blamebrampton (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
blamebrampton) wrote2010-01-28 11:58 pm
blamebrampton) wrote2010-01-28 11:58 pm
Entry tags:
On concrit, more or less ...
Being a rampant egoist* I'm going to talk about myself for a minute. As a young woman, I liked to perform. Singing, dancing, acting, showjumping, debating, dressage, you name it, I was all for it. Part of the joy was that I actually like doing all those things, part of it was that I was generally good at them, and I liked to receive the ribbons, prizes and reviews that came with them. Even when the reviews were along the lines of 'An enjoyable performance until one of the soloists ended upside-down in the timpani' (tragic story involving last-minute relocation, shorter stage and me always looking at the back of the audience, never at my feet), I could always take something from them that would help me learn and grow.
As an older woman, I became a reviewer, writing about contemporary music and books for the most part, but also events, film, theatre and even fashion on a few memorable occasions. It was an interesting enterprise as I tried to separate the ways I looked at artefacts and to judge them on levels beyond personal taste and the intent of the author. Because while both those things matter, they're not the most important things. For example: Jeff Koons has a sculpture called Puppy, which is a 12-metre-high installation of a sculpture of a West Highland terrier clad in flowering plants. Now, Koons describes his own work as having no subtle artistic intent, though he seems happy to be paid well for it. And, being a bit of a wanker, I am inclined to think that Koons is a a post-Pop opportunist who is thrilled Andy Warhol died in 1987, and sniffily disapprove of him on principle. However, neither my taste nor the author's intent are the thing that form my response to Puppy. Because it is actually impossible to have a 12-metre-high terrier blooming in front of you and not smile. It's pure Festival, in the sense of the public taking a moment out of the everyday to commune with something that is anything but everyday. Once we did it with religion, now we sometimes do it with art.
All this is background.
Where I am going with it is that I like criticism. As a performer I liked reading it to push me, and as a reviewer I liked thinking about works beyond the simple 'Oh, yes, that was lovely' or 'La Fura dels Baus are really scary and I am not used to having to run away at the theatre!'** I like reading critiques for themselves, as well as in relation to works I am going to see/read, either before or after. I read works by dead critics.
If you ever want to criticise my work, you are free to do so, and I in fact encourage it. One really brave fandom friend has just challenged a few of us to leave critical comments on all her work at the moment (and if she is fine with probably having a few people come to gawp, I'll edit this paragraph to pop her name in, although anyone not reading her already is mad, I tell you!) I am completely up for the same experiment.
However ...
Criticism in fandom is really hard. I've been chatting about this with a few friends who are often smarter than me, and there are a few recurring themes. From here on I am going to be talking about concrit, which is the general fandom expectation of the critic (how this is similar to and different from the above would take up too much space at the moment, so I am conveniently ignoring it: this is LJ, not an aesthetics journal.)
The obvious one is that a large percentage of fandom writing (read art and writing, but I am a shameless text slut and so will talk about writing) is written to entertain. To respond in terms of personal taste is exactly the right response for this set, because that is the way the work is meant to engage with an audience. Concrit here can often be bad spirited, like saying 'Look, I liked that joke and I did laugh, but I think that your timing was off in the phrase before the punch line.'
Then there are a lot of people who are 'new' to writing, or still feeling their way through their creative process. To provide gentle concrit when asked for can be helpful if done kindly, but to unleash both barrels can be like attending the fourth rehearsal of a play and tearing apart the performances. Sometimes I feel that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
fanficrants is devoted to this sort of exercise.
For writing that is done at a more serious level, where it would certainly be attracting reviews if it were original, it's not a simple matter, either. As one of my smarter friends said, criticism in publications comes out of what is largely a shared language and the readers of the criticism feel free to engage with it in a similarly critical mode, as letters to the arts editor often show.
In fandom, concrit is often seen as being much more emotionally loaded. Sometimes perhaps because it is: I have seen a few comments that read as though the commenter just wanted to make the writer feel bad, which may be as much about ineptitude in the part of the commenter as about actual bad blood. But I've also seen emotion read into a comment by the person who received it. And, much more often, by others. It ends up with bad feeling all around because something that started as an unloaded statement -- eg 'I feel your second act was a little rushed and would have loved to see it developed as strongly as the first and third' -- can finish up as being perceived as a comment on the worth of the writer.
Of course the correct response to such a comment is either 'Hmmmm, actually, yeah, good point' or 'I think you're wrong on that. Certainly the shifts in character and emotion were more subtle, however ...' but if you don't have a strong ego and a solid background of what we used to politely term vigorous critical debate, then this is not a game you will enjoy playing. (Again, I'm lucky to have been encouraged in this field. I had a professor whose greatest joy came when his class was disrupted by shouts along the lines of: 'Brammers you Postmodern Bolshevik you cannot tell me that Titus Andronicus is the Terminator of the Elizabethan Stage' 'Of course I can, Carruthers, you Tynanesque Tyrant, and if you had half the insight of your idol, you'd agree'.)
In many ways, concrit is like croquet: if you know how its played and you are up for it, it can be a great experience that leaves you feeling invigorated and intellectually excited. But if you find yourself suddenly in a field with unexpected mallets flying and have no idea which hoop is which, it's a bloody nightmare. And since fandom is largely a croquet-free zone, I am fine with the convention that one does not mention the hoops until one is invited to. Even though, as a massive fan of croquet (literally and metaphorically), I would like nothing better.
Add to this that sometimes the fandom audience is actually a terrible judge of work, since it's a place where a flash of penis can outweigh actual genius (in my own case, lacking penis and genius, amusing farces generally score far higher comment counts that the few works that have more substance). And sometimes writers have tangled up their self-worth so far into their writing and/or the reception of their writing that it is not possible to comment on the one without it being felt by the other. It ends up less of a croquet lawn and more a bloody minefield!
All of which is a long way of saying: I do get why a lot of my friends don't like concrit and there are dozens of good reasons and a few bad ones not to, but I'm personally fine with it and think you should feel free over here, even if I respond by telling you your point is not actually as valid as you think. For example, you might now like to criticise the rambling of the above paragraphs, and I would have to grant that you make an excellent point.
On a final and unrelated note, GO ANDY MURRAY!!
*Anyone who has just launched into a Beautiful People Egoiste re-enactment, I love you. Also, anyone who has just clicked both those links and is wondering WTF?? I have nothing. The 1990s are beyond even my powers of explanation.
** I started going to panto at three, so that's 40 years of everything from highly experimental theatre to a bucketload of Elizabethan, with even a full Peter Brooks Mahabharata, and LFdB is the only time I was in fear of my life. TheatreWorks's Desdemona made me briefly want to top myself, but that was largely because I was in a very bad mood after being bumped from my flight for a bevy of politicians including a vile ex-boyfriend and missed the performance I really wanted to see just before that one.
As an older woman, I became a reviewer, writing about contemporary music and books for the most part, but also events, film, theatre and even fashion on a few memorable occasions. It was an interesting enterprise as I tried to separate the ways I looked at artefacts and to judge them on levels beyond personal taste and the intent of the author. Because while both those things matter, they're not the most important things. For example: Jeff Koons has a sculpture called Puppy, which is a 12-metre-high installation of a sculpture of a West Highland terrier clad in flowering plants. Now, Koons describes his own work as having no subtle artistic intent, though he seems happy to be paid well for it. And, being a bit of a wanker, I am inclined to think that Koons is a a post-Pop opportunist who is thrilled Andy Warhol died in 1987, and sniffily disapprove of him on principle. However, neither my taste nor the author's intent are the thing that form my response to Puppy. Because it is actually impossible to have a 12-metre-high terrier blooming in front of you and not smile. It's pure Festival, in the sense of the public taking a moment out of the everyday to commune with something that is anything but everyday. Once we did it with religion, now we sometimes do it with art.
All this is background.
Where I am going with it is that I like criticism. As a performer I liked reading it to push me, and as a reviewer I liked thinking about works beyond the simple 'Oh, yes, that was lovely' or 'La Fura dels Baus are really scary and I am not used to having to run away at the theatre!'** I like reading critiques for themselves, as well as in relation to works I am going to see/read, either before or after. I read works by dead critics.
If you ever want to criticise my work, you are free to do so, and I in fact encourage it. One really brave fandom friend has just challenged a few of us to leave critical comments on all her work at the moment (and if she is fine with probably having a few people come to gawp, I'll edit this paragraph to pop her name in, although anyone not reading her already is mad, I tell you!) I am completely up for the same experiment.
However ...
Criticism in fandom is really hard. I've been chatting about this with a few friends who are often smarter than me, and there are a few recurring themes. From here on I am going to be talking about concrit, which is the general fandom expectation of the critic (how this is similar to and different from the above would take up too much space at the moment, so I am conveniently ignoring it: this is LJ, not an aesthetics journal.)
The obvious one is that a large percentage of fandom writing (read art and writing, but I am a shameless text slut and so will talk about writing) is written to entertain. To respond in terms of personal taste is exactly the right response for this set, because that is the way the work is meant to engage with an audience. Concrit here can often be bad spirited, like saying 'Look, I liked that joke and I did laugh, but I think that your timing was off in the phrase before the punch line.'
Then there are a lot of people who are 'new' to writing, or still feeling their way through their creative process. To provide gentle concrit when asked for can be helpful if done kindly, but to unleash both barrels can be like attending the fourth rehearsal of a play and tearing apart the performances. Sometimes I feel that
fanficrants is devoted to this sort of exercise.For writing that is done at a more serious level, where it would certainly be attracting reviews if it were original, it's not a simple matter, either. As one of my smarter friends said, criticism in publications comes out of what is largely a shared language and the readers of the criticism feel free to engage with it in a similarly critical mode, as letters to the arts editor often show.
In fandom, concrit is often seen as being much more emotionally loaded. Sometimes perhaps because it is: I have seen a few comments that read as though the commenter just wanted to make the writer feel bad, which may be as much about ineptitude in the part of the commenter as about actual bad blood. But I've also seen emotion read into a comment by the person who received it. And, much more often, by others. It ends up with bad feeling all around because something that started as an unloaded statement -- eg 'I feel your second act was a little rushed and would have loved to see it developed as strongly as the first and third' -- can finish up as being perceived as a comment on the worth of the writer.
Of course the correct response to such a comment is either 'Hmmmm, actually, yeah, good point' or 'I think you're wrong on that. Certainly the shifts in character and emotion were more subtle, however ...' but if you don't have a strong ego and a solid background of what we used to politely term vigorous critical debate, then this is not a game you will enjoy playing. (Again, I'm lucky to have been encouraged in this field. I had a professor whose greatest joy came when his class was disrupted by shouts along the lines of: 'Brammers you Postmodern Bolshevik you cannot tell me that Titus Andronicus is the Terminator of the Elizabethan Stage' 'Of course I can, Carruthers, you Tynanesque Tyrant, and if you had half the insight of your idol, you'd agree'.)
In many ways, concrit is like croquet: if you know how its played and you are up for it, it can be a great experience that leaves you feeling invigorated and intellectually excited. But if you find yourself suddenly in a field with unexpected mallets flying and have no idea which hoop is which, it's a bloody nightmare. And since fandom is largely a croquet-free zone, I am fine with the convention that one does not mention the hoops until one is invited to. Even though, as a massive fan of croquet (literally and metaphorically), I would like nothing better.
Add to this that sometimes the fandom audience is actually a terrible judge of work, since it's a place where a flash of penis can outweigh actual genius (in my own case, lacking penis and genius, amusing farces generally score far higher comment counts that the few works that have more substance). And sometimes writers have tangled up their self-worth so far into their writing and/or the reception of their writing that it is not possible to comment on the one without it being felt by the other. It ends up less of a croquet lawn and more a bloody minefield!
All of which is a long way of saying: I do get why a lot of my friends don't like concrit and there are dozens of good reasons and a few bad ones not to, but I'm personally fine with it and think you should feel free over here, even if I respond by telling you your point is not actually as valid as you think. For example, you might now like to criticise the rambling of the above paragraphs, and I would have to grant that you make an excellent point.
On a final and unrelated note, GO ANDY MURRAY!!
*Anyone who has just launched into a Beautiful People Egoiste re-enactment, I love you. Also, anyone who has just clicked both those links and is wondering WTF?? I have nothing. The 1990s are beyond even my powers of explanation.
** I started going to panto at three, so that's 40 years of everything from highly experimental theatre to a bucketload of Elizabethan, with even a full Peter Brooks Mahabharata, and LFdB is the only time I was in fear of my life. TheatreWorks's Desdemona made me briefly want to top myself, but that was largely because I was in a very bad mood after being bumped from my flight for a bevy of politicians including a vile ex-boyfriend and missed the performance I really wanted to see just before that one.
no subject
Really? Seriously? Some of us have encouraged and explicitly requested concrit on all our fics for years. This is a personal choice and IMO not at all occasion for any special attention: it's not brave and it's not special. It's like choosing khakis over jeans. Seems to me anyone who makes this big a deal out of welcoming concrit is really looking for cookies (and extra feedback, because let's face it, most people in fandom won't crit even when they're specifically asked to).
The fact is, anything can be criticised, constructively and not. I could take all of my beloved fandom classics and rip them to (constructive) shreds no matter how good they actually are. I wouldn't, because I'm not bored enough to do that, but if I decided it'd be fun to do it, that is reason enough. Fandom is for fun; it's a hobby. Trying to impose a binary standard of behaviour on a hobby -- using "percentage" and "majority" as excuses for why it's "logical" -- is ridiculous. >:( (ETA: I don't mean that you specifically are trying to impose anything on anyone with this post or otherwise; I'm just beyond annoyed at these discussions inevitably coming down to 'thou shalt not'.)
no subject
No cookies, thanks, on diet.
Not at all sure where you're going with the imposing a binary standard. Recognising that some people don't like being critiqued and that their reasons for not liking it are more important than my reasons for liking to -- as you say -- critique anything, is neither a binary standard nor one that I in any way insist others should follow. And you'll note that I explicitly make no claims for logicality.
I do stand by my opinion that some things are bad choices for the critical enterprise, though. While you might have fun critiquing a rehearsal or a text that is clearly written just for the fun of the writer, it doesn't do anything useful as it won't impact on the writer, won't be read by the audience who are in it just for the amusement value, and won't give you much of an exercise of your critical facilities.
[Sentence edited as it addressed point which has since been clarified.]
no subject
it doesn't do anything useful
Criticism of anything can be useful in itself, without outside influence or feedback, to the person doing the criticising. Criticism does not exist for writers alone. When you approach a thing from a standpoint of what doesn't work about it, you can learn things about a) writing (and how to do it), and, perhaps more importantly b) yourself. One of the most amazing essays I read last year was I Didn't Dream of Dragons (and the follow-up she wrote for white allies). While her main point has precisely nothing to do with concrit, I think these two essays demonstrate rather aptly that engaging in critical thinking about anything, whatever it was "meant" to do, is important and can be enriching to the critic. If someone ALSO wants to write down their critical thoughts and publish them, that is her right. The binary standard comes into these discussions because people inevitably come down on either one side or the other: should criticise, shouldn't criticise. Nobody ever wants to listen to the actual criticism; it's all about whether or not it's okay or not okay to engage in it. It's annoying.
If someone approaches fiction from a "The Author is Dead" perspective, even in a situation where the author is actually right there in your extended social circle, that is their choice and their right. Trying to take that away because the author wants full control over her work is just toxic. Also, even if there is no deep exploration of self involved, if someone is doing something for fun, that's useful too; fun is an important part of the human experience, and I think that as long as no one is being actively harmed, anything is fair game. And criticism, despite the shirt-rending and wailing fanbrats like to engage in over a passing "this doesn't quite ring true here" does no real harm.
no subject
OK, I need to come back and address some of this at more length tomorrow night, but far too briefly:
I've been online since the Arpanet days, but only in fandom for two and a half years, so my online experience is much more than my fandom, which is almost solely LJ. However, here, I can't agree with you that criticism is divorced from its topics as you see it.
I'd LIKE it to be, and I think it would be better in general for people if they saw it as being so. For me personally, critique of my work in any field is not a comment on my value as a person, only on how well I conveyed that work to that critic. And sometimes the critic is quite wrong in their response, too (I've both misread and been misread in turn.)
However, I do think that there is a difference in the spheres of consumption for which authors open themselves up. And while I am happy to have a dead author for works in a fully public environment, I disagree that every fandom author considers their works as going into that environment. For a great many, especially on LJ, their work is written as a dialogue within a closed community, and I do think they have some say over its treatment, which includes the ability to opt out of a critical response.
The right of the individual to ask for a degree of authorial privacy is not, I think, negated by the offering up of a text for reading, just as an actor appearing on stage does not give away their right to have a private life free of paparazzi. It's not the same right, note, but it is one that has been similarly culturally negotiated within this fandom long before I arrived here and one that I respect.
Within that context, it actually is necessary to say 'I'm fine with whatever you have to say about my work', as you yourself have done, since that is not the default position.
And while anyone is at liberty to think as critically as they like on the work of people who ask that their work not receive concrit, I'm less convinced of the 'right' to insist that those people receive te results of the critical exercise.
I think that were it all along the lines of 'this doesn't quite ring true here', then I'd be tossing out the old Australianism of Harden the Fuck Up, but sometimes the wailing that things are personal attacks is justified. More often it's not, and some hardening could be done in some quarters to good effect, but then who am I to tell people they need to be tougher? It's their decision whether they want to enter into that arena. There's no difference here to saying that people ought to be fitter, as we were discussing the other day. In both cases there is a clear-cut case that a bit of fortitude, mental or physical, does you a world of good. But there are myriad reasons why people may not be able to or ready to embrace it. Insisting its good for you is not going to make those reasons go away.
no subject
Oh, definitely. For much the same reasons as you, I don't think there is anything shameful or objectionable about a fan author saying "look, I'm doing this for my own amusement and I don't really care if you don't like it, so save your breath" for criticism left directly on her work. I just don't think this can or should extend past feedback; if a fan author does not want her work criticised in a public space, ever at all, the end, then her only real option is not to post the work in a public space. Anything else basically comes down to demanding that people cater to her specific needs and attempting to silence people in their own spaces, which has never once gone over well.
LJ feels like a closed community, but it's not. It would be a closed community if it were not accessible to the wide internet, but it is, and any sense of security one feels for being in this space is quite simply false. If you go poking around on delicious for H/D, you will see plenty of rec or to-read links, often compiled by people who don't even have an LJ and don't participate in LJ-fandom aside from occasionally looking for fic to read. Sometimes these links will feature comments on the story quality. That's par for the course.
I think the analogy between an author's relationship with her work and an actor's not wanting paparazzi in her private life breaks down immediately, because the critic is not peeking into the author's bedroom or snapping clandestine pics of her kids. An actor has a right to a paparazzi-free life, but a paparazzi-free life is not at all the same as a life free of theatre/movie critics, even amateur ones, commenting on the actor's work.
I don't know what you mean by "culturally negotiated" -- there is a cultural expectation not to criticise publically in some fandom spheres, but it is far from universal to all fandom, ever, even within the boundaries of LJ.
I'm less convinced of the 'right' to insist that those people receive te results of the critical exercise.
Yeah, leaving criticism on work whose author has specifically requested no criticism is fucked up. Putting those critical thoughts elsewhere (i.e. any space not immediately controlled by the author), however, is a different matter entirely. An author has a full right to say "if you don't like this, don't tell me about it". She does not ever have a right to say "if you don't like this, shut up and say nothing about it to anyone, ever". She just doesn't.
As for personal attacks, well, flames are tacky. That's a universal, I think. :D It's difficult to talk about this stuff divorced from context, but it has been a very long time since I've seen a bit of constructive criticism that was actually a personal attack; so long that I'm not even sure what that would look like. Can you provide a (hypothetical, even) example?
I don't subscribe to "if you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen" standpoint -- I used to, long ago, before conversations with reasonable and also sensitive writers convinced me that it's not a good approach to take. I do subscribe to "if you can't stand the heat, take precautions against it and don't hang out so close to the stove" -- i.e. be upfront about not wanting criticism, don't seek it out if you know you can't handle it, and above all, don't attempt to silence people when you come across them being critical in a place where it's not for you.
no subject
I know you've long welcomed concrit on your fics, and I suspect you personally may not be looking for feedback as much as you want to encourage readers to be honest and open about expressing their opinions. But do you think there's anything objectionable about straight-out asking for feedback, or extra feedback? Feedback is the whole reason I post on LJ instead of scribbling in a locked diary: it's a way to socialize and share interests, and when posting fics, it's also a way to gain some outside perspective as to your writing. That's why, when talking about LJ friends to non-fandom friends, I refer to the former as my "online writers' group."
no subject
Not at all. I mean, it can be objectionable depending on how the request is phrased -- i.e. I don't consider "Please comment!" or "I love comments!" objectionable, but I admit I roll my eyes at "Only X people commented on my fic/art/other thing? Aw :(" or "I can't believe I only got X comments on story/art/other thing Y!" or "If you don't comment, it will discourage me from writing/drawing/interpretive-dancing more in the future!". Asking for feedback is one thing; begging, guilt-tripping, tricking people into it, or acting like you're entitled to it is quite another. In my experience, the majority of requests for feedback are quite reasonable, though.
But I see the situation of a fanauthor "challenging" people to comment more on her work specifically, for any reason, as not-so-reasonable. It's not an intellectual challenge to find things to criticise -- if someone wants more comments, they should just say so. Saying "you can now criticise" pretends like they're offering something more than just the story, which they really aren't. A chance to leave critical feedback always exists; saying "please criticise this" is basically "here, do this thing you could actually have done at any point regardless of my say-so, but I want to get comments so I'll act like this is a special privilege!"
no subject
I realize that anyone can leave any sort of comment they like, and the concrit option is always open as the writer can't click an opt-out of-concrit button on LJ. But specifically inviting readers to leave concrit does offer something: the license to speak their minds. I don't see it as a special privilege but perhaps an opportunity for those readers who hold a negative opinion yet are reluctant to share it for fear of hurting the writer's feelings. And that's not something that's always on the table. With BB and her friend making a recent point of this, maybe more writers will be more open to concrit and I think that's a good thing for both readers and writers.
no subject
Except everyone already has the licence to speak their minds freely in this medium. No creator can offer this: they can only indicate whether or not they approve or disapprove of it being done in their presence. There is no "opt out of concrit" button and there is no "opt into concrit" button; people's perceptions of what fandom encourages/discourages are obviously wildly different, and that's what headers are for. Making a big deal out of being open to criticism only tacitly reinforces the ridiculous idea that criticism is somehow objectionable or not okay in general, which it just isn't -- it can only be objectionable under certain circumstances (such as, critting someone who said "no crit please", flaming, etc).
That there exists a fear of hurting writers' feelings at all is a product of a heavily writer-biased fan culture in this space, and it exists because despite reams and reams of words written on the subject of "you are not your work", writers constantly whine and moan about omg negativity. By default, because we are vocal, because we are producers, only our voices ever really get heard, so newcomers to fandom form impressions about behaviour based only on what the writers think is okay/not okay. I think that's fucked up. I think fan writers could take a leaf or two out of pro writers' books (not that pro writers don't moan or whine, but whining in response to criticism is considered unprofessional, and rightly so). I'm not trying to say fanwriters should all aspire to be like the pros, whatever their reasons for writing; just suggesting that perhaps emulating this particular pro behaviour wouldn't be such a terrible, awful, no-good thing.
I mean, there's this huge insistence by writers that their work is their baby and blah blah blah feelings, but if you've (general you) encountered an evil beast who hates your "baby" on the internet, wouldn't it make SENSE to simply tell yourself that you are not your story? Wouldn't it, oh, I don't know, reduce/minimise/eliminate your suffering if you learned not to take story crit so personally? Again, I'm not saying everyone should do this, nor that this is the Best Approach to Online Engagement Evar; I'm just saying it wouldn't hurt anyone if we all tried. ^_^
no subject
That is true but to, for example, go tramping around Harry/Draco pointing out where people's dialogue really needs work, and the characterisation is immature smacks of sheer entitlement (even where it is true).
Where's the line between offering criticism and just being a bit of a bitch? At what point does someone's opinion on your work (general you) actually matter? Why should anyone give a crap what I think is wrong with their story?
I'm actually struggling with this issue at the moment. There is a writer in fandom whose work I really enjoy, but english is not their first language and it shows in quite a few out of place homonyms and so on. I don't have a relationship with this person outside of having left positive comments for the things I do enjoy, but I really want to offer proofing checks to them. Why should this person respond to me with anything other than "fuck off then"?
I guess it just seems rude to me to assume that my opinion holds any validity to the person I'm offering it to, unless I already have a relationship with them.
no subject
Where's the line between offering criticism and just being a bit of a bitch?
For me? "The characterisation here doesn't gel with what we learned in canon, for reasons X, Y, and Z." = offering criticism. "Honey, you really need to go back and read the books again, mkay?" = being a bit of a bitch. It's usually exceedingly easy to tell the difference.
Why should this person respond to me with anything other than "fuck off then"?
Is this person interested in improving her writing? If she is, why would she tell you to fuck off? If she's not, then there's no point in offering.
Offering an opinion doesn't mean you're assuming it will hold validity for that person -- unless that's how you approach offering opinions, IDK; I certainly don't. When I offer my opinion, I am offering it as-is, with no expectation placed on the person I'm talking to. "This is what I think -- take it or leave it." In order to express an opinion, it is not in fact necessary to believe that your interlocutor must accept it. o.O;;
no subject
An example I really noticed was a comment left on an HD Hols piece. "I would have liked a little less Luna, but your Draco was particularly lovely." The commenter was not the recipient. I guess I do read comments like this as "I'm entitled to something other than this". Perhaps that's wrong of me, but I thought the comment was really rude. Perhaps that does say something about me as the person making an assumption, although I'm not sure what it says.
In your example of criticism vs bitchery that line's very clear, but a lot of people who comment less than 100% positively walk the passive aggressive line a little, and the line between criticsm and bitchery can become blurred. (I was going to give another example but the original "Look at this comment I just got!" post is f-locked.)
I think there is a difference between feedback and genuinely constructive criticism. And a lot of comments that are left under the guise for 'con-crit' tend to translate as "What you wrote is not what I wanted to read", which... that's what the Back button's for.
no subject
I think it's an awesome school of thought -- I subscribe to it most of the time, in that I hit the back button without finishing reading if I encounter enough stuff that makes me dislike the story -- so I don't actually reach the comment stage. But once someone has sat through the entire fic, I think they're entitled to their thoughts and to expressing them. Unless the author has specifically requested, upfront, that people save the crit for someone else.
I would have liked a little less Luna, but your Draco was particularly lovely.
Is this the kind of comment that people are considering "concrit" these days? If so, I can sort of understand what all the frothing is about, but this isn't concrit. This isn't even criticism, really -- it's someone sharing what they would have liked to see in the story. If an author takes actual offence to this, I think she's the one in need of some sensitivity training, because any author who gets offended or upset at someone passingly mentioning their dislike of something comes off like an egomaniac who expects people to talk about her, her, her all the time. People like to talk about themselves! This is not news! "I would have liked a little less Luna" =/= "I am disappointed that you wrote so much Luna." I agree that it's not constructive criticism, but it is an opinion that the reader is entitled to hold and to express -- unless, again, the author has specifically requested no criticism. I think I'm going to make a new rule for myself: read no fic that doesn't specifically indicate that concrit is welcome. :D
no subject
My dear, I think I love you a little bit for saying this.
no subject
no subject
So we really aren't in a position to complain when anyone else points out the holes in our work.
Though I admit that sometimes I am tempted to overlong Authors Notes in order to spell out why I'm messing with canon.
no subject
I'm the one who has asked for concrit.
I've had a pro-concrit policy for ages. Dead right, it's not a big deal. It's not brave.
My pro-concrit stance got me precisely as many cookies as I expected: none. I also got virtually no concrit. Because, as you say, readers assume that a writer who asks for concrit doesn't really want it.
So I've now asked precisely five friends (Brammers being one) to find something critical to say every time they comment on my fic. This is not going to lead to a single extra comment because these five friends are regular commenters anyway. If I find that all it gets me is cookies, I'll ditch it immediately - praise that has to be won by manipulation is not worth much.
What could I possibly want if not cookies? More public examples of how to give concrit cleverly and constructively and (if I'm up to it) how to accept it with a modicum of grace. Also I do want to learn, and I already have in the 48 hours since this started.
You're right in one thing, at least. Anyone can rip a piece to shreds. Expressing your criticism in a way the writer can learn from is a much harder art. As I said to my friends when I asked this of them, they've got the hard end of this bargain, not me.
So no, it's not brave on my part, not special - Brammers was being nice rather than literal in her choice of adjective. It's just something I chose to do.
no subject
I don't remember saying that a writer who asks for concrit doesn't really want it -- I don't believe that's true in general, so I don't see why I would say that. My point about "most people won't crit" just has to do with the fact that most people won't crit even if you ask them to, precisely because of the attitude that concrit is somehow special, that giving it "cleverly and constructively" is the only way to do it, and that it takes a special sort of person to accept it in the proper way. I do not think any of these things are actually true. Anyone, even the least articulate of people, can have a constructive critical comment; concrit is not an art unless you choose to make it so. And as I said below, it doesn't exist for writers alone.
In other, non-argumentative news, it's good to see you're back in fandom. ^_^
no subject
I couldn't agree more that anyone can give concrit or accept it, it doesn't take any special talent, just the will to genuinely think about what you've read and express the things you didn't like politely.
I think it was into this line Seems to me anyone who makes this big a deal out of welcoming concrit is really looking for cookies (and extra feedback, because let's face it, most people in fandom won't crit even when they're specifically asked to) that I read the statement that people who ask for concrit don't necessarily want it. It's also something I personally think is often true. But if it's not what you meant then that's the end of it.
And thanks :)