Softening Your Reviews

[JoeMusings]

Has this ever happened to you? When you've read a piece that you absolutely detest, and then you write a mean but justified review, but then you read your review and decide that it's too mean, and so you soften all the language and make up some good aspects in the writing that aren't actually any good? Or when you've read a piece that you absolutely love, and then you justifiably praise the author, but then you read your review and decide that it's too full of praise, and you soften all the language and make up areas of improvement that don't actually need to be improved?

[jonathan hernandez13]

My reviews are usually based in grammar, technicalities, etc. In closing (or throughout) I may make comments like "cliche" "good description" etc.

I may give some recommended reading at the end, my impressions, ask a question/answer one they ask.

What I don't like to do, and I've seen it done to others and to me, is make a statement that I might call "personal" or directed at me.

You'd be surprised the things some people write, it can be offensive and aside from the fact it is not constructive or a review, it is just plain tacky to poke someone on the ribs on their own threads.

I say stick to the material, if you're not helping but making a bunch of sweeping charged statements at the risk of picking a fight with the author or a mod you might as well throw feces directly at the TV screen. It's blatant trolling.


Sorry, I just hate trolls #@%*! O_o

[Agreen]

Being completely honest and giving the reader your exact reaction to the piece is the most helpful approach in my opinion. It is perhaps a product of my reviewing style, but I don't worry about softening the language I use in commenting on the work (beyond the fact that I don't swear) because I don't really see the point in doing so.

That said, while I am thorough and willing to make detailed points in discussing areas of improvement in a text, I do try to bring positivity into my reviews. I honestly believe that pointing out what a writer does well, and why you think they did that well is just as helpful as presenting ways in which difficulties in the text can be improved.

And one final caveat- all of the above assumes the reviewer is actually trying to help improve the writing in a piece. While I can only think of a few times I've seen it here, Jonathan is correct in saying that flaming a piece- or worse the writer - without justification or for its own sake is basically trolling and of no help to anyone.

[Rei]

I don't worry about softening the language I use in commenting on the work (beyond the fact that I don't swear) because I don't really see the point in doing so.It makes people more receptive to it. People make the excuse that it's not how editors do things and people have to be ready for it, but you don't know that all editors are like that. Besides, not everyone is at the point where they are ready to start working with publishers and it's not our job to prepare them.

It's not necessarily "softer" language, but positive and encouraging, even when we are pointing far more problems than strengths (e.g. "It would be much more exciting if . . ." insead of "This part is boring because . . .). And we have to point out strengths because not everyone knows what they are doing right. If they don't know what they did right, they won't know to repeat it.

[Forkfoot]

I don't even comment on pieces I detest, honestly. If I did, my post count would be much higher. Guess it's cuz my mother always said "If you can't say anything nice blah blah blah..."

[bluebell80]

I agree with Forkfoot. I won't post to piece I see and think are absolute rubbish. I just can't dash the dreams of a writer that way, and I can't force myself to read the entire piece to give a proper critique.

When I find a piece that, despite some flaws, kept my attention and could be something good, I will write a detailed critique that addresses the flaws, but also points out the good stuff.

I have yet to be so wowed that I had nothing but praise, that counts for my own writing too.

[fandango]

I have yet to be so wowed that I had nothing but praise, that counts for my own writing too.

Completely agree. In reviewing a piece there are the basic things such as grammar, spelling, the less obvious things such as structure, tone, and then the completely personal things which the writer would still find useful even if they don't need to act on it.

I'm also of the "honest" camp. There are ways to be positive about a negative review, but frankly dreadful writers needs to know they aren't that good. Otherwise how are they supposed to improve?

[Cheeno]

I have to say I've learnt quite a bit in my time here, especially about the importance of being constructive. No point being otherwise if you want your message to hit it's mark. We're here to assist, not to demolish.

[Torana]

Has this ever happened to you? When you've read a piece that you absolutely detest, and then you write a mean but justified review, but then you read your review and decide that it's too mean, and so you soften all the language and make up some good aspects in the writing that aren't actually any good? Or when you've read a piece that you absolutely love, and then you justifiably praise the author, but then you read your review and decide that it's too full of praise, and you soften all the language and make up areas of improvement that don't actually need to be improved?
I have unfortunately found out what it is like to be on the receiving end of abuse for reviews I've made in the past. So I tend not to be very... I tone my reviews down tremendously. I never lie about what I say in my reviews, I just give honest feedback and leave it at that. I do try to find one positive thing about a piece though. It can soften the blow for the author of the piece. But I can't always find a positive, and if I don't, I don't lie about it to make the writer feel better, because giving lies to the author NEVER helps.

[losthawken]

I tend to soften critiques, but usually only when I sense that the author is new to writing or rather young (sorry kids). You want to be honest, and I am, but you also want to inspire the author to keep trying, not give up...

[Kas]

I have in the past, but it didn't work out well. I think most recipients get more out of it if I'm honest. If I don't give my true impressions, but instead lace my words with diplomacy, or hand out compliments when they don't apply, I'm just wasting time--mine and the writer's.

Usually, if I don't like a piece at all, I won't review it. If, despite the flaws, I think the writer or the piece might be going somewhere, I'll deliver a predominantly negative critique. I suppose they may get offended and ignore me entirely, but that's up to them. I'm sure some people do.

Whether in spite of or because of my reviewing style, I've had numerous PMs asking me to look at a revision, or another chapter, or to continue reviewing a novel privately, so I must be doing something right.;)

It depends on how serious the writer is.

[losthawken]

That's one thing that's always bugged me about the reviews here. If you don't get any comments its either because it was so bad no one could read it and take the time to tell you or occasionally its because it was so good no one feels worthy.

I don't think crappy writing deserves a review any less than average writing. And our silence doesn't help the author know where they are going wrong at all!! It just leaves them feeling like a hopeless failure. *snivels into sleeve*

I've posted some pretty bad stuff in the review room, (hindsight is 20/20) and was so grateful for the one or two people who stopped to actually tell me WHY it was so bad that no one was reading it.

[Cogito]

That's one thing that's always bugged me about the reviews here. If you don't get any comments its either because it was so bad no one could read it and take the time to tell you or occasionally its because it was so good no one feels worthy.

Not true. There are any number of reasons that a piece gets overlooked.

It may be too long an excerpt, or a "wall of text" without clear paragraph breaks. No one wants to tackle those.

You may have been unfortunate enough to have posted just before a few "three post wonders" - post two "I liked this, keep writing!" posts followed by a "Here's something I wrote last night after a tequila or ten, tell me watcha think. Never mind the mispells LOL" Yours just wasn't noticed right away.

You might be one of the above three post wonders. Nobody is biting.

You might have started arguing back when someone critiqued your earlier piece. No one wants to waste time on you.

Your piece might be good enough not to be an easy crit for the ones who just want to pick out easy problems, but not so compelling that other critics homed in on it to dig deeply. In that case, spending some real effort on other people's work might earn a reciprocal effort.

The point I'm making is not that it's your fault if you don't get plenty of critiques. The point is that you shouldn't assume any one particular reason. Often it just comes down to luck.

[jonathan hernandez13]

Amen brother, EVERYONE is entitled to a review, and not just petty opinions.

One person's trash is another person's treasure, so by denying someone an opportunity to improve on their writing simply because you don't like is almost evil---it's unnaturally selective!

As we all know, only natural selection is true.;)

[payelK]

I think every message can be delivered in a thousand ways and it depends on the which way you are choosing. So softening doesn't neccessarily mean you have to hide something or make it up. It's just about the way you are presenting it.

If you look carefully there's nothing in this world where you can not find a positive side. So you can just point those positive sides along with the negative feedbacks. And negative feedback always should come with a solution, not just the problem. That way the person doesn't feel completely useless and yet he tries to be better.

But seriously, I don't think that discussion is required in this site so much. Because as many critiques as I have seen till now, they never seem to be rude or harsh in any way. In fact I got a lot of help from these critiques. It inspires to be better. And it shows how each people feel different way. So even if something is not accpeted by a percentage of people, rest might just like it as it is.

[Rei]

I have in the past, but it didn't work out well. I think most recipients get more out of it if I'm honest. If I don't give my true impressions, but instead lace my words with diplomacy, or hand out compliments when they don't apply, I'm just wasting time--mine and the writer's.Using positive, solution-based language doesn't mean you aren't being honest. It just means you're being postive and encouraging. Like my example before. Are you being less honest if you say "I think this part could be more exciting if..." instead of "This part is boring because..."? No. But in my experience, people are more receptive to the first kind of feedback. It's more useful, anyway, because it's focusing on how the work can be improved instead of why it's not good.

[Cogito]

I try not to focus on whether a piece is good or bad right now. Instead, I focus on possible ways to make it better.

It doesn't matter where it IS on a qualiy scale, so much as where it COULD BE. And that often depends on how much work the writer is willing to put into it.

[Forkfoot]

I try not to focus on whether a piece is good or bad right now. Instead, I focus on possible ways to make it better.

It doesn't matter where it IS on a qualiy scale, so much as where it COULD BE. And that often depends on how much work the writer is willing to put into it.

So what do you say when it's totally horrible from the foundations up? "This could be a much better piece if you took out all the words and replaced them with other words. Also, if you hired a ghost writer."?

[Cogito]

So what do you say when it's totally horrible from the foundations up? "This could be a much better piece if you took out all the words and replaced them with other words.

No. I would say, "This needs a lot of work." Then I would point out the worst three to five flaws for the writer to start with.

Also, if you hired a ghost writer."?That would be an unacceptable response on this site. It's completely non-constructive and disrespectful.

[jonathan hernandez13]

If one piece of writing is error-ridden it is not evidence that the writer is incompetent.

If an enginner made a faulty machine called the Mark I prototype and no one bothered to give him advice on how to improve it, he would have moped and abandoned the project.

Peer review strengthens disciplines (steel sharpens steel). An engineer can make a Mark II or III or XX.

Bradbury said you can go through a million drafts before finding your definitive style, if you're not helping you're kind of contributing to bad writing.

ALL I'm saying is that everyone is entitled to a review, and one that is not negative to the author. You can give them a spanking if it's for a good cause, it's called tough love. You can be honest with someone without hurting their feelings or insulting them, just because it's hard to do doesn't make it impossible.

[Forkfoot]

I'm just asking cuz I never know where to start with bad, bad writing. That's why I usually just pass it up.

[Cogito]

I'm just asking cuz I never know where to start with bad, bad writing. That's why I usually just pass it up.That's an option too, if you aren't specifically asked to critique a piece of writing.

[Leaka]

I think there is a such thing as a review and a bash.
To tell someone: God this rubbish, I can't believe you wrote this. You need a lot of work on this. I couldn't even pass the first sentence.
Is a bash.
A review is telling them: Maybe you need to work on this more, take some time and revise it.
I think some of the reviews make people very sad or very upset. Or even not wanting to write any more. I don't think a job of a reviewer is someone who should make someone feel bad about what they write.
They should be encouraging them to write better and sharpen their pens.

I don't think there is a such thing as a crappy writer and a good writer.
I think we all have the potential of being good writers, therefore we need to encourage people to become good writers.
Even if they may be bad now, or even if they made some mistakes. That doesn't suddenly mean they cannot be a writer.
Anyone who works hard enough, can become a good writer.

If a man is making a radio, and his first draft wasn't so good and everyone bashed his first draft.
I don't think he would want to make a radio.
Instead if people handed out advice on how to make his first draft better and encouraged him to continue.
I think he would want to continue different drafts of the radio.
Until he made an excellent radio.

[Mercurial]

You can be honest, but you dont have to be mean about it. And if you are mean about it, it better be justified. Simply saying, "This sucks! I hate this, and I never want to read anything by you ever again" is rude and unhelpful. Like Leaka said, this is a bash; something I find that certain reviewers (not necessarily on this site but in my 'real life' editting job as well, and in published reviews). It may be helpful if it's printed in a newsmagazine --helpful to the audience of the magazine, but it sure doesnt help the author.
Primarily, what I do, and what this site here does, is help the writer.

So bashes, I say, are unacceptable. They're just rude, unhelpful, and really reflective of the kind of person, and writer, you are.

A review can be harsh and in-your-face if need be, but there needs to be substance to back it up. If I'm editting a paper that is really terrible, I'm not going to hold back. Not infrequently have I handed the article back to the writer --usually a reporter, in my area-- and have written in the margin, "You need to run a spellcheck, grammatical check, and read your own work before you ask me to. I am not a proofreader, and I cant do my actual job until you get your **** together." Harsh? Yes, but even in those instances I have circled the same mistakes at least five times before saying, "I'm not doing this anymore --it's your job."

And I have screamed when I take the time to sit down with the reporter, discussed the article, and they turn in the same exact paper a few days later, the paper I now am forced to publish. If I had the authority to fire people, honestly, I would sometimes.

I tend not be so harsh when I am reviewing creative writing, although I have said the same thing and handed it right back on occasion, because creative writing is quite personal whereas reporting is more lacking in the heart and soul. Besides, in most instances when I review creative writing, I am not doing it professionally like I do with articles. I tend to open and close with uplifting comments. Like many before me have said, you dont want to scare the author off, particularly if the author is young and / or new to the field. Hell, you dont want to dishearten an experienced author either. It's a balancing act, reviewing. It's being able to get your point across without biting off anyone's head.

Is it really a review if you pick out all the flaws and tell the author how much you detest their work? No. First of all, that's bashing. Second of all, that's proofreading, that's editting, but that's not what reviewing is.

Reviewing (at least on this forum and generally for creative writing only) is holistic and does not fixate on only the negative bits of the writing. It includes going over the good points, the really terrible points, and everything in between. It's not just SPAG, character development, or plot critiques. It's a time where you can sit down with the author and discuss what you really enjoyed, and maybe what you think they should do differently in the future.

So, I dont think you need to soften your reviews; you just need to be careful you know what a review actually is.

[shawsend]

I don't believe in softening reviews: Unless you think a story is perfect in every way, I think you should point out some of it's weaknesses and offer suggestions to improve it. Let's spot the errors and note them. I'm really sensitive about good grammar and realize I have some problems with it myself. Still though, I feel good grammar should be a top priority in here.

What's a perfectly-written story that sends a powerful message and leaves a lasting impression on the reader? I'm on the look for powerful stories, and when I encounter one less so, I'll like to say why I believe it's lacking, but do so in a way that's constructive and helpful to the author.

[Rumpole40k]

I think the real issue is the person being reviewed. We don't talk about it a lot but there are two types of people who post work - those who truly want someone to find the flaws they honestly can't see, and those who just want to be told they are the next [insert famous and/or rich author's name]. Ultimately softening a review does a disservice to the person generally interested in improving their work. As to the person just looking for their ego to be stroked? They were never interested in the review anyway so what is the point in softening it? I remember an former member here who asked me to review a piece for him. I gave it a glowing review (I still bought into the "be nice" approach back then). I was probably gentler than I should have been because we were friends. I recieved a PM from him a day later that said, "Yeah that's great and all but my Grandma could have said that." The entire manuscript was covered with red highlights when I sent it back to him two days later. Did I nitpick it to death? Yeah. Do I expect people looking at my work to do the same? Absolutely.

[Rei]

So what do you say when it's totally horrible from the foundations up? "This could be a much better piece if you took out all the words and replaced them with other words. Also, if you hired a ghost writer."?

It's very easy to still be encouraging and motivate the person you're helping if you have the right attitude. I once went from participating in a group much like this, for teens, where nearly everyone had a great deal of talent, to working in an elementary classroom with some kids who are not working at the grade level they are in. Never did I use such negative language, and was always able to help them improve. You just have to recognise what their level is and work from there. I really don't understand why so many people think being "soft", as we put it here, means being less honest about how it can be improved. That's the key here. Focusing on ways to improve it instead of what's wrong with it.

And rumpy, you are right most of the time, but not always. There are people who genuinely want to improve but don't know how to handle a certain type of blunt review that uses negative language. That's the benefit of "It would be more exciting if . . ." over "It's boring because . . ." if the person truly does want to improve. Anyone who knows me knows that I can handle suggestions, I just have a hard time with certain types of language.

It's not what you say. It's how you say it. Look up the opening song of The Producers and you get a perfect example of that.

[jwatson]

Many tend to post the first few pages of their first draft and it bugs me...
You should post it when you're sure you know where you're going with your story an not because you're looking for reassurance that you're a good writer.
Despite this, if you can point out some flaws, go ahead, but there is always a good side to anyone's writing. Saying nice stuff about their work when there is barely anything nice about it should be done. (IMO at least.) Writing is tough. Tough enough without someone completely coming down insensitively and saying "Wow this is a load of youknowwhat."
I like what Cogito said about the three-five things they can improve on. Whenever I do give a review, whether on this site or not, I make sure to say something good about their work and I do not lie because there is bound to be something good about it.
I agree with Rumpole40k about those seeking reassurance. If I'm reading something I know that person has just written the previous week and wants me to say. "Wow, you're awesome, go publish this" then I definitely close the browser. If someone wants their stuff to be read, it better be that they've worked on it for some time and to the best of their abilities. If not, I will not bash, I will just go write.

[jonathan hernandez13]

Well in my case I don't really like to post an entire story because of legal issues with publishers...

...and I stand by my belief that even incomplete tales deserve reviews, sometimes writers reach a point where a little help can give them an idea for a new direction. Not every draft is going to be perfect. How do we get to a destination? One step at a time, and a MS is achieved one draft at a time.

[Rei]

If you're responding to me, it sounds like you're trying to disagree with me, Jon, but the only thing we disagree on it the choice of words to use and the idea that being positive is less helpful.

[Atari]

I generally write with a clinically detached (or jovial) tone, so that nothing I say is negative or positive, but just factual. (Yet another reason that I try to avoid saying anything that is solely a personal preference, without any basis in fact; it helps to complete the image of calculating efficiency)
That can help to ease the blows, while simultaneously allowing me to correct any errors or present any opinions without feeling guilty or discouraging (to an extent) the writer.

I would that ALL who want to write would be successful, so I tell them to not give up and other such bleeding-heart things.

[Anabella]

Has this ever happened to you? When you've read a piece that you absolutely detest, and then you write a mean but justified review, but then you read your review and decide that it's too mean, and so you soften all the language and make up some good aspects in the writing that aren't actually any good? Or when you've read a piece that you absolutely love, and then you justifiably praise the author, but then you read your review and decide that it's too full of praise, and you soften all the language and make up areas of improvement that don't actually need to be improved?

I try not to read other people's review before I write mine, so not to get overly influenced by someone's observations...but later I do, to see what I am missing. I don't focus that much on technique or the way it is written. To me the most important thing is that it has to stand out, it has to be something I will remember the next day, and definitely something not common. I've been to a lot of writing boards already and it seems people perfect their writing technique and at the end they all become the same...same style, usage of words, or even imagery. Almost like cloning. So, most of all I appreciate when someone is being original and I will comment on it good or bad...just to further encourage a fresh breeze of air. (I don't know if this was harsh or not)

[k.little90]

Sorry... just want to put my two cents in...

Personally, I like it when people give me tough reviews, just as long as they are honest. Sometimes I feel like people give harsh reviews just for the sake of "hearing" their own "voice," and not really to help the OP improve their writing. Along those same lines, I feel like people are very quick to judge someones writing and slow to compliment work that deserves positive recognition. Just like how i want to hear about it if I write something that's crap, I would also like to hear about it if I write something that is good.

I don't think reviews should be softened. It doesn't do the writer any good to get an ego fluff when they don't deserve one, and it doesn't do the reviewer any good to never give worth-while feedback.

That's my tired, 5:00 a.m. input :p

[FoxZero]

I think what other have said about how things should be phrased is as far as you need to go.

If I feel the review is predominately negative I'll put extra emphasis on what they are doing well and the fact that I am doing my personal best to help them.

That's all I want from people to do, tell me what I did well and what I did poorly. I'll proofread manuscripts to death before I send them out so I'm not asking people to spell check for me. And I don't like it when people stick to the fact. I want their opinions and their feelings too, so I do all of these things when I give people review of their work. The biggest insult is to hold something back.

Honesty and properly phrasing things is the best way to go about softening things (in my opinion).

[ManhattanMss]

Has this ever happened to you? When you've read a piece that you absolutely detest, and then you write a mean but justified review, but then you read your review and decide that it's too mean, and so you soften all the language and make up some good aspects in the writing that aren't actually any good? Or when you've read a piece that you absolutely love, and then you justifiably praise the author, but then you read your review and decide that it's too full of praise, and you soften all the language and make up areas of improvement that don't actually need to be improved?


I think any review that's fabricated to reflect an inaccurate impression on the part of the reader (even your own "softening" device) is likely to be perfectly transparent once it's delivered, myself. And, if not, it may be reconstituted on the part of the writer (especially a very naive one) as something more or less important than it should be. Reviews are always in some way, shape, or form as much a reflection of the critic as of the story being critiqued. For a review to be useful, there should be some resonance (well beyond either admiration or insult) that comes through to the writer who now has to sort out the politeness and/or the meanness to get to the nugget of truth. I think the only worthy aim of a reviewer is to be accurate, specific, and genuine. My policy is if I feel like I can't be all three (and I very often cannot), then I don't review it at all. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but that's what I aim for, because that's the kind of review I find the most useful, myself.

[Cosmos]

I don't generally alter a review unless I feel I missed a point. If the story is so atrociously bad as to have nothing in its favor (I've only ever encountered that twice, tbh) I generally ignore it since I feel my time is better spent reviewing stories I feel have a better chance at being published, etc. If the story is amazingly good and I can't think of anything to improve it I generally just send a quite note to say how much I enjoyed it and hope they continue it. I'd rather not make up something so that I sound observant or whatever, but I also feel such amazing writing deserves an acknowledgement. That, and it does encourage that person to write more of it. :p

[writewizard]

I review two different ways. When I review in this forum, I go through the writing work line by line, looking at how the words interreact and how they can fix up the grammar / writing side of things.

Then I tell them what I liked and didn't like about the story. I always make sure that I have something positive to say.

On my other writing forum, I start by opening with my favorite quotes of the story and really focus on what I liked. I believe that if you tell them everything you liked, they will figure out what you didn't like, and improve from there. ;). Then you never have to feel mean! (Of course-I'm always sure to whip them into shape with the story angle).

:)

[kybudman]

ALL I'm saying is that everyone is entitled to a review, and one that is not negative to the author. You can give them a spanking if it's for a good cause, it's called tough love. You can be honest with someone without hurting their feelings or insulting them, just because it's hard to do doesn't make it impossible.

If I were to ascribe to your point (and I will tell you honestly, but respectfully that I do not), that still does not mean that everyone is entitled to a review from me. Believe me when I tell you there are countless writers who unknowingly have a reason for thanks that they have not received a review from me. The reasons are as many and varied as there are writers. A few:

1) They write in a genre with which I am unfamiliar. Anything beyond observational review as a reader and mechanics, etc. is outside my realm for some genres. I learn from every piece I read, but I apply from every piece I review.

2) I may disagree vehemently with the thesis they pose, yet do not want to present a dissenting opinion intra to their work. I would then produce a writing product as a disagreeing response, not a review or critique. These are not, I submit, an appropriate forum for argument with another writer.

3) My reviewing/critiquing time for that particular moment may well be more limited than the work requires, as I see it, for an honest and helpful review.

4) A piece has been submitted 2 days ago, and has 32 reviews. Well, okay. Give the writer some time to absorb what they already have on their plate. When I see such a development as this, I first read the work, then the reviews under it. If I have nothing to bring to the discussion that moves the work forward, I'm just piling on. That, to me is unseemly. It is a waste of my time, and the writer's. When they (the writer) have received significant recommendations, it is incumbent upon me to allow them the time to interact with them, and revise their work to reflect their resulting opinions for their own work. If they repost, and I see it, I may review the new work. That's what it is, after all. I also get an opportunity to measure the integrity of the writer, and the writing. This can be most instructive to my reviewing process. If I spend two hours of my time creating a significant review that is summarily ignored, or argued ad hominem, I will simply add that writer to my list of those I will not review for some time into the future.

It's my call. It's not an obligation that I must adhere to. When the perquisites (as I define them) have been met, then I will consider trying my shaky hand at a review. I may or may not do a respectable job, but I can surely do a respectful job with my review--or I should choose to pass on the work.

Isn't that a reasonable cause for not reviewing someone's work? :)

[laciemn]

I definitely agree with taking a second to cool down before posting anything written in anger, disgust, or impatience. It's true that some things are so terrible that they are almost infuriating, or just laughable, and it's easy to be cruel about that. But, one thing that helps me, is to think about who the person is. It could be someone very young, inexperienced, or just misguided. They could have had a horrible day. Who knows?

I've posted pretty negative stuff on my first impulse, but when I cool down, re-think, and maybe re-read it, I'm able to see things much more clearly, and decide what would be helpful to what kind of person instead of just blowing steam around.



If one piece of writing is error-ridden it is not evidence that the writer is incompetent.

If an enginner made a faulty machine called the Mark I prototype and no one bothered to give him advice on how to improve it, he would have moped and abandoned the project.

Peer review strengthens disciplines (steel sharpens steel). An engineer can make a Mark II or III or XX.

Bradbury said you can go through a million drafts before finding your definitive style, if you're not helping you're kind of contributing to bad writing.

ALL I'm saying is that everyone is entitled to a review, and one that is not negative to the author. You can give them a spanking if it's for a good cause, it's called tough love. You can be honest with someone without hurting their feelings or insulting them, just because it's hard to do doesn't make it impossible.

I like your attitude on reviews. For some reason, I've always felt protective over my work, and unsure about why others share with other writers so often. But I can see how benefits could be gained from having people that aren't just readers, but are actually reading to find strengths and weaknesses. An intelligent response can really put things in perspective for inexperienced or experiences writers.

[laciemn]

If I were to ascribe to your point (and I will tell you honestly, but respectfully that I do not), that still does not mean that everyone is entitled to a review from me. Believe me when I tell you there are countless writers who unknowingly have a reason for thanks that they have not received a review from me. The reasons are as many and varied as there are writers. A few:

1) They write in a genre with which I am unfamiliar. Anything beyond observational review as a reader and mechanics, etc. is outside my realm for some genres. I learn from every piece I read, but I apply from every piece I review.

2) I may disagree vehemently with the thesis they pose, yet do not want to present a dissenting opinion intra to their work. I would then produce a writing product as a disagreeing response, not a review or critique. These are not, I submit, an appropriate forum for argument with another writer.

3) My reviewing/critiquing time for that particular moment may well be more limited than the work requires, as I see it, for an honest and helpful review.

4) A piece has been submitted 2 days ago, and has 32 reviews. Well, okay. Give the writer some time to absorb what they already have on their plate. When I see such a development as this, I first read the work, then the reviews under it. If I have nothing to bring to the discussion that moves the work forward, I'm just piling on. That, to me is unseemly. It is a waste of my time, and the writer's. When they (the writer) have received significant recommendations, it is incumbent upon me to allow them the time to interact with them, and revise their work to reflect their resulting opinions for their own work. If they repost, and I see it, I may review the new work. That's what it is, after all. I also get an opportunity to measure the integrity of the writer, and the writing. This can be most instructive to my reviewing process. If I spend two hours of my time creating a significant review that is summarily ignored, or argued ad hominem, I will simply add that writer to my list of those I will not review for some time into the future.

It's my call. It's not an obligation that I must adhere to. When the perquisites (as I define them) have been met, then I will consider trying my shaky hand at a review. I may or may not do a respectable job, but I can surely do a respectful job with my review--or I should choose to pass on the work.

Isn't that a reasonable cause for not reviewing someone's work? :)

Point four is definitely a good one. If several people have already given very in-depth critique, the author would be overwhelmed. But if everyone is just saying "good" or "bad" then it would be a relief to get something other than that with some kind of explanation.

[Agreen]

Point four is definitely a good one. If several people have already given very in-depth critique, the author would be overwhelmed. But if everyone is just saying "good" or "bad" then it would be a relief to get something other than that with some kind of explanation.

If you have something different to contribute, or notice something you'd like to comment on that has been overlooked- or even just feel like approaching the piece from a different perspective than prior commentators, then adding another review to a piece with many comments is still beneficial to the writer. And it's always worthwhile for the reviewer.

And I'm going to disagree with my original post in this thread, at least a little bit. Yes, it's important to share the content of how you felt about their writing, but the way in which you go about expressing your opinion is equally important. Being honest doesn't- and shouldn't- mean being cruel or discouraging.

[laciemn]

I have another point a lot of people probably won't have a problem with :p.

Being too nice. That's right, sugar-coating usually isn't helpful. Just being considerate, but don't overdo it. Personally, if someone is super-nice and fawning over a piece, especially if I myself don't believe it's awesome, it just makes me feel that person is being dishonest or just trying to be nice. Think "Paula Abdul" from American Idol. Sure, she's nice and pretty, but is she helpful? Or is it Simon who is actually more realistic, even though he should really be more respectful about it?


If you have something different to contribute, or notice something you'd like to comment on that has been overlooked- or even just feel like approaching the piece from a different perspective than prior commentators, then adding another review to a piece with many comments is still beneficial to the writer. And it's always worthwhile for the reviewer.

And I'm going to disagree with my original post in this thread, at least a little bit. Yes, it's important to share the content of how you felt about their writing, but the way in which you go about expressing your opinion is equally important. Being honest doesn't- and shouldn't- mean being cruel or discouraging.

That's right, I think if you feel you have something valuable to say, then say it no matter who said what, or how many people have posted. I just don't like being repetitive, and sometimes if there is already a lot of critique, then I might just read the piece and say "Good job" or nothing if I didn't think it was good, or comment that I like a character, something that's less of a critique and more of a comment or observation.

[whiskeyjameson]

No. If my writing sucks or something just doesn't work then I would want to know. After all, those are usually the most honest and best reviews. Usually. It's not like I am out to be blatantly rude or anything but I believe in telling it how it is.



Best, Whiskey

[ManhattanMss]

No. If my writing sucks or something just doesn't work then I would want to know. After all, those are usually the most honest and best reviews. Usually. It's not like I am out to be blatantly rude or anything but I believe in telling it how it is.



Best, Whiskey

They're only "the most honest and best reviews" if that reader believes your writing "sucks" or "doesn't work." A story that's enjoyed by a reader deserves some indication that the story is enjoyable, and maybe why so, if the reader's able to identify that aspect.

Most stories I read here and elsewhere have some evidence of the passion that compelled them to begin with. But often, it's more difficult to address that because the reviewer is a novice at determining what accounts for that quality or because there still are many deficiencies that interfere with aspects the reader just isn't equipped yet to sort out. It's also true that an exceptionally good story has less to improve upon than one that has glaring problems, and I'm with you in tending to ignore empty praise in favor of acknowledging harsh criticism. But I also believe there is potential usefulness in knowing what has, in fact, been done well or simply what's captured the imagination or interest of the reader.

Incidentally, this is equally true of published, award-winning stories. There is always (always) difference of opinion, if not frank debate over even the best of the best. In my experience, both praise and criticism can be entirely misleading to a given writer. It's imperative writers learn to make their own way through the comments they receive (whether from an editor, a critic, a workshop participant, or simply from a reader). And that includes the good, the bad, the ugly, and the empty.

[whiskeyjameson]

Of course. But like it worked during football and works in the Army, if I'm not getting yelled at I'm doing it right. I write what I believe 'works' and when someone picks something out that doesn't work I now can compare the parts that did or didn't. Destroy my work, what's left I will consider to be done "right", the rest I'll fix. What I said was in direct response to the OPs question.



Best, Whiskey

[MsMyth71]

As long are you are honest and tactful, you should be ok. No softening necessary.

There is a difference between, "I had a hard time believing that X_character would do Y and Z"

and

"Wow, this character is a dumbass."

The golden rule always applies.

:)

As a writer, I don't want anything sugar-coated. It does not help me in the least. That said . . .

When people let their bias and personal preferences get in the way of good critiquing (i.e. I wrote a story in 2nd person once and half the group said, "well, I hate 2nd person in general, so....") that doesn't help me. I'll tend to ignore those comments if I know I'm writing against someone's preference and they're letting it get in the way of being objective.

[thewordsmith]

If you have read any of my critiques, you know I pull no punches. (I have, at times, been castigated this but I refuse to soft pedal or overstate my reviews of any writing piece. I'd be cheating myself and the author.) But I also try to point out what is good and positive in a piece and what areas may have problems or needs to be discarded. On a few rare occasions, I have been known to tell a writer they need to scrap the whole excerpt and start over with the concept. I then will tell them why I believe this is so. Even more rarely, I may tell a writer, essentially, "don't quit your day job." I try to do it as nicely as possible, recommending they do a little more research and study on sentence construction and creative writing, but the end point is the same. Even in those cases, knowing I may be dealing with a young person trying their wings for the first time (And who could develop into an outstanding author some day), I try to find something positive to encourage them.

You don't do anyone any favors if you can't be honest with your reactions to their work. If you think it sucks - say so. But be sure to explain why. And do it as kindly as you can. You don't want to encourage poor or sloppy writing but you don't want to crush potentially good writers, either. On the flip side, if you see something that really works well, be sure to try to explain why. To have someone say "This is good," (or not) means nothing if the writer does not understand what makes it work (or not). Helping a writer find his own yardstick will enable him to be able to measure the quality of his own writing - or at least his progress as a writer.

That's the long answer. The short answer? NO.

Best critique I ever got? A Beta reader recently told me, "For the first few pages, I kept trying to imagine what you were thinking while you were writing. After that, I just got lost in the story and forgot it was you."

[Jammer]

I'm still new here and trying to learn all I can. I have reviewed a piece or two here, but my many more years in being involved with banjo playing reviews really has some similarities I can draw from. After all, reviewing something creative is more or less what I see in the Review forums here.....

A Quick Analogy:

I mainly wish to type about one example. It's simple. I have seen posts to inspiring musicians that proudly posted their MP3s ONLY to be told "Man, that really SUCKED!" - And that was it, a FULL REVIEW! Now I have yet to read anything like that on this site, but it still baffles me how some people can be so cruel and not say a darn thing to help a person perfect their creativity.

Back to the Thread Subject:

If I was to post some writing that I was proud enough to share here, and was braced for all of the pointers to fix my mistakes, well it surely would do me no good to read "That really sucked!" as a full review. And believe me, on OTHER creative sites that sort of thing goes on. So far I have not seen that happen on this site, and I really hope it does not go on here.

Otherwise it's a big help to have a more experienced person point out all the mistakes they may find in writings/stories. I just hope when I finally get around to posting something of my own it's reviewed fairly, just like anybody else on this site would. I do not feel the need to be burned at the stake for the help I seek in my attempts at improving my writing skills. Ah, I guess I fear rejection too much and I realize I have to get over that if I am ever going to be able to improve my writing skills at all.

A most interesting thread indeed.

Terry


Has this ever happened to you? When you've read a piece that you absolutely detest, and then you write a mean but justified review, but then you read your review and decide that it's too mean, and so you soften all the language and make up some good aspects in the writing that aren't actually any good? Or when you've read a piece that you absolutely love, and then you justifiably praise the author, but then you read your review and decide that it's too full of praise, and you soften all the language and make up areas of improvement that don't actually need to be improved?