Capes & Phaser Banks: Worst Comment In Bad Criticism

Capes & Phaser Banks: Worst Comment In Bad Criticism:

cythraul:

gailsimone:

capesandphaserbanks:

gailsimone:

“It added nothing to the story.”

ALWAYS cracks me up. :)

I would say that is valid criticism with context. There’s really no context here. “Does this add anything to the story?” seems like it should be a question any writer should be asking themselves? It could be overwriting….

I’ve read Moby Dick a couple times, and I disagree strenuously with the last paragraph of your thoughtful post.  I understand that people find the endless whaling detail excrutiating, but to say it ‘adds nothing to the story’ is simply ridiculous. Melville clearly disagreed. If you say, it adds nothing to the MAIN story, I would still argue tooth and nail that that is shooting way wide of the mark.

I think it shows a lack of understanding of tone, context, theme, character, and most importantly for this discussion, subtext. There are a million good reasons to include material that does not directly seem to affect getting protagonist A into conflict B. Instead of saying, ”that does nothing for the main story,” why not ask why that material is included, what the meaning of it is in story terms?

All that’s being shown is a lack of imagination, really.

Melville disagreeing with the poster is not the same as the poster being wrong.

“It adds nothing to the story” is a much more specific statement than “does not directly seem to affect getting protagonist A into conflict B.”

As you say, “[t]here are a million good reasons to include material that does not directly seem to affect getting protagonist A into conflict B.”  But I don’t think it’s unfair to point at a particular element of a work and say that it doesn’t carry any of these million reasons.

I say this without knowing any of the context that surrounded the original “It adds nothing to the story” comment - as the other commenters say, we we’re not given that context by your original post.

There really IS no context, it’s just a cringe-making phrase whenever I see it.

I would say that the reader not understanding why a scene is in a story in no way invalidates its import. It’s certainly possible that a writer has added material that actually DOESN’T have a story function…but I would still say that that is going to be the reader’s opinion rather than the author’s intent. And usually, when I see that phrase, it’s a red flag that the critic has no understanding of what a story actually IS.

It’s not sour grapes, I’m not speaking of any review in particular, it’s just something that’s bugged me since I was a kid and read someone use that phrase for a major contextual section in one of the greatest adventure stories of the past several decades, Watership Down. It was their opinion that the bunnies meeting the ‘tamed’ wild rabbits on the way to their eventual home (not the Owsla, the art rabbits), ‘added nothing to the story,’ which is such a boneheaded and clueless thing to say that I have never quite gotten over it.  ;)