BootsnAll Travel Community

One thing the recent debate on 'Don't Go To Berlin' has raised is the general issue of criticism, expecially constructive or destructive. I agree with jedi that there is little point in having a forum where everyone pats the back of everyone else; on the other hand, there is the other extreme, destructive criticism, that people need to pay attention to closely.
If BNA wants to be taken seriously, then it must accept that criticism is a vital factor in helping the writer, even star writers. They too, can do wrong, and it is helpful for some people to point this out, and to indicate where they may be doing something wrong (in their eyes, of course)
I am not going the way of the moderators by saying anyone has been trying to flame anyone in recent threads; it is important not to confuse flaming with ill-considered criticism. My first reaction to many articles is 'what a load of rubbish', but then I have to ask myself why I don't like it, and if I think the writer has talent and can improve it, I try to encourage and at the same time point out where I think he or she might be going wrong.
We are all critics, and it is much easier to criticise than it is to create, we have to bear that in mind before we launch off into an invective against a piece of work. Saying something is no good is not helpful.You have to say why you think it no good without resorting to destruction. On the other hand, it is equally unhelpful to a writer to be always told how brilliant he is. One of the first adages about teaching is never give your star pupil an A straight away. It gives them the impression they can walk it, and this is not a way forward.
Anyone can write. Very, very few people can write well. What makes them write well is hard work, as well as that indefinable thing we call talent, and part of that hard work is perserverance, in other words making mistakes and learning from them.
If you wish to criticise an article constructively, you must:
point out its good points, but without gushing. Good is usually enough, very good only if you think very highly of it, and excellent should be used very sparingly.
This is awful critisicsm:
"I loved that article so much because its description of the valley was awesome and I thought that the moment where the guy threw up was absolutely hilarious, and when the ostrich ran toweards the man, you could hear my guffaws all the way to Reykjavik, and my, my, the bit about the sea was so beautiful I practically wept with joy, and signed myself in to the local lunatic asylum because I thought I would go mad with joy." (Don't worry, moderators, I made it up)
Obviously, I am exaggerating to make a point, but I think most people can see quite clearly that this is not constructive criticism, it's a eulogy. And think what that does to the writer. Nothing. It teaches him nothing, he can't develop anything except his own ego.
Yes, I understand the desire for people to share in their happiness with a particular article, but that's not the point I am making here. By all means say: I loved this, why don't you read it, and leave it at that. (I've done it myself on more than a few occasions here) But constructive critisicm is not praise, but praise where praise is due.
So, now how to point out the points you think are weak. This is a tricky thing to illustrate without using examples from the board, and of course I then run the risk of garnering the wrath of over-protective people who want to keep the atmosphere all good, clean and fine. I, like anyone who wants to make a point, am very happy the atmosphere on this website has remained, on the whole, warm as well as lively, a very difficult balance to maintain, incidentally, but I do think certain people are going too far in trying to protect it.
A star writer has a tendency to over indulge in flailing, or striving for effect, for example. All this means is less of it, not that you should cut it out altogether. Actually, less is more - how much more devastating, ironical, etc., your wit becomes when you ration this. You point this out, rather than saying it's rubbish, or not up to standard.
Or, you think the writer is is making unfounded remarks about the place you love. Nothing wrong in trying to point out where you disagree with him, without getting too personal. "I don't think you're being at all fair about people in Ulan Bator; I think they're much more hospitable than you say." OR: "I found Tokyo to be lively, dynamic and interesting. Others of course might find that all a bit trying on the nerves and suffer from a little culture shock."
Another writer has a tendency to overuse participle clauses. Now, it doesn't matter if you don't know what participle clauses are, you can give an example of one in the text, and say that there are too many of these - or, conversely, not enough participle clauses.
A writer doesn't go deeply enough, for your tastes into a description of how he did battle with a cobra, and in general you find the article or story too shallow: 'there's a lot of potential in the bit about the cobra, he could have expanded on that more, and left out all those people at the cocktail party he met afterwards, as they don't really add to the story.' Now, maybe my tone is slightly patronising, but I'm trying to give examples, not models, and so you can take whatever approach you like as long as its constructive.
Now, what if you hate, absolutely hate something, and you want people to know about it? "Rubbish" is hardly a start. (Though, here I am a hypocrite: I laid into the Da Vinci Code in much the same way on a thread here) Remember, that this kind of criticism is an art. Very few people can do it. If you really didn't like it, then either say so in as tactful a way as possible, ('it's not my type of thing', would be a good way of putting it, or even 'I was disappointed by this because I felt the author did not engage properly with' .... etc) or write your vitriol direct to the editors; this is not a humiliation thread.
A classic example of fine "hate" criticism is Alexander Walker's film review of 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' on Yahoo UK.
To reiterate, we are all critics, and it is much easier to criticise something than to create.
I am sorry if I have been sounding like I am selling sand to the Arabs, or taking coals to Newcastle, teaching Grandmums to suck eggs, etc., but I feel that if BNA wants people to take it seriously, then a lively critical forum is essential.

Thanks for your thoughts makrotantalo and slip. As I've stated before, yes, we do like to lean toward the side of 'encouragement' as there is nothing more painful than getting something published for the first time, only to have the author feel like s/he is ripped to shreds for the piece s/he was so proud of only moments before.

However, that does not mean that criticism is not welcome or even appreciated. As Slip mentioned, it is drawing the distinction between attack of the articles and attack of the author that can be so difficult. I only ask that people take into consideration that there will be an author struggling with this line as well when the reviewer writes out his or her opinions. With my own writing, I have found myself to be my toughest critic, so I am usually very accepting of any placed upon me.

There are a number of professional, established, paid writers that submit to BootsnAll and/or are on these boards. If they would like to give their opinions on feedback through the years, I'm sure it would be much appreciated.