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

CDarklock said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Smiling Ted said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Shweta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Smiling Ted said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

CDarklock said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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, , 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.

WittyandorIronic said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

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...

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.

Donnettetxgirl said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

CDarklock said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Dale Emery said:

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

Click to expand...

How about this one?

CDarklock said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Smiling Ted said:

How about this one?

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Queen of Swords said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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.

Daimeera said:

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?

Click to expand...

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