I have not read the whole thread, so pardon me if I say something foolish. No more excuses. Stop leaning on grammar and mechanics as a crutch. You're not improving by critiquing grammar, you are hiding behind a chair. I encourage every noob from the very beginning to review and think about content, mood, theme, character, plot, description, and all the higher methods of writing. If you say that you are weak. Then get stronger. If you don't, then you will remain weak. End of story.
There's a lot of truth to that, John, but it's not the whole story. If you are reading a piece of writing that is so thick with grammar and punctuation issues to be painful to read, by all means your advice should address it. Good spelling, grammar, and punctuation (SPaG) is not optional in writing. And if you, the critiquer, have problems with SPaG, then finding and coirrecting SPaG issues in other people's writing will be valuable both to you and the writer. But if you have a sloid grasp on SPaG, you are better off trying to tackle the more abstract issues, like pacing versus meticulous description, or dialogue effectiveness, or strong imagery. You do want to help the writer, but you also should be helping yourself by attempting increasingly ambitious writing issues.
It's important to realize that most work posted here is relatively short. So in many cases, especially in the Novel section, for instance, it may not be possible to have a grasp on all of the larger issues. While on the one hand most of the stories here would never be submitted as posted, and thus SPAG critique is rather unlikely to effect the finished piece, it's certainly valid as a learning experience for both the writer and critiquer. As far as the nuts and bolts of writing go, SPAG is tops. If we're talking about the story/narrative, then yes, the above-mentioned issues are probably more important.
My opinion: grammar is of paramount importance. I'm not even sure I would continue reading the piece if it were loaded with grammatical errors at the start. It just makes common sense to me: start with a strong foundation and that which you build will last. So I suggest get the grammar right first, then start worrying about other components of good writing style.
SPaG is a prerequisite. A writer should have learned decent SPaG in grade school, and certainly long before joining writingforums.org. Because of that, it's hard to see bad SPaG as anything other than evidence of general incompetence and carelessness on the part of the writer. It's nearly impossible for me, as a reader, to trust an incompetent writer. Reading work by an incompetent writer is kind of like going into the jungle with an incompetent wilderness guide. You will get lost and you will eat the wrong foods and you won't know to avoid the poisonous animals and you'll probably die. Metaphorically speaking. I don't want to bother reviewing a work's plot and characterization and pacing and theme and so on if the SPaG is bad - I don't even want to read it. I don't trust the writer. So if I saw a work with bad SPaG and I did, for some reason, comment on it, the comment would say "Learn SPaG and come back when you're ready."
Extremely new writer, but I'm still pretty sure I can relate... I agree! Any basic spell check can tell you where to put your punctuation or that you've spelled something wrong. What writers need to improve is emotion in reviews. Maybe we should all be asking ourselves basic questions like: What would make me connect with this piece more? What am I feeling while reading this? Do I understand what I'm reading? (Obviously, I could go on like that forever, but I'll spare you.) We're not robots here, so we shouldn't review like we are.
Basic spell check will not correct punctuation, nor will it catch spelling errors in which the misspelling is also a word (but incorrect in the current context). And no spell checker will suffice if the member hasn't bothered to use it. The simple fact is that a substantial percentage of posts submitted for critique are laden with spaeeling, punctuation, and grammar (SPaG) errors, and writers should be made aware that fixing such mistakes has to be the first order of business. WHATEVER the weakest component of a submitted piece is, as perceived by the critiquer. should be the focus of the critique. The critiquer will learn much more by tackling the more subtle issues. The Review Room is a workshop for learning effective critique, so why waste time critiquing a sloppily written piece when there are far more challenging pieces to critique?
Okay, that was my fault, I used a bad example/bad wording. My point was just that people tend to focus more on SPaG errors and sometimes don't even consider how they're reacting emotionally to the pieces they're reading. I understand where you're coming from, though.
Of course this happens. It happens for more than one reason. 1) The person reviewing is not comfortable with the process to get to those levels in a critique. Many people are new to the process and aren't "there" yet. 2) The work itself is so SPAG riddled that the person doing the critique cannot see past it. And yes, that is a real phenomenon. When people tell me, "I know it's full of mistakes, but am I getting my point across?" the answer is no, no you are not.
Exactly, Wreybies! I find myself more and more annoyed when people post things beginning with "I know the formatting sucks," or "I haven't really edited it...." When people post on this site, I assume that they are posting for someone to review their writing style and story content. SPag errors just get in the way of that. Now, I know everyone isn't perfect; I myself have always struggled with punctuation. However, when I post a piece, I always try to make sure that my spelling and grammar are acceptable so that the reviewer can hopefully mainly focus on my writing style and content. If I learn a punctuation lesson along the way, so be it, but I don't think reviews should be based souly on SPaG. Clean up your posts, people!
It is not only me? I am a "newb" and try to express I am not comfortable with crticising someone elses style. Not to say it is not something I am willing to learn to do in order to not only improve my own writing, but possibly someone elses. I also think the idea of having to critique someones work before you post be essential, rather than touch and go. Just a couple of platitudes and a post does not count. I get that. But at this point I am rather confused.
Whither the fine line on content? Consistency of tone, dynamism of characterisation, pacing and construction of plot, the internal world logic or externally verifiable facts are all valid critiquing points - and are all comments on the construction of a piece. It does the author no good if he has perfect SPaG and yet the story itself is a mess. What may not be a valid critiquing point is content as far as the following: 1. The intention of the author - critiquing should not be a rebuttal but a proof of how successful they have been in conveying their point of view* 2. Alternative ways of presenting story ideas or timelines when the author has a perfectly logical, satisfying, in-world execution 3. Trying to homogenize style - people should be free to experiment with language. * to a certain degree - if the piece is a factual, or philosophic one then i think it should be valid to point out other further reading. Insight should be one of the tools in a writers arsenal.
I've been reading this with some interest, and would just like to add my two cents. Grammar and spelling is VERY important. If that is a failing point then it needs to be addressed. A good review points out strengths as well as weaknesses. Saying that one should only focus on the content, and not the structure is a bit like telling a building inspector "I know the foundations are all cracked to hell, but isn't the design wonderful?" Maybe the design is fantastic, but if it all falls apart at the foundations then what's the point of bothering with critiquing what color paint was chosen?
I was going to make a topic about this... SPaG can become quite annoying, but it DOES help you grow as a writer. Let's take iambrad's example. Sure, the building inspector may lecture you a little about the foundations, but so what? The next time, fix it. And maybe then the inspector will look at your paint color. However, reviews based SOLELY on SPaG... well, I hate them. I might as well have gotten my English Teacher to examine my story. My English Teacher, however, will neglect to point out that focusing on Grandma baking cookies suddenly during the epic Phantom VS Wraith battle is a complete change of atmosphere and tone, even if the cookies are important to the story, and thus she will not say,"Hey Python, look at this, change it!" So who's going to tell me to change it? Why the reviewer! So that's why a reviewer must point out SPaG along with content. Oh, and another thing. It's not good enough to point out bad things. This will just make the writer(if he's a newbie) say,"Great. Everyone here's a troll. I'm leaving." They should also point out that the rest of the Phantom VS Wraith battle is at an excellent pace and there's just enough description to get into the mood. Next time he'll continue to write excellent battles. And remember to tell him how to improve! SPaG+Content+Praise+How can I improve=Good review Thanks for taking the time to read this text wall. -Pythonforger
If the SPaG is so bad, you probably should have done Then you need a better English teacher. I'm not sure we can help there.
Agreed I couldn't agree more. Grammar is the set of rules that allow you to relay contextual meaning and inflection. There is no point to grammar if you have nothing important to say or what you are saying doesn't connect with anyone else. I think it may boil down to how the person asks for a review and which section of the forum they choose to post. If a person asks me to read something and to let them know what I think, it will probably lead me to dissect grammar and comment on the content as a whole. If they ask me to explicate the literary value of their work, I will only focus on the content. I think a lot of the responsibility is on the person seeking help. Be clear on what advice you are seeking. Ask and narrow down the request. This won't end the problem, but at least you know for sure when someone is ignoring your request and is feeding their own grammatical hubris.
Question I posted earlier on the idea of reviewing and what might help the issue for both sides. In your experience, when you ask for a review, do you clarify the request? I am not saying you don't already do this, I am honestly curious if people are ignoring your real question. Beyond picking the right area in the forum to post, I believe that the person who posts or requests something, should be clear and concise. e.g. I would like someone's perspective and a review on my work and let me know what you think of the theme or the character development of the piece. or e.g. I am happy with my story, but I would like some grammatical or organizational help. Could someone please look this over? Like I said in my other post, some people will probably still ignore the specificity of the request, but at least you'll know it for sure. In many posts that I have seen people post a blurb and ask if people could let them know what they think. If people think about grammar a lot, that's where they will naturally head. That aside, if someone does ask for a content review and it looks like a dictionary has been mauled by a 2-ton bear, they probably should be politely corrected. But, since their request is about content, the grammar correction should be short, (e.g., There seem to be a lot of grammar mistakes that make it hard to read and understand. Let me know if you want help with that.), and then move onto the content review.
The problem with the idea of requesting a review on something specific about a piece, though, is that often the requested focus is not what the writer needs to work on. If someone asks me to critique a piece and focus on how well their plot flows, for example, and when I read it I discover that while their plot is fine, their grammar, spelling, etc is atrocious, I'm not just going to say "hey, the plot was great. You could tweak it a little bit here and here, but otherwise it's spot-on." I'm going to point out the SPaG mistakes as well, because that's where they need to improve.
I find that most people who are new to reviewing tend to want to play "politics". They might start with "I'm not the expert but..." and give a half-effort dab in one direction. They may be too afraid of offering a wrong opinion that they stick to the easiest mistakes. A new reviewer should view the act of reviewing as a mimicry of reading. Where the reader may opt to read or not, the reviewer must read. The reviewer must then ask himself what ruins the experience and constructively what hooked him in. If they can find little positive then they must in NO WAY assume that it was the writing alone. This require further analysis. Those are some things that come to mind and I am not stating this is "the method".
