@northernadams: I find harsh and haughty critiques cringeworthy. It is so embarrassing for whoever wrote it. But I find that such control-freaks will try to make you feel even worse, by patronising you when you object to their tone. I suppose critiquing, just like anything else, attracts a certain type of emotional vampire.
But is a critique "harsh and haughty" if it merely says something that you don't want to hear? Sometimes attitude is in the mind of the perceiver. Can you extract useful feedback even from an openly hostile critique? Absolutely! I received a critique once from someone who created an account solely to take a few pot shots at me. Oddly enough, in digging for ways to draw blood, he(?) pointed out something that no other critiquer picked up on. It was useful information, and I thanked him.
@Cogito: I had haters on my blogs before, and it's a funny thing how they can pick up on things sometimes. I still don't approve of abuse in any form, but it goes to show that there's a wealth of information around us, if we only tuned in to it. I think this is a more advanced critique experience, which needs thick skin to be enjoyed.
I think there's no need to expose yourself to unnecessarily harsh feedback - if it doesn't help you, ignore it and move on, in my opinion. If what the harsh critic said were true, it'll resurface somewhere else from the mouth of an actually helpful critic. I try my best to pick out the useful from the insults but sometimes if the insulting critiques keep flooding in, there's only so much you can take before you break. Having said that, I once had a critic almost break me to the point of giving up writing altogether. I removed myself from that critic, but I didn't forget the parts that I did agree with, which was that all my characters seem to smile constantly I would never return to that critic, she was harsh and unhelpful and discouraging, but that one piece of advice I got out of her has helped my writing so I'm at least thankful for that! Cog - that's probably the best response to someone trying to draw blood anyway. Thank them there's nothing more infuriating!
I agree that we shouldn't be gluttons for punishment and ask people to find something, anything and insult us with it, but often even a well meant criticism gets interpreted as "harsh" just because it didn't sing the writer's praises. I think that ultimately, everyone sets their own boundaries and limitations, and sometimes writers put a limit on how good they want to be. The best writers (imo) always speak about how horrific their early writing was, and how horrific still their first drafts are. They are not afraid to re-write, nothing is ever set in stone. This is why I try not to reject any critique. Sometimes, if the feedback was particularly lacking in depth, or insulting, I might react defensively, but it'll bug me and by the next morning I'll suss out something, usually pretty major, that I need to change. Because, the bottom line is, if I thought my work was finished, I wouldn't be showing it to anyone other than agents and publishers (sending queries).
I seriously don't think anyone is unaware of what rudeness or snark or nastiness is, unless they've been raised totally outside of society. Many will try to weasel their way out of it by saying the other person is thin-skinned or misunderstood what was said - or the classic "I'm just blunt." - but in reality, everyone knows. And we all know when we truly are being thin-skinned and just don't like what we're being told - the initial hurt may blind us for a bit, but we know. Reality can hurt on both sides of the equation, but that doesn't make it any less real. Authors and critters both need to remember the purpose of the critique and act accordingly.
I agree with you @shadowwalker, and that goes for the internet too, even though we can't see the body language and in many ways, can act without (major) consequences.
I always give my honest opinion when reviewing. Telling a person that this is good when I don't think so isn't really helping them become better writers. It could even hurt their writing as they could be made into believing that their current way is a good way to write they can wrongly think their text has strength that it don’t have. It help them feel good for the moment perhaps and continue writing, but what is worse: having written 2 000 words and know that it wasn't so good and you probably got some rewriting/learning to do, or hear a lie that this story is good and continue with it and having written 80 000 words in the same fashion and later be told by a publisher that it was "horrible" (and by any other honest reviewer). The truth will probably hit a person at some point anyway. So I try to keep it honest and really say what I don't like (for what it’s worth). I could probably work on providing more balanced feedback however. I focus a bit too much on the negative aspects sometimes and fail at encouraging the writer and share to them what I think is their strengths.
I don't think anyone thinks one should tell the author something is good when it clearly isn't - or even if you just don't think it is.
I too am hesitant at times to point out major flaws in someone's work, but not because I'm worried I'll offend them; I just don't know if I'm experienced enough to be giving such advice. At my worst I'm convinced my years of writing have been wasted and I should reconsider a new career. At my best I figure the paragraph I wrote sounds pretty good. It's hard to critique when you're not sure if people are agreeing with your advice, or if everyone's reading it and going, "This girl has no idea what she's talking about." But as for things I do point out, I'm honest but polite (or so I hope). I appreciate when people give me honest reviews without sugarcoating, so I try to give others the same courtesy.
I don’t think it must be pointed out in words that stuff was good for a person to still reach that conclusion. If a person is under the impression that they are receiving genuine and honest feedback (while everyone is in fact holding back and sugarcoating their criticism) they could end up assuming some stuff was good since 5 people reviewed and nobody complained about "this and that" (so it can't be that bad).
Well, a) nobody can control what conclusion the author will come to; and b) nobody is saying one should hold back or sugarcoat anything. It is being said that one can be polite and still offer an honest critique. Honesty does not equate to rudeness and politeness does not equate to sugarcoating, in other words.
I'm pretty gentle with critiques, and yet ironically I hate it when people are like that when critiquing my writing.
For whatever reason within the nature of human beings, Internet communication (on forums and in blog replies in particular) brings out the snot in some people. People tend to temper their communication in person, but online, the barriers are down. It helps to remind yourself of that and review your post before you hit 'reply'. I've seen a bit of it here already. Some comments are unnecessarily rude. It doesn't add to the critique to say something is crap. That doesn't mean the criticism isn't useful. It's just that not everyone has equally thick skin. On the other side, (and these I've seen in my in-person critique groups, I've not been here long enough to see it on this forum) are people who are devastated by hearing their story idea or writing skills are not what they had believed they were. So it isn't always the critique. I think we could all benefit from frequent reminders that a critique can be specific without being unkind. I'm not talking about sugar coating. I'm one who tends to be naturally more frank than socially correct. But just a quick run through of what you're about to post to look for unnecessary rudeness would go a long way.
When someone tells me they don't feel what my character is feeling, or that a section of the piece is too slow, it can be very helpful and I don't find that 'ungentle'. I think if the critiquer sticks to specifically what is missing or wrong that ends up being the most useful. If something is more generally off, like a really bad piece of writing, then I think a comment on the overall style or whole piece can be said in a meaningful way. You can tell someone they need some basic writing skills without being mean. I've told people their writing wasn't changing, that the critiques people have given them don't seem to be sinking in, that they are still making all the same mistakes. I think you can say a lot without being unkind.
Another thing I find personally useless (perhaps others disagree) are critiques that are more like fan fiction. I don't want someone telling how my plot should develop unless it is specific to something that needs critiquing. It's one thing to say, that doesn't work there or you should expand on that, and quite another to say, you should have your character do X. It's my story, some people are going to love it and others won't find it to be their cup of tea. But when people try to change my characters and/or story, I ruffle. I prefer a critique where the reviewer keeps in mind, this is the story this author wants to tell, it's not the story the reviewer wants to tell.
Bash types of critiques all you want, but I feel safe in saying, if you're not receiving the kind of unanimous critique here (sorry Peachulu for putting you on the spot) https://www.writingforums.org/showthread.php?t=59919, that in itself is a critique. It tells you you have work to do. Interesting story, I really liked this, it got me interested, really means little. Negative remarks, like, this confused me, or I didn't believe this, may or may not mean anything, but sometimes I think the most critical part of a critique is something rather black and white and does not require bluntness or sugar coating to be understood. Either every critiquer is spell bound, or they're not. If they are, there still may be things you could do to make that individual story better, and you'll find those in the better critiques. If they aren't, there still may be things you could do to make that individual story better, and the better critiques will have those. The difference between those two cases lies in the heart of one's writing. That, I'm starting to believe, will require the writer to simply try again on a brand new story. The most profound improvements won't even occur from specific advice from critiques, but from more writing, lots of reading, and critiquing the work of others, with as critical of an eye as possible. Once you get your writing to that jaw dropping level, I imagine it will be easier to make use of critiques, when all you need to worry about are things like "Would Randy really say that at the dinner table?" Easy things like that that any one can help with. Let me reiterate, I am not saying critiques are useless. On the contrary. Whenever I get those silences, I know its time to stop talking about writing, and get back to work. Obviously, great works will be criticized, but I'm not talking about the professional level, where you will be torn to shreds by professional critics. I'm talking about aspiring writers who want to be professional, being critiqued by their own ilk. In short, the best thing you can get from a critique is reading in between the lines. edit** I'm wondering if this post applies to writers just beginning, who still make lots of baby mistakes, like loads of adverbs and unnecessary descriptions, but I think it does. Even getting from being really bad to decent takes lots of practice, reading, and critiquing of others. Learning specific things from specific critiques, while possible and maybe even probable at an early level, just can't compare to learning things first hand. As an example, how many times have you seen people post excerpts for critique, where they specifically say "I was told my writing lacks blah, does this seem better?" The understanding just hasn't sunk in yet.
Goodness, if a writer can write 80,000 words and not improve and spot his/her own weaknesses, that person probably shouldn't be writing at all! This may sound harsh, but I mean, no progress at all in quality after 80,000 words, especially when you've probably actually written more but have deleted it due to editing? Such an individual might do well to consider a different career But it is true that a writer can improve quicker if someone would point the flaw out to them at 2000 words rather than wait for them to find it on their own after 80k. I think we writers we have a rather difficult task - we must be confident enough in our ability to stick to our intuition and what we want to tell, the way we want it, but also humble enough to accept criticism and learn from it. I think true humility would naturally come with a healthy dose of confidence anyway though - it is because you know you're good that you're able to admit that you still have work to do. When I started writing at the age of 9, even back then I was already telling myself, "You need to be able to take negative comments if you wanna succeed." I'm naturally quite thick-skinned anyway, but that sort of drilling over the years helps. For me, I find it easier to accept criticism by reminding myself that I can still improve. So if someone slams my writing, sure it's gonna hurt like hell and I'll be in denial for a few days and then get back to work and digest the critique - but if I believe I can still improve, then whatever horror I just experienced is not a reflection of my overall writing ability, but only where I am at right now. Mind you, I also think it's silly to try to capture everyone - for example, I don't understand Shakespeare, and I see nothing so thrilling about his writing, but he's undoubtedly talented. Basically, sometimes it's hard to distinguish when it's just not someone's cup of tea, in which case, you can safely ignore the advice to an extent, and when the critic's displeasure with your text is actually down to the writing or story-telling quality. I think it helps if the author already knows what she wants to achieve.
Personally, I think good critiques make the writer think. Outside of pointing out awkward phrasing or the odd grammatical thing, all critiques are subjective and the author is under no obligation to follow anything that's advised. But they will consider everything. And I don't think the experience level of the writer changes that - things can go "wrong" because one is just starting out and because one has gotten too hyped on their success.
I think it's really helpful when the person who posts something for a critique tells the forum what they are trying to accomplish with a particular piece. I find it much easier to attempt to help somebody, if I know what they want to end up with. Along this same line, I wonder why the 'novels' section of this forum is not divided into subjects the way the short story section is? One of the first things a writer must do when approaching an agent or publisher is fit their work into some category. That's something I personally find difficult to do. It would be interesting to see how other people categorise their work. It's also good to get a critique from someone who prefers to read the category you've chosen, and not from someone who never goes near the stuff. I don't really read mysteries or thrillers, so I'd be bad at critiques in that category. However, I do love historical fiction and certain kinds of fantasy and sci-fi, so I'd be better at directing my critiques at these kinds of books. Just a thought.
I don't get what's wrong with rewritting someone's material, like a small paragraph. If anything, it gives me a new perspective on what I wrote and allows me to distance myself from my own work. I want people to do it. Why is it considered arrogant? Anyway, I try to be honest when I critique. If there is something glaring, that no one else has mentioned, then I'll mention it. I try to tell them the emotions I feel when I read their work because that is important for them to know, despite what others think. If i think a passage was "good, it got me interested", then that's exactly what the passage did and the writer should know that so they can do it again. I have to admit though, the strong points of my critique sometimes get dulled by my fear of offending.
In my view, part of critiquing includes helping a writer strengthen his/her writing style. By rewriting it, you're essentially getting rid of something that needs to be preserved. This is one of the issues I have with bad translators. They essentially rewrite the book and sometimes miss the point entirely (I know translating is hard, but good and faithful translations of certain works are very possible).
I totally get that. When I do rewrite a paragraph, I always try to preserve the words already written and the style that's there. I only cut or add words to enhance the imagery or emotion that I feel the writer is trying to evoke. Sometimes I do rewrite some parts just because I feel a different noun or verb would work better. Like if someone writes: "It was night out and the moon was up in the sky and was shining really brightly like a tennis ball." That sentence is begging to be rewritten. Not because I can write it better, but because there are issues that make it hard to read and hinder its imagery. Shouldn't we as critiquers be allowed to rewrite in the way we feel would make it improve? It's really no different than giving an opinion on how well a paragraph develops a character. Both can be accepted or disregarded by the writer.
