The Value of Criticism

[rj_anderson]

And O, this essay by Tara LJC O'Shea on receiving and giving criticism is a fine, fine thing that ought to be read and cuddled and taken to heart by every writer and reader I know. Not that I have an opinion about this, or anything.

This is not to say I have always been the best at receiving criticism graciously, especially right off the bat. Criticism stings, especially when it comes from an angle you weren't expecting (or worse, were secretly dreading but hoping nobody would notice). It's hard not to bristle and be defensive when someone points out, however gently, that you've messed up somewhere. And I have sometimes been guilty of arguing with my critics, when I should have just said "Thanks for your comments," and moved on.

Of course, even criticism which is intelligently voiced and meant to be helpful isn't necessarily valid. Sometimes the critic has read carelessly and missed the point; sometimes the critic simply dislikes or is ignorant of the genre in which the story is written. Every criticism has to be weighed by the author in his or her own mind, and either used or discarded according to its perceived worth. But the point I think O'Shea makes most cogently is that criticism is necessary and important to every author's development, and that if we are unwilling to hear anything but praise or the very gentlest suggestions for improvement, we are never going to be authors in any meaningful sense of the word at all.

My primary reason for not liking criticism -- I confess -- is that I am lazy. I don't like having to revise things that I've revised umpty times already. It's frustrating enough when I realize on my own that a chapter or a story I thought was finished still needs work; it's twice as frustrating when somebody else points out a flaw or inconsistency or weakness I hadn't noticed and I realize that it needs to be changed too. But laziness is my problem, not the critic's, and I haven't any right to take my frustration out on someone else who is simply pointing out the truth. Particularly if I asked for their honest opinion, and they did me the courtesy of taking me at my word.

And that's the last point I'd like to make. If you don't really want criticism, or if you only want a certain select kind of criticism, don't ask people to give you their honest opinion. If you don't really trust a particular person's judgment or think they have a bias that would make them unfit to judge a certain story, don't ask them to be your beta-reader on that story. But if you have asked for honest opinions and you have asked a certain person to tell you what they think, don't be surprised if some of the comments aren't phrased exactly the way you'd like or if they tell you things you're not particularly happy to hear.

If you privately decide that the critic is an idiot or a bigot and their criticism isn't worth squat, that's your business. But it's pretty unfair to tell them to their face that they're an idiot or a bigot and their criticism isn't worth squat after you asked for their opinion and they gave you what you asked for. As a beta-reader I've been stung by this kind of response a few times now, in spite of making every effort to be tactful in my criticism and to give the author a fair chance, and it really makes me not want to read or comment on other people's work at all.

Rant over.

Comments

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

*applause* Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

Anyone who writes merely for the gratification of receiving positive feedback to stroke their egos is not a writer. Is that an elitist attitude? Yes, and I make no apologies for it.

And I completely agree. Yeah, it's hard to hear that part of my story didn't work the way I thought it did, or that no one understood quite what happened in that scene I slaved over... but I need to hear it, and then I need to go and fix it.

Because, you know, I'm trying to hone my craft and tell the best story possible.

[kalinalea.livejournal.com]

Super fantastic link. Thank you.

If you don't really want criticism, or if you only want a certain select kind of criticism, don't ask people to give you their honest opinion.

I would take this a step further, even, and say that if you don't really want criticism you shouldn't be posting. There's not a thing wrong with writing for self-amusement, but the minute you post something in a public forum, it's time to pull on that armadillo armor O'Shea mentioned because the feedback is now out of your control. If I see an A/N saying that constructive criticism isn't welcome, I don't bother reading - not because I'm necessarily determined to offer constructive criticism, but because it tells me the writer isn't at all serious about writing. They're just in it for the squees, and the story probably reflects that.

Sure criticism can be ouch-y sometimes, but I'm usually flattered that the person thought enough of my story to bother. I don't bother with detailed reviews unless I think a story is worthwhile overall, and I assume that most people feel the same way.

Thanks again for the link!

[taraljc.livejournal.com]

Glad I can be useful!

[drmm.livejournal.com]

I'd forgotten how much I used to love reading 'Once Upon a Time' on ff.net (now that I avoid ff.net like the plauge, I don't read it). I hate that people think fic should be immune to criticism because it's not for profit. That's why there are 10,000 horrid stories to 1 good one on ff.net.

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

*reads link*

I guess I'm just not a writer, then. I'm not going to go back, in most cases, and revise something I already posted. And while I'm not going to tell people not to tell me if something's wrong, I'm not going to demand that they do either. The authors that most often discourage me about the idea of providing feedback are the ones who pressure readers to find something wrong and rant about how worthless any response is if it doesn't tell them what could be better.

[sabrinanymph.livejournal.com]

In my own personal work, I've found that my response to criticism is often very similar to what Madeleine L'Engle describes, I believe it's in Circle of Quiet. Very often the criticism that I have the most violent emotional response to and defend most passionately to the critiquer is the criticism that, upon a few days reflection, most represents what needs to be changed in the story. The criticism that rolls off of my back, I usually do not end up changing because I'm already looking at the information objectively and have made my decision. It isn't always true, but for those friends who have been brave enough to give me a no-holds-barred opinion, they've often been those who have helped make my stories better.

It's a good essay. I'm hoping that I've grown enough that I'm able to objectively take well-thought out criticism or beta-ing, and in fact sometimes I crave more precise beta-ing, actual character and story thoughts as opposed to only aesthetics - grammar, etc. I don't think it's every actually easy to take criticism of a work though!

[shellebelle93.livejournal.com]

Great essay! I found it very inspiring. :-)

[penwiper26.livejournal.com]

If you privately decide that the critic is an idiot or a bigot and their criticism isn't worth squat, that's your business. But it's pretty unfair to tell them to their face that they're an idiot or a bigot and their criticism isn't worth squat after you asked for their opinion and they gave you what you asked for. As a beta-reader I've been stung by this kind of response a few times now, in spite of making every effort to be tactful in my criticism and to give the author a fair chance, and it really makes me not want to read or comment on other people's work at all.

Ouch. Well, nobody could accurately call you an idiot. And while you may have unresolvable and frustrating philosophical differences with people now and again, it wouldn't be accurate to call you a bigot either. Stubborn, maybe. :)

I have a great hunger for squee, which up till recently was coupled with an attitude toward my work much like yahtzee63's above -- that once it was done it was done for good or ill. I did, however, acquire a couple of betas after a prolonged courtship process who taught me the virtue of changing my mind about something (or anything) in my work.

I also agree with sabrinanymph that my reaction to beta criticism is often a good index of how well-deserved or on-the-money it is. Of course, my response to criticism of either a general or minute kind is to bang my head on the piano keys like that muppet on Sesame Street: "Oh, I'll never get it. Never, NEVER!" Once that drama-queeniness is out of the way I can usually get down to work.

As for concrit not specifically asked for from me, I never give it. If I don't know the person or the work well, I'm liable to be inaccurate. If I do know the person but know that my criticism would be so unpalatable or drastic as to be unusable, there's no point in hurting the author to no purpose, especially if I wasn't invited to do so in the context of a longterm working relationship. By the same token, I don't want to receive it either, and so far I seem to have gotten what I want on that score. *shrug*

I am a writer, full stop, but I do constantly contextualize how I give and receive feedback, sometimes to the point that the workings of feedback take on a life of their own. I rather think this is unavoidable, at least for me.