't what you have with those leaving comments on Literotica. The tendency to check what the commenter has written her/himself here is because it's pretty much the only way to do any validation at all.

I do chuckle when stress is put on a writer gauging what comment was valid/helpful when given here by whether it makes sense to them. For many writing issues, If they knew what guidance was good and what was bad they wouldn't be asking for it here in the first place. Without any way to validate advice given (e.g., what shows in their own writing? or how has their advice given to others held up in the discussion, and with citation of authorities?), it's just the blind leading the blind (and often the more blind leading the less blind).

For perspective, read The Devil's Candy which, at the end, describes how Hollywood uses test audiences and then recuts movies based on the survey results. (Of course the audiences mostly don't know the impact of their off-the-cuff musings.)

The case described here is The Bonfire of the Vanities for which Brian De Palma, among other tasks, had to cut an expensive and difficult-to-film scene because of low survey scores. Even the ending was changed. The movie failed at the box office anyway.

 

[KeithD]

Movie test audiences know a hell of a lot more about movies than the average porn reader knows about writing. Just saying.

 

[Hypoxia]

If you're a wuss who can't take criticism, don't run for the US presidency and don't post on LIT. And bathe before appearing in public.

 

[Kantarii]

i'm afraid the unfair prejudice is my own.

whenever i receive criticism on a story, no matter how mild, my first response is to look at the critic's profile page. if they are someone who hasn't published anything, i automatically think, "...so what could they know?"

i just caught myself doing it again.

I don’t mind criticism if it’s constructive. I’d rather have it as opposed to praise because it motivates me to improve as a writer. If all I ever received was praise, I’d get stuck in a rut and not try to improve.

As far as peeking at profiles, I gave up on that. Most people on this site don’t even bother to fill it out and even fewer use a picture of themselves, but I get the reasons why most don’t.
Kant

 

[KeithD]

Because a photo has anything to do with the validity of story critique.

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

I waste no time with criticism. I aim to master what matters to me. Lately I obsess over adverbs and static verbs. I mean why say WOULD when you already acted? "I WOULD SAY..." duh you already saidit.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not sure "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" does much to burnish Ebert's critical chops. It's a ridiculous movie.

Ebert was a professional movie critic. It's not fair to compare a Literotica reader leaving a one paragraph comment to Ebert. But the main point is that a comment on a story stands on its own merits, and its merits have little to do with WHO is making the comment. An intelligent comment left by a non-writer has just as much merit as an intelligent comment left by a writer. The fact that a writer made it doesn't make it more worthy.

 

[oggbashan]

Unfair?

A recent comment on my contest story April Apology from a named individual who does not accept feedback/contact:

Good start.

But just a start. A3* keep writing.

A 3 star rating seems harsh but fairly common. The rating has risen to 3.66