Yes, I've noticed this. It's a bit of a mix - popularity - someone likes your work or the idea so they reply, or it's good - crickets are chirping but you get the occasional suggestion of critique, or it's rough and then the sharks with the red pens start circling. I also think it has to do with story length as well it's easier to tear up a page of words than say three or four. It's a shame though I'm all over the place with my critiques but I actually love the challenge of critiquing something that looks next-door-to perfect. It will only help me in the long run with my own edits.
If there's not much to criticise, I'll normally just not leave a critique at all. Pointing out things to improve rather than things done well is far more valuable to an aspiring author, not to mention easier. And, yes, people have big egos, I don't aim to fuel them nor subtract from my own
Not for me. Most of the Workshop pieces I decide not to critique is because I think there's just too much wrong with it, like total beginner stuff, each line following the same pattern, bad dialogue, purple description, the lamer it is, the less likely I am to say anything. Mostly because I simply don't have time to dig into it. If, however, I can latch onto one redeeming quality, like say dialogue is actually pretty good, but the tags are boring, or excessive or description is flowery, or whatever, then I'll critique, by pointing out what was done well, and contrast t with what wasn't. Rarely, when I find something that is really well written, I'll leave a comment, even if it's just to say that I really liked it and why.
This comes a little later in the process, Wrey. It depends on where one's own development is. I've been in a critique group for a long time and it took me months to even see things worth saying. But it's true, now I notice things in other people's work that I think helps me improve as well. My critique group has also given me a chance to observe people's reactions to being critiqued. I glanced at some of the replies to one of the OP's pieces and I thought they were very constructive. There was at least one positive comment, not much, I know, but it was there. When I first started getting critiques I knew I wasn't a skilled writer. So all the suggestions made perfect sense, and I learned from them. Last week for the first time, I found the critique group less useful. One problem was what Jannert was talking about, we had two new group members who didn't know the story in my novel. I had to explain things from the beginning of the book to them because they didn't understand the chapter I brought in. Sometimes you can critique a chapter from the middle of a story, other times there are more questions than can be answered in a quick synopsis. I didn't get much from their comments. Then there was the group leader that I usually get useful feedback from. Now that I'm getting a lot better, for the first time I didn't agree with one of his critiques of someone else's work. She had a great piece with emotional feel in it and our fearless leader wanted more action. He likes action, I like emotion. One needs to keep personal preference in mind when reading other's critiques. If you think they are just not that into your stuff, take it with a grain of salt, rather than personal. That said, however, I come to another thing I've observed in our group, and that's the new writer who thinks his/her stuff is good and can't see why people aren't seeing it. I don't mean that's you necessarily, Writerdude, but one way to gage if it is, is to evaluate the truth in the critique comments. Is the critic* simply wrong? Is the piece not the critic's cup of tea? Does the critic favor certain things like action and a fast moving story? Or, is the critic right? You should dismiss the critique comments based on valid reasons. If you find yourself saying, "yes but...", or "that's a certain style...", you may want to re-evaluate your writing. I often see people explaining and explaining instead of listening. That would make sense if there was something in the plot we needed to know to understand the passage. People wondered why my prison women didn't act like hardened criminals, but the prison was more like a Japanese internment camp than Alcatraz. The suggestions did say I needed to describe the prison more thoroughly. But when arguing with the critique demonstrates the writer can't see the problems being noted, it's another thing. One of the guys in our group brushed off everything people said saying, we just didn't understand literary fiction. I didn't need to understand anything to know his writing wasn't working. A critique is an opportunity to learn, it's not for ego strokes. People should try to comment on things done well, as well as things that don't work, but as far as value goes, if something is done well I'm not sure I grow as much from hearing that as I do from hearing what I could improve. *I prefer the word 'critiquer' but apparently it's not a legit word yet.
You should read How to Use the Writing Workshop and Why Write Reviews Before Posting My Work?. The purpose of the workshop is to learn how to find and fix the weak points in your writing. There's nothing wrong with throwing in a bit of praise, especially if the writing does something unusually well. But throwing praise like confetti does little but stroke egos. It won;t make you a better writer. And EVERY piece of writing can be improved.
This is to the original poster. One thing you write at the top of your "learning to walk" piece is how close people think it is to publishable. This is a very high yardstick for people to be judging you against. (much higher than the yardstick question, you ask in this thread -whether you're a bad writer or not) If I was critiquing that piece I'd have taken that as a request to be pretty brutal. There are a lot of levels of ability between flat out bad and publishable. I think more than you realise. I hope I don't sound to discouraging, because i would encourage you to press on. While there is good stuff in your writing you've got a way to go yet. I'd suggest you take a look at some works from well known authors and you'll see just how smoothly their stories seem to flow. By the way, a mini ego boost for you, thanks for posting this great discussion thread. How much positivity we should put in our critiques is a point worth thinking about and discussing.
I think there is, yes, because I do that. But with me, well, truth is, I hate editing with a passion. I don't mind editing my work, but that's my work - like every mother loves her baby but they're still not going to want to babysit for someone else for a lengthy period. So often, I only read the pieces I actually like, which unfortunately often means I have little to say, unless I loved the piece. And if I loved the piece, then often I don't really want to critique it unless something's already jumped out at me, because well, if I really enjoyed it, then I don't wanna ruin the piece by picking it apart. Once it comes to long pieces (anything more than say, 1000 words) and/or if the piece didn't immediately catch me, I just stop. Often times I scroll to see what the comments are first - if it's high praise or severe criticism, then I tend to check the piece out to see if the critics are right, and then I may or may not add anything depending on whether it's already been said or if I feel strongly enough about it. All in all, I'm a rubbish critic personally. When I think critique, I do define it as "find what's wrong". I'm not sure how else to critique. Throw in some praises, I know, but for me that's more like good manners - although I do not praise something that I do not feel is praise-worthy. Nonetheless, picking it apart is my real goal, which, from reading this thread, seems like it's not always a good thing! As for the OP - if something's good, trust me, someone will recognise it. If you're getting no praise at all from almost everybody, then you need to work on your piece, it's that simple. Pain and wounded pride aside, it still needs work, because the truth is, not every member's standards are very high on this forum and I've often seen members gush praise over a piece of work that's really rather ordinary, sometimes even bad. So, if you can't please at least some people on this forum, I'd seriously question what it is you're doing wrong. But the truth is, as writers, we usually know already.
Actually, having read your story and the critiques, I think I owe some WF members a lot of credit. The critiques look really good. Thorough, and helpful. If anything, I actually think they're too nice. As to answer your question, Minstrel. There are many reasons why I might not critique a piece, but I have ignored pieces worthy of praise. The only time I'll absolutely critique a piece is if a writer refuses to admit their writing needs work, even when the critiques are all unanimous.
Well, you are asking for people's opinion on something which is entirely subjective. I had a look at your last piece and you have a gamut of criticism on there ranging from grammar to the arc of the story. Some of the advice is very prescriptive, like the use of adverbs being verboten and is basically a matter of opinion. Remember that there are some atrocious writers who sell very well. I wont name names as I dont want to offend anyone by knocking their favourites but I was flicking through a new book by a best selling author the other day who apparently can't write any sentence without including an adverb somewhere. Also there are a many great writers who will never reach an audience, the fact is that you will never find out which you are unless you get something out there.
The "no adverb" rule seems to be far and away the most popular piece of advice that novice writers embrace and shout from the rooftops to show that they have learned something and want to sound knowledgable. I'm not sure exactly why this is, perhaps because it's an easy one to understand and it's concreteness makes it easy to apply. With novice writers, it also appears to work -- very often, newbies use common, weak nouns and verbs, and rely too heavily on the use of adverbs. So the easy (and lazy) way to "help" them is to just say never to use them. And to an extent, it works. But there then comes a point where it is no longer very useful. Adverbs can be very helpful, and like many other parts of speech and grammar, can perfectly illuminate something an author is trying to convey. Then people get confused when they see authors using adverbs, and express shock and dismay that the "rule" is violated. When I see a critique that simply admonishes a writer that adverbs should never be used, I pretty much dismiss it. On the other hand, a critiquer can validly say that there are too many adverbs in a piece. That is often true.
Actually, it's just as easy, if not more so, to say, "I love the way you weave the description into the action so the reader..." or whatever. I think it is probably far more likely that readers don't crit this or that simply because it does not interest them for one reason or another - just like buying a book on Amazon or in a box. You read a blurb from it and it does not beg you to read further. You are probably not going to jump into the swamp of reading it just to give a critique unless your ego is so overblown that you feel your words are golden and anyone would be blessed to accept your worlds as commandment! No. I think people critique what they would, themselves, read. And if what someone else has written doesn't interest them, they are not likely to read further. Of course it could also be that I have an over-extended sense of faith in people and trust that a fellow writer would not, just for their own amusement and self-interest, critique something they know they would not enjoy reading in the first place. Which brings me, in a round-about way, to the OP and the question of why no on seems to offer any positive comment on the writing. Well, sorry if I offend anyone but, I have always taught and always was taught when I was younger, that 1) if you find 'negatives' in a piece, it behooves you to either find a balance of positive or stronger aspects of the work as well or, 2) couch those negative comments in the most positive supportive light. And if, as writers, we cannot figure out how to do that, then we are not much as writers. And anyone who is only able to focus on what is 'wrong' with a piece is, more likely than not, simply padding his or her own ego. I have not read any of the OP's work so I cannot say whether is it good, bad, or simply mediocre. I do think, however, that, in the critiquing process, we have a certain onus to follow that old axiom of "If you can't say anything good about someone..." Now, that's not to say you should not tell a fellow writer what you perceive as being a problem but, if you can so quickly find those problem issues, you have a certain burden to find what is good or positive in the piece as well.
I agree with you here, 100 %. I've noticed that when pressed for time, I tend to pick out more of the negative stuff and expect the poster to do the math, somehow get it that the stuff I didn't comment on was fine as if they were mind-readers. Silly but true. I crit 1) pieces that are of my favorite genres 2) polished enough that they aren't first drafts or "something I just wrote, totally draft-y, what do you guys think?" type of stuff, those I never bother criting 3) look like pieces I can comment on, e.g. have "problems" that catch my eye, or if I feel like, hey, here I could help.
I'm fairly new here so I've only done three critiques so far, but I did enjoy all three pieces i chose on some level or another. It takes a while to critique properly and I don't think I'd have the patience to go for something I found boring. The three pieces varied in writing quality. One was very good and it was harder to find stuff to suggest could be changed (but there were some bits which could be improved). The other two had more obvious flaws. The piece with the least other replies wasn't the best of the three, but it was the longest. Because there were things I liked about each piece, I made sure to leave positive comments, though I used far more words for the things I thought could be improved, as I felt that was more helpful.
Well, let's assume we're working with a readable piece. At that point, it's up to the writer to find "beta readers." In my mind, WF is about working on our writing abilities, not so much our stories. Writing one's magnum opus should a lonely journey. Now, part of one's creative writing ability is creativity. One of the biggest reasons I won't post a critique is if I see a piece of writing, which is fairly clear, fairly concise, and overall decently written, but, A, relies entirely on cliches, and or (usually and) lacks strong narrative. Sorry, but there's only so many times I can read about the hardened space cadet or archer in the woods without some sort of tone or voice, something, ANYTHING, to keep me intrigued. More often than not, a piece in WF will lack strong narrative. I don't need to read the entire novel, let along a whole chapter, to discover this in a piece of writing. Someone here posted a link to Stephen King's article on first sentences, and King mentions the importance of narrative, which, I'll admit, though I like to believe I understood it intrinsically, really blew my mind when spelled out for me. When a piece lacks narrative, essentially, what we have is a bland story. It's like those halfhearted sequels that have the same characters, special effects, and premises as the original, but lack any spirit. You can tell me about this character, who he is, what he does, his struggles. If you're really clever, you can get me to read your decently written novel all the way through by packing it with tension and intrigue (though ultimately the story will still be forgettable). I mention this because, yes, it's something I've been dying to mention, but also, because its relevant to the ongoing discussion on this thread in regards to critiquing. How do I tell someone, whose followed all the rules, that they lack strong narrative? I don't think that's something you can teach. Talent? Not for me to say. Ultimately, most of us aspiring writers are going to reach a limbo. The work is OK, but sparks aren't flying. The question is, what then? What then?
I like your points 1-10, 'What then? What then?' 'Creative Writing' steps into the breech. Although I think you assume too much with readability being a 'given.' I tried to make an appeal, a sincere appeal about CW having a beauty of its own - apart from writing, as such. Immersed in scene there's something delicious about the monstrous light openings and the total and utter mediocrity of our prose that one day shall be celebrated as a form in its own right. (BOOK 1) I love the way the bombastic, the pompous, prolific firey hounds on-line are exposed in the final delivery as straw men, naked and suburban. We are all different shades of writer, the human soup of bland. This is our only hope, to combine as insects and be powerful beyond all Shakespearience. Mwoah hah ha hah
If I understood this anywhere near correctly, this is what popped in my mind: I can often digest "a bland story" pretty well, it gives me a chance to dive into that world undisturbed. But when I'm faced with a story with a narrative (voice) that just comes off phony and artsy and trying-too-hard funny resulting in total unfunniness, the story is ruined (chances are someone else will love that narrative, though). This probably goes to show that it also depends on the audience whether sparks will fly or not. All I can think as a solution is to write a lot if one's works still lack this coveted narrative. At least I hope that's so...
Writing ANYTHING is a lonely journey. However, once the writing is done, then is when we need readers to read our piece through from start to finish—for novelists as well as short story writers, essayists, poets, etc. Only way to deal with issues like narrative, story flow, etc. My point was that this forum's setup and aversion to long pieces doesn't really provide this opportunity if you happen to write novels. I wish it did.
I find it more helpful to hear what could be improved in my writing. As such, when I provide feedback I try to be as forthright as possible with things I think could improve the piece. I try to begin and end on a positive note, but most of my remarks are corrective.
I think it might be cool if this forum was more conducive to match ups- you know like, "hey bro, wanna swap novels?" There's actually a few individuals here I'd like to work with. I just have to gain the courage to ask them
Well, I have to admit ...that works! I've done that several times since joining this forum, actually. If it's done privately, there isn't the issue about having published online, either.
exactly, but you're right, it would be nice if WF could somehow provide a stronger support for this sort of thing.
I don't think that you can teach strong narrative, but you might be able to teach someone to get out of their own way and stop suppressing their own talent. The pieces of my writing that have sparked the most response from others have often been the ones that I wrote while my head was yammering, "Are you crazy? That is so silly. So ridiculous. They'll never understand that reference. That's too sentimental; they'll think you're a whiner. That's too unsentimental about a tearjerker subject; they'll think you're a psychopath. Just stop now." I managed to ignore my mind, write the ridiculous pieces, edit them a few times, and they turned out to be my better stuff. Now, when my mind yammers, "This is so boring," it usually ends up being right. It's "This is so ridiculous" that often leads to something worthwhile. When you see a calm, sober, eminently correct and reasonable piece, and you think that you see a rapidly-suppressed hint of the ridiculous in it, you could encourage the writer--who may be you--to follow that ridiculous thing and see where it leads. And that's also a good argument for a writer putting in their time, writing half a million words of what might be calm, sober, emininently correct and boring. A writer may need to hone his boring-writer skills to the point that eventually he can chase the ridiculous and still write it in a readable way, because the ability to produce readable correct writing has become second nature and requires no conscious thought.
OH, I absolutely agree with this. Good points all around. I def try to point out voice when I see it, even if it's an inkling, though I'll admit I could probably do a better job at this.
