You know, except when people either personally ask for that advice specifically. Enter a creative writing contest, or anything that invokes competition and begs to be critiqued for such a thing specifically. Or, perhaps how literally every single writing/literary agent works, when it comes to endless revisions required to getting one's writing published. Then, it benefits the writer significantly. But sure, all other times, no reason to rewrite things whatsoever. ^-^'

(Or when you're writing a fan fiction, because hey guess what, that's rewriting/changing someone's established 'voice/cannon' and making it your own. And that's okay too.)

Professional editors generally don't edit someone's prose to fit their own wants. Professional editors generally focus on grammatical or stylistic errors that are unambiguously bad form, spelling errors, misuse of semicolons, that sort of thing. When they're not, they ask the author questions about their choices rather than simply correcting them without author input, and those corrections generally aren't based on the editor's preference or making something "better", they're based on making the text more appealing to a target audience, removing slang that a target audience might not understand and such.

Fanfiction isn't rewriting someone's established voice? That's like saying every time someone uses Dracula they're rewriting Bram Stoker, or every time someone uses Sherlock Holmes they're rewriting Arthur Conan Doyle. Fanfiction is using someone else's creations to tell your own story, it's not at all "rewriting someone else's voice", that's absurd.

This sentiment could easily boil down to "the author can never be wrong/all writing quality is subjective."

I'm going to let you in on something, when it comes to storytelling? There is no objective quality. Sure, grammar and punctuation have objective quality, but the story itself has no objective quality. Your opinion on a story is never the objective truth no matter how highly you may think of yourself. An objective truth is "This text is white", if you brought an uncontacted tribe to my screen and taught them English, they would say this text is white, it's objective, nobody can argue that this text isn't white, quality of writing is not objective no matter how popular an opinion is. It's not a sentiment to say that all writing quality is subjective, it's objective truth.

But all suggestions can either be taken with sheer hostility and ignored. Or they can be evaluated and worked upon. (And I can tell you the latter makes you more successful in every avenue and medium.)

If quality was objective this would be true, but quality is subjective, so suggestions are based entirely off of opinion, and the author doesn't have any more obligation to listen to your opinion than the president does, in the end it's not your call, and many pieces of fiction are better because the creator didn't listen to criticism that didn't match their vision, and many pieces of fiction are worse because they did. Tvtropes has an entire page of this called "It will never catch on" of criticism that was roundly ignored and proven entirely incorrect once the work came out.

And, tell me this...

How can you critique anyone's writing choices whatsoever, when you aren't allow to seek or offer a change?

You're allowed to, but nobody is under any obligation to listen to you, and if you present those criticisms in an impolite way, say completely rewriting their work in your own style without their permission and saying yours is the superior piece, then they're far, far less likely to care what you have to say.

Also, "Laugh off your critics" is bad advice too. To anyone who needed to hear that. :D

And speaking of funny and relevant.

"Did members of your writer's group take their valuable time to read your work with a critical eye? Well how dare they give their wrong opinion!"

Also, "Laugh off your critics" is bad advice too.

I dunno, sometimes critics can be fucking hilarious.

Professional editors generally don't edit someone's prose to fit their own wants.

Okay, so professional means publishing right? Since nothing else fits the bill for that word. So I'm guess that's the story you're sticking to.

But that's not true at all when it comes to publishing. You will have editor ask you to change characters, events, erase entire lines or paragraphs. Add thousands more words here or there. (Something I do know from a friend's personal experiences.)

There's a minor note in this YouTube video here where someone goes through the processes of what happens when you go through publishing. Where seemingly unnecessary edits were offered akin to "This story takes place in this city, let's change it to this one instead."



Good video, and worth watching to anyone passing by.

Fanfiction is using someone else's creations to tell your own story, it's not at all "rewriting someone else's voice", that's absurd.

To you and to me maybe, sure. But don't think for a second that all authors think the same way. Hence why some get angry and pissed at people writing fanfiction about their works. For reasons that are basically argued as soiling their original property.

I'm going to let you in on something, when it comes to storytelling? There is no objective quality.

I fundamentally disagree. And that's just wrong. Yes, in the most general sense, the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I suppose. But saying all writing is subjective, has and will always be used as a defense for laziness. And it only comes across as a slap in the face to those that put effort into their work to make it as polished as possible.

The author doesn't have any more obligation to listen to your opinion.

Sure. Who said they do? But it goes a long way when you don't assume every piece of criticism is personal or bad faith.

Many pieces of fiction are better because the creator didn't listen to criticism that didn't match their vision. Tvtropes has an entire page of this.

Cherrypicking. And honestly, the reverse is not only true. Frankly there's many, many more examples in T.V, movies and games in recent memory, where fan reactions/concerns have been proven entirely correct.

If you present those criticisms in an impolite way, say completely rewriting their work in your own style without their permission.

Good thing that's usually never done, eh? Since, most of that advice is solicited to begin with. Whether to whom is made to read it, or where it gets posted. (Context matters after all.)

Or to erase the already razor thin border of subtly, it's also far more likely that this "failure of permission" was a post in a writing contest where anyone with sense, would expect their writing would (and I argue should) get thoroughly evaluated and critiqued. Take critique how you want.

I'll ask you the same question, since you clearly accidentally left it out.

Why is "your sentences are complicated and vague" more helpful and acceptable to say, than "Your sentences complicated and vague, so if you don't mind, let me provide you potential solutions as to precisely what I'm talking about."

In both cases, the person giving said advice, is asking the author to change their original work. Likely to make the author's sentences more clear and concise. So assuming both people are doing that in good faith. Where one often gives no examples and provides no solutions. And the other does so. Is the first better because...they put less work into their giving their advice? Is it nicer to leave an author clueless on what the former even wanted? Simply because it there's the chance it will hurt one's feelings a little less, from the sheer lack of context for them to dwell on?

Again. All ears.

This sounds like you're playing the role of a mind reader.

I just calls them like I sees them. It is my subjective opinion that people who rewrite swathes of other people's works (without being asked to) in, say, friendly creative writing contests on the internet are people with no awareness of how constructive criticism works in the real world. I stand by my point: they are bad at critique.

As @bluetommy has succinctly put it, this is not the same as the editing process with a professional editor, who is there to provide suggestions on changes that can be made – in a technical sense, and in an overview. The writer can take it or leave it, obviously knowing that if they don't push the edits as far as their editor wants, they may have to hunt around for another publishing company. I don't think any editor would literally rewrite paragraphs in their own style because that defeats the purpose of publishing an author's own authentic creation.

But even if they did, there's a difference between having someone qualified do it - someone who has an understanding of the craft and knows more than how to do superficial analysis - than some schmuck on the internet doing it, you feel me? That's why it's bad writing advice when it comes specifically from the Internet.

(Or when you're writing a fan fiction, because hey guess what, that's rewriting/changing someone's established 'voice/cannon' and making it your own. And that's okay too.)

Fanfiction =/= the original work. This is a false dichotomy. I have seen some young writers copy out scripts of movies in their fanfiction, sure, but by and large it's people writing in their own voice, just in someone else's universe. They aren't trying to 'correct' the actual style and cadence of the author, which is something specific to a single person.

This sentiment could easily boil down to "the author can never be wrong/all writing quality is subjective."

This but unironically. All writing is subjective. Like art.

Because, just perhaps, not everyone that critiques or offers personal advice is thinking "how can I feed my ego today". But does it, in order to help someone get better. (Or at the very least, get them to understand a different perspective.)

And, tell me this...

How can you critique anyone's writing choices whatsoever, when you aren't allow to seek or offer changes?

Because all critique and advice does this. With literally every example you can think of. You are looking, or expecting someone to update something.

No one is saying that you cannot suggest changes. Indeed, I mention in my own post that you can point out technical issues, that you can make comments on plot and structure and anything else you want in a critique. The problem comes from literally rewriting the words an author uses to express themselves and saying it would be better –– because nine times out of ten, the author's authentic voice is a better fit for their own work than a stranger's.

And even if you could write it better, it's unforgivably rude to say or imply otherwise, and that's what rewriting does. It also doesn't help a person grow?

Point out the problem, suggest a fix – or better yet, multiple fixes – but don't write the actual fix out in your own words, dude, jesus christ.

So for example, why is "your sentences are complicated and vague" more helpful and acceptable to say, than "Your sentences complicated and vague, so if you don't mind, let me provide you potential solutions as to precisely what I'm talking about."

First of all, a crucial difference here in your example from the type of people that I am complaining about: "if you don't mind". If someone has asked beforehand for this specific kind of bad writing advice? Absolutely, that's fine.

But we both know why this particular example of bad writing advice niggles at you so, and I'd be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Also once more, providing solutions is not the same as rewriting parts of the piece. Any creative writing workshop could tell you that.

In both cases, the person giving said advice, is asking the author to change their original work. Likely to make the author's sentences more clear and concise. So assuming both people are doing that in good faith. Where one often gives no examples and provides no solutions. And the other does so. Is the first better because...they put less work into their giving their advice? Is it nicer to leave an author clueless on what the former even wanted? Simply because it there's the chance it will hurt one's feelings a little less, from the sheer lack of context for them to dwell on?

My edits to fix up grammar and sentence structure:

"In both cases, the person giving said advice is asking the author to change their original voice. This could be to make the author's sentences more clear and concise, or remove comma splices, or erase unnecessary sentence fragments. So, assuming both people are doing that in good faith – where one often gives no examples and provides no solutions and the other does so – is the first better because they put less work into giving their advice? Is it nicer to leave an author clueless on what the former even wanted, simply because there's the chance it will hurt one's feelings a little less from the sheer lack of context for them to dwell on?"

Unironically, no-one brought hurt feelings into it. People who rewrite bits of text as advice are assholes, yes, but it's not because doing so is hurtful. It's because they generally have no idea what they're talking about in terms of the more 'advanced' techniques of writing – those being nebulous things like style and voice unique to individuals.

I fundamentally disagree. And that's just wrong.

What is the objectively best story ever told or the objectively best way to tell a story?

Evaluation and critic is one thing, but I don't think they when someone submits a post or work of art they're expecting someone to go in and re-word and re-write their stuff. They might seek help in the sense of grammatical errors or syntax, but to go in and just change it up because that's what you want to see. That's just fucking rude. Just saying.

I just calls them like I sees them. People who rewrite other people's works (without being asked to) in, say, friendly creative writing contests on the internet are people with no awareness of how constructive criticism works in the real world. I stand by my point: they are bad at critique.

Unironically, no-one brought hurt feelings into it. People who rewrite are assholes, yes.

But we both know why this particular example of bad writing advice niggles at you so.

Hey, look your mind reading again.

Pray tell. If no one took a person's critique personally. Why would someone like you feel the need to make ad-hom attacks exactly?

And ironically, this almost proves my point. (In that someone is flat out stating something, that has no example offered, or elaboration on why it's so bad.) But, I digress.

So, before you had to bring it up the second time. When I wanted to be nice and shrug the obvious cheap shot off. I was weighing on questioning precisely what you think critique is meant to do. When you posted right under my review, "Long review is bad. Because it's not friendly."

Well, here's the thing.

Critique isn't friendly. It's not fun to hear. No matter how lighthearted and filled with sorry's one makes it. Because people can utterly freak out regardless. Or act like you, and attack someone's method regarding their own preconceived flaws on what was said. When here's the dirtiest truth of them all, it's only meant to help and offer suggestions for improvement. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, providing every detail of not only what you liked, why you liked it, what you didn't like, why you didn't like it, what was actually wrong, and friendly suggestions to improve, is not, nor will it ever be "bad critique". And because I *do* know what I meant. And many people who appreciate it, knew it wasn't "to feed an ego".

No one is saying that you cannot suggest changes. The problem comes from literally rewriting the words. The author's authentic voice is a better fit for their own work than a stranger's.

Nothing is stopping an author from explaining that themselves then. And better yet, taking one's rewritten words, going "Hmm. Okay, how do I take that advice, and then make it my own?"

Because, I don't believe anything is perfect. If I fuck up in writing or critique, the more specific you are, the better it is to me.

And the total reverse of you claiming "suggestions to fix sentences are always bad". Isn't useful to me at all. Because it provides me no wiggle room to grow as a critic. Something that everyone should work to improve upon.

And let's cut to the "bring me down" chase, and say I've had many PM from people I've critiqued/advised in the exact same way, and thank me for how clear I was. So, don't tell me that it can never work. Because I know it can, and does help people. Especially, those who can actually assume one's good faith.

And, cherry on top. If the author is allowed to have a voice that is unquestioned in their method, breaking any rule that suits them.

Well, why can't the critic or the reader be allowed to have their own methods of review, that may even be different from how someone else tells them "the right way to offer help"?

---

TLDR: Let's be honest. What you take offense to is up to you. But just maybe, it helps to give people the benefit of the doubt.

And no, giving someone your opinion of potential better sentences. Isn't "being an asshole". When the person is doing it with the intention to help you improve. And it's far more likely that you can't accept critique. Because good writers, will ask follow up questions to their fellow writers/critics, if their goal is to improve. If not, then even sheer dismissal, is still far better than blindly lashing out.

I think I remembered the worst writing advice I was ever given. There's no such thing as comma splicing so just use commas like you're throwing ones at a strip club.

What is the objectively best story ever told or the objectively best way to tell a story?

Can writing be bad?

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

Can writing be bad?

dude yes

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

Can writing be bad?

Yes it can. But something I think is bad might be good to someone else. That's how this works. Now please answer the question.

Evaluation and critic is one thing, but to change words up just because that's what you want to see. That's just fucking rude. Just saying.

What if...it's not for the critic's benefit. But meant to benefit the writer?

Is it really the same thing? Does context not matter at all when it comes to providing critique?

I mean, I'm hearing arguments for why you can tell someone what to change, and why they should change it.

But the mere horrifying act, (of walking the walk) and providing examples of the former things, is the one true sin?

---

So, "Your writing is slowly paced" is fine.

Even saying. "You should cut all this unneeded shit out, because it's making this one topic drag." is a-okay.

But, do it for them, merely to express how one *can* go about fixing their work? (If they so happen to agree with what you said.) Fucking rudest shit I've ever seen.

I guess?

Yes it can. But something I think is bad might be good to someone else. That's how this works. Now please answer the question.

Subjective opinion and objective quality are two different things.

You are conflating the two by strawmanning my position.

And not to steal from Jim Sterling. But, There is no "perfect story". There are only "perfect stories". So my answer depends on what you're looking for, now doesn't it?

<Snipped quote by KZOMBI3>

What if...it's not for the critic's benefit. But meant to benefit the writer?

Do you think a critic knows better than the person who made the thing they are criticizing. Generally. I'm sure there's some specific cases where William Shakespeare told Thomas Middleton "hey you should do this in iambic pentameter, trust me, everyone's gonna not give a shit about that in the future" but the point of critique isn't to tell the writer/director/whatever what you would do and why it would be better because it's what you would do. That's stroking the ego and it's really no different than people who watch a movie and go "Pfft, I could write a better movie than that!" and then they can't. There's a reason published critique doesn't have the critic going "I didn't like this book but if the author used more page space to talk about the food in detail I would've loved it and it would've been better because I'm George R. R. Martin and I know best."

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

Subjective opinion and objective quality are two different things.

You are conflating the two by strawmanning my position.

And not to steal from Jim Sterling. But, There is no "perfect story". There are only "perfect stories". So my answer depends on what you're looking for, now doesn't it?

I'm not strawmanning anything. You disagreed that there was an objective quality to story telling. You cannot provide any example of the objective best way to tell a story because it doesn't fucking exist because when discussing art - which writing absolutely is - objective criticism is meaningless. People need to stop trying to make 'objective' the new normal when discussing things. Objectively, your post from 28 minutes ago is structured poorly. Subjectively it's a quality post because it made me fucking cackle and shit myself.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

Subjective opinion and objective quality are two different things.

You are conflating the two by strawmanning my position.

Objective quality doesn't exist when it comes to a story.

Objectivity means something that is true no matter what perspective it is seen from. A red delicious apple is red, this is objective. A red delicious apple is delicious, this is subjective.

There is no such thing as objective quality in art because quality lies in the eye of the beholder.

It's not that hard to understand

Even grammar and typography, which you would think would be the most objective things to highlight in criticism have stylistic differences that professional typographers commonly debate upon depending on time period, publication, etc. You can try to be without biases in a critique, but the critique will still be mired in subjectivism.

Do you think a critic knows better than the person who made the thing they are criticizing.

Not necessarily, which is why I always eagerly and happily expect the good authors/writers, to follow through on anything a critic might have missed. Especially if it's specifically on a writing forum. ^-^

But sometimes? Yeah, the author does need someone to step in and go "hey, maybe don't do that." If you think that's wrong, you have no idea the process most writers go through.

And truthfully, writers are often the worst at judging their own merits. For better or for worse.

You disagreed that there was an objective quality to story telling.

Uh...no. No, I didn't do that. That was the other person.

You cannot provide any example of the objective best way to tell a story.

Objectively, your post from 28 minutes ago is structured poorly.

Is this a "your an idiot" kind of ironic example of making the very same mistake within a critique? Where you meant, "I disagreed that there's subjectivity to quality? If so, that's still not correct. I conceded on a personal level, the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Also, from the very moment that this was posted, this already had the issue of being dated. (Because I've posted so much now, that I can't honestly tell which one that you're describing. (INB4, lul them all.)

But duly noted, regardless. I did my best to make my reply's of "you're an asshole, because I thought so." a little more...substantive let's say.