#writing criticism

[crooked-wasteland]

Stolen from @pinkandpurple360 anonymous ask.

"Blitz still has a long way to go with character development”

That's great. I can't wait to never see it.

This was an issue I tried working into my Fizzarolli Dissection but it kept feeling less about the character and more an overarching writing issue, so let's just take it here.

Every bit of character development in the series is inconsistent or entirely spontaneous. Stolas being in love with Blitz seemed like a slow burn until out of nowhere in Ozzie's he is so head over heels for Blitz in specific. Asking why Blitz only now is asking him out "after all this time", like he has been waiting on and expecting it despite that never being a thought towards their dynamic before. Going from being entirely obsessed with their sexual contract and seeing Blitz as a sex object to suddenly wanting cuddles on the couch with no strings attached?

That change was never shown in the series. It was never developed. There is no character growth, they merely are different to suit the new direction to the plot.

So again, I'm so glad Blitz has more character development to go through, can't wait for it all to be implied off screen like every other ounce of character we've been gaslight into believing has "grown".

If you never show it on screen, the dynamic, the relationship, the change, it never happened. Loona at the end of Queen Bee seems to get closer to Blitz but the next time we see her she's trying to assault him. We never saw any moment of change following the end of Queen Bee where we felt her character actually develop. Even after calling Blitz dad in the episode, she ignores him in favor of strangers at the party. She expressed clear disgust with Blitz before leaving with him, and her mild softening towards him at the end could just as easily be seen as nothing at all as it could be a character growth.

However growth requires reinforcement. If you never reinforce that moment meant something, it isn't growth, it's a cheap emotional scene to get a reaction from an audience. A short scene of Loona simply telling Blitz good morning to show some kind of change was all that was needed, but it was not as important to establish change in the characters as it was to have the most cringe scene in existence. Priorities.

One of the biggest issues with the series is how blatant the meta agenda of the writing is. They never allow the space to establish characters or change, instead citing these one off moments as “proof” of story when they do not amount to anything at all. There is unfortunately a distinct difference between a story and a scene, and it is painfully obvious by how Medrano and Nylan utilize these scenes that it is entirely for a superficial effect.

The relationship between Fizzarolli and Blitz similarly is extremely vapid and has no foundation to establish what their dynamic actually was growing up. Additionally, the two scenes of them being younger are fundamentally contradictory. Younger Fizz from The Circus is assertive and confrontational. He threatens to punch Blitz for being annoying and not playing the way he wants to play. He's bossy without necessarily being mean and not only knows he's popular, but also how to utilize it as manipulation, seen in how he draws attention to himself to spare Blitz the embarrassment of his failed joke. This Fizzarolli actually lines up also with the Fizz from Ozzie's. It's hard to claim that Ozzie's Fizz was "just an act" when as a literal child he has all the same traits

Then in the Special he is insecure, timid, has very little self esteem and is an anxious people pleaser with a mousy voice. There is nothing to establish this as the same person at all, and all the narrative context clues around his popularity does not support the direction of change this character has experienced. Fizzarolli has only gotten bigger between being what appears to be six years old and what I can only assume to be thirteen based on his cracking pubescent voice and gangly limbs. All we can go on is context clues and extrapolation, but arguing of a non-existent event that humbled Fizzarolli to this extent, while maintaining his stardom prior to ever meeting Mammon, is founded on nothing, when there is a much simpler answer.

His whole personality has taken a 180 turn for the sole purpose of the episode’s narrative. Fizzarolli being the pathetic whump he is in the episode is not founded anywhere else in the show, but we need that so people feel bad for him. There is no confidence in this writing. It shows that instead of believing the character is likeable as a whole for a complex personality, the only way anyone will like him is if he is just the softest jellybean in the bunch.

It is only this way because it suits the episode right here and now. And when his character changes, it isn't founded on any concrete narrative of growth and actions having consequences, but on what the writers need to get the audience to feel a certain way. So I say it again:

That's nice, I can't wait to never see it.

#helluva boss critical #helluva boss critique #helluva boss criticism #vivziepop critical #vivziepop #vivienne medrano #spindlehorse critical #spindlehorse criticism #helluva boss #vivziepop criticism #writing criticism

[video-killer]

Character consistency and the Hazbin teaser.

One of the most important parts of quality writing is keeping ones characters consistent. This means establishing their morals, opinions, personalities, and speech patters and sticking to them. This allows your writing to, well, make sense and your characters to effectively evolve over the course of the story.

Breaking Bad establishes Walter White as a brilliant man who will do whatever it takes to reach success, and throughout the story this conviction combined with his illicit dealings slowly turns him into a monster. But at his core he still is Walter White, his caring side established early on through his familial relations, something he buried deep down in order to survive in the drug business, resurfacing in the series finale.

Unfortunately, Hazbin Hotel looks to be no Breaking Bad. And the recently released trailer for the series seems to imply that the characterization in the series is decaying disturbingly quick.

One of the largest red flags is seen at the very beginning of the video. Alastor has created a somewhat satirical advertisement for the hotel, broadcast on an old CRT television. Yet it has been prior established that Alastor hates post-30s technology. He wishes to cling to the era in which he died. Additionally, his sworn enemy is a television. He loathes the things; they are the crude antithesis to his beloved radio. And yet, he makes a television advert.

Realistically, Alastor should compose a radio ad. It would be just as snarky, but with sound effects and vocal acting in place of visuals. But yet the show does not do this, a completely nonsensical decision that is a massive deviation from Alastor's prior characterization.

In a similar vein, the leaked Vox audition sheet features him commenting that "reality television is dying", yet clinging to it anyway, ordering someone to "figure out how" to take a poorly titled show and make it into a successful series. Vox has been established as supposedly the opposite of Alastor in this regard: he is the overlord of technology, obsessed with advancement and innovation. Yet here he clings to the past, something implied to be likely detrimental to his business.

Perhaps Vox could instead snark that the show is part of a dying art, but nonetheless profitable, producing it anyway because he knows people will still watch it, thus keeping in line with both his television and shady entrepreneur themes.

It seems to me that the writers swapped the two characters' opinions on technological and cultural advancement, something completely strange considering how the two are complete inverses in that regard. The cause of this eludes me, but nonetheless proves very alarming.

#writing criticism #hazbin critical #hazbin hotel critical #vivziepop critical #character criticism

[goodluckclove]

How I Critique Writing (A Loose Collection of Tips)

Someone asked me for insights into my methodology when it comes to giving feedback on writing and I realized I had way more than I could say in a reasonable amount of private messages. Are you someone who I've spoken to about their writing? Did someone send you their work and you don't know how to respond? Maybe this will help? Based on how people react I feel like it might be controversial but it seems to work.

When someone sends me their writing, no matter the size, subject or genre, I:

Take it seriously. It's a generational epic about the Vietnam war and its effects. It's a cute, young adult romance. It's Zim and Dib from Invader Zim realizing they've always been in love with each other. All of these things can be written with earnestness, strength, honesty and skill. It's fucking hard to write and if someone writes a single sentence that wouldn't otherwise exist its worth holding in your hands and examining with the same eye as if you were taking an interesting book off the shelf.

Respond with curiosity. It's common for critiques to follow a theme of ambiguous disdain. This doesn't work. Delete this. Bad. No. Gross. Guess what? That's not helpful. If you got that feedback, even if you followed it, you wouldn't be thrilled about it. Oftentimes you can take a line that makes you want to say Bad and ask something else. What is this supposed to express? What were you trying to do here? Am I supposed to feel happy/sad/uncertain when I read this? Curiosity can reframe something that you don't think works as a reader and turn it into an opportunity for the writer to look inward and solve their own problem. They might explain what they were trying to do, and if you were to say that it didn't pan out for you they're way more likely to tweak things themselves and feel like they still have control over their project.

Give comments. I've started giving more in-depth comments on the writing people give me depending on how anxious they are about it. If you're a pretty confident writer I'll give a summary of what I gained and what I was left wondering, what I thought and what I felt, what associations it made me think of in terms of tone and other forms of media - stuff like that. For newer writers, especially those who are far more doubting of their own abilities, I go buck wild. And in my opinion notes should be less like Good! I like this! Wow! Nice! (What are you, grading my book report? No thanks), and more like what you think when you're reading a book you're truly invested in. Make jokes about the characters (Not mean ones. I will send bugs to you in the mail.), chart exact lines that provoke physical reactions, even a small one. Can you imagine reading someone treat your work like it has its own fandom on Tumblr? You can do that for someone else.

Fucking have some fucking awareness of the fact that it might not be for you and that doesn't mean it's bad. I'm angry about this one considering the novel a friend sent me last night that they've been too terrified to try and post online, despite it being fucking brilliant. I'll try and calm down. Listen - you read what you like. I mainly read literary and experimental fiction, some poetry, horror and some sci-fi. Not a lot of genre fiction. But I will always be down to read someone's high fantasy story, because even though I don't really like fantasy I know what the good ones sound like. I've forced myself to gain a sense of what someone else would like, even if I don't like it. And I can still critique it. If I'm a builder and I see a house that's painted a shade of green I find sinful for a home (i.e. mint), I can look past that and focus on the state of the walls and the stability of the foundation. You aren't a reviewer, man. You are neither Siskel, nor Ebert. They write for readers, you write for writers. So you don't like historical fiction? Cool, man. Congrats. If someone trusts you enough to give you some to read and critique, you should still do so objectively. If you give it an automatic F because you wouldn't buy it, then you are legally a stinky little trash man. That's just the law.

Ask them what they liked to write and what was the hardest. There's apparently a weird trend on online writer communities that say there are specific rules that all writers need to follow. This is not true. It just isn't. If the dialogue in a story you read is weak, and the writer says they hate writing dialogue and really struggle with it, maybe tell them they don't have to use it. You might change their entire life.

RESPOND WITH CURIOSITY. You see the Ask games where people try and get more detail on the WIP of certain authors. If you have a WIP and I ask you a worldbuilding question that doesn't relate to the direct plot of the story as it exists now, I bet you'd like to talk about it. If I ask if you were inspired by a certain tone or movie, you might know the work I was talking about and feel happy. Or you might not know it, look it up, and feel inspired. I don't think people realize that a critique of new/unfinished writing is not a one-and-done exchange. You are taking part in an isolated process in a way few other people on the planet will. It's not homework. It's. Not. Homework. We spend so much of our time alone just fiddling our hands and making our magic, and in instances like these we share something in one of the ultimate forms of artistic trust. They're taking you into a world that hasn't fully formed yet. Is it cool? Can you tell me about it? Can they?

Be nice. Storytime, friends. In the way early 2010s, there was something on the internet called sporking. It was pretty much a line by line roast of someone's writing - typically fanfic. And I hate to say this, but I read a lot of it. I was 13, somehow untreated and overmedicated, and I was miserable constantly. Just cold in my chest. At one point I had the chance to critique a stranger's story - probably another child - and I essentially mocked the whole thing. They ended up deleting the story off the website. I cannot begin to describe to you the shame I feel about doing this, even ten years later. It burns in my heart and makes me sick to my stomach. If you are a serious writer, especially a young writer, and you insult another writer's craft to their face just as they're getting started - you will regret it. I promise you that. You will think about holding something alive and full of potential in your hands and squeezing your fists until it is just flecks of meat and crushed bone. It will haunt you. Maybe only a little, but constantly and for the rest of your life. So don't do it.

Wow what a grim note to leave on! That's essentially my philosophy on writing critique, do with it what you will. Want to send me some writing to receive this kind of excessive treatment? Cool! I have an email in my pinned post and I'll do that! I'm also down to chat if anyone wants to send me asks or DMs on writing/writing struggles/publishing tips.

#writers on tumblr #writeblr #writing #on writing #writing community #authors of tumblr #actually writing #queer writers #fanfic writing #writing critique #writing criticism #writing tips #writing help #writing resources #writing inspiration #i went crazy on this one didn't i

[atla-recluse]

It's still so strange to me how the writers of ATLA

seemed to go back and forth, back in forth on Zuko's characterization especially. One moment he seems to have some semblance of sympathy and care for the plight of others who were also suffering—even going as far as to show compassion and protectiveness—then the next, he's right back to only thinking about himself; it's all about his honor, his throne, his getting spoiled like he was used to, his ability to beat his mentally ill sister in a fight (!), his chicken sandwich. And it's literally over and over again that this happens. Is this really what people to this day consider complex character writing? I just think it's a sign of staff indecisiveness, wanting to stretch a character arc far beyond what it was worth, to the very end, and arguments within the planning room.

#Zuko-critical #writing criticism #ATLA

[fairytail-whathesays]

Listen im natsu's number one i love that boy more that anything but him vs rogue and sting was BULLLLLLSHIIIT. I remember at the end of phanthom lord where natsu legit tried to befriend Gajeel after their fight ended (it did not last cuz Natsu blew up his home valid Gajeel) and...i dont know i feel like at least THAT natsu would have been excited to fight with him on a team.

Where is the drama?? The forcing to work together when they realize oh shit sabretooth has better teamwork?? The pushing the rivalry aside for their found family's pride??

Where is the confused as fuck why the hell is a unison raid activating between us-oh. Aw fuck we're friends. And one of them denying that forever while the other smirks/grins and goes yea we are???

things like this make me wish Mashima just did slice of life cause COME ON. The OPENING SONG HAD A BETTER FIGHT.

Sorry for the rant i have Feelings about this.

It's not just less than what Sting and Rogue deserved, it's not just less than what Gajeel deserved, it's less than what Natsu deserved.

An easy win that deflates the hype isn't a great mark for Natsu. Good fights are fights where the hero has to struggle, and overcoming the odds is why they're impressive. Retroactively telling me "oh yeah, Sting and Rogue suck, Natsu can take them on his own" is as much a disservice to Natsu as the rest of them. I'm not gonna go starry-eyed just 'cause you effectively tell me they were never a threat to the shining hero.

You know, I'm also kind of mad because this could've been one of those times where the anime changed things up. At least just a little. They extended and altered a couple fights in the first anime, but I have the distinct feeling that, judging by several other factors, Bridge was way less independent and more willing to swig the juice Mashima was serving than Satellite was.

#natsu dragneel #sting eucliffe #rogue cheney #gajeel redfox #writing criticism #anti natsu dragneel #anti hiro mashima

[yellowbluemoonshine]

Dabi & Toga’s Arc;

This is most likely an unpopular opinion buti think Dabi and Toga’s character arc/hero-villain interaction could’ve been written better.

Like, i love the whole speech between Toga and Ochaco, despite its flaws and the fact that it happenned in a few chapters (lol), it was till good with great art but at the same time, its weird for Toga to act like Ochaco is the only one who made her experience love. Romantic, plationic, doesnt matter, love is love. She experienced that love with league and i hoped Ochaco to make Toga realize that she already found love in league. Not in Ochaco. Dont get me wrong. I still think Ochaco’s acceptance matter in a different way than league but still, it would be nice to see both Toga and Dabi to give up on their obsessions for the sake of league/Shigaraki (since he is their hero). But instead, story gave them what they ‘wanted’. Like;

Do you want your dad to see you, Dabi? Let me give it to you. Let’s give your abuser a redemption arc, without properly adressing the flaws of society and every great point you made.

Do you want to be loved by Ochaco/Izuku, Toga? You bet, girl! Ochaco thinks you have the cutest smile and you found love with her and she even said she is gonna give her blood to you! Even though, Twice, Shiggy, league already did/do that for you and you found love with them but lets focus on yuri, togaochaco scenes.

My problem with this is that its like Dabi cant be saved without being seen by abuser and its like Toga didnt find love/bigger love with legaue than she has with Ochaco. Its like cheap writing to me because focusing on their inner world, adressing all that great speech about society and their familly bond would be harder. I wish story made those two force to choose between league and revenge/obsessions first, then make Shouto and Ochaco realize that they are family, then they can reach out to them. Not after their obsession accept their love, not because of that. Endeavour didnt need to be that important for Dabi’s story, it could be small part of it, without focusing on entirely on his acceptance and the love of league could be the main focus, instead of yuri interaction (i dont blame people for it, because author writes them in a weird way, whether make izuochaco canon or togaochaco after they become friends, not like this). (Not even mentioning Spinner/Shoji, Hawks/Twice and others).

Anyway, i think in both hero-villain interactions, story omitted a few important steps to make them get their current position. It could’ve/should’ve written better. I hope we get better writing with Shiggy-Deku.

#bnha 394 #bnha 395 #mha 395 #bnha analysis #toga himiko #dabi #todoroki touya #todoroki shouto #uraraka ochaco #writing criticism #endeavour #endeavor #todoroki enji #todoroki family #mha meta #unpopular opinion

[artemisphoebus]

I feel like my writing is very harsh in the way it describes everything, I have a feeling that it's got to do with my word choices. With me constantly using words that are somewhat cruel in its descriptors, like using old, and trodden down to describe a flower. Which is kind of juxtaposed to the fact I use words like, delicate and fragile in tandem with them. I feel like it comes off a little edgy(?) but not in the gory way because the things I'm writing about are rather light hearted and I've been trying to find a critique group to see what's the real reason but can't find any that aren't catered specifically to people already writing full length novels. I just want to find a small group that does critiques on each other's short stories or some forum or group I can post an excerpt on that someone can check out if they're interested.

#writing #writing advice #writing critique #writing criticism #writeblr #writers on tumblr #writerscommunity

[junos-office-drama]

Let's talk about concrit!

First, to be clear: I am against unsolicited concrit.

I have worked as both a professional writer and a professional editor. It has literally been my job to be open to and accepting of criticism, and to provide high-quality constructive criticism that helps other writers grow.

I understand how important objective criticism is for improving a writer's skill.

And I still think unsolicited concrit is unhelpful at best and harmful at worst.

But, let's pretend we're in a situation where fanfic concrit is appropriate.

(That situation being: The author has explicitly requested it.)

Here's are a few tips for providing concrit that will actually encourage an author and help them grow, specifically for scenarios where concrit is being provided via a comment (such as on a work on AO3) where the commenter doesn't already have a close/established relationship with the author:

The 10-Minute Rule

Perhaps you've heard of the 5-second rule for commenting on someone's appearance? "Don't criticize another person's appearance if they can't fix it in 5 seconds or less."

Basically: Food stuck in teeth? Toliet paper stuck to shoe? Tag showing? Fly is down? Gently, privately let them know. Bigger issues (like someone's weight, scars, acne, etc.) that cannot be fixed in 5 seconds or less should not be commented on.

For concrit via comments, I think there should be an equivalent 10-minute rule: "Don't criticize another person's already published material if they can't fix it in 10 minutes or less."

Basically: Typos? Weird phrases, spots of poor grammar, confusing sentences, etc.? Gently let them know. (Again, assuming a scenario in which the author has clearly asked for concrit.)

But bigger issues that require a partial or full chapter re-write -- or re-working multiple chapters? Coming from someone who is essentially a random internet commenter (especially if it's your first comment!), that's most likely going to result in the author feeling bad, frustrated, or defeated. Remember, a lot of authors write fics well in advance, so a major change in Chapter 5 might not just mean re-writing Chapter 5… it might mean major re-writes for 20+ unpublished chapters as well.

These deeper conversations belong between the author and someone they have built trust in (friends, long-time fans, beta readers, editors, co-authors, etc.), ideally before a work has been published.

Even if you have something helpful to say, you might not be the right person to say it. Think deeply about your prior relationship with the author. Do you know how they will react to challenging feedback? If you don't know the answer, you probably don't know the author well enough to deliver that type of feedback.

Positive vs. Negative Feedback

Supposedly the ideal praise-to-criticism ratio is 5:1, or basically 5 compliments are needed to balance out 1 criticism.

In other words, if you want your comment to be received as overall positive, you need to have most of your comment be complimentary.

Too often, I see "concrit" that is 90% or 100% criticism, and all I can think is -- what reason has this commenter given for the author to give their thoughts any weight? At that point, it can come across as if you hate what you're reading. And why should authors care what haters have to say about their works? What author thinks a hater is actually going to help them improve?

Remember, random internet commenter: The author doesn't know you at all, they can't see inside your head and discover whether you're loving or hating a fic, and they have no reason to listen to you at all unless you go out of your way to provide that reason.

Unless you've built up a relationship with them (ex: readers who comment on every fic and every chapter, and/or have previously engaged in lengthy discussions with the author), you're literally some internet rando. You need to prove your worth and good intent if you want your concrit to be taken seriously (or at all).

[If the idea that you need to prove your worth and good intent before you can deliver concrit makes you angry -- you shouldn't be delivering concrit to anyone, at all, ever, in any scenario. Even in a professional environment, when I am a writer's direct supervisor and they have to listen to my feedback because their job literally depends on it, I still feel it's a necessary step to establish my worth (at work, this is my skillset, past experience, and expertise) and good intent before I deliver any type of feedback.]

Now, I've heard a lot of authors say they hate the sandwich technique (compliment, criticism, compliment) because it's overdone and obvious, so I'm not saying you need to "sandwich" your criticism. It's totally fine to frontload your compliments (shove them all at the beginning).

Easy and effective compliments include:

I love how you described [character, thing, scene]

It was awesome when [thing] happened because it made me feel [emotion]

The interactions between [Character A] and [Character B] are amazing to read

You've really captured the essence of [Character]

HAPPY SQUEEING DONE IN ALL CAPS!! EEEEEE I LOVE THIS SO MUCH!

Quote a sentence or passage you enjoyed, and explain why you enjoyed it

Personal Preference vs. Authorial Intent

Too often, I see commenters claiming their feedback is "concrit" when it's really just a difference of opinion with the author. This is especially common with "concrit" that focuses on less on writing technique and more on plot, character relationships, character development, etc.

For example, anything along the lines of "instead of [X event] happening, it would have worked better if [Y event] happened instead."

Good concrit helps the author achieve their goal.

Do you know the author's goal? Do you know what story they're trying to tell? The mood and tone they're trying to achieve? The character relationships they're trying to develop? The direction they want the character development to go in?

Are they trying to stay compliant with canon, or are they purposefully breaking canon? Is it their intention for a character to be in-character, or is their goal to make them behave out-of-character? Is that actually a plot hole, or is the author leveraging an unreliable narrator?

If you don't know the answers to all of these questions, your "concrit" about the plot may just be a difference in personal preference -- and there's nothing constructive about that. Keep it to yourself, discuss with fellow readers in a private space (read: not the comments!), blog about it, etc., but don't share it directly with the author.

In many cases, the author may have made a plot or character choice that you disagree with because they are trying to achieve a specific goal, and your "concrit" is actually counterproductive to achieving that goal -- and it does not matter at all if you agree with the author's goal, because it's not your work. It's the author's work. They have ultimate, unilateral say on what the goal is.

Precision

Good concrit is specific, supported, and actionable.

For example: "You have some mispelled words" is not good concrit. Meanwhile, "I noticed you misspelled 'mischief' as 'mischeef' -- I think this might be a typo!" is good concrit. The author knows exactly what is wrong, why it's wrong, and how to fix it.

Here's another example: BAD: "The pacing is slow and boring." GOOD: "I noticed the pacing is a little slow in your opening paragraph, because you repeat several descriptions. For example, you say 'the children played happily in the field' in the second sentence, and 'the kids were frolicking joyously in the field' in the fourth sentence, but these convey the same information to the reader. If you had one or the other, this might tighten things up."

Once again, the "good" concrit explains what is wrong, why it's wrong, and how to fix it.

Remember: A list of everything you find wrong with a fic, without any clear action steps on how to fix them, is never concrit.

Word Choice

When delivering concrit, choose words that build authors up, not tear them down.

For example, I once had a reader who told me that something that happened in my fic "felt awkward and grade-schoolish."

They later explained that this was their attempt at "concrit."

It was not concrit. It was just crit. (Not even good crit; really just an insult.)

The actual concrit version of this is probably something like "I had trouble understanding the motivations of the two characters in this scene. I didn't notice any foreshadowing of [thing], so it felt like it came out of nowhere and it didn't seem to fit with the [Character A's] personality as it's been presented so far. Was this supposed to be a surprise that came out of left field, or was it supposed to feel like a natural development? If the latter, I'd be happy to point out some spots where foreshadowing might work."

(Notice this follows the earlier rule of precision: It describes what is wrong, why it's wrong, and provides a potential fix.)

When delivering concrit, choose words that are positive or neutral. If it sounds like an insult, it'll probably be taken as an insult. For example, calling something "grade-schoolish" in any context other than an author writing about a literal grade school is likely going to be taken as an insult.

Avoid words that have primarily negative connotations (things like: cringe, cringy, flimsy, cheap, gross, trite, childish, boring). Including insults in your concrit completely invalidates the "constructive" part.

Betas

If you are really, truly interested in helping an author improve and you think you have the skillset to do so, you can always volunteer to be their beta! This is a simple and easy statement: "If you're ever looking for a beta reader, I would love to be one."

Beta'ing is where the big fixes can and should take place -- finding issues with plot, pacing, character development, etc., before works are published.

In Conclusion

The truth of the matter is that good concrit is really, really hard to deliver -- it takes a lot of time, effort, and skill.

The harder truth is that the vast majority of readers are not equipped to provide high-quality concrit. So before you start typing out that "concrit," ask yourself:

Is this actually concrit, or am I just making a list of things I find wrong with the work?

Is this actionable feedback with clear, specific steps the author can take to improve their work?

Am I providing more compliments than criticism, so that my comment is more positive than negative?

Am I delivering the message in a kind and supportive manner, using neutral or positive terms, and careful not to include any phrases that might be taken as insult or put-down?

Can each of the identified points be fixed/resolved by the author in 10 minutes or less?

Do I fully understand the author's goal for this work? Is my feedback purposefully designed to help them better achieve that goal?

Really good concrit is a lot of work -- almost as much work as writing a fic (in some cases: more). Unless you're putting that level of time and effort into your concrit, it's probably not actually concrit.

And if you're ever unsure if an author wants concrit on a topic?

Ask.

Don't just deliver the concrit.

"Hey, I have some concrit regarding [topic], would you like me to share?"

Then respect the author's answer, even if it's not the answer you wanted to hear -- especially if it's not the answer you wanted to hear.

And if you're an author getting unsolicited, unwelcome "concrit"?

Try giving them "concrit" on their comments. I've started doing this, and I'm continually amused by the number of people who have no problem giving me "concrit" on a chapter I spent hours writing and editing, but who have total meltdowns when I give them "concrit" on the comment they spent 5 minutes slapping together.

But it has been highly effective at reducing how much unsolicited concrit I receive.

Happy writing!

#fanfiction #fanfic #concrit #constructive criticism #ao3 #unsolicited concrit #writing criticism #writing critique #fanfic comments #ao3 comments

[shyjusticewarrior]

Gotham writers: "That's a nice marginalized identity you got there, Oswald. Would be a shame if someone... called you a derogatory term for it."

#gotham #tv #dc #oswald cobblepot #canon queer characters #nygmobblepot #canon disabled character #lgbtq+ #gotham season 3 #rogues gallery #gotham season 4 #ed nygma #the riddler #show critical #writing criticism #the penguin #character appreciation #poor little meow meow #show commentary #media commentary #media criticism #media analysis #show analysis #scene analysis #cw homophobia #cw ableism #cw queerphobia #mlm characters

[crooked-wasteland]

Vivienne Medrano started her writing career on a comic by the name Zoophobia. A comic that lacked any sense of story whatsoever. While she would argue with comments about the lack of purpose by saying the story was Slice of Life, it was a forewarning of her future to come.

The story started with a concept of overcoming prejudice, but was quickly washed over with a bombardment of a large ensamble cast at the very start before introducing a whole separate but attached world that spun off into Hazbin Hotel. At no point actually finding a reason to care about the original premise of a prejudicial school counselor overcoming those qualities to help those around them that were substantially different from them.

Rather, Medrano has perpetuated the misnomer that Slice of Life is the same as storyless. And that's the greatest misunderstanding of a genre that can be achieved. Slice of Life being deemed meaningless time wasting as you look into the dull happenings of someone else's benign problems is a childish perspective.

Slice of life is the cornerstone of coming of age narratives like Grave of the Fireflies. For young adults, a slice of life mature story about what it means to grow up, or inner child healing, or how to move on would be a niche that could shape a generation for the better. Especially in our Era of the internet where most of us have spent more time learning socialization online.

Where people are stripped of their humanity and nuance, and tone is read into lettering on the cold blue light of a screen in the dark. Unless this little pixelated square and string of text makes me feel important by either agreeing with me and thus making me feel worth through their "support" for my beliefs or flatter me and validating my existence before disagreeing with my points, they are the villain of the second.

And especially being a show released at the height of a world trapped in quarantine, where all our sense of community and humanity came through a screen, Helluva Boss seemed to want to be a dark comedy that tackled the topics of damaged inner-children, relationship and abandonment trauma, self worth and moving on from past mistakes, and the complicated minefield of grey morality.

This is not mere conjecture either. Medrano has an outspoken love for shows like Bojack Horseman but lacks the understanding of why this absurd vision of slice of life was so emotionally and mentally profound to an entire generation of young adults. Medrano herself has liked sycophantic tweets comparing Helluva Boss to Bojack Horseman and subtly props herself on these pedestals alongside her idols despite not deserving of the comparison.

Blitz is the show titular Boss of the series and is very obviously a concept inspired by Bojack directly. Both Bojack and Blitz are performing artists, but while Bojack was immensely successful, Blitz was not.

Bojack's history is that of two abusive parents who had no love to spare for him. Instead, his only worth came in the form of performing. It was the only time he felt any ounce of love from his cruel mother, Beatrice, who used him as a means to elevate herself socially while simultaneously feeling any form of worth through the validation of strangers. Bojack is aware his mother was not a great parent, but he has a damaged inner child still desperate to get her approval and affection. Even though he genuinely hates her, he has a lingering empty maw within himself that begs for her love. Bojack suffers from a fear of loss.

When Sarah Lynn drinks his alcohol, he throws the hair dressed under the train to save himself. Despite his honesty having a high chance of being seen as the accident it was and excuses being made for him, Bojack was too insecure to recognize his protection through his popularity. He grew up with a mother who was the definition of conditional, and any small or large mistake could be the catalyst that took everything he had worked and waited for away.

Bojack's sabotaging of Todd also showsbthis fear of loss more blatantly. However, it lacks the understanding as to why Bojack would want to keep Todd near while also chronically putting him down. This is where the lack of understanding best shows between what Medrano thinks is happening and reality.

Blitz begins his story much the same way as Bojack. Instead of a slave driving mother profiting off her son, it's Cash Buckzo, Blitz's father and owner of a circus, who slave drives his children to perform. Blitz loves performing but is not deemed talented enough to be valuable. He has an implied sick, unseen mother who is treated as his motivation for complying with his father.

Medrano doesn't seem to realize that an external motivation lacks the emotional depth needed to have an audience empathize with the character. This is a repeated issue in every character.

Blitz isn't seeking a parent's approval but is instead held hostage by the desire to help someone else, and to do that must be submissive to an authority who has no care for him.

Stolas isn't at war with himself over cheating on his wife due to the fact that he is a gay man in an arranged straight relationship but instead is a victim in his own life. He is told what to do and how to do it by every other person in his life and doesn't have an internal sense of responsibility that he is contending with. He has no needs vs. wants. Instead, his wants are universal. To be loved is a base desire, and Medrano puts no effort into expanding on what that means for her character. Instead, utilizing the natural inclination in her audience to pretend there is depth in Stolas' conflict.

Loona is similarly a victim. She and Stolas are not fighting their own emotions, but the bullies contrived in the plot for them to confront. Her fault isn't her own insecurity that she must overcome. Rather, it is the fault of every other character for not coddling her insecurities due to her having a sad history. Actively fighting against the notion that people should ultimately be responsible for themselves.

This gives the impression of someone who believes a sympathetic past must justify one's behavior in the present. It's a blatant misreading of the idea that everyone has their own storm to navigate. The idea behind that saying is that you should be kind despite what you are going through because it is easy to believe you win the bad day Olympics when you're in the middle of it, not because someone else may be going or has gone through something worse.

Wrapping around, the Todd and Bojack relationship is a clear parallel to the Moxxie and Blitz relationship. But while Medrano uses the line "I'm hard on you because you can do better" as to why Blitz is a chronic asshole to his "friend", the writers of Bojack are not at all interested in justifying abuse. The reason Bojack ruined Todd's chance to leave can be seen as sympathetic because he is afraid of being alone and the loss that comes with that. But he isn't cruel or rude to Todd to make him better, rather it is the systematic disintegration of Todd's sense of ability and self worth to keep him codependent to Bojck and less likely to leave. It is only when Todd is away from Bojack that he actually comes into his true potential. The support of those around him telling him how badly Bojack treats him and instilling confidence in Todd to try things once again ultimately results in him escaping Bojack. It is a slow process for Todd to leave. He doesn't just walk away like it feels in the episode. Rather, he has spent seasons slowly becoming more and more distant from Bojack with new relationships and hobbies, even as Bojack tries to brow beat and insult him into complacency.

Instead, Medrano thinks things just happen from large, grand gestures and emotional beats. That a sad past is a free ticket to being an awful person who is accountable to no one. Much like the villain of Bojack Horseman.

#helluva boss critical #helluva boss criticism #helluva boss critique #vivienne medrano #vivziepop #helluva boss #spindlehorse criticism #spindlehorse critical #abuse survivor #narcissistic abuse #bojack horseman #vivziepop critical #vivziepop criticism #vivziepop critique #slice of life is not nothing #writing critique #writing criticism #characters need growth #these characters deserve better #zoophobia #bojack netflix #bojackthoughts #essay writing

[video-killer]

On Helluva Boss and crude humor.

Anyone who has watched Hazbin and Helluva can tell you that the shows are no stranger to foul language and sexual innuendo in their humor. This, of course, is a valid writing style: just look at South Park or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. However, both these more professional shows do not solely rely on sex and crass vocabulary to get a laugh out of the viewer. South Park features lengthy social satire and absurd, over-the-top situations which escalate from the most seemingly inconsequential of events, while Always Sunny relies on the dark comedy and absurdity derived from it's cast being reprehensible people and, once again, clever satire.

Helluva Boss and Hazbin, however, largely lack these, and jokes not centered around fornication, genitalia, or uttering profanity are relatively few and far between. Hazbin is significantly better with this, however, as it does have quite a few quality gags that don't rely on this, some noteworthy ones being Sir Pentious' expression of pure rage and matchingly over-the-top animation coupled with simplified doodle-like stills of Angel Dust and Cherri Bomb, Charlie shutting the door in Alastor's face, and the door of the hotel being blown off before Alastor can finish his reprise.

The bigger culprit of this uncreative crass humor is Helluva Boss, which, interestingly enough, is more recent and boasts its creator's personal writing skills more prominently.

An example of this is how Helluva Boss's favorite gag seems to be putting replica genitalia in unusual places, as they have used the joke at least four times as of episode 2-7. The issue here is not the joke itself but the fact that they have used it or a variant of it four times expecting a laugh, and that none of these have a set up or pay off; it's simply showing the audience brightly colored phallic images and expecting a laugh.

This mirrors the spoken jokes: the show simply has characters casually yell profanity or make sexual references and calls it comedy. Chaz's song, Stolas making an obnoxious number of sex jokes whilst being tortured, and Mammon doing nothing but curse throughout his episode all are examples of these non-jokes. And with each, there's either no setup to pay off in the first place, or the subversion element of the payoff falls apart quickly as the joke is repeated again... and again... and again.

And as such, the issue is not the foul language or crass humor in and of itself. It's the lack of an actual joke structure and overuse of similar gags, marks of poor writing and implicators of a lack of ideas. And really, that is the root of the majority of Helluva Boss's issues: lazy writing. And the poorly constructed jokes aren't the only area plagued by it. The main couple's lack of arc, the lack of characters growing and changing, the lack of payoffs, the lack of culpability for Stolas, the lack of complexity in villain motivation. All of these empty voids all are the products of lazy writing.

The writers want payoff without setup. And as they want people to laugh at their jokes without putting in the effort to build the framework, they also want people to feel sympathy for their main characters without giving them any real reason to.

And really, as of now, that's the biggest potential threat to the quality of Helluva and by proxy Hazbin: the creator wanting to skip past any setup and steamroll the plot to attain a desired payoff, sacrificing quality and complexity due to impotence and laziness.

The flaw of the comedy lies in the writing, and the flaw of the writing lies in indolence.

#helluva boss critical #hazbin hotel critical #hazbin critical #vivziepop critical #writing criticism

[ajthebumblebee]

Rule of thumb of when figuring out if a critique is of bad faith or not, is how much of a nitpicky fuck they are about it. If they take every single element of a story in the worst way possible, and try to conclude the original creator is a horrible person.

You can tell when someone went into something, wanting to hate it.

#criticism #writing critique #writing criticism #media literacy

[fgocriticisms]

#fate #fgo #criticism #writing criticism #Tungsuka spoilers

[fairytail-whathesays]

I think it'd be interesting if there were other Zodiac keys besides the 12 Golden Keys, solely for the sake of not having 10 out of 12 Golden Keys belonging to one character.

In the case of the Chinese Zodiac, there's 12 animals (13 if you count the cat) and 5 elements (fire, water, wood, earth, and metal). My idea for this set of keys would be 5 keys per animal, each having one of those 5 elements, for a total of 60 keys (65 if we're including the cat).

Personally, I'd give Lucy the Water Horse, Wood Snake, and Metal Dragon, and I'd give Yukino the Wood Rabbit, Earth Tiger, and Fire Rooster.

I've heard this sort of idea before, but I don't really think it cuts down on the core problem, which is one character just happening to stumble into 10 of the rarest keys on the planet. Turning 12 keys into 60 keys just makes them less rare rather than making Lucy feel like a genuinely cool wizard for the ones she does have.

She inherited Aquarius, Cancer, and Capricorn, and managed to find and contract Taurus on her own. By the end of the first arc, she has Virgo, has Sagittarius by the end of the third, and has three more by the end of the seventh arc, and the story's only half over. That's 2/3 of the golden keys before we even hit Edolas.

None of this really necessitates changing the keys or how many there are, but what would've helped might've been focusing more on silver keys. Mashima didn't really develop the gold keys that much, nor bother to make their powers all that impressive beyond Aquarius, Gemini, and sometimes Leo if you squint. We literally don't even know what Capricorn can do.

There are 88 constellations to choose from just in the IAU designated modern canon. Hell, if you wanted Lucy to take a more active role, you could've turned Crux from a literal cross that tells stories to a sword (a cross-shaped weapon). There's no reason for the celestial spirit we see by far the most of to have a rather anemic collection of silver keys while owning 90% of the super-rare Zodiac version.

#Lucy Heartfilia #writing criticism

[out-of-context-aro-ace]

You ever think of an allo thing you saw months ago but just couldn't get around?

I remember something I read where they're enemies and hate each other, but then the other one's mask comes off, maybe the first one took it off, and then suddenly !!! The first one doesn't hate the other anymore.

No, they didn't know each other.

A just liked how B looked and fell in love.

Is that how it works?

That sounds extremely superficial and not okay even by allo standards, doesn't it?

And, like, person B is just okay with it ??? And they decide to try dating.

What if B wasn't pretty, huh? That's not a good romance, right?

You know that writing advice "if your characters need to kiss for the audience to know it's a romance, then you haven't written a good romance."

It's the same here, right?

If it would have been a different story if they looked different, it can't be a romance, right? It's just superficiality

So uncomfortable

#aroace #aromantic #superficial #writing criticism #writing advice #writing romance #tw kissing mention #tw unhealthy relationship

[western-magical-girl-confessions]

“I think people might get mad at me for this, but I don’t really care. I need to say this: People need to understand the difference between a "redemption arc" and "redemption acts" when it comes to Chloe. I don't think Chloe was ever meant to redeem. All that "development" that we've seen from her before the S3 finale were "redemption acts", not a "redemption arc". Just think about it, besides Miss Bustier (the one that was the least hurt by Chloe doing the entirety of this, and that's only because she enables her), who has Chloe really truly apologized to for her behavior? 

If her mother had never been entered into the story, her "redemption arc" would've never been seen, and the only real reason why people even see it is that she has a "sad backstory". Chloe was always a bully who only did decent things SOMETIMES, not a girl who was developing. Chloe was always a character who only was interested in being "a good person" when it benefits HER, not anyone else. I really starting to think that the only reason why this “Chloe Redemption” thing came to be because of misconception coming from both the fans and the writers/Thomas. The writers/Thomas shouldn’t have given Chloe redeemable traits and a bad parent if they wanted to sell us the fact that Chloe was a bad person, and the fans shouldn’t assume things, be so entitled and hold such high expectations.” 

#chloe critical #chloe salt #anti chloe #anti chloe bourgeois #ml salt #mlb salt #fandom critical #fandom salt #writing criticism #miraculous #miraculous tales of ladybug and chat noir #miraculous ladybug #miraculous ladybug confessions #western magical girl confessions #confession 2313