No I mean really, what is it exactly? How is it defined? What's the difference between concritting and just ranting? Is there a universal definition for what concrit is supposed to be?

Well, let's look at what concrit means in a literal sense. The word "concrit" is short for "constructive criticism", which most of us know (but no big deal if you don't). But what does "constructive criticism" mean? Let's break it up into literal definitions for the two words in the phrase. The word "constructive" literally means "serving to improve; positive", while "criticism" is "faultfinding, discerning, judging." So essentially, it's faultfinding that aims to positively influence its recipient.

But we know this. Or do we?

Recently I've been placing heavy thought into what makes a truly worthwhile concrit. Is it just pointing out flaws and hoping that the writer will take it well? Does concrit contain any sort of vitriol or strong negative emotion? Should any review that uses proper grammar and spelling be considered concrit by default? These were the questions that I considered, and I answered "no" to all of them.

Refer to the "constructive" half of concrit. Simply pointing out flaws doesn't create any sort of positivity; it just shows that you're a nag. Vitriol and anger doesn't promote positivity either, nor does it seek to improve the writer; it just makes them either lash out or retreat. And that last question? Do any of these above points need to be written in terrible grammar or 1337speak? No, I don't think so.

I'm a firm believer in the theory that negative voices are louder than positive ones. To me, negativity in a critique conjurs up the image of a dead raccoon in a flower patch; it sticks out like a sore thumb and is an eyesore. Negative voices and positive have an uneven decibel count. Postive voices are about 10 decibels, while negatives are around 50. It sounds ludicrous I know, but that is the way it works for many people. If it didn't work that way, why would fanbrats lash out against reviews that criticized their story?

Consider this example. In my story, a reviewer posted a critque that began on a very postive note. He said, "This is really good. I like the characterization you used for Samus; it's very fitting."

Now that's some good praise, wouldn't you say? However, the celebration stops here. Next, he said, "My only complaint is that your dialogue seems stiff and forced."

Yeah, THAT'S the line I payed attention to. Forget the praise that he said earlier; this next sentence was the dead raccoon thrown into the flower patch. This was the 50 decibels that drowned out the 10 decibels he gave out earlier. Now if that simple line was 50 decibels, what would have happened if he had used loaded or angry language? Then the decibel count would have been upped to about 100. Do I hate him for it? No way! Do I think it's a bad review? Not by any stretch of the imagination. This example was merely to show how loud negative voices are in comparison to positive ones, and that praise does little to filter the smell of fetid raccoon flesh.

Now, could my perception be changed on this? Absolutely. It is certainly possible that I could drown out the negative decibels with a voice of reason. However, this would involve a change of perception, something that can take MONTHS to do. An overnight transition is as likely as Paris Hilton being a virgin (in other words, not very). Plus, if I am able to control my reactions, then shouldn't the reviewer be able to control their reactions as well (which he did quite well, btw)?

Based on this defintion of concrit, I can confidently believe that concrit is not merely listing faults or telling the writer what they should do next time, but doing so in such a manner to give them wings and push them into improving. Posting a review that does otherwise is only half the package; it's criticism, but it's not CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Half of the components that make up concrit would be missing. But since authors reactions can be mixed on concrit, how do I know that what I'm posting is concrit? Because I'm also posting the positive as well as the negative, and that my review is not intended to insult or offend the writer, but rather bring up considerations for the future.

"But wait, you just said that postive voices don't stand up to negative ones!" That I did. However, does that mean it is not important? I think it's important to emphasize the positive in an author's writing, and say the negative in as soft a voice as possible. Referring back to the decibel example, since a negative voice is heard more loudly than a positive one, then there's no reason to inflate it other than to just attempt to tick the author off. If you have to fling a deceased, decaying mammal their way, why pick one that smells worse than three weeks worth of garbage?

Look back at that review I was given. That was probably the best example of concrit that I can concieve. The reviewer did his utmost to present his points in a pleasent and friendly manner, and it shows. Yes, the negative voice is there. Yes, it was a bit of a jolt. But considering the impact of negative voices, it was ineveitable, I'm afraid.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. What are your thoughts on this topic?

Think of concrit's like a fire.

On one end of the spectrum you have a cozy camp fire which keeps you warm and toasts your marshmallows above its soft glow. On the other is the out-of-control forest fire which consumes all and spits out death and destruction. Lets assume that the campfire is a 1 and the inferno of death is a 10. Obviously the 10 is unacceptable and is not really concrit at all, but what about a 7 or a 9... is there ever reason to use those?

7 - The Blacksmiths Forge: Much hotter and more intense then a campfire, yet still deftly controlled, the forge is used to soften metal and make it malleable so that the smith can shape it into something better. The Blacksmith is the author, the lvl-7 review the forge, and the metal is the story. He/she has been given the gift (or curse, depending on your perspective) of fire and can leave it to burn out or use it to remove impurities from the metal. Take this review for example:

Please do not post a story with a prologue that probably took all of five minutes to write.

Prologues can be really good and downright classy if done correctly, but posting a story that has all of a hundred and thirty words only serves to take up space and steal attention away from people who invested a lot of time into their story (For example your story just pushed a 16.5k word story to the second page). It is a disservice to readers in this fandom and rude to your fellow writers.

9 - The Molotov cocktail: Its a weapon of last resorts, a tool of the desperate used to amplify a voice which has thus far been ignored, used for causes both good and bad. The use of this is hardly ever justifiable, but there are times that it is called for. For example, I know of an author (who shall remain nameless)who posted chapter after chapter of this potentially good story, but ignored review after lengthy review (all very kind) from multiple users giving him examples and pointers (such as "stop writing the entire story in bold text"). Here is a progression of reviews from various users:

Late 2006 (Level 3)

Pretty good. Few things you need to work on still. Spelling and punctuation is a major factor here. Here are a few editions:

The word "clip" should be replaced with "magazine". I've been over this hundreds of times with countless people, and I'm sure I will continue to in the future. A clip is several rounds connected together on a small rod-like object and are then pushed into an internal magazine on a weapon (see M1 Garand, Springfield 1903, etc.) A magazine fed weapon has a removable box magazine that holds several rounds on an internal clip. It can be removed from the gun with the push of a button or the moving of a small lever (see M-16/M-4, MP5, AK-47, SR-16, M8, etc.). This is a very common mistake when it comes to firearms, as Hollywood loves using the word "clip".

Your story seems a bit rushed. Slow it down. Add in more detail, give the characters some more depth.

Spelling: Core should be Corp (Core = Core of the Earth. Corp = Marine Corp) Really gotta watch your punctuation. I'm seeing a TON of places where periods and commas should be used, but aren't. Overall, pretty good story. Keep it up.

Early 2007 (Level 5)

Ooh, now they are stuck in the house with thousands of zombies? Pretty good chapter, exept the scenes went really fast. Detail is important in a really good story. It also helps if the reader knows how the character feels and what's going through their heads. Can't wait until the next chapter!

Mid 2007 (Level 7)

I have been following this story for a while now despite the lack of description and grammatical errors because I liked the concept and figured that you would improve your writing as you went. Sadly this has not been the case. As far as description goes I have seen a tiny bit of advancement, but not nearly enough; I can not find any grammar improvement. Look over your chapter before posting it because 90% of time your computer isn't going to spot anything wrong with your grammar.

Late 2007 (Level 9)

I can't leave a good review, because I couldn't make it all the way through the first chapter. You don't use grammer, punctuation, proper capitalization or spelling, and to top all this off, it was written very poorly. There's no background on these guys at all. Here's your story. Walking with guns, profanity, blah blah insurgents, blah blah fishy, o ** zombie now zombie dead, old dead body, dumb joke, o no scary hard to read message, headshots, a ** new zombie, bang bang zombie no die, profanity, headshot, dead zombie, dramatic speech, o swizzle stick new enemy. See where I'm going with this? With all that out of the way, the idea you have is good, but I don't feel that you have the talent needed to pull this off.

It's blunt, it's insulting, and every word of it is true.

I don't agree with the swearing but given the 1.5 years of patience that our small fandom allowed this guy, I have no sympathy.

What's the difference between concritting and just ranting? Is there a universal definition for what concrit is supposed to be?

Well, concritting's different from ranting in that it actually concerns the story and tries to stay as objective as possible. Ranting would normally come from personal preference-- what you personally liked and disliked about the story and what the author could have done.

Usually, concrit focuses on technical errors, grammar, spelling, all of that jazz. If the person is talking about pairings... I wouldn't consider that concrit.

Concrit: You misspelled this.

Ranting: Your pairing is wrong.

Refer to the "constructive" half of concrit. Simply pointing out flaws doesn't create any sort of positivity; it just shows that you're a nag. Vitriol and anger doesn't promote positivity either, nor does it seek to improve the writer; it just makes them either lash out or retreat. And that last question? Do any of these above points need to be written in terrible grammar or 1337speak? No, I don't think so.

No. Concrit lacking positivity isn't necessarily concrit in my eyes. It's supposed to be 'constructive' as in beneficial, helpful to the writer. Pointing out flaws alone doesn't help.

I'm a firm believer in the theory that negative voices are louder than positive ones. To me, negativity in a critique conjurs up the image of a dead raccoon in a flower patch; it sticks out like a sore thumb and is an eyesore. Negative voices and positive have an uneven decibel count. Postive voices are about 10 decibels, while negatives are around 50. It sounds ludicrous I know, but that is the way it works for many people. If it didn't work that way, why would fanbrats lash out against reviews that criticized their story?

It depends on what the negative voice is saying. Or is it really positive, but phrased in a negative way?

"My only complaint is that your dialogue seems stiff and forced."

Perhaps if he would have cited examples on how it could be improved, it wouldn't seem like such a minus. The fact is, if someone's giving you concrit, probably not everything in your story is perfect and positive. You should expect that not everything will match the concritter's expectations.

Do I think it's a bad review? Not by any stretch of the imagination. This example was merely to show how loud negative voices are in comparison to positive ones, and that praise does little to filter the smell of fetid raccoon flesh.

Perhaps it's your mindset... perhaps you normally focus on the negative versus the positive. I don't think that was a negative comment, though it could have been accompanied with more examples and suggestions.

Perhaps it's your mindset... perhaps you normally focus on the negative versus the positive. I don't think that was a negative comment, though it could have been accompanied with more examples and suggestions.

Yes, this is true, and while I do agree that a person's mindset affects the decibel count of a negative voice, the point I'm trying to make is that negative voices are far louder than positive ones.

Concritting is a rather sensitive art, more than most people think. It's not only what you say, but how you say it. The person saying it is also a factor: if it's one of your friends concritting you, then you may be open to recieving it more. If it's a prominent writer in the fandom or a writer you respect, it could be a bit of a bummer. If it's a writer you don't respect, then everything within a ten-foot radius of the author is at risk of being thrown at the computer.

Ultimately, the one who's responsible for the concrit is neither the reviewer, nor the author, but BOTH. At least that's how I feel.

Ultimately, the one who's responsible for the concrit is neither the reviewer, nor the author, but BOTH. At least that's how I feel.

I agree 100% with this. If the reviewer is aware that their comments may be hard to take and makes an effort to phrase them kindly, AND the author is aware that sometimes comments come over much harsher than the reviewer intended them to...then if either of them slips a bit, they still meet in the middle.

But if the reviewer doesn't think about how their comments will read, especially on the internet with no tone of voice to help, and the author takes offence at anything phrased remotely negatively, it's unlikely to end well.

One trick I was told was to use "I" a lot. "This story is hard to read because of all the spelling errors" will get any author's back up. "I found this story hard to read because of all the spelling errors" says the exact same thing, but it's gentler because it's not making a negative statement about the story, it's telling the author what your reaction to it was.

Concritting is a rather sensitive art, more than most people think. It's not only what you say, but how you say it.

I believe that how you say it is more important than what you say. Some things must be said, that's life. But if it's said as gently as possible, and as truthful as possible, it may ease the blow. It might still sting to know that something is wrong with your story, but the reviewer would do a good deed to phrase it as gently as possible.

The person saying it is also a factor: if it's one of your friends concritting you, then you may be open to recieving it more. If it's a prominent writer in the fandom or a writer you respect, it could be a bit of a bummer. If it's a writer you don't respect, then everything within a ten-foot radius of the author is at risk of being thrown at the computer.

And yes, it depends on who is saying it. I know if it was someone I don't like, I would be more apprehensive of the review.

Ultimately, the one who's responsible for the concrit is neither the reviewer, nor the author, but BOTH. At least that's how I feel.

It's a give/receive game. Depending on how it's given will determine how it is received.

if it's one of your friends concritting you, then you may be open to recieving it more.

Hm...I disagree with that. I have a real-life friend on this site, and sometimes her concrit can be harder than concrit that comes from someone I don't know. But that's just me. :)

My concrit is pretty blunt. I try not to be mean, but if I look over my concrit and think it's just a tad harsh, I'll put a note at the end reminding them that I'm just helping. But most of the time, I tell them straight up what's wrong with their story, and give advice on how to fix it.

No. Concrit lacking positivity isn't necessarily concrit in my eyes. It's supposed to be 'constructive' as in beneficial, helpful to the writer. Pointing out flaws alone doesn't help.

I'm afraid I do this, but it's the workshop mentality. I belong to many. People there post to get their work critiqued and mainly, that's what I point out: what needs improvement. Lately, however, I'm starting to skip stories altogether if I can't find something positive to say. I can't tell you the last time I reviewed here on FFN. It's been a while.

I'm afraid I do this, but it's the workshop mentality. I belong to many. People there post to get their work critiqued and mainly, that's what I point out: what needs improvement. Lately, however, I'm starting to skip stories altogether if I can't find something positive to say. I can't tell you the last time I reviewed here on FFN. It's been a while.

That's pretty sad that you can't find anything good enough to critique. Is that within your own fandom? I've found lots of very good stories when I open myself up to reading new fandoms. (I do pretty much draw the line at anime though. I just can't get past that the characters aren't flesh and blood and don't even look very human-like)

(I do pretty much draw the line at anime though. I just can't get past that the characters aren't flesh and blood and don't even look very human-like)

ZOMG!!1!!1 U tak dat bak, mista!!!11!1

Lol, just kiddin' :)

I can sort of see why you don't like it. It's difficult to find good anime amidst all the trash. Which is why I tend to stay away from television and instead turn to video games as my time waster. However, as an art style, I like it lots. The characters, while not terribly realistic, are a far cry from the ridiculous caractures of Western cartoons and comics. I like how anime artists can make their characters look pretty and detailed without it being too realistic. Realism is good sometimes, but it's good not to take things too seriously sometimes.

We should make a topic about this. Probably won't fit here though. :)

I am much the same way as Maiafay, generally I review for the purpouse of helping another author improve... its kinda a do-unto-others policy in the sense that I prefer a chance to improve over praise

I am much the same way as Maiafay, generally I review for the purpouse of helping another author improve... its kinda a do-unto-others policy in the sense that I prefer a chance to improve over praise

Well, your intentions are certainly noble. However, sometimes you need to step outside yourself a little. Not all of us are here to have our hands held; some of us post stories so that they can be read and enjoyed.

Like me, for example. I didn't sign up on this site to have my work critiqued. I came here to post stories that people can enjoy. If people don't enjoy them, then it's enough to ruin my day. Taking this into account, I tend to view criticism as an irritating side effect of posting on this side, albeit a necessary one.

I am the type of author that seeks not to improve himself solely for the sake of improving. My goal in writing is to amaze and stun readers, and to make them bow before me. Criticism does not advance this vision either, as I feel that I must have a clean slate and be completely perfect. For you see, I measure myself against other writers based on the praise that they recieve versus the praise I recieve. And I admit this shamefully.

But hey, this gives you reason to seriously consider what you say when you criticize. You may never know what type of psychos and headcases you might be dealing with.

Ah, but what if the criticism you recieve has the info you need to make your work truly sensational?

Believe it or not, I don't like being criticised, especially when it looks like the reviewer only saw the flaws and nothing else in my story worth commenting on. But I take the advice and use it to make my work improve. That's the way I view things - the goal is to make each story outshine the one previous to it, isn't it? That's how I think.

I am the type of author that seeks not to improve himself solely for the sake of improving. My goal in writing is to amaze and stun readers, and to make them bow before me. Criticism does not advance this vision either, as I feel that I must have a clean slate and be completely perfect. For you see, I measure myself against other writers based on the praise that they recieve versus the praise I recieve. And I admit this shamefully.

I don't think its shameful, although it might be worthwile to take into account who left the review; I always look ar a reviewers writing before deciding to take them seriously or not.

Ah, but what if the criticism you recieve has the info you need to make your work truly sensational?

What if, you ask? It doesn't matter.

I told you. I must have a perfect slate. I must. As far as I am concerned, criticism is a stain. Some are minor and easily brushed aside, and I merely accept it and move on. Others are harder to swallow, and cripple me for long periods of time. I was never in this to best myself. I am in this to best others. As far as I'm concerned, there is little excuse for me to be anything less.

(Grins)

And I'm afraid I'm in this to spot the places where you don't best others - and I can tell you without even reading your work that there would be some. Not because I'm a mean and horrible person who wants to spoil your day - but because for me writing a review involves analysing both what works for me in a story and what doesn't. I'm your fellow writer, not just your reader. I don't know numbers, but it's my impression that the vast majority of reviewers on here aren't here just to read for enjoyment, they are writers too.

Perfect slate? That doesn't mean anything except that a particular fic hasn't yet had a review from someone who writes the sort of reviews I do.

And I'm afraid I'm in this to spot the places where you don't best others - and I can tell you without even reading your work that there would be some.

All right. Fair enough.

I never really thought that anyone who reviewed my work was trying to be mean (but if and when they do, it sticks out like a sore thumb). I know that it's possible to pick out flaws in a piece of work and still like it; I do it all the time. I might not say it, but I do.

I'm just a rather competitive individual who dislikes being second best. That's really all there is to it.

"The moment you believe you have nothing else to learn about writing is the moment you fail as a writer." -Ms. Brown, my first writing teacher.

I'm starting my response this way because I've been sitting here trying to figure out how to say what I want to say in a manner that's diplomatic yet gets to the point directly, and I'm have trouble with the diplomatic part. So I'm scrapping that part of the response and I'm just going to get to the point.

Well, your intentions are certainly noble. However, sometimes you need to step outside yourself a little. Not all of us are here to have our hands held; some of us post stories so that they can be read and enjoyed.

I'm not here for hand-holding either. I hope people enjoy my work, but if there's a problem with it, I'd like to know sooner rather than later. Con-crit is the best way to learn about mistakes and improve on them so they don't happen again.

Like me, for example. I didn't sign up on this site to have my work critiqued. I came here to post stories that people can enjoy. If people don't enjoy them, then it's enough to ruin my day. Taking this into account, I tend to view criticism as an irritating side effect of posting on this side, albeit a necessary one.

As soon as you made the decision to post your work in a public forum such as this one, you forfeited your right to hear only good things about your stories. It's insane to believe that you'll please everyone all the time. No one has the ability to write a story that everyone will love and have nothing bad to say about it. I suggest you prepare to stay irritated for a very long time.

I am the type of author that seeks not to improve himself solely for the sake of improving. My goal in writing is to amaze and stun readers, and to make them bow before me. Criticism does not advance this vision either, as I feel that I must have a clean slate and be completely perfect. For you see, I measure myself against other writers based on the praise that they receive versus the praise I recieve. And I admit this shamefully.

You can't make anyone "bow down" before you. You can't even guarantee you'll amaze and stun everyone. No one likes to hear that someone didn't love every word they put down on the page, but that's life. All you can do is your best, take the constructive criticism that people give you to heart, use it to improve and maybe, MAYBE, one day, you'll be on the same level as the writers that DO have a huge following that all but worship the ground they walk on. Until that happens, learn from your mistakes. You're going to make them.

But hey, this gives you reason to seriously consider what you say when you criticize. You may never know what type of psychos and headcases you might be dealing with.

I'm still not sure but it didn't stop me writing this post now, did it?

I told you. I must have a perfect slate. I must. As far as I am concerned, criticism is a stain. Some are minor and easily brushed aside, and I merely accept it and move on. Others are harder to swallow, and cripple me for long periods of time. I was never in this to best myself. I am in this to best others. As far as I'm concerned, there is little excuse for me to be anything less.

How do you ever expect to make it in the world if you can't take a little criticism on a fan fiction? I can't think of a single career that is completely devoid of criticism for the work you do, except maybe bee wrangler. If you do that one wrong, they just sting you. But I digress. I'm sure plenty of people have told you to "get a thick skin", but you can add me to that list. I mean, I like to think of myself as a pretty good writer (the exact phrase I use is "I don't suck."), but I can't begin to tell you how many times I've read someone else's work and thought "Now why can't I write action like that?" or "How come my stuff isn't this funny?", or any number of things along those lines. You can learn a lot from other writers, if you'd take the time to read them and listen to what they have to say when they critique you. If the ONLY reason you write is to be better than all the other writers, you're in it for the wrong reasons. It should be something you do because you love it, not to prove something to a bunch of people who wouldn't know you on the street. It should be something you do because you can't imagine not doing it. It should be something that gets in your blood, in your soul, and you feel as though you have no choice but to write. It should be a passion for the actual craft of writing, not a desire to be King of the Mountain.

I never really thought that anyone who reviewed my work was trying to be mean (but if and when they do, it sticks out like a sore thumb). I know that it's possible to pick out flaws in a piece of work and still like it; I do it all the time. I might not say it, but I do.

Again, take the con-crit and learn from it. Be thankful that someone took the time to review at all and cared enough to want to help you. They could have just as easily said nothing and let you continue to make the same mistakes over and over.

I'm just a rather competitive individual who dislikes being second best. That's really all there is to it.

This isn't a contest or a competition. It's an open-source fan fiction site that's open for everyone to post, from the astonishingly bad to the sublime. Don't waste your time comparing yourself to other writers. Most of them are probably not as good as you are, not even close. Some of them are better than you are and will always be better because they constantly strive to improve based on the critique they get from their readers. I am not a perfect writer. I still have things to learn about writing. I will ALWAYS have something to learn. You are also not perfect and the sooner you figure that out, the faster you'll improve. Otherwise, you have already failed.

To me, concrit doesn't have to have to have a blatantly positive comment in it, just stuff that will help the author. The one concrit review I got for a story of mine made all the difference between writing a fic that someone recced to me at GAFF (I go by a different username there and the person didn't know I was the author) and one that would have easily been snarked there.

But then again, the best concrit in the world doesn't mean ** beans if the writer chooses not to take the advice--or in many cases, can't tell concrit from a true flame. There's nothing I dislike more than someone with their head so far up their rear they can't see the light of day and has to throw a hissy fit because someone didn't like their story and said so.

Rowena, I thank you for taking the time to write that wonderful post. However, I think you've misread me on several points.

I've never thought that I was perfect. Not once. Sure, I've had my arrogant flashes every now and then, but who hasn't? The truth is, I view myself as one of the most imperfect creatures that ever walked this earth. I view my own imperfections quite harshly and I am appalled and disgusted at them. Which is why criticism bothers me.

Why else would it? If I thought I was perfect, what would I care what someone thought of my work? I'd just be like, "Pfft, whatever, they're talking crap. I'm the best!" But no, that's not how it works. I become irritated because I know that deep down, I know that they aren't talking crap, and that what they say is true. I KNOW this. And I am disenchanted that I make these mistakes, because while I don't think that I am perfect, I believe that I should be. I'm sorry if I sound a little rude, but frankly, I'm confuzzled as to where you got that impression from.

I hold the self-taught on a pedestal. Prodigies are my idols. My sincerest wish and dream is to grow and evolve completely on my own. But of course, that dream has already been rendered futile. Believe it or not, I actually HAVE listened to other writers and have made adjustments based on their advice (GASP!).

While I do agree with you on getting a thick skin, I still stand by my views on concrit. Frankly, if a reviewer can't control themselves, they really have no right to expect me to just sit down and take it just because it has worthwhile points. There are plenty of reviewers out there; I'm sure I can find some that make worthwhile points without sounding like an arse. I don't think there's much of an excuse for rudeness and disrespect in a review. It's not only smart to actually think about what you're saying when you're reviewing, it's also basic netiquette.

Anyway, that's it. Sorry for being a stubborn rebel, but that's how I think. :)

I'm of a very different mindset. I adore it when I get criticized for the mistakes I've made, never mind the tone. Maybe I'm an odd one, but I don't really see why an author should be upset to hear a flat out negative note. If anything, I'd say the sod on the receiving end should be smiling. A crit' is a sign that a reader felt strongly enough about the work that they went above and beyond the casual nod to point out something that could use another look, or perhaps an axe. If I've got a fellow screaming at me about just how incredibly idiotic my characters are being I'm of a mind to feel flattered rather than offended.

In a public forum there are no rights to speak of apart from the right to have your submission exist until you or the owner remove it. There is no contract between a reviewer and an author, you can take a comment in stride and work with it, ignore it, or sulk. There's no skin off the reviewer's back any which way. An ideal world would have a hint of civility as the standard, but gold leaf doesn't make the duck any tastier.

I'm of a very different mindset. I adore it when I get criticized for the mistakes I've made, never mind the tone. Maybe I'm an odd one, but I don't really see why an author should be upset to hear a flat out negative note.

Exactly! As long as it's not a pointless flame criticizing the person's choice of ship or topic material or calling the author names, there's no reason to lie and reach for positive things to say about a story that has no redeeming characteristics. Especially when 90 percent of everyone just blows it off their back anyway.

I'm of a very different mindset. I adore it when I get criticized for the mistakes I've made, never mind the tone. Maybe I'm an odd one, but I don't really see why an author should be upset to hear a flat out negative note. If anything, I'd say the sod on the receiving end should be smiling. A crit' is a sign that a reader felt strongly enough about the work that they went above and beyond the casual nod to point out something that could use another look, or perhaps an axe. If I've got a fellow screaming at me about just how incredibly idiotic my characters are being I'm of a mind to feel flattered rather than offended.

In a public forum there are no rights to speak of apart from the right to have your submission exist until you or the owner remove it. There is no contract between a reviewer and an author, you can take a comment in stride and work with it, ignore it, or sulk. There's no skin off the reviewer's back any which way. An ideal world would have a hint of civility as the standard, but gold leaf doesn't make the duck any tastier.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it bothers me when people are rude or insensitive. Criticism is one thing, rudeness is something else entirely. As Silver-Hair Angel said earlier. "some things need to be said; that's life." but you'd be amazed at the amount of control you can exert over the tone of your message. Frankly, I'd feel like the worst person ever if I offended or hurt someone else. I know, because it's happened. I just don't get people that think it's OK to be rude to someone in order to make a point. Maybe that's not what you think, or maybe it is, I dunno. But the point is that I don't have much respect for those who don't consider an author's feelings when they review.

And about the whole "contract" comment, sure, that's true. A reviewer doesn't HAVE to be nice. But do I think that they should? Absolutely. I'm of the opinion that the "submit review" button is NOT a "say what you want and get away with it" badge. And apparently FFNet leans somewhat this way as well, as they allow an option for the author to block users from reviewing their stories. Obviously some judgment needs to be made, but apparently it's in the author's power to stop anyone they wish from reviewing their works.

And no skin off the reviewer's back? Surely you've heard the saying "the fastest way to the grave is through your mouth," no?

Lastly, I know quite well that I can control myself. I've mentioned that twice in this thread, and I've been keeping myself in check throughout this whole discussion. The point is that if I can control myself, then so should the reviewer. Don't you think?

Lastly, I know quite well that I can control myself. I've mentioned that twice in this thread, and I've been keeping myself in check throughout this whole discussion. The point is that if I can control myself, then so should the reviewer. Don't you think?

Personally I'm of the opinion that everyone should control themselves on the internet, at least to the point of being civil. But what you're suggesting here isn't that reviewers should be civil, it's that they should only leave the sorts of reviews that you would prefer left for you. And that, to me, is an unreasonable expectation.

I do consider an author's feelings when I review. Always. But I don't always decide that not hurting the author's feelings is the best way to go. If someone's had it hinted, nicely, several times, that maybe their fic would be better for a bit more effort and their response is along the lines of "oh spellcheck stifles my creativity" then I'll be a little blunter. Someone, at some point, needs to say to some of these authors that what they are posting is not ready to be posted, let alone worthy of praise. That's not an easy thing for anyone to hear. But if nobody ever tells them, what next? Writing like that on a college or job application form? Someone needs to say something. If I see a good story in there failing to get out past reams of chatspeak, random author's notes, and so on, I'll say so.

And remember, the tone you read in someone else's written message is strongly dependent on where you (and they) are from. If I tell you your story is "quite good", how will you feel? If you're American, pretty happy - that's a nice compliment. If you're British, I just said the equivalent of "well, I guess it's okay". Not so happy now?

I've been posting on Usenet since the days when your sig file was the place where you put your street address and phone number. If anyone wants to find who I am in real life, they probably can. I review on that basis - and indeed use the internet in general on that basis. Would I be embarrassed if a particular post, or review, of mine was emailed to my boss tomorrow with a note saying "look what sort of a person you employ"? If so, I don't post it.

Oh I agree that there's no reason to jab a sharp stick up someone's arse while pointing out that they've succeeded in breaking seventeen immutable laws of word smithing and a few that didn't exist prior to the reading for good measure. I'm just more tolerant of those that bludgeon me with fence posts as well.

I agree with your sentiment, and I think most here do, I'm just not the type to say that absolutely everything needs sugar coating. (And I'm getting the feeling that you aren't either, I just got that impression at first. Reading comprehension ho!) It's one thing to tell me that my story flows nicely, but what really interests me is what I buggered up so that I can improve. Positive comments usually don't amount to more than a pat on the bum and wink, they don't often make anything constructive happen. That's the kicker here, right? Negative comments do often come out much more forcefully, but that's because they have more substance. It's very difficult to really make someone feel good about failing miserably. It can be done, sure, but it's not something people are in the habit of doing. And it's doubly difficult given the stinginess of your average author, sometimes it seems that no matter how you put it the bloke is going to want to remove your extra kidney. By this point I'm sure a lot of folks can't be bothered to try anymore.

Me, I try to balance the good with the bad, if only for the sake of not completely discouraging someone by handing them a solid wall of corrections. Even I'll get a bit down when I'm informed that what I wrote is trash and am provided with a numbered list of it's faults, but I'll take anything I can get if I can use it. Some folks won't, and I think that's a shame.

Personally I'm of the opinion that everyone should control themselves on the internet, at least to the point of being civil. But what you're suggesting here isn't that reviewers should be civil, it's that they should only leave the sorts of reviews that you would prefer left for you. And that, to me, is an unreasonable expectation.

Hmmm....I see what you're saying.

I feel bad now. Sorry if I offended anybody... :(

Hey, there was some good discussion about it mixed signals and all.

I've never thought that I was perfect. Not once. Sure, I've had my arrogant flashes every now and then, but who hasn't? The truth is, I view myself as one of the most imperfect creatures that ever walked this earth. I view my own imperfections quite harshly and I am appalled and disgusted at them. Which is why criticism bothers me.

See, this is kind of funny to me, especially because you said this:

I am the type of author that seeks not to improve himself solely for the sake of improving. My goal in writing is to amaze and stun readers, and to make them bow before me. Criticism does not advance this vision either, as I feel that I must have a clean slate and be completely perfect.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't say you feel you MUST be perfect out of one side of your mouth, then say how imperfect you are out the other. Striving for perfection is something we all do yet few will ever achieve. What you need to do is recognize your flaws and own THEM, don't let them own YOU. Beating yourself up over criticism isn't going to improve your writing. You need to use the criticism as a tool, use it to analyze your work and make it better.

Why else would it? If I thought I was perfect, what would I care what someone thought of my work? I'd just be like, "Pfft, whatever, they're talking crap. I'm the best!" But no, that's not how it works. I become irritated because I know that deep down, I know that they aren't talking crap, and that what they say is true. I KNOW this. And I am disenchanted that I make these mistakes, because while I don't think that I am perfect, I believe that I should be. I'm sorry if I sound a little rude, but frankly, I'm confuzzled as to where you got that impression from.

EVERYONE makes mistakes. Out of hundreds of chapters that I've given my beta reader to go over for me, I can count on ONE FINGER the number of times she's made NO corrections. Usually, my chapters come back to me full of corrections in red, with extensive notes on why something's not working and how to make it work. And as the daughter of an English teacher, she can be HARSH. But I need that, because otherwise my work would be absolute crap.

I don't know if you have a beta reader, but if you don't, get one. The reason I have so few negative reviews is because of my beta. She catches all the flaws in grammar, flow and canon accuracy before I post. I also never post until the entire story is finished, because I don't want to leave my readers in the lurch if I get stuck (I only have ONE story that's on hold, and that's only because there's a third book coming out...grumble...and I'd like to read that before I continue).

I hold the self-taught on a pedestal. Prodigies are my idols. My sincerest wish and dream is to grow and evolve completely on my own. But of course, that dream has already been rendered futile. Believe it or not, I actually HAVE listened to other writers and have made adjustments based on their advice (GASP!).

Technically speaking, no writer is "self-taught". Unless they dropped out of school or never went, everyone has classes in school that teach them the mechanics of at least their own language (and most non-English speaking countries teach English as well). It's a lovely dream, to be able to do it all on your own, but even professional writers don't do that. Stephen King has his wife read everything before it gets sent to his editors. After that, it's all sent to the publisher who may have their own editors go over it again before it goes to print. On a site like this, the most wonderful part is that you DON'T have to do it alone. As a writer, you're too close to your own work to be able to see it objectively. But random reader #257 has never seen it until the moment they clicked the link, so the errors will stand out like a sore thumb to their eyes. Don't think of it as hand-holding, but as a system of support for a fellow writer.

While I do agree with you on getting a thick skin, I still stand by my views on concrit. Frankly, if a reviewer can't control themselves, they really have no right to expect me to just sit down and take it just because it has worthwhile points. There are plenty of reviewers out there; I'm sure I can find some that make worthwhile points without sounding like an arse. I don't think there's much of an excuse for rudeness and disrespect in a review. It's not only smart to actually think about what you're saying when you're reviewing, it's also basic netiquette.

I think you're mistaking con-crit for flames. I have done both. Con-crit is a review that tells you both the negative and positive aspects of the story, like this: "I really like the way you've written the canon characters! You've grasped their personalities perfectly and I can hear each one of them as they speak! I also like the way you describe the action. You've got me on the edge of my seat and I feel like I'm in the middle of it all! But just so's you know, there's a few spelling and grammar errors that need cleaning up at the beginning of the chapter, nothing that a little run through spellcheck wouldn't fix. Also, I think FFNet screwed up some formatting and some of your words are all scrunched together. Happens to me all the time! Overall, this is really good and I can't wait for more!"

A flame would look something like this: "Oh. My. GODS. What the heck were you thinking? Or were you thinking at all? 'Cause honestly, I have never read anything this bad in my entire life. My dead grandma could write better than this...AND SHE'S DEAD! Let me guess; English is your fifteenth language, right? It can't be the first or even second, because anyone who's been through at least sixth grade knows how to properly structure a sentence! Or are you the worlds oldest sixth-grader? Please, do us all a favor and take this story down, shred it and put it in the guinea pig cage. You're wasting bandwidth that a good story could be using."

A really HARSH flame would also have lots of cussing and much ruder suggestions on where to put the story, but I think you should get the idea now. Con-crit is the gentle hand in the velvet glove, flames are a two-by-four to the face.

And now I'm going to paraphrase the rest of your posts, because I have to leave for work soon (third shift SUCKS!).

On the topic of a writer's feelings: Yes, it hurts when someone says something harsh about your story, no matter how politely they phrase it. But no one can please everyone all the time, it's unrealistic to even try. Am I harsh sometimes? Heck yeah I am, especially when I see stories that have tons of reviews pointing out the flaws in a polite manner and the author just keeps saying things like "I dun ues speelchek beecuz i am lazee, so deel wit it, yo!" or "Tihs iz mah righting stile an if u dun liek it, tuff!" People like that fall into one of two categories: The Dumb or The Apparently Dumb. The Dumb don't realize how dumb they are and that their writing is simply proof of their dumb-ness. The Apparently Dumb look that way because their writing is so bad, it makes them appear that way. Both need a clue and I'm happy to provide it. I don't care if I make them feel bad or cry or whatever, because other people tried to be polite and helpful and failed. So fine, I'll give them a verbal slap and hope it makes a difference.

On the topic of offending anyone here: The ONLY thing I ever found offensive was the whole "make readers bow down before me" thing. A little humility never hurt anyone, you know. Wanting to be perfect is great, as I've already said. While being gracious about con-crit, taking it to heart and using it to improve might not make you perfect, it WILL make you great. I'll take greatness over perfection any day.

Hey, there was some good discussion about it mixed signals and all.

I agree; the tone of what someone is saying through text is easy to misinterpret at the best of times. Anyways, I'm glad that things have cooled down a bit.. been worried for the last few days that this thread was gonna devolve into people bashing each other over the heads with heavy, blunt objects.

I agree; the tone of what someone is saying through text is easy to misinterpret at the best of times. Anyways, I'm glad that things have cooled down a bit.. been worried for the last few days that this thread was gonna devolve into people bashing each other over the heads with heavy, blunt objects.

Well, I'd rather not have had that either. I've had bad experiences with that in the past. *shivers*

As for Rowena, thanks again for another good post. However, the whole humility comment didn't quite sink in too well.

When I think that someone isn't being humble, I think that they believe that they are the best and that they should bow to no one. When I evaulate my own behavior, the sort of behavior that is self-depreciating (heck, more like self-abusive), I can't really picture a lack of humility there. I'm sorry if I sound arrogant but I just can't make the connection. *commences head scratching*

Now, if you're saying that my desire to make everyone bow before me isn't humble, then THAT makes a lot more sense. At least to me anyway. I dunno, my head's probably not screwed on tight. Never is. :P

Now, if you're saying that my desire to make everyone bow before me isn't humble, then THAT makes a lot more sense.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. It does make you sound arrogant to the extreme. Believe me, I understand what it's like to feel like the greatest thing since sliced bread in one breath, only to beat myself up over something in the next. It's a perfectly human thing to do and we all do it.

I dunno, my head's probably not screwed on tight. Never is. :P

Heh heh. I know THAT feeling too. ;)

Hmm...you know what? I was wrong before. You don't make wonderful posts: you ARE wonderful, Rowena. Seriously. :)

I'll see what I can do about allievating my perfectionism. But, I still remain firmly grounded in my belief that negative voices are louder than positive ones and I''l structure my reviews around that. And I'll make sure that rude reviewers hear that point as well. You know, food for thought and all that. XP

However, I haven't had much of a problem with rude reviewers. I've only had one criticism that I consider rude, but I've pretty much forgiven it simply because of the....subject being criticized. *blushes in embarassment* Seriously, if I had my head screwed on tight, I would've been able to avoid that.

Hmm...you know what? I was wrong before. You don't make wonderful posts: you ARE wonderful, Rowena. Seriously. :)

::blush:: Aw, shucks. ::kicking dirt::

I'll see what I can do about allievating my perfectionism. But, I still remain firmly grounded in my belief that negative voices are louder than positive ones and I''l structure my reviews around that. And I'll make sure that rude reviewers hear that point as well. You know, food for thought and all that. XP

Negative voices are louder, simply because of the negativity. They are the patch of ragweed in an otherwise beautiful garden. But unlike ragweed, which can be removed and certain products used to prevent its return, (comparitively) negative reviews can be used as a tool for improvement. I'm sure you've noticed that you have far more hits to your stories than you have reviews. My hit to review ratio varies, but my best estimate is three percent of my readers bother to review. I've had it go as high as ten percent and as low as one, but three seems to be the overall average. This is typical for almost everyone, even those who have hundreds of reviews. Remember to be grateful to those who DID bother to review and if they included any advice on how to improve any aspect of the story, thank them and take it to heart. Some of the advice won't be worth the bandwidth it takes up ("You should pair Character 1 and Character 2! It's the best pair EVAH!"), but some of it will. My own writing has evolved considerably since I started posting and I have reviewers to thank for that.

However, I haven't had much of a problem with rude reviewers. I've only had one criticism that I consider rude, but I've pretty much forgiven it simply because of the....subject being criticized. *blushes in embarassment* Seriously, if I had my head screwed on tight, I would've been able to avoid that.

Consider yourself blessed for that. I've only had *TWO* people leave me anything approaching a flame and one didn't have the stones to post under its own username. It decided to review anonymously, which irritated me to no end. The worst part was the fact that it was also following me around to the forums I frequent (including this one) and paraphrased posts that I had made. I ultimately decided to disable anonymous reviews in hopes of flushing it (or one of its sockpuppets) out, but the harassment stopped when I did that.

I probably wouldn't have minded so much, except that it didn't even bother to read the stories at all. It just clicked the most recent one on my profile and left the offending reviews for the sake of being offensive. Not one word about the stories, only forum posts. I left two of the three reviews there, because I'd like for my readers to see what that person had to say and let them respond if they so choose. A couple actually have, which tickles me to no end.

The other person was just an idiot. ;)

Just remember that the vast majority of people on this site are not reviewing stories for the sole purpose of being mean. Those who leave suggestions on how to improve your story are trying to be helpful and not critical for the sake of criticizing. Many of them are aspiring writers just like you and some of them are probably just as harsh on themselves as you are. And as for those who do review for the sake of being mean, I leave you with my personal motto: Illegitimati non carborundum est. Which means "Don't let the b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s grind you down." ;)

Hehe...I'd agrre with you there. Some advice doesn't really hold much merit. Long ago, before I joined up here, someone once told me to make my OC die and then have the main character kiss him and restore him to life. O_O

Naturally, it was ignored. XP

I heard about that little fiasco with Mr. Butthead. You talked about in on your profile (yes, I acutally LOOK at people's profiles. O_O). And wow, Rowena, it?! You must've seriously hated this person to call him or her "it".

Yeah, I know that people don't review to be mean. I just tend to get very perfectionistic and nuerotic about it. Remember that one harsh reviewer I mentioned earlier? Her review felt like a punch in the gut. I actually remember feeling my heart race. Worse was the aftertaste that it left. Even after I had talked with the reviewer and resolved things with her, that review left me disenfranchised and really REALLY paranoid.

Don't let the b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s get you down huh? If the above story is any indication, it's going to be really REALLY difficult. But hopefully it'll be worth it in the end.

Ok, let me start by saying that: No one likes to be critiqued.

What is certain is that through critique you can improve.

When I receive concrit, I might feel a bit annoyed because, as I said, no one likes critique. After I suppress that and think about what the reviewer has said I find myself agreeing with most or all of the things he/she has said.

I am a firm believer in honesty and I have learned to expect it. As long as people offer valid reasons in their critique, I am more than happy to pay attention to them.

In real life you will be criticized by everyone, so you have to get used to it. Even if you become one of the most revered people on earth there will always be someone that doesn’t like you. That is the way of the world.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express that opinion. When you publicize your work you should be prepared for all kind of reaction. There is no one thing in this world that everyone likes. Why would there be one story?

From the moment you upload your story, anyone can read it. You have exposed yourself to the public. You chose to do it and you have to be ready to be criticized (both negatively and positively).

I do not condone flames but it is one of the risks of uploading stories. What I think is inexcusable is name-calling.

I have two questions though:

How would you say, gently, to someone that his grammar or spelling isn’t good? (Is there even a possibility to sugarcoat that?)

What do you mean by offensive concrit?

PS: Rowena, in my opinion, is totally correct in everything she has said.

How would you say, gently, to someone that his grammar or spelling isn’t good? (Is there even a possibility to sugarcoat that?

Just tell them that there were one misspellings/grammar issues that need to be worked out and point out two big examples. In the age of spellcheck and custom dictionaries, there really isn't much excuse for misspelling character names (which I saw too much of in Yuugioh with Kaiba being spelled as Kiaba. Repeatedly.) and 80 percent of betas out there can catch the misspellings that Word doesn't (spelling "From" as "Form," as I know some have a tendency to do).

One doesn't need to be rude about it, but I can't think of too many ways to sugarcoat "The spelling and grammar in this fic needs a bit of work."

Alright, let me address your points invidually Isabella

I am a firm believer in honesty and I have learned to expect it. As long as people offer valid reasons in their critique, I am more than happy to pay attention to them.

That's fine; I have nothing against honesty. However, it's not a question of being honest. It's a question of whether or not you're allowing your negativity and anger dominate your review. Courtesy is a virtue, one that seems to be dying. But I'll cling that sinking ship as firmly as I can, because that's what I believe in. You may believe what you wish, but so will I. Which brings me to your next point:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express that opinion. When you publicize your work you should be prepared for all kind of reaction.

I know this. It's not a matter of having an opinion, but whether the opinion is conveyed in a meaningful manner. That was the focus of this post from the very beginning.

Now for your questions:

What do you mean by offensive concrit?

Concrit isn't offensive. Remember what I said about the literal definition of constructive criticism in the very first post of this thread. Concrit is supposed to be positive faultfinding, which is supposed to strengthen the author. By that defintion, it can't be offensive. Sure, it can be misinterpreted as offensive, but if the concrit was really well-meaning, then all it should take to settle the disagreement is a simple (non-flaming) PM to the reviewer.

The point I'm trying to make is that concrit lacking positivity is not concrit. It's not a flame, but it's not concrit. Frankly, I don't appreciate vitriol or rage in criticism I recieve, and I seriously doubt that most people would. Even if it does make good points, I just have to look at it and wonder "What is this guy's problem?" I'll be less apt to recieve it if it's angry and degrading, and even if I do recieve it, the focus won't be to improve myself, but to try and make the reviewer shut up. Sort of like a "There, happy now?!" mentality.

Anyway, about the spelling and grammar, I do think that a negative voice from that would be difficult to minimize, but maybe try to follw it up with something like "It's probably no big deal, as these appear be typos" or something like that (provided that they ARE typos, of course). If they aren't typos, just politely suggest the use of the word processor's spell checker as an option.

Concrit isn't offensive. Remember what I said about the literal definition of constructive criticism in the very first post of this thread. Concrit is supposed to be positive faultfinding, which is supposed to strengthen the author. By that defintion, it can't be offensive. Sure, it can be misinterpreted as offensive, but if the concrit was really well-meaning, then all it should take to settle the disagreement is a simple (non-flaming) PM to the reviewer.

I mean what you would consider as an offensive concrit? What would make a concrit offensive?

The point I'm trying to make is that concrit lacking positivity is not concrit.

In this you certainly have a point and I agree. Concrit is to point out both the bad and the good parts of a fic.

Also:

"There can be tension between constructive and useful criticism; for instance, a critic might usefully help an individual artist to recognize what is poor or slapdash in their body of work—but the critic may have to appear harsh and judgmental in order to state this. But useful criticism is a practical part of constructive criticism." ~From Wikipedia.

What if, you ask? It doesn't matter.

I told you. I must have a perfect slate. I must. As far as I am concerned, criticism is a stain. Some are minor and easily brushed aside, and I merely accept it and move on. Others are harder to swallow, and cripple me for long periods of time. I was never in this to best myself. I am in this to best others. As far as I'm concerned, there is little excuse for me to be anything less.

How can you best others, though, if you don't get or use helpful feedback? We all can use a few pointers from time to time. I could see if you don't care, but obviously, you do or you wouldn't care about besting others. For me, I can only compare myself to others and when I find a better writer, I try to figure out what made their story so good and then I try to incorporate some of the in my own writing. Maybe they were more descriptive or had better verbs. Whatever it is, I try to see if it works for me too.

"There can be tension between constructive and useful criticism; for instance, a critic might usefully help an individual artist to recognize what is poor or slapdash in their body of work—but the critic may have to appear harsh and judgmental in order to state this. But useful criticism is a practical part of constructive criticism." ~From Wikipedia.

While I'll acknowledge that a critic may have to be harsh at times, they should only be harsh as a last resort. Otherwise, reviews like this would be commonplace (note that this is not from any one of my stories):

Let me start by saying that this is why we have M-rated stories, because something like this will never find it's way into the games and it's part of the job of fanfiction to explore non-canon events. This is an alternate outcome to what's depicted in Prime, and there's nothing wrong with that, either. There's not even anything wrong with Ridley raping Samus, although the title more or less makes the rest of the story you wrote redundant. You're not an awful writer by this site's standards. You're bad and could probably never be good ("After the ** had passes"), but you aren't awful except for what it is you've created. As I said, there's nothing inherently wrong with Ridley raping Samus as an idea for a story. I'm not a squeamish person or reader, so unfortunately for you, any shock value of this is lost on me. All I can do is read the thing and let myself be ** off by what's the matter with it. What's the matter is motivation, both of Ridley and of you the author because they're the same. You've confused your motivation for Ridley's. You find Samus attractive, so you came up with an excuse for Ridley to and then drill her like a ** star. "Oh he's a zoophile, so now he's going to ** Samus." And then you could commence with the detailed descriptions of sex you'll probably not have for a decade hence. Fanfiction essentially thrives on masturbatory writing, but most of the time it's not so literal, and the best of that isn't so blunt as this. I think I can hear you over the Internet, beating off furiously as you re-read it to yourself again and again. "'11 inches inside her,' ’11 inches inside her,’ oh." You asked yourself, "How can I make myself erect?" And that is your fundamental problem. You did not ask, "In what way would a rape of Samus by Ridley be part of a meaningful story?" or "What am I adding to canon? What about my story improves the source material in some way, gives better understanding to the relationship of these two characters, etc.?" You will probably say you don't care about those things, you just wanted to write a little story, and I'm a jerk who should ** off or whatever. I'm sure that's all true, but what is also true is that this is a terrible story because you don't care to write anything meaningfully good. You will always be a bad writer, of that I'm well-convinced. But none of this is really your fault. I honestly believe you're just mistaken, and if things went differently or you had better guidance, you might produce something worth reading. It’s the previous reviewers who are to blame because apparently they are of the opinion that this in anyway whatsoever resembles a good story. They are entirely to blame for perpetuating this misconception that you--or anyone else--has any business writing low quality smut like this as well as that it is anything else but low quality smut. You don’t deserve a review this long, especially not from someone who hasn’t read hardly any Metroid stories in years, but you’ve managed to push my buttons, and that I suppose is some kind of accomplishment. You really ought to just pull this story and your other, but considering you wrote them, I have no reason to make that my expectation.

Also, with the Wikipedia article, I have text that I can quote as well. Here's a little excerpt from The Tao of Inner Peace by Diane Dreher:

Too often criticism blocks compassion, separating us into polarized factions. Dr. Gerald Jamplosky says that even constructive criticism is often a veiled attack, an attempt to prove we're right because someone else is wrong. A judgmental attitude helps neither ourselves or others. Even if our opinions are justified, criticizing others usually makes them wary or defensive.

While some points of this are debatable, I think that the core message speaks itself well. We say that we're just trying to help, but come on, we all know the REAL reason why why criticize. We do it because of an instinctual need to speak our minds. I know and understand this quite well. When I review, I do so because I just have an itch to say something about the story. My reviews may be nice (I can't really say for sure), but I can safely say that my reviews are not based on any philantropic motive. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. As far as I'm concerned, the motives are unimportant if the review is courteous and honest. It's only when it isn't that I demand an explanation ;P

Now, to your next question, what makes a criticism offensive? Well, let me scroll down the list of things that I think (note the emphasis) can spoil an otherwise well-meaning criticism

Rage and vitriol: Angry statements of any kind. Putting negative emotions into criticism automatically ruins it. The author most times will just shut down and ignore anything you have to say. Working it out with the author can fix this, however.

Malicious sarcasm: This describes a snarky and snotty review with sarcasm that seems to have no intent other than to PO the author. Sarcasm in itself isn't inherently bad, but I think that reviewers should watch it.

Lastly, the List of Faults: No explanation required for this one. It's pretty much listing everything that the reviewer feels didn't work with the story, often times portraying it as a fact rather than opinion.

How would you say, gently, to someone that his grammar or spelling isn’t good? (Is there even a possibility to sugarcoat that?)

I would say something like:

I found the grammar and spelling errors in this to be distracting and they pulled my attention away from the story. I'd suggest you use a spellchecker, and/or get someone else to look it over for you, because it can be hard to find mistakes in your own work.

That's not particularly sugarcoated...but it does at least suggest that I was more interested in the story than in finding fault.

How can you best others, though, if you don't get or use helpful feedback? We all can use a few pointers from time to time. I could see if you don't care, but obviously, you do or you wouldn't care about besting others. For me, I can only compare myself to others and when I find a better writer, I try to figure out what made their story so good and then I try to incorporate some of the in my own writing. Maybe they were more descriptive or had better verbs. Whatever it is, I try to see if it works for me too.

Well, that's what I'd like to be able to do, but sometimes it's difficult. Grafting other people's ideas into my stories sometimes bothers me, because it doesn't really feel like I'm doing anything. It feels more like others are planting their seed in me, that it's growing and manipulating me. To me, that's an uncomfortable feeling.

What I failed to understand was how I was uncomfortable with other writers influencing me, yet I shamelessly borrowed concepts and idea from video games and professional media. I later figured out the reason why: jealousy. I once knew a writer who wrote a spectular story, was a promising artist, and who was an incredibly sweet person. I was only a decent writer, a horrible artist, and I was only sweet for brief bursts. It seemed as though she beat me in every way.

I would say something like:

I found the grammar and spelling errors in this to be distracting and they pulled my attention away from the story. I'd suggest you use a spellchecker, and/or get someone else to look it over for you, because it can be hard to find mistakes in your own work.

That's not particularly sugarcoated...but it does at least suggest that I was more interested in the story than in finding fault.

No, that's perfect. That type of review is exactly what I'd endorse.

First, what I quoted came from the definition of constructive criticism.

Now, to your next question, what makes a criticism offensive? Well, let me scroll down the list of things that I think (note the emphasis) can spoil an otherwise well-meaning criticism

Rage and vitriol: Angry statements of any kind. Putting negative emotions into criticism automatically ruins it. The author most times will just shut down and ignore anything you have to say. Working it out with the author can fix this, however.

Malicious sarcasm: This describes a snarky and snotty review with sarcasm that seems to have no intent other than to PO the author. Sarcasm in itself isn't inherently bad, but I think that reviewers should watch it.

Lastly, the List of Faults: No explanation required for this one. It's pretty much listing everything that the reviewer feels didn't work with the story, often times portraying it as a fact rather than opinion.

I agree with everything but the last. I review to help people and if I notice mistakes I will point them out because the author himself might not be aware of them. I will freely express my opinion on what I liked and didn’t like but always in a civil manner. Simply informing him/her what worked for me and what didn’t. If the author wants to heed my advice, it is his option.

I agree with everything but the last. I review to help people and if I notice mistakes I will point them out because the author himself might not be aware of them. I will freely express my opinion on what I liked and didn’t like but always in a civil manner. Simply informing him/her what worked for me and what didn’t. If the author wants to heed my advice, it is his option.

Wait...I didn't phrase that right at all. The List of Faults was intended to describe a criticism that just pinpointed everything bad with nothing good. I filed under things that spoil a good criticism.

D'OH!!! _

Well, that's what I'd like to be able to do, but sometimes it's difficult. Grafting other people's ideas into my stories sometimes bothers me, because it doesn't really feel like I'm doing anything. It feels more like others are planting their seed in me, that it's growing and manipulating me. To me, that's an uncomfortable feeling.

I never said anything about taking other people's ideas, just seeing what works for that story and why. I do the same while reading novels. It's more like realizing how the writer was able to paint a vivid picture or capture an emotion. It's not about using their ideas. For example, I noticed a favorite author flipped a negative impression left by her description of a scene by just mentioning a smell that is generally associated with warm, cozy feelings. I thought that was genius! I used a similar technicque in a story but with the opposite effect intended and not even quite the same way. I used the sense of smell to try and conjure up feelings of order, and then tried to shatter that by something a character did.

I never said anything about taking other people's ideas, just seeing what works for that story and why. I do the same while reading novels. It's more like realizing how the writer was able to paint a vivid picture or capture an emotion. It's not about using their ideas. For example, I noticed a favorite author flipped a negative impression left by her description of a scene by just mentioning a smell that is generally associated with warm, cozy feelings. I thought that was genius! I used a similar technicque in a story but with the opposite effect intended and not even quite the same way. I used the sense of smell to try and conjure up feelings of order, and then tried to shatter that by something a character did.

That's a good example. Unfortunately, that's kind of what I meant by grafting other people's ideas.

That's a good example. Unfortunately, that's kind of what I meant by grafting other people's ideas.

Okay, I'm totally confused. Every single writer has to build a story off of some prior knowledge of writing. How do they acquire that knowledge? By reading, of course. That doesn't mean that every writer's voice sounds exactly the same. Far from it. They take everything they learn for other written words and throw them into a blender and mix them up and eventually come out with their own voice as a writer. Their own style. Nobody reading my story would have ever thought it sounded like a LaVryle Spencer story (she's the writer who did the smell thing). I don't think of it as 'grafting' anyone's style onto my own but a collection of my reading experiences in my whole life mixing with my life experience and my own imagination to come up with a story that is uniquely mine, just like every other writer does it.

Well, that's what I'd like to be able to do, but sometimes it's difficult. Grafting other people's ideas into my stories sometimes bothers me, because it doesn't really feel like I'm doing anything. It feels more like others are planting their seed in me, that it's growing and manipulating me. To me, that's an uncomfortable feeling.

What I failed to understand was how I was uncomfortable with other writers influencing me, yet I shamelessly borrowed concepts and idea from video games and professional media. I later figured out the reason why: jealousy. I once knew a writer who wrote a spectular story, was a promising artist, and who was an incredibly sweet person. I was only a decent writer, a horrible artist, and I was only sweet for brief bursts. It seemed as though she beat me in every way.

I don't believe any of us works inside a vacuum and in this day and age when there is "nothing new under the sun", the chances of being "influenced" by others is an everyday reality. It's not an excuse for plagiarism but the fact that we're writing fanfiction and belong to "fandoms" should remind us that we're working within communities of commonality among individuals.

I write because I have something to say and a story to tell. Even if I like an idea that I've seen elsewhere or even harbour some degree of envy towards it, if I can't develop it and tell it my way, it remains an idea and nothing else. Furthermore, I daresay the object of one's envy would have probably "borrowed" some aspect/element of that idea anyway.

It's hard not to compare oneself with others especially when one is starting out in anything. We need models, standards by which to judge our own efforts. Some of it is quite healthy and even necessary if we are to better ourselves as long as we don't let that detract us from fulfilling our potential.

I review to help people and if I notice mistakes I will point them out because the author himself might not be aware of them. I will freely express my opinion on what I liked and didn’t like but always in a civil manner. Simply informing him/her what worked for me and what didn’t. If the author wants to heed my advice, it is his option.

I have been rather intrigued by this discussion of concrit and all the issues that have been raised. In recent times, I've (rightly or wrongly) shied away from giving concrit for a number of reasons. I am not particularly concerned about how my intentions are judged as far as my attitude as a reader among many is concerned but I am, however, concerned about my role as a fellow writer... do I set myself up as some kind of expert... an arbiter of good writing? If so, how might my comments impact on the writer's ability to complete their story (in the case of a multi-chaptered story)? Will he or she be steadfast in his/her original vision if I, say, comment about the protagonist being OOC, for instance? Should I have that right to influence the direction of the story? Commenting on faulty syntax and lexis might be one thing but to express strong disagreement about the author's choices troubles me, particularly when all other reviews are glowing in their commendation.

Intent, I believe, does play a key role in all of this. What am I trying to achieve when I criticize an aspect of the storytelling? Am I as altruistic as I claim to be? Do I really want to help the writer improve or am I merely put out by something that I have perceived to be an aberration of canon?

We are all critics because when we read something, we can’t help but form an opinion based on what we have read. Personally, as I have said, I want to help because that is the kind of person that I am. I will not enforce my opinions on the author but I will tell him what I liked and what I didn’t. I believe that, if the author has a formed the story in his mind properly, he won’t be influenced to change things he really wants to happen in it. It is his/her story after all and if he/she might want a character to be OCC for the plot to work. Strong disagreement against the plot of a story is not really constructive criticism because, ultimately, it is the author’s idea. You can offer a mild opinion or some suggestions.