I think the thing that pisses me off most aboutĀ āconstructive criticismā and all the people insisting that they have the right to give it, is that people donāt actually do it correctly for the media theyāre consuming. Like, as soon as they see itās allowed (or even regardless of whether people want it) they just... shit all over the piece of work.
Listen. This is a hobby. People do this for fun. A reader is a peer, not someone who is above them--they are not an editor or an agent. You know how you critique as a peer? You makeĀ āIā statements and offer explanation. If you find a huge problem, your fix is a specific suggestion. You make it clear that it is you, the viewer, having the problem, not the author, and you offer reasons so that they can apply it next time. And, above all, YOU ARE RESPECTFUL ABOUT IT.
āYou made [Character] so out of character!ā strikes much differently thanĀ āI found [character] to be out of character because of x, y, and z.ā
āYour writing style is blocky and hard to read.ā strikes much differently thanĀ āI struggled with the large blocks of text in this. I think it could stand a couple more paragraph breaks.ā
āYou tried to do something new and it sucks.ā strikes much differently thanĀ āI see youāve tried something new and am glad to witness you trying to branch out. Iām not entirely sure it was successful, but it was a pleasure to see you taking the chance to grow your skills.ā
I have kept thisĀ āI statementsā technique in mind all of my thirty years and it has never once steered me wrong. One of my writing teachers in college even mentioned how diplomatic I was and how receptive the other students were to my suggestions.
Of course, this is all in the case that constructive criticism is welcomed. If thereās no indication whether or not itās welcome, you have to fucking ask before you throw it into their inbox, and you have to respect when they say no. In that case, if you canāt say anything nice, donāt say anything at all.