I give a full critique first, no matter what is asked. I don't think if you cooked something for Gordon Ramsey and say, 'Can you just tell me if this is seasoned enough?' that he wouldn't say anything if the food was undercooked. It's a disservice to writers if you notice errors and don't tell them. You may be the only one who will. I will still address the specific questions, but will also give my opinion on anything else. So I will say, "I think your description is good, but you overuse your adverbs and you need to work on your dialogue structure." I would hope any writer would appreciate any and all feedback. ~ J. J.
When I've put stuff up, I've asked about specific issues that I've already thought may need work. But that doesn't mean I'm not open to or want feedback on everything else. It's more to say: here's my thinking, this is what I believe is weak. And if a reader finds more weaknesses, then obviously they are weaknesses I was unable to recognise and need to be on the lookout for in the future.
They may be the goals, but certainly not the order in which many people value the workshop, and certainly not for everyone. Different people learn in different ways, and different people need different things. One size does not fit all. If only people would get that.
I don't see any harm in asking questions. The way I see it, the process of writing involves a whole crap of questions that we ask ourselves. Should we put a comma there, an exclamation point here, an internal thought there, should I introduce this character earlier or later, am I being too description, is this funny or just lame, and so on. Getting answers to these questions gives writers little pieces to the puzzle; a step forward in understanding their writing capability that they can use in the future. In any case, not everyone has the time to produce a full critique covering every literary element. Asking questions is a good way of encouraging critique and narrowing down the weaknesses in the story.
Giving critiques is the fastest technique for improving your own writing that there is. But, too many people jump right into a critique without taking the time to actually understand where the guy is coming from. So the advice they give is general: not pointed at the very thing that will really help. This is why so many will ask for certain things from their critiquers--thinking that that is what they are looking for. But, most of the time they don't actually know what it is that they are looking for. That is why it is so important to at least try to see what they are aiming for, so that you can tailor your critique to that particular piece and hopefully render at least some assistance. And it is this, that is the greatest way to improve your own writing ability. Because by trying to understand how a number of different minds work out complex writing problems, the knowledge you gain can be applied directly to the way you approach characterization in your own stories. Understanding how different minds work is the greatest advantage a fiction writer can have.
Spot on. Further, there are some whose "critique" is basically a rewrite of the entire work in the way they would write it. While this may help the critic in their quest for literary perfection, it usually does nothing for the person whose work is up for critique. (Unless, of course, both author and critic are striving for the same style, though this is not often the case.)
Jannert: The point of critiquing (as I see it) is to help the person who is giving the critique. The theory being, if you (the critiquer) can spot these mistakes in others peoples' work you will be able to do the same with your own work. Mckk: I have given this much thought since I posted the question. And I do understand your point, the writer may indeed have fears about a specific part of their story/writing and want it answered first but they should also welcome comments about their overall work, some do not. Some people seem rather peeved when the critiquer dares to point out their SPaG errors. I remember one poster who claimed that the critiquer had 'hi-jacked' their post after a critique and left in a huff because of it. These are the people which I meant. Nee: Interesting. I ponder whether I should be add myself to that list? Shadowwalker: But I was only talking about this forum, not critiques/betas outside of it. We are all strangers here and we are all learners too. I give critiques to help the poster see mistakes they may not have seen and to help myself in the process especially with my editing, and I certainly need help in that department. Killbill: I did ask what the 'T' stood for but I think I worked it out. You mean tenses, yes? JJ_Maxx: That's what I was trying to say but you said it better.
I agree with the OP. Critiques have the wonderful quality of bringing to light issues I hadn't even considered. If I'm giving a road-map, I might as well critique myself.
I don't care what the writer asks for. I'm going to read the piece, as I would anything, and whenever something bothers me, I'm going to figure out why, and then state it. Likewise if I love something. It's a process that is immune to explanations/questions the writer might have.
I critique everything I see at fault as well as give the writer what I,a reader, is thinking when they read a sentence. I have to say that the critiquing has helped me a lot since I've been polishing up this opening to a book I'm working on by using everything I learned as a criticizer, and what people have said about my writing. But then again, I'm a mad person that has critiqued a lot of pieces in the general fiction and sci-fi sections. Oh and anyone else dislike the defensive writers that disregard what you say?
Some people absolutely hate it but I've always rather liked the idea of reviewing by pointing out 2 things that work well for every 1 thing that isn't working well and that each piece of feedback should be backed up with reasons and examples of why it's been given.
It's perfectly okay for a writer to ask for specific critique. Their book is NOT published, on the shelves, cutoff from dialogue with the reader. Their writing is here, on a workshop forum. It is not uncommon for an experienced writer to be aware of problems x, y, and z, but unsure if paragraph 7 is really necessary. They don't need people to keep bringing up x, y, and z, they just need help with paragraph 7. It is really easy to just put your critique requests in a spoiler, so the reader isn't primed. It is also possible to ask for a specific critique without revealing your true purpose. For example, "What did you think was the motivation of character x?". The reader won't know what the motivation was supposed to be, and now knows to say what came across through only the writing. Furthermore, a writer can ask for attention to a specific area while still being open to a general review. Perhaps the specific thing is something really subtle (like a pop culture joke, for example) that might otherwise go unaddressed. By putting such a request in spoiler tags, the reader can read the request after the story and then say whether or not he/she noticed the joke in the first place and whether or not it was funny. Then, the reader can simply move on and critique the rest of the piece.
A writer may ASK, but the critiquer is not obligated to limit the critique to the writer's request. Most critiquers will focus automatically on what they find the most distracting about the writing, A wise writer will listen to, and dispassionately consider, all critiques offered.
Sometimes I'll ask about specific things that are bothering me, but it doesn't mean I don't want more general feedback if it is offered. Mostly I just pose a question or two to show that I've thought about the weak points of my own writing and want others' opinions on whether they agree/disagree and what other issues I might have overlooked. It's also there because I'd rather have someone comment on the questions I posed if their initial response is "yeah, it's fine the way it is" or something.
Jumping in late here ... As a writer my instinct has always been to ask readers to hit me with whatever strikes them; my requests for critique don't go far beyond that. As a reader I typically ignore requests by an author to look at a specific part or inner-working of a story and critique it as I see fit. If I am working more closely with a fellow writer (that is to say, not on a public forum) then I think it is perfectly fine to explore specific areas of weakness as long as that is not all that you do.
This seems like the ideal way to avoid reviews that simply offer corrections to obvious errors while still hearing something relevant and thought-provoking. Sometimes what stands out to me is just a matter of personal tastes and I'm not sure how interested the author would be in reading the thoughts I spent 20 minutes organizing.
An author not interested in the aforementioned is an author uninterested in improving. Your personal taste is a valid point from which to approach a piece. If you have a distate for or a lack of interest in say, a whole genre, that's still valid, but perhaps not a constructive place to come from as regards critiquing someone's unfinished work. Regardless, if, when you say 'personal taste', you are referring to your preferred style of dialogue or method of description or tone in narrative, these are all things a budding author should want to hear. There is no obligation ever here in the forum to adopt the changes that are suggested, but the suggestions themselves are learning tools for the author to know for some people my work sounds this way, for others it sounds that way. If nothing else, it gives the author an idea of the evocation he/she is causing in the reader. Worse I feel is when a critique doesn't commit to giving a sense of what was read. A simple copy-edit of an item up for critique is not a critique, it's a copy-edit.
There we are in agreement. That is pretty much useless seeing how all that will, in one way or another be dealt with, whereas the way the story unfolds to that particular reader is the most useful feedback a writer can get from others.
I've been quite hesitant for many valid reasons, but the main reason is because every-time i post something lengthy, people just tell me i shouldn't be a writer and say it sucks. I'm fully confident in my writing so i don't take it personal, but that's not so for other writers. I think most of them are scared that people will just insult their writing hardcore and say they aren't good enough.
I personally think specific questions need be asked because of the misconception of the reader. If the reader does not know they are under a misconception, they cannot give true advice. however, if the reader understands there is a possibility of misconception, the advice would be to be more clear in the writers intent.
Hardly helpful and downright rude and nasty. Who is anyone to tell someone they should put away their pen?
