FA+
Shop
Bad Critics
13 years ago
Whether an author, an artist or any other sort of creator, you need to welcome and listen to helpful feedback. Quality feedback and criticism are invaluable tools for helping you improve.
But not all feedback and criticism are quality. Feedback which is just praise may make you feel good, but "I love all of it" is possibly the most useless feedback you can receive. Part of my essay on "why Rarity is the best pony" included the following:
In Suited for Success, we found ourselves able to identify with Rarity, suddenly and deeply. We understood her desire to create something beautiful for her friends. We recognized the work that went into a labor of love.
And how many of us also know the hurt of pouring ourselves into a project only to receive a lukewarm reaction? How many of us know frustration of trying to get proper feedback? Virtually every artist understands the need and emotion behind “Tell me! Tell me! Tell me!”
(I, for one, feel Rarity’s moan every time I prompt readers to give me detailed feedback, pushing for a Fluttershy response, only to get “Well, I liked everything” -- which is totally a Rainbow Dash response, the compliment version of the supremely unhelpful “It needs to be about 20% cooler.”)
Likewise, not all criticism is equal. And it behooves an artist to separate the good from the chaff. On the internet, everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them... but they are not entitled to have you pay them any attention. You do not owe anyone an ear, and you are not beholden to consider every critic's opinions as if they might hold weight. You do, however, have a responsibility -- to yourself, your art and your fans -- both to try to improve and to make an effort to avoid listening to bad advice that will do your work harm.
And that brings me to an absolutely marvelous essay on "Fourteen Ways to Spot a Bad Critic", which I will quote liberally from below. I feel some of the writer's points are redundant; but nevertheless, these are excellent guidelines on which critics you not only can ignore, but should ignore.
1. Anyone who says “This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life“.
Sometimes, people who are unable to properly and succinctly make a point, reach for ridiculous extremes. Odds are, your work is not so terrible, that it’s genuinely the worst thing your critic has ever seen in his entire life. If it is, then your critic has led far too sheltered a life to be criticizing others’ work. Someone throwing a phrase like this around, should probably be ignored.
2. Anyone who criticizes your work without seeing the whole thing.
It really doesn’t matter how adamantly a critic defends the swiftness at which he’s come to judgement on your work. If he didn’t encounter your entire project, then he’s unqualified to critique it... There’s no excuse for this. If they didn’t completely see, hear, taste or otherwise experience the work in question, they’re bad critics who should be ignored.
3. Anyone who uses the word “history” in a comparably definitive way.
This is similar to point one, but in an even more arrogant manner. “This is the worst thing of its kind in history“. “Throughout history, no one has made anything this terrible“. “In the history of art, no has ever…” Alright, stop right there. The person critiquing your work is unlikely to be aware of history’s entire archive of the genre or medium being discussed. If he’s wielding the kind of delusions needed to confidently say something this encompassing, he’s a bad critic.
4. Anyone who writes “period” as a way of re-enforcing a previous point.
“This is terrible. Period.” This is a great way for a critic to demonstrate an inability to accentuate. Using the word “period” like this, would suggest that there’s no room for debate. That what’s being said is final and absolute. That there’s nothing left to say on the matter. This contradicts so much of what being a good critic is all about. If you have nothing much to say, then you’re not much of a critic, are you? To quote what I used to say to my kids when they were toddlers who were having trouble getting a point across… Use your words.
5. Anyone who jumps to conclusions about behind-the-scenes reasoning.
“The creator of this work is just trying to get more money because she’s panicking because the last thing she created sucked because she’s probably pissed off because Madmen might not be renewed for another season which I assume is her favourite show.” This is far more common than it should be. I’ve seen people come to crazy assumptions about my personal life and then use those assumptions as spring boards for why my work is the way it is. An actual critic will understand that he doesn’t know you personally and doesn’t have any inside information about what’s going on behind the work being critiqued. A real critic will simply review the creation on its own.
6. Anyone using multiple exclamation marks or caps lock.
Have you ever seen anyone discard an intelligent point because there was only one exclamation mark at the end of the sentence? Have you ever seen anyone have trouble understanding an insightful statement purely because it wasn’t in ‘all caps’? Whether the review is positive or negative, a good critic has intelligent things to say and a vast army of well placed words to say them with. A BAD CRITIC HAS NONE OF THESE THINGS AND SO INSTEAD TRIES TO RAISE THE VOLUME OF HIS POINTS LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.” ~Terry Pratchett
7. Anyone who uses the phrase “One word comes to mind…”.
“One word comes to mind when I see this work. Terrible.” The “one word” can be anything, but if that’s all that comes to your mind while reviewing someone’s work, you’re not a very good critic. On the other hand, if plenty of words come to your mind and you incorrectly use this overused statement in an attempt to sound witty, you’re not a very good critic.
8. Anyone who uses the phrase “I want my X minutes back“.
If you have ever used this phrase in a critique, I’d like you to stand up, go find a mirror, look at yourself and realize that other people are creating original art while you can’t even muster up the creativity to insult that art without vomiting a pathetically overused phrase like this.
9. Anyone who tells you to stop creating.
An actual critic will never tell you to stop creating. A good critic would genuinely like to see you improve and make something better next time.
10. Anyone who says “This sucks“.
That’s not a criticism, that’s an insult. If you can’t tell the difference between those two things, you’re a bad critic.
11. Anyone with terrible spelling/grammar.
Let’s be clear here. A good critic doesn’t need perfect spelling and grammar. Every painter drops his brush from time to time and there’s no shame in that. But if you’re dropping your brush evry singal tim u tuch teh canvus… well, you might not be very good at what you do. And if you’re purposely mistyping in an attempt to save time or look cool, then you’re definitely a bad critic.
12. Anyone who brags about themselves during the review.
“This work sucks. And I know it sucks because I once fought a bear! Who was driving a tank! Plus I’m very handsome! Wait… what was I reviewing? Anyways, the point is that I fought a bear!” Sometimes I’ll be reading a review of something and I start to get the impression that the critic is just looking for ways to point out how many awards he’s won or how often he’s been published... Good critics don’t use their review of your work as a way to brag about themselves.
13. Anyone who tries too hard to be funny or focuses too much on creative ways to insult your work.
A good critic is entertaining as well as informative. This means that sometimes they’ll find funny ways to point at a flaw in your work. Don’t be upset by this, the critic is just doing his job. However, if the review briefly states “This is awful” and then follows with an entire paragraph colorfully explaining how he had to "pour gasoline on his eyes and light a match while having a team of tap dancing priests cast Satan out of your work before throwing it into the fires of Mordor", he might be working harder at trying to be funny than at trying to fairly review your work.
14. Anyone who says “You can’t take constructive criticism".
This is possibly the most cowardly thing that a bad critic can say. Sure, it’s possible that a good critic can review someone’s work and that a creator can over react, causing the critic to fairly exclaim “Wow, that person can’t take constructive criticism", but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the cowards who use that phrase as a shield to defend themselves against creators justly reacting to hateful insults. There’s nothing constructive about telling someone that they suck and there’s nothing truthful about claiming that the creator can’t take constructive criticism at that moment. Most creators thrive on constructive criticism and welcome it. Very few of us thrive on being told that we should “get a life".
Some critics will claim that even if they are bad critics, their advice might still be useful or their opinion valid. Even if this is true, it does not matter.
A critic is a solicitor. The critic is trying to get you to buy something: their critique. Like any solicitor, it is the job of the critic to sell their product. If they want you to give their voice attention and their opinion weight, then it is on them to convince you that what they have to offer has value. Being a bad critic is a failure to do so, and you have every reason to reject what they are trying to sell as bad goods.
--Kkat (with thanks to Thunt)
PS: I am aware I use too many exclamation points. Although, to my credit, not all at once.
But not all feedback and criticism are quality. Feedback which is just praise may make you feel good, but "I love all of it" is possibly the most useless feedback you can receive. Part of my essay on "why Rarity is the best pony" included the following:
In Suited for Success, we found ourselves able to identify with Rarity, suddenly and deeply. We understood her desire to create something beautiful for her friends. We recognized the work that went into a labor of love.
And how many of us also know the hurt of pouring ourselves into a project only to receive a lukewarm reaction? How many of us know frustration of trying to get proper feedback? Virtually every artist understands the need and emotion behind “Tell me! Tell me! Tell me!”
(I, for one, feel Rarity’s moan every time I prompt readers to give me detailed feedback, pushing for a Fluttershy response, only to get “Well, I liked everything” -- which is totally a Rainbow Dash response, the compliment version of the supremely unhelpful “It needs to be about 20% cooler.”)
Likewise, not all criticism is equal. And it behooves an artist to separate the good from the chaff. On the internet, everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them... but they are not entitled to have you pay them any attention. You do not owe anyone an ear, and you are not beholden to consider every critic's opinions as if they might hold weight. You do, however, have a responsibility -- to yourself, your art and your fans -- both to try to improve and to make an effort to avoid listening to bad advice that will do your work harm.
And that brings me to an absolutely marvelous essay on "Fourteen Ways to Spot a Bad Critic", which I will quote liberally from below. I feel some of the writer's points are redundant; but nevertheless, these are excellent guidelines on which critics you not only can ignore, but should ignore.
1. Anyone who says “This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life“.
Sometimes, people who are unable to properly and succinctly make a point, reach for ridiculous extremes. Odds are, your work is not so terrible, that it’s genuinely the worst thing your critic has ever seen in his entire life. If it is, then your critic has led far too sheltered a life to be criticizing others’ work. Someone throwing a phrase like this around, should probably be ignored.
2. Anyone who criticizes your work without seeing the whole thing.
It really doesn’t matter how adamantly a critic defends the swiftness at which he’s come to judgement on your work. If he didn’t encounter your entire project, then he’s unqualified to critique it... There’s no excuse for this. If they didn’t completely see, hear, taste or otherwise experience the work in question, they’re bad critics who should be ignored.
3. Anyone who uses the word “history” in a comparably definitive way.
This is similar to point one, but in an even more arrogant manner. “This is the worst thing of its kind in history“. “Throughout history, no one has made anything this terrible“. “In the history of art, no has ever…” Alright, stop right there. The person critiquing your work is unlikely to be aware of history’s entire archive of the genre or medium being discussed. If he’s wielding the kind of delusions needed to confidently say something this encompassing, he’s a bad critic.
4. Anyone who writes “period” as a way of re-enforcing a previous point.
“This is terrible. Period.” This is a great way for a critic to demonstrate an inability to accentuate. Using the word “period” like this, would suggest that there’s no room for debate. That what’s being said is final and absolute. That there’s nothing left to say on the matter. This contradicts so much of what being a good critic is all about. If you have nothing much to say, then you’re not much of a critic, are you? To quote what I used to say to my kids when they were toddlers who were having trouble getting a point across… Use your words.
5. Anyone who jumps to conclusions about behind-the-scenes reasoning.
“The creator of this work is just trying to get more money because she’s panicking because the last thing she created sucked because she’s probably pissed off because Madmen might not be renewed for another season which I assume is her favourite show.” This is far more common than it should be. I’ve seen people come to crazy assumptions about my personal life and then use those assumptions as spring boards for why my work is the way it is. An actual critic will understand that he doesn’t know you personally and doesn’t have any inside information about what’s going on behind the work being critiqued. A real critic will simply review the creation on its own.
6. Anyone using multiple exclamation marks or caps lock.
Have you ever seen anyone discard an intelligent point because there was only one exclamation mark at the end of the sentence? Have you ever seen anyone have trouble understanding an insightful statement purely because it wasn’t in ‘all caps’? Whether the review is positive or negative, a good critic has intelligent things to say and a vast army of well placed words to say them with. A BAD CRITIC HAS NONE OF THESE THINGS AND SO INSTEAD TRIES TO RAISE THE VOLUME OF HIS POINTS LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.” ~Terry Pratchett
7. Anyone who uses the phrase “One word comes to mind…”.
“One word comes to mind when I see this work. Terrible.” The “one word” can be anything, but if that’s all that comes to your mind while reviewing someone’s work, you’re not a very good critic. On the other hand, if plenty of words come to your mind and you incorrectly use this overused statement in an attempt to sound witty, you’re not a very good critic.
8. Anyone who uses the phrase “I want my X minutes back“.
If you have ever used this phrase in a critique, I’d like you to stand up, go find a mirror, look at yourself and realize that other people are creating original art while you can’t even muster up the creativity to insult that art without vomiting a pathetically overused phrase like this.
9. Anyone who tells you to stop creating.
An actual critic will never tell you to stop creating. A good critic would genuinely like to see you improve and make something better next time.
10. Anyone who says “This sucks“.
That’s not a criticism, that’s an insult. If you can’t tell the difference between those two things, you’re a bad critic.
11. Anyone with terrible spelling/grammar.
Let’s be clear here. A good critic doesn’t need perfect spelling and grammar. Every painter drops his brush from time to time and there’s no shame in that. But if you’re dropping your brush evry singal tim u tuch teh canvus… well, you might not be very good at what you do. And if you’re purposely mistyping in an attempt to save time or look cool, then you’re definitely a bad critic.
12. Anyone who brags about themselves during the review.
“This work sucks. And I know it sucks because I once fought a bear! Who was driving a tank! Plus I’m very handsome! Wait… what was I reviewing? Anyways, the point is that I fought a bear!” Sometimes I’ll be reading a review of something and I start to get the impression that the critic is just looking for ways to point out how many awards he’s won or how often he’s been published... Good critics don’t use their review of your work as a way to brag about themselves.
13. Anyone who tries too hard to be funny or focuses too much on creative ways to insult your work.
A good critic is entertaining as well as informative. This means that sometimes they’ll find funny ways to point at a flaw in your work. Don’t be upset by this, the critic is just doing his job. However, if the review briefly states “This is awful” and then follows with an entire paragraph colorfully explaining how he had to "pour gasoline on his eyes and light a match while having a team of tap dancing priests cast Satan out of your work before throwing it into the fires of Mordor", he might be working harder at trying to be funny than at trying to fairly review your work.
14. Anyone who says “You can’t take constructive criticism".
This is possibly the most cowardly thing that a bad critic can say. Sure, it’s possible that a good critic can review someone’s work and that a creator can over react, causing the critic to fairly exclaim “Wow, that person can’t take constructive criticism", but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the cowards who use that phrase as a shield to defend themselves against creators justly reacting to hateful insults. There’s nothing constructive about telling someone that they suck and there’s nothing truthful about claiming that the creator can’t take constructive criticism at that moment. Most creators thrive on constructive criticism and welcome it. Very few of us thrive on being told that we should “get a life".
Some critics will claim that even if they are bad critics, their advice might still be useful or their opinion valid. Even if this is true, it does not matter.
A critic is a solicitor. The critic is trying to get you to buy something: their critique. Like any solicitor, it is the job of the critic to sell their product. If they want you to give their voice attention and their opinion weight, then it is on them to convince you that what they have to offer has value. Being a bad critic is a failure to do so, and you have every reason to reject what they are trying to sell as bad goods.
--Kkat (with thanks to Thunt)
PS: I am aware I use too many exclamation points. Although, to my credit, not all at once.
I love this journal entry, and I couldn't have written it better myself. I also love it because, from my point of view, you just disowned 99% of the internet reviewers out there, and that's great.
Also, a small nitpick about #2: I agree that a critic can’t rightly criticize an entire work if they haven’t experienced it from start to finish, but one should still be careful not to accuse anyone who crap-cans something because they couldn’t endure all of it of being dishonest or lazy. If you pick up, say, Twilight* and only made it through the first chapter or two before giving up because you thought the writing was atrocious and the storytelling was eyeroll-inducingly bad, would you then be a bad critic if you slammed the book and its writing and storytelling despite having not finished it? Or is there a point where you can be considered to have read just enough of it for your opinion to be valid, even if you didn’t reach the back cover?
(Sidenote: Any link to that essay, or is it not online?)
____________
* Disclaimer: Never read it (and probably never will), merely using it as an easy and common example.
Substance is more important than tone, but tone is also important.
Art and writing are about communication. You are attempting to convey something to your audience.
The critic is trying to convince you that he has valuable insight for you on the subject matter of your ability to communicate with your target audience. By trying to sell his opinions to you, he has made you his target audience. If the critic is incapable of communicating to his target audience in way that isn't offensive or undesirable, then the critic doesn't have the communication skills necessary to be a worthwhile source of advice about communication skills.
As for your nitpick, this is part of a discussion I had on that very topic:
I have an opinion about the Twilight Saga, and not a good one. But I've never seen any of the movies or read any of the books -- my opinion is based solely on the opinions of friends, critics and my own internet research. As such, while I will never read any of those stories, I don't go to sites and speak against them because I know my opinion holds no actual weight or value.
{del}
I'm fairly confident in my assessment of Twilight without having read any of it -- enough to know I don't ever want to. But, again, I also realize that my opinions are uninformed and have no merit, so I don't jump into Twilight Saga conversations to profess them. Had I read small portions of the books, I would be slightly less ignorant, but still not informed enough to make decisions for anyone other than myself, or to offer those opinions as having any substance.
So yes, to answer your question, you would be a bad critic. And you should be ignored.
As for Twilight, it was apparently written well enough for its core audience that Stephanie Meyer probably can't hear those that didn't find it engaging over the giant piles of money she's making.
My $.02.
I'm not saying that anyone doesn't have the privilege of throwing out whatever criticisms they want to about whatever they want to. I'm saying that authors, artists, composers and other creators don't have any obligation to listen to it. And that if you are a creator, here is a good guide for sorting out the crap from the diamonds.
I'll review something I didn't finish, I generally will not criticize it unless the reason I didn't finish it was a total disregard for the conventions of spelling and grammar. I drop a lot of books that I can't get into. That does not make said books objectively bad books.
A review is a personal opinion. It never clams to be otherwise. Spider Robinson (SF Author) did book reviews at one point. When a fan wrote to complain that everything Robinson liked he didn't, and if Robinson did like it he didn';t. Robinson's reply was GREAT! We have communication. That is review.
Criticism is attempting to judge a work as worthy or otherwise in an objective sense. It is not that you do not like or do like, it is that the work is good or bad, objectively.
I will not criticize in terms of content. Fallout: Equestria was not my cup of tea. Critically however it was well written. That I will judge. There are measurable standards of spelling and grammar. I know what they are even if I don't always achieve the perfection I seek. Yes, I read only one chapter. Hence the review that It wasn't my kind of thing. One chapter was enough to know the Kkatman can write.
I'm a creative person myself. I feel this one thoroughly. I know that feedback is the soul of the artist and that zero feedback is worse than bad feedback, but not by much. I treasure every well thought out letter of feedback I have ever gotten.
Yes, a critique on a journal about critiques. How very meta. Does this mean I fall under #13? ;3
That aside, I love your name and avatar.
Dismissing a critic for saying something is bad when that opinion is supported with further reasoning is willful blindness.
Remember, this is the internet. There is no end to the amateur would-be critics for you to chose from. It is a buyer's market. You're looking to buy useful feedback which will help you improve. Buy the best. Do not settle for the stuff that isn't going to help from people who don't want to help you.
Any good critic has a few goals in mind, and if the critic wants (or expect) you to pay attention to them, then one of those goals is to help you improve. You are not required to "expect the vernacular" even from an amateur critic. If the critic cannot take the time to be mature and civil, then why should you assume they are making the effort to be accurate or helpful? If the critic's goal is to get you to listen to them, then they need to behave in a way that engenders your receptiveness. If that is not the critic's goal, that critic should not expect you to listen to them. You do not owe them anything, much less an ear. If a critic's goals are to...
A) to make themselves feel good by trashing your work...
B) promote their own work,
C) play to an audience for laughs, or
D) insult or attack you
...then their criticisms are not for any purpose that would be helpful to your improvement, and you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to give them the time of day. Listening to them is likely to do you more harm than good. And, finally, if the critic...
E) cannot be bothered to view the entirety of the work they are attempting to critique
...then, whether good or bad, they are an uninformed critic, and should likewise be ignored.
Also: what'll be your next big project? Like a sequel to Fallout:Equestria
Thank you for this because it needs to be said more often!1!1!!!1!!!!!6!!!
[img]http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp/comi.....kq6j.png[/img]