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 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
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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...
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...
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.
