This place requires one to post constructive critiques, but to me it feels inappropriate that such a neophyte like me would even dare to say something against others, let alone criticize masters who are already out there. How does it happen? Do I just jump into the workshop and try to find the first story to criticize it for the positive outcome for both sides or is there some different process? I have never done something like this and being a shy person I am even afraid I may just get F-ed out... So to put it short, I am afraid to actually criticize someone, knowing my input may not be that good.
Another member just recently voiced similar concerns. You'll likely find the advice in this thread helpful: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/the-heart-racing-fear-to-give-critique.164812/
I would not worry too much about writing your first critiques . Read the work and give your opinion , that is basically it. You will benefit as a writer , and possibly so will the recipient .
People on this forum are generally very kind, and never cuss people out for offering criticism on their work. A mod would probably issue a warning if that happened. You have a sense of what you like, and a different perspective than the writer that you're critiquing. That's all you need to be potentially helpful. Don't think of it as criticism, just think of it as advice. Also, people post their stuff expecting it to be critiqued. You're doing them a favor, even if they don't agree with you.
there is a good guide to writing construcive crit here https://www.writingforums.org/threads/constructive-critiques.20627/ that aside i would say don't worry about being a novice writer - when i ask for crit i want to know what doesn't work so i can do it better - i don't necessarily need to be told how to do it better, so the input i need is from readers rather than writers
Let me add this to the plate: If you stick with writing and become one of the old guard, you will come to realize how much we prize the opinions of someone interested enough in writing to give his or her opinion, and yet not so deeply invested in the task that they just regurgitate the writerly things they have learned. I'm as guilty as any when it comes to that. There are a bewildering array of clashing schools of thought and a spectacular propensity for seemingly purposeful failure to agree on even the very meanings of the esoteric terms that get bandied about with such fervor. We crave the unfettered, unsullied, dare-I-say virginal opinions of someone who has yet to get entangled in all the brouhaha. Critiques given in simple, plain, honest, direct workaday language are the best, so have no fear.
And be honest. If you don't like a story, say so, but say why. Sometimes, this can be the most valuable kind of critique.
You bring up a very good point. Nothing annoys me in quite the same way as someone who is clearly just repeating something they've read in a book on how to be a writer. It's all about how to apply that lesson in practise, rather than in theory, as well as knowing when they're appropriate or not.
