A Tutorial On Giving Well Rounded Critiques

We all want one. But what is it, exactly? Between caustic critics and snarky MSTers, or shallow praisers and big old softies, everyone is aware that being too far on one side of the scale will allow no writer to progress. So what the hell are you going to do? As a snarky MSTer turned marginally polite reviewer, I can tell you what I have done to stop tearing things apart line by line.

Things An Author Needs To Do When Faced With Critiques

• Assume absolutely nothing about the critic. This is the Internet, remember. We know very little about the people on the other side of the screen. The critic could be a high school student who is bored and knows nothing about what you're writing about. The critic could also be an established and well respected authority on the genre.
• Put forth any key issues that you would like critics to focus on (you have no idea how people throw curve balls, you haven't named the character yet so you've put in the placeholder of "John Smith", and so on) at the beginning of the piece so the critic can focus on it.
• Be polite when responding to the critique. Or at the very least, be as polite as you would like the critic to be when responding to you.

Things A Well Rounded Critic Needs To Do While Critiquing

• Assume absolutely nothing about the author. This is the Internet, remember. We know very little about the people on the other side of the screen. The author could be someone who started writing yesterday and knows absolutely nothing about the craft. The author could also be a successful and famous writer trolling us testing the waters. If you absolutely must have something to go off, place the author's intelligence somewhere around the middle of the board.
• If there are any outstanding issues that the author pointed out at the beginning (the 'K' on her keyboard is broken, it is supposed to be a Steampunk thriller masquerading as High Fantasy, the author would like to hear about how dialogue was handled, and so on), make allowance for them and address any issues the author put first.
• Be polite when responding to a piece. Or at the very least, be as polite as you would like the author to be when responding to you.

Things A Well Rounded Critique Needs To Address In General

Pointing out too many negatives is discouraging! But being too positive and pointing out only positives breeds complacency. If only there was some way to balance the scales. Like, say, having both of these things in the same post.

The principle is simple:

• For every positive trait you see (good dialogue), try to look for something the writer needs improvement on (poor spelling). Or if the negative ones (bad action sequences) come first, try to look for something the writer didn't utterly suck at.

This results in a critique that is very neutral. Like properly done business makeup, it smooths out flaws and emphasizes the positive while being detached, professional, and so inoffensive as to be nearly invisible unless one knows how to look for it.

• What if the positive traits outnumber the negative ones, or vice versa? Should you just make stuff up to balance it out? The answer is a resounding no.
  • If it's particularly good in your eyes, say so. But remember to put any less-than-stellar issues in there to keep the author's ego from inflating. If there are no problems, either you're not looking hard enough or this person is secretly a famous author.
  • If it's not that good at all, or if you are naturally a caustic critic, a good rule of thumb is to phrase at least some of the flaws you've noticed as questions.

For example

vs

It might have been a typo. But it could also be an intentional error, like Cornelius is undercover, Sandra is the person he needs to deceive, and it's currently working. Either one allows for the author to correct your statement, but one of them will allow a natural back and forth rapport while the other will cause the author to go on the defensive.

That's really all there is to it. Look, no snark!

-clap clap clap-

We should make this into a wiki page.

Oh yes.

Sometimes I think I spend too much time writing tutorials like these instead of stories, for someone who is not even a teacher.

please include this quote from Fast Eddie

The ratio of critics to creators is something like 10,000:1. The ratio of good critics to bad: 1:10,000, where "good" means "Helps to advance the art."

edited 15th Apr '11 7:13:45 PM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

Even professional critics do not critique like this.

Just pointing this out.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Why?

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I like it :)

I love how he defines good critiqiue not as ego-boosting pretty words. But as something that helps art to advance.

edited 15th Apr '11 7:17:09 PM by FallenLegend

Make your hearth shine through the darkest night; let it transform hate into kindness, evil into justice, and loneliness into love.

Wellll, maybe if it was a wiki page I'd put it at the top, but otherwise no thank you.

Anyway I never said anything about professional critics, Cygan. This is just for people on a forum.

edited 15th Apr '11 7:19:07 PM by Leradny

Edited out for rudeness.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:56:19 PM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Thank you for uh, saying exactly what I said.

Critics kind of need sharper sight than "obvious", though.

I ranted against this sort of attitude in the critique thread. You notice the obvious flaws, and you point it out, sure. So what about the good? Can you see where they were going at? Can you provide suggestions to help them reach their goal? Stomping it all down could feel very discouraging for the fledgling writer.

edited 15th Apr '11 7:25:11 PM by QQQQQ

Edited out for rudeness.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:56:48 PM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Let me elaborate.

"Obvious" things are for the laymen readers. The one funny joke in a terrible movie, that awful clunker of a scene in an otherwise great movie.

The job of a critic is to evaluate the piece as a whole. Judges do not judge without hearing both the plaintiff and the defendant. It would be biased.

Edited out for rudeness.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:57:07 PM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

...That's a judgment.

This is still a well-written guide. It might not apply for professional critics, but those are good guidelines for more causal critiquing.

Hmm...Give A Well Rounded Critique.

No. A critic does not offer just the critical (despite what the name says). They offer their value judgments — speaking good and/or bad of the work. Mainly their impressions of it. This is an outspoken reader. A critic who would advance their writing, would help the writer get a sense of what they can try, and what doesn't work. This is different from coddling.

edited 15th Apr '11 7:34:51 PM by QQQQQ

Edited out for rudeness.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:57:20 PM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

I'd also like to point out that there are a lot of awful, shitty critics out there that could not see objective merit if they caught it in bed with their girlfriend.

That meaning that most critics have opinions uninformed by good perspective.

edited 15th Apr '11 7:37:54 PM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

I tell people to be neither gushy nor caustic to keep both hurt feelings and ego-stroking to a minimum and I'm still getting flak for it. SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE.

@Cygan: I never remembered the critic having a sour-faced definition. You seem to confound the term 'critic' with 'critical.'

edited 15th Apr '11 7:37:50 PM by QQQQQ

Edited out for rudeness.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:57:32 PM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Stop debating over semantics.

What the fuck is wrong with assuming a neutral stance rather than overly negative or positive?

Oh, no. Not another arguement.

Hmm... Give A Well Rounded Review.