I don't believe that there is ONLY one way to do things. I try to stay aware that everyone has their own take and approach to expressing a story.

One of the major points I focus on (that is more of an objective aspect) is grammar, spelling, etc. I feel that once this is fixed, the story reads out more smoothly and effectively. (I constantly reread my own writing over and over again, smoothing out the grammatical errors.)

So basically, when I read a story...I try my best to feel where the author is going and as much as I can, try to understand their direction. I definitely don't like criticism that tries to change an author's style since everyone is entitled to their own way with words. As a reviewer, I don't think it is productive to nitpick and dictate my opinion, merely just to fit it according to my own preference.

I want to appreciate and experience it for what it is rather than what I WANT it to be.

So my reviews are pretty simple and relative. I name things I like and errors I caught. I will also express some advice based on clarity and background. Generally, this is about helping the author and giving personal, direct input. (no fluff) :)

There is merit to that approach. And certainly a lot of the pieces I review, the spelling, punctuation, and grammar (SPAG) is the squeaky wheel that needs,and gets, the oil.

However, I don't think there's anything wrong withsuggesting structuiral changes. Reviews are exactly that - suggestions. If a writer has a style that works for him or her, that's fine. But if the writer is open to developing some style changes, the sugestions from reviewers may be worth exploring.

I feel a bit differently.Spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes can always be fixed, but I need to feel something from the words-almost immediately, or I put it down.
In reviewing, I would tend to look at characterization and dialogue as well ( the latter of which is not my strongsuit)
I've been on some writing forums where people's work was just massacred. That's not cool to me. It's hard enough to put your 'self' out there, so any feedback has to be constructive, and encouraging, no matter your style of critiquing and what you look for.

However, I don't think there's anything wrong withsuggesting structuiral changes. Reviews are exactly that - suggestions. If a writer has a style that works for him or her, that's fine. But if the writer is open to developing some style changes, the sugestions from reviewers may be worth exploring.

Ya, I definitely do understand what you mean. Constructive criticism is always a good thing. I never said it wasn't.
What I specifically meant was that I don't like to put out my opinions in such a cold way...as if I know the "right" way and they don't. There is a line between constructive and such criticism that's biased/arrogant/offensive. Such reviews become rather negative and very disheartening. Rather than actually helping the author's writing, it's just a stab in a person's confidence.

Sincere advice is most positively a good thing. When it comes down to it, I just try to fit my review depending on the author since problems vary, styles and genres vary. (help them with their style if need be) :)

I feel a bit differently.Spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes can always be fixed, but I need to feel something from the words-almost immediately, or I put it down.


Yes! It is important to hook the reader right away! If you don't, they won't want to continue reading the story.

Criticism can be constructive, but not always. It depends upon your point of view. When a book is reviewed it must be done so from all angles and taking of course different dimensions of it into consideration. When a reviewer comes upon something to comment on and from his perspective he finds flaws in the writing he has to point it to the writer. And the writer can look at from a different angle and does not agree, something, some misunderstanding is likely to come up. Then the idea that criticism must be or will be constructive will not work here.

Constructive criticism does not mean only praise. Constructive criticism can point out flaws and suggest ways to fix the flaws.

An example:Your writing is unclear. You need to fix your grammar.is not constructive. It is vague, and fails to tell the writer anything useful in how to improve.

Also:This is great! I really enjoyed it. Write more!is also not constructive. It is empty praise that doesn't tell the writer what made that piece of writing work well, where other writing may have fallen flat. This kind of review is usually pure laziness.

A constructive comment might be:You should try to simplify your sentences. For example:When a reviewer comes upon something to comment on and from his perspective he finds flaws in the writing he has to point it to the writer.Could be simplifioed to:A reviewer points out a flaw, in his opinion, to the writer.Subject (The reviewer) verb (points out) direct object (a flaw) indirect object (to the writer),
with the direct object's parenthetical qualifier immediately following the direct object. Piling up qualifiers before the actual subject-verb-objects makes reading difficult.(Sorry for using your ownb words as an example, but perhaps it will help.

Criticism can be constructive, but not always. It depends upon your point of view. When a book is reviewed it must be done so from all angles and taking of course different dimensions of it into consideration. When a reviewer comes upon something to comment on and from his perspective he finds flaws in the writing he has to point it to the writer. And the writer can look at from a different angle and does not agree, something, some misunderstanding is likely to come up. Then the idea that criticism must be or will be constructive will not work here.


Misunderstanding, though unfortunate, does not mean that criticism is not constructive.

"Constructive" criticism basically means that the critiquer points out what they felt to be issues (or virtues) in the writing and takes the time to explain their reasoning and give examples. Not all "constructive" criticism results in agreement and/or change, but that doesn't mean it isn't constructive. It just means that the author has a different opinion which they feel strongly enough about to support in the face of comments to the contrary. "Constructive" is not an adjective intended to describe end results as much as it is an adjective intended to describe intent.