kdpierre:
Now, I'm not advocating nastiness, especially if it's nastiness for nastiness' sake, but I don't see why every public venue needs to be a 'safe space'? When I was getting my Master's in Fine Art, we did "crits". And let me tell you, they could be BRUTAL. BUT......they served a purpose! They were meant to challenge one's work to make each new effort better.
So what do you all think? Does the safe treatment apply once someone decides to publish? Does avoiding criticism help anyone?
Unless criticism of writing is point-blank mean-spirited ("Learn to write, asshole!"), I believe it's useful, whether supposedly constructive or even rather negative. Of course, while I'll generally acknowledge his/her commentary to the commentator in a pop-up, that doesn't necessarily mean that I will adjust my fiction in response to it. Obviously, I'm figuring that most writers (including myself) are more likely to react positively to constructive criticism, as opposed to what could be interpreted as merely complaints about not writing to someone else's specifications.
Some comments which may be intended as somewhat negative don't necessarily strike me that way:
"The strict disciplinary treatment of the male protagonist by his aunt is extremely inequitable, relative to how permissively she treats his cousin, her daughter." (Thank you, that's what I intended.)
"Miriam must have blistered Paul's behind hundreds of times over the decades, when will he turn the tables and get to spank her for a change?" (Ummmm, he won't, their CP relationship is totally one-sided, which is how they both prefer it.)
However, I do find much of the criticism I receive to be valuable, especially if/when it helps me realize that I'm not achieving the effect that I'm hoping for in portraying a particular character or situation.
As for what kind of comments an author will receive, as that old ungrammatical saying goes, "You pays your money and you takes your chances..." --C.K.