Taking (and giving) critique: etiquette? (Moved from Look at This!)

[CDarklock]

I've noticed when you swap critiques with people you don't really know, they try re-writing darn near your whole manuscript. Why do they do that?

LOL... I so have the same problem with some critiques. Sometimes I get people who critique with some observation like "what the hell is this, I don't care about swordfights".

Well, do you think maybe you shouldn't read something named "Bladeflash", then?

I mean, I'm just sayin'.

What really chafes my biscuits is when someone makes a critique that's largely unhelpful and somewhat offensive, then complains that you should be grateful they bothered to read your crap in the first place. WTF? Nobody made you read it. If you think it's crap, chances are we're all better off if you stop the second you know that and say "this is crap".

[Smiling Ted]

What really chafes my biscuits is when someone makes a critique that's largely unhelpful and somewhat offensive, then complains that you should be grateful they bothered to read your crap in the first place. WTF? Nobody made you read it. If you think it's crap, chances are we're all better off if you stop the second you know that and say "this is crap".

Hate to say it, old man, but they're right. I say this as someone who's been on both sides of the critique. The only proper response to a critique that YOU'VE requested from someone is...."thank you." Whatever you think of their critique, it represents four hours of their lives that they'll never get back.

[Shweta]

Hate to say it, old man, but they're right. I say this as someone who's been on both sides of the critique. The only proper response to a critique that YOU'VE requested from someone is...."thank you." Whatever you think of their critique, it represents four hours of their lives that they'll never get back.

I'm sort of in between your positions on this one. I don't think you need to be grateful, but it's bad manners not to smile and say thank you. I figure you can be as ungrateful as you like in your own head when someone wastes their time and yours, but if they're trying to help (even if they got it completely wrong) it's rude and counterproductive not to be nice to them.

Now, if they leave you with questions, I figure it's fair enough to ask 'em.

[Smiling Ted]

I'm sort of in between your positions on this one. I don't think you need to be grateful, but it's bad manners not to smile and say thank you. I figure you can be as ungrateful as you like in your own head when someone wastes their time and yours, but if they're trying to help (even if they got it completely wrong) it's rude and counterproductive not to be nice to them.

Now, if they leave you with questions, I figure it's fair enough to ask 'em.

After that lab accident in Bucharest, I swore that I would never try to change what was in someone's head ever again....

But the one doing the critique IS the one doing the favor (aside from the obvious exceptions of paid readers, professors, etc. etc.) and as writers we need to remember that.

And by all means ask questions - that's part of the process.

[Shweta]

After that lab accident in Bucharest, I swore that I would never try to change what was in someone's head ever again....

But the one doing the critique IS the one doing the favor (aside from the obvious exceptions of paid readers, professors, etc. etc.) and as writers we need to remember that.

I do agree. In general. I've seen crits, including on AW (not for my work, my crits here have been awesome and I love everyone who's given me any to pieces) that weren't actually over the line into abusive, but toed it, where the person seemed to have more interest in mouthing off than in helping the OP.

I don't think that's a favor. I do think the appropriate response (unless a crit is actually abusive) is still "thank you :smile:".

[CDarklock]

The only proper response to a critique that YOU'VE requested from someone is...."thank you."

That's true! But when I ask for critique, it ought to go without saying that I want a productive and sensible critique which can be reasonably expected to improve what I've posted.

If your critique is not productive, not sensible, or cannot be reasonably expected to improve what I've posted - then I did not actually request it.

The word "volunteer" does not mean whatever you do is okay. It means whatever you do toward the goal is okay. When I ask for a volunteer to mop my floor and you pee on it, I am not going to thank you for your time and effort.

[Shweta]

The word "volunteer" does not mean whatever you do is okay. It means whatever you do toward the goal is okay. When I ask for a volunteer to mop my floor and you pee on it, I am not going to thank you for your time and effort.

That would be analogous to an abusive critique.
In fact, rather worse than an abusive crit, because even after one of those, you still have your piece. That is, the floor doesn't actually have pee on it :)

In my opinion, crits fall into three categories. Helpful, unhelpful, and abusive. You have a right to express upset/anger about abusive crits. Unhelpful ones, well, say thank you and move on. You can be as annoyed as you like, but if you insult people over it then you're the one who went beyond the line. Helpful ones are gold :)

[CDarklock]

That is, the floor doesn't actually have pee on it

Well, since the floor needed to be mopped anyway, whether the floor has pee on it really isn't that much of an issue. ;)

Unhelpful ones, well, say thank you and move on.

When an unhelpful critique is vague, and I spend half the day trying to demystify what exactly my critic means, and I finally discover that it's an unhelpful critique - isn't wasting that much of my time abusive? Because it seems to me that a line has been crossed.

[Shweta]

When an unhelpful critique is vague, and I spend half the day trying to demystify what exactly my critic means, and I finally discover that it's an unhelpful critique - isn't wasting that much of my time abusive? Because it seems to me that a line has been crossed.

Sounds like you're wasting your time, to me.
IMO, an unhelpful critique is anything that doesn't make you slap your forehead and go "of course! I should have realized that myself!" If you're spending half the day demystifying then I'd say you need to schedule your time differently.
Unless your comments come from Donald Maass or someone.

[Mac H.]

That's true! But when I ask for critique, it ought to go without saying that I want a productive and sensible critique which can be reasonably expected to improve what I've posted.

If your critique is not productive, not sensible, or cannot be reasonably expected to improve what I've posted - then I did not actually request it.

... When I ask for a volunteer to mop my floor and you pee on it, I am not going to thank you for your time and effort.The problem with this is that someone may be honestly trying to help clean your floor, and you are convinced that they are wasting your time.

We've all seen it - someone who is convinced that nobody is giving a sensible and product critique, even though the people are honestly pointing out flaws.

If someone points out a perceived flaw, should they only be thanked if you agree that their perceived flaw is an actual one ? Even if it turns out that their perception is wrong, why not thank them anyway ?

What counts as 'productive'? The old trope about 'you should suggest a way of solving the problem rather than just pointing out the problem' isn't exactly helpful - it is invaluable to find out that readers didn't feel empathy towards a character without having to be told by each reader how to fix the problem.

The only reason to refuse to thank people who offer to help is if they are a nasty saboteur who is deliberately giving you bad advice to attempt to destroy you. Unless you have some reason to think that, leaping to that conclusion would be assuming bad faith.

Even then, courtesy should be given because of who you are.. not because of how helpful the person was.

Mac

[WittyandorIronic]

Phrases like, "Beggars can't be choosers" become cliches for a good reason. They are true. While I understand some of what you are saying, mainly not feeling obligated to follow every bit of advice, I don't agree with the idea of not thanking a critter, or that if you argue with them you are somehow doing them a favor. If you look at the same type of situation, but not about something as personal as writing, I think your logic fails.

Child: "I would like pie, please."
Mother: Mixes dough, rolls out dough, cuts up fruit, assembles pie, bakes pie, cools pie, cuts pie, sets out a piece of pie.
Child: "I didn't want apple pie, I wanted blackberry pie. Besides, blackberry pie is easier to make then apple pie, so I don't know why you would make apple pie in the first place."
Mother: Takes ALL THE FREAKING PIE AWAY YOU DEMANDING LITTLE SNOT...

Sorry for the dramatization, :D, but that is essentially what it boils down to. You want to be assured of a professional, concise, and specific type of critique (or a certain type of pie), then buy one. You want general feedback on a board of strangers who do so out of the kindness of their heart, and you should thank everyone for their time. And we do act gracious for societal reasons, regardless of personal opinion. It is called good manners.

On a possibly more helpful note, if you are having a hard time finding a "reason" to thank someone, then thank them sincerely because doing so will encourage more helpful critters for your future crit requests.

[Queen of Swords]

On a possibly more helpful note, if you are having a hard time finding a "reason" to thank someone, then thank them sincerely because doing so will encourage more helpful critters for your future crit requests.

Outside of just plain decency, here's another reason to thank critiquers : if I'm ever published, I'd like people to recall me and my book in a positive way, and feel that they did something to help me reach that goal. Happy critiquers are more likely to be happy readers who might buy the book. I'd rather they not remember me as someone who argued with them because their crit was not up to my requirements, or as someone who didn't thank them because I thought their crit was stupid.

(Yes, the quality of the book should be what counts most, but there are so many good books out there.)

[ORION]

This is a really interesting post.
I am another author who has been told not to read unagented manuscripts by both my agent and editor. I also have been burned by writers who in conversation have jumped to the conclusion I might at some point "steal" one of their ideas. I have been sent excerpts from writer's work unasked for and I have been put in awkward positions of having to critique work or look like an arrogant published snob.
It is time consuming and mentally challenging to give someone feedback-
When I do critique I am as brutal as my agent and editor are to me. Nothing more, nothing less. You can be the most brilliant writer in the world and if you are put off by ANY criticism unfair or not -- you are not going to survive in publishing.
It is the person who puts their work out there and struggles again and again in the face of negativity who ultimately triumphs.
When someone asks for a critique and is unhappy with what I say -- well, yes -- it is true I could be wrong but the thing is YOU asked for me to look at your work...

Now this is why I attend the Maui retreat. Everyone has pages that everyone critiques. There is a set formula:
What worked FOR ME about the piece and what didn't work FOR ME about the piece.
Karen Joy Fowler is a FABULOUS teacher and if you get a chance to work with her do so-
Again --when you PM or email me excerpts from your work without asking first or knowing me and if for whatever reason I end up giving comments --- it's never because of cruelty or mean spiritedness-- it is honesty. It may feel brutal or unkind to you but it's not the intension...
If you can't take the critique or the possibility of negativity- get out of the fire...

[Queen of Swords]

I have never been offended by someone who thanked me at the same time as they thanked someone who may not have given as good a crit. I have never felt I deserved better than the other person, or that I should be thanked while the other person should be ignored.

ETA : Edited to remove quoted uncivil language.

[CDarklock]

Where do you draw the line between a critique that is helpful, & those that actually do more harm than good?

Attitude.

There should be a climate of mutual respect between author and critic. There is a big difference between "I am not sure this is the best weapon for a joust" and "I hate jousting, why don't you have a gunfight instead?"

I believe every critic should approach the work with an attitude of helpful equality. I am not better than you for writing, and you are not better than me for critiquing. We are colleagues, equals, partners in the same task. I want to make my work better, you want to make my work better, we're on the same level.

If I try to say "what the hell do you know", I'm a jerk. If you try to say "what the hell do you know", you're a jerk. We're not different levels of a hierarchical system. We're the same - you write, I write, we're peers. I should respect you and your opinion, you should respect me and my opinion.

I think whichever party fails to bring proper respect to the table, that person should be properly chastised for the breach of etiquette.

[Dale Emery]

Where do you draw the line between a critique that is helpful, & those that actually do more harm than good?

I try to focus my feedback on:

My response to what I'm reading. Do I like it the story/scene/paragraph? Do I understand what is happening? Do I understand why the characters are doing what they're doing? What feelings do I have as I read this? Where did I stumble? Where did I laugh? Where did I lose my "reader's trance"?
Which specific aspects of the text I'm responding to.
(sometimes) What is it in me that leads me to respond that way to that aspect of the text.I try to phrase my responses as facts about me rather than as facts about the text. "I was confused when I read this sentence" rather than "This sentence is confusing."

I sometimes give ideas about what would make the story work better for me. When I do that, I try to give very specific reasons for the change I'm suggesting, and to relate those reasons to the author's goals for the story/scene/sentence.

But if I can state my response clearly and point clearly to what I'm responding to in the text, most of the time the author can figure out what to do with that feedback.

Dale

[Smiling Ted]

As for Internet critiques vs. real world critiques...I've tried the Internet thing, and I found it to be less than helpful. (Which is unfortunate, because my old writers group is on hiatus.) If you don't have a real bead on who the critic is, their critique doesn't mean too much. I suppose some of y'all Old Regulars on AW might critique one anothers' work effectively, but for the rest of us, it really has to be face to face, I think.

[Dale Emery]

If I could give just one piece of advice to every critic no matter what they critique, that would be it.

I'll see what I can do about that. I have an itch to write an article about feedback and submit it to the writer's magazines.

Dale

[Smiling Ted]

I'll see what I can do about that. I have an itch to write an article about feedback and submit it to the writer's magazines.

Dale

How about this one (http://www.scriptmag.com/earticles/earticle.php?423)?

[Daimeera]

If I could give just one piece of advice to every critic no matter what they critique, that would be it. If everyone followed that one rule, the vast majority of critique would become productive.


But isn't the "I find" or "I feel" implicit in the critique? It saves precious time NOT to type those things for every comment. When I critique (and admittedly, I don't do it enough), I assume the writer knows they're my opinions, so why should I continually qualify them as such?

Just as when receiving a critique, if I saw "this sentence is confusing," I would automatically qualify it with "my reader thought that this sentence is confusing." Isn't the constant repetition of "I think, I feel, I believe" a bit unnecessary?

[eqb]

How about this one (http://www.scriptmag.com/earticles/earticle.php?423)?

Good article.

Most of the time, I get feedback from a limited set of trusted readers--some of them writers, and some of them not. But every so often, I try to get a wider range of feedback from strangers. Part of that's to keep me honest. Using the same set of readers all the time can lead to blind spots. Partly, I'm trying to gauge what kind of readers will connect with my writing, and what kind won't. That gives me a chance to see how (or if) I want to make my work more appealing to a wider audience.

[CDarklock]

But isn't the "I find" or "I feel" implicit in the critique?

Consider the difference in how these two statements feel:

"You should never do this."

"I think you should never do this."

Common courtesy should dictate the latter. Admit the possibility that you are not God's gift to writers, and your words do not come from a burning bush. Approach the critique not as an authority laying down law, but as a colleague making helpful suggestions.

If you subscribe to the 1970s pop psychology theory found in "I'm OK, You're OK", prefer an adult-adult exchange to a parent-child exchange.

[stormie]

Consider the difference in how these two statements feel:

"You should never do this."

"I think you should never do this."

Common courtesy should dictate the latter.

That's interesting. I've always been of the mind-set that whenever you write an opinion, whether it's a letter to the editor, a critique, or a conversational essay, there is no need to insert "I feel" or "I think." It's already assumed. Yet now that I read the above from CDarklock, I realize that when critiquing, it's nice to put the words I feel or I think.

[Nateskate]

Outside of just plain decency, here's another reason to thank critiquers : if I'm ever published, I'd like people to recall me and my book in a positive way, and feel that they did something to help me reach that goal. Happy critiquers are more likely to be happy readers who might buy the book. I'd rather they not remember me as someone who argued with them because their crit was not up to my requirements, or as someone who didn't thank them because I thought their crit was stupid.

(Yes, the quality of the book should be what counts most, but there are so many good books out there.)

I'm used to people being unappreciative to me, but in all honesty, people have impacted my work for the better, and I'm deeply thankful. If someone takes the time to read and comment, they deserve appreciation.

[Dale Emery]

But isn't the "I find" or "I feel" implicit in the critique? It saves precious time NOT to type those things for every comment. When I critique (and admittedly, I don't do it enough), I assume the writer knows they're my opinions, so why should I continually qualify them as such?

Just as when receiving a critique, if I saw "this sentence is confusing," I would automatically qualify it with "my reader thought that this sentence is confusing." Isn't the constant repetition of "I think, I feel, I believe" a bit unnecessary?

If "I think" and "I feel" are just prefaces, then they're unnecessary.

That's not what I'm trying to say. "I think the sentence is confusing" means essentially the same thing as "The sentence is confusing." Even with "I think" in front, it's really a statement about the sentence.

"I was confused when I read this sentence" is not a statement about the sentence. It's a statement primarily about me, and also about my relationship to the sentence.

Imagine two people talking about a book they've both read. One says, "That book sucked!" The other says, "That was a great book!" They both seem to be statements about the book. But they can't both be true. A book can't both suck and be great.

So what are the statements really about? Though on the surface they seem to be about the book, they're really statements about those two readers, their responses to the book, and their preferences.

Now imagine two other people who have read the book. One says, "I loved that book!" The other says, "I hated it!" What I like about these versions is that they're clearly about the readers, and they're clearly about the readers' responses about the book. If that's what all of these statements are really about, then I much prefer the directness of "I loved" and "I hated."

So in my mind, the beauty of the second way of phrasing things is not simply that it's nicer, but also that it's truer.

I am not an authority on whether a sentence is confusing. I do happen to be the world's leading expert on whether I'm confused.

Dale

[Smiling Ted]

Smiling Ted, that is some really useful advice. The article was great.

Donnette Smith
Author of Lady Gabriella
www.freewebs.com/romanceauthor
www.myspace.com/storycreater

Glad to help!

[Shweta]

So this was a derail of the "Look at this! (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95968)" thread, but it's been turning into an interesting discussion of what we should keep in mind when taking, or giving, critique.

I'd like to make one comment and one respect/notice, then I'm reopening the thread, and I hope the discussion thrives.


COMMENT: If you post to Share Your Work, you are asking people for critique. Not by name, sure, but the obligation is on your part, not theirs, and you don't get to waltz in and claim that it's not. (Yes, CDarklock expressed this belief in this thread, but I'm not only addressing him. People say this sort of thing on and off :))
So I'd say thoughts on etiquette should be interpreted accordingly, and that you owe anybody who posts a (non-abusive) crit a "thank you" at the very least. That's a simple aspect of respecting your fellow writer (and their time). Your response says worlds about you, not about your critiquer; and you have to own your words, especially in an internet community, where they'll be sitting there for everyone to see forever after.

What you do with the crit is up to you, and if it's not useful, well, there is always the handy ignore button. And if a critique is abusive, of course, it should be reported.

Anecdote: In an in-person critique group, somebody once red-penned a piece of mine and added clunkiness and cliche all over the place. I smiled and said thank you. I did. Because AW taught me that that's what you do if you ever want to be considered a professional. But guess what I'm gonna do with the crit? :D

NOTICE: Speaking of owning your words, certain posters have come quite close to the respect line in this thread. I urge everyone to look back over their own posts and edit accordingly. Come midnight my time, I'll be deleting any posts that contain insulting language aimed at other writers, named or unnamed.

'kay. Carry on :)

[drachin8]

What really chafes my biscuits is when someone makes a critique that's largely unhelpful and somewhat offensive, then complains that you should be grateful they bothered to read your crap in the first place. WTF? Nobody made you read it. If you think it's crap, chances are we're all better off if you stop the second you know that and say "this is crap".

Defining a crit as "unhelpful" is a very personal decision. What is unhelpful to one may be extremely helpful for somebody else. Critters cannot read the minds of the people they are critting and see exactly what that recipient will find useful, so they simply put what they can into their crits and hope that something in it will help. To refuse gratitude because somebody tried their best to help and failed to meet the recipient's standards just seems somewhat impolite to me.

Sometimes critters give advice that doesn't work for a story. Sometimes critters give advice that flies in the rules of grammar. But I find on AW's SYW forums that advice such as that tends to draw in other critters wanting to show another opinion or gently correct the potential issue. And even critters learn from their critting, helping to build stronger future critters, which is better for the community as a whole.

I know you are taking the short term view of SYW as something in which you must put in as little effort as possible to gain as much profit, and that is fine if it works for you. But understand that others are looking at it as a long-term community project and would rather everyone encouraged writers to crit, even if their crits may fall short of a recipient's standards, because that writer will learn so much about their own writing as they learn how to dissect the writing of others.

Anyway, I have to go, but just something to think about.


-Michelle

[dempsey]

IMPORTANT: Every time I say "you" I mean a non-specific "you" in this. We really need more pronouns. The non-specific second person and the gender-neutral third person.

Right. Onto the meat of it. Three things.

one - "I think X" versus "X"

A critique is inherently an opinion. If you have a difficult time of receiving criticism without the padding reminder that this is someone else's opinion, I might suggest getting a thicker skin.

Really, what's the logical difference between "I think your prose is flat" and "Your prose is flat"? It's sheerly an emotional response and one you have no room for when killing your darlings.

two - this one doesn't get a heading... oh wait.

Awesome article, Ted.

three - why should you be nice to every critter?

Good blog post by Nathan Bransford (http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/) about this topic. A lot of people here are published writers. Some of them may even be publishing in the same circle(s) you wish to publish in or are publishing in. Publishing is hard enough. Why add to it by being a jerk about the incompetent critiques you get?

Although I do understand the persistent need to let somebody know their opinion is misguided. After all, Duty Calls (http://xkcd.com/386/).

[nybx4life]

Well, you have to at least BE THANKFUL that the other guy even bothered at all to look at your work to critique, as other people said.

But yeah, it sucks when the person who's critiquing it isn't that great at it:(
I mean, I can't complain though. I'd be one of those people who'll be giving generalized critiques, unable to go specific and point out what's wrong.

I guess though, critiques are just what you can say "in-depth opinions" of others. You ask for it, and you get it.

[girlyswot]

IMPORTANT: Every time I say "you" I mean a non-specific "you" in this. We really need more pronouns. The non-specific second person and the gender-neutral third person.


We have a pronoun that does exactly what you want: 'one'. The problem is, one really has to be the Queen to get away with using it. ;)


one - "I think X" versus "X"

A critique is inherently an opinion. If you have a difficult time of receiving criticism without the padding reminder that this is someone else's opinion, I might suggest getting a thicker skin.

Really, what's the logical difference between "I think your prose is flat" and "Your prose is flat"? It's sheerly an emotional response and one you have no room for when killing your darlings.

I think (LOL) Dale's point is more subtle than that and his explanation was very helpful. He is trying to shape his critiques in the form of his responses to the writing: "I was confused" is very different from "The sentence is confusing". "I wasn't engaged by the writing" isn't the same as "The writing isn't engaging". It's about recognising that writing elicits different responses from the reader based on a number of factors, many of which are out of the author's control.

[dempsey]

I agree about "one" :) And I never have claimed -- nor will I ever claim -- to be subtle :)

I will disagree on this:

"The writing isn't engaging" vs "I wasn't engaged by the writing"

Same thing. Because, in the critique it is obvious that the critter wasn't engaged by the writing by saying "The writing wasn't engaging." I personally don't care much for Tolkein's writing style (yes, blasphemy, heresy, I know) and often say "The writing is just too much. It goes on describing things for far too long, things I really don't care about." And it's my opinion. I can say "The writing is awful" until I'm blue in the face. Doesn't make it actually bad. It just wasn't my personal flavour.

Writing isn't Newtonian physics. There is no absolute correct answer. There's only your answer, and how popular your answer is :)

ETA: I'm pretty cold and callus, I'm aware. But I never seek to be hurtful or mean in my critiques. I just like to get to the point.

[Shweta]

We have a pronoun that does exactly what you want: 'one'. The problem is, one really has to be the Queen to get away with using it.

Really? One thought one only had to be the Queen to refer to oneself as One. One thought everyone could use one as the generic third-person pronoun, at least if one had any British or academic credentials at all :D


I think (LOL) Dale's point is more subtle than that and his explanation was very helpful. He is trying to shape his critiques in the form of his responses to the writing: "I was confused" is very different from "The sentence is confusing". "I wasn't engaged by the writing" isn't the same as "The writing isn't engaging".

I think you're totally right. So here's the three-way distinction:

1) I was bored.
2) This is boring.
3) I think this is boring.

(1) is really talking about the experience of reading. (2) is making claims about the story. (3) is making claims about the story, while hedging so as to avoid offense. (1) and (3) might well be totally true statements, but their focus is different. (2) is something nobody has the authority to say, so we generally assume that when anybody says (2) they mean (3).

And that, ladies and gents, is my magic trick for the day. Now, which number is the egg actually under?

[Dale Emery]

I think (LOL) Dale's point is more subtle than that and his explanation was very helpful.

Perhaps I'm explaining it too subtly, so let me try to be clearer:

I recommend against adding "I think" or "I feel" to the front of a judgment of the writing.

I recommend dropping the judgment altogether, and instead wording feedback to distinguish clearly among (1) observable features of the text, (2) your responses to those features, and (3) the effects you believe those features might have on readers.

Dale

[Riley]

Well, here's my stupid stance on the entire thing. I have my own little "rules" that I follow when receiving critiques (I have another for giving, but it seemed irrelevant to post it here):

1. As far as the world is concerned, you suck
2. You're not like Rowling, Jordan, Tolkein, or any of those other people, so shut it
3. Critiquers are doing you a favor, so try not to get huffy
4. If you can't think of anything nice to say, smile, say thank you, then walk away
5. Reciprocity and timeliness counts
6. Retaliation is futile, and you will receive the smackdown
7. Know grammar and vocabulary (at least mostly)
8. The art is in the words, not the text
9. Critiquers are not a replacement for your therapist or mother
10. Don't brag about the possibility of your "masterpiece" being published; asking for input on its saleability is fine
11. Don't be a jerk, especially to a published critiquer. No, EVER.

I recommend against adding "I think" or "I feel" to the front of a judgment of the writing.

I think (stop laughing) that these prefaces are important, but not all the time. Adding "I think", "In my opinion", etc. are polite ways of softening the impact of your words. Other additives help, too, if you think what you're about to say might be a little harsh.

For example, "The writing was dry and made my head ache."

As opposed to, "In my opinion, the writing was dry and I'm afraid it left me with quite a headache."

When you add spaces between "words of impact", you soften the blow. Here, it might not be as necessary, I'll admit. But if you go out and critique other people, it might be necessary. A site I used to frequent had many, many younger users (think between 9 and 13) who would often be hurt with direct statements. I know that if you can't handle a critique you shouldn't ask for one, but for cripes sakes, they were children!

I recommend dropping the judgment altogether, and instead wording feedback to distinguish clearly among (1) observable features of the text, (2) your responses to those features, and (3) the effects you believe those features might have on readers.

I agree with you here, Dale, except for the fact that you're kind of imposing a judgement on a piece when you critique it. I'm not saying its the word of dog, but when you're critquing, you're essentially bestowing a judgement of the work's various merits.

And because the writing reflects on the writer, you are, in a very roundabout way, bestowing judgement on the writer. On her opinions, characterization, tone, etc. That to me is another argument for occasionally diluting a critique, but what can I say? I think your little list is something we can all keep in mind, though, because it's a pretty smart one.

A critique is inherently an opinion. If you have a difficult time of receiving criticism without the padding reminder that this is someone else's opinion, I might suggest getting a thicker skin.

Good point, Dempsey. If you can't handle criticism, it'll be impossible for you to go very far as a writer. However, when you've really taken the red pen to something, it's nice to have a smide of padding. It does help to remember that an opinion is an opinion, though. Takes the sting out of a particularly thorough critique.

Though if you suspect that a writer would be ultra-sensitive to a critique as in-depth as, say, an LbL, do you think that it's a good idea to soften the blow by not being as thorough?

What really chafes my biscuits is when someone makes a critique that's largely unhelpful and somewhat offensive, then complains that you should be grateful they bothered to read your crap in the first place. WTF? Nobody made you read it. If you think it's crap, chances are we're all better off if you stop the second you know that and say "this is crap".

CD, I can sympathize with you here. I've never gotten an unhelpful and/or offensive critique here, but I have in other places. (The most memorable one was where a critiquer suggested I rewrite a rape scene in detail. Answer: most emphatically NO.)

I think the general consensus would be that you should be grateful that someone read your work. Maybe nobody made the critiquer read the work, but the fact is you put it up there and nobody is obligated to touch it. It's sort of like a favor, only not. . . quite. . .--my meaning, are you seeing it? If you never received a critique, I suspect that your biscuits would be chafed because you post something to be critiqued and everybody avoids it.

I don't think anybody is better off if a piece is ignored. It helps critiquer and critiqued alike to have a work read over and corrected. I don't know about you, but I've learned a lot from the SYW. My writing has becomes loads better since I found AW and SYW.




I don't know if anyone will pay attention to the long post that is long, but what is your guys' opinion on repping someone who has critiqued your work? I do it because it seems like an extra internet cookie for the person repped. Do you think it's part of etiquette? Not a necessary part, just a nice part?

[girlyswot]

8. The art is in the words, not the text


What did you mean by this?


Though if you suspect that a writer would be ultra-sensitive to a critique as in-depth as, say, an LbL, do you think that it's a good idea to soften the blow by not being as thorough?

Yes. I always try to gauge how much critique the author is likely to be able to hear and deal with the most important issues, which often means not mentioning everything. If it's someone who's posting for the first time on SYW and there are serious issues with the concept of the piece, I'll crit on those but not mention every grammatical issue. If it's someone whose work is generally good, I'm much more likely to give a detailed line crit. If it's someone I know finds it hard to take criticism, then generally I just pick one thing that I think would improve the piece and point that out.

It seems to me that there is no point talking unless someone is listening. If I get a positive response to my crit, then I might take it a little further. But I'd rather give one criticism that the author takes on board than a whole catalogue that get ignored because they were overwhelming.

I don't know if anyone will pay attention to the long post that is long, but what is your guys' opinion on repping someone who has critiqued your work? I do it because it seems like an extra internet cookie for the person repped. Do you think it's part of etiquette? Not a necessary part, just a nice part?

I always rep for a crit. I don't think anyone is obliged to read my work or put in the time and effort it takes to give a crit. Everyone here has other stuff they could be doing - especially the best critiquers, who are generally the best writers who could be working on their own stuff. So I always post a thank you in the thread and give reps. It doesn't cost me anything.

[Riley]

What did you mean by this?

8. The art is in the words, not the text

What I meant Girly, is that the art is in how characters interact, how images are formed, etc, nOt l iKE D'is b/c tHiS IS not--ARGHT. I used to have major problems with that and got huffy whenever somebody called me out on it. Apparently, I had illusions of being the next ee cummings.


I always rep for a crit. I don't think anyone is obliged to read my work or put in the time and effort it takes to give a crit. Everyone here has other stuff they could be doing - especially the best critiquers, who are generally the best writers who could be working on their own stuff. So I always post a thank you in the thread and give reps. It doesn't cost me anything.


I feel the same way.

[Dale Emery]

I agree with you here, Dale, except for the fact that you're kind of imposing a judgement on a piece when you critique it.

I agree. I've been a little sloppy with my use of the term judgment.

I see a judgment as a statement about the relationship between the judge and the judged. I think that's always the case.

So I'm recommending not against judgment per se, but against judgment expressed as if it were a fact about the thing being judged, as if it were a fact about the inherent merit or worth of the thing being judged, as if merit or lack of it were inherent in the thing itself.

That kind of judgment omits half of the relationship; it omits the key role of the judge in the judgment.

Adding "I think" or "I feel" to the front says so little about what the judge is contributing to the judgment. Sure, it identifies the judge, but that's more or less implied most of the time. I suppose it also signals an intention to soften the blow, so that's worth something.

I'm struggling here to articulate something that has become important to me. All judgment comes from a judge. They arise from the judge's standards and preferences and beliefs and values. To leave those important elements out of the expression of the judgment impoverishes the information, leaving it less meaningful and less actionable.

As for softening the blow... I've found that whenever I feel a need to soften what I'm about to say, then what I'm about to say isn't really what I mean. And my softening techniques don't soften it anyway.

So I try to take my impulse to soften a statement as a signal to rethink what I'm really trying to say. When I find what I really mean, it never needs softening. It's clear, direct, honest, and respectful. That doesn't mean that the person will enjoy hearing it, of course.

Dale

[ACEnders]

So I think there are two kinds of unhelpful critiques -

The critiques that ONLY give you the good things...meaning they aren't critiquing your work at all.

And the critiques that give you ONLY the bad things or things that need to be changed.

I think that when that happens, that's when a writer feels hurt and feels like the persion critiquing his/her work was was attacking him/her.

No, it's not easy to take critiques. And you have to take the bad with a little bit of good.

At the same time, the person doing the critique should make sure to list the positive with the negative.

One of the betas for my first book was excellent. She'd say something like:

"I really love the way you portrayed Emma's feelings, but this doesn't make sense...."

[Shweta]

So I think there are two kinds of unhelpful critiques -

The critiques that ONLY give you the good things...meaning they aren't critiquing your work at all.

And the critiques that give you ONLY the bad things or things that need to be changed.
I'd disagree, actually. I think both those things can be done helpfully or not. They're both frustrating, but they can be helpful.

Helpful good: The strength of this character carries me through the story.
Unhelpful good: OMG this is cool I love it.

Helpful bad: Your pacing falters right near the end, as though you're not sure what you're doing, and that loses my faith as a reader.
Unhelpful bad: This sucks, you suck.

I think that when that happens, that's when a writer feels hurt and feels like the persion critiquing his/her work was was attacking him/her.

I think you're right on that, but it's not always true, so it's our job as writers to figure out which parts of the bad are helpful.

The problem with always tempering the good with the bad (even though I think it's generally a good thing to do as a critiquer) is that we go looking for problems, or looking for lovely things to say, even if we didn't have a problem or didn't like a story as is.

I'd say helpful comments highlight something to fix or something that's not broken so don't fix it.

Unhelpful comments are not aimed at helping the writer.

[ACEnders]

I'd disagree, actually. I think both those things can be done helpfully or not. They're both frustrating, but they can be helpful.

Helpful good: The strength of this character carries me through the story.
Unhelpful good: OMG this is cool I love it.

Helpful bad: Your pacing falters right near the end, as though you're not sure what you're doing, and that loses my faith as a reader.
Unhelpful bad: This sucks, you suck.



I think you're right on that, but it's not always true, so it's our job as writers to figure out which parts of the bad are helpful.

The problem with always tempering the good with the bad (even though I think it's generally a good thing to do as a critiquer) is that we go looking for problems, or looking for lovely things to say, even if we didn't have a problem or didn't like a story as is.

I'd say helpful comments highlight something to fix or something that's not broken so don't fix it.

Unhelpful comments are not aimed at helping the writer.

Hmmm...good points. I amend what I said to include what you said. :) I actually think that was kind of what I was trying to say. Or at least, I know that's what I was thinking. Thanks for clarifying.

[mscelina]

There is mutual responsibility involved in the critique process. The writer who posts his/her work has a responsibility to read the critiques, consider what was said, and to be courteous to the critics who took the time to read and analyze. The critic has a responsibility of being honest about the work, being diplomatic and their assessment, and refraining from inflammatory or derogatory commentary within the body of the critique.

Having said that...

The writing world is inherently harsh. If you guys think critiques are harsh, wait until you get line edits. You'll discover all sorts of grammatical rules you never learned in high school. If you think critiques are harsh, wait until you get a review. Those are even more painful because at that point you can't change your story. The world is full of people who want nothing more than to slash and rip your book. All you have to do for proof of that is take a gander at some of the threads here on AW, where unpublished authors discuss how horrid a published author (Rowling comes to mind) really is.

However, a critique serves a purpose and its purpose is inherently beneficial to the writer. We get, as amazing as this is, another person's honest opinion of our work. It doesn't mean that opinion is 'right'; it means that opinion is a gauge of how our work affected ONE person.

I've gotten crits before that made me literally rip my hair out. The last time I posted on a public forum (I get my crits from a private crit group now) a person I absolutely loathed and despised gave it a critique out of spite. The crit was chock full of personal insults, disparaging comments, and nasty, sneering remarks about my lack of talent, stagnant imagination, blah blah blah.

However, there was also a buried comment about my dialogue tags--soemthing to the effect of 'no agent worth his/her salt would ever pick up an author who uses that many dialogue tags.' Once I got past the smarminess, I took a look at my manuscript and --lo and behold!--the asshat was right! I DID have too many dialogue tags--and bad ones too. So I bit my tongue, thanked him nicely for the crit, and sent him a copy of the book when it was published.

Sans tags, I might add.

A critique is what YOU make it. If, for some reason, you think it helps your writing to whine and complain about the caliber of critiques you receive then so be it. I think, in the end, the karma gods will have the final say about all of that. It's my opinion, however, that there is something of value hidden in almost every critique.

By the same token, if you're going to critique it's your obligation to strive for that kernel of value and to provide as honest an assessment of the work as you possibly can.

And in the long run, if either the writer or the critic is incapable of working in the process without courtesy then they should reevaluate their participation in critiquing at all. Seriously. It is a process of give and take, of mutual respect, and of honest intentions. To enter into it without the ability to perform the standards above is unfair and a waste of time.

If you crit someone, be honest and courteous. If you're submitting for critique, be prepared for honesty and accept your critiques with grace. How hard is it, anyway?

[kct webber]

I'm not against being courteous, but I'm not going out of my way to to say "I think" "I feel" etc. I'm not going out of my way to "redirect the judgement" or whatever. A crit is a judgement about a story. It's my judgement. That's understood--or it should be.

Crits here are not as harsh as what you'll get "in the world" as celina said. If you don't have a thick skin, grow one or get out of the crit boards. It sounds harsh. But so are crits. They just are. They always will be.

I've gotten some harsh crits. Right ones and wrong ones. Thank you for your time, I say. Then take what I need, discard what I don't and go one about my business. Don't argue. It doesn't do any good. Give Rep Points. Say I lurve you guys. By placing your work on the crit boards you are asking for crits. Some of them just may suck. Deal. Thank you! That is all! :rant:

[HorrorWriter]

I'd disagree, actually. I think both those things can be done helpfully or not. They're both frustrating, but they can be helpful.

Helpful good: The strength of this character carries me through the story.
Unhelpful good: OMG this is cool I love it.

Helpful bad: Your pacing falters right near the end, as though you're not sure what you're doing, and that loses my faith as a reader.
Unhelpful bad: This sucks, you suck.



I think you're right on that, but it's not always true, so it's our job as writers to figure out which parts of the bad are helpful.

The problem with always tempering the good with the bad (even though I think it's generally a good thing to do as a critiquer) is that we go looking for problems, or looking for lovely things to say, even if we didn't have a problem or didn't like a story as is.

I'd say helpful comments highlight something to fix or something that's not broken so don't fix it.

Unhelpful comments are not aimed at helping the writer.

I agree, Shweta! :D One of my betas is brutal but she's my best one. She went through the entire book and told me what didn't work and why. She has an awesome agent that doesn't pull any punches with her as well. Some would consider her mean, but I consider her an excellent beta.

[Nateskate]

I try not to take things personally. But I've learned who to avoid over time. If people hate "Fantasy", I'm not inclined to show them my book, so they can add it to the list of things they hate.

My Beta Readers all love the Genre, but as fans, and not as writers. I also consider their schedules, if they have time to sit down and enjoy a read, because that will also impact objectivity.

Now that I have a publisher, I also consider who I can trust to keep the story quiet, since this is a series.

[JeanneTGC]

If you cannot take constructive criticism, nay, if you cannot take criticism at all, perhaps a career in the arts is not for you.

The moment anyone in the arts puts anything "out there", it's subject to criticism -- kind, unkind, eductated, uninformed, etc., you name it, it can and will be criticized. Think I'm exaggerating? Tell me, what did YOU think of the last movie you saw? (Hint: Your response is a critique. :D)

Use "harsh" and "unhelpful" critiques to start growing the very thick skin you'll need when something DOES publish and Entertainment Weekly says, "We have no idea how THIS book got onto the shelves" and gives you an F. (Will it happen? I've seen it. Do I want it to happen to me? No...that's why I'll take harsh critiques -- there may be more useful from someone who wasn't trying to sugar-coat than from someone who was...my PERSONAL opinion, only.)

[mscelina]

Agreed. I find much more use out of a harsh critique than I do a "Oooo, I love it!" critique. Although i'm always pretty stoked when someone gushes over my work, those aren't the crits I sit and stew over in my study. The ones that say, "This character's reactions aren't believable" or "this resolution happens WAY too easily" are the ones that end up helping me the most.

And I'd much rather get those from a crit than from a review later on. Trust me.

[Namatu]

Use "harsh" and "unhelpful" critiques to start growing the very thick skin
And remember that it's one person's opinion, and maybe that opinion isn't suited for you and your story. Not everyone who offers to critique is all that good at it. Look for any possible gold, as Celina noted (awesome, by the way), and discard the rest. It'll sting, but shrug it off and use what you can.

One way I avoid using "I feel" and "I think" is to preface all feedback with "This is all my opinion and, in the end, I expect you to do whatever you want with it."

[Dale Emery]

The ones that say, "This character's reactions aren't believable" or "this resolution happens WAY too easily" are the ones that end up helping me the most.

Do you see those as examples of harsh critique?

Dale

[mscelina]

Not at all. I see those as useful critiques. They can be couched in harsher terms, which I cited examples of earlier. However, I've noticed throughout my time on the web that people who critique their critiques invariably have a problem with criticisms like the ones above--I'm talking about the people who argue with the crit.

Me--"This character's reactions aren't believable."

Them--"What are you talking about? That's exactly how I would react! You're on crack."

Me--"No, I'm not on crack. I'm just saying to TO ME, when I read this, it doesn't work. You might want to think about taking another look at that."

My crit group has worked on a shared world anthology for over two years. Eventually, the project disintegrated--not for lack of interest, but because of the different levels of criticism offered and the reactions to it. You could pretty much draw a line down the middle of the group--published writers on one side and unpublished on the other. The published authors gave the kinds of critiques they were accustomed to receiving to the unpublished authors--and quite a few of the latter resented the crits. *shrug*

Quite obviously, what one side considered 'normal' and 'helpful', the other side considered 'harsh' and 'unfair.'

[kapa]

I don't think there is a formula for this. Some people are more articulate critiquers than others. Good intentions are what matter.
What I aim to do when I critique a MS (upfront: one of the things I do to earn my living is mentoring) is to give the writer a clear picture of what happens to me as I read: how I'm swept along by the story, what my emotional responses to characters and situations are, what I'm expecting next as I reach the end of a chapter, etc. I use the first person but I think this goes beyond the personal: yes, I'm just me, but also I'm a professional writer and an avid reader of literary and suspense fiction, aware of the convetions and possibilities therein.
I also want to reinforce, by praise, sections of writing or plotting that I think are working well, and to point out where things could be stronger - better imagined, or more vividly expressed. When a critique is good, I think, you'll have an aha! feeling about it. www.kathypage.info (http://www.kathypage.info)

[Jade Aldrin]

The only thing I don't like is when someone has an attitude when they critique. It's like they turn on this 'I have to be a bas**rd or bi**ch, let me find that switch'. That's one thing I just absolutely can not stand, is when they are unnecessarily curt.

I got pretty down after a critique on here, but one really does have to toughen up because editors might are most likely tougher.

There is some stuff that a critiquer will point out that I know they just want to fill the post with as much color as possible. Like you leave several words out because readers will draw from conclusion, and everyone who has read it: family, friends; they grasp it fine, but the critiquer claims it's confusing when it really isn't; they just feel like nit-picking.

I will occasionally point out that adding words would make it better or more understandable, but we can draw from conclusions and get a hint so you don't have to.

I try to be nice when I critique. I don't want to hurt peoples feelings, their story is their baby.

[IdiotsRUs]

I try to be nice when I critique. I don't want to hurt peoples feelings, their story is their baby.

Yup, but especially when saying something doesn't work for you

Crit as you would like to be critted. I try and remember that. Sometimes I fail.

[BlueLucario]

ETA: I'm pretty cold and callus, I'm aware. But I never seek to be hurtful or mean in my critiques. I just like to get to the point.

This is why I love you.:D

The only unhelpful crits to me is are the generic ones, like "awesome, great job!" "this is the best"

Hard to tell what crits are acceptable or "overboard" I'm sensitive. I fear harsh feedback, that's why I ask someone to hold my hand before I open the crit.(or I cross my fingers)

I don't mind subtle crits either, just let me know you want to be subtle beforehand if you don't like questions.



The best way to critique is the sandwich crit, just add positive, then negative, then honest to the point, then ways to improve, and finally conclusion.

I have a question for you guys, if the author requests that you don't critique on grammar, do you get offended? Is that insulting to the critter?

[Dale Emery]

I have a question for you guys, if the author requests that you don't critique on grammar, do you get offended? Is that insulting to the critter?

I don't get offended, and it isn't insulting. I think it's always good to say what kinds of feedback you want and what kinds you don't want.

But when someone requests that I not critique on grammar, I immediately suspect that the grammar is a mess. And if the grammar is a mess, that will make it harder for me to read, and harder for me to attend to the features that the author does want feedback on. Bad grammar makes the story harder to review.

That's not insulting, but it is a lot to ask.

I find critiquing to be difficult and time-consuming even with good grammar. So before I critique a story, I want to know that author has taken the work as far as they can on their own. If the author hasn't yet attended to the basics of grammar and spelling, I know they haven't taken it as far as they can.

Dale

[JJ Cooper]

If the author starts putting caveats on what they don't want critiqued, I'll generally skip and move on to the next one.

It's different if they ask for something particular in their story they do want looked at.

JJ

[Smiling Ted]

two - this one doesn't get a heading... oh wait.

Awesome article, Ted.


Thanks!

[Jade Aldrin]

I wouldn't get offended if someone said they didn't want their grammar fixed I'd be like "Phew that's a relief." Depending on what they want critiqued I might skip over it or just give them a simple review.

[kct webber]

I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me not to crit grammer, but like Dale, that simply tells me that the writer has not put everything into it that they could. Some critters don't like to crit soemthing that isn't "finished" but I will. Often, however, when I do, it's going to just be a general overview. I'm not going to put hours into something that the writer hasn't put all his hours into, ya' know?