I think the real issue is the person being reviewed. We don't talk about it a lot but there are two types of people who post work - those who truly want someone to find the flaws they honestly can't see, and those who just want to be told they are the next [insert famous and/or rich author's name]. Ultimately softening a review does a disservice to the person generally interested in improving their work. As to the person just looking for their ego to be stroked? They were never interested in the review anyway so what is the point in softening it? I remember an former member here who asked me to review a piece for him. I gave it a glowing review (I still bought into the "be nice" approach back then). I was probably gentler than I should have been because we were friends. I recieved a PM from him a day later that said, "Yeah that's great and all but my Grandma could have said that." The entire manuscript was covered with red highlights when I sent it back to him two days later. Did I nitpick it to death? Yeah. Do I expect people looking at my work to do the same? Absolutely.
It's very easy to still be encouraging and motivate the person you're helping if you have the right attitude. I once went from participating in a group much like this, for teens, where nearly everyone had a great deal of talent, to working in an elementary classroom with some kids who are not working at the grade level they are in. Never did I use such negative language, and was always able to help them improve. You just have to recognise what their level is and work from there. I really don't understand why so many people think being "soft", as we put it here, means being less honest about how it can be improved. That's the key here. Focusing on ways to improve it instead of what's wrong with it. And rumpy, you are right most of the time, but not always. There are people who genuinely want to improve but don't know how to handle a certain type of blunt review that uses negative language. That's the benefit of "It would be more exciting if . . ." over "It's boring because . . ." if the person truly does want to improve. Anyone who knows me knows that I can handle suggestions, I just have a hard time with certain types of language. It's not what you say. It's how you say it. Look up the opening song of The Producers and you get a perfect example of that.
Many tend to post the first few pages of their first draft and it bugs me... You should post it when you're sure you know where you're going with your story an not because you're looking for reassurance that you're a good writer. Despite this, if you can point out some flaws, go ahead, but there is always a good side to anyone's writing. Saying nice stuff about their work when there is barely anything nice about it should be done. (IMO at least.) Writing is tough. Tough enough without someone completely coming down insensitively and saying "Wow this is a load of youknowwhat." I like what Cogito said about the three-five things they can improve on. Whenever I do give a review, whether on this site or not, I make sure to say something good about their work and I do not lie because there is bound to be something good about it. I agree with Rumpole40k about those seeking reassurance. If I'm reading something I know that person has just written the previous week and wants me to say. "Wow, you're awesome, go publish this" then I definitely close the browser. If someone wants their stuff to be read, it better be that they've worked on it for some time and to the best of their abilities. If not, I will not bash, I will just go write.
Well in my case I don't really like to post an entire story because of legal issues with publishers... ...and I stand by my belief that even incomplete tales deserve reviews, sometimes writers reach a point where a little help can give them an idea for a new direction. Not every draft is going to be perfect. How do we get to a destination? One step at a time, and a MS is achieved one draft at a time.
If you're responding to me, it sounds like you're trying to disagree with me, Jon, but the only thing we disagree on it the choice of words to use and the idea that being positive is less helpful.
I generally write with a clinically detached (or jovial) tone, so that nothing I say is negative or positive, but just factual. (Yet another reason that I try to avoid saying anything that is solely a personal preference, without any basis in fact; it helps to complete the image of calculating efficiency) That can help to ease the blows, while simultaneously allowing me to correct any errors or present any opinions without feeling guilty or discouraging (to an extent) the writer. I would that ALL who want to write would be successful, so I tell them to not give up and other such bleeding-heart things.
I try not to read other people's review before I write mine, so not to get overly influenced by someone's observations...but later I do, to see what I am missing. I don't focus that much on technique or the way it is written. To me the most important thing is that it has to stand out, it has to be something I will remember the next day, and definitely something not common. I've been to a lot of writing boards already and it seems people perfect their writing technique and at the end they all become the same...same style, usage of words, or even imagery. Almost like cloning. So, most of all I appreciate when someone is being original and I will comment on it good or bad...just to further encourage a fresh breeze of air. (I don't know if this was harsh or not)
Sorry... just want to put my two cents in... Personally, I like it when people give me tough reviews, just as long as they are honest. Sometimes I feel like people give harsh reviews just for the sake of "hearing" their own "voice," and not really to help the OP improve their writing. Along those same lines, I feel like people are very quick to judge someones writing and slow to compliment work that deserves positive recognition. Just like how i want to hear about it if I write something that's crap, I would also like to hear about it if I write something that is good. I don't think reviews should be softened. It doesn't do the writer any good to get an ego fluff when they don't deserve one, and it doesn't do the reviewer any good to never give worth-while feedback. That's my tired, 5:00 a.m. input
I think what other have said about how things should be phrased is as far as you need to go. If I feel the review is predominately negative I'll put extra emphasis on what they are doing well and the fact that I am doing my personal best to help them. That's all I want from people to do, tell me what I did well and what I did poorly. I'll proofread manuscripts to death before I send them out so I'm not asking people to spell check for me. And I don't like it when people stick to the fact. I want their opinions and their feelings too, so I do all of these things when I give people review of their work. The biggest insult is to hold something back. Honesty and properly phrasing things is the best way to go about softening things (in my opinion).
I think any review that's fabricated to reflect an inaccurate impression on the part of the reader (even your own "softening" device) is likely to be perfectly transparent once it's delivered, myself. And, if not, it may be reconstituted on the part of the writer (especially a very naive one) as something more or less important than it should be. Reviews are always in some way, shape, or form as much a reflection of the critic as of the story being critiqued. For a review to be useful, there should be some resonance (well beyond either admiration or insult) that comes through to the writer who now has to sort out the politeness and/or the meanness to get to the nugget of truth. I think the only worthy aim of a reviewer is to be accurate, specific, and genuine. My policy is if I feel like I can't be all three (and I very often cannot), then I don't review it at all. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but that's what I aim for, because that's the kind of review I find the most useful, myself.
I don't generally alter a review unless I feel I missed a point. If the story is so atrociously bad as to have nothing in its favor (I've only ever encountered that twice, tbh) I generally ignore it since I feel my time is better spent reviewing stories I feel have a better chance at being published, etc. If the story is amazingly good and I can't think of anything to improve it I generally just send a quite note to say how much I enjoyed it and hope they continue it. I'd rather not make up something so that I sound observant or whatever, but I also feel such amazing writing deserves an acknowledgement. That, and it does encourage that person to write more of it.
I review two different ways. When I review in this forum, I go through the writing work line by line, looking at how the words interreact and how they can fix up the grammar / writing side of things. Then I tell them what I liked and didn't like about the story. I always make sure that I have something positive to say. On my other writing forum, I start by opening with my favorite quotes of the story and really focus on what I liked. I believe that if you tell them everything you liked, they will figure out what you didn't like, and improve from there. . Then you never have to feel mean! (Of course-I'm always sure to whip them into shape with the story angle).
Entitled To A Review? If I were to ascribe to your point (and I will tell you honestly, but respectfully that I do not), that still does not mean that everyone is entitled to a review from me. Believe me when I tell you there are countless writers who unknowingly have a reason for thanks that they have not received a review from me. The reasons are as many and varied as there are writers. A few: 1) They write in a genre with which I am unfamiliar. Anything beyond observational review as a reader and mechanics, etc. is outside my realm for some genres. I learn from every piece I read, but I apply from every piece I review. 2) I may disagree vehemently with the thesis they pose, yet do not want to present a dissenting opinion intra to their work. I would then produce a writing product as a disagreeing response, not a review or critique. These are not, I submit, an appropriate forum for argument with another writer. 3) My reviewing/critiquing time for that particular moment may well be more limited than the work requires, as I see it, for an honest and helpful review. 4) A piece has been submitted 2 days ago, and has 32 reviews. Well, okay. Give the writer some time to absorb what they already have on their plate. When I see such a development as this, I first read the work, then the reviews under it. If I have nothing to bring to the discussion that moves the work forward, I'm just piling on. That, to me is unseemly. It is a waste of my time, and the writer's. When they (the writer) have received significant recommendations, it is incumbent upon me to allow them the time to interact with them, and revise their work to reflect their resulting opinions for their own work. If they repost, and I see it, I may review the new work. That's what it is, after all. I also get an opportunity to measure the integrity of the writer, and the writing. This can be most instructive to my reviewing process. If I spend two hours of my time creating a significant review that is summarily ignored, or argued ad hominem, I will simply add that writer to my list of those I will not review for some time into the future. It's my call. It's not an obligation that I must adhere to. When the perquisites (as I define them) have been met, then I will consider trying my shaky hand at a review. I may or may not do a respectable job, but I can surely do a respectful job with my review--or I should choose to pass on the work. Isn't that a reasonable cause for not reviewing someone's work?
I definitely agree with taking a second to cool down before posting anything written in anger, disgust, or impatience. It's true that some things are so terrible that they are almost infuriating, or just laughable, and it's easy to be cruel about that. But, one thing that helps me, is to think about who the person is. It could be someone very young, inexperienced, or just misguided. They could have had a horrible day. Who knows? I've posted pretty negative stuff on my first impulse, but when I cool down, re-think, and maybe re-read it, I'm able to see things much more clearly, and decide what would be helpful to what kind of person instead of just blowing steam around. I like your attitude on reviews. For some reason, I've always felt protective over my work, and unsure about why others share with other writers so often. But I can see how benefits could be gained from having people that aren't just readers, but are actually reading to find strengths and weaknesses. An intelligent response can really put things in perspective for inexperienced or experiences writers.
Point four is definitely a good one. If several people have already given very in-depth critique, the author would be overwhelmed. But if everyone is just saying "good" or "bad" then it would be a relief to get something other than that with some kind of explanation.
If you have something different to contribute, or notice something you'd like to comment on that has been overlooked- or even just feel like approaching the piece from a different perspective than prior commentators, then adding another review to a piece with many comments is still beneficial to the writer. And it's always worthwhile for the reviewer. And I'm going to disagree with my original post in this thread, at least a little bit. Yes, it's important to share the content of how you felt about their writing, but the way in which you go about expressing your opinion is equally important. Being honest doesn't- and shouldn't- mean being cruel or discouraging.
I have another point a lot of people probably won't have a problem with . Being too nice. That's right, sugar-coating usually isn't helpful. Just being considerate, but don't overdo it. Personally, if someone is super-nice and fawning over a piece, especially if I myself don't believe it's awesome, it just makes me feel that person is being dishonest or just trying to be nice. Think "Paula Abdul" from American Idol. Sure, she's nice and pretty, but is she helpful? Or is it Simon who is actually more realistic, even though he should really be more respectful about it? That's right, I think if you feel you have something valuable to say, then say it no matter who said what, or how many people have posted. I just don't like being repetitive, and sometimes if there is already a lot of critique, then I might just read the piece and say "Good job" or nothing if I didn't think it was good, or comment that I like a character, something that's less of a critique and more of a comment or observation.
No. If my writing sucks or something just doesn't work then I would want to know. After all, those are usually the most honest and best reviews. Usually. It's not like I am out to be blatantly rude or anything but I believe in telling it how it is. Best, Whiskey
They're only "the most honest and best reviews" if that reader believes your writing "sucks" or "doesn't work." A story that's enjoyed by a reader deserves some indication that the story is enjoyable, and maybe why so, if the reader's able to identify that aspect. Most stories I read here and elsewhere have some evidence of the passion that compelled them to begin with. But often, it's more difficult to address that because the reviewer is a novice at determining what accounts for that quality or because there still are many deficiencies that interfere with aspects the reader just isn't equipped yet to sort out. It's also true that an exceptionally good story has less to improve upon than one that has glaring problems, and I'm with you in tending to ignore empty praise in favor of acknowledging harsh criticism. But I also believe there is potential usefulness in knowing what has, in fact, been done well or simply what's captured the imagination or interest of the reader. Incidentally, this is equally true of published, award-winning stories. There is always (always) difference of opinion, if not frank debate over even the best of the best. In my experience, both praise and criticism can be entirely misleading to a given writer. It's imperative writers learn to make their own way through the comments they receive (whether from an editor, a critic, a workshop participant, or simply from a reader). And that includes the good, the bad, the ugly, and the empty.
Of course. But like it worked during football and works in the Army, if I'm not getting yelled at I'm doing it right. I write what I believe 'works' and when someone picks something out that doesn't work I now can compare the parts that did or didn't. Destroy my work, what's left I will consider to be done "right", the rest I'll fix. What I said was in direct response to the OPs question. Best, Whiskey
As long are you are honest and tactful, you should be ok. No softening necessary. There is a difference between, "I had a hard time believing that X_character would do Y and Z" and "Wow, this character is a dumbass." The golden rule always applies. As a writer, I don't want anything sugar-coated. It does not help me in the least. That said . . . When people let their bias and personal preferences get in the way of good critiquing (i.e. I wrote a story in 2nd person once and half the group said, "well, I hate 2nd person in general, so....") that doesn't help me. I'll tend to ignore those comments if I know I'm writing against someone's preference and they're letting it get in the way of being objective.
If you have read any of my critiques, you know I pull no punches. (I have, at times, been castigated this but I refuse to soft pedal or overstate my reviews of any writing piece. I'd be cheating myself and the author.) But I also try to point out what is good and positive in a piece and what areas may have problems or needs to be discarded. On a few rare occasions, I have been known to tell a writer they need to scrap the whole excerpt and start over with the concept. I then will tell them why I believe this is so. Even more rarely, I may tell a writer, essentially, "don't quit your day job." I try to do it as nicely as possible, recommending they do a little more research and study on sentence construction and creative writing, but the end point is the same. Even in those cases, knowing I may be dealing with a young person trying their wings for the first time (And who could develop into an outstanding author some day), I try to find something positive to encourage them. You don't do anyone any favors if you can't be honest with your reactions to their work. If you think it sucks - say so. But be sure to explain why. And do it as kindly as you can. You don't want to encourage poor or sloppy writing but you don't want to crush potentially good writers, either. On the flip side, if you see something that really works well, be sure to try to explain why. To have someone say "This is good," (or not) means nothing if the writer does not understand what makes it work (or not). Helping a writer find his own yardstick will enable him to be able to measure the quality of his own writing - or at least his progress as a writer. That's the long answer. The short answer? NO. Best critique I ever got? A Beta reader recently told me, "For the first few pages, I kept trying to imagine what you were thinking while you were writing. After that, I just got lost in the story and forgot it was you."
Contains Strong Word(s) I'm still new here and trying to learn all I can. I have reviewed a piece or two here, but my many more years in being involved with banjo playing reviews really has some similarities I can draw from. After all, reviewing something creative is more or less what I see in the Review forums here..... A Quick Analogy: I mainly wish to type about one example. It's simple. I have seen posts to inspiring musicians that proudly posted their MP3s ONLY to be told "Man, that really SUCKED!" - And that was it, a FULL REVIEW! Now I have yet to read anything like that on this site, but it still baffles me how some people can be so cruel and not say a darn thing to help a person perfect their creativity. Back to the Thread Subject: If I was to post some writing that I was proud enough to share here, and was braced for all of the pointers to fix my mistakes, well it surely would do me no good to read "That really sucked!" as a full review. And believe me, on OTHER creative sites that sort of thing goes on. So far I have not seen that happen on this site, and I really hope it does not go on here. Otherwise it's a big help to have a more experienced person point out all the mistakes they may find in writings/stories. I just hope when I finally get around to posting something of my own it's reviewed fairly, just like anybody else on this site would. I do not feel the need to be burned at the stake for the help I seek in my attempts at improving my writing skills. Ah, I guess I fear rejection too much and I realize I have to get over that if I am ever going to be able to improve my writing skills at all. A most interesting thread indeed. Terry
