
Image by Tithi Luadthong on Shutterstock
When we discuss flaws in the stories we love, defensive reactions are a constant companion. There’s nothing wrong with feeling defensive; those feelings are natural and involuntary. But when defensiveness makes our choices for us, it becomes impossible to make our stories, ourselves, and our world better.
Today, a defensive mindset is so pervasive that it can be difficult to imagine how it might be different. While defensive feelings may never disappear entirely, we can still work toward a culture that encourages us to lower our shields and listen.
What Causes Defensiveness
We don’t get defensive every time someone brings up problems or criticizes our work. Defensiveness occurs when criticism feels threatening. In many cases, we feel threatened because we’re reading more into the criticism than is actually present.
For example, let’s say someone tells you: “Your novel uses the damsel in distress trope, which is a sexist cliché.”
- If you’re not feeling defensive, this statement merely means there’s a bad trope in your novel that you should remove.
- If you’re feeling defensive as a writer, you could take this to mean: “You wrote a terrible novel that is sexist and clichéd. You must not respect women, and you’ll never be a great writer.”
- If you’re feeling defensive as a fan, you could take this to mean: “That novel you like is sexist and clichéd and, therefore, terrible. Since you like it, you don’t respect women, and you aren’t intelligent enough to have good taste.”
We may not be consciously aware that we’re taking away these messages. Our subconscious can make this connection and produce defensive emotions, leaving us fumbling to find where our feelings are coming from.
But here’s the thing: that jump from “this trope is bad” to “you’re a worthless person” isn’t spontaneously generated by our psyches. The association was placed there. Cultural messages play a large role in creating a sense of threat to our self-worth.
How a Binary Mindset Creates a Defensive Cycle
To a greater or lesser degree, we’re all caught in a binary mindset in which stories are either perfect or trash. This mindset comes from many places, but in the arts, a significant contributor is the worship of supposed masterpieces. Classic works are put on a pedestal, and current works are dismissed by comparing them unfavorably to these classics. This tells artists of all stripes that we have to reach perfection to be taken seriously, and this state of perfection isn’t even real. Classics are full of flaws; people with power have simply agreed to ignore them.
Similarly, literary culture is steeped in Romanticism, which includes the idea that storytelling can’t be learned. Many literary professors really think that people have to be naturally talented to be writers, probably because these professors don’t teach anything. For a writer who believes this, even subconsciously, the stakes for each story are through the roof. If their story uses too many bad tropes, that could mean they have no personal potential.
Even outside of literary circles, bestsellers are often a replacement for masterpieces. Fans often insist that because a book sold well, it must be perfect in every way. Of course, many of these statements are defensive reactions that weren’t thought out. Regardless, this argument should be considered too laughable for even a knee-jerk reaction. It’s used because many people buy into it at some level.
As for social justice, most people still think that expressing any form of bigotry, ever, means they are akin to a member of the KKK or an MRA. This is the natural result of believing that a person is either an ally or a hatemonger. While extremists are very real, bigotry usually operates like any other subconscious cultural influence. Because of this, every human old enough to talk has said something bigoted at one point or another, often without knowing it. We learn to stop harming others by listening to them and changing our ways.
This binary mindset traps us in a defensive cycle:
- We expect stories to be perfect.
- Any critique of a story threatens its “perfection” status and risks relabeling it as “trash.”
- To protect the story from this threat, or to avoid angering someone who might feel threatened, we ignore problems.
- Our refusal to acknowledge problems perpetuates our unrealistic standards.
It’s impractical to pretend that all stories are of equal quality or that storytelling is completely subjective. That’s just another way to dismiss problems and avoid making improvements. But story quality isn’t binary; it falls on a scale from high to low, and even putting it on that scale is reductive. Every story contains a collection of elements that have their own strengths and flaws, and every person will have a unique experience with a story.
How We Can Do Better
Since the problem is embedded in our culture, it won’t be easy to fix. But every step we take toward the solution makes it easier for others to do the same.
Normalize Making Mistakes
The first step to lowering defensive barriers is to normalize making mistakes and finding flaws. When we think we are alone in doing something wrong, we’re especially likely to feel threatened. But this is rarely true: any mistake we make is almost certainly being made by others. Conversely, I can’t count the times I’ve been fed up with other people for doing something and then caught myself doing it. It’s a humbling experience that I recommend for everyone. We’re all human.
In practice, we can normalize flaws by sharing our own foibles and simply telling people mistakes are common. When writing articles, I’ve started using “we” more often to demonstrate this. If I’m writing about a mistake, I’ve probably done it.
Break the Perfection vs Trash Binary
A standard practice when giving feedback is to start with praise. This validates the receiver so they are less likely to feel threatened by criticism. It also communicates that just because their work has flaws doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
At Mythcreants, we criticize popular works and follow a general principle of “no story is perfect” to break that binary. Conversely, when I covered The Eye of Argon, which has been labeled “the worst story ever written,” I focused on its strengths.*
We also do our best to explain our positions on stories by giving specifics about the story. Many critics will dismiss works with pejoratives such as “derivative,” as though using the pejorative excuses them from giving any explanation for why they felt a work was low quality. This sends the message that if a story fails to measure up to a subjective standard, it can be dismissed as trash.
On a personal level, it’s always helpful to find flaws in the stories we love and strengths in the stories we hate.
Recognize Differences in Experience
As storytellers, we’re primarily concerned with how large groups of people will react to fictional events. We may find it difficult to keep this in mind while recognizing that every individual’s reaction is valid, even when it deviates significantly from the norm. But both perspectives are necessary.
Fans feel more threatened by criticism or alternate interpretations when they think it means their own experience is invalidated. Because character representation is so lopsided in favor of privileged people, alternate interpretations of characters can even pit marginalized groups against each other. That’s to be avoided at all costs; we’re in this together.
As for storytellers, we need to accept a reader’s experience but also view it as one data point among many. Each reader reacts the way they do for a reason, but that doesn’t mean their reaction defines our story. This encourages us to consider revisions while making reader reactions feel less threatening.
This is one reason “the author is dead” approach to story analysis is important. If there is no word of god on what a story means, we’re forced to look at the text, find evidence for our interpretation, and often recognize that the text could mean different things.
Fielding Anger and Assholery
It’s much easier for us to avoid feeling threatened when the person making a critique is calm, polite, and arguing in good faith, but that isn’t always the case. The world is full of upsetting things, and society has no shortage of assholes.
I have no magic spell for banishing toxic people. However, recognizing when someone is going too far can help us deal with it, whether that means disengaging, setting boundaries, or simply reassuring ourselves. You’ll know a critic is out of line if they:
- Use derogatory language to refer to people who make technical errors. We don’t need to call any writers “amateurs.” People should comment on the work and not attack the person.
- Attack fans for liking flawed stories, even if those stories are problematic. Similarly, if they attack fans who like specific ships, even if those ships are problematic.
- Engage in casual misogyny or use slurs and other bigoted language when making criticisms.
However, someone is rarely being an asshole if they are venting about problematic material that personally harms them. That would make anyone in their position upset, and when people are upset, they do things like exaggerate, imitate, and use harsh language. When someone talks to us this way, our job is to listen and let them vent. If we feel they are being rude or unfair, we’ve gotta let it go. They shouldn’t have to deal with systemic oppression and coddle our feelings about it.
Making problematic mistakes and being called out for them doesn’t mean we’re wearing pointy white hoods. It means we’re flawed human beings. What matters in these moments is our willingness to consider the other person’s viewpoint, do research on the issue, and make changes if they’re called for. In many cases, a person who’s venting will feel better once they realize we’re listening.
When we find problematic material that’s upsetting but doesn’t harm us personally, we have a responsibility to educate. While venting at our fellow privileged people is better than staying silent, they will be more likely to listen if we put in the emotional labor required to stay calm and patient. If we do that, a marginalized person may not have to.
We all feel defensive sometimes. Once we recognize it, we know it’s a good time to take a break, wait for our feelings to level, and examine the situation with a fresh perspective.
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
This is such an important topic, even beyond the scope of stories criticism. Binary judgements is so engrained in our society and outlook on the world, it’s a real pain to let go off. It’s always people are with me or against me. They’re good or bad, bigoted or woke, there is no place for nuance.
“ Fans feel more threatened by criticism or alternate interpretations when they think it means their own experience is invalidated. Because character representation is so lopsided in favor of privileged people, alternate interpretations of characters can even pit marginalized groups against each other.”
Encanto fandom to the front desk, Encanto fandom to the front desk.
Good article. The praise-criticism-praise term that has stuck best in mind is the S#!% Sandwich, with praise being the bread.
“As for social justice, most people still think that expressing any form of bigotry, ever, means they are akin to a member of the KKK or an MRA.” When you say “most people”, I assume you are actually referring to the toxic portion of the social justice movement.
It seems that many left-right quality arguments where bigotry accusations are thrown around can be simplified to this:
-“Yes, this work has many storytelling flaws, but it is socially progressive.”
-“Yes, this work is socially progressive, but it has many storytelling flaws.”
The determination of quality boils down to whether progressive aspects are acceptable substitute for poor traditional storytelling.
Back when fictional works were less diverse, it made more sense to bestow superlative praise upon a progressive work regardless of its quality in other categories. However, some social justice supporters point out the lack of nuanced criticism has allowed producers to churn out more socially-progressive-but-mediocre works because the culture of defensiveness suppresses an evolving standard of quality that demands progressive values AND good storytelling.
“When you say ‘most people,’ I assume you are actually referring to the toxic portion of the social justice movement.”
No, I mean the right, center, and center-left – very roughly. People who aren’t in the social justice movement.
De-tangling what’s going on with aggressive people in social justice spaces is more complicated. Sometimes people are venting. Sometimes people are appropriating and weaponizing social justice concepts to serve their own ends.
Thanks for the clarification, but now I’m confused differently. Is the correct interpretation that “[non-left folks] still think that expressing any form of bigotry, ever, means they [themselves] are akin…”? If so, I’ve heard people joke along those lines after doing something “politically incorrect”, but I’ve never heard that thought expressed with any sincerity.
I believe the disconnect is we aren’t talking about centrists loudly condemning any bigotry they hear because they think it makes someone the KKK. Rather, they think any form of bigotry is akin to the KKK, so they loudly deny that bigotry has taken place, short of the most obvious circumstances, since admitting it would be putting that situation on the same level as the KKK.
For a real life example: When we say The Wheel of Time’s portrayal of women is sexist, WoT fans hear that and assume it must mean WoT is Jack the Ripper in book form. To avoid this binary conclusion, they rush to the other extreme; that there’s nothing sexist about WoT at all.
So you’re saying that it is a sincere, if unconscious, belief and they applaud WoT (in this example) to compensate for the critique. I’d be interested in seeing the hard statistics on this particular psychological reaction.
There is, of course, also the minimizing response of “Well, it wasn’t THAT sexist.” Not sure if that viewpoint would fall within the “most people” category.
While there is certainly a subconscious aspect, as a whole I don’t know if it’s so much subconscious as it is unexamined, in the way many cultural beliefs are unexamined.
Sorry, the way I wrote it might have made it seem more hyperbolic than it is. The idea is not that people literally think everyone who’s racist is in the KKK, but that people conceptualize racism (and many other forms of bigotry) as something that only a distinct group of bad people express and not a widespread systemic and cultural problem that almost everyone exhibits to varying degrees. So having something you did called out as racist is very threatening because it means you are one of those racist people.
People do express this sentiment quite a bit. Anytime you hear the notorious, “I’m not sexist, but…” or “I’m not racist, but…” – the logic of these statements only works under a binary mindset. My personal experience has been that people who don’t believe this about bigotry have been educated or trained out of it. Even people who believe themselves to be sympathetic to social justice but simply aren’t knowledgeable about social justice generally buy into it.
It appears we’ve run out of nesting. This is in reply to Raillery request for statistics.
There may be more convenient sources, but this article covers the unexamined tendency of people to deny, mitigate or suppress discussions of prejudiced attitudes – in the case of the article, racism.
[‘They’re not racist…’ Prejudice denial, mitigation and suppression in dialogue. S Condor et al, British Journal of Social Psychology, 2006]
It can be accessed for free if you sign up to Academia.edu
A very important article.
Every story has its flaws, none is perfect. Realizing a story has flaws doesn’t mean you have to throw it away and never touch it, it just means you have to accept that it is not perfect – or that your interpretation isn’t the only one. I mean – and it hurts to say that – even the Star Wars prequels have good parts. Not many in some of them, but there are good parts in them as well (as there are bad parts in the original trilogy – I can’t judge the new ones, I haven’t seen them).
Criticism is the only way to learn things. By listening to what others didn’t like about a story – the one you’ve written or just one you love -, you can learn how to be better. That’s why I like your ‘Lessons from…’ articles so much.
It’s hard to get rid of the binary mindset, though, to understand that one or two bad aspects don’t mean you’re a bad person for loving this story.
Great article, well said and useful! Thank you!
I still have a binary mindset when it comes to stories, but mine causes a completely different cycle:
1. I become emotionally invested in a story.
2. I read criticism of that story. (Alternatively, I come up with a criticism on my own)
3. I internalize the criticism of that story.
4. I can’t read the story without viewing the critique as correct, and only focusing on that criticism.
5. I end up not being able to enjoy the story anymore.
I know this isn’t the right way to do this, but I can’t stop. I’ve ended up keeping myself from becoming emotionally invested in media in order to protect me from the above cycle. How do I experience stories without only focusing on their flaws? How do I enjoy them again?
(As a side note, this line really spoke to me: “Fans feel more threatened by criticism or alternate interpretations when they think it means their own experience is invalidated.” This happens to me all the time, because I keep internalizing the opinions of others, and I’m not sure how to stop that either.)
(One final thing: what does this sentence mean: “Each reader reacts the way they do for a reason, but that doesn’t mean their reaction defines our story”? I’ve always thought all reactions to a story were equally valid, so wouldn’t each reader’s reaction help define our story? I don’t know.)
Generally the word “define” has a much stronger connotation than one opinion among a great many. So I meant one person’s is “the final word” on the story or an authoritative interpretation on it.
Best wishes with issue you’re having when consuming media, we certainly want you to be able to enjoy stories.
I relate to your experience of liking a story, then reading criticism of it and not liking the story anymore. My advice would be to try and enjoy the story while recognizing that it’s flawed. This is easier said than done, but what’s inspiring to me is the mindset of “yes this is trash, but I unironically like it; if you have a problem with that, too bad!” It’s also hard trying to not internalize the critique in the first place… unfortunately, I don’t have any advice on that, because I also struggle with other people’s opinions overwriting my own.
It might be my age, but I’ve learned to get it to work.
I can like a story because it speaks out to me in some way, but also recognize that parts of the writing aren’t good, that there’s topics which are not okay or that there’s just general weaknesses in wordcraft and/or plotting.
It helps, I think, if you like stories which the majority looks down upon (like pulp), because then you’re prepared to say ‘they’re not perfect, but I like them’ and work from there.
I feel like this a lot about stories I like, too!
My problem is that (aside from starting almost all my comments with “the problem is” construction) that i’m unable to have any resemblance of discipline, so if i settle for a mediocre (or what i think is mediocre) output, then the slippery slope will make me settle for an even worse outcome. When i get to put enough effort into actually writing i push myself to make it perfect, to avoid having to gather effort again to correct it. Of course it is not near perfect, and any criticism pulls the lower card of the house. And then there is my own criticism on top of that screaming that it is not good enough and noone will want to read such rubbish.
I agree defensiveness is a problem when discussing media or fandoms.
Often I find that people need to “bring me over to their side”, and if I loved X but they believe X is flawed, they need to convince me that X was never really that good and I should stop liking X.
And if I hated Y, they can’t accept that but must make me think that Y is actually great and that I was an idiot for not liking Y.
If I’m ever tempted to become defensive I always remind myself that taste is subjective, experiences are subjective, and different opinions are allowed to exist.
And some flaws might be more objective, but people can react to them differently based on their experiences. A sexist trope might be more harmful to someone who experience sexism everyday, but can be overlooked by someone who don’t.
A great article, I wish that more people would think this way so that not every media discussion need to turn in to a heated debate.