Lately I've been learning a lot of things that I can add to this book, but rarely have the time any more to write about it. This is one thing I've been thinking about lately that I thought deserves a bit of attention. Because I'm me, it naturally needs to be a topic of controversy and one that may genuinely piss off some of my readers.

What could I talk about that sends my readers into an epileptic rage? Usually, the touchiest of subjects is telling readers how they should comment. I can tell you I've received more anger and vitriol in chapters where I tried to encourage readers to comment nicely than anything else.

I didn't think this would be a matter of contention. It seems almost moronically obvious that if you WANT content to continue, a positive, encouraging comment would achieve that, where a cutting, criticism filled nitpick would not. This isn't a matter of what's best for improving the writer's journey, and except for the other writers on here who are working together to improve each other, I'm not sure why a generic reader should care about enhancing their favorite author's abilities.

It almost takes a certain level of arrogance to think that you as random reader X should be responsible for single-handedly making someone else a better writer. Even if you have all the best intentions in the world, you're probably not a professional critic with years of experience under your belt. Who is to say that your advice would even offer an improvement? As a writer "gets better", there is no saying that their more-adult writing would even give the readers who originally liked their work what they wanted.

Anna Todd, the writer of After, was so terrified that correcting her work would accidentally remove that thing that made people like it so much in the first place that she refused to edit her work for the longest time.

Point being, there are two roles for a reader when it comes to commenting. You have the corrector who is trying to help the author improve their work, and the cheerleader who is there to encourage the author to continue writing. The corrector, no matter how much you honey your words, is never going to encourage the writer to keep writing, and may even decrease their level of enthusiasm.

When it comes to most readers, presuming you already enjoy a work and want to read all of it, why would you do anything less than being a cheerleader? Turning corrector is like biting the hand that feeds you. You're literally choosing to act against your own self interest just to criticize someone else. Isn't that weird?

Anyway, today's talk isn't about being an effective cheerleader, but rather a reflection on the critical commenters. I wanted to explore the complicated relationship between a corrector and a writer. They exist in a strange world where they can both be your greatest supporter, and your greatest bane. I know that I personally have probably served as someone's headache as I took the mantle of corrector for them.

Since I frame so many things as lists, let's keep it up! We'll call it Five Critical Comments About Critical Commenters.

There was once an episode of Friends, that's right, we're going full 90-00s on this. In one episode, Joey tells Phoebe that he doesn't believe in good deeds. Ultimately, every decision someone makes is inherently selfish. There is an entire book, The Selfish Gene, that claims this behavior is genetic, and even things like loving and taking care of a child is inherently an act of selfishness (a means of continuing the genes). In the episode, Phoebe tries, and fails, to do a single selfless act. The very act of being helpful filled her with happiness, thus making any help she provided self-motivated.

What point am I trying to get at? You rarely chose to do something unless you get something out of it. I've been using the argument that you should be a cheerleader, because what you get is more of the story you like and are reading. However, that's not how things work in practice. In practice, you end up with people who will savagely complain and rip apart your story, eating up every detail.

In a lot of ways, this is unfair to Web Novel authors. When you publish a book it often gets read in a single lump. Since the reader can literally read it all at once, and every break is controlled by him, he reserves judgement until the end of the story. If his mind is obsessing over what he read, he ends up reading more. When he finally does make a comment, if he does, he's commenting right after the end of the story. The emotional journey is over, and he just read the climax which might have been genuinely exciting, hyping him up for his ultimate final comment.

I don't find it particularly surprising that the vast majority of my 1-3 star reviews show that the reader only read to 2-3 chapters of the book, while anyone who seemingly has read passed the first ten chapters and actually got into the story usually gives them 4-5.

Your novels are often judged every chapter, and while I've advised in the past that you have to write chapters a bit differently with this in mind, you're still trying to tell a full, coherent story, and just because you didn't explain something fully at one point doesn't mean it wouldn't be explained by the end of the story... or more than likely... no one would care by the end of the story. It's easy to pick out things in the middle of any story, no matter how well written, but those innocuous details grow less important the farther you get away from them.

That leads us to one horrifying reality.

Have you ever met a Star Wars fan? A Trekkie? A Whovian? Let's go outside of scifi. Oh god, does Game of Thrones count? Anyway... how many times have fans been pissed off over something that happened in their stories. How many inane questions, annoying nitpicks, and angsty attacks have come from fans compared to casuals? Almost all of them.

That's because when you're invested in something, you care about it. You're much more likely to make a comment, or complain, when the story has you gripped. In fact, one could say someone who is truly entrance in a story doesn't even think about the creators at all, but only care about this creation.

At its worst, it creates people unable to separate a character from the actor playing that character. How many death threats have actors received for their character because they did something they didn't like? At its lower levels, its just ranting and angry comments.

Why is it like this? Why do your biggest fans... the ones that support you the most, often make you want to continue writing the least? Well, that's because...

The vast majority of readers don't comment. Even when I CALL YOU OUT for being a filthy, filthy noncommenter, many of you will read passed that very line and go "meh... I'm okay with that." That level of apathy is just generally expected. Very few people are motivated to go out of their way to comment.

The only times you are encouraged to comment is either by rote... like the guy who gives a generic copy and paste for every story (because it makes them feel like they're helping), or when a story strikes an emotional vibe. It's been well established that someone will speak up more for negative feelings than positive feelings. Sadly, It's a double tap too, because just as our commenters like to focus on negatives, so do we. So even if you get more positive criticism than negative, you're always going to give more weight to the negative.

Even now, I have over 1300 fans who are actively giving me money to continue to write. I have people who absolutely adore my work. On amazon, my works have an average of 5 stars, and they're selling quite a few copies daily. And still, a few negative comments on Royalroad... and that still feels cutting, and at least a bit demoralizing. (Anyone who wants to say... well just ignore comments... if you've ever been to royalroad, they kind of shove the comments in your face, it's hard not to see them. It's really a bad place to post your work, Imho, but that's a subject for another day.)

Anyway, where was I? That's right, most comments are an emotional reaction. Remember how I said that commenters don't comment for the writer? No? It was literally the first point I made! Well, anyway, this is what I meant. Commenters comment because it is fun to comment. They nitpick because that is how they get more enjoyment out of something they enjoy. When they are being dripfed content and can't consume all of it at once, all they have is the ability to talk about and disseminate what you've done so far, and sometimes that can be humbling, to say the least.

Sadly, all of your biggest fans have less in common with a cheerleader, and more in common with Heath Ledger's the Joker. They just want to watch the world burn. They will savagely cut you down, and never really think about you as a person.

I find this funny, because as someone who tends to give as good as I get, I've found that...

While your critic can happily cut you down with biting comment after biting comment, many of these critics can's handle what they serve. As soon as you respond, you instantly become the unreasonable one.

You just "can't take criticism". Whether you actually can take criticism or not, I'm sure you've been accused of this once in your writing career. I've even written an entire chapter on how to accept criticism, and how important it is to do so, but even then, it can just as easily be used as an insult as opposed to advice.

No matter who you are, if you write long enough, you eventually will get comments that are completely off the wall. They either show that the person hasn't read the story at all, or they get details of the story completely wrong to the point you have to question their reading comprehension. I once received a 1 star review insulting my story. In it, the person reference ONLY the summary. Now... when I wrote that summary, I didn't really make it representative of the story, so the summary was only true in the vaguest of terms. Yet, this person wrote a scathing review... about the summary... clearly showing he hadn't read even a single chapter of the book.

Then, you respond, and what happens? "Oh, you just can't take criticism!" "Why are you blowing up? I mean, I'm just crapping all over something you spent hours writing, that's not reason to... respond..."

It seems like any response that isn't a polite thank you is instantly seen as an attack. The person either goes into flight or fight... either running from the conversation, never to respond, or doubles down on their often incorrect assessments, insisting you must be a bad writer because he made a shitty emotional comment and you called him on it.

If you've read my other advice, you know the go to answer. You can defend your work, but don't get defensive. Don't argue. Be Nice. Always be polite. Thank him and move on. I even know a lot of people capable of doing that. They just shut off their brains, and auto-write thank yous to any comment no matter how scathing. It certainly cuts into someone's negativity when you reward them with appreciation.

However, this is not a chapter for talking about what should be, this is a chapter talking about what is, and what is happening is a double standard, where anonymous people think they can say whatever they want, and creators should just shut up and take it.

"You need a thicker skin." "If you didn't want criticism, you shouldn't put out your works." "You can't take criticism." These are words I've used in this very book, and also the rallying cry of arseholes trying to protect their arsehole behavior. It's the writer's equivalent of the guy who says he's just telling it like it is to excuse racist, sexist, and bigoted remarks. It's the guy claiming he's "just saying what everyone is thinking." At some point, you need some self-awareness to understand that content creators are people too.

Do I expect commenters to change? Heck no. Even the commenters who read this, while it would be nice if you gained some awareness on the effects of your words on the writing you supposedly like, I don't expect changes. The reason I wrote this is because I've always tried to provide content that can help writers.

Every self-help tells you how you should act. This is a more honest look on how some authors think. It's a sympathetic ear from someone who gets it, and a means of relieving a bit of stress. It's okay to be upset by negative comments. It's okay to respond to them. Cry if you need to. Rage if you have to. You have a right to be taken aback or upset when someone craps on your work. Do whatever you feel you need to do, and don't let anyone tell you that you ought to act like someone else because that makes them more comfortable.

You don't have to fit in someone's narrow box on how writers "should" act, which conveniently allows the commenter to say whatever he wants without an ounce of repercussion, while you must remain silent and tolerant anything, no matter how ignorant. The world really would be better as long as no one who disagreed with you was allowed to talk, right? Of course not. Say your piece if you feel you need to. Don't let people drag you down.

Then... take a deep breath, reflect on what happened, and learn from the situation. Even if a comment thread ends up into a disaster of bickering and insults, brush off your hands, delete the thread, and move on. Keep going. Keep writing. In the end, it is most important that you keep doing what you love doing, and don't let someone, whether they are a mega fan or an arsehole, ruin that experience for you. You be you. And screw those commenter arseholes.

What? We were all thinking it.