As you go along Wattpad, you're going to end up having conversations with people. If you critique long enough and actually provide proper criticism, eventually you're going to bump heads with someone. If you're as opinionated as I obviously am, then you're going to bump heads frequently.
This chapter is dedicated to the clichés. But rather than book clichés, they are the cliché lines I hear over and over again. Some of them are used to defend a person's work. Some of them are used to deflect criticism. Others to weakly deliver it. And some of them are just sad.
I'm a big fan of defending what I say. Anyone who has challenged what I've said on Wattpad has probably experienced first-hand my own stubbornness and unwillingness to bend in my resolve. That said, I like to think I come away from any given encounter having learned something, and upon reflecting I will find that they had good points, and go back and fix what I wrote.
That said, here is a list of the top 10 (9?) worst responses on Wattpad. These are the things you say when you aren't reflecting on your writing. This is the most clichéd and weakest comments that you can ever write. And if you find yourself saying them or something close to them... you might want to reconsider. Or instead do what you really want to do, stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'lalalala' until the bad man goes away.
"It's Just Fiction."
I've based an entire chapter on 'It's Just Fiction'. Read it sometime, I feel it makes a few good points. The main take away is that claiming something is "Just Fiction" to declare that it shouldn't be held up to the standards and expectations of its readers is a complete cop-out. Your writing is never "just fiction", and being fiction doesn't somehow make it above criticism.
Now, I will mention that I've gotten into a bit of trouble with this one. In a later chapter where I wrote about Rape, I declared that I found rape fantasies forgivable because they were "just fiction", effectively using the same excuse I once condemned.
However, I think you need to understand the context of these statements. I'm declaring "It's Just Fiction" is a bad way to excuse or ignore negative criticism in fictional works. Because something is just fiction, doesn't mean it's beyond critique. Likewise, I don't mind if people don't like rape fantasies. If you want to critic or slam a rape fantasy, you have every right to.
No, when I invoke "It's Just Fiction" myself, I'm arguing its right to exist without censorship. It's a fictional art, I believe any art has a right to exist. However, that doesn't mean it's beyond reproach or critique. A writer should have the right to write. A critic should have the right to critique that writing. Period. It's using "It's Just Fiction" as a dismissal that I take issue with.
"You Could Use Editing Help."
The only one on my list that isn't a direct defense to criticism, I've also mentioned this line before as a major fooh-pah in critiques. Everyone on this site can use editing help, and it's ludicrous to mention this when most people are publishing the equivalent of a rough or first draft. I don't find it to be valid criticism at all because it doesn't help the person improve.
It fills out a comment word count great, but that line might as well be air for all the good it does you. It doesn't help people at all. It's a meaningless waste of breath. Unless they have really bad writing and you're trying to politely tell them to edit their work, and even then, I think there are better ways to do it so that they clearly understand their work is barely readable.
"My most popular story / A popular story does something you said was bad, so you're wrong."
Ah, this excuse, I'm sorry, I mean comment is one of my old friends. I've heard it repeated to me so many times that we've exchanged numbers and kept in touch. I'm godfather to his children, and we occasionally swap wives as swingers. Okay... that analogy got lost a bit, but the point is I'm more than a little familiar with this particular line.
The main take away is that anyone who says this line is committing a logical fallacy. That's to say it's a hole in critical thinking that an inexperienced writer fills full of their own steaming pile of confirmation bias. Particularly, they're selecting a single example or set of examples that disagrees with the argument provided, say a book that is popular despite being a literary mess, and use that as definitive proof that their literary mess can be just as successful.
It's the same kind of thinking that leads to people who argue the world is flat (yes, there are still flat-earthers out there), that global warming is a myth, and that vaccines are bad. Now, nothing I personally say is stemmed from science here. The observations I give you are hardly hardcore proven facts. I've felt that at the very least I've been pretty transparent about the fact that these are opinions stemmed from age and experience, not from any particular studies I've done or research I've performed.
I could mention how opinions aren't right or wrong... they're opinions. I could also mention how a story likely isn't popular because of a mistake or downfall in the story. I doubt people read 'After' because of its editing mistakes. They read it in spite of its mistakes. It's popular, but if it was more refined it might be even more popular.
Or it might not. I've said before there are a lot of factors involved in popularity, including your "target" audience. What one person finds tasteful another person might not. Anna Todd was so scared that editing her story would ruin whatever made it so popular in the first place that she didn't even try. But in the end, that was still her choice.
I list writing pitfalls, but I've never said never... I've only said, "think about it and come up with reasons".
"You're stifling my creativity / expressive style."
Which makes it all the more maddening when I hear things like this next one. How does telling you that something is often perceived as bad and may affect your reader base telling you not to do it? Speaking from my own personal experience, I've frequently gone out of my way to remind people that they can write whatever they want. I've only ever asked people to come up with reasons for why they do things and to understand why the pitfalls may annoy their readers enough that they should consider using them with care.
Somehow, the words I actually say seem to get lost in the tone of how I said it because too many readers have read something I said and decided that I must be banning it completely. That strengthens their resolve that if something achieves popularity while having something I "forbid", I must be wrong. Except that I've never said in this book you can't do something. Sure, in certain cases, I've strongly implied it, especially when it comes to things like Mirror scenes, but I've even conceded that mirror scenes can be done well from time to time.
But I'm talking about comments anyone gets on Wattpad, and not everyone tries to leave a way to backpedal out of what they say like the BS extraordinaire Dorian T. Chase! Some things seem pretty obvious and some critics put their foot down on certain annoyances.
"Hey, you must use there, their, and they're properly."
"Don't stifle my creativity! It's a thing I'm doing. It means something! Don't cramp my style, you fogey!"
How do you respond to that? Well, my response is simple. Creativity and style don't come from having free reign to do whatever you want. The most creative things generated are often the things that were restricted. That's why every now and then you'll run into this really awesome low budget movie that just kills it, and then Hollywood dumps a ton of money on the next one and it has unlimited resources and it just sucks.
Do I even need to give you examples? Star Wars was a film on a budget. The prequels lacked all creative restriction. Deadpool was a film on the budget. Every other recent superhero slugfest was not. Poetry is beautiful, and the defining characteristic of poetry is usually restraining how you write in some way or another, with rhymes, patterns, or syllable counts.
I've said it many times before, here's one more. You're probably not Picasso. You're probably not leading the revolutionary way of a new style of writing. Picasso was a famous and skilled artist first, long before he developed the cubism he's famous for. For you writers in your teens, the same goes for you. Become a good writer first, know the rules and why we follow them. Know the pitfalls and why people hate them. Then you can start talking to people about creative choices and "style".
"I'm Just Doing This For Fun, I don't want your critique!" / "I Don't Care about other people's opinion anyway, I'm doing this for me."
I'm just going to lump the next two together because I feel like they stem from the same silly logic. It's an excuse every young writer falls back on as soon as they face the criticism they don't like. Suddenly, they never wanted criticism in the first place! This is just something they did for fun? Why are you even reading it? It's really just for them!
Of course, they put it online. Because, for a writing that you wrote just for yourself or for you and a few close friends, clearly a public forum is the way to post. I mean, you could post your work privately. You could even post your work so only followers can read it. But no... it had to be available, publically seeable... just for the writer. Oh, I'm sure they didn't want ANYONE else to see their work.
Why don't you just say it like it really is? I want people to critique my work, but only if they say good things. I want my ego stroked and I want to be convinced I'm a great writer no matter how unreadable it is. I want to create a circle jerk with my friends where we just all tell each other how great we all are.
The comments above are the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Why are you even responding if you don't care about other people's opinions? Why are you arguing for your story if it's just for you? Why do my comments piss you off if it's all in good fun? The very nature of these comments shows their own hypocrisy!
Look, if you put a work on a public forum, it is going to be subject to public opinion. It's the same if you write a review on Amazon, comment on a post in Reddit, or post a work on Wattpad. If you don't want your work to be judged, then don't put your work out to be judged. And no... you can't have it both ways. You can't put your work out there for people to look at, and then expect no one to form an opinion on it. I mean, you can try to stop commenters or silence negative criticism, let's see how well that worked for others. It usually doesn't. It's called the Streisand Effect, look it up.
Of course, we both really know you want people to have an opinion, you just want to control all of their opinions so that they are always positive.
And before someone goes off on how this is a social website and they do it all for the sake of socializing... I have to say A) You don't need to post anything, B) You don't have to make it public, C) You don't have to ask for critiques and D) There are way better websites to socialize on than Wattpad. This is a writing website. This is a website about improving your writing skills. If you happen to be that one person that insists on being on this site despite having no desire to become a better person (good for you, that lack of drive will surely serve you well in the future), then you should at least accept that this is clearly a writing site and most of the people you're interacting with actually want to write and improve.
"Your criticism isn't constructive!"
This is going to be a little controversial, but I'm going to say it none-the-less. Some people think "bad" criticism isn't constructive criticism. They think that for criticism to be constructive, it needs to boost your morale and make you feel good about yourself. In essence, they don't understand what constructive criticism is.
Constructive criticism is criticism that gives you advice on how to change or improve. Saying you suck is not constructive criticism. I've given you no way to suck less, so my criticism cannot be applied to improving your writing. Now, if I say your grammar sucks in this chapter... that IS constructive criticism. I've told you a flaw in your writing style. You now know you need to work on your grammar for the chapter I read.
Now, I'm not talking about "good" criticism, "bad" criticism, or "poor" criticism, I'm merely telling you the difference between something constructive and something not. Constructive criticism gives a specific suggestion which allows a positive change. The criticism itself doesn't need to be positive.
I don't need to say, "Your writing would improve if your main character was cheerier" to be constructive. I can simply say, "Your main character is whiny garbage." That was constructive. It wasn't good advice. It certainly wasn't polite. But it was constructive.
Some people here will disagree and claim I've just listed examples of destructive criticism. Before you even write it, I'll say you probably have some valid comments. On the surface, I even agree with some of them. However, to me, too many people have conflated the difference between destructive and constructive to mean "nice" and "mean"... a tone of intent both hard to deliver across the internet and something that could be considered subjective at best.
What feels like a personal attack to a 13-year-old, is merely blunt honesty to me. What makes someone with low self-esteem feel worse only makes someone with good self-esteem think.
A true destructive criticism is one that is a personal attack. It's one that you can't take anything away from, a criticism that you can't use to grow. It's made to tear someone down, not help them improve.
And even if I haven't convinced you of that, I think I've made it clear that you can turn destructive criticism into something constructive. All it takes is a slightly different way of thinking. You just need to swallow your pride a little and take the good from any situation.
Meanwhile, accusing a critic of being unconstructive is just a poor way to push aside and ignore potentially valid criticism, while completely failing to accept it.
"I can pick out a spelling mistake you made, so you're no better than me!"
First off, why do people assume if you're criticizing them that you are trying to establish yourself as better? Offering criticism is just that. Furthermore, finding an example of someone making a grammatical mistake doesn't necessarily speak to that person's ability. If we judged everyone so harshly then no one would get anywhere in life.
Even if you find a mistake in someone's writing that matches their own advice, which can seem a tad hypocritical, that doesn't mean anything. Everyone has blinders on, as it's difficult to see the mistakes you yourself make. That's the very reason we get proofreaders and critics. We simply can't see the mistakes ourselves.
And let's say he did do something and he was aware she made that mistake. It all comes down to circumstance. As I state that everything in this book is just opinions and options, someone saying you should write a less cliché character while his character is uber cliché is fine. He chose to write a cliché character. Maybe he wanted a cliché character. That doesn't negate the fact that when he reads your book he finds your character cliché. It also doesn't mean that if someone accuses your character of being cliché, that you have to do something about it.
Like him, everyone has the choice to take the criticism or not. I don't ask people to take the criticism, merely accept it, just like he likely did. But either way, no one knows the situation in which he put that clichéd character into his story.You can tell him about it, but if he wasn't asking for your criticism, I can't see any way you can slip that in a conversation that wouldn't sound a bit aggressive and confrontational, especially in response to his own criticism.
If every critic had to be an expert writer, or a movie director, or a video game developer, then no reviews would ever get written. You don't need to make video games to tell someone what's wrong with their video game, and no video game developer would ignore a critique because he had one badly made flash game on his record. The same applies to writing. Just because their writing doesn't reflect the advice they give, doesn't give anyone else an excuse to ignore it.
"It gets better in a few chapters."
I've written entire chapters on this before, and I'll say it one more time. Your story should never need to "get better". If your story had a lull period before the story starts or "gets good", then you have a serious problem on your hand.
I get that there are stories that have a slow burn in the beginning, but even then, the story needs to be compelling enough to get people to the interesting parts.
At no point should a story spend a chapter introducing characters or plot. This simply isn't how good writing is done. The story comes first, and the characters are introduced during the story. You don't trot everyone out on stage and explain their occupations, dynamics, and personalities, then start the story a chapter later. You have a story and the characters reveal their occupations, act out their personalities, and display their interpersonal relationships through their actions in the story.
If someone is bored with your story and can't get to the point where it "gets good", then you have a fundamental issue with your story. Don't disregard their criticism as simply not being someone who read long enough. Don't bottleneck your reader base only to those who can make it through the ten chapter boring part.
Making your intro more interesting or rewrite your story to start with the interesting parts. For example, in the atypical fanfiction where a girl starts her first day at school, cut out her waking up, her talking to her parents, her going to school, her talking to her friends, her going to class... and start the second her eyes fall on the love interest. None of the rest is interesting, and as a comment, it disregards sometimes vital criticism.
"Your words hurt my low self-esteem, it's your fault for not catering to my inability to handle criticism."
Okay, no one words it that way, but that's essentially what they are saying. I tend to try to be polite to people, I usually do. I offer criticism, but I've never felt like I've intentionally tried to be mean. Still, I'm a 30 something "adult", and the internet seems to be the great equalizer of all things. That means I end up providing a lot of advice to teenagers. Sometimes on purpose, more often by coincidence.
The public comes in all shapes and sizes, and I am in no way in the minority when it comes to demographics here. I talk to people all the same. I don't know if you're a 13-year-old girl or a 50-year-old man. I don't know if you've published before. I don't know your education level, your life experiences, or your special mutant power.
What I do know is my own life experiences, which I provide in the form of opinions. People are welcome to not like those opinions, but I am going to defend them if they tell me they are wrong in an unconvincing way. P.S. I look forward to arguing with someone about deconstructive criticism. I'll see you in the comments!
Now, I could cyberstalk people and get an idea of ages and ethnicities and life histories each time I want to critique someone or respond to a comment. I'm not going to. Instead, I treat everybody the same. I'd like to think that's what most people on here do. I know from experience most people don't treat me like they treat their teachers or parents, despite the fact I'm about the same age and education level as them. Also, I am a teacher. I teach undergraduates. Right now I'm an instructor in a complex DNA profiling course that stresses critical thinking. Despite that, everyone here treats me the same as they treat any Wattpader, and vice versa.
And therein lies the problem. When a teenager comes out into the public and interacts with adults, and those adults treat them like an adult, it can feel harsh. By definition, teenagers are not mentally prepared enough to handle real-life decisions and stress. That's why there are age limits on things. They don't accept criticism well because, for all intent and purposes, their brains haven't handled enough disappointment to be able to deal with criticism.
The quote above is a testament to that. It's a testament to this entire chapter. Because at the end of the day, all of these "bad" comments are about failing to take criticism properly. They are about not accepting things and then making excuses for them (with the exception of that one bad critiquing advice, yeah, it's kind of an outlier in this chapter, sue me).
So if you find yourself being the kind of person who spouts these sorts of words, try reading a couple chapters on accepting criticism. Set yourself up for some disappointment, and then do the best thing ANYONE can do with any kind of criticism... grow with the experience. We all don't take criticism well, adult or teen. We all can improve our craft. So, let's all move forward together in order to not just be better writers, but better people, and at the very least, let's stop making excuses for ourselves.