Authors have the option of identifying what types of feedback they would like to receive from their readers. From among these options, authors can choose to receive constructive criticism on their fanworks. If the author asks for constructive criticism and the reader chooses to provide it, that reader is expected to use only diplomatic criticisms in their comment on the author's work.
Again, only works that are labeled as wanting constructive criticism should receive constructive criticism. If the author does not state what kind of feedback they want to receive, constructive criticism is not permitted.
The concept of diplomatic criticism was popularized by Andrew Burt of the Critters writers workshop. His essays The Diplomatic Critiquer and Criticizing the Wild Writer: It's Not What You Say, But How You Say It were instrumental in formulating our own diplomacy policies for the SWG. Writing diplomatic critiques hinges on one of the most basic concepts of writing: an awareness of your audience (the author) and writing your critique in order that your audience can best hear what you have to say.
The following guidelines are essential to writing constructive, diplomatic criticism on the SWG:
- You can only offer the opinion of one reader: you. Tailor your language accordingly. Phrases like, "In this scene, I felt that" and "I noticed" and "In my opinion, it didn't work when," keep constructive comments grounded in the only perspective you are prepared to offer.
- Along those lines, avoid imperatives like, "You can't" and "You must," and avoid making universal statements like, "Good stories always" or "It never works when authors."
- Never bring up personal characteristics of the author as part of your critique. Statements like, "Because you're so young, you probably don't know" or "As a new fan, you might not be aware" or "As an ESL writer, you should be careful to" are unacceptable. An element of an author's story either works for you or it doesn't. The age/experience level/language/ethnicity/gender/sexuality/race/disability status/religion/etc of the author has nothing to do with that.
- Approach questions of canon with curiosity, not criticism. Tolkien's canon is immensely complex: not only vast and detailed but existing across dozens of volumes that sometimes contain contradictory versions of the same story--not to mention obscure and unpublished sources--and much of it posthumous, difficult to date, difficult to decipher, and selected and sometimes modified by an editor. No one can know it all, and even among experts, disagreements arise over what counts as "fact." Using canon to produce fanworks adds complexity, as fans select and manipulate canon to serve creative purposes, including ignoring canon altogether for a variety of reasons (some of them, ironically, canonical). Interpretations of this canon--which are necessarily filtered through each fan's beliefs, values, interests, and experiences--are as manifold as the fans who discuss that canon.
Furthermore, in the history of Tolkien fanfiction, canon has been used to deter fans who wish to see themselves and their experiences represented in that canon, such as fans of color who write canon characters as nonwhite, fans who elevate the roles of women, and LGBTQ+ fans who allow room for the full spectrum of gender and sexuality in Middle-earth. The weaponization of canon has, at times, created a fandom that is hostile to some groups of fans. At the SWG, we firmly believe that our purpose is not to declare a One True Canon but to celebrate that canon in all of its complexity, including the many ways fans use that canon as a medium to not only appreciate Tolkien's world but to comment on it, critique it, repair it, and ultimately bring themselves and their experiences into that world.
As a result, constructive criticism should not discuss canon used in a fanwork as "right" or "wrong." Instead, commenters are encouraged to ask questions about a creator's use of canon with an eye toward deepening their own understanding of the canon, not persuading a creator to change their own perspectives and interpretations.
- Constructive criticism is not the place for commentary on genres, pairings, characters, and other choices the author has made that are unrelated to craft. Assume that these choices are not open to change. If you cannot provide constructive feedback on a story because of an inherent dislike of the genre, character, or pairing, it's best to skip constructive criticism on that fanwork.
Above all, remember that the purpose of constructive criticism is to help a fanworks creator to improve their craft and direct your comment to that purpose and audience.
