So I've been back, and trying to deal with the critique backlog since I finally got some free time. So I have some questions. Frankly speaking, i'm not a very good writer. Barely better than the FFN standard. So whenever I try to critique. this causes problems. When I do critique, I'm not sure if the issues I'm pointing out are actually issues, or if they're just things I get wrong as well. And then there's the other critiques. They point out stuff, like pruning away sentences they view as extraneous or editing grammer. And when I see the portions they remove, I find nothing wrong with them. And as for correcting grammer and sentence structure, I try to alter them to flow as best as possible and with words that would fit better. I say 'why'. But the subject so subjective I feel that it falls flat.
The most valuable critique is that given as a reader, rather than a writer... what did you like, what didn't you like and why.?.. in the critique phase the writer needs to know does their plot work? Are their characters interesting? Is their setting realistic/accurate/ believable? Does dialogue sound natural or forced? Do the action scenes have a sense of pace?...that kind of thing Matters like grammar and sentence structure are mere copy editing and can be sorted out at a later stage once the story itself is ready
For the most part you're just going to have to accept that critique is significantly subjective. Your preferences will ultimately affect what you say. But this is fine because readers will have preferences, and this ultimately affects the sale of the book at the end of the day. As for cutting down sentences, sometimes it's not necessarily about the grammar being bad, but rather those cut words aren't the most effective for conveying a point. Generally the best form of writing is to use as few words as necessary to convey the idea that you want to convey. Overexplaining things to the reader makes them annoyed, and makes them feel like they're being talked down to. For example, take that last sentence I just wrote. I almost backspaced through it because the "...them annoyed, and makes..." part of it because subtracting this bit wastes less time and and afterwards the sentence still conveys exactly the same amount of information.
Oh ok. So in other words, I should say things like 'please put more descriptions in these scenes so I can visualize them' instead of correcting grammer?
Yes essentially tell the writer what you find deficient in their piece... experienced writers may also find it worthwhile to give examples of how a piece could be improved but this is not essential, and in many cases is less useful because it changes the voice in which the piece is written
This is something I struggle with too when giving a critique. I worry that my preferences will be taken as objective truths when they are not. I do try to approach every piece more as a reader than a writer since I lack the experience to give worthwhile writer critiques. I just hope that everyone understands that my critiques come with the unspoken disclaimer that they are just, like, my opinion, yo.
I try not to suggest rewording of sentences, unless there is a clear cut reason. For example, if a sentence is far too long, I might suggest breaking it up for greater impact, or joining up sentences for the opposite reason. What I don't (or try not to) do is suggest "you could write it like this" just because I prefer it worded differently. I think that's disrespectful to the author. The more important thing is the flow of the story, how easy it is to follow, how the plot and writing grab you. For example, I might suggest to someone that I found a "flow of thoughts" style difficult to follow and had to keep referring back to figure out what was going on. Or that excess descriptions, or use of metaphors gets in the way of enjoyment. I'll point out grammar errors if they plague the piece and something the author obviously has trouble with. The most common thing on this is tense errors. Otherwise, it's pointing out minor stuff that the author may have missed. SPAG errors are generally the least important part of a critique, although a recent piece I read had so many, it really detracted from the story, so I felt the need to point them out. Nobody should be afraid to give a critique. Don't think that, just because you're a new writer, you can't give a critique. Try to answer basic questions. * Did you enjoy the story? If so, say why. If not, say why not. * Was it easy to follow? Did you grasp what was going on the first time you read it? * How did you react to the characters? * Did you find the language easy to follow? * What elements could be added to the story to improve it? For example, would you want to see a certain section expanded? * Did the climax feel satisfying? (and take your mind out of the gutter...) * Was the dialogue engaging? Did it feel natural?
Ideally, a writer will have more than one person doing a critique. This is valuable because different people like different things. I feel if I can get six people (example) to critique something and four of them mention the same issue, it's probably worth taking a really hard look at that issue to see what I'm doing right/wrong. But if all six people mention different issues, it could come down to their personal preferences and not necessarily have anything to do with what I wrote. The writer doesn't have to take any advice you give or don't give. Some people are married to a certain phrase, a certain concept or character. They may not hear your feedback about that aspect of your work. And you know what? That's fine. It's their story. Maybe I'm wrong as a critiquer. All that said, finding six neutral people to review your work - NOT friends or family - is very, very difficult. You're lucky to find one person sometimes, let alone 6 people!
Yes, exactly! I'm relatively new to critiquing other people's work, but I'm learning by doing it. When I ask others to critique my writing, what I really want to know is: Does my story work for the reader? Is my writing style engaging enough? Should I keep going in the direction I'm headed, or do I need to rethink the whole thing because it's not resonating? Those are subjective questions that go way beyond word choice or grammar, and the only way to answer them is to get opinions from people who read a lot (not necessarily writers). And I think it's understood that critique is opinion.
A good way to start a critique is with a sort of a recap of the story. Something like, 'This is a story about loss as we see the main character lose his house and his hair while grieving for his late wife... The examples in this story highlight a common theme while offering a unique prospective as he thinks the answer to all his problems is fixing a car that hasn't run in years. Up on cinderblocks in his backyard. Attempted distractions continuously fail throughout the story, leaving readers to fully understand that healing takes time...' That sort of thing will help the writer know if you understood the story or not and how clear they were in getting across the intended message. It also forces you to really think about what resonated with you and should help guide your critique. Just saying what's working and not working can come across generic sometimes, and that's not very helpful. And I think it's important to remember that critiques aren't about finding problems. Usually, the delivery is clear or not. That's something that can actually help a writer.
If a critique is done in good faith, it will come through. I am new to the writing community, but I studied fine art and concept design for years when I was younger. Giving and receiving critique ends up being essentially the same across the spectrum of skills. You don't have to be a master of the skill you are critiquing to offer a good crit, but you have to be honest and fair. I tend to fall on the cynical side of things, so my critiques can come off much harsher than I intend, which sometimes causes offense. As the one doing the critiquing, I have had to learn to moderate the bluntness with which I criticize while at the same time keeping in mind that sometimes people are hyper-sensitive to criticism of any sort. On the other hand; when I am the one receiving the critique, I have to keep my cynicism in check and not assume that every critique is an attack and that most people are generally well-intentioned, even if they themselves aren't good at articulating it.
