If I don't like a story I won't critique it

I will only critique a story if I see a way to improve it.

If I consider a story so bad there's no way to improve it, I won't offer a critique.

Do I have a bad attitude?

 

I have a similar policy of only critiquing things I like, but for different reasons:

- I might not be in that persons target audience, and therefore not a good judge of what would appeal to their target audience.

- Getting a ton of purely negative criticism can be disheartening and overwhelming, good critiques also point out what the writer is doing well and should keep doing. If I don’t think I can do that I won’t critique.

-I have a limited amount of time and energy, and I’m critiquing for free. Why choose to spend my time on something I don’t enjoy?

There isn’t anything wrong with being picky about who you critique, but I’d be careful about labeling peoples writing as ‘too bad to be improved’. Everyone has to start somewhere, and people who are willing to put themselves out there and work with feedback will absolutely improve.

 

I meant to be subjective. Just because I see no way to improve a story doesn't mean someone else won't see a way.

 

I've occasionally not critiqued a story beyond, "Holy, Hel, that's good!"

 

I actively try to critique bad stories from the genre I like, for two simple reasons:
1. Their writers are the ones who need critiques the most.
2. I learned about how I shouldn't write.
Two drones with a flak shell.

 

Deleting a bad story improves it. It frees the writer to write other things, or to pursue other activities of their daily life.
It frees the poor readers even moreso. It reduces the burden on over-stretched agents and publishers. It might save thousands of trees from having to be felled. It could even improve the course of human history.

For argument's sake, Stephenie Meyer. A well-crafted critical comment, delivered to her in the right way and at the right time, could have prevented so many dreadful books.

Provided the critique is based on evidence, and is a critique not a review, it's the writer's job to decide how and if their text can be improved. In the critique they will have useful insight to what they might want to change.
The OP's attitude risks creating a wider implication or suggestion that critics like the text. I say critics like the truth, and critics like Literature.
But they don't like texts, they critique texts.

EDIT: I'd suggest there's a question of priorities, too. There are 600 million novels in print (just in English), with some ridiculous increase every year thanks to widening global literacy and the ability to self-publish online.
Perhaps it's less important for critique to dig out and improve and polish the gems, than it is to train as many people as possible to shovel and sift muck.

 

I've done it, and seen others do it. Not that it matters when everyone
who loves it get all the author's attention, and the rest that are sharing
personal opinions that differ with that, are just haters and not offering
any helpful input from there perspective.
Not that I'm talking about the straight "Your book sucks!" crowd, but
those that point out specific things that they found terrible about the
book, and at times cite those parts in the review to some degree. But you
have to be open to a fair criticism that could show you what could be improved.
Sadly we live in an age where nobody can handle a 'harsh' examination of
their work of artistic merit.
As for me, I know without anyone telling me that my first book has plenty
of issues, but it's still a fun junkfood kinda read even with those issues.
Nor will I do what some authors still do, and defend each terrible book
to the end, cause it's mine. Cause some are good, some are great, some are
meh, and some are just shit.
Don't be afraid to have an honest thought about a book when revving a book.

 

I’m having trouble with the idea of a story so bad it can’t be improved.

If a story is that bad, wouldn’t there be every way to improve it?

 

Yeah, if you threw out the original idea and completely started over. But it wouldn't be the same story, would it?

I'm able to crit stories in genres I don't particularly like, if the story itself has something going for it. But if I think the underlying idea is trash or the execution is impossibly atrocious, it's best I let it alone. Taking my knife to it wouldn't be good for the author's psyche or my moral fibre.

 

Hmm. Yeah, fair enough. Even if the story needs to be scrapped, though, I think I’d still crit. It’s just that my crit would probably be “this is a weak story idea for these reasons.” Like— “this story doesn’t have enough to it,” or “the main character seems to have no goal,” or “the premise of this story doesn’t make sense.”

I think the writer might end up scrapping the story, and sometimes that’s for the best, yeah. Sometimes it’s easier to start over than to fight fix everything.

EDIT: I think the goal of crit is not to improve a specific story, but to explain to the writer what they’re doing wrong so they can improve for future stories. That’s why I think critting an unsalvageable story still has worth.

It’s okay to not crit something, though, if you don’t know how to help with it. Critting someone is doing them a favor. If you can’t offer help, someone else probably can. It’s a group effort.

 

Perhaps my most awful moment as a creative writing teacher was truly struggling to find something positive to say about a poorly written series of cliches that a student turned in for critique. I sought the advice of a more experienced teacher before approaching the student, an older woman who was obviously expecting accolades. In the end, I praised the basic idea and as gently as possible discussed the shortcomings with her. She said, "So basically you're saying I need to do the whole thing over." No way around admitting that was exactly what I was suggesting. Ugh. It was a most uncomfortable experience for all concerned. She later told me she'd had a poem accepted for publication and she'd be traveling to New Orleans to read it for an audience. I was so happy to be able to congratulate her, though I found out later it was one of those scams where the poet pays hundreds of dollars to be included in a chapbook.

Experiences like that make me very, very leery of agreeing to be anyone's beta reader. Too many people just want to be told their work is perfect except for a spelling error here and there. I am grateful for people who are willing to be betas; it isn't a job for the faint of heart.

 

This. Absolutely.

 

I'd rather critique a horrible story written by someone who genuinely wanted to improve their skills than a moderately good one written by someone who thought their skills were already good enough.

The likelihood of me critiquing something is based on 1) how much time I have, 2) how interesting I find the story, 3) my perception of how likely the other person is to benefit from whatever I have to say.

Sometimes #3 might be based entirely on the story if I've had no other communication with whoever wrote it... which I think ties into OP's point. If you're a paragraph or two into something that's a complete mess and you get the distinct impression that the person who wrote it has utterly no idea what a mess it is, why bother? You'd only be putting more effort into their work than they did.

 

No. But as critiquers our goal is less to fix and more to alert the writer when they've flubbed what they're communicating. One thing I love about critiquing is realizing how little things can trip up a reader faster than big things. Not orienting the reader, disguising or withholding unimportant information because it offers misplaced suspense, disjointed dialogue that can add unintentional humor to serious situations.

One novel-in-progress I critiqued years ago was quite difficult because I had to find a way to convey tactfully and with examples how the writer was making her thirty year old businessmen and women sound like teenagers. There were also scenes where the information wasn't dealt out properly - A girl shows up for work - her secretary delivers her coffee, she has a long fight with a co-worker. Secretary appears to deliver a too late message that she is to be somewhere by such-and-such a time which the secretary knew about before the coffee. The delay was a plot machination that didn't fit the logic. I saw this story through several drafts and there was improvement.

I actually find it easier to critique stories that need more work more than polished drafts because the polished drafts might stand out as great on a writing site but maybe they're only formula for the slush pile and there's not a lot by way of understanding why or how to change that.

 

When I see a story that is a bit of a mess, I become happy. Because that means I can actually crit it somewhat confidently, and perhaps help someone actually improve. It's hard to give crits when people are doing good work, you basically just tell them what they've done well and why.

 

Telling people what they did well is neither hard nor useless. It's important to highlight the positives as well as the negatives in a writer's work. Otherwise they would just overcorrect and fix things that aren't broken.

 

I did not mean that it was useless, just a bit difficult for me personally.

 

WOW! I give you credit for your honesty. If it works for you, so be it. Nothing wrong with it bub

 

One of the best pieces of writing advice I ever got was to try the blank page trick. That's when you open a new document and write the story or chapter again without looking at the original. The idea is that you'll remember all the important things and it will be clearer. This person told me what you can and will write will always be better than what you have written. I'm not going to lie. The idea of scrapping everything and doing it all over again is a hard pill to swallow. But it also might be exactly what's needed to really save a story at times.

This isn't something that's just for bad stories. For me, this approach can take a good story to a great story.

 

I'll critique stories that I don't like. For me, criticism of the aspects of a story that didn't work for a reader have helped me the most. I won't avoid critiquing simply to avoid having to say negative things about the work. If I think it's so bad that the only way to proceed is to start over, I'm not opposed to saying so but in my experience that has rarely been the case. Most works I see, at least something can be salvaged.

 

I second that! My stories always come out better when I just stop being lazy with the digital conveniences and start over.

 

As long as you're not being nasty for the sake of being nasty, I think a harsh critique is fine. Otherwise, how will the author learn, but from their mistakes? Some posters have been banned for just being mean to authors, some of whom are very young and inexperienced. We can't all be awesome writers straight out of the blocks.

I would be interested to see some critiques from the OP.

 

I like to think that even an inexperienced or unconfident critic has some specific areas where they can leap in, grateful to find their special interests come in to play. It might be perspective, narrative voice, pacing, mediaeval history.

I feel like that on these forums a lot. My specialism would probably be, "here's where I got confused and zoned out."

I guess the OP specialises in imperial sleep patterns and masturbation. Takes all sorts.

 

Even if I don't care for a story, I try to give honest feedback about what didn't work for me, and why. Typically even a genre I don't care for, can grab my interest if the hook is good enough. And to that characters that make you care.