Why I Care About How Other People Write
I care about writing. I care about the craft of it, and I don't see it simply as a means to an end. Writing is not about arriving at the end product, the novel or blog post or scholarly article, as efficiently as possible. It's about self-expression and -edification, and learning to hone the skills of communication, exposition, and persuasion. Whether or not someone personally cares about the artistry of it, writing is an art, just as painting remains an art whether or not I care about it when I haphazardly slap paint onto a canvas for no other reason than to pass the time.
Not everyone who writes has to particularly care about writing, but I am someone who does. I care about the craft and the self-expression of it. Neither is more important than the other, and writing is utterly pointless without both. Attempts by writers to criticize each other are, in my mind, something to be encouraged, because criticism is far more valuable than praise could ever be.
There is, however, a widespread and enduring misconception online that offering criticism of a creative pursuit is inherently wrong, tantamount to an attempt to silence its author. A good example recently made its way up Bear's trending feed, a post by PseudoSingleton that serves as a castigation against a post by Why do I write this? pleading with bloggers to "learn how to write." I do not think Pseudo's post is particularly fair or constructive.
Though I try avoid quoting the bulk of a post when I respond to it, Pseudo presents their arguments in a very short-form way without much elaboration, so quoting almost the whole thing is necessary for a complete picture:
There have been several posts on here lately lecturing people on how to write and on literacy.
I’m throwing my own dumb opinion into the fire here and saying: cut it out. Stop that.
Mind your own business! There is no “correct” way to write.
These are personal blogs with people’s own thoughts. People are presenting their thoughts how they want, not how you want. Stop policing the internet, you dorks.
There is no one single way to write, and all you’re doing is making people more hesitant to write.
In short order, Pseudo inadvertently walks through the highlights of why the Internet's fixation on toxic positivity, or the baseless dismissal of criticism as inherently destructive, is not a tenable perspective.
First and foremost, Pseudo insists that "lecturing people on how to write" is an attempt to "police the internet," but this is false. To offer criticism, even harsh and scathing criticism, is by no means an attempt to impose one's preferences upon other people. "Stop policing the internet" is an utter non sequitur as a response to Why's post because there was no attempt made to do so in the first place. What would it even mean for Why to have been "policing the internet," in this context? They published a post. They did not act to enforce their perspective on others, nor, as far as I'm aware, did they engage in some harassment campaign to bully other bloggers into amending their writing styles. In fact, much the opposite is true; though Pseudo portrays Why's post as a mean-spirited denigration of other people "presenting their thoughts how they want" to, Why explicitly goes out of their way to avoid evoking negative feelings in the very people they wrote their post to influence:
I'm not going to cite examples because the authors might read this and recognise themselves and feel shamed.
Clearly, Why is very much concerned with how their criticism may affect others and taking proactive steps to avoid people becoming discouraged.
Even beyond Why's post in particular, the idea that critique is tantamount to "policing the internet" is ludicrous. Even an incredibly mean-spirited post pointed directly at other bloggers would not be "policing the internet." Imagine a post like this:
Trial and Failure's blog is the most insipid drivel I've ever read. It's utterly worthless, and he should sincerely just kill himself. If you're reading this, author of Trial and Failure, do us all a favor and never touch a keyboard again, you pathetic loser. Go fuck yourself.
This hypothetical message is quite mean and hurtful, and it would certainly make me feel discouraged.
But the thing about putting one's work out there for all to see, especially online, is that managing those feelings is my own responsibility. To the extent that anyone has a "right" to publish their words, this guy has just as much of a right to tear me down as I have to publish the stuff that made him hate me in the first place. It would be juvenile and against the spirit of free and open communication for me to demand that he remove his scathing critique, and it would be plain incorrect for me to complain that he is attempting to "police the internet" by offering his perspective. Even a direct call for me to drop off the face of the Earth is not "policing the internet" because he's not imposing these wishes upon me. If I don't want to be critiqued, I can refuse to read it. If I stumble across criticism where I didn't expect to see it, I can stop reading and go elsewhere.
Criticizing other people is not tantamount to censoring them.
This is why I can't stand the "let people enjoy things" meme. Nothing I say can, in any way, somehow prevent you from enjoying things. Nothing Why can say on their blog can prevent people from ignoring them and continuing to write as they please. At no time is Why failing to "mind their own business" by expressing ideas critical of someone else. If someone does not like to be criticized, the solution is not to demand that those with criticisms to offer silence themselves. The solution is to accept the presence of criticism like an adult, or else direct your own behavior to avoid it.
A blogging platform where people only ever upvote each other and respond to posts with unreserved praise would be absolutely dreadful. Ideas worth writing are ideas worth discussing, and discussions do not only entail agreement, or the self-censorship of negativity for fear of not "minding your own business." This is the Internet; if Why is failing to "mind their own business," then so is Pseudo, and so am I. If offering unsolicited criticism is failing to "mind your own business," then so is offering unsolicited praise, or any unsolicited responses of any sort whatsoever. This is a principle that breaks down immediately unless it is arbitrarily applied to only one target.
In addition to the idea that offering criticism is tantamount to censorship, Pseudo implies that those aforementioned two vital pillars of writing, the craft and the self-expression, are actually not equally valuable. Implicit in the charge that Why is ignoring that "these are personal blogs with people's own thoughts" and that "people are presenting their thoughts how they want, not how Why wants" is the notion that the self-expression of writing is sacrosanct. Perhaps the use of effective writing is good to have to facilitate one's self-expression, but the ultimate product of self-expression is unassailable, and any suggestion that one's "personal thoughts" are subject to critique as pieces of writing is essentially an attack on the person who thought them.
This is also untenable. As I expressed, writing is an art, and when you publish your art for the world to see, it's not mature or reasonable to expect that everyone who sees it should hold their tongue unless they have good vibes to offer in evaluation. The fact of the matter is that nobody's writing is beyond critique. Nobody's blog is untouchable and immune to criticism. It doesn't matter how deeply and intimately personal your writing is, how much of a piece of your soul now exists on the page. It's out there, and if people read it, they are as free to tell you what they think as you were to put it before their eyes. Just because you have expressed yourself doesn't make that expression above critical consideration.
And criticism is not inherently destructive. Far from it, in fact. Criticism helps us get better at the craft of self-expression.
It may be argued that offering criticism is toxic because nobody asked for it. I don't care about some dumb rando's evaluation of my blog post, so it's arrogant of them to think I need to hear whatever they have to say about it.
But this counter only makes sense if we assume, again, that Why somehow imposed their critique upon those to whom it was directed. But simply publishing a criticism of someone else's post is not an imposition upon them. The post gaining traction and rising to the top of the trending feed is not imposing it upon them. If Why sent an email to the bloggers directly and linked them to the critique, even that would not be imposing it upon them.
This is another arbitrary standard, regardless. It is certainly true that "no one asked" for the criticism, but, at the same time, "no one asked" either for the blog post being criticized. Nobody at our level of influence (i.e., absolutely none) is blogging by invitation. If the unsolicited nature of Why's post is what constitutes them not "minding their own business," then everyone on this platform is failing likewise, because we don't solicit posts from each other.
It may be countered, too, that criticizing the quality of a blog post intended as an outlet for self-expression simply misses the point. It wasn't written to stand out as an exemplary piece of writing; it was intended as a creative pursuit for its author's satisfaction.
This is merely a different expression of the classic "I don't need to know the difference between your and you're because this is a forum, not an English class" argument. The medium and context of a piece of writing is not relevant to its susceptibility to critique. When a blog post is published, it's out there. It doesn't matter what my intentions for it are. If I'm not interested in its quality being critiqued, it doesn't matter, because other people can choose to critique it anyway. That doesn't mean they're "missing the point" of my writing, but that I simply have no control over how they choose to engage with it. I could tack a notice to the end of this post requesting that no one respond to it, but someone who does it anyway would not be a fool for doing so just because I impotently disclaimed its ability to be responded to. To borrow Pseudo's language, I don't get to police how people are allowed to engage with my writing. As long as the post is visible, I don't get the option of shutting the door to criticism, and it's unreasonable for me to claim that someone else is engaging with my writing improperly because they've done so in a way that I'd rather not observe. My preference for their engagement doesn't matter. They can critique it, use it as inspiration for their own work, or print it out, cut it up, and use the scraps to make a tasteful collage. They don't need my permission, and they are not doing anything wrong when they neglect to ask for it.
But even beyond that, despite what Pseudo appears to believe, you cannot divorce the craft from the self-expression of writing. The self-expression does not exist in a vacuum; it arises through the craft. Getting better at writing means getting better at self-expression in the same way that getting better at singing means getting better at performing a song. Anyone who is interested in expressing their thoughts ought to be concerned with the craft of writing, if only for the sake of expressing their thoughts better: more clearly, more poignantly, more persuasively, more deeply. Bloggers do themselves a disservice by insulating themselves from criticism, and the rejection of critique occurs at their own peril. Whether or not they care about that is up to them, of course, but insisting that we all refrain from criticizing each other's writing because nobody has explicitly solicited feedback is infantilizing and stultifying.
Just as Pseudo says, "there is no 'correct' way to write." But that doesn't mean that every piece of writing is just as good as any other. We can have diverging views on what makes good writing without descending into the realm of absolute relativism. The fact that we can all disagree, to some extent, on what makes writing good does not obviate the utility of criticism any more than our unique tastes in architecture obviate the need for architects who know how to build a house that won't collapse. There is room in the discussion, for example, for what sort of imagery is effective, what level of complexity at which to draft a post, and how humor and sarcasm ought to be employed. But Why is undeniably correct that "if you cannot express your thoughts intelligibly, no one is going to understand what you're trying to say." They are correct that "you should be able to tell the difference between a noun and an adjective, and use them accordingly." To assert that clarity of writing and the coherent use of grammar are vital for communication is not to put forward that there is only one "correct" way to write. It is merely a recognition of the fact that writing is a craft in the medium of language, and that it's not wholly abstract and fuzzy. We're not splattering paint haphazardly onto a canvas and arguing whether it means something; we're writing "our own thoughts," as Pseudo says, and doing so with the intention of being understood, using words whose definitions are known and grammatical conventions which exist for certain purposes. The subjectivity of writing is more akin to whether chocolate or vanilla cupcakes are better, not to whether cupcakes are better baked with sugar or cyanide.
A final criticism worth countering is that, like it or not, criticism is simply harder to swallow than praise. Pseudo alludes to this, asserting that Why is "making people more hesitant to write." Perhaps criticism is, or can be, helpful and valuable, but the cost of losing a writer who may react poorly to it and stop writing altogether is just too high to risk.
I have already touched on my answer to this, and it's best reiterated bluntly: It doesn't matter. People are, and should be, free to criticize each other as they see fit. They should be free to do it gently while avoiding pinpointing its subjects (like Why's post), free to do it more assertively as a direct and named response (like this post as well as Pseudo's own), and free to be a massive, raging ass about it without actually offering anything of substance (like my hypothetical, above). As a writer who is presenting something of myself to the world, it is my responsibility to deal with what happens next. If I know I easily become discouraged by criticism of my writing style, then it's up to me to avoid exposing myself to it (which, needless to say, would be very much to my own detriment). The Internet is not, nor should it be, a place where you can expect not to be challenged. There is, of course, a valid conversation to be had about when scathing critique crosses the line to personal attack and ought to be censored. I know that I tend to be inclined toward more permissiveness than most, but this doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that there are valid concerns to be had about how incendiary ideas, even good ideas, are in their presentation. I doubt, for example, that this post would be allowed onto Bear's feeds if it were entitled "Pseudo is a stupid piece of shit" and were full of personal attacks. As much as I value the free exchange of ideas, I wouldn't really mourn the loss of posts like that; I am no absolutist. My point is not that criticism of any form, without exception, is always worth engaging with. But certainly critiques centered squarely on the craft of writing, like Why's, or on the ideas of a post rather than attacks against its author, like mine, seem to me undeniably valuable, or at least no less valuable than any other contribution.
This is a principle I apply even to Pseudo's post itself. I don't think it's constructive, I don't think it makes sense, and I think the Internet would be a worse place if everyone followed Pseudo's advice. But by no means do I believe Pseudo is attempting to "police the internet" or impose their will upon others, even as they explicitly urge people like Why to "cut it out." Pseudo has a perspective on things that I don't find rational, but I want nothing more than for them to freely express it and stand by it. I would, truly, be disheartened if Pseudo were to read this post and come to the conclusion that their own thoughts are not worth writing about. This is because, as I've argued, criticism is not an attack, and I don't have to find value in Pseudo's ideas themselves to find value in the fact that Pseudo exercised their creativity and critical thinking in recording them.
Especially in the age of AI, when what remains of authentic culture in our capitalist hellscape is being strangled by the automated slop of bots and their human devotees, the craft of writing is important for the Internet, and for humanity more generally. I want more people to stick their necks out and tell each other how they should write, because that means people are introspecting about their own and each other's writing. Pseudo thinks Why's advice is odious by virtue of merely being expressed openly, but at least Pseudo came to that conclusion by thinking critically about what Why wrote and what implications it may have for the world. Not all advice is good advice, but reading bad advice and disagreeing with it requires you to think. It requires you to evaluate and judge your own writing against someone else's standards, and come to the conclusion of whether or not you want to integrate their ideas. And, inevitably, sometimes it means becoming discouraged and questioning whether you're good enough even to bother putting your fingers on the keyboard. That is good too. The self-expression that Pseudo lauds is all about feeling. Writing is supposed to hurt, and to feel amazing. Writing is supposed to make you feel like an idiot because some guy online said your ideas are stupid, and to make you feel like a genius because some guy online said your ideas are great. This craft is not about shying away from pain and discomfort, because those feelings are part of you. If we take Pseudo's advice and all agree to stop criticizing each other, we will deprive ourselves of growth, development as people, and of the joyous satisfaction that comes from dialogue online.
Feedback should be welcomed when it's positive. But it should be celebrated when it's negative. Not only has someone seen me; they've taken time out of their lives to think about what I've written, and they've put forth the effort to articulate exactly why our thoughts don't align. My self-expression is improved by the experience whether I agree with the criticism or not, because by thinking about it in a new way, I am refining the craft behind it. And the person who has criticized me gets a chance to improve their self-expression by thinking critically about my ideas and formulating challenges in their own words. Everyone has benefited. And maybe by the end of the process, my feelings are hurt and I feel discouraged. There are two things I could do about it: I could chastise the one who criticized me, rejecting the very notion that my writing is open to critique, or, perhaps, I could channel this pain into my craft, because I don't need the affirmation of strangers online to make me feel secure in my hobby.
To answer the question that Pseudo posed to Why: I care about how other people write because writing is human, and important, and worth caring about. I care about the people who inhabit the world with me, and caring about them means caring about how they write. If someone is taking the time to write a blog post with their thoughts and feelings, I want them to be able to do it well, so that I can share in those thoughts and feelings with them. Offering criticism isn't shutting the door, it's holding the door open. Criticizing someone's writing isn't "policing the internet," it's openly inviting someone to keep writing. A community of people who only praise each other is dull, flat, and stagnant. A community of people who feel free to criticize each other, and secure enough in themselves to persevere in the face of criticism, is vibrant, edifying, and always in motion. It doesn't always feel good, but feeling good isn't the goal. Self-expression is. If Pseudo values self-expression, they should value criticism.
Fellow bloggers: Please do not "mind your own business." Writing is the business of humanity, and I want our business to thrive.