I'm trying to figure out whether or not some advice I have always followed regarding concrit is actually true. Said advice is to always (or at least, most of the time) include at least one thing the writer did well when giving constructive criticism. I also can't listen to concrit if it doesn't have at least one compliment in it because otherwise I perceive it as unnecessarily cruel and therefore something that should be ignored. Is (honest) positivity in reviews a thing that happens frequently on this site, or is it frowned upon? (It was definitely frowned upon on the last writing site I frequented.)
I am pretty sure you will be fine, unless you leave something really bad in there or simply nit pick. So relax and just do your best. And if you can't help yourself use Thumpers Philosophy.
I'd say yes for the most part. I always try to because it's the decent thing to do. However, I think any writer worth their salt is their own harshest critic, so there isn't much anyone can say about my work that I haven't said to myself already.
Why in the world would we frown upon such a thing? Giving crit is meant to help the person giving the crit as much as the person receiving it. This means that you should be engaging the things that worked well as much as the things that didn't. When something works well, we should be engaging it to understand what makes it work so well. What we do ask here is that crits be constructive. A crit that consists of nothing more than "Hey, awesome, keep writing!" may be positive, but it's not constructive.
Oh, dear. Forgive me, but I may put that in on the thread re: words we can't stand. That's just awful. Like someone misspelling "concrete." Please, no.
That's funny. I thought "confit." Duck fat. Was thinking I need to braise some wings and potatoes in duck fat for a few hours.
Yeah I was wondering what the heck concrit was supposed to be. On reading the OP's post, it becomes clear, but yeah, concrit... ew. Anyway sorry. To the OP - praise should be given where praise is due. Critique is not about tearing the work to shreds - it's about simply looking to see what needs improving and what could be tightened. I think it's good to respect the work you're critiquing. That doesn't mean necessarily praising it - but I do think your approach would be different when coming from such an angle. I think it's bad practice to ignore something just because it doesn't contain at least one piece of praise. That seems counter productive. If someone genuinely hated everything they read but their reasoning is legitimate, you'd do well to learn from the critique rather than ignore it. What I look for is not praise, but tone of voice. You can usually tell if someone is just attacking your work or if they're genuinely trying to help. I do feel critics should be gentler than they often are (I'm guilty of this myself). If someone's trying to build you up, even if they don't praise you, listen to them. If someone's trying to tear you down, stay well away. It's usually clear which it is when you get critique from the same person a few times. Basically, be discerning, be sensitive to yourself too - ignoring someone who doesn't know how to say anything gently can be wise sometimes. But equally ignoring everyone who doesn't praise you at least a little bit is unwise - not everyone will, but that doesn't mean their critique is bad.
Positives should certainly be included in critiques, IMO. Sometimes there really isn't anything honestly positive you can say without being patronising ("What's great is you can type words!" or "Wow, it's great you came up with a story idea.") and in that case I think you're better off choosing the top three issues and giving them in a constructive way. How silly. "Con"crit (I echo the ews) is constructive by definition. It's not cruel to give someone constructive critique. I've had truly cruel critique, that wasn't intended to help me in any way but just tear me down, and I still found something valuable in it. Ignoring critique--ANY critique--is not only rude but foolish.
This. For me, the point of critique has always been to break down the writing, understand what works and why, and understand what doesn't work and why. If I'm going to spout off writing advice, it's really helpful to have adequate explanations in my back pocket; writing critiques helps me to understand and develop these explanations. Additionally, it's helpful for the recipient of the review to know what they're doing well and to understand why it's something they're doing well, so they can keep doing it. The point for me isn't praising or criticizing, it's analyzing and explaining. Getting to the why of anything, whether it's something good or something bad, helps everyone to get a better understanding of these writing principles and issues we talk about so much.
I acknowledge that I am terrible at receiving criticism and am hoping to use this site to improve that. This is in part because I'm an emotional abuse survivor and sometimes my post-traumatic brain is irrational about critique. Something to work on x_x
Most of us are terrible at receiving criticism, really, and it doesn't help if you have emotional scars that make critique that much harder to take. Best thing to do with critique - let it sit and come back to it in a few days or whenever you're ready. It helps to give yourself time to process it, and it helps to allow yourself to feel the full range of negative emotions and letting it all out in private, get some distance, and then come back to it. You know your past affects you - acknowledging that is the first step to getting better. Keep on going - you're stronger than you think you are.
