Anyone who knows me knows I'm sensitive. And that goes to my writing too. So if I ask for a critique and get only negatives, I feel like a failure. In my brain, them not pointing out positives mean there were none to point out. Sucks. So now I've started asking for "what you like and what you don't like." Working out better so far.
I thought the sandwich method, only required a positive point at the beginning and end So 1 Positive point 42 Negative points 1 Positive point Counts as sandwich method. The positive at the start reassures them that you're not just there to rip the work apart. The positive at the end picks them up after all the negative stuff. Other positives points are allowed to be scattered throughout, but are optional. A 2:1 positive to negative ratio certainly isn't needed.
I totally misunderstood the theme of this thread from the title. I was expecting to be the meat between... Nevermind. (Hides jar of mayonnaise behind back.)
I think the whole point of the sandwich method is to help us remember to mention why we liked something in another person's work. What we liked, as a reader, is just as important as what we didn't like. Example: (Good) I really liked how the MC was portrayed in this chapter. He seemed more alive and vibrant. He was certainly more colorful and the way you have written him makes him much easier to relate to. I especially like the way you brought forth the power dynamics between him and his father. (Bad) However, I didn't get this feel from him in the first three chapters. Then he seemed a bit flat and stuffy especially at work where he was stiff and regimented. Learning he is a retired privateer in this chapter really threw me for a loop, especially the off the cuff swearing and having him take in an ex con as a roommate. You may want to consider going back and re-writing the early chapters to make his character more consistent because, (Good) I like him much better this way and am looking forward to the next chapter. I find the privateer aspect of his past life compelling and am eager to see how it's going to play out with religious fanatics protesting outside his place of employment.
There's no reason one can't do both. I agree, the whole point is to improve the work. For years I've gotten excellent critique (we meet every two weeks) that was so useful I consider my critique group taught me how to write. But more and more I want them to tell me what I am doing right and not just what needs to improve.
I'm not sure about the cut and dry formula, but I think there should be positive comments in critiques - especially here on the writing forum. You never know the background of the person (especially if they're a new comer). Now, if it's difficult to think of something positive to say you could just scrap the 10 pages covered in red highlighter and instead give helpful advice on writing in general and tell them to keep working as they'll get better. It's not even about helping their ego. It's about pushing their motivation and conviction for those dark nights so they can say, "well THIS person said that at least I had good word choices." ETA: I mention this because it's true for me. I posted a short section on the writing forum quite a bit ago. It wasn't mean to be a complete story or even a chapter. It was just a scene I had come up with to use as an exercise to try a different style of writing. Everyone was hung up on my choice of words in the beginning, and I received quite a bit of critique that wasn't all that great. However, I did get One person that said, "I understand what you're trying to do, and I liked it." That made the world of difference to me. I took the negatives under my belt and tried to decide which ones I want to apply, but I go back to that one comment when I need something extra. I think it's up to those who are giving the critiques (especially those with more experience, like BayView or Tenderiser) to decide how to approach the critique. Even I can read a piece and have a good idea of where this person is when it comes to writing experience. Tailoring the critique to that person and that story is an essential part. You might read something that sounds like it came out of a 5th grade classroom. Going over every word with your red marker isn't going to do much for them when they can't even tell a cohesive story. However, reading something that sounds like it's written by a professional writer, you would agree that the red pen would be more helpful there. It's all about making the critique appropriate for the circumstances, and sometimes the sandwich formula is the right choice. Thing is, it might not be.
Plus, if another reader makes a big deal about an alleged negative that you considered to be a strong positive but forgot to tell the author was a positive...
Instead of focusing on a numerical/mathematical/statistical ratio of "good" comments to "bad" comments, I think it would be better if people could be articulate enough to be brutally honest while wording it in a kind way. This way, no one's feelings are hurt (because really, the bad writer might be a kid in an abusive home life where writing is the only escape, or something), but also no one is deluded by being told that their work is good when it isn't (which just sets them back by not enabling them to grow). When I'm critiquing a work, and the entire thing just sucks beyond fixing, I'll compliment the person on their ideas but then encourage them that the best thing to do would be read a lot of books in that genre, study the art of scene-building/dialogue/story structure/etc, and then tackle the story again once they've got a better grip on the craft of writing. But I'll say it in a kind and helpful way and have never had anyone's feelings be hurt over it. I think sometimes people have this dichotomy that the only way to give nice feedback is if it's complimentary, and that if you're giving honest critique on something that sucks then you're automatically being "negative" or rude about it. But you can be both. You can tell someone that their story needs a lot of work and isn't great, without being unkind, if you phrase it in a way that focuses on giving solutions to help them succeed. It's like if your friend is wearing an outfit that looks atrocious, and asks your honest opinion. Saying "Look, I'll be honest, it makes you look totally hideous and you really have no clue how to dress yourself" is much different from saying "You know what, you're really pretty but that outfit doesn't reflect it, let's set you up with these cool fashion tips instead."
@FireWater , this is exactly what I meant to say earlier. However, I don't think I brought the thought across too well, so thanks for helping me out here.
Thanks! I didn't closely read every post in this thread, so I did not mean to steal and re-word anyone's point.
Well, damn, you were quite nice about mine In general though, while I wouldn't put anything down to a rigid formula, and I generally find negative feedback much more useful than positive feedback, I think positive feedback is also important. Not just to stop it seeming overly harsh, just because from a pedagogical perspective, the aim of giving feedback is to give a writer a chance to develop their work. It's largely impossible to get a writer to write to their strengths - be that plotting, characterisation or vivid description - if nobody ever tells them what their strengths are.
I'm glad you thought so! I think that's a reflection of you being able to take critique rather than me being gentle. Yours certainly wasn't an MS where I had to 'pick my battles' and only point out the worst negatives.
Hmm. First, I'm frantically analyzing the critique @Tenderizer gave me recently to figure out if it was a coded message that I'm hopeless or not... But seriously, in a setting like this, I'm a fan of the sandwich approach for a couple reasons. As mentioned upthread, since we don't know who we're talking to in terms of age, gender, experience etc, it's a good idea whenever possible to tell them something positive, if for no other reason than not to scare them completely out of the forum. There are a lot of people here who may be showing their work for the first time to anyone, and if the first response they get is "Your character needs a lot of work, I don't believe her at all," there's a very real possibility of author shutdown. With members you know better, maybe not so much, but if I'm not familiar with a member, I'm going to sandwich things. However, that's internet forum life. I absolutely and completely loath and despise employers/supervisors who use the sandwich method. They tend to be (tend, I'm not calling anyone here out) cowards who can't handle their responsibilities and are seeking to avoid them by tossing around a bunch of positives to obscure the fact that they've just had to say something negative about you. In addition, I feel that sandwiching things can create a toxic working environment, where employees end up never being able to trust a compliment since they end up conditioned to believing that it's just the precursor to a criticism.
