Rejecting criticism and sticking to your guns

[AetherX]

If the reviewer is being rude (Farla) then no, I don't think the author should respond. Don't feed the trolls and all that. If the reviewer can't be bothered to speak civilly then they aren't worth sparing much thought. Now if the author can't be civil... then I would just say they're a lost cause.

The key is to stop, take a deep breath, and consider that the reviewer might have a point. If you still can't see where they're coming from AND they genuinely seem to want to help then I think responding and asking questions is incredibly valuable.

 

[AceTrainer14]

I generally only respond to reviews that I have a question about, or if in the earlier example I gave, the reviewer got something completely wrong and I am trying to clarify things. If the reviewer continues to be nasty and ignorant/refuses to change their mind, or they start getting angry, I think it is best to end the conversation as civilly as possible and not get further involved, least you get angry or get a bad reputation for being aggressive towards reviewers. You never know how the reviewer may take it or what they may do with your review (ie post it on a blog/show friends like this Farla person) and you really shouldn't let a bad review cause more damage for you than necessary.

I will just say, if you do feel like you have gotten a horrible, rude, nasty or malicious review on this site, feel free to PM one of us moderators and we can look into it - I really cannot stand people that are horrifically critical without the constructive, and we don't have a place for trolls here.

 

[Drakon]

I've always kind of stuck by the rule of thumb that if a review makes you angry enough that you really feel like you have to defend yourself, then it's probably okay to just stick to your guns. Maybe I'm overestimating people's rationality and humility. It's worked for me.

If a review makes you need to defend yourself, I prefer stepping back and seeing if they have a point. I may ask to clarify but in the end, it's not worth trading insults over.

In that case, can we discuss how to respond to that kind of criticism? For instance, should authors actually respond at all?

If the reviewer's impolite and/or arrogant, I'll give less weight to their opinions because they usually come off as not really understanding the story or just wanting to start trouble. If they have a valid point, I might ask them to clarify. If they blow me off or give me a smartass reply, I'll just ignore them.

If the author's being impolite, all you can really do is disengage and ignore them.

 

[Baby Seals]

Farla is an extremely notorious reviewer/author on FF.net (specifically for Pokèmon). She's well known for her rude, condescending attitude, borderline (if not out and out) insulting reviews and tendency to post PMs she gets from people on her blog — as well as implicitly encouraging her blog readers to mock the authors she targets.

As for reviewers who complain about realism. They walk a fine line. There's attention to detail and then there's no suspension of disbelief. It's good to have accurate details but you need to keep in mind the story comes first. Accuracy to detail will not save a bad story. Conversely, fudging or just making up details won't ruin a story so as long as you keep continuity.

I had to deal with Farla back when I was relatively new to FF.net. Her review convinced me to delete a fanfic. I blocked her afterwards, and she's been blocked for nearly four years now, and she'll NEVER be unblocked.

Just a few days ago, I got another flame review for Pokemon X and Y: Dawn of a New Era. The reviewer was complaining about how "cliche" I was with my writing - especially for shipping Serena with Calem, and how everyone only ships her with either Calem, Lysandre, or Professor Sycamore (which, I admit, is true to an extent - no one ships Serena with Tierno or Trevor). They suggested that I ship Serena with either Grant or Siebold. Um, no I'm not gonna. I'm not really interested in Grant. Siebold is a grown man and Serena looks like she's only 13-15, and shipping minors with adults is gross. (I already have an OC who is married to Siebold, and my stories portray him as being very devoted to her, so that also makes it impossible.)

And look what they set about their second review: "Also nice job selecting the reviews you want seen, so you can protect your ego. This is still a cliche pile of shit." (I only delete inflammatory reviews.)

Since this was an unregistered user, I was able to delete the hateful reviews.

 

[matt0044]

"Also nice job selecting the reviews you want seen, so you can protect your ego. This is still a cliche pile of shit." (I only delete inflammatory reviews.)

That claim always gets to me because I wonder if I'm feeding my ego and I don't think so because I don't want to think myself as such.

 

[AceTrainer14]

I think shipping is an entirely different ball game, because everyone that is a keen shipper has their own very serious views about who should be shipped with who, and if you don't fit into their requirements then they get upset. They are the ones you really need to ignore, I feel, cause they either are 'I love this pairing' or 'I hate this pairing', neither of which is actually that great when they comment on the ship rather than the story.

 

[Jaye]

That claim always gets to me because I wonder if I'm feeding my ego and I don't think so because I don't want to think myself as such.

Deleting or ignoring reviews of little substance other than spiteful nonsense is more sensible than ego pandering. Yes, in a certain sense you are protecting yourself because comments like that can hurt and knock your confidence, but if the majority of your viewers and telling you your work is good, and you've got people being supportive and helpful, why would you focus on criticism that is given with no explanation for why it's given or suggestion for improvement?

I think shipping is an entirely different ball game, because everyone that is a keen shipper has their own very serious views about who should be shipped with who, and if you don't fit into their requirements then they get upset. They are the ones you really need to ignore, I feel, cause they either are 'I love this pairing' or 'I hate this pairing', neither of which is actually that great when they comment on the ship rather than the story.

I definitely agree with this. It's especially idiotic when a story is clearly labelled with a certain pairing, but still attracts comments like "I don't like this pairing" or "I think so and so should be shipped with". You'd think they'd avoid the story altogether, wouldn't you?

 

[Squeaky the sixth]

I agree as well. As TV Tropes says; shipping is serious business.

 

[AceTrainer14]

Deleting or ignoring reviews of little substance other than spiteful nonsense is more sensible than ego pandering. Yes, in a certain sense you are protecting yourself because comments like that can hurt and knock your confidence, but if the majority of your viewers and telling you your work is good, and you've got people being supportive and helpful, why would you focus on criticism that is given with no explanation for why it's given or suggestion for improvement?

I think that is an excellent point. For those unaware, on FF.net you can delete anonymous reviews for whatever reason; it may seem like a way of protecting yourself, but I think if people try to anonymously offend you in a way that you can't respond to them and defend yourself, then you should have every right to protect your work from unnecessary hatred. I also find it is useful for weeding out reviews that really are just pointless; I find it dumb when people go to the bother of writing a review but all they manage is one word.

 

[Lightning Energy]

Reading through this made me think a little about if it matters who the author is writing for: if they're writing something for themselves, then perhaps they have a "right" to ignore unwanted criticism? If I wanted to write some nonsense story that fulfills some sort of strange desire I have, then shouldn't I be able to go about doing it on my own way, regardless of what people have to say about it*? But on the other hand, when you publish a story somewhere (generally online, one chapter at a time), you do so with the intention of having people read it, and you'd want your story to be something that can appeal to the greatest number of people possible. Some readers may offer suggestions with the intent of making the story more "readable" and appealing to others, and so it's usually in the author's best interests to listen to their audience. Though I will concede that sometimes authors develop one or two ideas that they want to implement in a particular story, regardless of what the audience may have to say about them.

Accepting criticism also has to do with how said criticisms are delivered: I'd be less likely to listen to someone who insults a story I'm writing.

*I realize that not all stories someone writes are necessarily published: someone may write a story that they keep to themselves.

 

[LuxrayOfTheWild]

A lot of people I think just don't wanna accept criticism, especially newer and younger writers. I feel like you should ignore those more flame or troll type reviews, but don't just bash someone who you don't agree with. Maybe they actually have a point and they truly want to help.

Also one thing I couldn't help but notice in this topic was the obligatory mention of FF.Net's most notorious critics: Farla. While she's trying to do the right thing and actually give someone actual advice rather than the generic "Great story!", she just does it in the wrong way and she takes things far too seriously. She comes off often as highly condescending and her high and mighty attitude just irritates and offends others even. She just copies and pastes the same paragraphs for every single review, most commonly her dialogue paragraph, or her infamous capitalization paragraph. Most people are going to continue to capitalize a Pokemon's species name because its how the games do it.

A lot of people have deleted their stories because of her. She's very discouraging towards many and I don't think a good reviewer should do that. She thinks that letting others know what they like about the story and encouraging improvement is babying them. I always disagreed with this though. A good review lets the author know what they like; what they're doing wrong; and tries to encourage them to improve.

Also can we all agree its wrong of her to post PM's and responses to her blogs?

 

[AetherX]

If you want to see essentially this same conversation from a reviewing point of view, this older thread is great: Constructive criticism v. flaming

Figured this was relevant.

 

[Drakon]

I know that you shouldn't blanket dump criticism but I feel that there are a few cases it's okay to do that:

1.) The critic want you to take your story or characters in a radically new direction and your story's already well developed.

2.) The critic is complaining about headcanon/fanon.

3.) The critic is complaining about pairing characters.

 

[Almonds]

A few years ago, when I was writing fanfiction I'd try to stick to what I first planned for the story regardless of what the reviewers tell me (if there's any review at all... lol). It's only after I finish the story that I take the reviews seriously because then the readers have had time to read everything I wrote. They get a chance to see the entire story and thus get an idea of what I had been planning all along.

 

[Lord Kyuubi]

As a general rule, I think writers should listen to criticism, but it's always their final choice. Writers are in no way obligated to do what the criticisms say, but they should consider them. I don't mean to apply this to things like shallow or one-dimensional characters, stalled plotlines, etc - things like that are problems which need to be fixed. More in terms of plot direction, character development, etc, and the exact details of how the writer does this, not whether or not they get basic stuff right. Once you're writing well in general terms, there are no real rights and wrongs in fiction, only what you decide to do, and no critic has the right to take that from you. Every writer has a right to not be criticised, even if it may be a counter-productive decision, and similarly, they have the right to ignore criticism.

The critic, I think, has more strict guidelines that they should follow. First and foremost, they should be helpful, which means they should not be aggressive. If they are unreasonably harsh to the author, that's not only cruel, it's unhelpful, meaning there's no point in their critique in the first place. A critic has no right to completely attack a person like that, nor does anyone else, now that I think about it. And if they're aggressive, they deserve to have their points ignored by the writer. They should be helpful, which means they can be critical and can point out flaws, and stuff, but they shouldn't be aggressive. A little empathy goes a long way. It's a shame it's not more commonly applied.

Like in Lord of the Rings. "Why don't they fly to Mordor with the eagles?" BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN AWFUL STORY THAT NO ONE WOULD READ.

Off-topic slightly, I know, but I feel I have to address this. There is actually a very good in-universe reason why that wouldn't work.

Firstly, the eagles are independent and, to a point, neutral. They are in no way obligated to help anyone, particularly not for something so dangerous. Admittedly they do help from time to time, but they are perfectly entitled not to.

The main reason this wouldn't work, however, is because the eagles cannot carry people that far. When Gandalf is resued from Isengard by Gwaihir, who I believe is supposed to be the strongest of the eagles, Gwaihir explicitly tells Gandalf he can't take him very far, so he takes him to Rohan where Gandalf can get a horse. Similarly, when they save Frodo and Sam from Mount Doom at the end, they only take them as far as Minas Tirith.

This is also seen in the Hobbit, in the film, when the eagles carry them away. After what isn't a particularly long flight, the eagle carrying Thorin is visibly struggling (I hate to think what the eagle carrying Bombur was thinking) - you can see its talons slipping as it tries to keep hold of him. Otherwise, they could have gone the whole way to Erebor, and saved themselves a lot of trouble.

I just had to clear that up. Sorry.

 

[Dorothy]

The line between useful and useless criticism can be a thin one, but I figure that any reasonable criticism ought to be considered when going back to the page. Even if I don't agree with the criticism at the time it's given, if I think things over thoroughly and consider the critic's viewpoint, it's very possible it could open my eyes to possibilities I couldn't have seen on my own. So while it is sometimes good to stick to your guns, it should only be after carefully considering the constructive criticism you've been given.

 

[Peaceful Giraffe]

I tend to just tune it all out because to be honest I don't get a ton of constructive criticism.

 

[matt0044]

Suppose this: you're writing for fun and don't intend to aim to be the greatest at all. You write Mary Sues to self-indulge yourself but is that a bad thing? Mind you, I'm being hypothetical and I'm hardly talking about me.

 

[Drakon]

Suppose this: you're writing for fun and don't intend to aim to be the greatest at all. You write Mary Sues to self-indulge yourself but is that a bad thing? Mind you, I'm being hypothetical and I'm hardly talking about me.

I'm not sure what the problem is.

If you already know the basics of writing and story development, it's harmless fun. If you are very new to writing, I could see it potentially teaching bad habits.

 

[Garren]

In the case of "fun writing" that we do here, in all honesty, I think it's completely up to you. But that's a double-edged sword---perhaps sticking to your guns may make writing your story more enjoyable and closer to what you envisioned your story to be like, but at the same time, you may alienate readers who are frustrated with the direction the story is heading, and may feel upset that their advice is being ignored. Yes, it's your story, but posting a story on a chapter-by-chapter basis on an open message board means you're directly interacting with your readers 1:1, and thus there's a sense of trust and friendship between the writer and reader.

Also, no one on here is a professional editor as far as I know, we're all hobbyists, some more skilled than others at providing critique. Not to put anyone down, but you have to be a bit discerning when it comes to criticism. On the outside, you should of course be polite and show consideration towards your reviewers, as fitting the rules of Bulbagarden, but I suggest perhaps looking over the writing of your critiquer as well, see how they write, and the critiques they're receiving. That being said, just because someone isn't a good writer, or not a writer at all, doesn't mean they're incapable of knowing what they like to read, so I wouldn't ignore them. Just perhaps get a feel for who is critiquing you, and use that to judge how much you should listen to them.

But for grammar and mechanical issues people point out, definitely listen to those. No matter if it's your story, you still want people to be able to read it.