A thing on my own reviewing ways.

First off, I love Simon Cowell. He's so awesome. If someone's done something that's utter crap he won't hesitate to say so, and he'll state his reasoning for it. A lot of reviewers miss out on stating their reasoning for saying something, and instead tell the person, "That doesn't sound right." or "I love this! Keep at it!" I can't tell you how much this bothers me. Especially on places like FictionPress (no offense to those on there). It's so hard to find good reviewers.

If there was a price for perfection, it would be death, as there is nothing perfect in this world.

I review just the same as the people who go by the quote of "Review how you wish to be reviewed." I've got a thick skin, am snarky and sarcastic, and if someone tore into my work, I'd be greatful--as long as they back up their reasoning. I don't mind if they're wrong in thinking something. Like above, nothing and no one is perfect. I usually reply why something is like how it sounds, and debate on changing it if it's worth the effort.

Does anyone else review like this? Just curious.

-----

How I review:
Disclaimer.
I always have a disclaimer at the beginning of one of my critiques (maybe not for poems, but always for stories), just to let the author know everything is my opinion. Even though you people should already know this, us writers can be oh-so dense. *grins*

Critique as I read.
Which means I don't read the whole story and then critique it. Each sentence is studied by me, read over and over to see if there might be anything wrong with it. If there is something wrong with it, I'll state the reason why I think it's off. And if it's messed up for a retarded reason, I will probably slap you in the face with the sentence itself. XD If you want sugar-coating in your reviews, I'm not going to give.

Not everything is sugar-sweet in this world--some people are allergic to the stuff and I happen to be one of them.

Also, I try not to point my finger at you as the author. If you see me writing something alone the lines of "What's wrong with you?" I'm pretty much yelling at either the character in the story, wanting to run them over with a Steam-Roller of Stupidity, or am just furious at the story itself. It's not you, because I'm not looking at you. I'm looking at the story. I know, I'm weird.

Title.
If it's a short story, then I make sure the title fits in with the writing. With a book, it's hard to tell by just one chapter if the title is right for it. Instead, what I do in the first chapter I critique, I state if the title is something that would grab my attention if I were searching for a book in the specific category.

Opening hook.
If the opening is in a lame and bland and roll-over-on-my-back-and-die type of style, then I'll say so. I'll tell you why I think this, and possibly if I'm able to, show how to make it better at grabbing someone's attention. The opening hook is one of the most vital parts to any story.

Show vs. tell.
As the reader, I like to be able to picture myself in the story. I want to use all of my senses; hearing, tasting, feeling, seeing, and all that. Don't put me on the sidelines and tell me everything. If you do so, I'll sit on you with my 86 lb body... XD;

Characters.
Your characters have to be believable. No cardboard cutouts. I want to empathize with them. You need to stick with your character's habits, keep them consistent with everything they do. If they are snide and witty, don't all of a sudden out of nowhere make them nice--unless they are devoted to a certain person. I also look out for infodumps. Writers just loooove dumping a bunch of info about the character on a reader's head. It's like lobbing a portapotty at us. We don't like it.

Now, sure, I want to see what they look like in a sense, but it doesn't have to be all in one part. Separate the bits and pieces for the reader to keep the action going. If someone's standing there studying another, then that's fine as long as you make it fit. They have to feel and act real, and most of all fit into the scene. If there's a rich guy walking in the sewers below a poor city, he'd better have a good explanation, and not, "I got lost."

Setting.
With certain scenes, I want to be able to picture myself in the place. Once again, I'd like to use all my senses. What am I hearing, if anything. Is there a scent in the air? What's the atmosphere like? All that juicy stuff. I want to be able to imagine everything around--at least, the vital details.

Dialogue.
Oh please, please, please be consistent with the dialogue. If you're in a fantasy realm and a character is talking from the ghetto, then there's something wrong there. If a poor kid from the streets is speaking efficiently with no background of schooling or being taught anything, there's something wrong.

Cliches.
*heavy breathing, with eye twitching* Don't. Use. Them. I will drive a nail through your head with my Mallet of Thwomping >[

Grammar and punctuation.
I'll tell you your major problems in this area if there are any at all.

Favorite lines.
Self-explanatory. I'll state the lines that caught my attention and intrigued me.

-----

I'm a member of the Masochist Thick Skin Club
I'm a member of the Scold Patrol

-----

An example of a piece of my sarcastic critiquing I did for someone:
Hello, Fate. Nice meeting you, bye now.

Bloody hell, I think I might kill this thing called Fate. Fate this, Fate that. Screw Fate and born legends. There's so many things about this out in the book world, why would I bother reading another? Oooo, Fate has declared him the Greatest Wizard in the Land. I feel like I'm in the Wizard of Oz. Toto, I don't think we're in an original world anymore.
Their response, as this was the second time I reviewed their work.
Well, no, now that I'm getting used to it, it wasn't that bad. It wasn't good, but not bad, kinda like getting punched in the head repeatedly - after a while you sorta numb out and the same blows that used to bring pain and shock now just sort of blend into a low, dull throb.
I try--try--to be humorous, but it's in my own way XD In reality, people laugh at my sarcasm, online it can be taken the wrong way >>; So there you have my critiquing style~

There's nothing wrong with being direct. However, on this site it is very important to remain respectful toward other members.

I know that other sites allow and even encourage bloodletting reviews. Here, however, honesty is not a license to shred the author.

By all means, if you don't see much potential in a piece, say so. But do it in a way that tells the author what he or she could do to make it better, or to make the next piece better.

No one will high five you for destroying a beginner's hopes. More likely, they will report you for an infraction.

I have had to deliver bad news to writers who requested reviews. It is, and should be, the most painful critique to write.

I must agree with Cogito. Constructive critism is always good as that is the only way people can learn, and by all means, don't pad it out with rose tinted glasses or whatever the saying is, but do not be mean. I know that sounds a little ... childish, but everyone is entiltled to have their word treat with respect, and if you are saying "that is just crap", it isn't really respecting it is it? Just try and make your critism constructive rather than nasty.
Heather

Oh yeah, I know what you're saying, Cogito. I've never been the real softy type when telling someone they are doing it wrong, not that I'd ever call the author a crappy writer. Everyone starts out somewhere. I just give in-depth reviews as to my reasons why I dislike things. It's the author's choice whether to listen to me or not the whole way through.

It's not exactly shredding the author, but rather shredding the work. It's like a 5k piece puzzle, in a way. You dump all of the pieces out on the ground, and what do you get? A muddled mess. But with time and corrections as well as other people's opinions on how to go about putting the pieces together, it can become a beautiful piece.

And that is the crucial distinction. Shredding the work can definitely be the best approach, as long as it does not cross the line into shredding the writer.

But if something is so fundamentally flawed that you feel it is beyond salvage, then another approach might be to say something like:I'm sorry, but from where I stand, this piece is just not working.

Here are the three most serious flaws from my perspective:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

In this case, you might want to consider this a notes draft and start fresh.
That way, you aren't overwhelming the writer with more detail than he or she can reasonably address, you're helping the writer deal with the largest problems first, and most importantly, you show the sensitivity you would want someone to give you under similar circumstances.

On this site, Simon Cowell would be booted in short order. I don't care how talented writers the reviewers may be, if they aren't being constructive, they are a liability.

Oh yeah (<-- geez, I say this a lot), if I start seeing more mistakes than I can handle by doing the sentence-by-sentence critique, then I would choose an alternate route like that. I've had to do that a few times, but not many.

On one of my critiques at another site, I began with a line-by-line critique, but found I had to stop as there were just too many complaints to put within each sentence. Instead, I told them their writing was stuttering due to switching tenses at random moments, the overuse of adverbs, knee-jerk reactions to a certain character, and too much of the passive voice. I explained each point to the best I could, gave them examples and how to tweak their writing and was done with it.

I love people being direct and honest, especially if they compliment me, because I know that means I earned those compliments and nobody's taking it easy on me.

That said, people who make an art of the snarky review tend to strike me as obnoxious at best. Thurough reviews are good, nitpicky ones are to be appriciated, honest ones at to be valued, but remember Simon makes his money by being obnoxious, and we stand for it because he's yelling at someone else :D.

I think you're missing something. The whole idea behind Simon Cowell's persona is that it attracts ratings. Ever notice all the "American Idol" advertisements that focused on the rejects? It's because Simon's cruelty, sadly, is what people want to see.

Frankly, NO artist deserves to be treated the way Simon treats them. But you've got to remember it's all for show. They signed the dotted line on the disclosure agreement, and they knew what they were getting into. It's mainly for publicity.

I'll bet that Simon, if ever critiquing when not on camera, will go about it more professionally.

On the contrary, me and my family agree with mostly every single thing he says regarding whether someone has sang good or lousy. It's all a matter of opinion, of course. Heck, I want to say some other things to some of the singers, but you know. Sometimes they just downright suck with the song they choose, and other times they are bloody brilliant.

I take criticism as it comes. I might fume about it or become upset, but later I look at the critique someone gave me again and realize they are right at times, and that I need to work a bit more. Sure, Simon Cowell is the main attraction. In my eyes, it's because he is truthful. Half the people in American Idol who say an artist is great is because they think they're sexy or just that their voice is cute.

I'unno. That's just my opinion.

Oh, I'm not saying (speaking for myself, Mr. Sci Fi has his own opinion no doubt) that Simon's lying or anything. If he thinks you suck, he will certianly say so, and he is perfectly willing to tell someone when he likes their voice as well. But it's HOW he says it that's the important thing. It would be just as easy (or even easier) to say 'I didn't like it. You squeek. Goodbye' as 'I want to kill myself right now'. But it wouldn't sound as cool to the viewers.

The thing to remember is that people don't post on this forum looking for Simon Cowell reviews of their own or other's work. I think there are Livejournal communities for that. But trying to sound cool by digging up henious insults won't get you far at this point.

Now, I'm not ranting at Kaij here. I'm glad she brought up this point, and I see what she means and what she likes about Simon Cowell and his style. But I don't like seeing it on amateur writers who aren't claiming to be fantastic, 'American-Idol' style material. And I've seen it before, on other sites, which is why I get snappish about it.

Back when I used to critique manuscripts, I made it a point to first praise the best portions along with the reasons why, and then point-out why the worst portions were bad. I sometimes wrote more in explanations that what an author wrote for a whole article, but my customers were happy with the results.

The first person to critique my first novel never said anything good about my work. He thought critiquing meant to 'negatively criticize.' I suspect that a lot of good authors have likely abandoned writing after receiving nothing but negative responses. The best that an author can hope for from a bad critiquing is that the author receives no reply at all, which in itself can be very damaging to the author's sense of self-value. It is psychologically damaging to be shunned by the public or one's peers, and likewise, negative critiquing is an act of psychological violence.

I believe that I have only once observed Cowell's critiquing style (I rarely watch television, and I have never watched "American Idol" for more than half a minute). I was very displeased with what I saw on that one episode. Cowell and the others were profoundly crude to the contestant. I would have to watch an entire episode (eek!) to properly comment on Cowell's style. :)

I would have to watch an entire episode (eek!) to properly comment on Cowell's style. :)

Cowell's style in the long run is ten times worse than what you saw from that little snippet. His antics cross the borderline of plain disrespectful to downright vicious.

No artist deserves to be treated the way Cowell treats them, and I don't care how bad they are. It's one thing to be critical, but it's a totally different thing to be abusive. And Cowell is blatantly abusive, to the point where you wonder why no one has yet punched him in the nose.

Now, I'm not ranting at Kaij here. I'm glad he brought up this point, and I see what he means and what he likes about Simon Cowell and his style.
MS, I'm a girl XD LOL.

It is psychologically damaging to be shunned by the public or one's peers, and likewise, negative critiquing is an act of psychological violence.
I've stated before that I am sarcastic in my reviews, and I do love to pick apart sentences. But it's up to the author to listen to anything I say, right? In a world of millions, not everyone is going to be on the same eye-to-eye level. Granted, I know amateurs don't expect their work to be godly, and other writers shouldn't either--published or not--but the fact still remains negative comments do help the author out by being point out why something doesn't sound right. I don't mean the negative comments such as "Die in a fire." I might say that to the character in the story, but not the author. By negative comments, I mean pointing out the screwy stuff in the writing. Cliches, overuse of words, grammar and punctuation, etc.

I've done this style of critiquing on...I'm going to say around twenty people so far, and I've gotten good feedback from a lot. Most of the ones who were snooty about my reviews were on FictionPress, but that's no surprise to me. There were four there, and didn't change a thing on their work *shrugs* It's all what they want to do. I'm just the reviewer, the author is the only one that can and will decide what's done with their work.

One thing I do try to is put humor into some of my lines, just to try and lighten the mood. I don't nuke the entire work.

MS, I'm a girl XD LOL.


I've stated before that I am sarcastic in my reviews

Sarcasm is to the internet what drug intervention is to Amy Winehouse.

And Kaij, if you ever reviewed my work that way, I'd rather you didn't bother. I don't have time for somebody that wants to be callous for the sake of being callous, like Mr. Simon Cowell. It's one thing to not sugar coat a review and be as critical as possible. But sarcasm? Vicious insults? Come on now. Nobody deserves that abuse. Not even Dan Brown.

Ok, we can make an exception for Dan Brown.

But sarcasm? Vicious insults? Come on now. Nobody deserves that.
I dont see anything wrong with the sarcasm, if put into good humor. I honestly can't go one day without being a sarcastic little girl. That's just how I am. My parents don't even know where my being a smartass came from. My friend at work always calls me that, but it's in good humor. Each one of the below examples had me, the person, and the people around laughing.

Coworker: So where you working?
Me: Seeing as I clocked in here. Am standing here. Looking at the schedule here. Um, here?
Coworker: Such a little smartass, I mean which line!

Dad: You look pretty today, what happened?
Me: I got dressed in the dark.

Coworker: Arch-nemesis, you'll never find out where my hideout is! *strikes a pose*
Me: Easy. I'll look for the darkest alley in the ghettoist part of town. You'll be there.

Coworker: You can't beat me at mastering this machinery, for I am--*strikes a pose*--a super--
Me: Zero?

The author may not deserve the insults, but maybe the character(s) in the story need it.

MS, I'm a girl XD LOL.

My apologies. And I am doubly stupid for not looking right at the pink 'female' sign below your avatar. I will edit my post immidiatly.

Heh. Fictionpress. Don't waste your time on Fictionpress authors, that site isn't a critique group, it's a social circle.

But is the humor you inject at the work or at...what? Because if an author thinks you're making fun of their work, that just makes them snootier, and with some justification.

Just be sure to know the difference between mean sarcasm and banter. If you don't know the other person well enough to know how it will be received, it's bet to err on the side of caution.

Not directed so much at you personally, but for anyone else following this thread.

I dont see anything wrong with the sarcasm, if put into good humor. I honestly can't go one day without being a sarcastic little girl. That's just how I am. My parents don't even know where my being a smartass came from. My friend at work always calls me that, but it's in good humor. Each one of the below examples had me, the person, and the people around laughing.


"Satire is focused bitterness." - Leo Rosten

Cowell's style in the long run is ten times worse than what you saw from that little snippet. His antics cross the borderline of plain disrespectful to downright vicious.

That is what I suspected, and I for sure won't watch the show now! I agree with your previous thoughts that Cowell's attitude likely has a lot to do with ratings. It's interesting to me to observe how different people prefer different types of critiquing, and what some TV people will do for money.

One thing I do try to is put humor into some of my lines, just to try and lighten the mood. I don't nuke the entire work.

My wife keeps reminding me that most people don’t know when I’m joking. A joke is created by applying an absurd metaphor to a serious topic, but if the listener does not know why the metaphor is an absurdity, the listener will not interpret it as a joke. I prefer dry humor that appears serious but the logic has a purposeful error that, when summed, creates the desired absurdity. The problem is that the people I tell the joke to usually don’t sum the logic to discern the humor. Ah… what’s funny to one person might be an insult to another person.

A secretary once asked me how to spell “relief valve.” I began by replying “r-o-l-a-i-d-s.” She had already written more than half of the word before realizing the joke. I need to stick with the more-obvious humor. :D

Just be sure to know the difference between mean sarcasm and banter. If you don't know the other person well enough to know how it will be received, it's bet to err on the side of caution.

Not directed so much at you personally, but for anyone else following this thread.

Have to agree with this.

When people don't know you that well a harmless sarcastic comment could be received as a direct insult, and that's never good. :)

Simon Cowell's trademark directness, some might say nastiness, is ultimately about promoting himself rather than anyone else, and I daresay he would not deny it either. The same is true of many reviewers who review for nothing but the pleasure of hearing or seeing their own voice.

But while it is true that the never-ending stream of hopefuls who stick their head above the parapet to enable him to take potshots at them, in many cases, ought to know better, he would do well to remember that when people grow tired of him, as he grows tired of others with no talent other than to annoy, he will be left with little else of what both he and they desire most, i.e. attention. When that day comes, and he should be under no illusion that it will not, and viewers grow tired of him, he will perhaps know how those people feel.

Al

I personally find that Simon Cowell is brutally honest. That's all. Admittedly, reading reviews full of nothing but direct criticsm is very unseating. It does nothing for confidence. I believe that all reviews should highlight at least one positive point whilst still being completely honest. There is always at least one positive point in a piece, even though it may be difficult to find.

If I come across an emo teenage poem, I turn the computer off so I don't make anyone cry.

But I won't point out something that's "wrong" with a piece if I don't think I can back it up, and I do challenge people if they comment something I don't agree with (someone didn't like something I used in one poem because they "didn't get it", so I explained the allusion to them. Nice, while still explaining my own work). But that doesn't happen too often. Mostly because nobody comments on my work, hence I came here.

Poetry is a dead art form :(

I prefer someone who will tell me what is wrong with my work rather than 'it's good' or 'I liked it'. When I show it to someone to review I know there is something that needs to be fixed and I have tried everything I can think of.

How a critique is given, good or bad, depends on how it is received. There are some people out there who can tell you that your writing is absolute excrement and do it in a way that doesn't even make you blink. Simon is just brutal to be brutal, some people need that bash over the head though.

As for poetry I do not review it on the grounds that I do not feel qualified. I do not read poetry and rarely do I write it whereas fiction I read constantly and attempt to write it about as much.

Hmm... many people like to mask their cruelty with honesty. I like honesty. I like critique. I like to hear what's wrong with my words. Of course I like to hear about the good things as well, but mostly, I want to improve if I ask someone to tell me something about my work.

I don't like Simon Cowell. I don't think he's honest. I think he's just cruel. And I agree with Al B. :)

Edit. Oh, and I agree with Cogito as well.

I appreciate honesty, but someone who pulls no punches and makes you feel worthless is not the way to go.

If someone says "I didn't like this at all" then fair enough - you could just take that as a personal opinion because there will be someone else who did like it. But going to extremes with negative comments would probably make you feel like a laughing stock on a public forum. Doesn't show anyone in a good light.

I'm with Cowell up to a point. I think he's doing someone a favour if they genuinly think they've put in a stellar performance, but everyone who isn't tone deaf can see that it's a bit crap. I think it's justifiable to stick with facts, no matter how brutally honest you're being. For example, he might tell someone that their intonation is terrible, that they have a weak voice, that they have poor tone, etc. All of that is arguably the (helpful) truth. Remember, he's not there to help people grow as artists, he's just there to give the quickest review possible.

However, he goes beyond this (as someone has rightly pointed out: in search of ratings) with some fairly cruel and unnecessary metaphors. He just tacs them on at the end, after he's already made it perfectly clear he doesn't like the performance and that they aren't getting through. I mean telling someone that their performance was like watching a trumpetting elephant crashing through the jungle, cannot be construed as constructive by any means.

That said, i think it's perfectly possible (and preferable) to be honest AND polite/respectful - something which Cowell either doesn't believe in, or doesn't care about.

I think there's a fine between being honest and hurtful. I like honest reviews, and personally, I give honest reviews. If your grammar is hideous, I'll tell you and even reword it for you. If something is out of place, I'll tell you to nix it and place it somewhere more appropriate.

HOWEVER, after reading your 'review' of someone else's work, I can tell you I would NEVER do that. That is just hurtful, and if you're trying to prove that you're like Simon Cowell, then you succeeded. But, just because you succeeded in being an a-hole, it doesn't mean you said anything constructive.

Just my two cents,

Sorry if I repeated someone else's argument.

~ InPieces

What kind of amuses me is that Simon can rip apart a performance of someone singing but he has never actually sung a song in his life. He's a producer o.O

I guess he has a vague skill in knowing who "elses" voice would sell, but not his own. I would love to see Simon try and cook in Hells Kitchen :D

What kind of amuses me is that Simon can rip apart a performance of someone singing but he has never actually sung a song in his life. He's a producer o.O

I guess he has a vague skill in knowing who "elses" voice would sell, but not his own. I would love to see Simon try and cook in Hells Kitchen :D

Haha, it's true. Simon and Chef Ramses seem very similar in my eyes. He knows when there's talent, and makes it painfully obvious when there's not. But his harshness and Paula's mushy-gushy-I-love-you-ness seem to balance out.

No offense to the OP, but I think she thinks way too highly of herself. Being sarcastic proves nothing but one's own bitterness and insecurity, and people that personally declare themselves sarcastic are just looking for a bit of attention.

Sarcastic critiques are reserved for the likes of MFA professors and has-been authors, and it serves no place in honest, helpful critique.

Haha, it's true. Simon and Chef Ramses seem very similar in my eyes. He knows when there's talent, and makes it painfully obvious when there's not. But his harshness and Paula's mushy-gushy-I-love-you-ness seem to balance out.

There's a difference between Chef Ramsey and Simon Cowell. Chef Ramsey is belligerant and hostile because he is trying to run a business and it is his own reputation on the line, he has every right to demand the best out of his team, and he openly admits that is what he tries to do. Simon doesn't have to worry about his negative reputation because that's what attracts ratings, and if anything, if he wasn't such an asshole nobody would watch it anymore. He's a product and has no real basis for his cruelty despite his own bitterness, quite possibly because he always wanted to be a singer, couldn't cut it, and is taking out his anger on others like him. I think he's wrong to tell people they are "Utterly useless," or "Never sing again." That's not his place. Why not say, "Why don't you learn an instrument instead?" Why totally tell them to get out of the music industry? If I couldn't cut it as a writer, I would take up editing or publishing or become an agent or a bookseller, or work on a film crew, because it's the only industry I want to be in. Just because you can't make it in one position doesn't mean there aren't others.

No offense to the OP, but I think she thinks way too highly of herself. Being sarcastic proves nothing but one's own bitterness and insecurity, and people that personally declare themselves sarcastic are just looking for a bit of attention.

Sarcastic critiques are reserved for the likes of MFA professors and has-been authors, and it serves no place in honest, helpful critique.

I completely agree.

A thing on my own reviewing ways.

I love Simon Cowell. He's so awesome. If someone's done something that's utter crap he won't hesitate to say so, and he'll state his reasoning for it. A lot of reviewers miss out on stating their reasoning.


This is so true and you've hit the nail perfectly on the head. Many folk on many a forum do not give a good enough reason for their likes and dislikes once they reply to a piece. I like to think if someone’s going to review my writing they be honest but explain why. because there’s nothing worse than someone saying "This is crap give up writing" or There were lots of grammar issues." and not pointing out what it is they are saying. To help a writer the reviews have to be informative they don't have to be full of praise but good honest and constructive and I know it helps me when I receive something detailed.

What saddens me though is many members who are not so good at writing dislike any negative feedback and sometimes reply within a rude and none to friendly manner. I think the best form of feedback can be the negative because then you know were you've gone wrong and can remedy that. But sadly not all folk think as I.




~Raven.

cboss2 said it best a few pages ago.

When people don't know you that well a harmless sarcastic comment could be received as a direct insult, and that's never good.

This goes for reviewers and writers alike. While I don't think all sarcasm is a bad thing, as some would like to believe, I agree that it's best to save those for occasions with members that are particularly closer to you and would understand it.

A few harmless remarks to someone who you've barely spoken to, and it could ignite warfare unintentionally.

At the place I learned to critique, they had a helpful rule. They suggested you should always phrase critiques in terms like "I feel" and "In my opinion", and then go on to list the typos, nit-picks, or whatever. This helps both the writer and the reviewer remember what a totaly subjective business reviewing is.

It also helps maintain peaceful feelings all around when the reviewer avoids stating things in absolutes. Phrases like, "this piece is a mess" imply a sense of superiority, conveying the idea that the reviewer feels he/she could do better. Whether or not they can is irrelevant. To me, it seems much more helpful simply to say, "I think maybe you should change this line" or "Others may feel differently, but it seems to me that this part is a little rough".

I don't pull punches and I have a tendency to lapse into occasional "light" sarcasm(it's irresistable), but I back up my statements, am willing to elaborate/explain, and even withdraw a comment if the writer proves their point.

I love watching Simon, but I don't admire his attitude.

One thing that I would like to bring up regarding Simon. It seems people overlook the fact that this is a man who has made a very successful profession out of being able to judge if people have what it takes.

If he tells you honestly "You don't have it" then it is time for you really think about taking up 'something else'

Now. There is a diffrence. Simon might seem cruel, but he is not, he is blunt. There is a very large dividing factor in those two areas.

If a publisher from a high end label sent you a replay "We read your (Submission) You don't have what it takes"

What do you?

But then again, I am just a fellow poster, supposedly giving you my 'honest' opinion of your work.

Keep in mind that what Simon Cowell does is entertainment. It is not constuctive criticism, it is a winnowing process for a competition.

Also, the publisher's letter is for the same purpose, but without the entertainment motive. The publisher does not have the time, or probably the inclination, to help someone who someday, with a lot of effort, may become a publishable writer.

Here, that is the majority of our membership. Even those who have published are not beyond learning and improving. So criticism here must be constructive, not a thumbs up or thumbs down verdict.

Well said Cog.

Plus Its a fair game to offer some crit most folk that join here would like others to do for them a review so I think its fair everyone plays ball. And you can even learn from giving a review.

I do not think any of us are the Simon Cowell of writing. Nuff said about that.

but the fact still remains negative comments do help the author out by being point out why something doesn't sound right.

Pointing out weaknesses and the reasons they are weak is one thing, but it can still be said in a positive tone and done with encouragement, without losing any of its directness or honesty. You can even tell people that writing is not their thing without ripping into them with sarcasm or using horribly negative words. The point is to be honest and helpful, but respectful.

Chef Ramsey is belligerant and hostile because he is trying to run a business and it is his own reputation on the line, he has every right to demand the best out of his team, and he openly admits that is what he tries to do.

He also only ever really insults anyone when he's really angry and someone has pushed his buttons too many times. When he is simply commenting on someone's cooking, his comments are in a positive tone, and he focuses on what is good about the mean first. It's one thing to say, "This is bad because . . ." It's another thing to say, "This has these weaknesses, and we can overcome them by doing this." The second one loses none of the directness of the other, but is ultimately more helpful.

Well, a Simon Cowell review could be helpful in letting a writer know where they fit in the grand scheme of things (as long as the person giving the review is in a position to say so). I'd say it's very unhelpful to a would-be author if they think that they are a lot better than they actually are. A really harsh review can be helpful in making them realise that there are still a lot of ways in which they can improve, or that their own opinions of their work are a little too biased. If it is glossed over too much and made to sound positive, then I doubt the message would get through as strongly as if sarcasm was used in a case like that.

Of course, it depends on the person since not all writers are going to have a massively inflated ego, so something constructive and honest seems the best way to go...

Well, a Simon Cowell review could be helpful in letting a writer know where they fit in the grand scheme of things (as long as the person giving the review is in a position to say so).Sorry, but I must reject this argument. There is no value to tell a writer that he or she has no future in writing.

A more useful approach is to point out the most severe problems in the writing. The writer can then either take the advice and attempt to improve, or may decide the road is too difficult. His or her choice.

As for writers believing they are better than they are, publisher rejection letters will suffice. Rejection letters can either make the writer throw in the towel, or to work harder at improving. Again, his or her choice.

In the end, it will be the writers determination and ability to grow that will decide success or disappointement. Now Simon Cowells needed, or wanted.

Letting a writer know "where they are in the grand scheme of things" is not the same as telling them that they have "no future in writing". You have basically said the same thing that I did. I said "a really harsh review can be helpful in making them realise that there are still a lot of ways in which they can improve"... and you - "rejection letters can either make the writer throw in the towel, or to work harder at improving". I did say, "as long as the person giving the review is in a position to say so", and concluded - "constructive and honest seems the best way to go".

I actually read through this entire thread, and I have to overall disagree with the OP. First of all, while I do agree Simon Cowell gives blunt critiques, he also obviously says many of the things he does to garner attention. It's all for entertainment purposes, as several other posters have pointed out. I don't really see how Simon Cowell potentially belittling people on national television is even remotely similar to constructively reviewing a writer's work? Secondly, I don't care what piece of work it is, as other people have already said, any and every work has a few positives about it. There is such a thing as being overly critical. It just doesn't make for a balanced review, and on websites like these, where we're all basically equal (last time I checked I don't think any of us are famously published authors, unless Stephen King or Chuck Palahniuk are posting in our midst), it just comes off as if you see yourself as "above" the writer. And, third, sarcasm is all fine and dandy, but like with being critical, there's such a thing as too much sarcasm. I don't mind sarcastic reviews if it's done in good taste. If a review is chalked full of sarcasm it just becomes condescending and high horse to me. It also doesn't make you look wittier or any more knowledgeable, which is what irks me about people who overuse sarcasm; they seem to think it actually does, that baffles me.

Oh, and just to toss this in, I consider myself a decently critical and sarcastic person, but I also think striving to be the Simon Cowell of reviewing is rather pointless. You shouldn't be critiquing people for entertainment, which is what Cowell does, you should be critiquing because you genuinely want that writer to improve x and y, and also know he did well here and there, too. I could understand if it were a professional review, but seeing as we're on a forum aimed to help each other improve, what's the point of playing the Simon Cowell role? I'm drawing blanks other than to be mocking... :confused:

Kaij,

This is really useful advice so thanks for posting it.

I think I'm one who unleashes the inner Simon Cowell upon herself. Whatever criticism happens after that couldn't be near as bad.

Gisele

While brutal derision offers nothing to the writer, I think that we should be aware of the pitfalls of mindless praise, as well. Not only does empty extolment damage the writer, I think that it ultimately can damage the forum on the whole if it becomes pervasive. If I feel as though people will dole out accolades to mediocre work, the progress derived from criticism is lost, and any compliments lose their potency. If we do not show others the weaknesses that they have blinded themselves to, they will be much more starkly disillusioned down the road. Do not pamper people with the delusion of false accomplishment. Like currency, when praise is manufactured without restraint, it loses its value.

I think what every writer needs to realize is that the field of professional writing is brutal and unforgiving. Like all artists, many writers do not subsist on their craft alone, and even fewer thrive. Steven King, Tom Clancy, and John Grisham? Anomalies. I don't mean to paint it so bleakly, but it is a brutal reality that writers (especially those striving to write novels) face serious obstacles. For the professional writer, the potential of rejection is a fact of life.

Writers should come here to improve themselves. They must seek to attack their weakness and consolidate the foundation of their writing. Often, improvement requires some reconstruction. Those who come in search of validation are ultimately damaging themselves by feeding the demands of their egos. Satiating this hunger with vacuous praise amplifies the destruction.

This does not mean we should mock people or beat them down. It also does not mean that we shouldn't be positive in our reviews. We should focus on helping writers improve. That doesn't mean saying, "I just really didn't like this" (thanks buddy).

I think that reviews should be a balance of noting specific things that are working, and specific things that need improvement. Too many people are excessively vague, too generous with empty compliments, or unnecessarily harsh.

Mindless praise reviews, i.e. those which are not specific to what the person commenting liked about the piece, are not considered constructive reviews. If I or another mod sees them, they will be disregarded when counting the reviews to meet the reviewing requirement.

But obviously, that kind of checking is time consuming, and it doesn't prevent people from posting empty compliements that don't count toward reviewing credits.

However, it's not our job here as reviewers to thicken people's skins for them either. "Brutal honesty" is often an excuse to lay down abuse, and that won't be tolerated on this site. Honesty need not be brutal in order to point out serious problems with the writing.

Although it's not necessary to sugar-coat comments that call out problems, it is necessary to respect the writer you are reviewing as a fellow human being. Assume that person is trying to improve, and has the capacity to learn.

In the end, it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

*Applauds wildly* It's true. You don't need to rip something apart in a negative tone to be helpful. People think that when we talk abut being positive, it means sugar coating. But take a look at my reviews as an example. Am I sugar coating? No, I just make an effort to find as many good things as I can, and say point out what weakness I see, explain why, and suggest how to improve it. The focus is on how to make it better, not what is wrong with it.

Some people make the exuse that book reviewers won't be so nice or "How are you going to be ready for rejection letters if we're nice?" I have met editors and listened to them talk, and have seen my share of rejection letters. They are never harsh. They only say "We cannot take it for one of these reasons" It's rare, but sometimes they even suggest ways increase its chance of getting accepted. And editors I have met, once you have been accepted, are supportive. Their goal is to create the best possible book they can so it will sell. How can they do that if they are not showing the author respect and focusing on screw-ups instead of improvements? It doesn't mean you ignore what's really bad, but don't put all your energy into it.

If your writing receives a review that focuses on the problems or negative aspects of the piece, and does so in a far less than positive manner, take from it what you can and then move on.

As this is along the same lines, I will quote what I wrote in another thread:
If a negative review, direct and blunt, is of concern to you, then it may very well be a rough road to publication. Rejections of your submitted work are just one example. Maybe a piece gets published, then there are readers who will rip it from one end to another. Even professional and semipro reviewers and critics may not have nice things to say, and it'll be printed across the interenet or newsprint.

You are correct, that sometimes someone who reviewes a piece here (or elsewhere) and provides a crit could be more positive or word things less harshly, but they could also have bothered not to read and taken the time to comment.

We as writers need to be told what is working and what isn't, and hopfully why. Flowery language can sometimes dilute the points made. And in the end, you as the writer don't have to agree. It's impossible to please everyone.

Terry