The Kind of Comment I love/need. Thanks Goodwab

[WendyTrilby]

I just wanted to give a big shoutout to fellow Lit member GOODWAB.

Why? Because I just published my 13th story, The More Mom. And even though I proofread it (like, a lot), a bunch of little errors still slipped through. Nothing major—just the kind of stuff that can pull readers out of the moment.

GOODWAB read the whole thing, left a glowing comment, and gently pointed out the fixable issues. That’s precisely the kind of feedback I appreciate: start with the story—was it good? Twisted? Erotic? Engaging?—then slide into the technical stuff with kindness. Super helpful, super supportive.

I bring this up because in the past, I've had people go full Mr. Zimmer (my old junior high English teacher, may he rest in grammar hell). Just nitpicky corrections with no love for the story itself. Zero value. All scolding.

But GOODWAB? Total opposite. They might not be posting their work here (yet?), but I’m following them anyway so they’ll see when I drop new stuff—and hopefully keep sending those helpful, encouraging vibes my way.

So yeah, let’s all try to be a little more like GOODWAB.

—WT

PS: I've uploaded my corrected files, so a corrected version of the story should repopulate the file soon.

 

[Bookiegirl]

I just wanted to give a big shoutout to fellow Lit member GOODWAB.

Why? Because I just published my 13th story, The More Mom. And even though I proofread it (like, a lot), a bunch of little errors still slipped through. Nothing major—just the kind of stuff that can pull readers out of the moment.

GOODWAB read the whole thing, left a glowing comment, and gently pointed out the fixable issues. That’s precisely the kind of feedback I appreciate: start with the story—was it good? Twisted? Erotic? Engaging?—then slide into the technical stuff with kindness. Super helpful, super supportive.

I bring this up because in the past, I've had people go full Mr. Zimmer (my old junior high English teacher, may he rest in grammar hell). Just nitpicky corrections with no love for the story itself. Zero value. All scolding.

But GOODWAB? Total opposite. They might not be posting their work here (yet?), but I’m following them anyway so they’ll see when I drop new stuff—and hopefully keep sending those helpful, encouraging vibes my way.

So yeah, let’s all try to be a little more like GOODWAB.

—WT

PS: I've uploaded my corrected files, so a corrected version of the story should repopulate the file soon.

Congratulations on your continued progress

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I bring this up because in the past, I've had people go full Mr. Zimmer (my old junior high English teacher, may he rest in grammar hell). Just nitpicky corrections with no love for the story itself. Zero value. All scolding.

The tone of the critique does not affect the facts of the critique.

If it has to be told to you nicely and there has to be 'love for the story', then you are seeking approval more (probably quite a bit more) than you think you are.

 

[sinfantasy]

PS: I've uploaded my corrected files, so a corrected version of the story should repopulate the file soon.

The only problem is edits take way too long on lit... by the time changes are approved your story would be old enough to pass through most of its readers... It's better than never though.

All the best

 

[ElectricBlue]

PS: I've uploaded my corrected files, so a corrected version of the story should repopulate the file soon.

"Soon" being 2 - 3 weeks if you're lucky, longer if you're not.

 

[WendyTrilby]

The tone of the critique does not affect the facts of the critique.

If it has to be told to you nicely and there has to be 'love for the story', then you are seeking approval more (probably quite a bit more) than you think you are.

I can unabashadly state, I am 100% seeking approval, probalby more than you even think I am. Thanks for noticing.

 

[RP_Goals]

I can unabashadly state, I am 100% seeking approval, probalby more than you even think I am. Thanks for noticing

I like this response. Honesty is sexy af.

 

[SouthernCrossfire]

I really enjoyed your story, too, Wendy, and really liked the suggested twist with what was found near the end. I noticed a few typos and the name change, too, but the typos weren't so frequent or bad enough to remember them (much less where they were) by the time I finished the story and the name change had already been pointed out by the time I left my short comment.

 

[femmeappeal]

Of course you are. If a person weren't seeking approval at all it's unlikely they would bother to read their comments sections. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nor is there anything wrong with appreciating the tone and the level of basic respect that a comment includes. Not earned or specific kinds of respect; the basic respect we should afford anyone we encounter in our day to day lives.

Constructive criticism requires that you're actually trying to be constructive. By all accounts, it's a collaborative effort between the person offering criticism and the original author/creator of the art in question. If you're just being an asshole, trying to tear something down, you're not being constructive. If you're just interested in complaining that the story doesn't fit what you want it to be - like the guy, many years ago now, who lectured md that Taken By Her Midnight Lover didn't fit a specific list of rules and expectations of a BDSM story, to which my only response was that it is no way a BDSM story - then you're not being constructive.

And if your criticism isn't constructive, it is my fervent opinion, born of 40+ years of being a writer in general, and of 50 years (as of today) on this planet, that you are not showing that author the basic respect we should afford anyone we encounter in our day to day lives. I have little patience for someone who can't afford others the basic respect and courtesy we should extend to any stranger on the street.

^^That's all opinion based on what I consider reasonable and rational ways to live as a human being in this world. This next bit is a much more personal viewpoint that is born strictly of my fervent belief that expressing frustration is healthy when someone's nasty attitude brought it upon themselves - though that belief is reinforced by some research. >>

If I, the author, am not being shown basic respect by a critique, I feel entirely within my rights to be a snarky cunt in my response. Because this is a very grown up site with very grown up intent. It's also a place where we have no expectation of filtering our language or imagery. So if you're being disrespectful of me, I will demonstrate just how capable I am of a biting and unfiltered description of what kind of an asshole you are.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Of course you are. If a person weren't seeking approval at all it's unlikely they would bother to read their comments sections. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nor is there anything wrong with appreciating the tone and the level of basic respect that a comment includes. Not earned or specific kinds of respect; the basic respect we should afford anyone we encounter in our day to day lives.

Constructive criticism requires that you're actually trying to be constructive. By all accounts, it's a collaborative effort between the person offering criticism and the original author/creator of the art in question. If you're just being an asshole, trying to tear something down, you're not being constructive. If you're just interested in complaining that the story doesn't fit what you want it to be - like the guy, many years ago now, who lectured md that Taken By Her Midnight Lover didn't fit a specific list of rules and expectations of a BDSM story, to which my only response was that it is no way a BDSM story - then you're not being constructive.

This. There are a lot of people who think of what they do as "constructive criticism" when it'd be more accurate to say that they just love telling other people "you're wrong" in public.

I've worked with autistic people and I've worked with Russians, so I know there's a difference between being blunt and being abrasive. It's no secret that being abrasive reduces the chance that people will listen to critique; when self-appointed critics know this and yet decline to do the one thing that would most improve the chance of their critique effecting improvement, one has to suspect that deep down they don't really believe in the value of their own feedback.

If my criticism is a precious Faberge egg which I have chosen to bestow upon some lucky recipient, I'm gonna put it in a nice box and write the address clearly so it gets where it's meant to go. If I choose instead to drive by their house and throw it at their head, one might reasonably suspect that the egg is not Faberge but rotten.

And as I've noted before, if they were really driven by a desire to help writers improve they'd be spending less time in the comments section and more in the Volunteer Editor pages.

 

[ThatNewGuy]

And if your criticism isn't constructive, it is my fervent opinion, born of 40+ years of being a writer in general, and of 50 years (as of today) on this planet,

Happy birthday. (Insert Sally O'Malley gif here.)

 

[femmeappeal]

If my criticism is a precious Faberge egg which I have chosen to bestow upon some lucky recipient, I'm gonna put it in a nice box and write the address clearly so it gets where it's meant to go. If I choose instead to drive by their house and throw it at their head, one might reasonably suspect that the egg is not Faberge but rotten.

As someone who often gets annoyed at people expecting brevity instead of a funny analogy or two, just had to give this extra attention.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Constructive criticism requires that you're actually trying to be constructive. By all accounts, it's a collaborative effort between the person offering criticism and the original author/creator of the art in question. If you're just being an asshole, trying to tear something down, you're not being constructive

That's not necessarily true, and very often it is not true at all. Criticism, regardless of the critic's intentions (to be helpful or to tell or anywhere in between), can only be as constructive as it is received.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It's no secret that being abrasive reduces the chance that people will listen to critique; when self-appointed critics know this and yet decline to do the one thing that would most improve the chance of their critique effecting improvement, one has to suspect that deep down they don't really believe in the value of their own feedback.

Sure, but that is irrelevant to the writer's attitude in receiving the critique.

If someone writes a scathingly rude review, it is still the writer's choice 200% whether to take the insult or ignore it and glean any good info anyways.

By that same token that the reviewer may 'devalue' his own critique, the writer can still come out on top by finding that value anyways

 

[pink_silk_glove]

And if your criticism isn't constructive, it is my fervent opinion, born of 40+ years of being a writer in general, and of 50 years (as of today) on this planet, that you are not showing that author the basic respect we should afford anyone we encounter in our day to day lives. I have little patience for someone who can't afford others the basic respect and courtesy we should extend to any stranger on the street.

Constructive value and respect are completely different things. Fuck respect. If one respects oneself, one does not go around needing respect. If someone sends a gold nugget do you care that it's wrapped in a pink lace bow with a card or dropped in a shit smeared paper bag? I don't. Thanks for the gold nugget, I win. And don't try to say that gold nuggets never arrived in shit because I've received a couple on my very low traffic account.

 

[filthytrancendence]

I can unabashadly state, I am 100% seeking approval, probalby more than you even think I am. Thanks for noticing.

I love this response. It's very disarming and endearing.

I kinda agree with the spirit of PSG's comment, but I think their viewpoint is only useful from the perspective of an author who wants to improve. Sometimes you can glean useful information from people with bad intentions or bad delivery, if you want to.

From the perspective of a critic, it's kinda nonsense. The tone and delivery are critical if you actually want to help someone. And also, the type of criticism you describe from your junior high English teacher is among the most useless type of criticism, in my experience. It's easy to be a pedant and nitpick every spelling error and grammar rule. And we've had computers to do that for us for 20+ years at this point. Truly valuable criticism makes an effort to meet an artist where they are at and give them useful, actionable advice. Nitpicking criticism is usually more of a telegraph of insecurity and a disinterest in actually engaging with your work in any real way.

 

[TheLobster]

I can unabashadly state, I am 100% seeking approval, probalby more than you even think I am. Thanks for noticing.

That’s okay. We don’t kink-shame here.

 

[Comshaw]

The tone of the critique does not affect the facts of the critique.

If it has to be told to you nicely and there has to be 'love for the story', then you are seeking approval more (probably quite a bit more) than you think you are.

"The tone of the critique does not affect the facts of the critique."

That's absolutely true. HOWEVER, there is an old saying, "You can get more cooperation with a carrot than a stick." It's a fact of human nature that MOST (there are exceptions) people will take in and absorb advice given with a gentle hand rather than delivered with a blow from that hand. If you give a dog a treat and whack them with a stick right after it won't be long and that animal will be cowering away from you and isn't going to be coming to you to get a treat.

What is a critic trying to do with their advice? The main thing is to relay to the author the mistakes they see and what to do to fix them. Doing so with a gentle hand ensures that advice will be at minimum read and at a maximum heeded.

Besides, why deliver that kind of advice, then hit them with a stick of nasty comments? There is only one reason to do that, because the ego of the critic demands they show how smart, how well informed, and how skilled they are at the expense of someone else. That makes them a person large in skill and small in heart.


Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

I can unabashadly state, I am 100% seeking approval, probalby more than you even think I am. Thanks for noticing.

While people say that's a bad thing we all need approval, at least from time to time. Any one who says they don't is trying to sell something, snake oil most of the time.


Comshaw

 

[SimonDoom]

I can unabashadly state, I am 100% seeking approval, probalby more than you even think I am. Thanks for noticing.

That's being human. Me too. It's a feature not a bug.

Approval isn't the only thing I seek, or even the main thing. But I like knowing that others like my story. It's the point of publishing. Otherwise, I could just save my stories to my hard drive and be content.

 

[Comshaw]

That's not necessarily true, and very often it is not true at all. Criticism, regardless of the critic's intentions (to be helpful or to tell or anywhere in between), can only be as constructive as it is received.

You are correct that sound criticism can only be as constructive as it is received, but you consistently ignore the human factor. Most people are not robotically inclined to ignore hurt, ignore hate, ignore egotistical rants no matter how many nuggets of good stuff are buried in them.

If a critic doesn't care if their advice is assimilated, then they will deliver it in whatever manner they see fit and to hell with the recipient. Most of the time if criticism is done in a brusque, insult-filled manner, it's done that way because of the critic's ego, because they feel the recipient should genuflect before their vast knowledge and be thankful they decided to grace them with advice.

Which begs the question: In any particular incident, why is a critic criticising? To impart wisdom and skills to the author and help them, or to bolster their own ego by showing how much they know?

I know which one I'd pay attention to.

Comshaw

 

[filthytrancendence]

Which begs the question: In any particular incident, why is a critic criticising? To impart wisdom and skills to the author and help them, or to bolster their own ego by showing how much they know?

I couldn't agree more, but I think it goes deeper than that, too.

I view criticism as a different but related skill to producing the type of art being criticized. And I don't believe a critic can give the really helpful and insightful kind of analysis that people actually want without authentically engaging with the work, and not only that, but engaging with it in the context of the artist's skill level.

Really good criticism requires the critic to reciprocate the vulnerability of the artist. Bad criticism is often a refusal to engage in that vulnerability.

And because criticism is a separate skill, it's not something you just get good at because you're skilled at producing the form of art. You have to practice the skill of criticism and pay attention to how it is received, or else your skill of criticism isn't ever going to improve.

 

[Bramblethorn]

For me, part of it is that "interpersonal conflict" mode and "receiving constructive criticism" mode are two different states of mind, and if somebody chooses to push the buttons that activate the former I'm not going to be in a great frame of mind for the latter.

Part of it is that I primarily write for people who aren't arseholes. If people who are arseholes find something to enjoy in my stories, well and good, but their ideas about what might improve my stories may not be relevant to me.

And part of it is that I'm not so starved for feedback that I need to unwrap the shit-smeared bag to see if there's a gold nugget inside, any more than I need to invoke ChatGPT to randomly generate an opinion about my work. Because I have no shortage of people who understand the kinds of things I'm trying to do with my stories and can give me frank feedback about whether I'm succeeding in that aim, but who also have the emotional intelligence to do that without making their feedback smell like shit.

A couple of weeks back I gave one of my clients notice that if they interact abusively, they won't be a client any more. If I'm not willing to put up with that crap from people who are paying me by the hour, why on earth would I put up with it in a hobby?

Life's too short to coddle arseholes by pretending they're rough diamonds.

 

[StillStunned]

Part of it is that I primarily write for people who aren't arseholes.

Wait... we get to choose?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Wait... we get to choose?

We get to choose who our target audience is, but there's also a collateral damage audience.