Does anyone feel guilty about giving feedback?

You adapt Like the sting of rejection, it numbs the more you feel it. The important thing is to help your partner improve their novel. Yes, blood, sweat, and tears went into it, but it's not done yet. There's more blood, sweat, and tears to be spilled with edits. Your honest critique can save some of those from being from rejections.

I don't know how it is in Australia but in the US, 'participation trophies' for kids are a thing, which means from an early age children are rewarded for ... showing up. I don't disagree with this philosophy necessarily, any encouragement to get kids to participate in sports and other activities is good, but there's also something to be said for the idea of developing a thick skin.

There's grade inflation in the schools, and again I hate to see kids become demoralized with poor grades, on the other hand sometimes teenagers think they are objectively more proficient in things than they are. We have celebrities emerge at age 13 out of nowhere--and kids think this is normal and they should be able to get a gig on Nickelodeon too.

Real world: If someone wants recognition as an adult - it will either come through luck or hard work. I recommend not counting on luck. If writing was easy, we'd all be buried in books.

In terms of critiquing - you can offer the suggestions for improvement 'sandwiched' between things you like. And you can suggest that they get wider feedback ... here. I bet you are not the harshest critic, and so you shouldn't beat yourself up over trying to help.

In some cases, it's those constructive critiques, the ones that point out the aspects that just aren't working for the reader, that writers are looking for. After all, if we have finished an absolutely perfect work, and want it recognized as such, we'd send it to a publisher instead. You are helping more than you realize. Here, an honest review is more helpful than a dishonest one. If it helps you, you can try to always say something positive, as a rule. But keep it an honest positive.

I went through art school. We were graded on the critiques we gave. (They didn't have to be good or bad, but they had to be useful.)

There are ways of giving feedback. (I'm fond of the sandwich method: one good comment, one bad comment, one good comment.) You can always encourage someone, no matter what their skill level. And you can always discourage someone, no matter what their skill level.

If you approach what you're saying with an eye toward wanting to be helpful (i.e. not saying things like "you'll never improve" or "you shouldn't bother creating," but focusing on concrete suggestions for improvement), that's all you can really do. Taking crits is an art form all its own, and you can't control how someone hears what you've told them.

I'm kind of insensitive about it. I warn people right away that I'm a blunt critic (many of my betas begin with my "title" -- "The Cow of Doom"), and I assume that anyone who asks me for help wants me to tell them any problems with their work. Honestly, having lived my whole life with people not telling me things because it would "hurt my feelings," I feel it is insulting to do anything less. It is better to hurt once now than to hurt continually because you don't know what you're doing wrong.

At the same time, I try to say nice things, too. Every manuscript has something good about it.

I don't understand the need to be blunt when critiquing, I don't see how it makes for a more honest critique. Of course, it depends what people mean by blunt. I think you can be honest and constructive without being harsh. Maryn's example above is a perfect example of meaningful and respectful. In my book, you can tell people hard things and still not hurt their feelings in the process.

I know what the OP means by sometimes feeling guilty you are bringing people down, I always try to remember to mix positive and negative. I think sometimes it's easy to get caught in telling people what doesn't work and forget to tell them what does.

Maggie Maxwell said:

You adapt Like the sting of rejection, it numbs the more you feel it.

Click to expand...

I wish this were true, for me. I still get very down and guilty when I have to give not-so-positive feedback to a writer. I guess it is getting easier to press that 'send' button - I'm ashamed to say in the early days I got one very rough manuscript and I couldn't face it, so I simply went quiet on the author (sorry, author) - but it doesn't get any easier knowing I might be hurting somebody. I totally agree that it's a kindness to give that feedback (well, unless you're rude or mean) but I still suffer from The Guilts.

I think it's because I'm so thorough. Most writers will get pages and pages of notes from me after a beta read, as well as hundreds of in-line comments. Even though, being as objective as I can be about the whole thing, I think I'm constructive and encouraging - that's an overwhelming amount of feedback. Maybe I should dial it down, but I feel like I'm not doing my 'job' if I notice something that could be better and I don't comment on it.

I think this is why I have to see samples, now.

I won't take on projects if I haven't got anything positive to say. There have been times when I've simply returned the MS with a couple pages of edits and an explanation that there's too much grammar correction or whatever I'm having to do, but should they fix that, I'll happily look at it again.

If it makes any of the critters on this forum feel better, though, brutal feedback is usually my favorite kind. I don't mean unkind, or nasty digs about race/gender/qualifications (this has occasionally happened). More just, "your writing needs an overhaul" because I find that useful and not offensive at all.

I've only had one critique via AW where I really wasn't enjoying it, and asked the mod to close the thread. It was all getting kidn of personal. But again,that's up to me to manage myself. A writer can always back out of your critique if ti's not working for them.

Perhaps, it's just beginner's nerves? I felt that way, too, when I first thought about (and started) critiquing. Reading others' critiques and the author's responses helped me see that writers were grateful for the feedback they'd received, not upset. Plus, the SYW forum warns writers to be prepared for feedback and to not post if they don't want their work critiqued or to let others know at the beginning that they're looking for soft critiques.

It's not personal. Others websites I've come across didn't have any critiquers at all. One site had mods who were longtime writers and who claimed to newbies (who'd just joined and posted an introductory post) that everyone there was supportive and helpful, yet, from what I saw, no one would bother to respond or help new people who'd asked questions or asked for critiques. It was a dead forum; for some strange reason, many people would visit every day and read posts, but no one would bother to respond, not even the mods (who claimed they were helpful). I saw several writers' work had been posted for months, and, even though over a hundred people (sometimes hundreds) had read it, no one had bothered to respond, not even to say that they liked it or simply "Good job."

So, I feel giving critiques is showing kindness, that at least the critiquer bothered to take time to look over your work and respond. Not everyone bothers to do that.

I realized a while back in my own critiques, that I tended to be harder on better work. After all, there's no point getting into the nitty-gritty on a piece that still has broad-stroke problems.

As an extreme example of what I'm talking about, think about how differently you might critique the drawings of a kindergartner vs. a graduate student - kindergartner is still learning the basics and you don't want to pile on so much criticism that they decide they're hopeless and give up art completely, so you say it's nice, hang it on the fridge, and maybe say, "next time, maybe you could try it THIS way." The older artist, though, has a higher skill level, and is able to understand and apply higher-level critique as a result, and if they've come this far and are still drawing, an in-depth critique is less likely to break their spirit, which you'd never want to do.

Obviously the different in skill levels among adults isn't that extreme, but you get the idea.

Having come to recognize this pattern in myself, I've decided that tougher, really in-depth critiques are a form of compliment. To me it says, "this critiquer feels my work is good enough to expend a lot of time and effort critiquing, and that I'm capable of correcting the problems they see."

Approaching it like that, for me, has helped take the sting out of critiques recieved.

unthoughtknown said:

I've just given feedback on the first chapters of someone's manuscript for a second time, and I feel so guilty about it.

I try to be helpful, constructive, objective, appreciative, encouraging, and firm - yet sensitive. It's bloody exhausting.

Does anyone else feel this way? I think it's much easier for a reader who doesn't write to give feedback. Having just finished my first novel, and knowing only too well the blood, sweat and tears that went into it . . . I'm so conscious of what that body of work means to a writer and I find it nerve-wracking giving feedback - even though I want to!

I guess you don't really know if you have helped or given the writer a massive complex.

Arrrrrgh. That's all.

Click to expand...

I do crits for a living...well, not really, but it is a big part of what I do as a writing teacher and editor. And I have the added burden of knowing that because of my background, writers take my notes very much to heart. And early drafts are like wet clay, so fingerprints tend to show.

The most useful guideline for an editor or critiquer, in my experience, is "Am I making it better, or just making it different?" Just because I wouldn't have written something in a particular way is no reason to criticize it; every writer has his/her own style.

But there are ways to actually make things better. Learning to write is like learning to walk: we all pass through certain milestones on the way there. Mastering the various sorts of POV for example: huge problem until one day, after half a million words or so, it's not. Or learning what to show and what to tell; or learning to trust readers' discernment instead of spoonfeeding them. Those are areas in which good crits help, by helping the writer herself to notice these things, showing why they're problematical and suggesting alternative ways of accomplishing one's goals. It's equally important to point out what is working, so the writer can build on his strengths.

It helps that I'm a writer as well as an editor, and so have been on the receiving end of many critiques, not so much by betas, but by my various editors. Once I get over the disappointment of what's not in the critique ("This is a perfect book. Don't change a word!"), I feast on the actual suggestions. There is only so much the writer can see herself; for the stuff she can't see, good editors are priceless. In my experience, the best writers are eager and grateful for actionable critiques, because they care a lot more about the quality of the work than the stroking of their ego.

Despite my efforts to be supportive while still being honest, I know that sometimes feelings are bruised. Anyway, I've found a way to keep guilt at bay. I tell writers to accept only those suggestions that bring them closer to the book they envisioned writing, and to discard the rest. It might take a day or two of decompressing for them to make that determination; but bottom line, it's their book and they make the final call on how it should be written.

As for grading on the curve---i.e. cutting writers slack because they worked so hard on their stories---that does no one any favors. For me, taking a book seriously enough to critique it stringently is a sign of respect.

Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I don't feel guilty about any such thing. If people want to get published, then the work has to be at a certain level. If it's not at that level, and they're asking for a critique, then I give them what they want.

To soften the blow(s), I use the word "might" a lot. (You might want to revise this passage for clarity.) I say all the good things first, then "But it's not ready yet."

Perhaps, most importantly, with rare exceptions, I don't give stylistic feedback. I go for clarity and accuracy.

Then again, I keep the number of critiques I give way down. I don't want to bite someone because I happen to be exhausted.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Elle. said:

I don't understand the need to be blunt when critiquing, I don't see how it makes for a more honest critique. Of course, it depends what people mean by blunt. I think you can be honest and constructive without being harsh. Maryn's example above is a perfect example of meaningful and respectful. In my book, you can tell people hard things and still not hurt their feelings in the process.

Click to expand...

When I say blunt, I mean blunt. Tell them straight up. If I "feel bad" and don't tell them something that they need to know, then that hurts them as a writer. That isn't cruelty. Cruelty is forcing out compliments on things that are not actually good because you feel sorry for them. I know this firsthand. Trust me, being too soft is just as cruel as being too harsh, and sets up the author for disappointment.

And no, I'm not too harsh. I always pursue betas with the end goal of helping people improve. You can't really do that if you constantly get on the author's case.

I think it's impossible to avoid hurt feelings in a lot of cases.

I've had scathing critiques that didn't faze me. I'd had 'gentle' critiques that ruined my day. There are a lot of different factors involved in that and it doesn't always come down to style, maybe more intent (among other things).

I guess the salient issue is to match up critiquer with writer, at least for longer stuff. I stick to critique groups now, and don't tend to use SYW much anymore for that reason. Although SYW was very useful at a certain stage.

I've given two in-person critiques in the past week that a particular plot element would not work, disobeyed the laws of physics, made no logical sense. Both writers (who don't know one another) got defensive in response, claimed it would work, they'd researched it, etc.

You know, it doesn't really matter if they're right or I'm right (but they're both wrong as far as i can tell from my own research), what matters is the writing led me to question the feasibility of the thing. I didn't believe it, and I looked it up. That's gonna be a problem in the story. It needs to be addressed, in my opinion. There are ways to write it so it doesn't raise flags.

As far as how that relates to the thread here, I might decide not to give critiques of that sort again, because none of us came out of it any better off. There's a responsibility on both ends of the critique partnership.

Interesting discussion. I think beta readers have a responsibility to give honest feedback - that's what (most) writers are looking for. The real issue is how that feedback is delivered. There are ways to phrase the same thing in a specific, objective manner, and saying it in a blunt way (Maryn illustrated it really well in her examples of blunt vs not so blunt feedback). Not being blunt does not mean that you're not going to say what's wrong with a manuscript. It simply means that the feedback will be delivered in a more objective, effective manner, and hopefully, the writer will also find it easier to understand and apply it. At least that's the way I try to do things when I'm betaing for someone - it also ensures that you won't be feeling guilty about delivering the feedback.

Think of it this way, taking the example of actually writing something for an audience: Say you write it very bluntly, and you don't care about how you say things. What's the result? The reader's going to be offended, confused, perhaps, and the effectiveness of the piece is going to suffer. Maybe it's just me, but I think the relationship between a beta and a writer should work the same way. In fact, it applies to any interaction where two people come together to work on something. When a customer comes to you, you're not going to treat them harshly. Same thing with a beta and an author.

There's a certain attitude out there that harshly delivered feedback is somehow more effective (I think talent shows may have contributed to this trend - think a judge insulting the skills of a participant, probably to increase the ratings and the sensational value of the show). Some people will probably not mind the bluntness, but some will.

There's a spectrum when it comes to sensitivity: There are people on one end who're very sensitive, people on the opposite end who're not really sensitive, and the majority falls in the middle. I think it would unwise to ignore the fact that human beings have feelings. Even in the business arena, where this kind of attitude has been popular for a long time, is responding to the people element of the work. Why? Because it's important, and it leads to better results.

TL;DR: There's a distinction between harsh feedback, and feedback harshly delivered (i.e. content vs tone). Any beta reader who wants to help an author improve their craft should know at least something about the skill of giving effective feedback (that's one of the best ways to avoid feeling bad about the possibility of hurt feelings). I'm not sure how many betas actually consider that, but they should. It's the same as any other skills, like presenting something, or talking to someone; you're obviously following certain rules and manners - I don't see how betaing is any different.

There are always people who have a hard time taking criticism well.

And there are people like me who are so intensely, abjectly grateful that someone would take time out of their day to read my drivel and try to help me make it better. <3 All my critique-receiving anxiety focuses on whether I'm asking too much of someone or being too much of a bother.

I'd say to find your own critiquing style and stick with what you're comfortable dishing out, and try to not worry to much about how it's received (within reason).

It all depends really on how you do it.

My last beta reader, we talked a little over email while editing each other's stuff. Because of that, it helped make the words seem less distant.

But it's also easy to be sensitive without being too word.

"This sentence didn't work. Reword."
"I don't think this sentence flows correctly."

By adding just another word or two, it really changes how it comes across, and doesn't really exhaust you from doing it.

However, I do find, no matter what, editing the first act or so of someone's book is a little more work, because you have to be extra careful. However, once you get past about halfway, I've always felt more freeing to just be a little more blunt. Especially if it's a common mistake within the book.

I don't feel guilty about my feedback. It's important to not feel guilty in my opinion, as it distracts someone like me from what I'm there to do, which is to help the author improve their work. It helps to be as specific as possible when addressing the problems I see, so it keeps me from overusing potentially emotionally loaded words in my critique (like the dreaded "boring"). I'll always put in at least one example of how to improve, in particular if it's a recurring problem. I tend to get into the nitty gritty because I like editing, so my comments are usually very wordy.

If the author has the same goal as I do they'll take it in stride, and they're perfectly within their rights to call my opinion bollocks if they like. It's their work after all and they know it best.

I'm not usually blunt, but if I feel I've been a bit blunt I'll try to point out something specific I really like about the author's work too. That tends to soften any bluntness I have in my other comments.