On Writing Constructive Criticism
I'm not a master of leaving concrit, but by the principle of "There are tons of people who do it worse than me, therefore I might be able to do some good," I decided to procrastinate on important real life matters to write this list, most of which are gripes.
Fandom, as a community, likes to encourage this thing called concrit, while most of its members seem to have no idea that leaving concrit is an endeavor that can go poorly.
(On the other hand, don't come down on would-be critics too harshly. Like fanfic writers themselves, nearly everyone who can give out good crit had, at one point, left awful crit.)
myaru addressed leaving constructive criticism once before in this post, with valid points but perhaps slanted toward a setting such as a creative writing workshop. Here, I address this specifically in the context of a place such as FFN where writing levels are variable and criticism often unsolicited.
1) You do not need to bitch about something. If you don't have a feeling that something's wrong in your first readthrough, you don't need to hunt and peck for something to contrast with a wall of praise, unless you are being specifically asked to go through the piece with a fine-toothed comb. If you didn't notice it the first time, it's probably not a significant problem. Not that you shouldn't mention something if you notice it when going back, but looking for it is another matter. So unless the author specifically wants something picky, or is submitting something to be beta-read (which I think is something that should be approached differently), don't deliberately hunt for mistakes. Your average writer is going to be happy that you think the world of their writing. Note: This is different from having a gut feeling that something is wrong and taking the time to identify it.
2) Offer both criticism and praise at a level appropriate to the writer. Remarking on both the good and bad is well-covered by Myaru and I'm not feeling passionate about it, so I'm going to talk about the latter part. It doesn't make sense to talk about mixed symbolism to a beginning writer still struggling with description. If your criticism is meant to be constructive, ideally you should focus on aspects you believe are reasonably within the writer's grasp. If the problem is particularly bad, by all means, mention it -- but it's probably a futile endeavor to try to impress your point if the writer still isn't comfortable with more basic concepts. It's like tutoring someone for a musical instrument and talking about expressive playing before they're even comfortable with the fingerings. Most people naturally adjust their expectations for criticism. It's the other part that seems to be a more frequent problem.
3) I mean it about the praise. Maybe you're looking at your review and you're thinking "This is too harsh. Maybe I should pad it with praise." This is often a good idea, although I would suggest making the criticism less harsh. (If you read it and think it's harsh, what will the writer think?) The bad idea here is to pad a review criticizing things such as flow, fine word choice, etc. with "I saw no spelling and grammar mistakes!" When I see that, I think, "So... I didn't fuck up the most basic technical skills of writing. That's the best I have going for me?" (YMMV.) Surely if you're spending the time to leave concrit, there was something you genuinely liked about the piece. Something probably on the same level as the stuff you criticized. Try to identify that. And about this particular example...
4) "You didn't make this mistake" means exactly that. So, tell me the difference between "You didn't mess it up," and "You pulled it off well." Which one are you going to give as a compliment? (You don't necessarily have to mean it as a compliment. Just be aware if this is your intent.) "You didn't make this mistake" is a compliment conditionally, for example, if the writer had made this mistake in the past, if the writer seemed concerned about it, or if you use it to highlight a separate remark you made about why something was done well. I'm conflicted on making "You didn't make this mistake" comments for mistakes that are somehow common. Just be aware that if you do decide to make a comment with this logic, you are lumping in the writer with the group that commonly makes this mistake, for better or for worse.
5) Spend only as much time on each point as much as it deserves. Maybe the jump between scenes two and three wasn't that big of a deal. If you write a paragraph explaining why it could be better, it will look like a big deal. It's the same principle as story writing: spend the appropriate amount of attention on things with regard to their importance. Maybe you think it's a difficult point to explain. If the writer doesn't see what you mean, she will probably mention that, and you can clarify at that point.
6) Don't bitch about formatting choices. Note: formatting, not style. You know, I don't think this is even that common. I just saw it once (not even for anything I wrote) and I wanted to slap someone and I never want to see it again. There are just about two reasons to bitch about formatting: if you're doing some sort of copy editing, or if you're dealing with a piece displayed in 48-point red blinking font.
For pieces that meet some level of technical proficiency (See 2):
Concrit is really most interesting for the person giving it (you?) when you feel like it's fair to consider these things.
A) Intent. How do you feel about what the author is trying to say in this piece? Most writers will probably be happy that you leave some indication that you understood the intent, whether or not you agree. If you can't figure it out on your own, say so -- that's important feedback too. Failure to communicate is a problem between two people and you shouldn't always assume that it's on your end. Whether or not you agree with this intent, direct criticism toward the author's intended vision -- not what you think it should be. (Exemption for beta readers: Sometimes pieces run away from their originating visions, for the better. This is a complicated matter.)
B) The way in which the story is told. Less flashy things such as perspective, structure, scene choice can often make or break a piece. Sometimes these are decisions the writer made unconsciously. Sometimes they were deliberate and quite difficult to decide on. Whatever the case, I hardly see anyone around the FFN parts talk about these things even for very good pieces -- content is much flashier -- and I think that's a shame. If you think something is well-executed and it's because of one of these things, say so. Cautionary note: Before remarking on how rare and well-done a piece in (for example) second person is, think carefully about whether it being in second person adds to the piece. If it's exotic but doesn't actually help the piece, reconsider whether this is a good thing.
---
I've spent too long writing this post. I'm going to throw it out there and maybe come back later.
EDIT 1: If you're neurotic about whether or not the reviews you leave will be well-received, I will bet money that nothing you do is particularly problematic and that you should not worry to the point of not giving feedback.
EDIT 2: I'm conflicted on the matter of offering suggestions on how to fix something. I think that's largely a beta reader concern. In my humble opinion, in concrit I think it's better to offer a specific way to fix it for technical problems or when you think you have a particular insightful suggestion. I'd shy away from it otherwise, simply because the writer will probably have a better idea once you point out the originating problem.
EDIT 3: In most of my flist's opinion, suggestions should generally be given (still using your best judgment about the writer's level). See comments.
Fandom, as a community, likes to encourage this thing called concrit, while most of its members seem to have no idea that leaving concrit is an endeavor that can go poorly.
(On the other hand, don't come down on would-be critics too harshly. Like fanfic writers themselves, nearly everyone who can give out good crit had, at one point, left awful crit.)
myaru addressed leaving constructive criticism once before in this post, with valid points but perhaps slanted toward a setting such as a creative writing workshop. Here, I address this specifically in the context of a place such as FFN where writing levels are variable and criticism often unsolicited.
1) You do not need to bitch about something. If you don't have a feeling that something's wrong in your first readthrough, you don't need to hunt and peck for something to contrast with a wall of praise, unless you are being specifically asked to go through the piece with a fine-toothed comb. If you didn't notice it the first time, it's probably not a significant problem. Not that you shouldn't mention something if you notice it when going back, but looking for it is another matter. So unless the author specifically wants something picky, or is submitting something to be beta-read (which I think is something that should be approached differently), don't deliberately hunt for mistakes. Your average writer is going to be happy that you think the world of their writing. Note: This is different from having a gut feeling that something is wrong and taking the time to identify it.
2) Offer both criticism and praise at a level appropriate to the writer. Remarking on both the good and bad is well-covered by Myaru and I'm not feeling passionate about it, so I'm going to talk about the latter part. It doesn't make sense to talk about mixed symbolism to a beginning writer still struggling with description. If your criticism is meant to be constructive, ideally you should focus on aspects you believe are reasonably within the writer's grasp. If the problem is particularly bad, by all means, mention it -- but it's probably a futile endeavor to try to impress your point if the writer still isn't comfortable with more basic concepts. It's like tutoring someone for a musical instrument and talking about expressive playing before they're even comfortable with the fingerings. Most people naturally adjust their expectations for criticism. It's the other part that seems to be a more frequent problem.
3) I mean it about the praise. Maybe you're looking at your review and you're thinking "This is too harsh. Maybe I should pad it with praise." This is often a good idea, although I would suggest making the criticism less harsh. (If you read it and think it's harsh, what will the writer think?) The bad idea here is to pad a review criticizing things such as flow, fine word choice, etc. with "I saw no spelling and grammar mistakes!" When I see that, I think, "So... I didn't fuck up the most basic technical skills of writing. That's the best I have going for me?" (YMMV.) Surely if you're spending the time to leave concrit, there was something you genuinely liked about the piece. Something probably on the same level as the stuff you criticized. Try to identify that. And about this particular example...
4) "You didn't make this mistake" means exactly that. So, tell me the difference between "You didn't mess it up," and "You pulled it off well." Which one are you going to give as a compliment? (You don't necessarily have to mean it as a compliment. Just be aware if this is your intent.) "You didn't make this mistake" is a compliment conditionally, for example, if the writer had made this mistake in the past, if the writer seemed concerned about it, or if you use it to highlight a separate remark you made about why something was done well. I'm conflicted on making "You didn't make this mistake" comments for mistakes that are somehow common. Just be aware that if you do decide to make a comment with this logic, you are lumping in the writer with the group that commonly makes this mistake, for better or for worse.
5) Spend only as much time on each point as much as it deserves. Maybe the jump between scenes two and three wasn't that big of a deal. If you write a paragraph explaining why it could be better, it will look like a big deal. It's the same principle as story writing: spend the appropriate amount of attention on things with regard to their importance. Maybe you think it's a difficult point to explain. If the writer doesn't see what you mean, she will probably mention that, and you can clarify at that point.
6) Don't bitch about formatting choices. Note: formatting, not style. You know, I don't think this is even that common. I just saw it once (not even for anything I wrote) and I wanted to slap someone and I never want to see it again. There are just about two reasons to bitch about formatting: if you're doing some sort of copy editing, or if you're dealing with a piece displayed in 48-point red blinking font.
For pieces that meet some level of technical proficiency (See 2):
Concrit is really most interesting for the person giving it (you?) when you feel like it's fair to consider these things.
A) Intent. How do you feel about what the author is trying to say in this piece? Most writers will probably be happy that you leave some indication that you understood the intent, whether or not you agree. If you can't figure it out on your own, say so -- that's important feedback too. Failure to communicate is a problem between two people and you shouldn't always assume that it's on your end. Whether or not you agree with this intent, direct criticism toward the author's intended vision -- not what you think it should be. (Exemption for beta readers: Sometimes pieces run away from their originating visions, for the better. This is a complicated matter.)
B) The way in which the story is told. Less flashy things such as perspective, structure, scene choice can often make or break a piece. Sometimes these are decisions the writer made unconsciously. Sometimes they were deliberate and quite difficult to decide on. Whatever the case, I hardly see anyone around the FFN parts talk about these things even for very good pieces -- content is much flashier -- and I think that's a shame. If you think something is well-executed and it's because of one of these things, say so. Cautionary note: Before remarking on how rare and well-done a piece in (for example) second person is, think carefully about whether it being in second person adds to the piece. If it's exotic but doesn't actually help the piece, reconsider whether this is a good thing.
---
I've spent too long writing this post. I'm going to throw it out there and maybe come back later.
EDIT 1: If you're neurotic about whether or not the reviews you leave will be well-received, I will bet money that nothing you do is particularly problematic and that you should not worry to the point of not giving feedback.
EDIT 2: I'm conflicted on the matter of offering suggestions on how to fix something. I think that's largely a beta reader concern. In my humble opinion, in concrit I think it's better to offer a specific way to fix it for technical problems or when you think you have a particular insightful suggestion. I'd shy away from it otherwise, simply because the writer will probably have a better idea once you point out the originating problem.
EDIT 3: In most of my flist's opinion, suggestions should generally be given (still using your best judgment about the writer's level). See comments.