I have been reviewing and critiquing some work on here and elsewhere and I've been trying different strategies or approaches to different work, but am finding trouble identifying what detail and level to get into with the work being reviewed. I haven't taken any real courses in editing and reviewing, so I'm somewhat fumbling in the dark as to what a proper or useful review is. Should I get highly into SPAG? Or should I just primarily search for logical fallacies and continuity issues, OR should I dive into the storyline as whole and try to give a more opinion based review? What do you all tend to focus on when editing or reviewing? Better yet, when someone reviews your work, what exactly are you looking for? I would like to be a helpful contributor here, and give other writers solid feedback. If this is easily answered in old posts, feel free to delete this and send me on my way.
I, too, struggle in trying to give good critiques, but here's the method I'm going to try next (assuming I don't go all obsessively nit-picky on the poor writer): - If their work is littered in SPAG errors, mention a few and say there's more, but I'm going to focus on other stuff. This will give the writer the knowledge of something they need to work on so they can find and correct the problems themselves. - If the work just has SPAG errors scattered here and there, I'll mention all of them. I've had some very helpful beta readers and critiques help me where I've missed these and I like to give back where I can. - Bring up any and all issues I find with characters, continuity, etc. When my work is critiqued I find feedback on these issues to be highly valuable. Opinion based feedback (what you do and don't like and why) is also extremely valuable. - Tell them some things they're doing right. What interests me or makes me want to continue? Do I enjoy the actual writing? Is there a character I really like? In my writing there have been some things that I wasn't sure I should keep, but then a critique says "I love it!" and I know it's worth keeping. Positive reinforcement, in this case, is more than just praise; it's telling the writer what they're doing that's right, and that's very useful information. - Give an overview of what I thought of the piece. Incidentally, I'm basing a lot of this on the fantastic critique @rktho gives me. If ever he asks for a critique partner, I highly recommend him.
My advice is to emphasize the areas in which you believe are either in most need of improvement, and/or are all too often overlooked. As painful as it is to admit, SPAG isn't one of my strong suits, so I avoid it in my critiques whenever possible. When giving a critique I try and focus on (what I believe are) my strengths: tonal and character inconsistencies, the emotional stakes of the conflict(s), dialogue, immersion, pacing, authorial voice, worldbuilding, and plotting. By focusing on my strengths, I have a greater sense of confidence in my criticisms—which is what I suspect the writer typically wants from me. I've learned that I'd much rather have three or four points of criticism, with the occasional sentence rewrite, than a super detailed, line edited critique. I might be in the minority there, so keep that in mind. I want to be informed of the main things that didn't work for someone with my excerpt. And if a reviewer believes they need to rewrite a sentence (or three) of mine to best make their points, that's cool, and sometimes even helpful. But when I look and see someone has rewritten 25% or more of my excerpt... I start to question their motives.
Thanks a lot for the good points and taking the time to give solid opinions. So, @Bone2pick , since you like your work edited in a certain way, do you think it's better for a reviewer or editor to ask the writer what they're looking for in their reviews first, before putting in the work?
Not necessarily. It's true I have an ideal critique which I believe I respond best to, but it's also true that I've received numerous valuable critiques that didn't conform to that ideal. If a writer has strong preferences about what types of critiques they'd like, or wouldn't like to receive, then I feel the onus is on them to communicate that to their reviewers.
One way to start is by summarizing what you think the piece of writing is about. This will let the writer know right away how their work is coming across and if you're on the same page. You might say something like this story is about grief and loss as opposed to this story is about Tommy losing his red ball and later getting a blue ball to replace it. This is just an example, but maybe that blue ball was the last thing his mother gave Tommy before she split for Rio. If you, as the critiquer, are able to pick up on that, the writer will know you are able to see the story beyond a surface level and that can be very important. And even if the whole story seems to center around this ball, that's probably not what it's really about. This level of communication and insight often means you two are a good match. Even if you get it wrong in terms of what the writer intended, it shows you're level of investment. So, I think it never hurts to start with stating what the story is about from your point of view as the reader. From there, what works? Something always works. Talk about the effectiveness of that. Maybe it can be improved, but it's there. Mentioning you notice that and see the potential is often far more important than those harsh critiques some people feel a need to deliver to be "honest." Encouragement goes a long way. And it's much easier to improve on something that is working or has potential than the generic "I didn't connect with your MC" or "I didn't find this believable." I'm not saying that there aren't places for those comments, but they're pretty much useless when delivered in a vacuum or lack specifics as they relate to the piece of writing in question. I think it's important for the writer to feel encouraged. You don't have to rewrite anything for them. A lot of times when people do that, it comes out sounding worse and than how much can you really trust any of the advice they're giving. Instead, mention how on page three the description sucked you in and the world made sense. Maybe it's something they want to do sooner or more often. Talk about what grounds you in the story. Talk about what's spot on. Even pointing these things out, the writer will probably notice on their own when these sort of things are not the case. I never see a critique as an isolated response to a story but more of an evaluation of the writer's storytelling approach. And that can be far more useful since what we can write is always going to be better than what we've written. I believe all SPAG issues should be pointed out and addressed. These issues alone are the number one reason a piece will be rejected. If there are too many, the piece is probably not ready for critique. And I think that's okay to say too. We've all shown work too early at some point. Being aware of that is important. I don't tend to critique work posted on this site for that very reason. A lot of writers seem to want immediate feedback, but that's not doing anyone a favor. When I think something is ready for critique, I try and wait three days. I think and read over my piece. And those three days can make a world of difference. Don't be afraid to tell someone that you think they're showing their work too soon. A lot of people boast they want that harsh and honest feedback. It's okay to say it's not ready for critique because the critique isn't going to be what they want or need to hear if they're in a rush to get it anyway. Finally, I truly believe encouragement goes much farther than pointing out flaw after flaw. Let them know they can do this because on page twelve they did the very same thing they were struggling with on page two, but they did it right. And sometimes the best advice might be to scrap the whole thing and start again because that almost always seems to work like a charm even though it's that last thing the writer wants to hear. A big problem with beta readers is that it's often the blind leading the blind. I've built relationships with the people I trade work with. I know where they are coming from in terms of skills and writing ability same as they know it from me. Fostering such relationships really helps all involved. I'm not looking to be a teacher or find a mentor, but I have made friends where I feel like we're at a similar level. I am a professional writer and I will say some of the best writers on here are unpublished or published very little. Their lack of credits is probably a confidence issue more than anything else. When I open a piece of writing to critique I'm looking to be impressed far more than on any sort of search for problems and issues. And everyone I've traded writing with on this site has done that. Not that everything is perfect, but I have been wowed by many of you. And I always think it's important to thank someone for sharing their writing with me. I see it more of a privilege that they are letting me in than any sort of service I am doing for them.
