i not good in explaining thing, so i will go straight to the point When a critic claim the story is shit and say he/she can write something better than the story that he/she badly review, does he/she still can be considers as critic? The said story is graded above average by you. There is some plot hole but due to its fantasy setting, bringing realism would destroy your immersion into the story. The story is interesting enough to pick your interest but not as fanboy
No, being a critic requires giving proper arguments about the story and backing them up. Usually in neutral tone, including arguments about bad and good points. You can however be a basic reviewer and say whatever. Edit 1. Example of this would be "the story is bad because there are constant plotholes like x that are not explained, which disrupt the flow of the story"
A critic criticize stories to persuade other people into reading or not reading it, by bringing out and analyzing a story’s good or bad points, in a way other readers can agree or debate with. It does not matter whether or not they can write a better story.
Normally to critique, you need to mention things about the story or format and compare it to a standard for that genre. Just saying "I can write better" isn't enough and is not giving any information that can benefit another reader. EDIT: but for it to be stepping over the line? probably not, it's just not constructive and it's another pointless comment that really doesn't need to be said.
As far as I'm aware, claiming that you can write better than the author is less about comparing and bragging about your skills and more about emphasising how terrible the story is so I fail to see how it plays into why someone should be cosidered a critic or not.
Critic usually said how they feel about the product. If the critic said he/she can make a better one then create one. Usually, most of those guys said they can make better when they didn't have anything to show off. It's not over the line if the critic is known to that genre like Ramsay Gordon in cooking since he recognizes that his good so his opinion is valid. I never like reviews who tend to show off when they haven't done anything to back it up. This is my personal opinion.
the point of critique is to provide relevant unbiased feedback it can be scathing curt and brutal or fawning and sycophantic but ultimately it must remain in the bounds of assessing the merits of the work itself. any comparison to other works existing of hypothetical removes objectivity from the equation making the criticism invalid. you opinion may be informed by your knowledge of contemporary works but by no means is it acceptable to premise your criticism on the notion that there exists a better alternative. after all by that logic the oxford english dictionary is the only book that needs to be written in the english language as everything else is just a remix
Even so, it does feel kinda unpleasant.. though his argument is acceptable, somewhere inside my heart wanna say "dude! just write your own story then"
I think that is a saying to point out that the story is below average. They aren't actually saying that they can write a better story, but saying that an average person can write a better story, that is how much the story sucks. That is criticism. Is it constructive criticism though? not really. We all have our guilty pleasures so okay. To be honest, if an author is good enough, they can add realism while still being fantasy. It's all a matter of approach. That said, you either need a team of editors or spend years writing to insure "perfection". Writing a bit myself, I find consistency checking taking up more time than actual writing. In the domain of web novels, you shouldn't expect such things too much though. Overall, it's all about not stepping on things that make people cringe. People are willing to ignore or forget plot holes and the like if you don't shove them in people's faces and keep them interested. But different people have different cringe points and usually the comments above come from such people who had their cringe point struck.
Eh, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just as you don't have to agree with that opinion. I read a book off of a national best seller list once and thought it was the biggest piece of trash. Years later, that book was made into a television series. I still think it is trash, but other people must have enjoyed it. Just because I think it was trash doesn't mean my opinion is wrong or right.
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done they have seen it every day, but they're unable to do it themselves. " B. Beham
To be fair, trash novels are more likely to sell better than good novels. Trash novels(which light novels fall into) are like a guilty pleasure for casual readers. Good literature will rarely make the best sellers list because the audience of the literature tends to be smaller. That said, trash literature tends to get high sales for a generation and then disappears. Good literature will last centuries.
No, when a 'critic' reviews something badly and claims he can do better, he cease to be a critic and start on the journey of being an attention whore. But then again, this might just be how he normally speaks, as in, "All smoke and no fire", so in case he's not an attention whore, he's just a jerk. Or it's really just how he normally brags, as if he's better than everyone, so in that case, just ignore him. If he points to his own story that is similar, regardless of whether or not it's better, he has become an attention whore. This is how new authors lost interest in writing further. He's being a jerk who kills new players. However, there may also be cases where the 'critic' really has become fed up with the story. To show the author how his story could've been better, he decided to rewrite the story his way. In this way, he's not really a jerk, he's just a guy pissed enough to use his free time to rewrite the story.
Everyone with an opinion is a critic, if it is constructive criticism or not is a different question. lol But yeah as far as constructive criticism goes it is worthless if it doesn't go into details about why a story is good or bad.
I said 'yes' without reading because if you're asking, at least someone (you) thinks it might be stepping over the line. ... But really, that kind of review is just saying "I could do better, and I don't subject the world to my bad writing" or in other words the writing is just plain terrible. In the reviewer's opinion. Normally if there's a review like that, even if I like the novel I could understand that the author made a lot of basic mistakes in writing it... Bad novels can still be entertaining, so just enjoy the novel if you want to enjoy it. I don't think it's an effective review (unless it also describes what parts the reviewer thinks he can improve) but I do think it's a valid basis for a review. Unless it's a famous best-selling author just being a jerk.