Essay: Reply's Reason
A somewhat lengthy essay on the reason for providing direct feedback, usually for unpaid fiction. I shouldn't have to say that this all just represents my opinion, right? I mean, it's my blog. What the hell else would it represent?
For the record, there is no single event that set this off. This is something that I have been thinking about writing for weeks, and has been slowly coming together in my head. Sure, there might be a specific event that kicked me in the ass and got me finally writing it, but that was probably going to happen in the next couple of weeks, anyway.
Reply's Reason
Feedback, usually written, is the bread and butter of the non-professional writer and artist (including, but not limited, fanartists and fanauthors), a fact which most non-professionals are well aware of. Most of us will never receive money for our works, and so we take, as currency, the reactions others give us directly, usually through writing. However, while a great deal of emphasis is often place on improving one's ability to write fiction, often, very little thought is given to the writing of feedback and whether or not the feedback achieves it's intended purposes. I'm not necessarily talking, here, about people who do not provide feedback that is in-depth, for often, it is entirely possible for someone to provide a thoughtful, critical response to a work that completely fails to accomplish the goal for which it was intended.
The ultimate purpose of all forms of writing is, of course, communication. However, what one is attempting to communicate, to whom they wish to communicate, and the goals they wish to achieve by communicating can vary wildly from person to person. Consequently, all writing can ultimately be judged on how well it communicates what it is intended to communicate to the person or people it is intended to communicate it to, and how well it achieves the goals it is intended to achieve. In the giving of direct feedback (as opposed to reviews)*, the primary audience is assumed to be the original author or artist, and the clarity of communication will not be discussed. The intent of this essay is to examine some of the most common goals a person providing feedback for non-professional creative works (specifically, fictional writing) will usually have, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of several of the more typical types of feedback such creators tend to receive. The broad goals for giving feedback which will be covered here are as follows: to encourage the author to write more; to assist the author in writing better; to manipulate the author in some way; and to discourage the author from writing more. Random, unfocused insults directed towards the original creator will not be covered.
One very common reason for providing feedback, possibly the most common reason, is to encourage the original author to write more. This goal may be combined with the goals of helping the author to improve their writing and/or manipulating them, but is diametrically opposed to the goal of discouraging them. Generally speaking, the best forms of feedback for accomplishing this goal include constructive praise, general praise, and constructive criticism, in about that order of effectiveness. Yes, that's right: I am stating right now that constructive criticism is not the most effective choice when the person providing feedback's only goal is attempting to encourage more writing. This is not to say that it cannot be used to encourage, and it is certainly more effective when there are multiple goals in mind (such as improvement), but if the only goal is encouragement, listing what the original author did wrong (even with suggestions for improvement) is frankly not very effective.
Many more advanced non-professional writers tend to turn their nose up at general praise, or "mindless praise," as it is sometimes derogatorily referred. Those who give such praise, and what's more, those who tend to receive mostly this kind of feedback, are sometimes openly mocked, with the mindset that if a reviewer cannot provide in depth feedback, they've got no business providing feedback at all. This belief does not take into account the motivations of the reviewer. Constructive feedback of any kind is hard work, and just like the efforts of the original writer, is done without pay. It is no more the job of the reader to ensure that the writer improves than it is the job of the writer to write to begin with, and it is unrealistic to expect that every person providing feedback should be required to assist the writer on their quest to perfection. If a person likes what they are reading, is perfectly content with it as is, and wants more in the same vein, then it stands to reason that they would wish to encourage the author to write more. Even something as simple and 'inane' as, "Wow! That was great! Looking forward to more!" can brighten someone's day and, more importantly, help them to feel that their efforts are worthwhile. If the goal is to see more of the same from the writer, and the quick, cheerful, enthusiastic response does just that, it is an effective and successful means of communicating. The reviewer wanted the writer to know that they liked their work and wanted to help ensure they will see more in the future, and they have done that. It's simple, it's efficient, and it may be wise to think twice before deriding it.
Finally, there is constructive praise. This is probably the most effective means of encouraging an author to write more, as it usually includes in-depth coverage of what the author is already doing right, and let's face it: we all like to hear exactly what we've done correctly. Even when constructive praise points out areas for improvement, it is usually done so in a positive light, and by the time the reviewer has reached this point, usually enough good has been discussed that the sting of the negative is lessoned or removed. The primary downside of constructive praise as a means of simply encouraging the author to write more is that it takes a lot more thought and effort on the part of the person providing feedback, but if the end result is an author who's so thrilled by the high provided by the praise that they want to write again immediately in order to re-experience, this feedback has accomplished its goal admirably.
The second goal to be covered here is the goal of assisting the original author in improving their writing. It is at this goal that both constructive praise and constructive criticism usually excel, but fair warning: if a person is so discouraged by the feedback received that they are not going to be writing more at all, they are certainly not going to write better. Thus, relentlessly negative feedback that contains no mention of any strong points in the original work should probably be avoided. Some people may argue that anyone putting their work out for review should have thick enough skin to suffer whatever abuse, and, indeed, I once labored under this belief, but let's face it: most of us will never be paid professional writers. The only reason we are writing is for the feedback we receive. This is our currency. A person may wish to strive to improve themselves so that future works yield more positive feedback, but in order to do this, they cannot be made to feel that ever being "good enough" is a lost cause. Consequently, while constructive criticism can be very useful for the process of authorial improvement, overly negative constructive criticism can, instead, discourage more work entirely. If the goal, then, is to help someone write better, and the result is that the person does not write at all, then the feedback has failed in its purpose and can, therefore, be viewed as a poor attempt at communication in and of itself, no matter how clear the actual message.
The third goal covered is the attempt, by the reviewer, to manipulate the author. This is, admittedly, vague wording, as ultimately, every form of direct feedback is an attempt to manipulate the author. Perhaps reviewer wants them to write more, or less, or better, but all three count as a means of manipulation. Thus, for my purposes here, I am covering those who are attempting to either alter what the writer is producing to better suit their personal tastes, or to somehow gain feedback for their own work in return. There are both blatant and subtle means of trying to accomplish both of these goals. The blatant attempts are usually pretty easy to spot. "That's great, but what you should really write about is X," "This sucks, it would be better if it had Y," or, "Wow! Great job! Now mind taking a look at Z?" As attempts to guide the writer to write certain things or to get the writer to read something else, these attempts are usually dismal failures. As attempts to annoy the author, they often succeed admirably.
There are more subtle ways to try to guide what an author is writing, however, usually through, yes, constructive praise and criticism. This is where a person gives an in depth review that does actually address the original work, but most or all of the suggestions cast what the reviewer personally wants to see in a better light, while presenting the things that the reviewer dislikes in as negative a manner possible. Many reviewers do this unintentionally, as we are all inclined to approve of those things we like to see and disapprove with those things we disagree with, even if neither can be stated as bad or good in an absolute sense. When this is being done unintentionally, the reviewer usually believes their goal is to help the person to write better. Ultimately, none of us can be totally divorced from our personal tastes, so it's virtually impossible to avoid subconscious guidance to write something specific. Conscious guidance, as a goal, most likely to happen over a very long time, and would generally take a rather lot of effort on the part of the reviewer, and is unlikely to yield its intended results, anyway. Thus, if this is the only conscious goal the reviewer has in giving feedback, it may be best to avoid providing any in the first place. As a subconscious goal and paired with a genuine desire to help the writer improve, it's not only more understandable, there are times when it may be inevitable.
Some people may be very active reviewers in the hopes that when they produce something, their work will be reviewed in return. They do not do anything so blatant as advertising their own fictions in their feedback and may, indeed, give thoughtful and in-depth feedback that includes constructive praise or constructive criticism. Or maybe they just provide a great deal of general praise, in the hopes of reaping the same later on. This may, initially, seem underhanded, but don't judge these people too harshly. Does not the phrase, "Treat others as you want to be treated" represent one of the highest ideals of kind and courteous behavior in our modern society? If an individual is providing thoughtful feedback because they hope, some day, to receive the same in kind, they are, after a fashion, trying to live up to this ideal. Really, the biggest problem with this is that it doesn't work. There is generally very little correlation between how active a person is as reviewer and how much feedback they themselves receive. Here, I speak from personal experience, for I was once this reviewer. I would read and view everything that came across my plate, and even if I didn't always provide an in depth critical analysis, I usually tried to provide at least one positive remark, one negative aspect (if I could find it), and my overall reaction. When combined with one of the above goals mentioned here (particularly, the goals of encouraging the author to write more or better), there is really nothing wrong with this, but as a single, primary motivation, reviewing in this mindset is setting oneself up for failure and disappointment, and thus should be avoided. Once more, remember: any communication can be judged by how well it accomplishes what it is meant to accomplish. If the only thing a reviewer is trying to accomplish is to draw positive attention to their own work, odds are they will not succeed and thus the feedback itself can be termed a failure.
The final purpose of providing feedback to be covered here is the purpose of discouraging the author from writing more. Praise of any kind is obviously ill-suited to this goal. Flames, of course, are the most blatant attempts at achieving this purpose, but for that reason, they also tend to have a limited success. If all a reviewer is doing is openly insulting the author, their writing, their lineage, their love live, and so forth, and providing no basis at all to their arguments, they are more likely to get laughed at than to actually stop someone else from writing. Indeed, this sort of behavior often results in defiance writing, where the author writes something specifically to piss the same flamer off. Consequently, as a means of feedback, flaming to discourage has a high likelihood of failure.
No, the form of feedback most likely to be successful in the goal of preventing the author from writing more is strongly negative "constructive" criticism. But wait! Wasn't constructive criticism also listed as a potentially successful means of encouraging an author and of helping them to improve their writing? Yes, yes it was. The truth is, constructive criticism is the most versatile and, in many ways, the most devious weapon in a reviewer's armory. It can be used to build a person up, and it can be used to tear them down. Already, warnings were provided for those who want to help a person improve, but are so negative that they interfere with their own purpose. Here, we are talking someone who is trying to intentionally upset the author and prevent them from further writing, and using the umbrella of, "But I'm just trying to help you get better!" to justify themselves. Do not looked shocked. People do this, and it works. And because people do this, any sufficiently negative critical review that has little or no mention of a fiction's positive aspects may be viewed with suspicion by an author and their motivations may come into question. I, personally, strongly disapprove of using "constructive criticism" as a shield for this sort of behavior, but I am pointing out that it does happen to warn those who have more noble reasons for providing their "concrit." If a review is sufficiently negative, and the reviewer is not attempting to discourage further writing, careful thought is recommended in how to rephrase things to take the sting out, and perhaps more time should be spent looking for and focusing on at least a couple of strong points.
So, there you have it. Feedback is a form of communication, and like all communication, is done for a specific purpose. The purpose should guide the type of feedback used, but it should be remembered that some kinds of feedback are more flexible than others, and better at achieving multiple purposes at once. Constructive criticism is, by far, the most flexible of feedback types due to the ability of a malicious reviewer to turn it into deconstructive criticism. Construstive praise follows, but is ill-suited to discouraging an author from writing. General praise, or "mindless praise," while oft derided, can still serve an important purpose and constitute a successful communication.
And flames are still just stupid and annoying.
*While this essay covers people who provide direct feedback, as opposed to people who are attempting to make recommendations to other readers, the term "reviewer" is still appropriate, and will thus often be used.
Now, with that out of the way, I will give my goals for having written this: I wish to organize my thoughts and ideas on the subject in a clear and understandable manner. I wish to encourage other people to think on the matter, and examine their own beliefs and opinions on the subject. I wish to give other people who have had similar thoughts, but have, until now, had trouble putting them into precise wording something to point to and say, "Yes! Exactly! Thank you!" so they may make use of it in the future. I wish to enlighten. And I wish to entertain (although this last goal is of lesser importance than the rest). Now you all are encouraged to offer me feedback and let me know how well I accomplished my goals in this communication. On the other hand, "mindless" praise is also graciously accepted. ;)
For the record, there is no single event that set this off. This is something that I have been thinking about writing for weeks, and has been slowly coming together in my head. Sure, there might be a specific event that kicked me in the ass and got me finally writing it, but that was probably going to happen in the next couple of weeks, anyway.
Reply's Reason
Feedback, usually written, is the bread and butter of the non-professional writer and artist (including, but not limited, fanartists and fanauthors), a fact which most non-professionals are well aware of. Most of us will never receive money for our works, and so we take, as currency, the reactions others give us directly, usually through writing. However, while a great deal of emphasis is often place on improving one's ability to write fiction, often, very little thought is given to the writing of feedback and whether or not the feedback achieves it's intended purposes. I'm not necessarily talking, here, about people who do not provide feedback that is in-depth, for often, it is entirely possible for someone to provide a thoughtful, critical response to a work that completely fails to accomplish the goal for which it was intended.
The ultimate purpose of all forms of writing is, of course, communication. However, what one is attempting to communicate, to whom they wish to communicate, and the goals they wish to achieve by communicating can vary wildly from person to person. Consequently, all writing can ultimately be judged on how well it communicates what it is intended to communicate to the person or people it is intended to communicate it to, and how well it achieves the goals it is intended to achieve. In the giving of direct feedback (as opposed to reviews)*, the primary audience is assumed to be the original author or artist, and the clarity of communication will not be discussed. The intent of this essay is to examine some of the most common goals a person providing feedback for non-professional creative works (specifically, fictional writing) will usually have, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of several of the more typical types of feedback such creators tend to receive. The broad goals for giving feedback which will be covered here are as follows: to encourage the author to write more; to assist the author in writing better; to manipulate the author in some way; and to discourage the author from writing more. Random, unfocused insults directed towards the original creator will not be covered.
One very common reason for providing feedback, possibly the most common reason, is to encourage the original author to write more. This goal may be combined with the goals of helping the author to improve their writing and/or manipulating them, but is diametrically opposed to the goal of discouraging them. Generally speaking, the best forms of feedback for accomplishing this goal include constructive praise, general praise, and constructive criticism, in about that order of effectiveness. Yes, that's right: I am stating right now that constructive criticism is not the most effective choice when the person providing feedback's only goal is attempting to encourage more writing. This is not to say that it cannot be used to encourage, and it is certainly more effective when there are multiple goals in mind (such as improvement), but if the only goal is encouragement, listing what the original author did wrong (even with suggestions for improvement) is frankly not very effective.
Many more advanced non-professional writers tend to turn their nose up at general praise, or "mindless praise," as it is sometimes derogatorily referred. Those who give such praise, and what's more, those who tend to receive mostly this kind of feedback, are sometimes openly mocked, with the mindset that if a reviewer cannot provide in depth feedback, they've got no business providing feedback at all. This belief does not take into account the motivations of the reviewer. Constructive feedback of any kind is hard work, and just like the efforts of the original writer, is done without pay. It is no more the job of the reader to ensure that the writer improves than it is the job of the writer to write to begin with, and it is unrealistic to expect that every person providing feedback should be required to assist the writer on their quest to perfection. If a person likes what they are reading, is perfectly content with it as is, and wants more in the same vein, then it stands to reason that they would wish to encourage the author to write more. Even something as simple and 'inane' as, "Wow! That was great! Looking forward to more!" can brighten someone's day and, more importantly, help them to feel that their efforts are worthwhile. If the goal is to see more of the same from the writer, and the quick, cheerful, enthusiastic response does just that, it is an effective and successful means of communicating. The reviewer wanted the writer to know that they liked their work and wanted to help ensure they will see more in the future, and they have done that. It's simple, it's efficient, and it may be wise to think twice before deriding it.
Finally, there is constructive praise. This is probably the most effective means of encouraging an author to write more, as it usually includes in-depth coverage of what the author is already doing right, and let's face it: we all like to hear exactly what we've done correctly. Even when constructive praise points out areas for improvement, it is usually done so in a positive light, and by the time the reviewer has reached this point, usually enough good has been discussed that the sting of the negative is lessoned or removed. The primary downside of constructive praise as a means of simply encouraging the author to write more is that it takes a lot more thought and effort on the part of the person providing feedback, but if the end result is an author who's so thrilled by the high provided by the praise that they want to write again immediately in order to re-experience, this feedback has accomplished its goal admirably.
The second goal to be covered here is the goal of assisting the original author in improving their writing. It is at this goal that both constructive praise and constructive criticism usually excel, but fair warning: if a person is so discouraged by the feedback received that they are not going to be writing more at all, they are certainly not going to write better. Thus, relentlessly negative feedback that contains no mention of any strong points in the original work should probably be avoided. Some people may argue that anyone putting their work out for review should have thick enough skin to suffer whatever abuse, and, indeed, I once labored under this belief, but let's face it: most of us will never be paid professional writers. The only reason we are writing is for the feedback we receive. This is our currency. A person may wish to strive to improve themselves so that future works yield more positive feedback, but in order to do this, they cannot be made to feel that ever being "good enough" is a lost cause. Consequently, while constructive criticism can be very useful for the process of authorial improvement, overly negative constructive criticism can, instead, discourage more work entirely. If the goal, then, is to help someone write better, and the result is that the person does not write at all, then the feedback has failed in its purpose and can, therefore, be viewed as a poor attempt at communication in and of itself, no matter how clear the actual message.
The third goal covered is the attempt, by the reviewer, to manipulate the author. This is, admittedly, vague wording, as ultimately, every form of direct feedback is an attempt to manipulate the author. Perhaps reviewer wants them to write more, or less, or better, but all three count as a means of manipulation. Thus, for my purposes here, I am covering those who are attempting to either alter what the writer is producing to better suit their personal tastes, or to somehow gain feedback for their own work in return. There are both blatant and subtle means of trying to accomplish both of these goals. The blatant attempts are usually pretty easy to spot. "That's great, but what you should really write about is X," "This sucks, it would be better if it had Y," or, "Wow! Great job! Now mind taking a look at Z?" As attempts to guide the writer to write certain things or to get the writer to read something else, these attempts are usually dismal failures. As attempts to annoy the author, they often succeed admirably.
There are more subtle ways to try to guide what an author is writing, however, usually through, yes, constructive praise and criticism. This is where a person gives an in depth review that does actually address the original work, but most or all of the suggestions cast what the reviewer personally wants to see in a better light, while presenting the things that the reviewer dislikes in as negative a manner possible. Many reviewers do this unintentionally, as we are all inclined to approve of those things we like to see and disapprove with those things we disagree with, even if neither can be stated as bad or good in an absolute sense. When this is being done unintentionally, the reviewer usually believes their goal is to help the person to write better. Ultimately, none of us can be totally divorced from our personal tastes, so it's virtually impossible to avoid subconscious guidance to write something specific. Conscious guidance, as a goal, most likely to happen over a very long time, and would generally take a rather lot of effort on the part of the reviewer, and is unlikely to yield its intended results, anyway. Thus, if this is the only conscious goal the reviewer has in giving feedback, it may be best to avoid providing any in the first place. As a subconscious goal and paired with a genuine desire to help the writer improve, it's not only more understandable, there are times when it may be inevitable.
Some people may be very active reviewers in the hopes that when they produce something, their work will be reviewed in return. They do not do anything so blatant as advertising their own fictions in their feedback and may, indeed, give thoughtful and in-depth feedback that includes constructive praise or constructive criticism. Or maybe they just provide a great deal of general praise, in the hopes of reaping the same later on. This may, initially, seem underhanded, but don't judge these people too harshly. Does not the phrase, "Treat others as you want to be treated" represent one of the highest ideals of kind and courteous behavior in our modern society? If an individual is providing thoughtful feedback because they hope, some day, to receive the same in kind, they are, after a fashion, trying to live up to this ideal. Really, the biggest problem with this is that it doesn't work. There is generally very little correlation between how active a person is as reviewer and how much feedback they themselves receive. Here, I speak from personal experience, for I was once this reviewer. I would read and view everything that came across my plate, and even if I didn't always provide an in depth critical analysis, I usually tried to provide at least one positive remark, one negative aspect (if I could find it), and my overall reaction. When combined with one of the above goals mentioned here (particularly, the goals of encouraging the author to write more or better), there is really nothing wrong with this, but as a single, primary motivation, reviewing in this mindset is setting oneself up for failure and disappointment, and thus should be avoided. Once more, remember: any communication can be judged by how well it accomplishes what it is meant to accomplish. If the only thing a reviewer is trying to accomplish is to draw positive attention to their own work, odds are they will not succeed and thus the feedback itself can be termed a failure.
The final purpose of providing feedback to be covered here is the purpose of discouraging the author from writing more. Praise of any kind is obviously ill-suited to this goal. Flames, of course, are the most blatant attempts at achieving this purpose, but for that reason, they also tend to have a limited success. If all a reviewer is doing is openly insulting the author, their writing, their lineage, their love live, and so forth, and providing no basis at all to their arguments, they are more likely to get laughed at than to actually stop someone else from writing. Indeed, this sort of behavior often results in defiance writing, where the author writes something specifically to piss the same flamer off. Consequently, as a means of feedback, flaming to discourage has a high likelihood of failure.
No, the form of feedback most likely to be successful in the goal of preventing the author from writing more is strongly negative "constructive" criticism. But wait! Wasn't constructive criticism also listed as a potentially successful means of encouraging an author and of helping them to improve their writing? Yes, yes it was. The truth is, constructive criticism is the most versatile and, in many ways, the most devious weapon in a reviewer's armory. It can be used to build a person up, and it can be used to tear them down. Already, warnings were provided for those who want to help a person improve, but are so negative that they interfere with their own purpose. Here, we are talking someone who is trying to intentionally upset the author and prevent them from further writing, and using the umbrella of, "But I'm just trying to help you get better!" to justify themselves. Do not looked shocked. People do this, and it works. And because people do this, any sufficiently negative critical review that has little or no mention of a fiction's positive aspects may be viewed with suspicion by an author and their motivations may come into question. I, personally, strongly disapprove of using "constructive criticism" as a shield for this sort of behavior, but I am pointing out that it does happen to warn those who have more noble reasons for providing their "concrit." If a review is sufficiently negative, and the reviewer is not attempting to discourage further writing, careful thought is recommended in how to rephrase things to take the sting out, and perhaps more time should be spent looking for and focusing on at least a couple of strong points.
So, there you have it. Feedback is a form of communication, and like all communication, is done for a specific purpose. The purpose should guide the type of feedback used, but it should be remembered that some kinds of feedback are more flexible than others, and better at achieving multiple purposes at once. Constructive criticism is, by far, the most flexible of feedback types due to the ability of a malicious reviewer to turn it into deconstructive criticism. Construstive praise follows, but is ill-suited to discouraging an author from writing. General praise, or "mindless praise," while oft derided, can still serve an important purpose and constitute a successful communication.
And flames are still just stupid and annoying.
*While this essay covers people who provide direct feedback, as opposed to people who are attempting to make recommendations to other readers, the term "reviewer" is still appropriate, and will thus often be used.
Now, with that out of the way, I will give my goals for having written this: I wish to organize my thoughts and ideas on the subject in a clear and understandable manner. I wish to encourage other people to think on the matter, and examine their own beliefs and opinions on the subject. I wish to give other people who have had similar thoughts, but have, until now, had trouble putting them into precise wording something to point to and say, "Yes! Exactly! Thank you!" so they may make use of it in the future. I wish to enlighten. And I wish to entertain (although this last goal is of lesser importance than the rest). Now you all are encouraged to offer me feedback and let me know how well I accomplished my goals in this communication. On the other hand, "mindless" praise is also graciously accepted. ;)