Work Room - Week 7

[clauderainsrm]

Constructive criticism. Some people love it and some, well, they don't quite "get" it. :)

What IS "constructive" to you? For that matter what do you consider to be "within the realm of criticism"?

What do you find helpful when people are talking about your work and what are the things that usually pop out at you when commenting on other people's

Comments

[teaberryblue]

I already wrote a very long post about this, so rather than typing a gabillionty words again, I will just post my link

[momebie]

I feel like the 'I don't like it' responses have value as well. Granted, it's easier to take them seriously if there is thought behind them, but you have to look at the source. If I get several responses that read 'I don't get it' or 'I didn't like this' I'll know that I'm failing somewhere in my job of sharing information and I need to go back and fix it.

As soon as you start putting for-serious-writing up in any public venue, you have to be ready to accept concrit.

This I couldn't agree with more.

[teaberryblue]

Oh, I think they have value, too. The reason I make that distinction is mainly a question of "defining constructive criticism" and to me, taking it that step further acts as a good goalpost. I think a lot of people get very edgy about concrit, either giving it or receiving it, so I feel like there needs to be a marker. Saying something more than "I didn't like this" is a good way of making it clear on the internet that you're not just insulting the person in question, and that you respect and value their voice as a writer.

[cacophonesque]

I'm iffy on constructive criticism. It can be hard to hear sometimes--and at the same time, I recognize that I'll never get to be that good of a writer if I don't accept it. However, I think I'd prefer to get it in a PM... depending...

Constructive for me means that someone who is knowledgable and thoughtful in the genre or form I'm tackling has suggestions on how I might improve my piece. Unconstructive would be someone just tearing it apart for the hell of it.

What I most want when people comment to me is feedback on the actual writing. A lot of times I get comments about the content, which is also great, I'm glad to be engaging people. But I also want to talk process and style and sometimes about the various references that end up being such a big part of my writing. I'm in love with the metaliterary, and so often I feel like it's all going over peoples' heads.

Um... I probably have a lot more to say on this, but I want to get out some initial thoughts and then maybe interact with others.

[kehlen]

That's because some of us (like me) have no literary education and do not understand even this term you use ;-).

And the 'afraid to offend' part is also very important.

[teaberryblue]

I am guessing you mean "metaliterary."

"Meta" is a prefix which usually is used to mean "about." (I wrote up the whole history of the prefix for people last season and would be happy to do it again if you are interested). You'll see people referring to posts about how Idol works as "meta" for this reason.

Metaliterary work is work that comments on literature. So, for example, when fiction is metaliterary, it refers to what we already know about literature, sometimes specific genres or stories.

[fourzoas]

I'm with you on the PM, assuming that the crit is something negatively cast; I'm always happy to have the "what's working" comment.

[comedychick]

Constructive has to be helpful, IMO. It's like saying "That sentence doesn't work for me," vs "That sentence doesn't work for me because it sounds a bit flowery. If you just dropped this word, I think it'd work much better."

Although, for me, I don't always take well to either. It really depends on who is saying it. I also tend to need someone to point out what *does* work in order for me to accept what *doesn't* work.

[hellboy]

I personally don't mind concrit provided it's in a non-malicious tone. I may do what they suggest and I may not, but if they're taking their valuable time to tell me something that might have bothered them, or stood out as something that could be improved, I'm not going to outright ignore it.

The main problem I've found recently, however, is that you have to take in account how the person you're saying something to will read it. And I mean, try to figure out what they'd be saying if they said the same to you. What could be a neutral comment could be interpreted as a personal attack, because if they said it, it would be one.

Yanno, I'm not sure that I'm making sense right now. Gragh.

My thought processes pretty much leaves "nothing unsolicited" as the only option, at any rate. Keeps the drama down, la.

[comedychick]

Keeps the drama down, la.

Do you live in or have you been to Singapore or Malaysia? I've never seen anyone else use "la" in that fashion.

[vaguelyclear]

LOL, that's what I immediately thought, too.

[comedychick]

I have a lot of Malaysian friends who use it all the time, to the extent that I tend to say it around them sometimes, too. I wondered if you might've noticed the same!

[vaguelyclear]

For me, constructive involves both positive and negative points. I think it works much better, and people respond to it more, when you talk about both what you did and didn't like, and why. Unconstructive would be telling me you didn't like what I wrote - either like that, or in more extreme, expletive language - and leaving it at that. I also think that criticising content, as opposed to writing style, is much more likely to upset people and make them defensive, which I completely understand.

[gaea_rising]

Yeah, I try to comment more about style, grammar, etc., and leave content itself alone. :)

[vaguelyclear]

I find it's often safer to do so >.>