How to critique prose when you're new

If you can give reasons why you don't like the voice or the structure, and be clear about those reasons, then it could be a valuable critique for the writer. If all you can say is "I don't like the voice" without giving any more specific feedback, it becomes kind of a personal thing and might not be as useful.

If you can articulate why you don't like those aspects it can be helpful. Say if the writer's voice is like a sleeping pill with long flowery passages that doesn't advance the story, or if the structure is so convoluted you have to read multiple times to understand the work.

I think it's often MORE useful to be critiqued by someone who isn't an expert at it. I write for readers, not for other writers - obviously there's some overlap, but I'm interested in your opinion as a reader, not a writer or an expert.

For me, something as simple as "I didn't like the characters" or "I got bored in the middle" is really useful.

Sometimes it's good to point out flaws with the voice if it's affecting the writing itself in a negative way. Or even if it's a personal thing or you can't seem to find a reason, you could still mention it very politely. That way it could be brushed off and nonoffensive if it's just personal or the writer might take it into consideration and revise.

For structuring, you could point out how the structure affects the flow of the story as you read (could make it confusing, rushed, etc) and try to offer solutions to make the story flow better.

Well, you should actually do a lot of critiques--more than what you get. You're going to take away an incredible amount from it because it takes the perspective away from the story.

This is a list of some things that you can look for:

Repetitions. Once you know what to look for, these are pretty easy to find in most fiction posted for critique. Someone says something, and then half a paragraph later, it gets said again. Or an unusual word gets used too many times. A big repetition word is "looked." I used it eight times on one page, including twice in one paragraph once.

Setting issues. Again easy to find once you know what to look for. Sometimes the story will have the character appear elsewhere without actually going there or walking through the furniture. It's very easy to ignore the setting completely.

Anything you're having trouble with. If you're having trouble with show vs. tell, critique for it to help yourself learn--even if you really don't know too much about it.

Also, resist the party line. There are a lot of times where someone does a prologue, and everyone says, "Get rid of the prologue" or "turn it into chapter one." Or writes in omniscient viewpoint, uses a dream sequence, or flashback. Instead, look at the writing, and if it doesn't work, try to explain why it's not working; if it does work for you, mention that, too. You learn something from that, too, and the writer gets good information.

And remember, you don't need to do a lot. I usually go through and pick out things like repetitions or anything that catches my eye, then give two or three overall things I noticed. Sometimes I provide links if there's something that might be helpful. I would strongly suggest that you do not line edit for grammar, spelling, and punctuation--it's a lot of work, and the writer will not learn from it. Instead, I'll just give them a comment like, "You'll probably get more critiques if you clean up the grammar."

Things I find useful:

If you do this it shouldn't matter how much you've done before.

lots of good advice above...

I find all manner of crits useful. Even a "I didn't like the beginning" is sorta useful.

Of course, more details are nice, but sometimes we dont' quite know why we don't like something. And if enough people say, "I didn't like the beginning" then I know it needs some tweaking.

But I agree with what was said above, especially the need to do crits. I do them more for me than for the writer since the act of DOING crits makes me a better writer.

Mel...

Kate_Sherwood said:

I think it's often MORE useful to be critiqued by someone who isn't an expert at it. I write for readers, not for other writers - obviously there's some overlap, but I'm interested in your opinion as a reader, not a writer or an expert.

For me, something as simple as "I didn't like the characters" or "I got bored in the middle" is really useful.

Click to expand...

Ah, but that's your opinion. I don't find that sort of criticism useful except as a vague hint as to where problems lie. An experienced writer will learn to recognize broad problems and weaknesses like this. Useful criticism is qualified criticism ("I don't like X because Y, Z"), even if it is written in simple language.

How do you interpret something like "I didn't like the characters?" Did the reader not like the characters because they couldn't identify with them? Is the failure to identify the author's or reader's fault? Maybe the reader just doesn't like reading about plucky teenagers, or middle-aged art historians, or (insert character here). Maybe the character was written well and was sympathetic, but the reader didn't sympathize with them because they had a bad experience once with a hair stylist and they just don't trust a man with scissors in his hands.

Unqualified criticism is just as vapid as unqualified praise. It's like giving a child her first taste of some dish and watching her face crumple with displeasure. She can't tell us why--we just know she doesn't like it. That doesn't mean it's bad. All we know is it's not to her taste.

Writing is a bit more complex than this.

I agree that it's good to give a reason...though that being said I can't always explain. Plenty of my crits say things like, "This line isn't working for me. I can't explain why, but something about the wording is awkward" or something like that.

Actually, the most useful thing you can do is to go through, point out what you like and didn't like, and then ask yourself why for each point. I think it's that analysis that helps us start to understand how the structure and everything of writing works and is the reason giving critiques can really improve our own writing as well.

Another choice, if you want to practice, is to critique a piece just on your own, copy it to a Word file, for instance, and then put in all your comments. Then go back and look at what other people have said about the same section. You may not agree with everything, but did they notice things that you didn't? Or maybe something you couldn't explain is explained well by them and you can say, "oooh, I see why that doesn't work now!" Or even if someone disliked something, but you liked it, if you can see why you liked it that helps as well.

I have no problem having a critique done by someone who is new to it. Like others have said, generally speaking having a critique done is going to be helpful no matter what is said. I've seen an occasional crit that has me wondering what the person was smoking lol, but even those can point out something useful that I didn't notice before. They provide a new perspective, and that's valuable for a writer to have.

Good luck!

If you haven't already noticed, a couple of the sticky threads in SYW/Main touch on this, too.

-Derek

Other helpful links on this topic:

Critters Workshop (scroll down to several great crit links)
You Know What Your Problem Is? (things to ask yourself in a crit)

kaitie said:

I agree that it's good to give a reason...though that being said I can't always explain. Plenty of my crits say things like, "This line isn't working for me. I can't explain why, but something about the wording is awkward" or something like that.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I've been giving/receiving online crits for close to two years now, and honestly, these general reader opinions, as I call them, are sometimes the most helpful, especially to those of us who *aren't* new to writing. We already have our style figured out. We already know the basics of grammar, format, punctuation, character development, dialogue... what we need the most is an opinion from someone about whether or not it interests them because that tells us if we're writing something marketable, not just readable. And we should be knowledgeable enough at this point, to understand that if a reader doesn't like it, that's not always something they can explain, and then it is up to us to fine tune it. C'mon, guys, we're writers. It's our job to fix our own work, not the reader's.

Seriously. We don't all need to have our hands held through a detailed line edit. And most of the time, those are still ninety percent opinion-based as well, especially if it's done by someone who is just starting out and doesn't really know the difference. Those of us who have been doing this for a while do know the difference, and a "yes, I loved this" or a "no, I hated this" is worth far more than some here are giving it credit for.

This is also one of the reasons why it is so important to preface your "work to be critted" with what exactly you're looking for in a critique, and a general idea of your current writing level. If you don't, you are setting yourself up for unnecessary frustration.

Lydia Sharp said:

I agree with this. I've been giving/receiving online crits for close to two years now...

Click to expand...

Phew... Only two years? I've been giving/receiving online crits for close to two years AND a month!


But yeah, I absolutely agree with everything said. And, be civil.

It's tough enough to read a critique comments, let alone one in all caps, for instance. (That's like someone yelling at me for being dumb.)

I once read a critique and got really upset. Then I realize it was the font. Once I cut&pasted and changed to the usual forum font, the comments didn't seem so painful.

Hah, I wasn't trying to berate you for not reading them -- I was just pointing you to them in case you hadn't seen them.

-Derek

Personal taste is an important part of a crit. You may not be an accomplished writer, but you are a reader. People write things for people to read. I can't bake cakes, but I'd give my opinion if I ate a shitty one. Doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

I wouldn't, however, be able to tell the cook of said shitty cake how to bake it better next time. But at least they'd know that something isn't right.

Leah Raeder said:

Ah, but that's your opinion. I don't find that sort of criticism useful except as a vague hint as to where problems lie. An experienced writer will learn to recognize broad problems and weaknesses like this. Useful criticism is qualified criticism ("I don't like X because Y, Z"), even if it is written in simple language.

How do you interpret something like "I didn't like the characters?" Did the reader not like the characters because they couldn't identify with them? Is the failure to identify the author's or reader's fault? Maybe the reader just doesn't like reading about plucky teenagers, or middle-aged art historians, or (insert character here). Maybe the character was written well and was sympathetic, but the reader didn't sympathize with them because they had a bad experience once with a hair stylist and they just don't trust a man with scissors in his hands.

Unqualified criticism is just as vapid as unqualified praise. It's like giving a child her first taste of some dish and watching her face crumple with displeasure. She can't tell us why--we just know she doesn't like it. That doesn't mean it's bad. All we know is it's not to her taste.

Writing is a bit more complex than this.

Click to expand...

Well, obviously it's my opinion...everyone's post is their opinion...no?

I think sometimes writers get carried away with their critiques, so that they're essentially rewriting someone else's work in their own style. That's not what critiques are for, in my opinion. I think every critique has to be read with critical eyes - even if a person justifies it extensively, it might still not fit with the author's goals.

So, okay, criticism should be qualified in order to be useful, but I don't think it needs to be too heavily qualified. For example, 'I don't like your story' isn't too useful, but, to me, 'I don't like your story because I don't like the characters' IS useful. It's not necessarily the critiquer's job to sort through and analyze every detail of what's wrong with the characters, and I think that can often turn into the sort of re-write that I mentioned being leery of. If the reader has reasons or explanations, great, but if s/he doesn't, I don't think it makes their gut reaction useless to the author.