# Advice on advice



## Trick (Mar 20, 2014)

I've recently taken up with a group of younger writers. They meet biweekly and several members are friends with my younger brother-in-law. I'm not exactly old but I have ten years of drudging my way through learning to write; an ongoing process as the MS inhabitants are aware. 

They have... high school. 

I would say that each is talented enough to go forward, some more than others. I cannot tell them, "well, my first published book..." fill in sage advice. I'm not there yet. But I feel they view me as more than I am; a flaw I have shared (and still share on my prideful days {all but Wednesday}), but still. 

They read their work to each other in a coffee house and comment on each other's strengths and weaknesses. I tend to stay somewhat quiet until my turn comes to read. Afterward, they have little to say (it's ok, i get my much needed advice right here). Hearing someone read their own work is far from an audiobook. With perfect inflection and emphasis, every book sounds better than it reads. I got some copies of their work right after their last meeting and I don't know how to tell them that it all needs a lot of work. I'm not exactly an expert. I'm not even nearly one. But, in fairness, I know things they don't. 

I don't want to hand back redlined messes of paper that make them hate themselves and I don't want to tread so softly that they fail to improve.

So, as the title says, I need advice on advice.

I welcome your insights.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 20, 2014)

Something that I've read, and works for me, is the "Compliment Sandwich." I've stolen this idea and call it the "Phil Sandwich" but that's besides the point. I feel every writer has some strength or other that can be honed in on, while also highlighting a lot of their problems as well. The Compliment Sandwich works this way:

1. You did this very well.

2. These things weren't so good. (or if you're blunt "These things sucked.")

3. You also did this very well.

This allows you to "sandwich" two sections of good with one middle section of bad and/or needs improving. I'm of the belief that an honest critique doesn't have to be brutal in order to get the point across. However, if someone says, "Please be brutal" don't be afraid to hold back. You have to let people understand what your version of brutal is though.

Sure, you can red pen the hell out of them and show them how hopelessly far away from reaching any sort of goal they are. Mileage may vary. 

If the point of the group is a friendly critique session, then I don't so the point in burying them. However, if they're taking writing very seriously, you may be doing them a disservice by holding back. I'd suggest gauging how brutal a critique can be by sharing one of your harshest critiques on your own work. If they cringe and say, "Wow, that was too much" then you'll have a better idea of how to handle things.

For me, I have students who write stories casually. They have no intention of trying to publish them or anything, so when I critique them I do very little other than suggest some words to clean up or some points they can highlight more. However, if someone is expecting a thorough critique with all of my "wisdom" (I use the world loosely) behind it, then it makes more sense to be more honest. 

Bottom line is that I think understanding how serious these other people are is important to figure out. Some may say, "Unleash hell on them" but I don't see the point in that if they're being hobbyists. If they say "I really need this polished as I plan to submit this for publishing" I'd say spare nothing as you may be doing them a disservice by not telling them it's not ready. But there are ways to be critical and constructive without being harsh. It's a delicate line to balance.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 20, 2014)

First off, a more general statement that I've heard other writers say. Always find something good. Is the characterization strong? Does it have some nice turns of phrase? Are you interested in the world it portrays? Even one positive statement can help a lot in dealing with negative ones.

The rest of this is all stuff I've come up with from watching how fanfic writers progress from awful to good. This is not anything I've heard anyone else say, so take it with a grain of salt.

When fanfic writers progress, the first thing they learn is usually clarity. This includes not just spelling and grammar, but word choice, sentence order, and other factors that make it easier or harder to understand the story. If you're critiquing an author whose writing is hard to understand, focus in on that and don't bother with other issues (save maybe characterization--I'll get to that later.)

The second thing fanfic writers learn tends to be the specific voice and style they want to use. This is the hardest thing to critique directly, but you can work around it in two ways. On the negative side, you can note points where voice interferes with other aspects of the writing (particularly clarity.) On the positive side, you can observe points where the voice improves the story, and describe what you like about those points and how the voice could be applied elsewhere. 

(Note that some authors become very, very indignant when you say that their voice interferes with clarity. Don't even bother trying to critique these people--just learn to avoid them.)

The third, or occasionally fourth, thing fic writers learn is plotting on a macro level. This is more than just making sure there's a beginning, middle, and end--they need to learn to prime Chekhov's guns, to develop a consistent theme and build it throughout the story, to use characters who work and cut characters who don't, etc. Note that critiquing this sort of thing is generally considered separate from the micro-level critique I talk about in the rest of this post--I don't really know a lot about how to discuss it, so I'll just move on. (If anyone else wants to talk about it, feel free.)

The (usual) fourth thing fic writers learn is flow and pacing on a micro level, which I maintain are two aspects of the same skill. I can and have described the techniques involved here*, but it seems like more of an instinctive thing for most authors, so it might be hard to be specific. If you don't know the details of what to say, go broad: "When I read this part here, it feels really rushed. Could you slow it down a bit, more like this part?" Or "You've got some nice details here, but there might be too many of them for what's supposed to be a fast, actiony scene. If you cut this and this, it'll feel less languid." (Just don't try this on authors who don't have a strong voice already--it can be overwhelming. And definitely don't try this on authors who haven't gotten clarity down yet--maximizing clarity impedes flow and vice versa, so they need to know how to balance them out.)

Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be a specific point where authors get good at characterization. They usually don't get good at worldbuilding until after they learn clarity, but I've seen some real personality from characters in narratives that were otherwise horribly unclear. This probably means that characterization can be critiqued at anywhere in the process. (Though I suggest making it less "I don't like this character" and more "This character isn't very sympathetic"--it gives more leeway for authors to intentionally write unsympathetic characters. Similarly, "It makes no sense for the character to do this" should be replaced with "I don't understand why the character did this"--the issue may simply be one of clarity.)

As a final warning, you may encounter authors who have really, really good sentence flow, but inconsistent characterization and/or jumbled plotting. Initially, approach these authors like any others, and critique them normally (being sure to include positives, as mentioned above.) If they become enraged at you, run like the wind and never look back. They often write in the same communities as a lot of authors with terrible flow, and they can recognize that their sentences just _look_ better, so they've been known to convince themselves they're perfect and lash out at anyone who suggests otherwise.

I hope that at least hits the important points.

* Rule 1: when in doubt, write your sentences in iambs. It's amazing how many uses they have.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 20, 2014)

I agree with pretty much everything Phil said.

When I critique, I try to get a feel for who I'm critiquing. You never want to crush someone, so I try to get a feel if they can take a sledgehammer or not. IMHO the more trust you develop with someone, the more blunt you can be. When it's a long term relationship like you're describing, you can ease into certain areas. Stuff like grammar can wait because its generally cut and dry. Either it's proper grammar or it's not, so it can be addressed at later times.

Story is where things can get tricky. Watch your language. Avoid phrases like "You should do X" "You did X wrong" they tend to be confrontational, like poking a finger into their chest and telling them what to do. It's their story and what they do with it is up to them. Try phrasing things like "X didn't work for me because Y. If the story did Z instead. I think it would work better." Refer to the story not the person. It makes it clear that the comments are about the story not the author. 

I always start on big picture issues, because a lot of the time as a writer fiddles and fixes the big picture stuff, the smaller stuff tends to go away or matter less. So if there are a mountain of issues, you don't have drop a big red ink bomb on them. You can instead focus on the big picture stuff and just mention some of the smaller stuff. If they come back with the next draft and all the big picture stuff is fixed, then you can start focusing in on the smaller issues.

Also I think a small reminder to them that all critiques are just opinions, which can be wrong, and that part of becoming a better writer is learning when to discard advice, will help them become a little less sensitive. So instead of a emotional response to a criticism, they have more of an analytical response. They'll ask is this information useful, and does it make sense? Instead of thinking they're telling me my story sucks. It also puts the power back into the author's hands. Instead of the critiquer being this all knowing judge passing objective sentence onto a story, the critiquer is acknowledged as just someone with an opinion that can be disregarded.

And finally, if you're about to deliver a red-letter-mess, be certain and careful of what you're saying. What I mean by that is don't just read the story once. Read it at least twice, and don't skim. Why? There's no quicker way to lose trust than to make it obvious that you didn't take the time to read the story carefully.

I've had people nitpick away at stories, and from their comments, it's very obvious they haven't really read the story. They'll point to a spot and say you should add this element or be more specific about X here. And when I look at these comments, I'll realize those things are prominently present two paragraphs before that spot or right at the beginning of the story. Things like this tell me they're not really paying attention, so the weight and value their critiques carry aren't very high in my eyes.

Either read the story right, or don't read it at all. Otherwise it's just a waste of time for both parties. 

My 2-cents.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 20, 2014)

I've not done much in the way of critiquing, but I've found that a format similar to this works out pretty well:

1. Most favorite thing.
2. Most room for improvement.
3. Something I would like to see more.
4. Something that's a bit unclear to me.
5. Character I got closest to.
6. Character that feels most distant.
7. Best idea.
8. Strangest idea (something I'm unclear on).
9. Other notable points.
10. Overall impression
11. Something I would like to learn more about if there was a sequel.

Now, admittedly, I made some of these points up while writing this, but the basic idea and most of the points really have been tried and tested. Also note that it sandwiches "good" and "bad" feedback and that the "bad" feedback points are formulated in a way that makes them seem less harsh.


----------



## Devor (Mar 20, 2014)

The thing to remember is that everyone has room to improve.   There's very few people who shouldn't have a page dripping in red ink if they could find someone capable of critiquing them.  It's only your job to help them improve, not to get them to a perfect page.  So you don't need to tackle everything, just a few points that will get the most important message across for where they are in their writing.

Don't drive yourself crazy trying to fix them.  None of what they're writing now is going to get published.  Just listen to what they read and pick the one or two things that they could do which would most improve their writing, and focus on that.  There's no reason not to take it slow.  As they improve expand into the next thing they can do to improve.

Keep it simple, focus on the most important thing, don't overwhelm them, and you will actually see them become better writers because of you.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 20, 2014)

PenPilot has a similar approach to me. I'm much more blunt probably, but I do believe the relationship between winter & reviewer is important. I've done crits for some people for years. The longer I work with them, the more I come to understand their vision & what they need from me. That takes time and it's good to be clear about this, with your partners, up front.  

Secondly, the emphasis that your critique is only opinion is key. I used to think writers, at any level, should understand that point innately. They do not. If it's someone that I don't have an established writing relationship with, I take the time to make sure they understand that my opinion is nothing more than that. Further, debating the opinion is a good thing when done constructively. It grants the writer an opportunity to consider alternative approaches & it allows the reviewer to learn more about the writer's vision.   

Next, don't tell someone how to improve. That's your way. Rather, give them options on ways you've learned to deal with a particular issue, but make sure they know these may not work for them. Delivering recommendations in this manner grants them the freedom to experiment with your ideas as well as others they may find more appealing.  

Lastly, be honest. Honesty in this business is a gift. Nothing is more harmful than a critique where the reader only wants to please the writer. Readers, editors, & agents will be brutally honest, or even worse, dismissive of bad work. It's far better they receive a dose of reality from you while they have time to improve.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2014)

I usually take Phil's approach as well, though I do focus more on things I think are problematic.

Interestingly, I heard a report on NPR yesterday regarding the sandwich approach to performance reviews, and the researchers there said that using it actually hurts the process. They found that when a sandwich approach is used, the recipient tends tends to focus on the good comments at the beginning, and the good comments at the end, and the middle becomes a sort of background noise to them. The suggestion made by the researcher was that if there are substantial negatives, the best way for the person receiving the review to improve is for the commenter to focus exclusively on the areas that need improvement (i.e. by doing that, they saw the most actual improvement in the recipient).

I wonder how that would play out in writing critiques?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 20, 2014)

That's probably dependent on experience level. A mature writer, someone who's been at it awhile and that you've worked with a lot, will likely benefit more by just receiving the straight dope. They already know their strengths & weakness, and they know you're aware of them as well.

A newer writer might find a balanced approach more effective because you'd be highlighting strengths they may not be aware of at all while showing them areas to improve upon.


----------



## Aspasia (Mar 20, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> A newer writer might find a balanced approach more effective because you'd be highlighting strengths they may not be aware of at all while showing them areas to improve upon.



Very true. I myself am a new writer : I have been off-and-on writing for quite some time but I don't have the solid experience and backlog of knowledge that a lot of you that have written, finished, polished, critiqued, reviewed, submitted have. I've _started_ a lot of stories but have terrible trouble finishing them, thus I have very little experince critically looking at and evaluating my writing. I probably am not even aware what strengths in writing I may have! Having an experienced person really look at my writing and tell me : hey, this is great! So is this! would probably be an eye-opener for me. Wow, I didn't even know I did this well, but this experienced writer says I did! Of course the main point to critiques is helping the writer improve, so pointing out areas where improvement is necessary should be central. But don't leave off the good stuff, as well as the bad stuff! Perhaps you will help some fledgling writer find their voice. A fresh eye looking at a story can see strengths and weaknesses the author may not, and identifying both of these is important to the improvement of the writer and story both.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 20, 2014)

> Interestingly, I heard a report on NPR yesterday regarding the sandwich approach to performance reviews, and the researchers there said that using it actually hurts the process. They found that when a sandwich approach is used, the recipient tends tends to focus on the good comments at the beginning, and the good comments at the end, and the middle becomes a sort of background noise to them. The suggestion made by the researcher was that if there are substantial negatives, the best way for the person receiving the review to improve is for the commenter to focus exclusively on the areas that need improvement (i.e. by doing that, they saw the most actual improvement in the recipient).
> 
> I wonder how that would play out in writing critiques?



Well, my tendency is to not play up the positives nearly as much as what needs to be improved. So I guess I kind of use this approach, but I tend to not be so harsh. To me, there's a difference between being harsh and being honest. You can be honest without making people feel like crap about their writing. The point of a critique is to point out what works and what doesn't. I guarantee the people in the performance reviews aren't saying, "Well, Bill, your presentation totally sucked and you said 'um' like 25 times. I counted. 25 times, Bill." They're probably thinking of more constructive ways to highlight what needs to be improved. However, if someone does something good, why not say they did something good? Don't overplay it certainly, but say it was good.

I do agree I would more likely be a little more straight-forward with someone I know better. However, I don't think it's possible to form lasting critique partnerships if you're blunt right out of the gate. It's like dating someone for two days and saying, "Wow, your new haircut looks like crap." Sure, some might appreciate the honesty, but more likely than not, that's something you wouldn't say to an almost complete stranger. 



> Lastly, be honest. Honesty in this business is a gift. Nothing is more harmful than a critique where the reader only wants to please the writer. Readers, editors, & agents will be brutally honest, or even worse, dismissive of bad work. It's far better they receive a dose of reality from you while they have time to improve.



I agree, but again, there's a difference between honesty and brutality. There's a fine line. To me, nothing is more harmful than a critic that only wants to please him or herself. The point of critiquing is to help, not to impose will.

Edit: I'd like to add, I think asking people the equivalent of "brutality threshold" is a good idea. If someone tells me, "Tear it apart" then I'll oblige. I've done this before and people don't talk to me afterwards (that's only happened once though, and that was about 5 years ago or so). I guess that's not my problem though. It's also important to ask what the critique partner wants you to focus on. That way if you're not concerned with nit-picky things, then say that so the partner can focus more on characterization, plot, etc.


----------



## Trick (Mar 20, 2014)

Thanks for all the 'advice squared.' I think I'll be talking to them about what they expect from a full critique before I hand anything back. I will definitely be applying versions of the critique examples you all gave. I like the sandwich along with clarifying that my opinion is exactly that. The worst thing that could happen is I make one of these kids feel like they aren't good enough to improve, and I will do whatever I can to avoid that. One in particular made sure I had actual copies of his work so I'll start with him. 

I remember my first 'critique' though it was hardly that. A well-read friend of mine read my work and said, as he handed it back to me, "Details, man!" I came to learn that my writing was far too sparse and I still struggle with it somewhat, though on an entirely different level. I think his simple comment led to an improvement in my writing that cannot be measured.

Hopefully I can do even half as much with so few words.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 20, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> I agree, but again, there's a difference between honesty and brutality. There's a fine line. To me, nothing is more harmful than a critic that only wants to please him or herself. The point of critiquing is to help, not to impose will.



Yes I can agree with that Phil. That's the other side of the coin. As a reviewer, imposing one's vision on the writer's work is equally harmful, I suppose.    

When I first started doing crits I firmly believed there was a right way & a wrong way. It took a long time before I understood there are many different approaches to writing, all valid. Still, there are some tenets I cling to because I believe in them deeply. These come from my experiences. It's what I know to work for my writing. It's all I have to offer, but now I understand it's not the only way.    

I used to do a lot of critiques on the Showcase Forum. I stopped because there's a key element that's missing, the relationship. Often, it seemed as if writers, submitting their works for the first time to strangers, were looking more for applause than growth. They'd get angry at honest opinion, given in the sincere desire to help. Why? Isn't that the purpose of critique, to hear about issues we may not be aware of and open up opportunities to improve? To listen to opinion?    

The problem was two-fold. First, I didn't have time to learn about their vision. Secondly, most never expressed what they needed from critiques. There was no basis for relationship or understanding.     

I still do crits for people, but I do them privately. However, I make sure to establish the relationship first and set expectations. By understanding what the writer needs, I can focus my energy.   

For the most part, it's the writer's responsibility to set expectations but the reviewer has some stake in this as well. It's the reviewer's responsibility to attempt to understand the author's vision. Just a few simple statements and questions, up front, can start the whole shebang off on the right foot. To do otherwise is going in blind. There's too much potential for disappointment and hurt feelings down that road.  

Being a good partner is a learned skill. Doing critiques for people is one of the best ways to help your own writing too. You can learn so much by evaluating another's work. But, all involved parties need to understand that no one is the expert and everyone is learning. Some partners will be more helpful based on experience and relationship. Others may just be learning how to review effectively. There's little value in emotional reaction, especially with people that are offering precious time to help us improve. It's advantageous to grant them the time and knowledge they require to understand our needs & goals.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 20, 2014)

> I still do crits for people, but I do them privately. However, I make sure to establish the relationship first and set expectations. By understanding what the writer needs, I can focus my energy.
> 
> For the most part, it's the writer's responsibility to set expectations but the reviewer has some stake in this as well. It's the reviewer's responsibility to attempt to understand the author's vision. Just a few simple statements and questions, up front, can start the whole shebang off on the right foot. To do otherwise is going in blind. There's too much potential for disappointment and hurt feelings down that road.



I'd say I'm the same. I rarely do public critiques anymore and I guess it has more to do with the relationship aspect you mentioned. If I don't know people I'm critiquing, I don't know what their reaction will be. There's also the whole "he said something bad about me so now I'll say something bad about him" aspect that I think goes with people who aren't used to the process. It's not helpful. The key word for me is helpful. If something isn't helpful, leave it out. If it's meant to just get a dig on someone or make yourself look wiser than them, leave it out. If it's meant just to make someone feel cheerful about their work, leave it out. If it's helpful, whether good or bad, keep it.

I agree ten fold that it's really up to the writer to give some guidelines to what they want. For example:

"I just wrote this. Please check it out. I would like special attention to the following:

1. Did you feel like my main character is active enough?
2. Are there any aspects of the setting that are not clear?
3. I'm having trouble getting my magic exactly right. Did the explanation feel too info-dumpy or was it interspersed well enough that you could understand it?"

Things like this I can work with. So I believe it's the writer's responsibility to say what they want from this relationship. If they want a pat on the back, it might be better to share your work with friends. If you want an in-depth, honest, helpful critique, then sometimes finding the right person may take some trial and error. 

I'm currently not really doing any critiquing right now since I'm just too swamped with my own projects. However, I've had some great partners over the years, so I'd love to jump back into it at some point.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 20, 2014)

> The problem was two-fold. First, I didn't have time to learn about their vision. Secondly, most never expressed what they needed from critiques. There was no basis for relationship or understanding.



I definitely get more out of beta reading and being beta read from people with whom I have such a relationship.  However, I'm reluctant to abandon the Showcase and other such venues, and I absolutely cannot afford to spend the time necessary to ty to build a relationship first.

It's not a perfect solution, but I pretty much start with critiquing a small section of the writing with brutal honesty.  If the writer responds well and seems open for more, I will invest more time.  If the writer reacts poorly, I say "at least I tried" and move on.


----------



## Addison (Mar 20, 2014)

In my experience, you need to find a balance with the critique just as much as in writing with balancing showing and telling. The good and the bad. 

There are three types of critique, which follow the same type of rejection letters a writer can get. 
1. "No Story for You!" The worst rejection letter to get and the worst type of advice to get. This type is all brutally negative. Like the in-laws that come over and pick at everything in the house, even if there's nothing wrong. Whatever good feeling the writer had, their confidence, you didn't just take it away you punched them in the face before you took it. 

2. "Dear John/Jane." This is in the middle. It's not as bad or harsh as the first, but it's the type that I've witnessed more. It's like a Dear John letter. "Dear writer, your story was quick, fresh and described with simple eloquence. But overall I give it a four on a scale of one to ten. The sentence structure was choppy. Your descriptions only focused on one sense. There was more telling than showing so overall it felt like an enjoyable text book." This is how these critiques are. They start with the good to help the writer relax but they keep the positive simple and quick but then they hit with an in-depth look at the negative. If you spend just as much or more time with the positive as the negative then this critique would be great. But that's what the third is.

3. This is THE critique you want to give and get. It's also the rejection letter you want. This one builds more on the positive and less on the negative. Ex; "Dear Writer, thank you for your submission. Your idea is new and fresh. The writing you sent showed me you have a perfect balance of showing and telling and a great talent for making the setting an integral part of the scenes. I really enjoyed following your protagonist, Jessalyn Meyers (unique name too). Unfortunately this isn't quite what we're looking for. It was an enjoyable work and I have no doubt that you will see it in a publisher's hands soon. Good luck."  In some cases they will even add another lit agency that they know will take your story. This is the type of critique you want to give. Unless you see kindergarten grammar and complete novice mistakes (no balance, terrible pacing etc) then don't bother with mentioning it. Come on there's good in everything. Find a balance, give it straight, honest, but gently. 

So that's my input. Hope this helped.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 20, 2014)

> 3. This is THE critique you want to give and get. It's also the rejection letter you want. This one builds more on the positive and less on the negative. Ex; "Dear Writer, thank you for your submission. Your idea is new and fresh. The writing you sent showed me you have a perfect balance of showing and telling and a great talent for making the setting an integral part of the scenes. I really enjoyed following your protagonist, Jessalyn Meyers (unique name too). Unfortunately this isn't quite what we're looking for. It was an enjoyable work and I have no doubt that you will see it in a publisher's hands soon. Good luck." In some cases they will even add another lit agency that they know will take your story. This is the type of critique you want to give. Unless you see kindergarten grammar and complete novice mistakes (no balance, terrible pacing etc) then don't bother with mentioning it. Come on there's good in everything. Find a balance, give it straight, honest, but gently.



I'm not getting balance out of this example.  It seems like it's a heap of praise with no actual criticism.  It wouldn't help me at all if I put a piece of writing on the Showcase and got a response like this:



> Brian,
> 
> Loved the writing and the story.  Great tension and character.  Overall, though, it just wasn't for me.



Maybe it all depends on the motivation of the person putting up the work.

I want to learn to be a better writer.  Any comment that can help me achieve that end, I appreciate.


----------



## Addison (Mar 20, 2014)

Yeah that wasn't the best example for the third one. Sorry.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 20, 2014)

Although I understand the sentiment, there's a big distinction between critiques from agents or editors, in the form of a rejection letter, and critiques given by peers.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 20, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> I agree ten fold that it's really up to the writer to give some guidelines to what they want.



Absolutely. I remember being in a new writing group and people were just feeling each other out. I specifically told everyone that what I was bringing each session was a 4th draft and that they should be ripping it a part. But even then they were afraid to.

When I'm being critiqued, I keep my mouth shut and listen. I take notes, I nod, and I say thank you for all the good suggestions. I did this for a few sessions until one critiquer stopped to asked if I was OK. She thought maybe she was being too harsh and hurting my feelings. It wasn't even close to being harsh. It was like being hit by cotton balls. Then, everyone else brought up that I didn't give them much in terms of a response to their comments, ever.

I had to explain myself and we all had a good laugh. I had to reinforce that they couldn't hurt my feelings, even if they said the story sucked. I also made sure that I gave them more feedback on the feedback, letting them know my reactions to it. This evolved into something that instead of straight critiques for stories we would have discussions. This allowed me to gain more insight as to where the critiquer was coming from. Sometimes they didn't know exactly what a problem was, but their comments would give me enough, so that I could figure it out myself.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Although I understand the sentiment, there's a big distinction between critiques from agents or editors, in the form of a rejection letter, and critiques given by peers.



I agree. It is nice to receive the positive in a rejection letter, letting you know (if true) that the story was good but just not the right fit. There is no value in getting that letter back if it isn't true, however. Personally, I've only ever gotten anything of use to me from negative critiques. The ones that are full of praise are nice, I suppose (if they're true), but they're not much use.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 20, 2014)

Perhaps one thing you might think about is encouraging them to try a challenge one time.  Like everyone write a short story and focus on one element.  The challenges we play here have helped me focus in on specific things while I learn in general.

If you find yourself saying the same things repeatedly (This POV switching is jarring, The MC doesn't seem to have a motivation, Who is the antagonist?, or This feels like a bunch of random events rather than a linear story), you might consider trying to expound on one of those first to the benefit of all.  

WHen I work woth writers with less experience, I often find some of the same things plaguing every one of them's manuscripts.  Sometimes it's the total lack of senses except sight.  Other times, it's that they show an event and right after, tell how the character feels.  WHatever problems your group of young writers suffer from, honing in on a couple things to make a point of and letting the majority of trouble spots pass under the radar might be the best solution.

I know other people have said that, i merely wanted to encourage you to pick a couple of the things you felt most problematic and use them as examples for the whole group.  Each of us have strengths and weaknesses, but most new writers have many of the same flaws in their written work.  You might consider doing a workshop once a month to focus on specific elements of writing (since they see you as a sort of mentor).  Honestly, whether you feel like an appropriate mentor or not, these young people have chosen you to be theirs at least in some part.  Do your best to encourage them and be honest without being harsh... but do your best to teach a few good solid lessons they can remember and use int he future.

I have a few bits of advice I give to everyone.  One is my editing process, "Target Editing".  Another is that writing a story is like maintaining a bank account (I'm sure I've put it up here multiple times).  Find your own way to make a lesson really easy to remember and build off it.  If your group is having really noob problems like head-hopping in third limited, focus in on that.  Explain how to stay in a POV and the benefits of doing so.  With a few sound lessons under their belts and a bit of time to apply them... people grow very quickly.

Best wishes, MENTOR


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 20, 2014)

ooh, one more thing.  If you want to teach a harder lesson... use your own work.  For example, I feel bad publicly picking someone else's work apart, but I'm fine doing it with my own.  I recently posted a thread Editing: or why we leave this for last (or something like that) and I picked my own work apart and showed my edit.  Perhaps give everyone a section of your work and teach them how to crit it.  That way, soon they'll be able to see their mistakes and weaknesses in their own work.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I agree. It is nice to receive the positive in a rejection letter, letting you know (if true) that the story was good but just not the right fit. There is no value in getting that letter back if it isn't true, however. Personally, I've only ever gotten anything of use to me from negative critiques. The ones that are full of praise are nice, I suppose (if they're true), but they're not much use.



I could not agree more with this.

People say, "Knowing what I did right is important so that I can do more of it."

I guess that's true, but, if I'm showing it to you, it means it's as right as I can get it.  I need help figuring out what I did wrong so that I can correct it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

This thread and a couple of recent experiences inspired me to do a blog post today:

The Most Important Fact to Convey to New Writers | Brian W. Foster

Bottom line: I think that the best thing I can do for a new writer is tell them that their writing sucks.


----------



## Devor (Mar 21, 2014)

This really is one of those questions that requires a lot of consideration.  For example, it would be a bad idea to suggest that everyone here flock to the showcase to tell people their writing sucks.  But too much "tact" can do more harm than good if it buries the message and gives people the wrong impression.

In my opinion the only thing you can do is recognize that everyone - everyone - has room to improve, and all you can do is drop the bush-beating and the condescension and be straight forward about that fact.  "You can do a little better improving on these two or three things.  And once you've fixed those there will always be two or three more things, they'll just get a little more subtle each time, until I'm no longer good enough to see them.  But keep working and improving and somewhere in there you'll get to be publishable.  Maybe I can take you that far, and maybe I can't."

It really is that simple.  To be blunt, the more important question is whether you can competently identify two or three things to improve, or whether you're talking out of your . . . . . . own inexperience.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2014)

> Bottom line: I think that the best thing I can do for a new writer is tell them that their writing sucks.



I'm honestly curious how often that actually works. You just tell someone their writing sucks and they say, "Oh, OK. Thanks, you helped me so much?" 

I guess I get the overall point of what you mean by this, but again, I think there is a strong difference between being honest and being unnecessarily blunt. You can give a tough critique without resorting to insulting someone's work. 

However, to some degree I agree with you that if you're going to get in the business of writing (meaning trying to sell your work) you may need a crash course in brutality if people have held your hand and told you how great you are every step of the way. Part of me feels there is a need to be broken of this idea that everyone is going to love your work, because they won't. Even if you're Tolkien, Martin, or Rowling, you'll have your share of "haters." 

It's hard to determine what side of the fence I'm on, because I do think tough critiques are more helpful, but at the same time there are ways to do that and still be tactful is all.

For example, here are two tough critiques:

1. I found your character Jan lacked depth. 

vs. 

2. Jan is boring and incredibly stupid.

or...

1. Your plot was rather confusing. I wasn't exactly sure what they were supposed to be doing or where they were going.

vs. 

2. Your plot is an incomprehensible mess. Did you even have any idea what you were doing here?

The number 2 examples just come off as condescending to me. Maybe they're more straight to the point, I guess. When people get this tone from a critique, the "honesty" gets drowned out to a certain degree. They may feel attacked. Sure, maybe it's "their fault" for being too sensitive, I don't know. I just feel it's better for a critique relationship if it doesn't always feel like one person is the wise master dispensing advice from a mountain and the other is the lowly student that must be brow-beaten into submission.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I just find the best partnerships work on mutual respect. If you're telling people they suck, that respect may not last. 

For the OP, I highly recommend you don't tell all these other writers in your group that they suck. Be tough if that's what they want and they ask for it, but I get the sense these are hobbyists at the moment. There's a way to prepare people for the "real world" without throwing them in the pool and dunking their heads.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

> It really is that simple. To be blunt, the more important question is whether you can competently identify two or three things to improve, or whether you're talking out of your . . . . . . own inexperience.



I disagree with your basic premise.

Limiting the discussion to how to best help new writers:

All I can really do for another author is tell him how I would handle a situation and what has helped me.  That may or may not help him.

No two authors are alike.  (We're like snowflakes  )  My style is not your style.  T.Allen and I seem to agree on a lot of subjects, but there are problably more differences than similarities.  For any critiquer to think that anyone should take all their advice is silly.  For anyone being beta read to take anyone's advice as gospel is likewise just as silly.

The important thing to convey is to a new writer is:

1. Writing fiction is harder than you think it is.
2. We're all just struggling to figure it out.
3. These are the biggest issues I had with your work.  Perhaps researching them will lead you to a breakthrough.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

> I'm honestly curious how often that actually works. You just tell someone their writing sucks and they say, "Oh, OK. Thanks, you helped me so much?"



Phil, I'm being completely honest here: more often than you think.  I've had some great results.

The upside to me is that, when someone reacts poorly, I don't waste my time unnecessarily.

Trying to help a newb can be a huge timesink, and that's fine if it's going to do any good.  I guess my main reason for being blunt is that I'd rather find out from the start if it's going to be a waste of my time.



> For example, here are two tough critiques:
> 
> 1. I found your character Jan lacked a depth.
> 
> ...



Again to be honest, I find myself thinking that the second option is the better bet in most cases.  Even knowing that, I most often end up going with the first option.  It's hard to be blunt.  I'd much rather tell someone, "Hey, that was awesome.  I loved it!" than it is to say, "Look dude, you suck.  Go find a book on writing or something."

It just seems to me that most people are so in the dark about the actual state of their ability that they need to be told forcefully or they just won't get the point. 



> I don't know if this makes sense, but I just find the best partnerships work on mutual respect. If you're telling people they suck, that respect may not last.



I think of a partnership as a relationship between peers.  My advice was directed to more experienced authors who are dealing with newbs.



> For the OP, I highly recommend you don't tell all these other writers in your group that they suck. Be tough if that's what they want and they ask for it, but I get the sense these are hobbyists at the moment. There's a way to prepare people for the "real world" without throwing them in the pool and dunking their heads.



I should have clarified that my advice was not really directed at the OP.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 21, 2014)

I got a bit of the "your writing sucks" when I first posted in the showcase - at least that's what it felt like. It wasn't fun. 

However, when I asked why it sucked I got a good explanation, with examples on how to make improvements. When I asked for clarifications on concepts I wasn't familiar with I got them. That was very valuable to me and I learned and improved a lot from it (at least I like to think so).

I could have received this advice without first being told my writing wasn't up to scratch, but I'm not sure if I'd been as receptive to it without first taking a bit of a beating to my ego. I might have, but I don't know and I'm not so sure.

The thing here is I couldn't do that myself. I'm too nervous about hurting someone's feelings to tell them their work is shit, especially if it's someone I don't know. I'm not comfortable doing it - regardless of whether they say they can take it or not. It's just not in me.
I still like to give feedback though as it really is a great way of improving on my own understanding of the concepts I'm commenting on. I go about it my way, because it's the best way I know to do it. I guess it's like a lot of others have already said, these things vary from person to person.


----------



## Devor (Mar 21, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I disagree with your basic premise.



I'm not sure you're talking about the basic premise.  The basic premise is that everyone needs to improve, both the critiquer and the critiquee, so stop pretending like saying so is some kind of big insult that needs to be delivered with a slew of niceties, or that you need to fix everything you're reading all at once because it's oh so awful.  Just pick a few things and talk about them.  And as things improve you move on to a few more things.  There's always more.




> No two authors are alike.  (We're like snowflakes  )  My style is not your style.  T.Allen and I seem to agree on a lot of subjects, but there are problably more differences than similarities.



How many different writing styles are you capable of writing in?  I'm serious, here.  Can you take a paragraph of text, and write the next paragraph in a style that looks like it's by the same author?  Can you read something, and think, "I see what you're shooting for, let me adjust my advice to your style?"  Because that's the skill required to give a good critique, and some people can do it.  It's something you can work on and learn just like anything else.




> For any critiquer to think that anyone should take all their advice is silly.  For anyone being beta read to take anyone's advice as gospel is likewise just as silly.



In all seriousness, how does that characterization remotely resemble anything that I said?




> The important thing to convey is to a new writer is:
> 
> 1. Writing fiction is harder than you think it is.
> 2. We're all just struggling to figure it out.
> 3. These are the biggest issues I had with your work.  Perhaps researching them will lead you to a breakthrough.



I think I've said this to you before, but if you treat everyone as though they're perpetual newbs, then they will be.  "New" is a status that shouldn't last very long.  Treat people like professionals, and they'll start to become professionals.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2014)

BW: Yeah, I realize your heart is the right place and all. If your approach works more often than not for you, then great. But I agree with Svrt, I can't just straight up say, "you suck" and then go into all the reasons. I think the best thing a more experienced writer can do with a newer writer is to mentor them, explain what you did wrong and how others pointed it out. I'm pretty sure you do that. The thing to be careful of I think is imposing your will on other writers by telling them "this is simply wrong." 

I feel like I could rant on and on about this, but there so many different styles of writing out there it's really mind-boggling. What you may find dry and boring, others may find engaging and interesting. Hell, I've seen some of the most divisive opinions on published work I've seen in quite a while in the Reading Group we're doing. While some of us loved Mark Lawrence's style, others hated it. Same with Naomi Novik. Is that because they're newbs or they don't know what they're doing? Obviously not. Success is success. Both of these authors have been successful with their own approaches. It's just a matter of taste. That's why it's sometimes hard to say, "You're doing this wrong." That's subjective. You can say, "Well, this is my opinion, but this scene doesn't do anything for me. Here's why."

This is one reason I think it's important to have critique partners that at least understand your style in some way. I've had partners with widely divergent styles, but we still understood each other and what we were trying to attempt. That's critical. I don't think that can be developed with one critique.

Edit: Ninja'd.



> I think I've said this to you before, but if you treat everyone as though they're perpetual newbs, then they will be. "New" is a status that shouldn't last very long. Treat people like professionals, and they'll start to become professionals.



Devor makes an excellent point here. I guess that goes to my point of respecting partners and treating them how you think you should be treated.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 21, 2014)

Speaking only for myself:

If something I write sucks, I want someone to tell me it sucks.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

> I got a bit of the "your writing sucks" when I first posted in the showcase - at least that's what it felt like. It wasn't fun.
> 
> However, when I asked why it sucked I got a good explanation, with examples on how to make improvements. When I asked for clarifications on concepts I wasn't familiar with I got them. That was very valuable to me and I learned and improved a lot from it (at least I like to think so).
> 
> I could have received this advice without first being told my writing wasn't up to scratch, but I'm not sure if I'd been as receptive to it without first taking a bit of a beating to my ego. I might have, but I don't know and I'm not so sure.



Svrtnsse,

You're a great example.  I think you have grown greatly since joining this site.  You take advice well but still keep true to what you want to accomplish.

To the extent that I helped you along your path, I'm gratified that you found my advice useful.  It's people like you that make me feel like I'm not totally wasting my time.



> The thing here is I couldn't do that myself. I'm too nervous about hurting someone's feelings to tell them their work is shit, especially if it's someone I don't know. I'm not comfortable doing it - regardless of whether they say they can take it or not. It's just not in me.



Understood.  As I said to Phil, it's not easy being blunt.  Believe it or not, I often water down what I think I should say.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

Devor,



> I'm not sure you're talking about the basic premise.



I think I may have misinterpreted what you said.  I thought, in your last paragraph, you meant that the question was whether the critiquer actually has the ability to discern areas of improvement or not.  I was disputing whether that is important or not.  As has been stated many times, the greatest benefit a beta reader can provide is to point out if something works or not, not necessarily how to fix it.



> How many different writing styles are you capable of writing in?



No two writers will write anything exactly the same.  They employ different techniques and go about achieving engagement differently.  Personally, I think tension is the most important element in making my work interesting.  Robert Bevan would probably say it's humor.  It would be stupid of me to presume he needed more tension when he really needed to make a scene funnier.



> I think I've said this to you before, but if you treat everyone as though they're perpetual newbs, then they will be. "New" is a status that shouldn't last very long. Treat people like professionals, and they'll start to become professionals.



I think that, as you progress, it's like you said.  Once you fix these three things, there are three more.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Speaking only for myself:
> 
> If something I write sucks, I want someone to tell me it sucks.



I get the sentiment, but if someone you've only been critiqued by once said, "Steerpike, this sucks" and then carries on to tell you things that you maybe fundamentally disagree with, that's OK? Is it possible that someone thinks something you wrote sucks, but they're in fact, just not getting it? Or is it the case of the "critique partner is always right?"

So is the only way to tell if something sucks is that if you already feel that it sucks and then people tell you it indeed sucks? What if you feel great about it, it's polished, lots of people have said it's awesome, you agree it's awesome, and then someone says, "Oh, that story sucks"? 

That's why it's hard to figure out if it's the story that sucks or the advice that sucks (or is possibly off-base). It's up to the writer to decide ultimately.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> BW: Yeah, I realize your heart is the right place and all. If your approach works more often than not for you, then great. But I agree with Svrt, I can't just straight up say, "you suck" and then go into all the reasons. I think the best thing a more experienced writer can do with a newer writer is to mentor them, explain what you did wrong and how others pointed it out. I'm pretty sure you do that. The thing to be careful of I think is imposing your will on other writers by telling them "this is simply wrong."
> 
> I feel like I could rant on and on about this, but there so many different styles of writing out there it's really mind-boggling. What you may find dry and boring, others may find engaging and interesting. Hell, I've seen some of the most divisive opinions on published work I've seen in quite a while in the Reading Group we're doing. While some of us loved Mark Lawrence's style, others hated it. Same with Naomi Novik. Is that because they're newbs or they don't know what they're doing? Obviously not. Success is success. Both of these authors have been successful with their own approaches. It's just a matter of taste. That's why it's sometimes hard to say, "You're doing this wrong." That's subjective. You can say, "Well, this is my opinion, but this scene doesn't do anything for me. Here's why."
> 
> ...



Phil,

No desire at all to open the can of worms about judging quality again, but I have to say that there's a huge, huge difference between these two statements:

1. I don't enjoy reading this professional author's work because of the style and/or content of his work.
2. I don't think that this writer has any clue how to write fiction.

The two are completely different statements.  I don't understand your comparison of my discussion of the second with some people not liking Lawrence's work.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> I get the sentiment, but if someone you've only been critiqued by once said, "Steerpike, this sucks" and then carries on to tell you things that you maybe fundamentally disagree with, that's OK? Is it possible that someone thinks something you wrote sucks, but they're in fact, just not getting it? Or is it the case of the "critique partner is always right?"
> 
> So is the only way to tell if something sucks is that if you already feel that it sucks and then people tell you it indeed sucks? What if you feel great about it, it's polished, lots of people have said it's awesome, you agree it's awesome, and then someone says, "Oh, that story sucks"?
> 
> That's why it's hard to figure out if it's the story that sucks or the advice that sucks (or is possibly off-base). It's up to the writer to decide ultimately.



The author needs some degree of discernment.

For example: I'm working on a story for Ankari's Iron Pen Anthology.  I had him and two other participants beta read it.  In one particular section, I got lots of comments and advice.  The advice and comments didn't necessarily agree with each other.

My main takeaway isn't - Hey, I need to do what Ankari said here.

It's - Hey, this section Does Not Work.

I think, though, that you and Steerpike aren't newbs.  You are at a point where you may need to refine certain scenes to make them better, not where you need to learn the basics of fiction.  Were I critiquing either of you, my comments would reflect that and not be, "your writing sucks."

(Actually, it would probably be, "This sentence/paragraph sucks!"  )


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 21, 2014)

> 1. I don't enjoy reading this professional author's work because of the style and/or content of his work.
> 2. I don't think that this writer has any clue how to write fiction.



So you're telling me you haven't critiqued work and given it "poor marks"  because you disliked the style or content? There are professional authors that some may think "suck" so that's not really a valid argument.

Edit: I guess the main point I want to make is to be respectful to other people and they'll be respectful to you. I've gotten great advice from a lot of people from MS. The common thread? They were tactful. They may say "this sucks" in a roundabout way, but they've been helpful and respectful and I value that. Those are the kind of partnerships that thrive.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 21, 2014)

> So you're telling me you haven't critiqued work and given it "poor marks" because you disliked the style or content? There are professional authors that some may think "suck" so that's not really a valid argument.



Have I ever done that?  Probably.

Would I do that now or have I done it in the recent past?  No.

Regardless, saying "I hate that style and content" is not the same as saying that the person doesn't know how to write.



> Edit: I guess the main point I want to make is to be respectful to other people and they'll be respectful to you. I've gotten great advice from a lot of people from MS. The common thread? They were tactful. They may say "this sucks" in a roundabout way, but they've been helpful and respectful and I value that. Those are the kind of partnerships that thrive.



I would say, however, that you're not at a point in your writing career where you have no idea what you're doing.  Were I critiquing you, I'd reserve the "this sucks" comments for extreme emphasis when I want to point out something I feel is really important but that you may disagree with.  Mostly, my comments are along the lines of, "You may want to consider..."  Sometimes, though, there's something I feel is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed.  For those, I say, "I cannot emphasize enough how bad I think this is.  It would be so, so much better if you..."


----------



## Devor (Mar 21, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think I may have misinterpreted what you said.  I thought, in your last paragraph, you meant that the question was whether the critiquer actually has the ability to discern areas of improvement or not.  I was disputing whether that is important or not.  As has been stated many times, the greatest benefit a beta reader can provide is to point out if something works or not, not necessarily how to fix it.



I think there's too much noise in critiquing, and that some people need to stop doing what they're doing.  Some people make it harder for everyone else.

(I'm not saying that about anyone here, or about anyone in particular.  But I think we all have seen examples of people who give bad critiques.)

If what people want or want to say is "I like this, I don't like this," there's ways of doing that, too. I think Phil posted something about that a while ago, where you go through the text and insert specific labels like (+) and (-) and (?) and nothing else.*  I don't mean to invalidate an approach like that, for instance.  It's efficient, and doesn't pretend to be more than it is.  It doesn't offer the kind of feedback you can get from an experienced writer, but that can be okay.

But that's different from grabbing a few bad sentences, viciously explaining how awful they are, and simultaneously giving someone the impression that it's all they need to fix because it's what you spent six paragraphs typing about.  That kind of critique is just wasting everyone's time.  So is a critique that imposes one style onto the writing of a different style that just isn't compatible.

Some people talk out of their ass.  And not doing that is a requirement for the approach I was suggesting, of talking about three broader things to improve at a time, which I think is a good approach for a community of writers.  That's all I was saying.


*I don't remember what the exact symbols were.




BWFoster78 said:


> No two writers will write anything exactly the same.  They employ different techniques and go about achieving engagement differently.  Personally, I think tension is the most important element in making my work interesting.  Robert Bevan would probably say it's humor.  It would be stupid of me to presume he needed more tension when he really needed to make a scene funnier.



I happen to agree that building tension is one of the more important things you need to do in your writing.  But it's not a blanket statement.  There are reasons that tension works, and understanding the first principles behind tension will help you understand what kind of styles need to use it more than others.  You mention Robert Bevan and humor, but tension can be a fundamental concept in many types of comedy, if it follows the setup/payoff cycle that many comedians use in their work.

That is, even a style as divergent as comedy can be learned, at least enough to give a helpful critique.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 21, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> It just seems to me that most people are so in the dark about the actual state of their ability that they need to be told forcefully or they just won't get the point.



I've told this story before, but I think it bears repeating. I was in a writing class of 20 once. It was a mixed bag of experienced and new writers. For some it was their first experience with writing and a writing class. One writer presented the class with what I think was probably one of the first things he's ever written. One jack-hole decides to forcefully tell him what he thought of the piece. He went on-and-on, and you could see the writer's eyes just glass up.

I can honestly say it was one of the most awkward and unpleasant experiences in my life. And I don't think that over bluntness helped that writer at all. I'm pretty sure all they were thinking about was how not to break into full sobbing in front of 20 people. 

This is one of the reasons I like face-to-face critiques. Sometimes it's easy to be too blunt when you don't have to look the person in the eyes. Bluntness is fine, but it's much easier to temper a comment with something as simple as a smile or a self deprecating joke when you're face-to-face.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 21, 2014)

I do try to keep the audience in mind. For example, I received a fiction submission from a fifteen year-old girl, and it was pretty poorly written. Instead of a form rejection, I sent her back a red-lined version with everything that I thought was problematic (and there may have been more red than black in the document when I was done). I didn't withhold any criticisms, but I also wrote a paragraph to her about how awesome I thought it was that she was getting into fiction writing at her age, and how many people who have been at it longer than her make the same mistakes, and I told her I saw potential in her writing (true) and to keep working at it. 

I got what seemed to be a sincere thank you in return. I think I was able to tell her exactly why the writing didn't work for me, while at the same time not crush her hopes or make her think that she just sucked and that was that.

I'm much more likely to take that approach when I know I am dealing with kids.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 21, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I do try to keep the audience in mind. For example, I received a fiction submission from a fifteen year-old girl, and it was pretty poorly written. Instead of a form rejection, I sent her back a red-lined version with everything that I thought was problematic (and there may have been more red than black in the document when I was done). I didn't withhold any criticisms, but I also wrote a paragraph to her about how awesome I thought it was that she was getting into fiction writing at her age, and how many people who have been at it longer than her make the same mistakes, and I told her I saw potential in her writing (true) and to keep working at it.
> 
> I got what seemed to be a sincere thank you in return. I think I was able to tell her exactly why the writing didn't work for me, while at the same time not crush her hopes or make her think that she just sucked and that was that.
> 
> I'm much more likely to take that approach when I know I am dealing with kids.


I was just going to suggest something just like that when it came to bluntness. Like you said, it depends on whom you're critiquing. I am all for honest critique, but I agree that beginning writers who need all the confidence they can get need to be handled with different gloves than, say, pretentious writers would could use a blow in their bloated egos.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 21, 2014)

I like to think I'm very good at delivering bad news.  

I've critted for loads of great writers, plenty of mediocre writers who are working on specific elements of their work, and loads of poor writers who really want to learn to make their work better.  For those peopel I crit for most often and have developed a personal relationship with, my comments often look like this:  "This sentence is weak, consider restructuring."  Now... when I say that to Phil or Steerpike.... I know they already know what I'm talking about and am relying on that knowledge to merely point out a place they need to work a little more magic into their work.

With someone I'm less familiar with, my comment might look like this:  "This sentence is weak because you've replaced action words (-ed) words, with (-ing) words, creating less immediacy.  I'd try to restructure this sentence using more immediate wording, to best convey the impact you hope to achieve with this sentence."  This too, is intended for a good writer who missed a little boo-boo in their work and needs to fine tune things.  They know what I mean but the small explanation will help to soften what could potentially feel like a blow.  It takes longer and honestly, with good crit partners, we're way beyond feelings.  We'd rather read short comments and thank our partners for simply pointing out weak places without all the "whys".

If I knew I were critting a passage for a brand new writer... one who hasn't shown their work around and is new to the crit process, my comments would look more like this:  "This sentence is weaker than you probably want it to be.  The wording you chose (-ing) words, instead of (-ed) words, have impacted the immediacy of the sentence in a negative way.  Always remember that (-ing) words are weaker.  It's fine to use them, but try to make as many of your sentences "immediate" by using (-ed) words as possible.  Also, by restructuring this sentence (putting the subject first, rather than second) you will make it an active sentence rather than a passive one.  It's important to use passive writing for impact sparingly so it doesn't lose said impact.  I do however, think the description was good, but try to play with this kind of restructuring in other sentences that don't feel awesome to you.  That way, you'll keep the tone or immediacy throughout this section."

Okay... so... I don't think I've EVER told someone I liked their work if I didn't.  In fact, I rarely find myself "liking" much of anything, including my own work at this point.  It's about fulfilling a goal.  Either the sentence/ paragraph/ scene works toward the goal or it detracts and needs to be shortened, strengthened, or cut.

That being said... tact is an important part of getting/ giving critiques and while you always hope your time was well spent in delivering a crit for someone, if you say it in the wrong way, your comments go in one ear and out the other.  

Personally, I've critted for people who think they are great writers and I've found their material...lacking in ways.  I'm sure they would also call mine "lacking" but use their own words.  I'm always happy to help a new person, but they need ot knwo what they're getting into when asking me to crit.  I'm not unkind ever, but I'm honest, straightforward, and dare I say... a little hard to please?  But I'm always happy to help.

I always advise people to find crit partners at their own level.  Nothing is worse than having a talent/ experience disparity the size of the Grand Canyon.  The weaker writer will not be able to keep up and will be discouraged.  As I progress down this road, I always remember where I started, two years ago and recall how I felt when I got torn apart by someone in email.  It didn't hurt that he didn't like my work... what hurt was that he said he didn't think it was the best I could do.  But you know what?  He was right.  A mistake I never repeated.  I always present the best possible material for critiques now and if I am sending someone a first draft, I SPECIFICALLY tell them as much and ask for a crit on ONLY plot and pacing OR WHATEVER.  It's no good to send someone a sloppy first draft to crit... Frankly, it's rude.  However, new writers have very little choice, because that's what we all write and they don't necessarily understand what the next step (edited) looks like.

So.... any time someone wants to send me their work... whether it's a novel, short, or outline... I crit to the best of my ability.  If it's a sloppy novel with POV switches and inconsistencies every other line, I simply note in the crit (after a dozen or more times of pointing it out) that I will no longer pause to comment on that particular item.  That they ought to look carefully through the work on their own time and zap them all out.

I'm always polite and thoughtful and I'd like to think that by having me crit for them, new writers are not only getting the fast-track lesson on how to edit their own work, but also getting many helpful suggestions about missed opportunities, the process of critting and editing, and also how to separate yourself from your own words enough to get a good grasp of how good it actually is.

My heart goes out to all the people who feel disrespected after giving a good crit to someone who didn't appreciate it.  It also goes out to all those peopel who feel like they've put their work on the chopping block and watched it get brutally butchered with a saw by an uncaring beast on a deadline.  I think if you offer to crit for someone, you are entering into a verbal contract to do your best and they are vowing to at the very least appreciate your time, even if they don't take a single bit of your advice.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 22, 2014)

What Caged Maiden says make a lot of sense. I mean, you can probably tell when reading someone's work for the first time where they are in their "journey" so to speak. I've gotten work ripped apart before and maybe there are people that think I just started writing. However, I do have stories I think are great and ones I think suck. I believe everyone does. However, a more experienced writer may do this thing where they try to mold you into the way they think about writing because that's the way they think about writing. That's the danger sometimes. 

For example, when I was younger, I wrote lots of gory horror stories. I had several people tell me they were complete crap and just excuses to shock people. Looking back on it, I realize they were right to an extent. I did have people tell me that I had skill in constructing memorable images though. So that was something to hang my hat on. "OK, I'm decent at imagery at least. Now what can I work on?" Of course, I should work on everything, but sometimes honing in on weaknesses can be one of the most beneficial things a critique partner can do for you. I still use lots of violent imagery, but I try to make it mean something now instead of just randomly throwing it out there. 

I don't know of this makes sense, but I think nurturing other writers strengths and honing in on their weaknesses is helpful. Just telling them how horrible they are (like Penpilot's example) doesn't help if the _way_ you tell them isn't constructive.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 22, 2014)

Another thing that makes a difference is the context of the critique. My private critiques may be different from things I post in a forum because a forum will be browsed by new members of varying skill levels and you don't want them to see things that make them afraid to post and send them elsewhere.


----------

