Critiques

SomethingOrOther · Jan 10, 2013

I've noticed there are lots of threads about receiving critiques, but fewer on other critique-related stuff. So I'm starting a thread (as I typed I'm starting a thread, I heard warning sirens and the wild screams of people running for cover

).

So what's on your mind about giving critiques? Here's what's on mine:

1. The more basic and frequent a piece's mistakes, the harder it can be to crit precisely, I've found. It's not just because of the quantity of errors, which can make incisive line-by-lines a big time investment, inevitably leading to insight-weakening mental fatigue. It's because writing that needs a lot of work is generally a minefield of potential misperception. With more mistakes come not just more chances to misexplain why mistakes are mistakes but also (and more insidiously) a lot more "red herring mistakes"—things that aren't actually wrong but sure look like it. Is this the case for y'all, too?

2. [Bad sex analogy, redacted.]

3. I always worry I'm being too mean. The mindset that helps me crit the best is that of ruthless, aggressive perceptiveness, fueled by chin rubs and forehead scrunches of concentration (that's the way thinking works, right?). It's kind of hostile—to errors, not people, but hostile still. And sure enough, that mindset usually colors the way I read my own critiques.

(Btw, sorry about the title—next time I'll try to be a lot less wordy.

)

buz · Jan 10, 2013

SomethingOrOther said:
I'm starting a thread

AAAAAAHHHHHHHH *pulls bloomers up to boobs and runs off with wiggly Olive Oil arms*

...

Critiques. Hm.

I still have a lot to learn in terms of explaining what the hell it is I think needs to be improved. I learned how to say filtering and as-you-know-Bob and burly detective syndrome and distant and head-hopping but...there are so many other things I just don't understand how to nail down with terminology and express well without some horribly contrived metaphor, ostrich-based example, or weird rainbow color scheme...

I also still have trouble with run-on sentences.

ETA: Also, the possibilities that I'm totally wrong are pretty significant...

Hildegarde · Jan 10, 2013

SomethingOrOther said:
So what's on your mind about giving critiques?

Sometimes it is hard to find that balance between giving an honest critique and giving a harsh critique. It doesn't help that I have a massive foot that lives suspiciously near my mouth. If you haven't worked with a writer before, you also don't know what their tolerance level is (even more tricky).

I organize a local critique group so I'm always looking for helpful insight. Here are a few links I pass along to new members.

Eleven Rules On How to Get Great Critiques
(Hey Alex, if you are around - thanks for this!)
http://alexshvartsman.com/2012/02/24/jake-kerrs-eleven-rules-on-how-to-get-great-critiques/

Handling Critiques Without Getting Defensive
http://querytracker.blogspot.com/2010/05/handling-critiques-without-getting.html

Handling Exceptionally Bad/Good Manuscripts
http://suite101.com/article/how-to-critique-a-bad-manuscript-problems-in-fiction-critiquing-a275488

Milford-Style Workshopping
We use a modified form of the Milford Style in my group, but there is also lots of information about how to give and receive critique effectively.
http://cascadewriters.com/milford-style-workshopping/

Hildegarde · Jan 10, 2013

buzhidao said:
I still have a lot to learn in terms of explaining what the hell it is I think needs to be improved.

Oh, soooooo this!

A really new writer with lots of technical problems is sometimes easier because you can focus on that. The worst are the ones that are sooo close to being stellar. What is that tiny thing that will put it over the edge?

Or maybe it's me! Maybe I just don't like this person's style. Maybe I'm stomping on the next GREAT VOICE IN LITERATURE.

That's probably my biggest fear in giving critique. I always remind people that my suggestions might not be right for them.

slhuang · Jan 10, 2013

I feel bad admitting it, but I can't crit something that needs too much work.

Especially if there are grammar mistakes all over the place in addition to severe content/pacing issues . . . I just start to feel overwhelmed looking at it, and I don't even know where to begin in order to be helpful. Also, I usually try to strike a positive tone in critiques, and when there are too many things to comment on it's hard not to come across as, well, mean. So I usually just don't.

Sometimes I want to tell people I DO crit that the fact I felt I could crit them means I already really like something about their writing, but I don't want other people in my crit groups whom I haven't critted to feel bad, particularly because sometimes there were other reasons I didn't crit (too busy, etc.). But yeah, often the fact that I offer input at all means there was something I liked!

gell214 · Jan 10, 2013

My main problem when critting somehow similar to buzhidao's, The terminolgy. I find something that I think should be improved but I don't know what the error is called, what the solution is called, etc.

I have, like buzhidao, also learned some terms along the way. Like:
- show not tell/ show then tell/ telling/ etc.
- as yo know bob
- filtering
- white room effect
- head hopping
- etc.

I learn a lot by reading how other's crit. A couple of my favorite critters are Will and Donkey. You learn terms, possible problems, possible solutions, etc. from reading extensive crits like theirs. And then, hopefully, I get to pass on what I learn by critting other people's work.

Hiroko · Jan 10, 2013

I worry that I focus too much on form and grammar than plot and consistency. Hey, I might just be better at the former set rather than the latter. Nobody's complained about it to me thus far, so...

shadowwalker · Jan 10, 2013

As others have mentioned, I don't remember half the grammatical terminology. I used to know that stuff, back when it mattered (English tests in high school). So if someone wants to talk prepositions and first person past participle - forget it. I'll tell them instead that what they're actually saying is Bob's feet are removing his socks, or they're planning to move the table three days ago.

If there are a lot of spelling or grammatical errors in the first page or so, I'll note them and ask that the writer fix it before I go any further. It's just a waste of both our times otherwise, because I can't read it until it's fixed.

I don't worry about being too mean because I try to remain polite, regardless of how bad the writing is. If the writer gets snarky, well, then I tend to lower the boom a little harder. If there's confusion but the writer can explain what they're trying to say, I'll help them figure out how to say it. If they insist I'm misreading it, we're pretty much done.

I just remember they've asked me for help, not a bashing, so that's how I try to respond. And I try to stick to the things they've asked for help on, although if I notice other things that really hinder the story, I'll point them out as well.

Buffysquirrel · Jan 10, 2013

SomethingOrOther said:
1. The more basic and frequent a piece's mistakes, the harder it can be to crit precisely, I've found. It's not just because of the quantity of errors, which can make incisive line-by-lines a big time investment, inevitably leading to insight-weakening mental fatigue. It's because writing that needs a lot of work is generally a minefield of potential misperception. With more mistakes comes not just more chances to misexplain why mistakes are mistakes but also (and more insidiously) a lot more "red herring mistakes"—things that aren't actually wrong but sure look like it. Is this the case for y'all, too?

Pretty much. I've stopped critiquing anything that makes me feel physically ill. It's a shame, but there's only so many times I can type out the it's vs. its explanation. Key tip here is that you don't have to fix everything for the writer. Pick out one thing they're doing right to praise and one thing they're doing wrong to help them with, and you can know you've helped. You're not their copyeditor.

3. I always worry I'm being too mean. The mindset that helps me crit the best is that of ruthless, aggressive perceptiveness, fueled by chin rubs and forehead scrunches of concentration (that's the way thinking works, right?). It's kind of hostile—to errors, not people, but hostile still. And sure enough, that mindset usually colors the way I read my own critiques.

I can't comment on whether you're too severe as I haven't read any of your critiques. But the sandwich approach can take some of the sting out of a critique. Praise one thing, criticise one thing, praise one thing...sandwich.

jeffo20 · Jan 10, 2013

SomethingOrOther said:
1. The more basic and frequent a piece's mistakes, the harder it can be to crit precisely, I've found.

Something I did with the last one was I just stopped pointing out certain things after the third or fourth time. I think I explained in detail what I thought was the problem either where I encountered it the first time, or in a covering letter. In some cases, I stuck in a shorthand note, but not a full-out explanation, because I'd done it several times already.

SomethingOrOther said:
2. [Bad sex analogy, redacted.]

Dang, I missed it!

SomethingOrOther said:
3. I always worry I'm being too mean.

I've worried about this, too, but I'm trusting that the person I'm critting for knows I'm not trying to be mean, and if I find myself using questionable language, I try to change it, or soften it by writing, "That doesn't sound right, but..." or something.

Hiroko said:
I worry that I focus too much on form and grammar than plot and consistency. Hey, I might just be better at the former set rather than the latter. Nobody's complained about it to me thus far, so...

I'm like this, too. I start out reading (and this goes for reading over my own work) with the aim of focusing on broad things like story and character, but find myself picking on typos and repeated words that are repeated and stuff like that.

Karen Junker · Jan 10, 2013

I find it helps to read things in passes with a goal for each pass. First, I point out every typo and mistake I can find--then the writer goes in and fixes that stuff. It's time consuming, but sometimes they just don't know or they've missed something.

Then I go over the story for things like head-hopping, anachronisms, character growth arc and so on.

Then I do a pass for general flow, plot consistency, etc.

By the time I'm done, I've either made a good friend or lost them forever.

Thanks to the link to our website, Hildegarde. Randy Henderson wrote that article and we love him for it!

benluby · Jan 10, 2013

slhuang said:
I feel bad admitting it, but I can't crit something that needs too much work.

Especially if there are grammar mistakes all over the place in addition to severe content/pacing issues . . . I just start to feel overwhelmed looking at it, and I don't even know where to begin in order to be helpful. Also, I usually try to strike a positive tone in critiques, and when there are too many things to comment on it's hard not to come across as, well, mean. So I usually just don't.

Sometimes I want to tell people I DO crit that the fact I felt I could crit them means I already really like something about their writing, but I don't want other people in my crit groups whom I haven't critted to feel bad, particularly because sometimes there were other reasons I didn't crit (too busy, etc.). But yeah, often the fact that I offer input at all means there was something I liked!

Agreed. I have no issue helping you apply the wax to your work, but I just can't rebuild it if needed.

Of course, first thing I do is read it as a reader, and see if it is something I like. The flow is more important than the grammar in my opinion.
If it grabs my attention and rolls, I may just ignore most of the other petty things. You can, after all, tighten a bolt to the point it snaps off, and loses the power it had.
If I read it and it's not grabbing me, then I'll try to see why, but if it's not something minor, or it's really a case of just boring as hell? I won't even comment. I'll go eat cookies.
If it's minor tweaks? I'll recommend.

A S Abrams · Jan 10, 2013

The level of critique I give is based on the level of writing I come across. If it seems to be a beginning writer, I give a light critique that tells them something they're doing right and then one thing that would improve the writing the most if changed. I feel it's important to point out the positive because the writer is asking for the critique because he or she can't tell the good from the bad. So I say what's good and why. And what can be improved and why.

I also feel that saying why I like or dislike something helps the writers to learn to see the mistakes or good stuff for themselves. Moreover, they can judge for themselves whether or not my advice is sound and be better able to know whether it will work for them or not. Lastly, if I leave out why, then the writer can't tell how I'm affected and may think everything is good when I say I liked it. However, if I told them why they may find that that I'm reaching the wrong conclusion about something and decide to change things even though I said I like it.

I prefer to receive a little feedback on my critiques. I want to improve them because I have to critique my own writing and the thing I hate the most is silence after I've given an extensive critique. Just tell me if it was useful, please.

Putputt · Jan 11, 2013

One of the people I recently gave a crit to suggested that I may be getting carried away and forcing my own style on her MS. Ahh!!! I think she was right too... :gone:

I can be an overbearing hippo sometimes, so I was glad she pointed that out.

Umm...other than that...sometimes, a certain passage might not be working for me, but I don't know what it is about it that isn't quite working. Then I look at what others have said and I have an "that's it!" moment and wonder why so many people are so much more articulate than I am.

kkbe · Jan 11, 2013

Right, hippster. Recently I *started a thead* lamenting my own difficulties relative to giving critiques, to wit:

Redacted*

So.

*As so gently reminded by one I deeply respect and entirely agree with, I have to knock that shit off.

quickWit · Jan 11, 2013

I'd just like to point out the weakness of voice, lack of heart and general poor writing present in all the posts above.

You all should be ashamed.

Carry on.

BethS · Jan 11, 2013

These days, my time being what it is, I generally won't touch anything that's so rife with problems I wouldn't know where to start.

But otherwise, if there are a number of errors, I'll focus on a couple of major issues and leave the piddly issues alone. Though I might mention that there are a lot of punctuation errors, leaving the writer to go read up on commas and colons.

If I find something to praise, I'll praise it. Otherwise, I don't. This is bad form, I know, but OTOH, people I critique learn that when I offer praise, I really mean it.

2. [Bad sex analogy, redacted.]

At least tell us whether it was a bad analogy about sex, or an analogy about bad sex.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 11, 2013

I only critique writing that's good enough to help.

Buffysquirrel · Jan 11, 2013

*shrugs*

Nobody's born able to write at all, never mind well.

Susan Coffin · Jan 11, 2013

I was in a critique group and now have a reputation when it comes to critiques. One of the members said to someone else, "You've never had a real critique until Susan has critiqued your work." I took it as a compliment.

I'm not mean, but I am brutally honest. Most of the time I can suggest a fix for the problem, sometimes I can't. I always tell what I do like about a piece first, followed by what I don't like. There is always some of both.

I can't tell you how much I learned from critiquing, as well as having my work critiqued. I'm not part of a writing group anymore (just my writers club, which is business and education), but I will never forget what a great experience it was.

If you critique my work, I expect you to be brutally honest as well.

Phaeal · Jan 11, 2013

I find myself gravitating more and more towards only critiquing work that's almost there. My experience is that the almost-there writers benefit far more from critiques than those who are starting from zero and who tend to be overwhelmed and confused by comprehensive editing.

I think it's better for newbies to "self-school" in the fundamentals of writing by reading books on writing and by applying the fundamental principles to their work. Also helpful is conscious reading of favorite books, looking for how each writer achieves his or her effects. And then there's taking advantage of Internet resources, such as blogs and forums. The wider the range of the newbie's reading the better, so she not only learns the lingo but realizes that there are no absolute rules, just those tantalizing maps that point out danger zones but also encourage exploration down wavering sidepaths.

SomethingOrOther · Jan 11, 2013

buzhidao said:
I still have a lot to learn in terms of explaining what the hell it is I think needs to be improved.

gell214 said:
My main problem when critting somehow similar to buzhidao's, The terminolgy. I find something that I think should be improved but I don't know what the error is called, what the solution is called, etc.

My crits tend to be dense in terminology, lol. Most of it comes from reading lit crit/commentary and, if not that, simply making shit up.

(But it's not for no reason, and everything's understandable in context.)

From a few of my recent crits:

SV inversions
Proper Noun Avalanche territory (made up)
contextual backing
unintentional-humor landmines (made up)
poorly choreographed actions
abstract summary
referent
borrowed-from-kitsch-film campiness (made up)
lampshaded
satirical frame
descriptive schema (made up)

BethS said:
At least tell us whether it was a bad analogy about sex, or an analogy about bad sex.

The first one.

shadowwalker said:
I'll tell them instead that what they're actually saying is Bob's feet are removing his socks

Well this wouldn't work were you to critique my story, "Bob and the Army of Sentient Feet."

Said critique might not happen though because I haven't actually written that story.

backslashbaby · Jan 11, 2013

I think I impose my style too much in my crits. Or I do that as my suggestions for how to improve it (my ego! Damn) when I can't see anything else that's wrong! It really messes with my head. I have a hard time telling what's truly boring or what is just not my style. It's a problem

I'm pretty good with folks who just need some basic writing pointers. Past that, my own personal taste gets in the way, and I feel bad about it.

kkbe · Jan 11, 2013

The toughest thing is keeping my personal style at bay. I know how I'd write the thing!

But I didn't write the thing.

So I endeavor to limit my critique to comments and suggestions that might make the ms before me clearer, cleaner, and tighter, thereby respecting both the writer and his/her work.

I endeavor to do that, but I don't always succeed and I feel bad about that.

Karen Junker · Jan 11, 2013

kkbe said:
The toughest thing is keeping my personal style at bay. I know how I'd write the thing!

See, that's the thing. In the past, I have gotten a lot of help from writers who *did* give me a suggestion about how they would rewrite a sentence. In many cases, they were better writers than I am and they have taught me sentence-level craft which I have passed on to other writers through the years.

Critiques

-

edits all posts at least four times

A newb in the fog

A newb in the fog

Inappropriately math-oriented.

Which of them was the machine?

empty-nester!

Tyrant King

Live a little. Write a lot.

practical experience, FTW

Bananas are my favorite animal

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg

Huh.

Totally Ninja!

Tell it like it Is

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

-

~~~~*~~~~

Huh.

Live a little. Write a lot.

*