Maybe I need to be forgiven for being this clueless, but what exactly is constructive criticism and what is not? This question is being asked with regards to the literary works that are being posted on Nairaland.

Even though it is a routine action for most of the writers here to add a 'constructive criticism is welcome' or 'constructive criticism is needed' note to the end of their updates anytime they update, which is surely a praise-worthy gesture, I'm still confused to what exactly is constructive criticism and how exactly is it done.

Hasn't the criticism of grammar or punctuation stepped out of the confines of constructive criticism? Does constructive criticism has to do only with ultra-technical subjects like the plot of a story or the development of it's characters? Is it still constructive criticism when one points it out that a writer made punctuation mistakes? Is it still constructive criticism when one points out the spelling mistakes of a writer? Is it still when one points out a writer's errors as perceived, one by one? What exactly is constructive criticism? These are some of the questions that really bother do bother me.

Then, how is it done? Is it being done the right way when one quotes the update of a writer in full and starts correcting every wrong they perceive?

Isn't it busy-body like of one to try to point out and re-point out the mistakes of a particular writer everytime one reads their works even the mistakes are made in trivial issues like spelling or punctuation?

I am really confused. I need help.

D9ty7
Larrysun
Standd
Divepen1
Thronekid
Kenwins
Mynd44
Stuff46
Candy
Princesa
Flow1759
Ishilove

Actually, all categories of critism are aimed at just one thing - making the recipient better.

Chew on that, Sir.

laykorn:
Maybe I need to be forgiven for being this clueless, but what exactly is constructive criticism and what is not? This question is being asked with regards to the literary works that are being posted on Nairaland.

Even though it is a routine action for most of the writers here to add a 'constructive criticism is welcome' or 'constructive criticism is needed' note to the end of their updates anytime they update, which is surely a praise-worthy gesture, I'm still confused to what exactly is constructive criticism and how exactly is it done.

Hasn't the criticism of grammar or punctuation stepped out of the confines of constructive criticism? Does constructive criticism has to do only with ultra-technical subjects like the plot of a story or the development of it's characters? Is it still constructive criticism when one points it out that a writer made punctuation mistakes? Is it still constructive criticism when one points out the spelling mistakes of a writer? Is it still when one points out a writer's errors as perceived, one by one? What exactly is constructive criticism? These are some of the questions that really bother do bother me.

Then, how is it done? Is it being done the right way when one quotes the update of a writer in full and starts correcting every wrong they perceive?

Isn't it busy-body like of one to try to point out and re-point out the mistakes of a particular writer everytime one reads their works even the mistakes are made in trivial issues like spelling or punctuation?

I am really confused. I need help.

Even though you did not tag me, I'll Give you my two cents.

First let's start with the bolded. It is only "busy-body" like if you have no intention of improving. Second, spelling and punctuation are not trivial. Who are you, and what have you done with laykorn?

Now...What is constructive criticism?

constructive criticism


noun

criticism or advice that is
useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions.

If one wants to improve, one will listen to constructive criticisms. Although I'm sure there are those who simply mean to degrade others by their comments, I believe most of those who criticize, here on NL, truly want to help writers improve.

Rather than propounding some half-baked explanations, I shall contend myself, in this regard, with pointing out baked explanations. I hope I would not be stepping on too many tails.

What is Constructive Criticism? No, I'm not going to bore you with an unnecessary explanation when it has already been explained by the great Texanomaly herself. But I reckon you will agree with me that constructive criticisms can be given only by constructive critics.

Who is a Constructive Critic? He is anyone painfully honest. He is a vicious butcher, plunging his grammatical knife into the bowels of a poor literary specimen. Like a carpenter, he jams the end of his hammer on the awkward joints of jarring clauses. He is the unkind pugilist that slams his knuckles on the temple of disabled syntax and crippled tenses. The constructive critic is the furnaced knife that cauterizes the bleeding wounds of grammatical nonsense.

The honest critic can be very raw; even sometimes cruel. The question is: Who really wants the constructive criticism? Are we not really entangling ourselves in our own verbal cobwebs? A piece of work blown into the court of a constructive critic may take a yoke of oxen to drag it out again unscathed. I say we should be careful of what coxcombries we wish for. Constructive criticism goes beyond the words of the tribes of Isreal who constantly praise Moses for performing wonders with a magical staff.

It is a pity to still discover that some of the writers who solicit for the so-called constructive criticisms only end up screaming foul at the slightest trimming of their hedges. The literary world would be better off without these acidulated sciolists and balderdashing decadents who are dizzy with their own intellectual altitude.

LarrySun:
Rather than propounding some half-baked explanations, I shall contend myself, in this regard, with pointing out baked explanations. I hope I would not be stepping on too many tails.

What is Constructive Criticism? No, I'm not going to bore you with an unnecessary explanation when it has already been explained by the great Texanomaly herself. But I reckon you will agree with me that constructive criticisms can be given only by constructive critics.

Who is a Constructive Critic? He is anyone painfully honest. He is a vicious butcher, plunging his grammatical knife into the bowels of a poor literary specimen. Like a carpenter, he jams the end of his hammer on the awkward joints of jarring clauses. He is the unkind pugilist that slams his knuckles on the temple of disabled syntax and crippled tenses. The constructive critic is the furnaced knife that cauterizes the bleeding wounds of grammatical nonsense.

The honest critic can be very raw; even sometimes cruel. The question is: Who really wants the constructive criticism? Are we not really entangling ourselves in our own verbal cobwebs? A piece of work blown into the court of a constructive critic may take a yoke of oxen to drag it out again unscathed. I say we should be careful of what coxcombries we wish for. Constructive criticism goes beyond the words of the tribes of Isreal who constantly praise Moses for performing wonders with a magical staff.

It is a pity to still discover that some of the writers who solicit for the so-called constructive criticisms only end up screaming foul at the slightest trimming of their hedges. The literary world would be better off without these acidulated sciolists and balderdashing decadents who are dizzy with their own intellectual altitude.

Ok now I'm dizzy

texanomaly:


Even though you did not tag me, I'll Give you my two cents.

First let's start with the bolded. It is only "busy-body" like if you have no intention of improving. Second, spelling and punctuation are not trivial. Who are you, and what have you done with laykorn?

Now...What is constructive criticism?

constructive criticism


noun

criticism or advice that is
useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions.

If one wants to improve, one will listen to constructive criticisms. Although I'm sure there are those who simply mean to degrade others by their comments, I believe most of those who criticize, here on NL, truly want to help writers improve.

Thanks Texanomaly!

Yes, I don't believe spelling or punctuation is trivial too. That's why my 'trivial' has not enough energy to stand straight.

Then, I don't understand the two emboldened questions you asked, ma.

LarrySun:

Who is a Constructive Critic? He is anyone painfully honest. He is a vicious butcher, plunging his grammatical knife into the bowels of a poor literary specimen. Like a carpenter, he jams the end of his hammer on the awkward joints of jarring clauses. He is the unkind pugilist that slams his knuckles on the temple of disabled syntax and crippled tenses. The constructive critic is the furnaced knife that cauterizes the bleeding wounds of grammatical nonsense.

The honest critic can be very raw; even sometimes cruel. The question is: Who really wants the constructive criticism? Are we not really entangling ourselves in our own verbal cobwebs? A piece of work blown into the court of a constructive critic may take a yoke of oxen to drag it out again unscathed. I say we should be careful of what coxcombries we wish for. Constructive criticism goes beyond the words of the tribes of Isreal who constantly praise Moses for performing wonders with a magical staff.

From your defintion, sir, I'm sure you would agree with me that being a constructive critic on somewhere like Nairaland without being pelted with stones of faeces is an ultra-tough task.

Would you prefer not to be a critic at all, than to be one, somewhere you aren't allowed to explore constructiveness to it's farthest boundaries?

thronekid:
Actually, all categories of critism are aimed at just one thing - making the recipient better.

Chew on that, Sir.

Do you mean that as a writer, you feel glad about all criticisms?

laykorn:


Do you mean that as a writer, you feel glad about all criticisms?

I do, Sir. I am very glad when it comes to being critiqued. I enjoy it.

thronekid:

I do, Sir. I am very glad when it comes to being critiqued. I enjoy it.

That's praise-worthy, thronekid.

Yes, this reminds me. Please remember to tag me in the subsequent poems you will be posting - if you will be posting any. And, thronekid, I reserve my harshest scolding for you if you fail to write more poems.

laykorn:


Thanks Texanomaly!

Yes, I don't believe spelling or punctuation is trivial too. That's why my 'trivial' has not enough energy to stand straight.

Then, I don't understand the two emboldened questions you asked, ma.

I was being facetious.

laykorn:


That's praise-worthy, thronekid.

Yes, this reminds me. Please remember to tag me in the subsequent poems you will be posting, if you will be posting any. And, thronekid, I reserve my harshest scolding for you if you fail to write more poems.

I'll do, Sir. I only look up to you in poetry.

Hello Laykorn. Did you get my reply to your mail?

IMO, CC is when you point out errors and then suggest ways to correct such errors or even help the writer correct them.
NOT pointing out errors and stopping there( it's even possible that the writer may not know how to correct such errors), or pointing out errors then insulting or denigrating the writer.

**
On davidflos current thread, LarrySun asked him to correct some errors but did not offer any help asides pointing out the errors. That's just criticism, not constructive criticism. I actually looked forward to seeing the corrections myself but what followed the whole thing was an eyesore.

LarrySun:
Rather than propounding some half-baked explanations, I shall contend myself, in this regard, with pointing out baked explanations. I hope I would not be stepping on too many tails.

What is Constructive Criticism? No, I'm not going to bore you with an unnecessary explanation when it has already been explained by the great Texanomaly herself. But I reckon you will agree with me that constructive criticisms can be given only by constructive critics.

Who is a Constructive Critic? He is anyone painfully honest. He is a vicious butcher, plunging his grammatical knife into the bowels of a poor literary specimen. Like a carpenter, he jams the end of his hammer on the awkward joints of jarring clauses. He is the unkind pugilist that slams his knuckles on the temple of disabled syntax and crippled tenses. The constructive critic is the furnaced knife that cauterizes the bleeding wounds of grammatical nonsense.

The honest critic can be very raw; even sometimes cruel. The question is: Who really wants the constructive criticism? Are we not really entangling ourselves in our own verbal cobwebs? A piece of work blown into the court of a constructive critic may take a yoke of oxen to drag it out again unscathed. I say we should be careful of what coxcombries we wish for. Constructive criticism goes beyond the words of the tribes of Isreal who constantly praise Moses for performing wonders with a magical staff.

It is a pity to still discover that some of the writers who solicit for the so-called constructive criticisms only end up screaming foul at the slightest trimming of their hedges. The literary world would be better off without these acidulated sciolists and balderdashing decadents who are dizzy with their own intellectual altitude.

What you have described here is mostly honest, blunt criticism. It may not necessarily or always be constructive. Sometimes its not.

See, in the process of pointing out mistakes be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. You may have to show the way too, or at least encourage the person to find the way, letting the person understand the wealth of experience he/she will gather along that route.

This method isn't easy and honestly not everyone has the time or is always in the mood to give such advice/ criticism. Its what many of our lecturers do too. Sometimes its due to the laziness or limited knowledge of the person doing the criticism.

This is a forum, be tough if thats your character, but don't break the spirit of the person putting himself or herself out there.

***********

OK. I see there is an underlying issue here. My post wasn't based on any of it. Just what you posted here.

standd:
Hello Laykorn. Did you get my reply to your mail?

Yes, I did. I'll wait till you are free. Other people care too much about decorum.

LarrySun:
Rather than propounding some half-baked explanations, I shall contend myself, in this regard, with pointing out baked explanations. I hope I would not be stepping on too many tails.

What is Constructive Criticism? No, I'm not going to bore you with an unnecessary explanation when it has already been explained by the great Texanomaly herself. But I reckon you will agree with me that constructive criticisms can be given only by constructive critics.

Who is a Constructive Critic? He is anyone painfully honest. He is a vicious butcher, plunging his grammatical knife into the bowels of a poor literary specimen. Like a carpenter, he jams the end of his hammer on the awkward joints of jarring clauses. He is the unkind pugilist that slams his knuckles on the temple of disabled syntax and crippled tenses. The constructive critic is the furnaced knife that cauterizes the bleeding wounds of grammatical nonsense.

The honest critic can be very raw; even sometimes cruel. The question is: Who really wants the constructive criticism? Are we not really entangling ourselves in our own verbal cobwebs? A piece of work blown into the court of a constructive critic may take a yoke of oxen to drag it out again unscathed. I say we should be careful of what coxcombries we wish for. Constructive criticism goes beyond the words of the tribes of Isreal who constantly praise Moses for performing wonders with a magical staff.

It is a pity to still discover that some of the writers who solicit for the so-called constructive criticisms only end up screaming foul at the slightest trimming of their hedges. The literary world would be better off without these acidulated sciolists and balderdashing decadents who are dizzy with their own intellectual altitude.

In summary:
Can you handle the truth?

If you can take a coconut thrown at you...
You can take it as Michael Jordan would or complain why a coconut was thrown at you.

Peace.

semitunde:


See, in the process of pointing out mistakes be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. You may have to show the way too, or at least encourage the person to find the way, letting the person understand the wealth of experience he/she will gather along that route.

Hi

firestar:


In summary:
Can you handle the truth?

If you can take a coconut thrown at you...
You can take it as Michael Jordan would or complain why a coconut was thrown at you.

Peace.

If you throw coconut at me, I will break it, get ijebu garri plus chilled water plus sugar and have a feast.

laykorn:


Yes, I did. I'll wait till you are free. Other people care too much about decorum.

Decorum is the way to go. I think you should consider others too.
Please.

standd:


If you throw coconut at me, I will break it, get ijebu garri plus chilled water plus sugar and have a feast.

Ah, the benefits. But first you have to catch it or dodge.

firestar:


Ah, the benefits. But first you have to catch it or dodge.

Anyone who throws 'coconuts' at me is actually doing me a favour.
Will you throw coconuts at me, dear firestar?

standd:

Decorum is the way to go. I think you should consider others too. Please.

I will, then. Maybe you don't know it's actually very short, standd.

standd:


Anyone who throws 'coconuts' at me is actually doing me a favour.

Will you throw coconuts at me, dear firestar?

Will you prefer it being 'passed', 'tossed', or 'thrown'? It's all about perspective.

Waiting.

standd:


Hi

Hey.

standd:
IMO, CC is when you point out errors and then suggest ways to correct such errors or even help the writer correct them.
NOT pointing out errors and stopping there( it's even possible that the writer may not know how to correct such errors), or pointing out errors then insulting or denigrating the writer.

**
On davidflos current thread, LarrySu n asked him to correct some errors but did not offer any help asides pointing out the errors. That's just criticism, not constructive criticism. I actually looked forward to seeing the corrections myself but what followed the whole thing was an eyesore.

What's IMO?

firestar:


Will you prefer it being 'passed', 'tossed', or 'thrown'? It's all about perspective.

Waiting.

Please you can toss it, throw it or bounce it on my head on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/2039960/crimson-webs-collection-poems

Thank you
I will be waiting for you, whenever you get the chance to visit.

laykorn:

What's IMO?

Imo state, Nigeria.

** In My Opinion.

semitunde:


What you have described here is mostly honest, blunt criticism. It may not necessarily or always be constructive. Sometimes its not.

See, in the process of pointing out mistakes be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. You may have to show the way too, or at least encourage the person to find the way, letting the person understand the wealth of experience he/she will gather along that route.

This method isn't easy and honestly not everyone has the time or is always in the mood to give such advice/ criticism. Its what many of our lecturers do too. Sometimes its due to the laziness or limited knowledge of the person doing the criticism.

This is a forum, be tough if thats your character, but don't break the spirit of the person putting himself or herself out there.

***********

OK. I see there is an underlying issue here. My post wasn't based on any of it. Just what you posted here.

I agree with this, semitunde. One should be careful not to strangle life out of the spirit that keeps the work owners gingered, all in the name of criticism.

semitunde:

Hey.

You rock sir

Thumbs up!

standd:


Please you can toss it, throw it or bounce it on my head on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/2039960/crimson-webs-collection-poems

Thank you
I will be waiting for you, whenever you get the chance to visit.

I love this! She's probably the only one on Nairaland who can play with you, the game of tossing big big coconuts at each other on that thread.

Rebel poet meets guerilla poet.

Firestar, please grace that thread for God's sake.