I try to express where the "static" is; where I got kicked out of the mood, bumped from the thought, extracted from the story. If I can;t get into it at all i try to explain what it is that is creating the barrier. Occasionally I have to use examples and suggest other ways to write it, like breaking up a sentence. It's always in the back of my mind not to give the so much critique that they'll become distressed and feel that thay are completely off the mark. In my book, they picked up the pen and wrote - that alone is worthy of encouragement. Adding to that I have to say that I don't feel I have enough weight, as a random opinion on an online writing forum, to change a writer's voice. All I can do is express how the piece read to me and try to be kind about it.
OP, thank you for creating this thread. I haven't done any rewriting here, but I tend to do that with what people hand me as an English tutor in college. I joined recently, and I think I remember seeing that there's a forum rule against it. Which is just as well. Anyway, this is a great reminder: critiquing should be about bringing out the author's own voice and style, not replacing it. The way I see it, the whole point is to make the story better in terms of what it's trying to be, not to make it something else entirely.
I'll be honest, I don't do as many critiques as I should because so many times people don't like the things I say. I'm one of those types of people that really doesn't like making other people mad. I know you are laughing right now because you think I'm a pain in the ass most of the time, but that is all in fun. When I start critiquing someone's 'baby' that is totally different. At that point it becomes personal.
I think that the point of critique is to point things out to the author, that the author decides what to do with. In particular, perceptions of problems. I think that's more important than providing solutions, which is often best left up to the author.
Is the issue really with those who critique or is it with the receiver? In your mind, you're thinking one way. In my mind, I'm receiving it another way. In someone else's mind, they're receiving a critique from a whole different angle. The beauty about a critique is that you get to receive the meld of the minds. You can jostle all these great ideas and spin them and toss them ever which way you want. You can slide an idea in here, one in there, then take your hands and slap that puppy together and flatten it like a sandwich. See, you the writer, have CHOICES you wouldn't otherwise have if you never received a critique. Some ol' boy who can't critique worth a lick just might throw in a tiny wrapped present that you hadn't thought about unwrapping. Even the worse critique can reveal startling revelations about our writing. The other beautiful part about critiques is this: If you don't like one or several that you've received, you can slip that bad boy under the rug, or throw it in the trash can when no one is looking and no one will be the wiser for it. But here is the most important thing of all about a critique. You get to choose what you will use and what you will "not" use and no one will ever know the difference. People won't get their feelings hurt because you didn't use their suggestions. You get to pick and choose and move on. What's better than that? You are being stymied by people taking liberty with your work. It isn't published yet. So, who's harmed? Their remarks won't be published. And your name certainly won't be at the end of their ramblings. I'd like to kindly remind you to take your feelings off your sleeves and use your God-given right to trash what you can't or won't use. Save that stored energy you have for a battle you can win. 'Cause you ain't never gonna get anyone to write the critique you really want. Ever. My take on it. Hope some of that gave you insight into what's really important.
What I have learned about being the critique is this: Don't defend yourself Just listen, Take their criticisms to heart, See what they mean, Learn, Experience, don't argue with someone Clarify, And do not be rude to people As someone who is critiquing someone else: Don't insult them Don't yell at them Don't assume you are better, Don't hate them Do not insinutate they can't speak your language Don't assume, Do not ask half baked questions Avoid Fallacies Do not attack people Thats a few things. Critique in general is to make someone's craft better, to give them tips to grow and exceed. It is to point out their intial bias and show them a different way of thinking, to look at something in a different light. Our job as someone who critiques someones work is to give them the tools to know what to do, and to help excel their craft. That is the point of critique. We are not here to make them a better person. Overall I do wish some people had better critiquing skills, and knew the basic rules of talking to people. There are some people who criticize all day, but that doesn't mean they are any good at it. And someone who gets critiqued it is up to you whether you are willing to listen to them or not.
I get confused over the 'offering a solution' bit. I see in the guide stickied in this sub-forum it says a good critique doesn't just point out a problem, it also recommends a solution. I've seen others say you shouldn't rewrite the author's work. But how better to show a suggested solution than to write it? Pointing out a problem: "The flow would improve if you tightened your writing." Solution: "Remove unnecessary words." Uh, not helpful. Clearly, the writer doesn't think they're unnecessary or s/he wouldn't have included them. Solution: "Take this sentence, for example - see this rewrite, which loses 14 words without affecting the sentence's message or reducing its impact." Yes, helpful! This is something I struggle with.
First, I think we need to clarify what we mean by "rewriting sentences." In the initial pages of the topic, I took "rewriting sentences" to mean the practice of going through the piece and simply changing sentences, with or without explanation. That's different from pointing out a problem, explaining the problem, and illustrating it with an example. I'm not a fan of rewriting sentences for two reasons. The main one has to do with my philosophy for critiquing--which is that its main purpose is to benefit the critiquer, not the author, by honing editing skills. Rewriting someone else's sentences the way you would does nothing to help you learn what's wrong with a sentence. It's not a transferable skill, because when you go to edit your own work, all the sentences are how you would write them, because you wrote them. Rewriting them the way you would gives you no real benefit. However, that's not to say that you can't give an example of what you mean by a suggestion. If I do this, I always make sure to let the author know that I'm not rewriting his/her sentence, per se, but that I'm just using an example to demonstrate the point I'm trying to make. The second reason is that, by rewriting sentences, you're potentially changing the style of that author's prose to yours. This one's a bit trickier, because sometimes it's tough to distinguish a writer's style from writing "mistakes"--a new writer may use a lot of adverbs because she/he doesn't know how to use them effectively, while a seasoned writer may use a lot of adverbs precisely because she/he knows how to use them effectively. Rewriting a sentence runs the risk of trying to overwrite that author's style. Instead of writing the sentence without the adverbs, you could suggest that you thought there were too many adverbs in the passage. When I did critiques a year ago (really need to get back to doing them) I primarily focused on big-picture issues, pointing out examples of where those issues occurred. Without trying to tell the author how to rewrite it, I liked to suggest strategies of how to go about fixing it rather than exactly what to do to fix it. It's that whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" thing, in essence. I don't want to tell you how to write your story, but I do want to tell you the specific things I think you're doing well and the specific things I think need work. If you're using sentence rewrites strictly as examples of points you're trying to make, I think you're fine. But if your whole critique consists of simply changing sentences, you may want to reconsider your approach. Just my two pennies. Every critiquer is different
I do rewrite bits, mostly paragraphs, occasionally. However, I prefer not to do so as it is a lose-lose situation. If I come up with a bad new version, that's useless. If I come up with a significant improvement, then that prevents the author having the same idea, and it being theirs. IMHO the best strategy is to point out the things that could be improved, explain why, and leave the author to actually do it. I do point out bits of text that I think can be dropped, however.
On further reflection, I think a lot of it is to do with how skilled and experienced the writer is. The more skilled they are, the less I edit because I can see they'll be able to do it themselves once they know there's a problem. But if the piece is littered with basic problems, they probably need more hand-holding. For someone totally new to writing, I don't think "your writing could be tighter if you eliminated redundant words" is going to be useful. I'd take the time to give examples and explain why, in my opinion, tightening it helps the flow. But to a forum veteran? I'd probably just say "you've used qualifiers you don't need" and trust that they could find them.
I can now say something here, as I just got an Alpha critique. Of course it is difficult for the one who wrote all this stuff. You printed your heartblood, made your best effort and still some others don't get it! But if the one doing the critique understands that and doesn't belittle your work, just points out things where they got lost or where stuff you wrote gave them a different idea than what you actually wanted to convey, than that is another kettle of fish entirely. It just means that you have been living in your head too much and the critique helps point out these paragraphs. Then it is, maybe not enjoyable, but certainly more or less easy to put your own feelings aside and look at the offending paragraph from the Alphas POV. And the reader is always right Thank you Julia, my Alpha oh my Alpha, you did that really good!
I agree with you about strategies. Sometimes a little jog of the brain that gets the writer thinking along different lines can do wonders with solving story or writing problems. I know I've been eternally grateful for those little jogs that my betas and critiquers have given me. I'll solve my own problems, but insight from others is always welcome. I do think the re-writing issue isn't so much should you ever rewrite sentences—yes or no, but rather are you attempting to illustrate a point by rewriting? ...or are you just wanting the person you're critiquing to write more like 'you?' We had a couple of 'flash fiction' fans on here a while back who would dive straight in to any critique and start eliminating words. Why? Because they don't like 'too many words.' No adjectives, no adverbs. None. And very little else as well. They were famous for abandoning a critique after a couple of paragraphs as well. They 'got bored.' They completely missed the fact that not everybody wants to read flash fiction, and that slower fiction has been around—and has been popular—a lot longer than they have! That kind of re-writing really annoys me. So does the kind where the critiquer has obviously jumped in and started changing sentences without reading through the whole piece first. And they also often say "and after a few paragraphs, I quit reading." That's okay, I suppose, if the piece is so ridden with SPAG errors that there is no point in continuing. But if not, I think that's the height of unhelpful rudeness. It's just simple courtesy to read through the whole piece if you're going to critique it. Preferably before you start the critique. There might be a surprise you weren't expecting near the end, or perhaps the problems you spotted were worse at the start and improved a lot by the ending. If you really can't be bothered to read the whole thing, just pass it by. A half-arsed critique written by somebody who couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing is not only unhelpful, but insulting.
And once again, someone has summed up my tl;dr posts in a sentence or two. Man, I really have to start learning how to quit rambling and be more concise!
