Meta: Thinking About Concrit

[alixtii]

Annoyingly Obligatory Disclaimer: These opinions posted in my personal journal are, not surprisingly, my personal opinions. Now I happen to think that my personal opinions are right--I don't think all opinions are of equal worth, and unsurprisingly I privilege my own--and in some cases even normative. This does not mean that I think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot or a moral monster, or that I don't recognize the logical possibility that I can be wrong.

---

The Critical City on a Hill: Thoughts on Concrit and Its Role in the Fannish Community

People have been saying extremely interesting things about concrit, and have gotten me thinking about these things. In this post, peasant_ defines concrit as such:

Constructive Criticism, that is critical commentary on a fic that addresses both faults and successes in the story. By definition, to be constructive it must be carefully worded so as not to hurt the writer as an individual.

I agree with the definition, but more and more I think that the term is somewhat ill-chosen. "Constructive" criticism implies that it is going towards "building" something, usually the craft and skills of the author, and I mostly agree with karabair that constructive criticism isn't the best mechanism to help a mediocre author get better, and that there's probably no saving at all for a poor author (here and here). But I don't think that's what concrit is for, ultimately.

Of course, sure, I do want to become a better author (mainly so as to better serve the interests of my fannish community), but that's not why I desire concrit. I like concrit because it's more honest. If someone tells me that they think Kennedy was acting out of character in paragraph 7, then that means I can all the better trust them when they tell me that the fic is wonderful and they loved it. Otherwise, I'm left wondering if the fact that the feedbacker picked out a sentence from the penultimate paragraph means that she thought the rest of the fic was drek. Are they mentioning the thematic richness because the plot was horribly structured?

It's one of the paradoxes of human existence: we want positive feedback, we want to hear that we are the greatest writers who ever lived, but if that feedback does not contain content which is critical (in the negative sense) than that feedback is worthless, meaningless sycophancy. It should take its place next to the other paradoxes of our time, the Oedipus complex (we want to rejoin the mother but keep our separate identity) and the will-to-power (we want to have mastery over others, but if they don't have mastery over themselves our mastery is meaningless).

We all know how to give positive feedback: you find the nice things you can honestly say about the story, and you say them, and you shut up when you don't have anything nice to say at all. And sure, a sin of omission isn't nearly as bad as a sin of comission. And sure, only a jerk would knowingly hurt someone's feelings even in the name of honesty (unless they honestly think that hurt feelings now will be less than later, as with the person with spinach stuck in her teeth). But that doesn't change the fact that positively-only feedback fundamentally aims to decieve.

I have this vision of a fannish community where people have the necessary distance so that critical discussion of their stories and ideas is not felt as a personal attack against them, where ad hominem attacks never happen, and where people can engage passionately in debate and then perform the fannish equivalent of all going out to dinner afterwards on the fandom's expense account. In many if not most fandoms, I recognize this cannot be anything but a pipe dream. There are two many newbies, two many raw emotions, too many teenagers. But I don't think this is true across the board, I don't think this hurts its value as an ideal (we should work for the Kingdom), and I think LJ's ability to form like-minded communities can to a great degree mitigate this effect. My flist can, and to a great extent does, live out this vision.

It's not so much the "Cult of Higher Standards" that peasant_ talks about because I'm not so interested in having better writers in fandom. We (i.e. Buffy fandom) already have wisdomeagle, karabair, liz_marcs, nwhepcat, m_mcgregor, and so many others and I don't think I could stand to devote any more time to reading fanfic anyway. femslash_minis produces ficlets of incredible quality every two weeks. As long as they keep writing, I could(n't) really care less what happens to the bad writers in fandom. I'm interested in having a community of better readers. If concrit is ultimately constructive in any sense, it is that it strengthens this community.

In my experience, allowing both positive and negative criticism opens the range of what a critical responder can say, and thus what thoughts arrive on the critical scene. Allowing only positive feedback stifles expression. What can you say which is truly interesting, insightful, or thought-provoking about a story if you are restricted to only those comments which are unequivocatively positive?

And as a writer, I'm invested in the story and I want to know what people think about it. Not because I want to get better (although I do), karabair is right that my reaction to the majority of the negative feedback I receive will be to re-justify my decisions to myself and then ignore it. And that's perfectly okay. I value critical feedback because it shows that the reader cared about my story and wants to think about it. That they took out time to notice the elements they mentioned in concrit--theme, plot, character, whatever--and think about them in relation to a set of standards more complicated than "I liked this," regardless of whether they ultimately decide my use of these devices to be successful or not. As a writer, I approach this is the greatest compliment a reader can pay to me: thinking deeply and fully about my story.

Now, not all of us are prepared to provide detailed, thoughtful concrit; for one thing, it takes a lot of time and thought (which is why most people would only bother giving it to stories worth that much thought in the first place). Sometimes one doesn't know what to do but squee. There are plenty legitimate reasons not to give concrit--I'm not saying that you should be giving more concrit, whoever you are--but it saddens me that people who want to and would give it may find themselves silenced by the so-called "Cult of Nice" conventions. (As to whether the cult actually exists, I remain firmly agnostic.) I'm not saying that concrit is always better than squee (it isn't!), but the subject at hand is the value and worth of concrit apart from its ability to improve the writing skills of the author.

This is not to say I am unambiguous about concrit. One of the things I love about it is also one of the things I fear the most: the way it creates a dialogue between author and reader. In many ways, this is what I relish about concrit, a discussion about the dynamics of the text I created and thus love. However, despite the fact that the feedback is left in my personal journal, is addressed to me, and my heart really calls out for this sort of dialogue, the fact nonetheless remains that I am the person least qualified to take part in it. I'm too caught up in the process of production to be able to talk about the dynamics of the text as it stands. And so I find myself forced to remain silent in the face of negative criticism. Let's say a reader responds that she doesn't see the function of a certain scene. I know what I intended the scene to do, but not whether it succeeded, and thus I find myself either answering with a simple "Thank you for your honesty" when I could say so more, or by surrounding my comments by extensive intentional fallacy disclaimers. However, this is characteristic of all feedback on LJ, not just concrit; the format by its nature privileges the author. It's simply that insofar as concrit is more developed than squee, it provides a greater opportunity for a critical misstep. Also, I don't know any author who is afraid to take credit for the good elements of her or his text regardless of intent; warring interpretations form a much bigger problem if the criticism is negative.

Maybe it'd be better if we responded to other people's crit, agreeing and disagreeing with what they say, so that the author would become but one un-privileged voice among many but still able to take part in and enjoy these critical discussions, but we've seemed to have evolved the fannish convention on LJ that even though these conversations are public, feedback should still be a conversation solely between each individual feedbacker and the author. Disagreeing with someone else's feedback would be seen, I'm afraid, as one of the most heinous of personal attacks. I'm not sure why this should be so, but I do think that it is lamentable.

Comments

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

I see your point of view but I personally do NOT feel the way you describe here:

We want positive feedback, we want to hear that we are the greatest writers who ever lived, but if that feedback does not contain content which is critical (in the negative sense) than that feedback is worthless, meaningless sycophancy.

The fact that somebody takes the time to (1) read the story (2) give feedback at all and (ideally) (3) pick out something specific that they liked about the story is, in itself, an act of thoughtful engagement. If your reaction is to think that everything they didn't mention is potentially something they disliked, then that's about your interpretation, and it's really not something they are saying at all.

Now, I'm not talking about banning concrit -- my posts were specifically about unsolicited concrit when the reader doesn't know what the writer's expectations are.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I'm exaggerasting for effect, of course--thinking that everything one doesn't mention they hated is ludicrous, as it ignores all the other reasons they might not have left concrit, most of which are perfectly legitimate. Obviously, any type of feedback is better than no feedback at all, because as you point out all feedback is indicative of some level of engagement with the text. And I think in most circumstances its unreasonable to expect more from one's readers than we typically get. I do feel, however, that including negative crit in feedback does enhance the meaningfulness of the crit, in that it is expressed in an intellectually freer environment.

I'm not saying that everyone should always leave concrit, just that concrit can serve a function for the writer unrelated to making him or her a better writer, and I wanted to point that function out.

Writer's expectations are always a tricky things, because (as peasant_ we either need an opt-in or opt-out convention, and either way's going to have negative unintended consequences.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

well, doesn't the fact that people get upset about (alleged) concrit, and that "concrit please" is common (and unobjectionable), while "no concrit" leads to mocking --

doesn't all of this suggest that "no concrit" is the default?

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not sure that all those facts logically imply that "no concrit" is the default (I can construct an argument using the same data points that "concrit" as the default) but I agree that, as a purely empirical matter, the reigning convention (the so-called "Cult of Nice") in fandom is to not give concrit unless the reader explicitly asks for it. (And asks for it where? A large number of readers for a story will never read the poster's user info.)

peasant_ makes a case that concrit should be the default assumption in Buffy fandom to fuel the "Cult of Higher Standards," i.e. to help the mediocre writers to become better writers and to discourage poor writers from posting. I'm not sure I buy it, but it's persuasively argued. Your posts seem to argue for a "no concrit" default because concrit isn't a useful mechanism, and because fanfic works posted to LJ are published, both positions with which I agree.

I'm not actually arguing for either the opt-in or opt-out conventions, because my interest is more in theory and not policy. Both options come with their share of negatives, and I make no claim which side of negatives outweighs the other. However, I wanted to put forward my own feeling that concrit is for the writer but not to make her or him a better writer--if I were to write a movie I'd be more interested in reading the reviews by movie critics than my fan mail--because I thought it might be extra food for thought in the debate when weighing the positives and negatives of each option.

Not that we're actually debating about anything real, actually; as glossng pointed out, it's unlikely the fannish conventions will change no matter what meta writers say or do.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

if I were to write a movie I'd be more interested in reading the reviews by movie critics than my fan mail

That strikes me as a false analogy. The movie critic is not directing comments at the artist directly; if Roger Ebert meets Ang Lee at a party, he may try to engage him in conversation about the artistic merits of one of his works, but he's not going to start listing off everything he didn't like about "Ride with the Devil." Or, if he does, it's going to be a short conversation.

There isn't a roll in the fanfic community that corresponds with that of a professional movie critic -- ie, looking at the new fic that comes out, listing what the reviewer liked and didn't like about each one. Now, if people are interested in a Cult of High Standards, that might be a way to go; set up a community with an editorial board and review significant fics that come out every month.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's the analogy that's false so much as, well, as something else. Ebert and his ilk aren't writing for me, no, but if they were I don't think they could do better than keep writing the way they are. The conversation between Ebert and Ang Lee at the party is almost definitely going to be inane; if Ang Lee reads Ebert's review, on the other hand, he might learn something about his movie that he didn't know before. Because Ebert isn't being restrained by an imperative to say things that are nice (as he is at the party), there's a greater possibility that he'll say something truly insightful.

My point in this post was--or at least was supposed to be--that someone taking the part of someone like a professional movie critic can actually be of use to the author hirself, and thus such a balanced commentary would be appropriate in the author's journal.

Now, if people are interested in a Cult of High Standards, that might be a way to go; set up a community with an editorial board and review significant fics that come out every month.

As hermionesviolin points out below, that community is basically called club_joss. But my point was that type of discussion is one that a writer would want going on in his or her private journal (at least if that the writer were me).

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

I don't see any reason to assume that a genuine dialogue between a critic and a filmmaker would be inane. I've seen Ebert speak and he has told interesting stories about things he learned in conversations with filmmakers -- probably because he didn't just come on reciting his review but was actually interested in a give and take with the filmmaker. Your hypothetical, btw, assumes that the filmmaker only has things to learn from the reviewer, and not vice versa. If Ebert thought that was true, I doubt he'd be in the business.

club_joss from what I understand, is a discussion group; that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a review community that actually does the equivalent of, say, what the book review section of a major newspaper does -- decide which new work is worth commenting on and assigning reviewers to do it.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I still think that Ang Lee would be too caught up in his work to be able to discuss it with enough distance. That's not always true of course--I don't know anything about Ang Lee as a person--but Ebert is able to look at the dynamics of the movie as text, while I don't think Ang Lee could help but privilege his own intent; it's human nature. The main benefit that Ang Lee has over Robert Ebert is that Ang Lee thought about his own text longer and deeper than Ebert can afford to do, having to deal with a large variety of texts, and thus will naturally pick up on dynamics that Ebert will miss.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, are you saying an artist is not qualified to engage in a dialogue about his own work?

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

An artist is of course as qualified as anyone else to discuss a work and to say what s/he thinks it means, why s/he thinks it's good or bad, etc. It doesn't require a degree in theory to examine the dynamics of a text--which is good, as then I'd be out too. An artist might not be particularly good at dealing with texts critically--hir skill is in creating the texts--but there's no reason that she or he would be particuarly bad at it, as long as she could remember not to privilege hir own intent.

And as I said, the artist does have a special advantage over all other possible critics in that she or he has thought long and hard about the dynamics of her or his own text.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

And as I said, the artist does have a special advantage over all other possible critics in that she or he has thought long and hard about the dynamics of her or his own text.

Well, we can agree on that.

I also think it's important to draw a distinction between theoretical/critical interpretation (in which, as you say, the artist may or may not be adept) and discussion of craft (in which the artist may certainly say something worthwhile).

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I also think it's important to draw a distinction between theoretical/critical interpretation (in which, as you say, the artist may or may not be adept) and discussion of craft (in which the artist may certainly say something worthwhile).

Oh, I certainly agree that the writer has much to say regarding discussion of craft--she or he is the expert there, after all. I'm just not sure Roger Ebert--as opposed t, say, amateur movie makers--would care to learn how to make a movie.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

Because "craft" has implications for the finished product. Craft and meaning aren't entirely divorced.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

another comment on the movie critic analogy:

if a filmmaker is going to read reviews of his work, hoping to gain some new insight thereby, he's going to choose which reviewers to give credence to based for one thing on the content of the review itself, but also on a knowledge of the critic's overall aesthetic and to some extent. He's not going to give some random anonymous review the same attention without reference to context. So by that analogy, if someone I've never heard of before comes in and makes a negative comment on something I wrote, how do I know that they're a good critic?

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

First of all, I don't suggest purely negative feedback any more so than purely positive feedback--less so, as at least positive feedback is nice and makes the author feel good. But of course I'm going to privilege a thoughtful and balanced criticism from you more than from a random LJer who swung in via the su_herald. That just goes without saying. Although in both cases I'm going to be glad that my story encouraged people to think think critically, and that's going to be a bigger ego boost than pure praise could produce (unless it's particularly enthusiastic praise, like this).

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

So we basically agree there :).

Which goes back to my original point -- that I don't see much value in negative criticism dropped out of the blue, while a lot of the debate seems to assume that all concrit is equal. (I know you're not actually saying that; I'm just providing an extreme hypothetical).

[gloss]

I have this vision of a fannish community where people have the necessary distance so that critical discussion of their stories and ideas is not felt as a personal attack against them, where ad hominem attacks never happen, and where people can engage passionately in debate and then perform the fannish equivalent of all going out to dinner afterwards on the fandom's expense account.
I'd like to be in that fandom, too.

the subject at hand is the value and worth of concrit apart from its ability to improve the writing skills of the author.
Very nicely distinguished - I haven't really seen this in most/all of the concrit debates I've read. I'm glad you made this point.

I remain doubtful that fandom's going to change, unfortunately.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Yes, I realized as I wrote this how idealistic it sounded. Still makes a decent eschatological vision, I suppose.

And while fandom probably won't change, I thought it'd be worthwhile to throw the ideas into the meta pool for the benefit of those writers who are going to keep arguing about how fandom should/shouldn't change.

Thanks!

[gloss]

Hey, nothing wrong with idealism. Sorry if I came off gruffly above; I'm very glad that you and peasant_ and others *are* talking about this and stocking the meta pool.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

I'm still a little vague on this -- the value and worth of negative criticism is that it shows the critic is being honest? I guess I can see that, but should we assume that only negative criticism can show that?

The best feedback I ever got on a piece of writing was from a professor who had read a story I wrote that was -- in terms of style, structure, and even editing -- an absolute mess. I knew everything that was wrong with the story (I didn't know how to fix it, and in fact, I never did, but I basically knew what was wrong). I came into conference with her, totally prepared to get reamed for turning in such a piece of crap, and she just looked at me and said, "Men are like that, aren't they?" We did go on to talk about all the things that needed to be fixed in the story (I did much more of the talking than she did), but what made it possible to have a constructive session was that her initial comment showed that she had read the story and responded to something in it; there was plenty left to work on, but I've forgotten every bit of negative criticism in the conversation, but that comment stuck with me.

I'm not trying to say that commenters should gag themselves, but I do feel like potentially negative comments could be better framed in terms of questions. For instance, I see a lot of difference between, "But do you think Anya would do that, in light of her experience with Xander in episode X?" versus. "I just don't think Anya would ever do that." As I've said before, I might be splitting too fine a hair, but the distinction makes sense to me.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I agree that all concrit should consist of positive as well as negative crit. Anyone who attempts to provide concrit to a story she or he hates utterly is either a sadist or a masochist, and either way isn't likely to provide much which is interesting in terms of commentary.

To me, well-balanced criticism demonstrates that the reader appreciates the story as a whole, warts and all. Just think if your prof had responded to your story solely with squee. I know that in such a circumastance, even if I thought she really believed what she said, if I knew the story to be a mess I would have felt pretty empty receiving her praise. The fact that she thought it emotionally insightful would have been completely negated to me by the fact that she had been unable to see--or unwilling to mention--its negative elements. To my mind, the fact that she was aware of both the story's strengths and weaknesses, and able to talk interestingly about both, was what made her a useful interlocutor.

I'm not trying to say that commenters should gag themselves, but I do feel like potentially negative comments could be better framed in terms of questions. For instance, I see a lot of difference between, "But do you think Anya would do that, in light of her experience with Xander in episode X?" versus. "I just don't think Anya would ever do that." As I've said before, I might be splitting too fine a hair, but the distinction makes sense to me.

I'm not against politeness (I don't think, fundamentally, we actually disagree on anything much), and asking questions could be a useful technique to help jumpstart discussion of the text in a friendly manner if used sparingly. OTOH, I could see the technique getting old fast--"Do you think ending the story after scene A lessens the effect of scene B? Do you think the thematic content of this story is appropriate to the use of Character C? What do you think the function of plot device D is?"--and wanting to hit my feedbacker over the head and them them tell me what it is that they think, already.

On the third hand, asking the author about the text may be an effective method of having the type of discussion I'd like to see while sidestepping authorial intent issues, if it can induce a dialogue in which the author is talking about the dynamics of the text they created (and its intertextuality with canon) and not why they made a specific choice. That'd be a good thing, certainly, and one I'd love to see.

[netgirl-y2k.livejournal.com]

I'm currently pretty interested in the topic of con-crit because I've found my opinion about it changing recently. I've always been pretty anti-concrit, mainly because I've so often heard it described as a way to help writers improve and I began to resent the assumption that I should be trying to improve (I'm of the Bloody Hell It's Only A Hobby corner of fandom.) I also thought that con-crit would be wasted on me. After I've posted a story, it could recieve the most detailed and insightful con-crit in the world I'm still not going to do major re-writes on it, I'll have probably already moved onto whatever my shiny New Thing is.

However recently I've been editing some of my older fics as I uploaded them to the Archive at the end of the universe and I noticed a startling number of easily fixed errors, tense changes, grammatical errors and the like. And a lot of these were on fics that had recieved a fair number of reviews, I got to wondering why no one had pointed these out to me.

I don't like the idea that people are restraining themselves from pointing out easily fixed errors to me because they're afraid I'll jump all of them or that they'll hurt my feelings. Anyone who sent me FB saying "By the way, I just noticed that the tense changes in the middle and you used your instead of you're" would recieve my eternal thanks from saving me from looking like an idiot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people writing longer con-crit about problems with my plot or characterisation, who doesn't like people taking time out of their day to write to you about something you've done. It's just that they're not going to get a response beyond "thank you for taking the time to review my fic in so much detail." And maybe that's not the result they're after.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people writing longer con-crit about problems with my plot or characterisation, who doesn't like people taking time out of their day to write to you about something you've done.

Exactly!

It's just that they're not going to get a response beyond "thank you for taking the time to review my fic in so much detail."

Which I think is appropriate. Usually I respond with "Thank you for your honesty" because there's nothing tackier than arguing with concrit.

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

You're the kind of people I have to remind myself exist when I start thinking "But why wouldn't anyone want concrit?"

I don't necessarily expect people to rewrite their fics (though I would think people would want to fix stuff like typos) but I know people have pointed out to me weaknesses in individual stories (say, poorly executed POV switch) which I know I fall victim to a lot, and being reminded of them helps me keep them in mind in future writing.

[netgirl-y2k.livejournal.com]

No, I completely understand what your saying. I fix any spelling or grammatical errors that are pointed out to me immediatley, and I'm grateful to whomever points them out as I think it saves me from looking like an idiot to my next reader. I also understand that con-crit can influence your future writing, someone pointing out to me that I was prone to switching tense mid-story made me more able to avoid it in future.

It's just that if someone writes me detailed con-crit on one particular story I can't help but feel they'll have wasted their time. Because not only is the fic not going to get re-written, their carefully thought out con-crit will probably never cross my unworried mind again.

part one

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm responding to this post not having read any of the comments that follow and also without having read any of the pieces you linked to (at least not to my knowledge).

> sure, I do want to become a better author (mainly so as to better serve the interests of my fannish community)

Interesting. I want to become a better writer, but better serving a fannish community is (for me) secondary to the broader Become A Better Writer goal.

> I like concrit because it's more honest. If someone tells me that they think Kennedy was acting out of character in paragraph 7, then that means I can all the better trust them when they tell me that the fic is wonderful and they loved it. Otherwise, I'm left wondering if the fact that the feedbacker picked out a sentence from the penultimate paragraph means that she thought the rest of the fic was drek. Are they mentioning the thematic richness because the plot was horribly structured?

I definitely agree about the honesty. I know I've at times commented solely on the positive aspects of something and I feel like it's kind of obvious that I thus didn't like the rest of it. I know when I'm picking out extra-good bits of a fic I really liked I try to remember to say that I liked the whole thing and these are bits I particularly liked, but I'm sure at times I've neglected to do that. And of course as you mention elsewhere, leaving crit takes time and energy that we readers only have so much of so we are forever making decisions as to when it feels worth the effort.

> It's one of the paradoxes of human existence: we want positive feedback, we want to hear that we are the greatest writers who ever lived, but if that feedback does not contain content which is critical (in the negative sense) than that feedback is worthless, meaningless sycophancy. It should take its place next to the other paradoxes of our time, the Oedipus complex (we want to rejoin the mother but keep our separate identity) and the will-to-power (we want to have mastery over others, but if they don't have mastery over themselves our mastery is meaningless).

I can't speak to the will-to-power, but I can say that I have no desire to "rejoin" my mother in any way. (Which, wow, when I phrase it like that sounds like I hate my mother, and in fact I have a wonderful relationship with her, but what I mean is that I am very happy being my own individual adult person.)

I definitely agree that I'm distrustful of praise-only feedback on a fic I know needs improvement, but I'm not sure I'd classify all praise-only feedback as worthless, though I definitely understand where you're coming from.

Re: part one

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I want to become a better writer, but better serving a fannish community is (for me) secondary to the broader Become A Better Writer goal.

Well, I have three goals of more or less equal importance: to become a better academic nonfiction writer (to succeed in academia); to become a better fanfic writer (to serve the fannish comunity); and to become a better original fiction writer (so I can write orginal fiction). The thing is, I don't automatically assume that skill in one of these fields will transfer to the other two, e.g. that the aesthetic values of the Buffy femslash community are the same of the publishing industry.

I can't speak to the will-to-power, but I can say that I have no desire to "rejoin" my mother in any way.

Well, never deny to a Freudian (which I am not), but I was mostly playing around there. That said, the phenomenon did bear a striking resemblance to me to how the Oedipal complex is supposed to function.

I definitely agree that I'm distrustful of praise-only feedback on a fic I know needs improvement, but I'm not sure I'd classify all praise-only feedback as worthless, though I definitely understand where you're coming from.

Neither would I. All feedback demonstrates that the reader cared enough to read your fic and respond for one. And some squee is so obviously honest and heartfelt that one can't be glad to get it. For the rest, I think there are many ways in which they can be worthwhile, although I can't articulate them at the moment.

Re: part one

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

> The thing is, I don't automatically assume that skill in one of these fields will transfer to the other two, e.g. that the aesthetic values of the Buffy femslash community are the same of the publishing industry.

This is probably true to some extent, but for me at least I think a lot of the weaknesses in my fanfic writing go beyond the specifics of fanfic and that working on them within the context of fanfic will strengthen any original fic work I do.


Good point about "never deny to a Freudian" ;)

part two

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

> I'm not so interested in having better writers in fandom. [...] and I don't think I could stand to devote any more time to reading fanfic anyway.

Hmm. While I have a huge backlog of fic to read and have little time to read any of it, I am so unimpressed by so much of what I read that I would love to have more good writers in fandom. Also, there are a lot of writers whom I know are very good but who don't write much that I'm personally interested in reading.

> I'm interested in having a community of better readers.

I hadn't thought of it this way before, but I agree.

> I'm too caught up in the process of production to be able to talk about the dynamics of the text as it stands. And so I find myself forced to remain silent in the face of negative criticism. Let's say a reader responds that she doesn't see the function of a certain scene. I know what I intended the scene to do, but not whether it succeeded, and thus I find myself either answering with a simple "Thank you for your honesty" when I could say so more, or by surrounding my comments by extensive intentional fallacy disclaimers.

I don't really have a problem with a writer responding to such a crit with an explanation of what said writer intended as the function of that scene. I know if I were said reader I would want to know what the writer intended to be the function of that scene. I might still think the writer failed to have his/her intention successfully understood by the reader, but I would want to know what the writer's intention was. I like information. And if I don't know what the writer's intention was, I can't offer any help as to how the writer could improve in a next story. I think you do the reader and the discussion a disservice if you refuse to respond to such crit just because you don't think authorial intent should be privileged.

> Maybe it'd be better if we responded to other people's crit, agreeing and disagreeing with what they say, so that the author would become but one un-privileged voice among many but still able to take part in and enjoy these critical discussions, but we've seemed to have evolved the fannish convention on LJ that even though these conversations are public, feedback should still be a conversation solely between each individual feedbacker and the author. Disagreeing with someone else's feedback would be seen, I'm afraid, as one of the most heinous of personal attacks. I'm not sure why this should be so, but I do think that it is lamentable.

club_joss, anyone?

Re: part two

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I like your icon, although I don't know where it's from.

And if I don't know what the writer's intention was, I can't offer any help as to how the writer could improve in a next story.

But you're assuming that the point of concrit is to help the author grow as a writer, which is fair as far as it goes, but it was the premise of my post that concrit has value to the author other than helping her or him to become a better author.

club_joss, anyone?

This is one of the reasons I made sure to word my post as a defense of concrit rather than a normative claim that everyone should concrit. I have club_joss friended, but I never manage to take part in the discussion

Re: part two

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

> I like your icon, although I don't know where it's from.

Thank you. The image and text are both from singer/songwriter Ani DiFranco, and the icon is one of the few I have that I made myself.

> But you're assuming that the point of concrit is to help the author grow as a writer, which is fair as far as it goes, but it was the premise of my post that concrit has value to the author other than helping her or him to become a better author.

Okay.

I guess I have a hard time moving beyond my idea that the primary goal of crit is to express to the writer what didn't work so that the writer can improve in the future. (Obviously the writer doesn't always agree with the critic, but I don't think that negates this.)

I mentioned club_joss primarily to point out that there is at least one place in existence in fandom where there can be that discussion between readers about a fanfic text.

Re: part two

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Thank you. The image and text are both from singer/songwriter Ani DiFranco, and the icon is one of the few I have that I made myself.

Ah. My mother is an Ani DiFranco fan, but that's a recent development and I haven't really had a chance to hear her music.

Here via metafandom

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

Of course, sure, I do want to become a better author, but that's not why I desire concrit. I like concrit because it's more honest.

Yes. So much with the yes. I really could not agree with this essay more. Even if it's not concrit in the sense that it's something I can use (if it's just a difference of opinion, for example), I'm still interested in knowing what people didn't like as well as what they liked. I'm curious. And maybe it's just me, but I don't think there's ever anything anyone likes 100%. When I talk about books and movies, I talk about what I disliked as well as what I liked, and I want to be able to do that with fanfic as well, not least because I'd like for others to do so with my work.