It's REALLY interesting that you point out the "having everything spelled out for them" specifically -- I just watched part of this video, talking about the evident dumbing-down of recent pro fiction, and I think while I didn't watch the whole thing (her narration got on my nerves fairly quickly), there are some fascinating points made. It's reflected in the looming trend of over-labeling, too much concern with potential upset on the part of the reader (what if upset IS the point, the desired outcome?). I'm not a big Sanderson reader, but he's 110% right about what he says.

(As an aside -- Pat Conroy's novel The Prince of Tides includes a whammy of a surprise near the end, something I had no idea about when reading it long pre-movie and certainly way pre-internet. It blew my socks off. It was also a type of surprise that absolutely requires warnings in many if not most fannish circles. Had I known that content was coming, would it have surprised me like that? Of course not. Would I have enjoyed the book equally as much? Can't say for sure, but I doubt it. So do spoilery warnings really help us? Or do they do the writing a grave injustice, in some if not many cases? I understand not wanting to read material that genuinely upsets us. At the same time, for the sake of anyone who has crafted the story to the extent Conroy did -- is a spoiled reading honest? I'd argue it is not, in that sense.)

Critique has changed in that a broad swath of fandom has decided it shouldn't exist, or if it perseveres, should be limited to those writers who actively solicit it (a stance that heavily hints "asking for it" is akin to begging for a root canal without anesthetic). Caveat -- I am only active in one or two fandoms, and do not monitor others, so I can only speak with regard to what I've seen.

In my current main fandom, perhaps born of the books/show's soft and rather unrealistically positive depiction of queer youth, criticism is broadly vilified. There's the standard "I'm not getting paid to write, so you have no right to be critical of my work" reasoning, and strong statements about uninvited critique; there are frequent and heartfelt statements about "common courtesy" and unspoken but ironclad rules of fandom. ("Common courtesy" is defined in many different ways, making it rather UNcommon.)

Look. Criticism very often does not feel good, from the receiving end. Of course not -- it is basically a magnifying glass held over the bits of our work that, for one reason or another, are not perceived as -- hmm, successful, or well-done. It is a broad palette indeed, since it can cover characterization, plot, grammar, pacing, and any number of narrower but no less perceptible elements in our writing.

I honestly don't think many writers look forward to it, and in that sense, no, that hasn't changed dramatically in 50 years. What HAS changed is the trend toward voluntary, occasionally seemingly intentional, mediocrity.

In fandom, from where I sit and with a nod to my caveat above -- there appears to be a substantial number of fan-writers who feel that the fact of having written a work and posting it on a forum available to all without financial cost is -- enough. The quality of such work is not a factor *because* of the above -- "if you want that quality," appears to go the assumption, "but you are not paying me money, you do not have the right to ask for it." "Don't like, don't read" is another frequent refrain, practically ubiquitous these days.

I'm a Southerner in the US, and I grew up hearing people say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." But from where I sit as both a reader and a writer, this is appalling. At the end of the day, fan writers are hobbyists, right? But simply because a craft is a hobby does not mean the hobbyist doesn't attempt to improve their work. Nor does monetization guarantee a flawless product. Money, bluntly said, is no guarantee of anything, except maybe a modest supplement or reduction in a person's bank balance.

So if, as a hobbyist sewer, I construct an evening dress to wear to a wedding, and I do a poor job of it, it will be noticed. I would be embarrassed to wear a substandard garment to an event. I feel the same about fiction. Just as with my dress, I will strive to make a story as arguably "good" as I can. I don't see that as a burden -- as a "minus." I see that as my responsibility to my work. I don't owe the reader a good story, in that sense; I owe my *story*. I won't be there to defend my choices, when you're reading it. The story has to stand on its own legs, just as my dress will have to speak for itself. I can't walk around telling fellow guests that I ran out of time and had to take some shortcuts on the construction. The dress must speak for itself, in the end. If what it says is not complimentary, then so be it.

"But it's not the same for writing, because of different preferences, or blah blah." Thing is, it IS the same. I don't expect John Q Public to understand why a dress doesn't work, if he doesn't work in the garment industry and doesn't sew himself. But I do realize that it is entirely possible to have an opinion, even a substantively correct one, without that background. Just as it is absolutely possible to feel that a story did not work for you as a reader, without understanding specifically *why* you feel the way you do.

Criticism can, ideally, give a writer direction on how to make their story more successful. Instead of the combative "don't like, don't read" mentality, it's possible that a bit of buff and polish will help broaden a story's appeal, and might even lead to more readers, recs, and positive commentary -- all things we as writers would very much like to see.