I have a very thorough presentation. I am often straightforward about facts and I give everything a very critical eye. My usual style, especially for long pieces or giving more professional critiques are broken into categories Plot, Narration, Character, and Dialogue. And a lot of people actually respond well to my critiquing style. Actually most people end up asking me to review their work quite often. But this has been on a forum setting. I am finally part of a writing group that actually critiques each others work. And I am sort of nervous about in group, in person critiquing. My critiquing is fine. Even my girlfriend will tell me my critiquing is good. I am worried about the relationships I am about to sever. This is a new group. But I can't by dishonest either about the way I see certain pieces either.
So long as you're not a dick about it I'd think your critique partners would appreciate the honesty. A writer that can't take criticism is like a boxer that can't take a punch.
Some people think you are a dick even when you are just being honest. You can't please everyone. Most people who post something for critique want to know how they might improve what they've written. Nothing's worse, in my opinion, than a critique telling someone everything's peachy when it isn't. From my fearless critique group leader: use the sandwich method. Tell the person something good about their work, then what needs to improve, then something else positive. Another of my pet peeves, telling someone to change their story. It's their story not yours. If the character doesn't do anything for you, say so, but don't add that you think the character should be someone else, and so on.
I use the sandwich method, but its hard when a piece has few redeemable qualities. So I focus more on what to improve. Which is very discouraging, but there are those times where I can't seem to pull a positive out of the air in a story. And some stories, that lose my engagement, those are always the ones I struggle with. . While I do not say the character should be someone else I say something along the lines of "I suggest taking a look at the characters a bit more. Right now they do not emote very well nor do we get any of their thoughts through out the narrative. If you want the audience to engage in your characters we need a bit more humanness out of them and for them to convey their personalities through dialogue and convey their emotions through their actions a bit more."
I think a significant number of people who post want to hear that they've written something good and many of them will go so far as to argue with the critique or try to "explain" what the critic is missing.
To be fair I think that this is a result of the sandwich technique. Many people will tell you how the sandwich technique undermines your critique. Beyond the fact I think its the way a critique is given or handled.
The best critics first deal with the writing if the writing needs to be addressed. If it doesn't, and it looks like the writer has a style and he knows what's up, then the best critics try to get inside the piece and very humbly explain to the writer what is or what isn't working for them within the context of what they think the writer is trying to achieve. You can't really tell them they need dialogue or they need this or they need that--you can only tell them what you feel they're failing to achieve.
As a writer, I don't really want critiques from other writers that tell me about my piece itself--I want critiques that tell me about the reader's reaction to my piece. Possibly you could get the same message across in a less aggressive way if you phrased it that way? I don't know your credentials, but most writing groups are made up of writers at more-or-less the same level, right? So there's not a lot of room for you to make authoritative pronouncements about someone else's work itself, but you're certainly an authority on your own reaction. So instead of your version above, maybe: I suggest taking a look at the characters a bit more. I didn't get a lot of emotion from them and didn't pick up their thoughts in the narrative. Were they included? I'd engage better with your characters if I could get a bit more humanness out of them-- maybe you could convey their personalities through dialogue, and use their actions to show their emotions? I think it gets the same information across, but in a way that I'd find much more palatable as one receiving critique.
And I think a critique about another writer's feelings invalidates the review. I like dry. Clear cut. To the point logical paragraphs. I don't care about my feelings. I don't know maybe I took a lot of my old journalism education into my review style. To me your version sounds subjective. Where as I like objective reviews devoid of the other personal opinions. And since this is a review group, while not 100% accurate I suppose, and everyone is on the same wavelength about the issues of the story then it is objective. You can still look at a story with a critical eye and be able to tell the troubled areas.
You just have to dive in, man. There's no magic formula that makes all people happy. There's no philosopher's stone. My personal take on the matter is one with which many people disagree or find fundamentally strange, or like I'm looking at things through the wrong end of the spyglass, playing the game wrong. https://www.writingforums.org/threads/i’m-not-here-to-make-you-a-better-writer.146679/ Skim the thread, plenty of disagreement. Thing is, no one has to agree with me for my way of looking at things to be valid - for me.
i was on the beta list for a book series that i really liked, and when i got the most recent book i was shocked by how different it was from everything else i had read. it felt rushed and contrived, and i wrote a HUGE list of things that were off to me; the characters, the plot, the timeline (it was a prequel), etc. I read and re-read my review hoping i didn't sound like an asshole, and finally i pushed "send". The author ended up replying to me with a succinct little thank-you and a brief comment that she wouldn't be making major edits, but she appreciated my feedback. Her tone seemed contrite (although it's hard to say in an email). I was super embarrassed, like I had spoken out of turn or something. I actually backed away from critiquing for a while because i didn't want to overstep my bounds. but then i felt a lot better about critiquing after listening to the Rocking Self Publishing podcast doing an interview with an author i like a lot. he talked about how much he appreciated his beta readers and all the feedback they provided and how it improved his book so much, and it reminded me that the best authors, the ones who will actually do well and produce amazing books, are the ones who receive critique well. so to paraphrase all of that, if a person gets super uppity about your balanced and well-thought-out critique, they're not the audience you were looking for anyways. i feel your pain, though. i have a nasty habit of caring too much what other people think, and i need to develop a tougher skin.
Well I write my reviews as I observe things. Again I like super objective critiques that completely block off how I feel about something -If the characters don't emote well, its because the piece has shown time and time again it hasn't, it isn't something I don't feel. When you are missing those little details. For example, I had a piece wrtten like this once "She walked into the house and stared at Jody. He was clipping coupons from the weekly newsletters again. She was still mad." "Jody had a habit of snoring in the bed. It was so loud it kept her up." "She hated work" Instead of showing she hated work. That is not my subjective opinion the work lacked emotions, it was an objective criticism I could point out. Instead of writing [I don't tell people how to write, but when discussing the pieces among fellow writers in an environment like this about critiques. Most of this is my inner monologue] "Walking into the house she caught glance of Jody. She tightened her palms together in a short first, but thought better of it. Why did he think he could just push her around? Tell her what to do. When she got enough of that at work." - Boom a lot more personality, a lot more emotion, less "she was still mad. he pushed her around too much. he told her what to do too much. he reminded her of her boss. and wondered why she even married him." Let me reiterate I never told anyone what to write. I simply told them "Your characters seem flat and do not emote. They lack thoughts of their own and personality of their own. I suggest taking a look at how people react in certain scenarios to make your characters feel like living people. Add more showing or descriptive details of their feelings, don't tell me about their feelings." The things I point out. Are things noticeable in the work. I feel it would undermine my work if I said "I feel like Sarah and Jody aren't characters with personality. When reading the passage I didn't get connected with them and that was difficult for me to read the piece." - Which to me translate to at least "blame this review you don't agree with on the person reading it, instead of taking a critical look at your work" <--- that's how I translate that kind of subjective review that interjects the reviewers personal feelings into a review. I only pay attention and note down troubled technical areas. Which cannot be blamed on the reviewer, which need to be looked at critically and get the writer to look at their work with a critical eye.
Of course my version sounds subjective - that's the whole point. Critique is subjective. Like when you posted your first three sentences in that thread and I critiqued it -- you clearly disagreed with my thoughts and ascribed my opinion to ignorance of your "Controlled Sloppy Writing style". In my subjective opinion, that's not a real thing and your writing was just sloppy, with no control involved, but apparently you "like that kind of honest writing style that captures impure, unfiltered thoughts in the cleanest controlled way possible." Later on you point out that "I feel this is an argument more based on style than anything else." That's all subjective, right? So if critique is subjective when it's of your work, then obviously it's subjective when it's of someone else's work. Right?
And I disagree with that. Because Style Is Subjective. But Critical Flaws and Technical Errors in the mechanics are objective tools. An objective tool cannot be subjective.
Okay, this might sound harsh, but I don't engage in critique sites or groups to make friends; and neither should you. (This is not to say you can't make friends, but that is not the goal.) Also, Wreybies is right; Critiquing is helping you just as much, if not more, than the other person. Recently I learned about Parallelism in writing, and I've been going people's work, highlighting them, and seeing if they work or not for me. By seeing how other people employ the device, I myself am learning what works and what doesn't. - Also, Bayview is 100% correct, maybe more so than Wreybies. My first read through anything is for pure enjoyment (or lack of). Since the Job of a writer is to entertain the Reader, I ask myself "Was I entertained by this?" If the answer is NO, then I am going to come back with a list of suggestions. If the answer is YES, I am going to give a list of things I thought they did very well (This informs them what I, the reader, got out of their work). Often though, It is a mixture of the two. -OJB.
See and that just might be my own personal shortcoming. I cannot turn off my critical part of the brain unless something has engaged and entertained me. So, when a book fails to do that on a mechanical point I can't turn off all the criticisms I have about all the mechanics not working. They seem blatantly there.
I'd say anything beyond SPAG is subjective, and even SPAG stuff can be style (like your extra capital letters - they could be errors, or they could be style. I'm mostly interested in whether they're effective, and that can only really be determined by asking readers what effect they have.) Can you give an example of a critical flaw (or "Critical Flaw") that you think is totally objective?
Character Development is a must. It's not something someone can do without. I mean they can try. But people read stories and connect to the people. A Story that Needs Character Development is an objective point to point. To Tell Them How to Develop those Characters is subjective because its two different artistic points on how to do so.
Somebody, maybe Neil Gaiman, said if your readers tell you that something is wrong with your work, they're always correct, but if they tell you how to fix it, they're usually wrong. If you approach giving criticism by describing problems ("I had trouble understanding why Mrs. Smith hated him so much.") rather than giving solutions ("You should put in a scene where he vomits on Mrs. Smith's cat.") you'll probably come across better, and provide more help.
I couldn't agree more. The real medium of writing in the reader's imagination... the words themselves are incidental. If the reader thinks the sky is green, they're right.
Well though none of my reviews say that. I simply state "characters seem flat, I suggest taking an overview." "they need to emote more" "there is a lack of personality" "there seems to be a disconnect"
I suspect you made this thread because deep down you wanted to hear the answers that you are now claiming to disagree with