Concrit

Concrit is a short-form for constructive criticism, which is an analysis of a fanwork that points out mistakes or errors as well as the things that worked well. 
It may be directed at the fanwork creator and intended to help them improve their skills. It may also be created and distributed for the consumers of fanworks and the original conversation is not intended to be the fanwork creator.
While most of the beta process could be described as concrit, most fans use the term to apply to feedback received after a work is posted publicly. The term is sometimes applied to reviews of work posted separately, but is more often reserved for direct responses. Most fans do not consider flames or sporking to be concrit. 
An example of concrit would be, "I enjoyed the plot, but I think your characters are a little bit out of character when they do X, and you had some grammar and spelling mistakes in these excerpts that I've quoted."
The place of concrit is controversial in many fandoms. Some fans go looking for it, posting their works to public communities like Concrit My Fic, or asking their friends to offer advice. Other fans post notices in their headers welcoming concrit, but some will expressly ask for no concrit or positive comments only. 
The idea that concrit is always or mostly negative comments is common. Comments that delve deeply into what a reader or viewer thought worked well in a work are rarely seen as concrit, especially in meta discussions on the topic. 
Podfic creators face challenges trying to get constructive feedback on their work. Podfic tends to get very little feedback of any kind, so trying to get concrit is even harder outside the beta process. For writers, there are plenty of fans who are familiar with the forms and practices of literary criticism, many fans are academics in that field, or have experience in writing workshops or with professional editors. Some fans are professional editors. The chances of fans having experience in voice acting, audio production or editing are much lower. To try to generate some concrit flowing in the community, Paraka hosted the Podfic Critical Feedback Exchange in 2010.
==Gift or Work?==
Many fans that see fandom as a gift economy focus more on the social value of their works. They may not be primarily interested in skill development as a writer or an artist, but rather in the shared enjoyment of trading stories or art with fellow fans. 
Other fans are more focused on their writing or art as a personal expression and these fans often lament the lack of concrit they get. 
==Historical Debates==
===Zine Era===
From a letter in Implosion #6 (1977), Connie Faddis described the scene of the then-current state of conrit: 
Boldly Writing tells of an early bit of controversy in 1975 regarding the place and form of criticism. 
In 1982, Paula Smith herself was the recipient of some very pointed criticism in the Starsky and Hutch letterzine S and H #37 regarding her ill-received story "Surrender" in the zine Strokes, illustrating that sharp opinions didn't just go one way. The zine has an enormous amount of discussion regarding reviews and concrit, some of which is summarized in the early issues. Many of the points brought up in this publication are still being hashed out today. Issue #6 of S and H is a good place to start.
In the early/mid 1980s a letterzine called With Malice Aforethought was proposed by an anonymous fan frustrated by a perceived inability to comment critically on zine fic: "The entire purpose of this zine is to allow fen to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- no out-right libel or slander, please -- concerning the quality of fiction or art without fear of losing your friends, your reputation, or your life." This zine was never actually published.
===Livejournal Concrit Debate of 2008===
In 2008, one of many iterations of a sweeping concrit debate sprang up on Livejournal. It was mostly confined to SGA fandom, but spread, as these things often do, to other fans in other fandoms. The post that began the debate on July 18, 2008 argued that fandom should be a supportive, positive environment and argued that criticism and feedback are governed by social rules:One of the major sources of contention in the comments was the question of reviews vs. direct feedback and whether those two things fell under the same set of "rules". Many fans felt that the post was directly speaking to kyuuketsukirui, who had expressed dissatisfaction in general with that year's McShep Match and was about to post reviews of the stories in his own journal. The other main issue revolved around the idea that one set of social standards could ever fit everyone even inside one fandom.
The subsequent debate in the comments and then in other posts covered every aspect of feedback and the fannish cultures around it. The combination of discussions about concrit, comments, commentary, recs and reviews all in one big hypertextual discussion was part of the reason tempers sometimes frayed and feelings got hurt. People were often speaking at cross-purposes. 
Many fans who were primarily social about their fanworks expressed high levels of emotional reaction to what they perceived as negative criticism of fanworks. Other fans, more interested in analysis for its own sake were frustrated that one of the things they enjoyed most about fandom was considered an attack by others. This part of the discussion was often framed as a dispute between the "Cult of Nice" vs. "Cult of Mean"zvi: A few Cult of Nice Misapprehensions, 24 July 2008. (accessed December 1, 2010)
The discussion also touched on the kind of status accorded creators of fanworks as opposed to the fans who are consumers that like to create meta about works. 
On July 23, synecdochic posted a long meta covering nearly every aspect of the discussion. She offered definitions of the various kinds of feedback and responses and discussed the varying ways fans related to works and the different cultural and social expectations about fandom and other fans.synecdochic: "Cult of nice" vs. "cult of mean", round 2847, fight, 23 July 2008. (accessed December 1, 2010)
As the conversation died down, many SGA fans posted sticky posts on their journal with their policy on concrit. Others started including lines in their headers advising readers of their policies.
==Recurring Themes in Discussions==
===The Power of BNFs ===
Some fans have out-sized voices which may weight their reviews and critique of other fans' fanworks. A fan in 1995 crunched some numbers and thought that perhaps higher visibility fans and fanworks got better reviews than less-visible fans. 
===Your Place or Mine?===
For some fans, small issues like typos or html failures are okay in a public comment, but anything more detailed should be left to a private message.
One of the side issues in debates about concrit boils down to appropriate speech in appropriate spaces. Many fans believe their own journal, the space they control, is theirs to use as they wish. They feel that any kind of review or critique is fine and is not meant for the writer. Others think negative reactions should always be made in private. Concrit offered unsolicited and directly to the creator in the creator's space is another question. Some fans like it, both as readers or as writers, and others think it is a breach of the social mores of fandom or general etiquette to take a discussion like that into someone else's space. 
These discussions regarding the appropriate space or venue for concrit is also an issue with fans on mailing lists. Some feel that any kind of uninvited concrit should be done in private messages to the writer, not offered up in places other fans can read. 
 
Who should control the place of comment? Readers or writers? A fan in 2000 commented on another fan's assertion that all reviews be done in private: 
 
===Special Rules for Gift Exchanges?===
Many fic fests are set up as gift exchanges and many fans feel that these stories, posted publicly but as a gift for a specific individual, should be treated as a gift first, and a story second.
One post made on Christmas Day, 2009 on fanficrants drew the direct comparison between fannish fic exchanges and opening Christmas gifts with family. xequth in Fanficrants: The Right Answer Is Not Always Concrit, 25 December 2009. (accessed December 1, 2010) One commenter pointed out: 
The post and discussion also touched on the type of criticism (spelling and grammar vs. larger criticisms of plot or theme), fandom size, and the anonymous posting period as determiners of the appropriateness of concrit. Many felt that once the story had been posted somewhere besides the gift exchange (an archive, or the author's personal journal), posting concrit would be more acceptable.
===Special Qualifications?===
Fans might hesitate to give concrit, even to people who openly ask (or sometimes beg) for it. A fan might wonder if they have the right to offer concrit in some situations. A kind of who am I to tell you how to write thinking that may be based on the relative status of the creator and the reviewer or on the reviewers' confidence in their own knowledge. Rhoboat talked about this in a vidding context:
:"Where I'm going with all this is that there have been occasions where I've definitely noticed some technical issues from vidders who've been doing this a long time, often a lot longer than I. I think it's easier to forgive newbies, especially when I see improvement over time. But sometimes I feel like I'm dancing around eggshells (mixed metaphor, ha!), because I have no idea how to approach certain people or if I even should approach them. Sometimes these problems don't have an easy solution (I think especially when it comes to aspect ratio), and I'd really feel awkward approaching someone if I didn't even have an idea where to start for help."rhoboat: Thoughts on vidding stuff, 22 January 2010 (accessed December 1, 2010)
The often expressed opinion in the comments is that fans are more open to concrit from friends or at least non-strangers.
===Concrit Often Isn't===
Constructive that is. Many fans are not convinced that concrit outside the discussions between creator and beta is always valuable. Many fans are unwilling (or unable, if the work has been posted to a site that one cannot edit) to change works once they're posted, and may not feel that critique of one specific work is applicable to their future efforts. poisontaster touched on that idea as well as the question of whether offered concrit might sometimes be more about the critiquer's curiosity than any real interest in the writer's development, saying:
cesare touched on the issue in a post about personal feedback habits, saying:
===Differing Views on Quality and Function===
One eternal debate regarding fanworks: how critical should fans be regarding fanworks? Should fanworks be exempt from concrit because they are created by amateurs who are writing just for fun and not for money? Or should fans be constantly expecting fanworks to improve their skills, either for personal betterment, or because fanworks were a stepping stone to bigger and better things, aka becoming a professional? If someone declines concrit, are they just being self-righteous or are they allowed to decide what to do with their own story? If someone is bothered at their concrit being declined, are they really concerned for the writer's skill, or are they just offended that the writer won't take their advice?
Here is one 1979 discussion:
Paula Block replied to this fan:
==Some Fan Comments==
===1996===
From the editorial of Scotch Doubles #4: 
===2002===
Comments by Thamiris:
===2005===
==Meta and Further Reading==
===Other Sources===
There's a lot of overlap with Reviewing and Feedback.
===1994===
* And now, be prepared for something I've never done in print: BLOWN MY STACK!
===1997===
* The Mannerly Art of Critique by Peg Robinson (1997)
===1998===
* If you can't say something nice..., by The Divine Adoratrice (1998)
* "Trashing" writers, "Trashing" stories by Sandy Herrold
* (Xena-focus) (July 15, 1998)
===1999===
* Apology for Criticism by Lucy Gillam (1999)
* Criticism and the Lost Art of the LOC by Lorelei Jones (1999)
* Should There Be More Criticism of Fanfiction? by Janet (1999)
* Disagreement is Not Flaming by T'Mar (likely 1999)
===2000===
* by The Brat Queen (probably 2000)
===2003===
* See Icon For Topic by cereta (August 6, 2003)
===2004===
* Public Critique and Fan Fiction Writers: one writer's blunt opinion by Destina Fortunato (originally published in August 2003; edited and reposted in March 2004.)
* Sit Down and Shut Up: Authors and Criticism by Emily Brunson (2004)
===2005===
* (2005)
* oh goody. round 3.45 billion of "the writer is god and every word is sacred", by Mary the Fan (January 2005)
* (January 2005)
*; (Jan 2005)
* Criticism and Fanfic; archive link, comments expanded, discussion at Fanthropology (June 2005)
* Social Darwinism in Fandom (2005)
* by kattahj (a response to discussion at thecuttingboard) (August 2005)
===2006===
* Lacking Critical Feedback, discussion at Fanthropology (February 4, 2006)
* And now, a love letter by asyndeta on Fanficrants (May 2006)
* But is it really concrit? by velvet_mace on Fanficrants (July 2006)
* Ruminations on good manners; archive link page 1; archive link page 2, Diana Williams (November 17, 2006)
===2007===
* Things I've Learned About Reviewing: archive link by hector_rashbaum (April 2007)
* Tips for leaving concrit without looking like a jerk by jennjenn724 on Fanficrants (May 2007)
===2010===
* I Am No Longer Required To Do This by lookninjas on ffrantsrants (April 2010)
* Order of the Concritters - critic alliance on Fanfiction.net
===2021===
* I don't get why concrit is such a taboo in the fanfic community.; archive link (April 8, 2021)
* Anti-concrit culture in fandom is honestly a little irritating (October 13th, 2021)
==References==
Category:Non-fiction Writing