Becoming a better critiquer

Status
Not open for further replies.

scheherazade

Human
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
300
Reaction score
25
Location
Toronto
I've never been good at giving in-person critiques. Unless a piece has obvious technical flaws or is dazzlingly brilliant, I find it difficult knowing what to say about the work, other than commenting on the elements I enjoyed. I find it particularly difficult telling strong writers what they can improve.

Not sure if this is due to the way I process information? This problem doesn't plague me as much when I've taken online writing workshops, but only because I have the time to give each piece a second read-through when I can take myself out of the story and focus more on my own reaction. Unfortunately this isn't always an option in writers workshops. In those scenarios I find myself re-reading the story again while my classmates are giving their feedback. By the time I'm done I don't want to give my opinions because I'm not sure if someone has already mentioned the same thing.

Does anyone else have trouble giving critiques in a workshop or other setting? What strategies have you used to help you give better feedback?
 

Linda Adams

Soldier, Storyteller
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
4,422
Reaction score
639
Location
Metropolitan District of Washington
Website
www.linda-adams.com
You have to read it there and then critique it? I think I'd have trouble with that myself. I'm in a critique group, and we get the material about two to three weeks in advance. Then I spend about a week going over it, mostly because I only spend a little time here and there on it. There are some where I have to think about and reread the material to understand why I'm having trouble with it.

Have you thought about having a checklist of items that you're likely to always find? For example, I'd start with repetitions because it's rare when I don't find them. I might also look for setting, which a lot of people tend to ignore. They'll just say the characters are in a bar, and then ignore the setting after that. How about lack of senses other the sight? Come up with whatever else you can think of that you find on short notice.

And do listen to everyone's critique and don't be cautious about using it to help you process yours. You may have seen something that bothered, couldn't pin it down, and the other critiquer voiced it. Then you can give your own different perspectivie on it.
 

Norman D Gutter

Engineer Sonneteer
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
2,144
Reaction score
352
Location
Arkansas, USA
Website
davidatodd.com
All the real life critique groups I've been in (three of them at different times) have always been critique of works previously unseen. Yes, that is a difficult thing. The author reads aloud and everyone follows on their copy. Then everyone gives a combination of written and oral critiques. For simple typo stuff, I generally just mark it on the sheet and don't say anything in critique group. For larger stuff--plot issues, or sentence structure, or dialogue, or description--I will generally say it as well as make a note on the sheet.

In my current critique group (from which I've been truant for two months), only one writer has any significant publishing credits. I'm the newby in the group, and I notice the old-timers tend to be more careful with critique of this published writer, as if being published means she can't have mistakes in her work. I made the critique that her dialogue and descriptions left a matter unclear, but she quickly set me straight, saying, "It is NOT unclear," thus implying that I must not have read it right.

Of course, having only one read of a piece is a problem in critique. If I focus on a problem area while the work is being read, I miss some of the reading and then must skip to catch up. For this reason, I think real-life groups can never be as valuable as correspondence groups (e-mail, message boards, one-on-one correspondence). Another problem with real life crit groups is the critter's concern with hurting someone's feelings to their face. How much easier it is to critique anonymously, or at least shielded by machines and cables!

NDG
 
Last edited:

HeronW

Down Under Fan
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
1,854
Location
Rishon Lezion, Israel
I ask what the writer is looking for, then I'll check spelling, tenses--the little stuff, and pay special attention to continuity. I had a donkey in Ch 4 be a mule in Ch 8 and someone pointed that out to me in one of my works. I'll ask--why does A do or say something when earlier A was doing/saying the opposite and I didn't read anything to make such a personality change. Is A delusional, lying, yanking the chain of B or did the writer forget to put in a bit more info?

Critique the work, never the person. iIf the genre is something you're not familar with--say so before and if you still crit it--the writer will know you're doing your best. I also drop in *Love this* or *oh nice ass-kicking!* for the stand out zingers or special scenes that work really well. If there's something you are an expert in or know about, give an example to show you're nt talking off the top of your head.

Someone wrote about using a lot of teak wood building something. I mentioned that my dad had built 2 wooden boats & used teak trim since it stands up to weather and salt water--but it's a bitch and a half to work with because of the dense grain--the saw blades went dull very quickly.

Another writer had a boy forging a steel blade on a wooden air ship. That just didn't sound kosher so I looked up the melting temp of steel and its components and sent that info--the wooden air ship would be ashes long before the forge temp got high enough to melt steel. iron has a much lower melting point--bronze even lower.

Trust your gut, be gentle, and learn as you go. Critting others has been invaluable for me to find my mistakes.
 

kct webber

Squirrel, Sekrit type, 1 ea.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
1,164
Location
In the booshes.
I like giving crits--online or in person. However, the way my crit group works is the way Norman mentioned above. At least it did work that way. Where the writer reads aloud and we all crit it right there. I have trouble with that. It's difficult for me to do an in-depth analysis of a peice with so little time. So I give a cursory crit and inform the other writers that i'm willing to do a more in-depth crit and bring it back to the next meeting if they want. They usually accept. But then, I'm the co-organizer of my group, so I can feel pretty comfortable requesting changes in format of the meetings.

That said, I have no problem giving a crit face to face. I'll say exactly the same things. Like Heron, i'll comment on what worked--I'll say kick ass scene, or this phrase was great--but I'll also give all the negative feedback too. Anyone in my group needs to realize that none of us are there for an ego-stroking. We're there to become better writers. So if they take offense, then they can just not come back. It really makes no difference to me. I always tell them if you think this is rough, wait 'til your first agent rejection, or editor's comments. You have permission to be an asshole. It works. And any writer who doesn't have a thick skin needs to grow one. And if they're too sensitive, they can storm out and I'll continue the meeting.

All of that sounds harsh, but it's not as bad as it sounds. I've never actually had someone storm out. I've never actually wounded someone's soul. But everyone in my group knows that we're not there to be told how shiny our work is. We're there to make it better. Tell it like it is. To do anything less is to do your fellow writers a disservice.

As far as knowing what to tell them... Well, I'm like that with poetry. I've got nothing. I'm just up front about it. I don't know poetry. Simple as that. We have members who do. They are of far more use. Crit what you know. Contribute what you can and be up front about what you can't.
 
Last edited:

Maryn

Sees All
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
55,448
Reaction score
25,475
Location
Snow Cave
All my critique groups have operated differently than yours. I find that I can't give genuine critique on the spot, only correction of overt mistakes ("Wasn't her hair blonde in the other scene?" "There's no reason for a paragraph this long.") For me, critique requires multiple readings and time for reflection, especially if the work is technically competent in terms of writing.

If you feel like you're a valued member of the group, you might distribute your next work and ask that their critique be deferred until a future meeting, giving people time to mull it over rather than produce feedback on-the-spot.

(And don't get me started on critique based on reading aloud...)

Maryn, whose critique group began in 1992
 

jclarkdawe

Feeling lucky, Query?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,297
Reaction score
3,859
Location
New Hampshire
When I wrote EQUINE LIABILITY, I deliberately tried to find some weak readers (who had never critiqued). I explained to them I wanted to hear whenever I lost them or confused them. Just take a pen and put a slash where ever they have a problem. Don't worry if they knew why it was a problem, just mark it.

One of the things that I think beginners forgot is that it is not the job of critiquers to correct the problems. They don't even need to figure out why it's a problem. They just have to tell the writer what's wrong, in your opinion. You don't even have to be right.

You'll see sometimes in one of my critiques "Huh?" or "Awkward?" Usually means I have no idea what the writer is saying and/or no idea how to fix it. One editor I've had to work with used to sprinkle my writing with "AWK!" or "THIS SUCKS!!!" or "FIX THIS F***ING MESS!!!!!!" Obviously not the soul of tack. The number of explanation points was you're indicator to how bad he thought something was. And at the end of a section, he'd write something like, "This is really good. Once you fix those problems, this will be beautiful." First time I was dumb enough to ask for some advice on fixing the problems. He explained, very politely if you ignore all the obscenities, that his job was to edit and my job was to write and that I knew how to fix the stuff. In the end, I really liked his critiques, because he was so good at finding problems.

Look at some of the critiques in SYW to get an idea on how to critique. Don't worry about correcting the problem, if something doesn't work for you, say so. As you get better, you'll learn to identify what the problem is.

And remember that all writers can improve. And the author who doesn't believe that is an arrogant ass whose writing is going to go downhill.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
I'm not in the school that believes multiple reads are needed in order to crit. For me at least, I have to make notes on first read and my crits are based upon those.

If notes are not made on first read, the second read will be influenced by what was absorbed on the first read and the third read will in turn be influenced by the second.

If, on first read, I can't follow where I am and what is happening to whom (regardless of whether I like that particular story) then to me there is something wrong with the clarity, and if clarity is missing then the flow is usually off, too.

To become a better critiquer, note your first impressions. Read more than once if wished, but pay attention to those first impressions.

And I can't claim to be able to tell folk how to sort what I perceive as not working. It's their story - let them sort it out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.