This is a question that has been on my mind lately, and this is especially in the case as I am a fan of the Nostalgia critc and the like, but what is the difference between a nitpick and address. I ask because, at times it seems that the two get switched constantly. I read one review or listen to one reviewer and the critiques I think are good, are immeatitly denounced by another as a nitpick. How can you know when you are actually giving a point against the material or are nitpicking.

Lets turn that around, how do you as a writer know when someone is actually saying something is bad vs someone being too nitpicky

According to the dictionary, nitpicking is when you look for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily. The problem is, everyone's definition of what a small or unimportant error is can vary.

For example, you may hate the look of the new Ninja Turtles and their design ruined the movie for you. Others may not care about their look and say that concentrating on their design is just nitpicking. It's all very subjective.

I guess the important thing when reviewing something is to ask yourself, "Is this critique important or relevant?" If it's not, then it's probably a nitpick. You can still mention it in your review, but make it's importance clear.

4288695
Nitpicking only involves minor complaints, simply used to point out small moments that are a bit silly, dumb, unneeded, etc. Nitpicks don't necessarily affect their experience of your story in such a grave manner. That's where critiquing comes in. Critiques are used to address major problems with a story. Such as continuity errors, bad grammar, terrible dialogue, etc. They point out flaws that damage the experience of your story, and can potentially damage others' experience as well. When someone makes a quirky little joke about a silly moment in a story; or say that part(s) in the story rubbed them the wrong way, but they still enjoyed the story no less, that constitutes as nitpicking. When someone comes up to you with their serious face and tell you that your story needs improvement and here's why, then that's critique. When someone comes up to you to post some sort of flame comment then just ignore them, they simply don't know what they want to address.

For me it's less a question of the difference between nitpicking and critique, and more a question of the difference between nitpicking and being thorough. And my answer is that it tends to be a matter of how much weight a person is giving to minor points.

A reviewer/editor/pre-reader/whatever who makes a habit of bringing up, say, things that are only issues from a particular perspective—assuming that this person also makes a point of noting that the "issue" is minor and not something that will bother everyone—is just being thorough. His/her thoroughness can be a benefit in that readers who are as thorough as he/she is won't be bothered if the "issue" is fixed, but given that whatever the problem is really is minor, the author, now informed, should be allowed to take it or leave it.

A reviewer/editor/pre-reader who makes a habit of bringing up minor issues as though they simply must be fixed, and not accepting any refusal on the author's part to make the changes, is nitpicking.

Mind you, there is a gray area, because who's to decide what really constitutes a "minor" issue? Authors can stubbornly refuse a reviewer's reasoning as to why something is a real problem, and in a situation like that, the author could be wrongfully calling the reviewer "nitpicky". Short of examining oneself or getting the perspective of some trusted third party, all that a reviewer can do if he or she suspects that this is what's happening is to let the author be about it and/or stop offering his or her services.

The only difference is connotation. Those authors who use the term "nitpick" typically are being dismissive, typically to their own detriment.

Think of it this way: what would an author generally accuse an editor of being nitpicky about? Grammar... "ugh, no one cares about semicolons." Minor characterization aspects... "Yeah, I know that's a weird line for Sweetie Belle, but Rule of Funny." Small plot holes... "You complained here that her decision seemed forced, but you're wrong. Besides, it makes for a really emotional ending, so my version is better."

But here's the thing. An editor is no one special. Them saying "this doesn't work" is not law, not a fact. They may have read lots of fics, perhaps, but outside of this experience, their opinion is not necessarily better than any other opinion. But—and this but is bigger than Celestia's—they were a reader of your story who expressed that opinion. For this one reader, the grammar errors were enough to knock them out of the story. For this one reader, Rule of Funny was not an acceptable justification. For this one reader, your magnificent ending just felt like author fiat and therefore was unsatisfying. No amount of discrediting this editor—this reader—by calling their thoughts "nitpicks" will make them stop feeling this way. So now, you're gambling. Am I willing to hedge my bet that this reader's opinion is the odd man out, and that 99% of my readers will love this? Or, are these doubts an accurate barometer, and should I act on them now and correct the story while I still have the chance?

Keep in mind, just because I'm crapping on the concept of "nitpicks", that does not mean to imply that "all critiques deserve action." I do think that all critiques should be respectfully accepted for consideration, and that trying to blow them off will do yourself a disservice as an author. However, once you have accepted the critique and considered it, you as the author are within your right to disagree. And that is okay! It is absolutely a balancing act, to find the right balance between this paragraph and the last. But as I said, this is just one reader we're talking about. Readers, on occasion, do hold fringe opinions that are not expressed by the majority of your other readers. And frankly, at the end of the day, this is your story, not theirs. So it's perfectly valid to say "I understand why you said X, but I feel that it's justified by Y." Just keep in mind that authors have a tendency to wear rose-colored glasses when viewing their own work. Make sure you feel extra confident when you reject a criticism, because more often than not, critiques have some modicum of truth to them.

4289591

There's also the issue that a lot of reviewers tend to be people with stronger knowledge of the technical aspects of writing, and judge accordingly. A story may be popular with the masses of readers, and still not be a good story; this is especially true for stories that involve sex or certain crossovers, since they will very often be popular for that reason alone, regardless of the quality of the story.

There's also the issue of author ego. Many writers, especially new, young writers, have large but fragile egos. They're often far too concerned with popularity, and less with learning the craft of writing. As long as they have people feeding their ego, they will generally be unwilling to listen to criticism, however constructive and polite. When they refer to something as "nitpicking", the generally don't really mean that the details are unimportant, just that the criticism is unimportant to them. They may not care about readable grammar or spelling, despite the fact that such is an important element of the craft. That's one of the reasons there's so much bad pony porn on the site.

On the opposite side, there is also the issue of reviewer ego as well. FiMFiction has its share of reviewers who are only there to promote their own viewpoint, or who get off on tearing down other writers. Often both. A lot of what they will point out as "serious errors" are nitpicks, or not even real errors. (There's more than a few editors in it for the ego thing as well.) When a review or other critique is agenda-driven or ego-driven, however, it's usually fairly clear.

A common nitpick is pointing out spelling and grammatical "errors" which are points of grammar which are considered controversial (eg. split infinitives), or regional dialects (American vs. British/Canadian spelling). Likewise things like Zecora's rhyming, the inclusion of comic storylines as canon, the timeline of the story vs. canon timeline, and so on are generally nitpicks as well. There are a number of gray areas regarding canon and characterization, since there is a good deal of inconsistency in the show as well, and a number of show writers make their own canon/characterization errors (and that's not even getting into the huge variation in the comics). These can be legitimate points of criticism, but can just as easily be nitpicks, depending on the attitude of the reviewer, and how much weight such criticisms are given.

Personally, before taking stock of reviewer's (or editor's) critiques on something, I prefer to see a sample of their own writing; stories ideally, blog posts if they have no stories. They don't have to be great writers, just competent. Especially when it comes to the more subjective aspects of storytelling, like characterization and canon consistency. Reviewing, like writing, as far more an art than a science.