Giving critique?

[Ravana]

until it has passed under my own scrutinization (is that a word?)

Since you asked: "scrutiny." (And you will all note, please, that I never correct anyone who doesn't ask.)

I will admit, though, for as harsh a critic as I can be, there are some people I have difficulty being as brutal as I tend to be towards. My husband and my best friend, namely. As it is, my husband won't show me his works until he's done some thorough editing himself, but my best friend? Yeah... she's not a bad writer, but she's got a few years to go. I tend to just distance myself from her while I'm editing and critiquing a piece of hers, otherwise I'd have a bit of trouble addressing the issues nicely.

I show people my stuff when I'm ready for input, whatever that stage is… usually not until I've gone over it repeatedly, but it depends on what I'm looking for. Often I'll show a partially-finished work to someone when I feel stuck, or when I know something's missing or awkward but can't tell what. I don't think I've ever used a suggestion that was given me in such a circumstance–but the feedback invariably sparks something that I do use. (My usual "that's not how I'd do it" reaction again… at which point I realize how I would do it.)

As for "being brutal": hey, you're a writer, right? Should be able to come up with creative ways to present things.…

Try the question approach, at least for anything that isn't outright correction. "Why does X do this here?" "Did I miss where you mentioned Y earlier?" "Would Z happen because of this?" Et cetera. Lets the other person feel smart because she knows something about her story that you don't (even if she didn't before you asked!), or lets her figure out the answer herself.

 

[j-max04]

I normally think about what I would do differently and why, and if I can't think of a definitive why, then I normally won't say the what. I also have to consider whether the advice is my subjective opinion or something that could potentially help them in their writing.

 

[Russ]

Critiquing can be super valuable when done well, but can be tricky to do well. There are some great suggestions above and to them I would add the following:

1) Consider the person who are critiquing for and the stage their writing is at. Give them suggestions and critiques that will help them NOW. When I am critiquing a multi-published successful author and I see a couple of comas out of place I don't waste everybody'e time on that I move on to deeper or bigger stuff. On the other hand if the grammar or language is so bad that you can't get near the story don't talk to them about character arc and motivation. I think of critiquing like teaching or coaching, you can overload somebody with your response, you can over coach. Give them two or three points that they can improve on and leave the rest for later.

2) Do try to offer solutions when you spot a problem not just point out the problem.

3) You don't have to be particularly experienced to do a good critique. You are a potential reader and that counts for something, just be honest, work hard at it, and don't engage if the writer just seems to want to argue about your comments.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Advice? Yeah: be honest. Otherwise, you're being useless. And be specific; otherwise, ditto.

That's how I feel.

I am detailed when I do a critique, & I treat everyone the same, regardless of skill level. However, I do ask people to tell me what they're looking for in a critique. I will try to tailor my critique to suit their needs.

Most often though, people want the full gambit. In that case, I try to pose questions about their writing so they can come to see an aspect of their submission from a different angle.

One thing I won't do is offer suggestions on how something should be written, or at least, I rarely do. The writer gets more out of it if they agree with a raised issue and figure out how to rework it on their own. I never want to try and teach my style. I'd rather them work on theirs.

I try to balance the harshness of critical review by drawing out the good in their writing too. Further, I make sure the writer understands my intention is to help. That is why my crits are so detailed. If I didn't care, I wouldn't put 4 hours of work into a 5k submission.

I'm part of several partnerships online and two live critique groups. That means I'm doing about five critiques a week. At this point, I've probably done several hundred crits. As a result I'm blunt, but caring. I don't have time to coddle anyone because they have a thin skin. If they aren't ready to approach their work like a professional, with a certain emotional detachment, then I'm not a good partner for them. Everyone I work with knows this up front. They all get the disclaimer.

The main reason for my blunt and direct honesty is two-fold. As Ravana stated above, anything less than total honesty has limited value. Secondly, I demand the same brutal honesty in return. I have zero use for anything less.

 

[BWFoster78]

The main reason for my blunt and direct honesty is two-fold. As Ravana stated above, anything less than total honesty has limited value. Secondly, I demand the same brutal honesty in return. I have zero use for anything less.

First, a note: The OP is from 2011. Not sure why it was resurrected... That being said, it's always fun to critique critiquing.

I agree with you, T.Allen, but I'd add a third fold:

If a writer's skin is too thin to accept an honest critique, I don't want to waste any more of my time. I'd prefer to learn that as quickly as possible, so I can move on to someone who might gain more use from my comments.

 

[Caged Maiden]

yeah...I was like, "I've never seen this thread...who is that who posted it? I don't recognize the name...Oooooh...resurrection."

Critique is something we haven't talked about in a while, though.

 

[Terry Greer]

Proper critique is rare - I'd love to link up with a couple of others for specific in depth critique - but I've found people are generally too sensitive (both about giving opinion and receiving it).

At a company i was with a few years back we used to do a monthly critique of each others work - there were only about 5 or so in the group and eventually we got comfortable with each other to start giving genuine feedback - took a while though until we knew each other well enough for our natural biases to be known and accepted.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

...eventually we got comfortable with each other to start giving genuine feedback - took a while though until we knew each other well enough for our natural biases to be known and accepted.

Critique partners are made, not born. It's the same as any other relationship. The more time you spend together, the more you understand the other's vision, goals, and style.

Asking questions up front, concerning what an author hopes to gain from a critique helps, but nothing replaces good old time spent working with another writer.

 

[Mythopoet]

Critique is just about the most highly overrated thing in fiction writing these days. I'm going to go against the flow here (shock!) and say that I feel very strongly that almost all critique is very, very bad for fiction writers. But especially critique from other writers. Writing stories is NOT something that should be done by committee, which is the ultimate result of having your work "critiqued" by other writers or "professionals" in the writing industry.

What a writer should do is have a first reader or two or three who are just average readers go over the work and not, absolutely NOT EVER, look for things that are wrong, but tell the writer in general whether they think the story worked, whether it was something they enjoyed reading, whether they would have put it down if they were reading it casually and if so where, etc. The first readers can point out areas they felt were problems but they should not at any point make suggestions as to how the work should be improved, it's the writer's job to figure out if the story needs to be improved and if so how.

Above all a writer should have a strong personal vision for the work that they do not compromise based on "critique", which is all too often what happens. The job of the first readers is simply to help the writer determine whether or not the actual written pages succeeded in conveying that vision through the narrative. Only people who can read like readers, and most writers (particularly aspiring and/or inexperienced writers) can't do that, can help with that goal.

 

[BWFoster78]

Mythopoet,

When I first started trying to write, I knew almost nothing. Critique helped me greatly in that it took me from nothing to something. Sometimes, it took me in the wrong direction, and I had to backtrack. I do not regret any of those missteps, however, because I learned from each.

For me personally, I would be no where near where I am today without critique. In my view, the fastest, easiest, least-expensive, most-efficient way to learn craft is to write something, polish it to the best of your ability, and then have other writers tear it to pieces.

Once you have learned craft and developed your own style, those kinds of critiques become pretty much worthless.

The same thing, however, goes for story. Until you learn how to tell stories, other authors telling you what you did wrong is tremendously valuable.

Granted, you have to evaluate each comment for validity. Some will be wrong. Others may be spot on. Others may contain a kernel of truth that will lead you to the right path.

Maybe you're at a place where you know what you're doing. If so, I think there's a great deal of validity to your points.

For me, I'm still learning and find it helpful to get all the advice that I can.

 

[Russ]

If it turns out that you have written your novel by committee because you have engaged in the critiquing process than you have used it in the wrong way. You can't blame the process for that.

I will have a chance most years to have good long talks about writing with around 20 very successful authors. I would estimate 18 of them would tell me critiquing was quite important to their success, and about half of them still us that process or something very similar to it.

 

[Mythopoet]

If it turns out that you have written your novel by committee because you have engaged in the critiquing process than you have used it in the wrong way. You can't blame the process for that.

I disagree. By definition, if you are accepting others' critique of your work and your work is altered by it, you are accepting another person's tastes, point of view and opinions into your work. This is the death of real creativity. The very nature of the activity of revising a story based on critique is, in my opinion, destructive to the creative act of storytelling.

 

[BWFoster78]

I disagree. By definition, if you are accepting others' critique of your work and your work is altered by it, you are accepting another person's tastes, point of view and opinions into your work. This is the death of real creativity. The very nature of the activity of revising a story based on critique is, in my opinion, destructive to the creative act of storytelling.

I find that the words I use to translate my story don't always function in the way that I intended. Critiquing is how I learn things like, "Hey, your character came across as a complete jerk in that scene."

If I meant for the character to come across as a complete jerk, that's fantastic. Often, however, that wasn't what I intended at all. So I change my words to more accurately reflect my intention.

I'm not sure, then, how revising my story is destruction to the creative act of storytelling when it helps me get my story across in the way that I intended?

 

[Mythopoet]

I find that the words I use to translate my story don't always function in the way that I intended. Critiquing is how I learn things like, "Hey, your character came across as a complete jerk in that scene."

If I meant for the character to come across as a complete jerk, that's fantastic. Often, however, that wasn't what I intended at all. So I change my words to more accurately reflect my intention.

I'm not sure, then, how revising my story is destruction to the creative act of storytelling when it helps me get my story across in the way that I intended?

That's not what critique, especially critique from other writers does. See my first comment on the previous page.

 

[BWFoster78]

That's not what critique, especially critique from other writers does. See my first comment on the previous page.

Maybe the comment is in the form of, "I hated the character here. You should have him do this instead."

I would interpret that as, "Hey, the character is a jerk in this scene." Is that what I intended?

I have free will and enough perspective to decide if I take the suggestion or not.

In essence, though, critiquing tells me a lot about how my words are interpreted and I think it is highly valuable.

Of course, most of your objection is based on your perspective that the writer is creating art that should not be tainted by anyone else. I can't speak for anyone else, but I couldn't care less about creating art. I just want to write something that my readers will find entertaining. Whatever gets me closer to that goal is a good thing. Critiquing gets me closer to that goal.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Writing stories is NOT something that should be done by committee, which is the ultimate result of having your work "critiqued" by other writers or "professionals" in the writing industry.

I'll echo Russ here. If this is how you're approaching critique, then yes, it'd be a bad thing. However, it's bad because you're doing it wrong.

Critique has been invaluable to me in finding clarity & plausibility issues in my writing that I'd never have found on my own. Clarity issues hide themselves from the author because they know what was intended by a scene. The reader, however, has only the words on the page. Being able to identify clarity issues is my #1 ask when I take my work to critique partners.

Secondly, when considering plausibility, the writers I work with have pointed out issues I never considered before, issues that now seem obvious, but lay buried behind my ignorance on a topic, or a lack of thoughtfulness on my part. Without other eyes drawing my attention to plausibility concerns, I likely wouldn't have discovered those problems. Now though, I can consider those issues and decide what to do about them.

Another great value to me is learning what a reader expects at certain points along the way. That is helpful in telling me if my foreshadowing and red herrings are having the desired effect. Again, this is something impossible for me to know because I have full knowledge of future events, character back story, & character motivations.

There are types of critique I just won't pay attention to. Typically, those come from other writers who suggest how to write something. No. Just, no. I don't need style advice, at this point. I know how to write. I don't need to hear how someone else would write my story. That being said, I do want to know when & why my writing is jarring for the reader. Is there something about my prose that pulls you from immersion, or makes you notice the writing? Since I wish for my writing to be transparent, this is important information for me as an author.

As Brian said, you have to understand what to absorb as useful & what to ignore. I'm part of two live critique groups. Live groups differ from my online partnerships. Online partners are people I've selected to share work with. As such, they are writers whose opinions I respect. Each side wants the other to succeed, and that desire is obvious. They've grown, over time, to understand my vision & how they can help me get there.

The live groups are a different sort of animal. There are always 2 or 3 people (out of 5-6) I consider valuable partners. They alone make the exercise valuable. However, experience levels and personalities vary greatly. There are nit-pickers who offer little true insight. There are those who seem to offer only the negative. They never like anything (red flag). There are those who only offer praise (the worst of all critique sins, in my opinion). There are those that think they are good writers, yet their submissions show that they don't even grasp accepted grammar or the basic fundamentals of fiction writing. And, some think their lack of experience means they have little to offer, which is untrue. At the very least, everyone should be able to say what they liked or didn't like.

It's your job as the writer to clearly state what you need from your partners. It's your job to decide what advice is good and will improve the story, and what is should be ignored. If you can't differentiate, then yes, critique is going to be a bad thing. If you can, and with confidence, separate the wheat from the chaff, then I fail to see how critique isn't a benefit.

 

[Mythopoet]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I couldn't care less about creating art. I just want to write something that my readers will find entertaining. Whatever gets me closer to that goal is a good thing.

Art is just something that a human being creates to share with other human beings. It's not exclusive from entertainment. I'm not talking about being an artiste or some sort of literary snob. Actually, it seems like most "literary" writers these days don't believe they can do anything without a full editorial team. I'm the total opposite of that. I believe that writers need to trust their personal vision and their own skills and tastes and not alter those things to suit other people. This is what critique leads to. Writers who can't do anything for themselves.

 

[SeverinR]

I haven't used showcase much, since coming to Mythic scribes.
I just used it recently. The critique was good, it showed weak areas, and people gave suggestions on how to improve.

If I had switched to what other people had offered, it would no longer be my work. But I did look at what they said, and made good changes to improve the sentence. (First sentence)
The changes I made were at least a paragraph long and inspired good writing from the suggestions.

I needed the critique to get me back writing. I had stopped writing for quite a while.

Critique should not be a cover up, but like editing, should be a polishing of the piece. Alter words or phrases even whole perspectives to show a better story. To make the story flow better, to add interest to the piece.

The best critique I ever got was a friend that I asked to proof read a chapter, said: "I loved the female character(she couldn't pronounce her name), she was so bubbly, talkative and happy." The exact way I wanted her to be seen. (She was also a little nervous at meeting new people, which also added to her talkativeness.)

Accepting critique and using it the right way is important part of writing. Most people can't write the perfect story, because we know what we meant to say or show, but what really comes out might not even be close. Maybe even totally opposite.

Critiquing and editing, both buff out the rough areas. Critiquing just uses more then one persons view to do so.

Myself, I want to create art and have something people want to read. IMHO if I write a story that is hailed as great art, but only a few people read, I have failed. But if I write junk that people read and throw away, then again I failed.
I want to entertain and have it viewed as art. The great balancing act.

 

[Philip Overby]

This is what critique leads to. Writers who can't do anything for themselves.

I'm just throwing this out there, but I'd wager most writers that use critiques tend to gain more confidence in their writing, either by discarding advice that doesn't work for them or by finding that what they're doing is working in some capacity. Perhaps just having beta readers would work better if you want to skip the critiquing phase. Then you're just allowing people's natural reactions without worrying about nit-picking or stylistic reconstruction. Everyone makes mistakes when critiquing sometimes (I know I have). However, I think writing in a vacuum without any input might cause some of the same problems that over-critiquing might. Meaning the vision might be distorted by one person's feelings (the writer's) or by too many people's feelings (the partners'). I ultimately know what I feel comfortable with as a writer, but sometimes people pointing certain things out to me can help me realize things I'm doing over and over so I can either a) keep doing them because I like them or b) stop doing them because they're not working.

 

[Russ]

I disagree. By definition, if you are accepting others' critique of your work and your work is altered by it, you are accepting another person's tastes, point of view and opinions into your work. This is the death of real creativity. The very nature of the activity of revising a story based on critique is, in my opinion, destructive to the creative act of storytelling.

The underlying assumption, that the creative ability of the author is perfect or sublime and cannot benefit or be enhanced by being critiqued by others, is simply a flawed one.

This is the height of what I like to call "self-referential".