This. So much this. It could be a timing thing...I remember when I first joined this forum, back in 2008, when I was an impressionable n00b to the world of writing. Critiquing was huge back then. Stories upon stories were posted daily, and the whole purpose of this place was to critique others' writings. I quickly got into the habit (although my critiques back then were crap, since I knew next to nothing) of reviewing and enjoying the process, and I know it helped me tremendously back then--even just reading other members' critiques. Maybe I'm old guard (weird to think of myself that way), but there was a time when the common opinion was, "Review other people's work and you'll be better for it." I still cling to it. I've noticed the other members from that time share the same opinion.
Wise words willfully well-woven, @Wreybies... when one works with writing, withholding oneself will wrench woeful wishes, which would wreak wasted watch-ticks. [overkill... strongly consider revising...]
Excellent example, @thirdwind. Looking back, I think I'm guilty of that to an extent: attacking redundancies and the like. Definitely text for thought.
I don't think this has gone away. I believe there is an innate aspect to providing a good critique that is designed to help and teach the critic. I just think that the right tone should be applied to comments if one is to suggest a full rewrite. Also, one should understand the context as best he or she can. While the art of critique can be rather self-indulgent, there should be some directive to helping the writer improve upon what they are trying to accomplish. Wrey is right too. As writers, we shouldn't expect other writers to limit critiques to what we want from them. We just have to filter what we need and learn from as much as we can.
Absolutely. Like I said, critiquing is just as much a writing exercise as the original piece. You only gain from it what you give--if you work hard to help the recipient understand your suggestions, not only is it beneficial to you, but also to the writer, and also to those who happen to read your critique. Understanding context is the crux of it all--every writer is different. It's important that the reviewer understands that fact, because if all he's doing is suggesting the methods he would use, there's no benefit to anybody. Not the writer, because the voice is different. Not the third party, because there's no understanding of the underlying issues. And certainly not the critiquer, because there's no way to apply it to his/her own work. It's a matter of learning to understand the common issues of writing...the reason these "rules" exist and what they're supposed to be fixing...the advantages and disadvantages of certain styles and techniques...the end results of experiments and whether or not they work. When we see what other people do with the same collection of words that we have, we can learn new, different, unique, and better ways to use them. We can also learn ways not to use them. And it behooves us to go through the process of understanding which is which and for what reasons. Because then we can apply it to our own work and be the better for it. I definitely don't want to come across as one of those old hat, "kids these days" types. Especially since I'm not anywhere near old yet. Sincerest apologies if I sound too soapboxy. We all learn differently--some of us learn the easy way and some the hard way. I learned the hard way...posting my "genius" and wondering why on earth no one else got it, until I understood what I was doing wrong. But I certainly didn't understand overnight, and certainly not from people telling me I was doing it wrong. It wasn't until I started saying, "Hey, maybe you should stick to a closer POV" that made me think, "Hey, maybe I should stick to a closer POV." Your last line is right on point, as well. And its reverse holds true, too. We can't control what other writers are going to take from our critiques, either. I could write the most earth-shattering critique in the world, and the writer could smile and say, "Thanks, but I'm sticking with my method." If that writer doesn't need my help, more power to him/her. But that earth-shattering critique is still out there, for everyone to read. And I still went through all that thought and deliberation to come to those conclusions. Who knows how many people could benefit from it? There's at least one, and that's this guy.
I'm a fence-rider when it comes to the 'selfishness' issue. We learn about our own writing by giving critiques, but we are using somebody else's writing to do it. Some other person who is probably feeling quite hopeful and vulnerable ...and maybe even fearful ...when they start reading your feedback. People put themselves and their 'art' on the line in the Workshop, and deserve pertinent feedback, courteously given, that encourages and energises THEM. I think it's important to focus entirely on the other person while doing a critique. Improving your own writing should be a by-product of critiquing—not its goal. At least that's how I feel about the issue. Probably just semantics...?
Probably. Learning is the point. Everybody's learning. With the exception of a select few, the vast majority of us are not professionals. We want to learn. We learn by reading, by doing, by being taught, etc etc etc. Who knows how each individual member learns? All we can do is provide our best effort, whether it's in our own writing, in our critiques, in our individual forum posts, in our blog entries, or whatever. We're writers. Everything we write should be an attempt at our best. Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I'd like to take that as a given. I don't think it has to be mutually exclusive, either. I certainly don't approach a critique thinking, "How can this benefit me?" I approach it as, "Here's a piece of writing...what do I like?...what don't I like?...what are the issues that stick out most?...etc." It's not so much about the goal and the by-product, it's about analysis, plain and simple. Whoever it helps, it helps. I try to make it good because I'm a writer and I want everything I write to be good. For a critique, that means it's informative, it's clear, it's precise, it's consistent, and whatever else. It will always help me, because I know I'm putting forth the best effort I can. So I don't worry about that. I worry about making my points clear, making sure I'm not contradicting myself, and making sure what I offer is in some way beneficial. I definitely know what it's like to be posting a piece for critique and leaving myself exposed to criticism. I remember when I first started posting here...I was intimidated. Everyone knew more than I did. Everyone knew the rules, and I didn't. People knew not to use adverbs or semicolons. People knew to show instead of telling. They knew to use shorter, direct sentences over long, meandering ones. I didn't know that stuff. Cogito had his blog posts, and I read them, and I tried to figure out why what he said was right and what I thought was wrong. I didn't get it. I posted my pieces for critique, not knowing what to expect since everything I thought I knew about writing was questionable. And, no surprise, mammamaia and madhoca tore my stuff to shreds. Deservedly so, because I was making mistakes and didn't know it. I definitely learned from that, whatever purpose their critiques were written for. I think we're all here on this forum to either learn how to be better writers or to help others become better writers. There's value in everything one does here, whether it's critiquing, discussing, debating, or lurking (hey, I lurked for five years between now and when I joined). When I read critiques I don't question the motives of the critiquers...honestly, their motives are their business. I just assume that everything posted on here is for the betterment of the writing community...otherwise, why bother?...and take it as something else to store in my evergrowing reservoir of writing knowledge. It's important to approach this whole thing with a mindset of, "What can I learn from this?" Because we can never know anyone's real motivation for posting anything. But we can sure as hell use it, regardless of the intention. And that's up to us. tl;dr--Our critiques should be our best efforts, which means the self-help is a given and the real work is in making it useful for the recipient and the audience. But we can't assume everyone will do this, so we need to learn to suck every post dry of whatever wisdom it contains, regardless of the motivation. Yes, I could delete everything above and leave just the "tl;dr" section, but who knows what someone could learn from my semi-coherent ramblings?
I'm glad you brought this up because I think this actually supports my original post. When you're revising your own work, you're still maintaining the style and voice of the piece. So why can't we do the same with other writers' pieces? Also, if I'm thinking of posting something here for critique and I know that other members are going to change the style of my piece, I would think twice about posting it because having it completely rewritten isn't going to help me in any way. This actually might be one reason why some people don't post stuff in the Workshop. There's no inherent advantage or disadvantage to any particular style. It all depends on the skill of the writer. So trying to suggest a new style isn't very helpful IMO. Other than that, I can pretty much agree with the rest of the stuff.
@thirdwind -- Oh, I definitely agree with your original post...I hope that wasn't lost in all my post-midnight, semi-alcoholic jibber-jabber!
imo, a significant rewrite of the op's material [more than just a sentence] should only be posted if requested by the op...
Well, I've definitely been guilty of rewriting and altering style and going overboard - most was due to the fact that I was new to writing sites and had no idea what the hell I was doing. Sometimes I still don't know. Critiques are harder then writing, because you're entering someone else's world and you have to kinda leave yourself behind. It's definitely not helpful when a writer has a voice that's already established and critiquers are trying to add little unneeded flourishes or touches. But I'm on several sites and the writing fluctuates between brilliant and beginner and some beginners need to have their 'voices' messed with. I've seen some stubborn writers - they've been given rewritten sentences as examples ( not to show how it can be better written ) but rather to teach, and yet they'll continue on with their stunted, stilted prose because its what they've written it's their words - their voice. Plus, they'll argue its technically correct.
Well, you're not the only one guilty. I would have to raise my hand. There was a story I critiqued long, long ago about a robot girl who was just coming into self awareness and running from where her spark of life and me-ness had flicked into life. It was a great little story, but I felt there was a serious opportunity being missed in the description of the girl's inner self-ness. I did re-write a portion of it, but it was less a re-write and more of a hey, you're missing a piece here and it's such a juicy piece screaming to be written, you can't miss this opportunity. *Shrug* I may have given the impression I was rewriting the piece, but I was showing a missed opportunity and had I just said you should say something about this, it just wouldn't have had the impact of showing how it made the story meatier. But again, I repair to and remain with my original stance. My pointing out the missing meat in that story was an irrefutable learning process for me, and a possible one for the OP, but only possible, not irrefutable.
Actually Wreybies, I love when people do this! Even if you can't use it, I'd rather people go out on a limb and offer an idea because occasionally the advice can be terrific. Someone asked me why I had Not Pink leashed in the story jogging an idea to explain why. It was perfectly explained in my head - their were robot thieves roaming around but not to the reader. So now when I do the rewrite I'm going to slip that in.
Which is subjective, so in my mind that's not an excuse for making drastic changes to someone's style. If everyone held this opinion, then what's the point of posting pieces for critique? Like I said earlier, if I knew that everyone was going to mess with my style, I would think long and hard before posting anything because I wouldn't get much out of it. Also, if it's a learning process for you but not so much for the OP, what incentive does the OP have to post something he/she worked hard on? I definitely think there needs to be a balance so that the member being critiqued can benefit just as much as the member giving the critique.
@peachalulu I like the way you put this; it really sheds light on a big part of critiquing and editing. You have to remove yourself a bit so that you can see and act on what each piece is trying to be and do, not just what you think it should be or do. Admittedly, I'm guilty of suggesting total rewrites to people. In my editing class this semester, we had to write articles for my professor's online magazine. Then, we were broken into groups to edit each other's articles. I got one that was pretty bad. The girl wants to write fiction, but her execution was not so great. It was wordy, repetitious, unorganized, and a little unfocused. I made a handful of changes that I thought would help bring out her message in the clearest way (eliminating clutter, rearranging sentences and whole paragraphs even, replacing empty overused adj. like "beautiful" with stronger concrete ones) while retaining as much of her voice as possible. I explained all of my suggestions, we even spoke back and forth about what she wanted to say, and why she wanted to say things in a certain way, and how to be effective with it. At any rate, she did not take any of my advice, and our editor (an intern under my professor) was like, "I'm sorry but we can't publish this." In a way, it was good practice for me, and an opportunity for her. But like @Wreybies, it was a possible learning experience that she chose not to take hehe.
Well, come on, man. You must have run across my critiques at some point or another, and if you have, I'm sure you know that I don't sit and re-write every person's piece. That would be crass and magniloquent of me. I'm not the hypothetical "critic" upon whom you are shining a light in this thread. I'm a different kind of critic. Of course I believe in balance. I've used that spyglass analogy on countless occasions because I always try to look at a thing from one side and then from the other. It doesn't mean I always see clearly from the other side, but I try. @minstrel is a pantser. I'm a planner. He and I engage in friendly argumentation all the time about our opposing views, but we both usually end begrudgingly admitting that there is some merit in the other side, and there must be because regardless of how invested we may each feel in our opposing take, obviously the two paradigms do result in published stories. But the paradigm I mention is the one I think of as being in play when I critique. The incentive the OP has to post their piece is to get to play, and maybe get some advice at the start. It's their chit. Their ante in the game. Why would anyone take advice from a bunch of strangers on their writing? Think about it this way... @jannert, on a number of occasions, has mentioned that she looks askance at the idea of "writing by committee", and I agree with her. I do. I would never just take a bunch of people's opinions on how my writing should be. But I'm not just a writer. I'm also a reader. And in reading, I can give my opinion and I can see opportunities missed and successes that make me feel jelly.com. I don't know how else to explain it. When I give critique, the guaranty that I learn something is assured. When I receive critique, I might learn something, but it's only a might. ETA: @obsidian_cicatrix, I know you're probably sick of me using this example, but I'm'a use once more.... Obsidian and I each have a scene in our respective stories that has some unmistakable similarities. Just chance. The scene is similar but the stories are quite different. I gave her a critique and gave her some pointers on where her narrator was intruding in on the story and we talked about that and I think Obs got something out of it because she mentioned that Jannert had made mention of the same thing. While I was criting her piece, I did notice how much better painted her scene was than mine, tho. It was a real, living breathing place. Her tavern felt ancient and oaken and heavy and dark and cozy and warm and smelled of beer and bread and candles and fire in the hearth. My tavern in my scene was a white empty box with little or nothing to go off of. Now, she could have pointed out to me my missing setting and props, and I might have, depending on my mood that day, taken her advice or thought to myself sod you, I think mine is fine. (I would NEVER actually say those words to Obs) but when I read her piece, there it was, my missing setting was in her piece, beautiful and rich, staring at me, cutting its eyes at my scene, nodding its head to the left a little, saying without saying so, uh, waddaya'think? Maybe some description? Cause I see you looking at me like you want steal me, but better than steal me, maybe you just go fix your own and everyone wins.
Subjective? Yes/no. I don't mean style wise - The writer wasn't Cormac McCarthy and nobody was trying to turn him into Nabokov. I'm just talking about pointing out basic problems in flow. In paragraphs that don't jive and flat characters. If you're trying to point this out - how can you without an example? You can tell a normally good writer that one of their characters is flat, and they'll know what you're talking about because you can see that they've got the techniques to pull it off but somehow flubbed it with that one. But if you're talking to a writer whose entire piece up for critique needs work - what can you say? Especially if they have no techniques to fall back on. I'm not saying I haven't flubbed advice or given bad examples - I have. But I prefer to do it that way because it's also causing me to look at writing in a different way. Not just as a whole but pieces. Sometimes you work at fixing just the little pieces bit by bit and you can fix the whole.
Yeah, my comment wasn't directed at you. In fact, the only reason I quoted your post was because reading it made me think of the questions I posed earlier. I'm still not sure where I stand on adding a "missing piece" when critiquing, but we can agree to disagree on that. It's not so much about them being strangers as it is about the way they critique. There are some really good critiques in the Workshop, and they were all posted by strangers.
I would like to clarify that, a bit. Wreybies is right. I do look askance on writing by committee ...but this only means I don't want input from anybody until after my story is finished. In other words, I am not the sort of person who says, "Hey guys, I've got this great story idea, what do you think?" Or, "Should my protagonist live by the seaside, or should he be a farmer? I can't decide." I want my story to be entirely my own. I create my own characters, come up with what they do and how the story pans out. However, I am a definite fan of critiquing by committee. The bigger the committee, the better! Once my story is finished I want all sorts of feedback. I want to see if the story floats with readers, and if it doesn't float, I want to know why. I always take people's serious suggestions on board and make changes, sometimes major changes, based on their opinions. In style, in content, in focus ...whatever. It's just that don't want people's ideas to influence my original vision. Part of the fun of writing, for me, is coming up with my own story.
Oh, darn it! I added a whole other part to illustrate what I mean while you were quoting me. I hate when the good stuff comes to you only after you've posted! LOL Here's that part just in case you don't read back up the page: ETA: @obsidian_cicatrix, I know you're probably sick of me using this example, but I'm'a use it once more.... Obsidian and I each have a scene in our respective stories that has some unmistakable similarities. Just chance. The scene is similar but the stories are quite different. I gave her a critique and gave her some pointers on where her narrator was intruding in on the story and we talked about that and I think Obs got something out of it because she mentioned that Jannert had made mention of the same thing. While I was criting her piece, I did notice how much better painted her scene was than mine, tho. It was a real, living breathing place. Her tavern felt ancient and oaken and heavy and dark and cozy and warm and smelled of beer and bread and candles and fire in the hearth. My tavern in my scene was a white empty box with little or nothing to go off. In Photoshop talk, it was nothing by alpha channel. Now, she could have pointed out to me my missing setting and props, and I might have, depending on my mood that day, taken her advice or thought to myself sod you, I think mine is fine. (I would NEVER actually say those words to Obs) but when I read her piece, there it was, my missing setting was in her piece, beautiful and rich, staring at me, cutting its eyes over at my scene, nodding its head to the left a little, saying without saying so, uh, waddaya'think? Maybe some description? 'Cuz I see you looking at me like you want steal me, but better than steal me, maybe you just go fix your own and everyone wins.
