# Encouragement vs Honesty



## T.S.Bowman

I got to thinking about something just a few minutes ago.

As some of you know from my Catfish interview, or the thread I satrted  telling you all what a debt I owe to Snow for helping me find my passion  for writing again, there was a time when I let the harsh words of  someone I respected destroy my confidence. That caused me to turn away  from writing for a very long time. Much too long.

Something I know that we almost always say here is that it's better for a  writer to get honest feedback than it is a pat on the back when it  isn't deserved. I agree with that...but only to a certain point.

After much prodding from Snow, I had finally sat down and typed out the  500 words or so that would be the beginning of Side Worlds. They were *terrible*.  Badly written, horribly executed, and many other things that caused  them to be little more than verbal vomit on a computer screen.

I'm pretty damn sure that Snow saw that they weren't very good. But, still, she encouraged me to keep going. 

Had she gone the "honesty" route, I probably would have stopped right  then and there, never to pick up my pen again. I still had no confidence  in my abilities when I showed her those first words. Anything harsh  would have most likely turned me away from writing for good this time.

So, while I completely understand that honesty is normally the best way  to go, I also understand that sometimes, just sometimes, being honest  could quite possibly be a final step in someone giving up on his/her  dream of writing.

Just something I think some should keep in mind.


----------



## Jeko

Always be honest with people. Always. If someone gives up because you're honest to them, then that's their decision, but your honesty should always comes first. Too many learning writers prefer the idea of being a writer to being a writer; encouraging lies feed that. Honesty makes them deal with it.

What matters, IMO, is encouraging honesty. Be honest about the things that they need to hear about in order to get better. If something doesn't read well, saying it's rubbish isn't actually honest, because that discounts the fact that the story is going to develop and improve itself over time.

This might sound harsh, but I think a writer who 'gives up' because of honesty is the one at fault, not the person who was honest to them, and that's something they need to overcome if they're going to persevere with the craft.


----------



## Cran

I tend balk at either/or propositions, often because the options don't need to be mutually exclusive. 

In this case, I would find it hard to argue against offering both encouragement and honesty when commenting on someone's writing. And, as far as I can tell, that is exactly what the critics (and real world editors, etc) with the best reputations are doing.


----------



## Kyle R

I agree with you, Bow. I believe it's always possible to be honest and encouraging at the same time.

Constructive criticism and destructive criticism are two entirely different things. 

"I like where this is going. I'd like it more if you explained how Elsa got her powers, though. I was hoping to learn more about that, but felt let down when you didn't explore it at all," is one thing. 

"This is a mess. Seriously, do you even edit before you post? This sentence? Wrong. This metaphor? Weak. Thanks for playing, but no. Try again," is another. 

And yes, some reviewers believe their own destructive criticism to be a form of "brutal honesty" or "tough love." In such cases, the writers who flourish in the face of such responses don't flourish _because_ of the negative feedback—they flourish _in spite_ of it.

Make an effort to be encouraging, lest Karma find you and give you a taste of your own medicine.

It's not hard, either. Just remind yourself that there's a person at the other end who (no matter how brutally honest they ask you to be) would appreciate it if you let them know what you _enjoyed_ as well as what you think needs work. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Cadence said:


> Always be honest with people. Always. If someone gives up because you're honest to them, then that's their decision....
> 
> What matters, IMO, is encouraging honesty. Be honest about the things that they need to hear about in order to get better. If something doesn't read well, saying it's rubbish isn't actually honest, because that discounts the fact that the story is going to develop and improve itself over time.
> 
> This might sound harsh, but I think a writer who 'gives up' because of honesty is the one at fault, not the person who was honest to them.



That is a reasonable position, Cadence, But I would like to ask you something. 

Is it my fault that the family I grew up in was abusive? Was it my fault that they had me in a position of not having any kind of confidence in myself? 

You have to realize that people who are in or have recently come out of that kind of situation have been beaten down for a very long time. That person could be the next H. G. Wells or Lovecraft. That person could have something very important to say that the world needs to know. But, given the fragility of their state of mind, a few harsh words could very well cause that person to walk away with their head hanging down feeling the same old feelings that have been repeatedly beaten into them over many years.

We simply do not know. And because I do not know, and having been there, I prefer to take a more gentle approach until I see more of the person's posts. I am always honest about what works for me, but I always let the person know what does, as well.



Kyle R said:


> I agree with you, Bow. I believe it's always possible to be honest and encouraging at the same time.
> 
> Constructive criticism and destructive criticism are two entirely different things.
> 
> "I like where this is going. I'd like it more if you explained how Elsa got her powers, though. I was hoping to learn more about that, but felt let down when you didn't explore it at all," is one thing.
> 
> "This is a mess. Seriously, do you even edit before you post? This sentence? Wrong. This metaphor? Weak. Thanks for playing, but no. Try again," is another.
> 
> And yes, some reviewers believe their own destructive criticism to be a form of "brutal honesty" or "tough love." In such cases, the writers who flourish in the face of such responses don't flourish _because_ of the negative feedback—they flourish _in spite_ of it.
> 
> Make an effort to be encouraging, lest Karma find you and give you a taste of your own medicine.
> 
> It's not hard, either. Just remind yourself that there's a person at the other end who (no matter how brutally honest they ask you to be) would appreciate it if you let them know what you _enjoyed_ as well as what you think needs work. :encouragement:



Your second example is very mild compared to what I got that day long ago.

The worst part, for me, is that even now, when I am writing, I can hear those words echoing in my head, chipping away at my confidence. 

We, as writers, should know better than anyone the power that words can wield. We, more than anyone, should be aware of how words can raise someone up. Or how they can wound someone to the point of giving up.

I know that writers have to have thick skin. That was a harsh, and quite lengthy, lesson I learned. But we must also realize that not everyone comes here with that skin already intact.

I would never advocate dishonesty in a critique. All I advocate is a little kindness when it may well be a time someone needs it the most.


----------



## Jeko

> We simply do not know. And because I do not know, and having been there, I prefer to take a more gentle approach until I see more of the person's posts



Exactly: we should always be gentle. But honest at the same time. IMO, lies are the least considerate thing you can give a growing writer.


----------



## TKent

I agree in honesty but I've also seen a few (not many) critiques that were just plain rude. There was no need to point out the things they did in the WAY they did. It could have been done in a more encouraging or at least neutral way rather than condescending. It happens rarely but the few times it does, wow, it is a real downer for me and it wasn't even a critique on my writing. That said, I personally am fine ignoring the really negative tone if/when it comes my way and seeking the actual critique that it delivers but I can see where someone new to writing, new to the board, sensitive in general, completely unsure of whether they should be writing, etc. could be put off. For a new writer, my question was not whether my writing was good, I know it isn't right now. My question was more, do I even have any chance of ever becoming a decent writer.  And I know now after seeing my own improvement and reading about how others progress and seeing amazing improvement in writers on this site, that it is possible, so I'm not going to stop now unless it quits being interesting to me.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

When you're reviewing a piece, tell the writer exactly what they did right and exactly what they did wrong.  If you can't find anything wrong, great! If you can't find anything right, perhaps the writer SHOULD give up.  However, most comprehensive reviews are going to be in between, and there it's up to the writer to separate criticism of their work from criticism of themselves.


----------



## InstituteMan

When I do a critique, I don't worry much about honesty vs encouragement, because first and foremost I want to HELP. I want to help the writer improve that piece in particular and their skills overall. That requires a different approach at different times.

I don't always get it right, mind you, but I try to meet the writer where they are. Most people are going to need to hear positives to take the constructive criticisms, and fortunately most people with the gumption to ask for a critique or to post on here are good enough to give me something positive to say.

Another part of meeting writers where they are is giving a manageable amount of feedback. A piece with a clever idea but poor stricture and terrible grammar needs the structure fixed before the grammar. Harping on the grammar in that case gets in the way of improving the structure, so I usually wouldn't worry about it too much in a crit. I don't see much need in harping on things that aren't the pressing problem, especially for new writers.

Finally, I try really hard to be honest about what is my subjective reaction to a piece so that the writer knows to take my thoughts with a grain of salt. An incomplete sentence is an incomplete sentence, but an allusion that rings false for me might work for someone else.

Hopefully that approach has made my critiques helpful. I hope that I have also been both honest and encouraging, but I would take helpful over either of those.


----------



## shadowwalker

I always make a distinction between reviews and critiques. Reviews - IMO writers should never read them. They're meant for the readers, not the writers. As to critiques, I have seen more than my share of people who love the term "brutally honest" - their euphemism for being a conceited douchebag out to build their ego rather than help the writer. I'm always honest in my critiques - but I'm also a writer, and hopefully have learned how to use words to the best effect. I have never had anyone I've critiqued complain about hurt feelings or rudeness - they haven't always liked what I've said, but they've never mentioned a problem with how I've said it. And while I understand about the baggage individuals may carry, that is not my problem. My duty is to provide an honest and hopefully helpful critique of their writing. I don't need or want to know about their family history, loss of job, deaths in the family, etc. I'm looking at the writing, not the author.


----------



## spartan928

T.S.Bowman said:


> Is it my fault that the family I grew up in was abusive? Was it my fault that they had me in a position of not having any kind of confidence in myself?
> 
> You have to realize that people who are in or have recently come out of that kind of situation have been beaten down for a very long time. That person could be the next H. G. Wells or Lovecraft. That person could have something very important to say that the world needs to know. But, given the fragility of their state of mind, a few harsh words could very well cause that person to walk away with their head hanging down feeling the same old feelings that have been repeatedly beaten into them over many years.
> 
> We simply do not know. And because I do not know, and having been there, I prefer to take a more gentle approach until I see more of the person's posts. I am always honest about what works for me, but I always let the person know what does, as well.



In the context of getting critiques on a forum, being encouraging and constructive should be the norm. A forum is moderated as well, so there is an expectation (and even enforcement) of a certain decorum. Yet outside of that, people are only looking at the work. The author's issues are typically their own, and besides, the readers don't care. Outside of a forum, the world can be a rather harsh and unforgiving place. Personally, I don't think it's a matter of having a thick skin. It boils down to just how important writing is to the person regardless of encouragement or any personal circumstances that might be a hindrance (ie, mental health issues, social issues, addictions, etc). A desire or need to write is intrinsic and if it isn't, anything can and will stop someone from writing, even the weather.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

T.S.Bowman said:


> You have to realize that people who are in or have recently come out of that kind of situation have been beaten down for a very long time. That person could be the next H. G. Wells or Lovecraft. That person could have something very important to say that the world needs to know. But, given the fragility of their state of mind, a few harsh words could very well cause that person to walk away with their head hanging down feeling the same old feelings that have been repeatedly beaten into them over many years.



Do you really think an editor is going to care about your situation? They're going to judge your submission solely on its literary merit.  Why should critiquers be gentle when the person that actually matters won't be?


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Do you really think an editor is going to care about your situation? They're going to judge your submission solely on its literary merit.  Why should critiquers be gentle when the person that actually matters won't be?



Why should a critiquer be unnecessarily harsh when they don't need to be? Because that's the way the "real world" works? Is there no kindness to be found in the world?  Because the one doing the critique _can _be harsh with little repercussion? By your logic, critiquers don't "actually matter" either. And if the editors are the only ones who really matter, then why would the critiquer feel the need to be so harsh anyway? Let the editor be the one doing the bashing.

Seriously. I see some here who have the attitude that "It's the writing I care about. Not the writer's life." But, many times, a person's writing is an extension of themselves, no?

It's odd to me that people get so adamant about something like this. What is wrong with taking a little time to consider the _person_ behind the writing. It's not like I am saying we should treat each other with kid gloves.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

spartan928 said:


> In the context of getting critiques on a forum, being encouraging and constructive should be the norm. A forum is moderated as well, so there is an expectation (and even enforcement) of a certain decorum. Yet outside of that, people are only looking at the work. The author's issues are typically their own, and besides, the readers don't care. Outside of a forum, the world can be a rather harsh and unforgiving place. Personally, I don't think it's a matter of having a thick skin. It boils down to just how important writing is to the person regardless of encouragement or any personal circumstances that might be a hindrance (ie, mental health issues, social issues, addictions, etc). A desire or need to write is intrinsic and if it isn't, anything can and will stop someone from writing, even the weather.



Wow. This is interesting. 

I take it you have been in the position I referred to?

You are correct, of course, in pointing out that the readers don't care. So, of course, that automatically means that we shouldn't either, right?


----------



## Seedy M.

I had an experience that should be addressed with this subject: Know where the critic is coming from on some issues.
If the critic is a homophobe and you have a gay character shown in a good light, he will find fault and sometimes be acidulous about it. If your work has some immoral character shown to be a good character in other ways, a religious fanatic is going to rain curses on your work.
A critic of _Lab Test_ found a lot of fault with the work and was malicious about it she gave it -*, while two others found the work very good (***1/2 and ****)
The next book that critic said she had reacted as a Jewish person, not as a critic, and I had made Zionists the bad guys. She read the work partly and had immediately reacted badly. A Jew was also the hero of the work, in a lot of ways.
How nice! Her acid critique, that actually was a personal attack, was written and out there.
If a critic has a reputation of attacking an author instead of critiquing the work honestly, avoid them like the plague.
I had no idea the critic above was adamantly opposed to any negative mention of _any_ Jewish character. I would not have asked her to review it, had I known. Her being "honest" about the next one (that I did NOT send her) didn't erase the critique that was on the web. The one I needed honesty with was the first one.
My initials are C. D. People call me CD. The next book was a CD Grimes mystery. Her "honest critique" of the book was something like, "This was probably a very good story, but I am tired of CD being such a pompous ass. I found reading it tedious."
I replied that I didn't know if she meant CD Grimes or me, thanks for the critique, I won't ask her to critique anymore.
In other words, consider such things when you receive a critique and know which ones to ignore. A critic who will make personal attacks against an author is dishonest by the act.


----------



## dither

Difficult subject,
you have to consider the writer firstly and foremost imo,
for what it's worth.

That which might serve to challenge and motivate some,
will leave others destroyed, and feeling utterly useless.

You know all this of course.

Which is why i'll probably never try.

What i do here falls way below the radar of critique.

Just one very fragile ego, dithering.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

T.S.Bowman said:


> Why should a critiquer be unnecessarily harsh when they don't need to be?



I never said a critiquer should be unnecessarily harsh.  I simply said they shouldn't be unnecessarily gentle.


----------



## TKent

seriously dither, your posts are almost like poetry to me.  I guess because I've associated a certain tone, mindset, attitude to them that strikes certain cords now regardless of how much or little you say. Thx 



dither said:


> Difficult subject,
> you have to consider the writer firstly and foremost imo,
> for what it's worth.
> 
> That which might serve to challenge and motivate some,
> will leave others destroyed, and feeling utterly useless.
> 
> You know all this of course.
> 
> Which is why i'll probably never try.
> 
> What i do here falls way below the radar of critique.
> 
> Just one very fragile ego, dithering.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I never said a critiquer should be unnecessarily harsh.  I simply said they shouldn't be unnecessarily gentle.



I never said that, either.


----------



## dither

TK,
 i thank you.

I wasn't angling for compliments, yes really, and because you volunteered that comment, i'll trust that you're not just "being nice".
Please don't be offended by my reaction, such is my view of myself.


----------



## spartan928

T.S.Bowman said:


> Wow. This is interesting.
> 
> I take it you have been in the position I referred to?
> 
> You are correct, of course, in pointing out that the readers don't care. So, of course, that automatically means that we shouldn't either, right?



My experiences in life are irrelevant to anyone reading my stories, and honestly I want to keep it that way. I want an honest critique and can separate my work from my personal feelings, therefore I send my work to people who's opinion I trust and respect. But that is my responsibility, not the person doing the critique. And by "we" whom are you referring? People critiquing on a web forum? Sure, I agree with you, but a web forum is a fairly controlled environment, yet conversely, is rather public wouldn't you say? No two amateur critiquers will look at a work the same way, and even further, no two people have the same skill at providing a critique. People who make personal attacks get banned. Problem solved. But is it? Not really, because people can take offense at nearly anything and others can have good intentions but end of offending the sensibilities of an overly sensitive writer. 

In essence, what I'm suggesting is that writers who can be crushed into non-writers because of a critique may not meant to be writers. The Lovecrafts, Hemmingways and Vonneguts of the world became so by having an intrinsic need to write which nothing would prevent them from doing. My take is; don't sweat what others think. Take the good and chuck the rest. And yes, I do believe people who take the time to offer critique should do so in an honest, respectful, encouraging manner. Unfortunately, that takes some skill and can be hard to find. So when you build that relationship great! And the caveat is this; beyond the world of forums and friends critiquing is a world where people are very willing to tell me my writing stinks. And I'm OK with that because I decided recently the reason I write is simply because I want to.


----------



## TKent

I always try to be nice. But I never give out false compliments. Granted I may compliment something that someone comes behind me and says is technically unsound and I just don't know it. But what I feel is what I feel. And your ditherings to me are so quiet and genuine and soft and comfortable to me. So when I see your posts, they all have a certain 'dithering' quality that just feels good no matter what the topic -- be it happy, sad, etc.



dither said:


> TK,
> i thank you.
> 
> I wasn't angling for compliments, yes really, and because you volunteered that comment, i'll trust that you're not just "being nice".
> Please don't be offended by my reaction, such is my view of myself.


----------



## InstituteMan

For a typical critique around here, i don't experience much tension between being honest and being encouraging. Both can be done at once most of the time.

I also am with TKent about the greatness of dither's posts (and I also always strive to be nice while refusing to hand out false compliments). There's a certain combination of poetry and near performance art to them. I know that it is silly to call the written word performance art, but the way you comment throughout a discussion, dither, it has a level of artistic performance sometimes. I know that you will say that is not intended, and maybe you just have that knack and we all have to just envy you, but it is still brilliant. Is dither's work too dour and pessimistic to sell to a mass audience? Probably (see, honesty!). Is dither's work brilliant? Most definitely (honesty + encouragement, I hope!).


----------



## Deleted member 56686

InstituteMan said:


> For a typical critique around here, i don't experience much tension between being honest and being encouraging. Both can be done at once most of the time.
> 
> I also am with TKent about the greatness of dither's posts (and I also always strive to be nice while refusing to hand out false compliments). There's a certain combination of poetry and near performance art to them. I know that it is silly to call the written word performance art, but the way you comment throughout a discussion, dither, it has a level of artistic performance sometimes. I know that you will say that is intended, and maybe you just have that knack and we all have to just envy you, but it is still brilliant. Is dither's work too dour and pessimistic to sell to a mass audience? Probably (see, honesty!). Is dither's work brilliant? Most definitely (honesty + encouragement, I hope!).




I've been telling dither that for as long as I've been here and he still doesn't believe me.


----------



## bazz cargo

I apologise for slightly diverting this thread.

Someone who sets themselves apart from the couch-potato culture and sits down to write, or sing, dance, sculpt, paint, or one of many other creative pursuits is worthy of my respect. If that person then joins a forum, this one in my case, and wishes to develop their skills and hang out with other like minded, even driven people is going to get an honest and encouraging crit. Maybe their work is not to my taste, that is no reason to behave in a hostile manner. Maybe their SPaG is not up to the job, mine sure the hell isn't, that is a minor concern, is their work interesting? 

Everyone gets better with practice, so the first effort is pants, the next will have improvements, the next will be interesting and so on. 

I am glad TS resumed writing, overcoming a knock-back and asserting his own choice. Don't let the illegitimate offspring of female canines grind you down. 

Write on!


----------



## Sc0pe

It's times like these that you have to tell them it how you would honestly would like to be told. You can be honest without being discouraging.


----------



## Plasticweld

Very well said!
  Since I have been here I have come to appreciate your patience and wisdom when offering advice not just to me but to the other writers here.  It shows a certain level of "Gravitas" that can only be earned



InstituteMan said:


> When I do a critique, I don't worry much about honesty vs encouragement, because first and foremost I want to HELP. I want to help the writer improve that piece in particular and their skills overall. That requires a different approach at different times.
> 
> I don't always get it right, mind you, but I try to meet the writer where they are. Most people are going to need to hear positives to take the constructive criticisms, and fortunately most people with the gumption to ask for a critique or to post on here are good enough to give me something positive to say.
> 
> Another part of meeting writers where they are is giving a manageable amount of feedback. A piece with a clever idea but poor stricture and terrible grammar needs the structure fixed before the grammar. Harping on the grammar in that case gets in the way of improving the structure, so I usually wouldn't worry about it too much in a crit. I don't see much need in harping on things that aren't the pressing problem, especially for new writers.
> 
> Finally, I try really hard to be honest about what is my subjective reaction to a piece so that the writer knows to take my thoughts with a grain of salt. An incomplete sentence is an incomplete sentence, but an allusion that rings false for me might work for someone else.
> 
> Hopefully that approach has made my critiques helpful. I hope that I have also been both honest and encouraging, but I would take helpful over either of those.


----------



## dale

encouraging honesty is the best route. but do be honest. if i wrote something that was trash? and i have. i don't need someone telling me how 
it might have potential when it doesn't. that would be wasting BOTH of our time.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

dale said:


> encouraging honesty is the best route. but do be honest. if i wrote something that was trash? and i have. i don't need someone telling me how
> it might have potential when it doesn't. that would be wasting BOTH of our time.



Agreed. But, even though the idea itself may have been crappy, were there good things in the writing itself?


----------



## InstituteMan

T.S.Bowman said:


> Agreed. But, even though the idea itself may have been crappy, were there good things in the writing itself?



Oh, I've seen writing with nothing much to redeem it other than the effort involved with writing it. Not on here, mind you. :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## T.S.Bowman

InstituteMan said:


> Oh, I've seen writing with nothing much to redeem it other than the effort involved with writing it. Not on here, mind you. :icon_cheesygrin:



As have I. Mostly when cruising the 'self published' dungeons.

But, even so, I wouldn't flat out discourage a writer of even the most horrible dreck to be found in those dungeons. 

Would I let them know that they needed to work, perhaps a LOT, on their writing? Yep. Would I beat them over the head while doing so? Nope.


----------



## Jon M

I think critiques are fair as long as they do not attack the author. 

To suggest I get to know the person behind the story before critiquing adds pressure, & a tiny bit of guilt, & that seems unfair. I cannot be responsible for the egos of strangers, especially writers who ought to know what to expect from this game of opinionation.


----------



## dale

T.S.Bowman said:


> Agreed. But, even though the idea itself may have been crappy, were there good things in the writing itself?



i was actually just kidding. i've never wrote trash.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

dale said:


> i was actually just kidding. i've never wrote trash.



Nice. LOL


----------



## dale

T.S.Bowman said:


> Nice. LOL


 lol. no. i have wrote what i consider trash. some of it has even been published. but never a whole story trash. just parts of a story where i got too wasted and became confused during a segment of a story. i can tell it when i reread those parts. most writers here have potential. basically, if i'm of the opinion a writer doesn't have potential here? i'll just ignore them rather than down them. those types usually leave here in a month or so anyway.


----------



## hvysmker

When I retired and thought try my hand at fiction writing, my work was extremely bad.  The few honest crits I received were three times the length of a story and must have taken an hour a page to compile.  I quit the first writing site I tried because two of the Admins told me they weren't going to crit my stories anymore. Really. I won't mention which site  but it had something to do with "toasting". He-he.

I almost quit at that point.  A few years later, I  went back to that toasting site and won real money as second place on a contest.  Then, I quit again, satisfied.

Yes. By all means, tear me a new one if the old one doesn't eject correctly.  I have thick skin and can take it.

I try to be honest and gentle on my crits.  I recently started one here and the story made no sense. None at all.  I couldn't even make out the storyline.  It was the first time in many years that I simply gave up.  I also noticed twenty-some others had clicked on it without comment.  Did that help the author?  I don't believe so.  Even a harsh critique would have helped more than being ignored.  Sometimes you have no choice but to be harsh since it's  better than nothing.

Charlie


----------



## J Anfinson

I think thick skin is important because we can't control how others are going to react to our work. All we can control is whether we choose to keep writing despite some of the nasty comments that invariably get left in critiques or reviews (not so much at WF, thankfully). However, I don't see any reason to be harsh. I aim to be honest where I think something needs work, yet encouraging where I think they've done well. Though I'll admit I've made mistakes at times in trying too hard to find the good where there wasn't much to speak of. But even if the work is pure junk, I think it's better to use a little tact to tell them so.


----------



## TKent

This is EXACTLY why I write on a copper-plated handmade paper with a Montblanc Boheme Royal fountain pen and a special blue-black archival quality ink from the UK. So no matter what I write, there is still some redeeming quality to the paper and ink itself.



InstituteMan said:


> Oh, I've seen writing with nothing much to redeem it other than the effort involved with writing it. Not on here, mind you. :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## dale

the best critiques i ever got in the workshop when i 1st came here told me how my writing DIDN'T work. at 1st, i wanted to curl my lip at it out of ego. but what mattered is that it was what i needed to hear. so after i got done lip-curling, i was able to see that i was not writing god and needed improvement. then i became writing demigod. and i can live with that.


----------



## aj47

Speaking only for myself.  I don't invest in critiquing stuff that I don't find merit in.  A good critique requires effort and I'm one of the laziest people I know.  I'm also one of the busiest.  I'm taking a full load of college courses and chairing a 3-day conference. So if I choose to critique something of yours, it is a privilege.  I realize that reads like all of the ego, but it's simple truth.  

I call them as I see them--balls and strikes, foul and fair. It isn't my job to give you warm fuzzies.  

There is a mindset in poetry that if you _feel_ it, it's okay, you don't need rules or structure or even to make sense. And invariably someone who belongs to that school of thought comes behind me and says, whatever you wrote is "perfect" or "just fine" or whatever exactly as you've written it. The truth is, poetry is like any other writing; the more you work at it, the better you get. And if you want someone to traditionally publish your work, you have to be very good.


----------



## Pluralized

> So if I choose to critique something of yours, it is a privilege.



There's something to be said for humility, first of all, but also - it's common courtesy and a part of any critique-centric community, that we give as well as take. From my perspective the best approach to growing as writers (if that's what we're here for) is to make selfless critique part of our regular activity (especially for you 'mentor' types!).


----------



## aj47

Pluralized said:


> There's something to be said for humility, first of all, but also - it's common courtesy and a part of any critique-centric community, that we give as well as take. From my perspective the best approach to growing as writers (if that's what we're here for) is to make selfless critique part of our regular activity (especially for you 'mentor' types!).



Surely, you don't take this to mean that we are, by virtue of our membership in this community, obligating ourselves to critique every work that flickers across our screens?  For that is the alternative to being selective.


----------



## hvysmker

astroannie said:


> Surely, you don't take this to mean that we are, by virtue of our membership in this community, obligating ourselves to critique every work that flickers across our screens?  For that is the alternative to being selective.




I  can't agree, astroannie.  On the two sites I've Admined,  one duty of Mods was to make certain every story or poem had at least two crits.  If, after a few days, other members  didn't do it, the Mods stepped in or an Admin would  do it.  I've, personally, given very few "I like it" comments. Even if I can't find errors  or perceived errors, there's always something to mention. Some way it affects me or brings back a memory.

Sorry, you poets,  though, he-he.  I never crit poems. I grew up with only traditional rhyming poems and know nothing of the rules, either of them or other types. Also, I have no interest in poetry.

Funny, because the first thing I had published, ever, was a Haiku in a Japanese newspaper.  A girlfriend conned me into helping her write one for a contest. We submitted ours and I won first place. It was in English, and she was really pissed.

Another time, a small publisher bought four of my stories for a hardcover collection.  When I received my complimentary copies, I found  he'd put two of them in the poetry section by inserting extra blank lines.  Now, how the hell do you make poems out of two to three thousand word stories?  That was the clincher.  No more poetry for me.

Charlie


----------



## InstituteMan

I agree that we all need to give if we are going to take, but we also have to pick and choose our battles, i.e., both what we give and what we take. I choose to critique (1) when I think that I can genuinely help and (2) when I actually, you know, have the time to put in the effort to do a critique well.

Typically, the worse a work is the less likely I am to have the time to do a proper critique, at least unless I can spot a specific overarching flaw to point out. I certainly don't begrudge anyone the approach that they find works for them around here.


----------



## Pluralized

astroannie said:


> obligating ourselves to critique every work that flickers across our screens?


 Of course not. Just advocating a more selfless, less arrogant approach to the work.



InstituteMan said:


> Typically, the worse a work is the less likely I am to have the time to do a proper critique


Those are the ones that need you the worst.


----------



## Kevin

P, heh... that's why I ignore you... you don't need me anymore... and I don't want to inflate your head by heaping praise. Yes, I read them, but I withhold.


----------



## Cran

I remind everyone to get back on topic. 
*
This is not a discussion about what my staff should or should not be doing.*


----------



## Sam

T.S.Bowman said:


> You have to realize that people who are in or have recently come out of that kind of situation have been beaten down for a very long time. That person could be the next H. G. Wells or Lovecraft. That person could have something very important to say that the world needs to know. But, given the fragility of their state of mind, a few harsh words could very well cause that person to walk away with their head hanging down feeling the same old feelings that have been repeatedly beaten into them over many years.
> 
> We simply do not know. And because I do not know, and having been there, I prefer to take a more gentle approach until I see more of the person's posts. I am always honest about what works for me, but I always let the person know what does, as well.



When I first started writing, I drew a lot of contemptuous sneers and snickers from my cousins and friends. My immediate family were supportive, if a little uninterested, but my friends and other members of my family laughed at me as though I were some moron with delusions of grandeur and visions of being the next [insert popular author here]. I could have acquiesced and acceded to their expectations of me, but I used their words to light a fire under my ass. They have no idea to this day that when they run their mouth about me being a writer, they are inspiring me to become better, wiser, and more successful than they could ever wish to be. If they had been supportive and encouraging, I mightn't be the writer I am today. 

Nobody can make you (generic) quit but _you_. Nobody can make you feel bad about yourself but _you_. You decide to feel beaten down and oppressed, if that's what you want to feel. You decide to let their words break you instead of make you. You have the power to take those harsh words and turn them into a fire that makes your belly ache and your heart roar. Or you can let them define who you are rather than who you can and should be. 

It's your choice.


----------



## Pluralized

> So, while I completely understand that honesty is normally the best way to go, I also understand that sometimes, just sometimes, being honest could quite possibly be a final step in someone giving up on his/her dream of writing.


I experienced this when I came here. Somebody commented on my work that didn't think it was very good at all. In fact, they went through it and picked it apart. I was pretty butt-hurt about it, honestly. It's never easy to see your work shredded and thrashed about like that! 

But their comments stuck with me and I wanted it badly. So I worked hard to improve and _actually_ implemented their advice. It works, but takes time. Some people who only want instant gratification and platitudes, aren't meant to have their work placed in a critique environment. Not that I advocate always being a hard-ass, but honesty is needed _always. _I like Kyle's particular brand of critique, which I'd invite everyone to seek out. Kind, helpful, honest. Always.


----------



## Tettsuo

If ever asked to honestly review someone's work, I bookend the criticism with compliments.  There's always something positive one can say about someone's artwork.


----------



## Nickleby

I agree with Sam. If your stuff sucks, you need to know it, whether or not the critiquer can be polite about it. Any negative feedback stings. You get over it or you get out of the business. The hurt feelings fade, but the lessons will stay with you for life.

I agree with Dale. You have to be honest. Not doing so wastes everyone's time. You can be encouraging, you can be tactful, you can do good writing _in reaction to_ writing as well as for its own sake.

A critique involves two people, so each one is unique. My position is that a newcomer who needs help with grammar and punctuation won't benefit much from a lecture on symbolism or atmosphere. On the other hand, someone with a typo or two doesn't need more than a word or two to indicate the oversight, but would appreciate some pointers on character development. In other words, tailor your crit to the recipient's skill level, be nice, but don't be overly nice.


----------



## dale

basically, if you want mollycoddled? hire a hooker. a hooker will tell you everything you want to hear. but if you really want to improve yourself?
 then actually WANT some feedback telling you what you're doing wrong. now, that's not to say that you should pay attention to all negative feedback.
some people are morons. but if more than one person is telling you that there's a problem? you should listen.


----------



## aj47

"When one person calls you a jackass, ignore it. When three people call you a jackass, get a saddle. " (author unknown but I've heard it credited to Mark Twain)

If you can't say _something_​ nice, then best be silent. --my mother.


----------



## Apple Ice

It reminds me of the film "Million Dollar Baby". There is the mentally handicapped guy who say he's going to be world champion one day and no matter what negative things other people said he kept on turning up to the gym. Then one day he actually got in to the ring and boxed which resulted in him getting beaten up physically and emotionally. He then never returns and it is the last anyone sees of him. So he learned himself that he's not cut out to box.
 I think that's how it should be with anything. Let people come to their own conclusions about these things. Most of the people on this site are hobbyists with ambitions anyway, so there's no need to trample. If someone is serious as can be about writing and ask for an honest critique then by all means give it to them, but honesty and nastiness can be very close. The excuse of 'letting someone know they're wasting their time' is toxic. It's their time and they can do any old shit they want to with it so don't waste your time telling them they're wasting their time. 

Sometimes the dream of being a writer is enough for people and I would be ashamed of myself or anyone else who trampled that dream for the sake of honesty.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Nickleby said:


> In other words, tailor your crit to the recipient's skill level, be nice, but don't be overly nice.



This is pretty much what I have been trying to say. I am not saying that we need to coddle everyone. 

BUT...there is no reason to be overly harsh just for the sake of "honesty". That's just being an asshole because you can be.



Apple Ice said:


> Sometimes the dream of being a writer is enough for people and I would be ashamed of myself or anyone else who trampled that dream for the sake of honesty.



Exactly.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Sam said:


> Nobody can make you (generic) quit but _you_. Nobody can make you feel bad about yourself but _you_. You decide to feel beaten down and oppressed, if that's what you want to feel. You decide to let their words break you instead of make you. You have the power to take those harsh words and turn them into a fire that makes your belly ache and your heart roar. Or you can let them define who you are rather than who you can and should be.
> 
> It's your choice.



Sam, as much as I normally agree with you, in this case, I have to disagree.

There comes a point where someone who is abused finally becomes convinced that they have no worth. Not to themselves or anyone else. The ONLY way to get out of that is to get out of the situation. It's only then that the person can begin to see that the people who convinced him/her of their worthlessness can begin to see that they were wrong.

It is not a conscious choice that the abused make. It's all they know. For them, as it was for me, there is no other "choice" because there is no alternative that shows itself.


----------



## shadowwalker

Apple Ice said:


> Sometimes the dream of being a writer is enough for people and I would be ashamed of myself or anyone else who trampled that dream for the sake of honesty.



If honesty (without being a jerk) is going to trample someone's dream, so be it. I'd rather have that than a bunch of "oh you can do it, just keep trying" - and then find out that I'm lousy at it. It _is _wasting time - time that person could have spent finding and pursuing another more attainable dream. But if someone wants to write badly enough, they aren't going to listen to the nay-sayers anyway.


----------



## Cran

Conclusion:_ It's not the truth that matters, it's how you use it._


----------



## Kyle R

Being successful at something usually involves failing many times (and to different extremes) along the way.

What that means is that the writers whom you critique will probably go on to fail anyway (at least until they reach success). Your comments likely won't change that process.

You can, however, choose whether or not you're going to make that journey a positive one—or a negative one.

Stephenie Meyer quit writing because of all the negativity aimed at her after she became successful. Now into producing, she says of writing, "I get further away every day. I am so over it. For me, it’s not a happy place to be."

Conclude what you will from that. For me, it points out that negativity can be harmful even to successful authors.

In the end, we're all humans, not machines. We are emotional creatures. My advice is: keep that in mind when offering your critique of another's work. Also keep in mind that what you consider to be "honesty" might very well be, in all likelihood, just your own personal opinion. :encouragement:


----------



## stevesh

Kyle R said:


> Stephenie Meyer quit writing because of all the negativity aimed at her after she became successful. Now into producing, she says of writing, "I get further away every day. I am so over it. For me, it’s not a happy place to be."



Probably a somewhat easier choice to make when you have $125 million in the bank.


----------



## shadowwalker

Kyle R said:


> Conclude what you will from that. For me, it points out that negativity can be harmful even to successful authors.



Realistically, the amount of venom tossed in Ms Meyer's direction was grossly disproportionate to what most authors - particularly those on forums - are going to see. She was, in essence, a lightning rod for the mean-spirited.



Kyle R said:


> Also keep in mind that what you consider to be "honesty" might very well be, in all likelihood, just your own personal opinion.



Unless one is talking about SPaG, that's all any critique is. Just because it's opinion does not negate the need for honesty.


----------



## E. Zamora

astroannie said:


> Speaking only for myself.  I don't invest in critiquing stuff that I don't find merit in.  A good critique requires effort and I'm one of the laziest people I know.  I'm also one of the busiest.  I'm taking a full load of college courses and chairing a 3-day conference. So if I choose to critique something of yours, it is a privilege.  I realize that reads like all of the ego, but it's simple truth.
> 
> I call them as I see them--balls and strikes, foul and fair. It isn't my job to give you warm fuzzies.
> 
> There is a mindset in poetry that if you _feel_ it, it's okay, you don't need rules or structure or even to make sense. And invariably someone who belongs to that school of thought comes behind me and says, whatever you wrote is "perfect" or "just fine" or whatever exactly as you've written it. The truth is, poetry is like any other writing; the more you work at it, the better you get. And if you want someone to traditionally publish your work, you have to be very good.



From what I've seen, poetry forums are a different animal. There are people who really don't want critiques, who get defensive or don't respond to your comments at all; some who flood the forum. Then there are the people who more or less dismiss your comments with "poetry isn't really my thing." And yes, there are those who think if it's about "honest feelings" then it's somehow sacrosanct. I think it's just fine to be discerning.


----------



## Bishop

I suppose I'm having trouble understanding how one cannot be both encouraging and honest. It's quite simple, and nearly all of the critiques I've gotten on this site have been both. The concepts are not mutually exclusive and merely require some sense of tact when responding to another's work.


----------



## shadowwalker

Quite honestly  I tend to think that any time someone will take the time to give a critique is encouraging in and of itself. Sure, there are people out there who "critique" just to tear people down, but one quickly learns how easy it is to recognize those jerks. But if other people think there's enough good in the writing to spend time commenting on it, then it's not a hopeless cause.

I should add that I have, on rare occasions, told a writer that they need to learn more about grammar, proofreading, and/or story-telling before proceeding with a critique. But even then, I never tell them to quit writing - only that they aren't ready for the critique stage.


----------



## Pluralized

E. Zamora said:


> From what I've seen, poetry forums are a different animal.



Really good point, EZ.


----------



## Tettsuo

Every critique is nothing more than an opinion.

Example:  If someone asked me to review 50 shades of Grey, I would have told them to try again after reading some good romance novels.

*Surprise!  It's a best seller.*

So you never know who will be successful and who won't.  You never know what will hit and what won't.  It's the same with all artwork.


----------



## tabasco5

Encouragement and honesty need not be mutually exclusive.  And there are ways of being honest without being a jerk about it, though that concept has surpassed some individuals.  For example, a few weeks ago I was asked to be a beta reader for a novel and to provide feedback.  My opinion was that the story was mediocre to bad, the writing stunk and was overburdened with cliches and wordiness, and the characters were flat farcical fartknockers.  I could have told the writer that the story was the worst, most pathetic drivel I had ever come across, and have been totally honest about it.  I could have told this person that it was full of cliches and bloated with unneeded words and would never be published and stunk like sewage sludge and could have been written by a 5th grader... but I didn't.  

What I told this person was to first read the two prerequisites: Strunk and White and On Writing Well, and then, _for the second draft_, to concentrate on removing unneeded words, to creatively replace cliches, and to consider various improvements to story structure and character development that I recommended.

Now, in my opinion, this approach is both honest and encouraging.  Honest in that, without giving an opinion on preference, I am telling the writer what I think needs to be done to make the story better.  He doesn't have to take this advice and completely discard it if desired.  And it is encouraging in that I am telling the writer that the story can be made better - that it _can be turned into a good story. _ 

Why should I approach it this way, you may ask.  And the answer is that I would have appreciated *this kind* of honest, encouraging feedback when I was a beginning writer, and not just opinionated babbles and criticisms.  Also, I use this approach because reading this writer's embarrassingly bad story reminds me of a couple of things I wrote a while back...


----------



## NerdyMJ

Tettsuo said:


> Every critique is nothing more than an opinion.
> 
> Example:  If someone asked me to review 50 shades of Grey, I would have told them to try again after reading some good romance novels.
> 
> *Surprise!  It's a best seller.*
> 
> So you never know *who will be successful and who won't.*  You never know what will hit and what won't.  It's the same with all artwork.



More like you never know what will be marketable and what won't. Writing a marketable story does not necessarily make you a good writer, IMO. There are hundreds of good stories and authors that never get to see the light of day simply because their work is deemed unmarketable. 

Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand, lying to a bad writer and telling them that their work is actually good won't actually make them a good writer. You have to tell them what's wrong, so they can figure out how to fix it.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

There seems to be a misconception as to what I was originally saying in this thread.

At no point have I advocated not telling the truth to an aspiring writer. If things are not right, they must know about it. 

I am referring to the lack of tact that some people employ in the name of "honesty".

In 1985, the teacher I showed my work to could have just as easily pointed out what was wrong, which is what a teacher _should_ do, but do so in a way that wouldn't completely disparage my ability to tell a story even though the grammar wasn't very good.

I could have put in some work to fix the problems _had she actually pointed them out and given me the opportunity to ask her how to do so._ Again, what a teacher who decides to make it a "teaching moment" should do.

There was nothing of that sort, though.


----------



## Sam

T.S.Bowman said:


> Sam, as much as I normally agree with you, in this case, I have to disagree.
> 
> There comes a point where someone who is abused finally becomes convinced that they have no worth. Not to themselves or anyone else. The ONLY way to get out of that is to get out of the situation. It's only then that the person can begin to see that the people who convinced him/her of their worthlessness can begin to see that they were wrong.
> 
> It is not a conscious choice that the abused make. It's all they know. For them, as it was for me, there is no other "choice" because there is no alternative that shows itself.



Abused is a strong word. It has connotations of cruelty. I've seen writers maligned, and I've seen people be cruel to them on occasion, but I've rarely seen the type of systematic and consistent cruelty one would associate with abuse. Certainly not with beginners. More often, it's reserved for established authors such as Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer -- and then you'd be hard-pressed to call it abuse when it is the work being criticised and not the person. And that, for me, is the crux of the situation. Too many writers believe that criticism of their writing is criticism of them. They take it personally, which is the single worst thing you can do. It's not personal. I've had people call me pro-war, anti-women, and even a sociopath -- because my characters acted that way. That's personal. I've had other people call one of my books "too complex", which is a valid and non-personal criticism of my work. 

The first thing that a writer needs to understand when they start out in this crazy industry is that "not everyone will like their work". That's a given. What isn't stated often enough, however, is that "not everything you write is as awesome as you think it is". I remember what it was like to be a cocky 16-year-old writer of a novel. I thought I was God's gift to everything. If I met that 16-year-old version of myself now, I'd smack the s*** out of him. You have to work hard to be a good writer, and part of that is learning how to take criticism. I couldn't do it when I was that age either. But when I was cut down to earth for the first time, I learned how to. Encouragement is all well and fine, but there's a thin line between encouragement and patronisation. I often wonder if those wailing singers on reality-television shows would have been better off if someone in their life had the stones to say, "Don't go to that audition. You need more practice." 

I'm thankful I had someone in my life to tell me that, otherwise I would have submitted my first novel and been torn to pieces by some publishing house. That would have been far worse than a honest whisper in my ear.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

OK. Now I know there is a misunderstanding.

Sam, I was referring to general abuse in a young person's personal life. Not their writing life. The abuse I am referring to in my own case, and what I was trying to bring attention to might be the case for others, is emotional abuse by family members.

If it had been nothing more than people telling me my writing was bad I would have pretty much said "Piss off" and went merrily on my way.

What happened to me was systematic. It was also done by family members. 

The teachers words, for me, were a "straw that broke the camel's back" kind of thing.

My point here was to try to make people aware that unnecessarily harsh words from someone here or on any other critiquing area, could very well be that same kind of case.


----------



## Pluralized

Also helpful to differentiate the online forum environment, or online critique situation from real-life, interpersonal interaction. 

Everyone on the internet is a digital ghost. Their words can't affect you if you don't allow them to. Every hack has an ax to grind, and with the easy nature of modern communication, even the most backwoods rubes are throwing pot-shots at educated, talented people. 

I'm using every bit of this for practice to thicken my skin in hopes that, someday, I have work out there for public review and that's when it gets really harsh and not very encouraging at all.  

Again I agree with everyone who's advocating for honesty without mean-spiritedness but not for just placating writers who want their egos stroked.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Pluralized said:


> Again I agree with everyone who's advocating for honesty without mean-spiritedness but not for just placating writers who want their egos stroked.



So do I. 

I think some may have misconstrued what I was saying.


----------



## shadowwalker

T.S.Bowman said:


> My point here was to try to make people aware that unnecessarily harsh words from someone here or on any other critiquing area, could very well be that same kind of case.



I think that a writer's personal history is not something that should be considered when doing a critique of their writing - "unnecessarily harsh words" should not be used regardless. However, the fact that the writer led a hard life or had bad experiences should also not be considered because it doesn't change the fact that their writing is good or bad or salvageable or not. I'm not a social worker, a psychologist, a counselor - I'm doing a critique of a person's writing. Period. If their personal life prevents them from dealing appropriately with my _not _unnecessarily harsh words or their perception of "unnecessarily harsh words", then they need to find a way to deal with their personal problems first.


----------



## Jeko

> My point here was to try to make people aware that unnecessarily harsh words from someone here or on any other critiquing area, could very well be that same kind of case.



I'm not going to care if the writer saw their whole family murdered in front of their eyes; writing is writing, and I will only assess it on its own. Unnecessarily harsh words shouldn't be used full stop, but necessary harshness? Sometimes that's the antidote to someone's problems, inside or outside the craft. Either way, I'm not going to care. I'm just going to say what I thought about the piece and assume that the writer knows that I don't care about their personal life beyond what they've posted.

If someone's been through a lot, then remaining objective is more likely to be the way to go.


----------



## E. Zamora

I simply say what I think will benefit the author as deferentially as possible; in a way that will get the message across. I know what I appreciate in the way of a critique, so for me, it's just another application of the golden rule. I can't worry about how other people do it.


----------



## dither

astroannie said:


> If you can't say _something_​ nice, then best be silent. --my mother.




I'd go along with that.


----------



## TKent

If Stephanie had been to WF and posted her work, she probably would have never published it if she'd gotten some of the negative comments then, that she gets now that she's published and sold more books than possibly many of the members on this site's sales combined. What is 'good' writing is so subjective. At its heart, fiction writing is telling a story, and there are a lot of ways to tell a story. Not everyone is trying to write literary fiction. I expect that if Donna Tartt had workshopped Goldfinch, she'd have had a lot of folks telling her "more showing and less telling" (I might have..LOL) yet she won a Pulitzer prize. So in addition to the straightforward (imho), "you can give honest feedback in a tactful manner", I think it is good for every writer to have a healthy dose of humility and realize that some of what they are saying is their opinion and may not even be the opinion of the majority. (Not talking about specific SPaG issues and other technical things). Anyway, don't get me wrong, I am REALLY appreciative of the help I get here, just saying this in the context of encouragement vs. honesty. Early on in this thread, Kyle quoted to examples of feedback where one was honest and tactful, and the other, while maybe honest, was unnecessarily harsh.




> _Stephenie Meyer quit writing because of all the negativity aimed at her after she became successful. Now into producing, she says of writing, "__I get further away every day. I am so over it. For me, it’s not a happy place to be."
> _


----------



## Kyle R

Cadence said:


> I'm not going to care if the writer saw their whole family murdered in front of their eyes; writing is writing, and I will only assess it on its own. Unnecessarily harsh words shouldn't be used full stop, but necessary harshness? Sometimes that's the antidote to someone's problems, inside or outside the craft. Either way, I'm not going to care. I'm just going to say what I thought about the piece and assume that the writer knows that I don't care about their personal life beyond what they've posted.
> 
> If someone's been through a lot, then remaining objective is more likely to be the way to go.



A writer's personal problems are one thing. I agree that they (in most cases) shouldn't play a factor when delivering a critique.

However, the writer's emotions in regard to how they feel about themselves as a writer? I believe it's simple (and obvious) courtesy to keep those in mind.

Nowadays, I try my best not to undermine someone's confidence in themselves as a writer.

I believe some reviewers make the mistake of offering overly harsh, purely analytical responses. They're not critiquing the *writer*, they reason—they are critiquing the *writing*.

Except, the *writing* is not going to be reading your critique—the *writer* will be the one reading your words. :encouragement:


----------



## Sunny

Negativity only brings hurt. _I'm_ not okay hurting others to make myself feel smarter, as if I know more than they do. I would rather tell someone they need to work on something in a kind way. After all it is just my _opinion_ I'm giving, not advice that's going to make or break their career.  

Encouragement goes so much farther in life. Negativity sucks and drags you down.

No matter where I am, what situation I'm in, I'm going to encourage you. You can do anything you want to do, you just have to want it bad enough! You just have to work hard enough for it. If I can give someone even _one_ good feeling about their work, I want to do that. 

I wish positivity and encouragement was a little louder on this forum.


----------



## Gavrushka

I'd never considered encouragement and honesty as opposing forces. Indeed, the best encouragement you can give any writer is to suggest how their prose can be made even better.

How you deliver that encouragement is important, but to suggest that encouraging a writer has to be in some way dishonest sounds strange to me.

Dishonest comment is a millstone holding back many a writer, and I witnessed it first hand on another site where people were 'encouraged' to reciprocate 'likes' with other narcissists.


----------



## Jeko

> the *writing is not going to be reading your critique—the writer will be the one reading your words*



Still, whenever I ask for feedback I don't filter responses through my feelings towards my work; I just take the responses and see how I can use them to improve my work. A writer who emotionalizes the process of critique, IMO, won't get as much out of it, and they're not going to grow a thicker skin because people are prioritizing their emotional maintenance over their work. I've become more confident myself because other writers have critiqued me critically and confidently, knowing that, regardless of how I feel about their words and my own, I understand that they're being honest.

Furthermore, editing often requires you to remove the emotional connection you have with your work and/or craft if you want to improve your work; that's why writers take long breaks from their stories before getting out the scissors. I try to encourage this practice by focusing on the work alone myself.


----------



## Kyle R

Cadence said:
			
		

> Still, whenever I ask for feedback I don't filter responses through my feelings towards my work; I just take the responses and see how I can use them to improve my work. A writer who emotionalizes the process of critique, IMO, won't get as much out of it, and they're not going to grow a thicker skin because people are prioritizing their emotional maintenance over their work. I've become more confident myself because other writers have critiqued me critically and confidently, knowing that, regardless of how I feel about their words and my own, I understand that they're being honest.



I hear you, Cadence. :encouragement:

It's important to be as helpful as we can be when critiquing a writer's work. On that you and I seem to agree.

What we each consider helpful seems to be at odds though, and that's okay too. Everyone approachers writing (and reviewing) differently.

You believe sterile and detached is the best way to go. I believe encouragement does wonders, and can be applied _in addition to_ anything provided in a sterile and detached critique. 

In other words: take those critiques that have helped you so much, and _add on _a few words of positive reinforcement and encouragement. Logically speaking, the reviews would be _no less__ helpful_. Rather, they would be_ even more helpful _(in my opinion), because they would not only be addressing the writing itself, but also encouraging the writer.

Just my perspective on it.



Cadence said:


> Furthermore, editing often requires you to remove the emotional connection you have with your work and/or craft if you want to improve your work; that's why writers take long breaks from their stories before getting out the scissors.



This is one of those bits of writerly advice that I consider a partial myth, though that's probably best saved for another (likely very interesting!) discussion. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam

Encouragement does nothing if it isn't earned. 

If you encourage someone when they write crap, they'll always write crap.


----------



## Sunny

Sam said:


> Encouragement does nothing if it isn't earned.
> 
> If you encourage someone when they write crap, they'll always write crap.



I find your statement sad. 

I know we're all different and we have our own ways of thinking and teaching others, but to insinuate encouraging someone's crap writing means they'll always be a crap writer is so unfair and completely untrue. I think as a fellow writer you are not making that individual a better or worse writer with your comments, you're just giving them a new angle to look at things. You can still get your point across without negativity. 

I think to be a good teacher, and that's what we're doing when we're critiquing, is _teaching_ others what we _think_ they could learn from us, you should be respectful of that author and know that they did their best, and whether it's up to your standards or not, you can tell them how you'd make it better for you with a little consideration to their feelings. 

People that have great influence on others should use it for good. Just sayin'.


----------



## Terry D

I don't care if someone else becomes the best writer they can be. My disdain, or encouragement, is not going to have much of effect on their success. If a young writer can be dissuaded from telling his/her stories because a total stranger didn't like one of them, then they aren't going to get past the first handful of rejection letters they get anyway. 

That being said, when I do choose to critique a story I do so with respect for the person behind the words. There is never a reason to get sarcastic about someone's work (even if it is pretentious crap), or to make fun of it (even if it reads like it came from a sixth grade study hall). I have seen both on this site in the past, in critiques and in LM judging and I have less respect for the reviewer than the unskilled author. I tell the writer what works (for me) and what doesn't. I try to do so in a professional manner, but I don't hunt for something to praise. Readers won't, reviewers shouldn't. If it's there I mention it (and why I think it's good), if it's not there my critique is going to sound all bad. So be it.


----------



## Sam

Sunny said:


> I find your statement sad.
> 
> I know we're all different and we have our own ways of thinking and teaching others, but to insinuate encouraging someone's crap writing means they'll always be a crap writer is so unfair and completely untrue. I think as a fellow writer you are not making that individual a better or worse writer with your comments, you're just giving them a new angle to look at things. You can still get your point across without negativity.
> 
> I think to be a good teacher, and that's what we're doing when we're critiquing, is _teaching_ others what we _think_ they could learn from us, you should be respectful of that author and know that they did their best, and whether it's up to your standards or not, you can tell them how you'd make it better for you with a little consideration to their feelings.
> 
> People that have great influence on others should use it for good. Just sayin'.



I hate political correctness. I hate the fact that, as a race of people, humans have become so offended by the littlest things. I hate that we can't tell the truth for fear of making someone feel bad. I hate that we can't be negative about something without being labelled a mean-spirited a-hole. I hate that we have to be on tenterhooks around people in case we make them feel insecure about themselves. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I would consider it disrespectful to a writer if I didn't tell them the truth, and I would lose respect for them if they didn't do likewise with me. People shouldn't be condescending a-holes, no, but they should tell the truth. If it's negative, so be it. Feelings? Feelings don't come into it. If you can't handle the fact that something you've written isn't good, you're in the wrong industry. How are you going to handle rejections? Reviews? Criticism? Thoughts of beta readers? 

I don't set out to make people feel bad. I never attack the person when I critique. I mention positives, but most people don't ask for critique in order to be told everything is fine. You _have _to mention the negatives, otherwise what's the point of asking for critique? And if you think there shouldn't be any negativity, any areas where improvement is needed, why are any of us even here?


----------



## shadowwalker

Terry D said:


> I try to do so in a professional manner, but I don't hunt for something to praise. Readers won't, reviewers shouldn't. If it's there I mention it (and why I think it's good), if it's not there my critique is going to sound all bad. So be it.



I agree with this. One shouldn't have to hunt for something good. Just as I point out the problem areas that catch my eye, I will point out well-done areas that _catch my eye_ - ie, the things that are above and below the level of quality I expect when I pick up a book. Just as I will not point out every grammatical error, but instead note that the grammar in general needs work, I'm not going to point out every "good" piece of writing, but may just state if I was favorably impressed with the overall writing.


----------



## Sunny

Sam said:


> I hate political correctness. I hate the fact that, as a race of people, humans have become so offended by the littlest things. I hate that we can't tell the truth for fear of making someone feel bad. I hate that we can't be negative about something without being labelled a mean-spirited a-hole. I hate that we have to be on tenterhooks around people in case we make them feel insecure about themselves.
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but I would consider it disrespectful to a writer if I didn't tell them the truth, and I would lose respect for them if they didn't do likewise with me. People shouldn't be condescending a-holes, no, but they should tell the truth. If it's negative, so be it. Feelings? Feelings don't come into it. If you can't handle the fact that something you've written isn't good, you're in the wrong industry. How are you going to handle rejections? Reviews? Criticism? Thoughts of beta readers?
> 
> I don't set out to make people feel bad. I never attack the person when I critique. I mention positives, but most people don't ask for critique in order to be told everything is fine. You _have _to mention the negatives, otherwise what's the point of asking for critique? And if you think there shouldn't be any negativity, any areas where improvement is needed, why are any of us even here?



That's a lot of hate, Sam. 

I guess I'm just opposite of you. That's not good or bad. Just different. 

I don't like to feel hate or negativity; it's draining and a weight I refuse to carry. So when something happens that I don't like, or someone does something that makes me angry or makes me have those feeling of _hate_, I do what I can to avoid it and shake it off. I don't think it's healthy, for me anyway, to carry those feelings. I just choose to avoid making someone else feel bad, too. 

Kyle is very good at telling me my writing needs work. My grammar is often wrong. I need to work on plotting. But, not once has he had to put me down with any kind of negativity to get his opinion out to me. 

Same goes for him. I don't like all of his sentences or word choices or characters all of the time, but when I tell him what doesn't work for me, I don't make him feel bad about what he _did _create. I tell him it's my opinion and if he truly loves what he's written then he needs to stand behind that, and he does. If I tell him these things with the intention of bruising his ego, of hurting his confidence just to give him a head start on building this bulletproof armour that writers are supposed to have for skin instead, well that's just Bull. 

I'm not preparing him for anything by putting down his work with opinions of rudeness or sarcasm. That's like calling my kid names when they're small just to prepare them for the bullies at school!


----------



## T.S.Bowman

There is a massive chasm between mentioning the negative and _being_ negative in the process.


----------



## shadowwalker

Sunny said:


> I'm not preparing him for anything by putting down his work with opinions of rudeness or sarcasm. That's like calling my kid names when they're small just to prepare them for the bullies at school!



Who is talking about rudeness or sarcasm? Again, let us not conflate honest critiques with rudeness. And let us also not imply that not worrying about some writer's feelings is being mean. I don't worry about an author's feelings - I worry about being _helpful_. I can no more control how that writer is going to react to my honesty than I can control the moon. Critiquing while worrying about their feelings is like trying to write a book that doesn't offend - the result is bland and worthless.


----------



## Sunny

shadowwalker said:


> Who is talking about rudeness or sarcasm? Again, let us not conflate honest critiques with rudeness. And let us also not imply that not worrying about some writer's feelings is being mean. I don't worry about an author's feelings - I worry about being _helpful_. I can no more control how that writer is going to react to my honesty than I can control the moon. Critiquing while worrying about their feelings is like trying to write a book that doesn't offend - the result is bland and worthless.



Not worrying about an author's feelings is wrong for me. I choose to take their feelings into consideration _whilst_ being helpful. I like to take others' feelings into consideration no matter who they are. To me an author is a person and I choose to care about them because they are just like me; trying to better themselves and hoping for improvement everyday. I like to treat others how I would like to be treated. 

My honesty is always there, I just make sure I get my opinion said with the cognition that the person reading my feedback put a part of themselves into that story. Telling someone that what they wrote is weak or bland is something I personally wouldn't say. Some people are okay with giving that kind of feedback. For me, negative words bring negative feelings.


----------



## Kyle R

Be honest with your feedback, by all means. Hack a piece to bits if you feel it deserves it. 

Then, take a look at your feedback and analyze the _tone_ of it. Are you encouraging? Discouraging? Neutral? Spiteful? Perhaps you're coming across as a know-it-all and you don't even realize it? (I know I've been guilty of that one quite a bit.)

Part of the skill of being helpful, in my opinion, is tailoring the way you present your feedback so it can be received with the least amount of resistance. It's the same reason the best personal trainers (in my opinion) learn what kind of motivation works best for each specific client.

If I receive ruthless edits in an encouraging tone, chances are I'll be very appreciative. "This writer sure is helpful! I hope I can get more feedback from them in the future!" 

If I receive ruthless edits in a condescending tone, chances are my defenses will come up. "Who the hell is _this_ person to give _me_ advice?!" :lol:


----------



## voltigeur

I think there is responsibility on both sides of the critique coin. 

First if you are the writer and you submit your work for review you have to be coachable! You need to be open to what is presented and consider it seriously. 

I have been fortunate that the readers I have found treat the work academically.  So when I have a point of view issue they can tell me exactly where I’m confusing the reader and why. We discuss what I am trying to get across and they usually can offer and alternative way to present my story. 

In some cases the reader tho well meaning is someone who writes only in first person or only writes stories that have 6 to 8 characters max. They just don’t get what I’m trying to do. 

Second as a reader: 

In my critique group I have found that asking questions is the best way to get and author to think about their work with an open mind.

 For example: One of the authors is writing a detective story. He is fretting over what exit his characters take including exit number.  After ten minutes of worrying about the accuracy of the drive I asked, “If I’m sitting in a chair in Detroit (story is set in Dallas) do I really care what exit takes you to the ball park?”  

The author stopped and at least considered the time he was spending on a trivial matter.  He stuck to his gun saying it was a critical standard for his genre. I replied “Ok” and went on. 


The critique I struggle with the most is, “I lost interest after the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] paragraph and struggled to read this for you.” 

Why would I say this? I read a book on writing where an agent said, “I reject 90% of everything that is submitted and 90% of that, is rejected because the story is too slow and doesn’t hold my interest.” 

If the writer wants to be published _that is the single_ most important feedback you can give.  I’m not sure you can do that without hurting their feelings. But you would probably be the one beta reader that helped them the most.


----------



## Sunny

voltigeur said:


> If the writer wants to be published _that is the single_ most important feedback you can give.  I’m not sure you can do that without hurting their feelings. But you would probably be the one beta reader that helped them the most.



My first 3 chapters in my novel were scrapped because of that very reason. The first person that read my story told me that my book was really boring from the beginning. They said  they struggled to get to the third chapter. It didn't hurt my feelings in the least, actually. 

They told me they LOVED my story after the third chapter. They wish I had started the book at that point. They told me that the beginning was a little slow and maybe I could rewrite it to be as exciting as the following chapters. 

It was in their tone and in the way they delivered it that made me excited to rewrite it. I'm sure with another person saying the same thing in a negative tone would have hurt me and discouraged me to continue with writing at all.


----------



## spartan928

An interesting discussion from all sides. I believe the responsibility is not only shared, but frankly rests more firmly on the shoulders of the writer to be grateful for a critique and also approach that critique with as much professionalism and gratitude as possible, even if the critique appears harsh.

Consider this; if a writer sincerely wants their work to impact other people, and they wish to publish at some point, then receiving any form of criticism is a gift to their development. Yes, I mean any and all forms of criticism. I say that because just as writing is a skill, so is developing a professional sensibility. They aren't mutually exclusive for the author aspiring for more than an audience of one. And if the intention is to have an audience of one, I'd suggest it best to keep it that way. For everyone else, be grateful that someone took a few grains of sand out of their hourglass to spend on your writing. 

Always be appreciative that someone actually read your work and took time to respond. If something gets personal, be the bigger person and ignore it. Again, that is a skill worth developing as a writer because the alternative is something many writers will get in spades for most of their writing career; silence.


----------



## Sam

Sunny said:


> Not worrying about an author's feelings is wrong for me. I choose to take their feelings into consideration _whilst_ being helpful. I like to take others' feelings into consideration no matter who they are. To me an author is a person and I choose to care about them because they are just like me; trying to better themselves and hoping for improvement everyday. I like to treat others how I would like to be treated.
> 
> My honesty is always there, I just make sure I get my opinion said with the cognition that the person reading my feedback put a part of themselves into that story. Telling someone that what they wrote is weak or bland is something I personally wouldn't say. Some people are okay with giving that kind of feedback. For me, negative words bring negative feelings.



That's a counsel of perfection. 

Worrying about an author's feelings isn't going to make the piece better, nor is it going to make them better as a writer. If anything, it's going to make them wholly unprepared for the world of editors, publishers, and the writing industry. An editor won't worry about feelings. They get paid to do a job as efficiently as possible. That means, no mincing words, no platitudes, just cold and hard facts. That's how it works. And, as a writer, if you've been molly-coddled up to that point with critiques designed to spare your feelings, you will be ripped asunder by people in the industry who don't have time to worry about your feelings. 

That's not me being mean; that's reality.


----------



## PiP

Sam said:


> Worrying about an author's feelings isn't going to make the piece better, nor is it going to make them better as a writer. .



I agree, Sam. However, it's not *what* you say, it's *how* you say it. Yes, you can offer tough crit or advice, but at the end of the day it's down to *how* you phrase your advice, and if speaking, the *tone *of your voice.


----------



## Sam

Does anyone really think that an editor will worry about tone of voice, how they phrase their words, or how they say what they need to say? I've had advice from editors that went: "This is nonsense. It doesn't work at all. Get rid of it." 

I got rid of it. I didn't wallow and complain about his tone, the harshness of his words, or anything like that. I got on with it. 

Such is the industry.


----------



## Firemajic

I recieved a critique that was so on point that it changed the way I thought about my writing forever. I always knew that something was lacking in my writing, but I did not know exactly what "it" was. I will forever be thankful for those words of wisdom, and-- they were delivered with respect and honesty, holding nothing back.
I gave a critique on a poem,and it was badly recieved, by not only the writer, but by other posters that followed my comment. My critique was just a gentle,respectful remark about one word. As rule now, will not comment on anything that I don't love or understand.


----------



## Seedy M.

We have to look at presentation by the writer here, which is little mentioned. Younger writers, in particular, often present a work with comments that show from the get-go that they expect nothing but praise for the book of the century they are condescending to allow you to get a free sample. I am reminded of one a few months ago where the woman got so acid with her replies to people who were trying to diplomatically point out to her that her characters were not believable, that she should modify certain aspects.
When I first put a work out for critique I was knocked off my cloud immediately - for which I am thankful today. At the time, my ego was damaged and my feelings hurt, but my girlfriend at the time said if I was that sensitive I should find something to do that no one else would ever know about because the real world was a mean place. She agreed that the work was crap, but said it had a core that could be developed.
It was a good thing it was under a pen name because it is unmitigated crap when I (tried to) reread it recently. I got it printed 38 years ago.  I have learned a lot since.
I do not critique others much. I am a total a-hole and acid and as sensitive as a catfish with my own work.
It is a matter of tone. I am not that way with others' work. I am not going to try to put a positive slant if there is no basis, however. I will simply say the work needs a lot of work in the areas of grammar and the plot (etc.) needs development to be able to hold a reader's attention.
I do not critique anything where the writer obviously is looking for approval. In those cases, they don't want a critique and will react negatively to critical advice. If they are persistent, they are the ones showing insensitivity. After a point I will be negative enough to say, "Because it is a boring piece of crap, IMHO. I was trying to avoid having to say that, but you demanded. There it is."
There are times when a writer demands sharp or negative criticism. There are times when a writer wants help. That is why you criticism has to be tempered to the situation. This is a question without a fixed answer.


----------



## shadowwalker

Sam said:


> Does anyone really think that an editor will worry about tone of voice, how they phrase their words, or how they say what they need to say? I've had advice from editors that went: "This is nonsense. It doesn't work at all. Get rid of it."
> 
> I got rid of it. I didn't wallow and complain about his tone, the harshness of his words, or anything like that. I got on with it.
> 
> Such is the industry.



And it's not just publishing. That's the way the world works. I currently have a boss who's a real sweetheart most of the time - but when something comes up that needs to be done NOW and there are already a thousand other things that also need to be done NOW, he's not worried about sounding gruff or barking out orders. He has a job to do and so do I. I can imagine the response if I were to complain that his tone hurt my feelings.


----------



## Kevin

Sam's just a meanie.  
(hahaha)

No... it's true. At some point, if you want enter the Pro's, your going to have to enter the ring without a headgear. Any hard shots you receive here will only help. Think of it as practice. Someone has to point out your deficits or you'll never work on them. You've got to be able to take it or you'll never make it.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

None of us are editors. None of us are publishers. None of us are anything more than what the person who puts something forward is. We are writers.

Why is it that so many of us think that being an asshole in a review/critique is a God given right? If there really isn't anything positive to be found in a piece, why bother saying anything at all? Especially if one is going to be brutal about saying so? An "I'm sorry but this just didn't work for me" would probably suffice. Being nasty about it wouldn't seem to have any reasoning other than the "because I can" I have been seeing.

Why does it seem like there are so many who would rather be brutal than tactful in the process of being honest. It doesn't matter if that's the way "the real world" is.

We _are not the real world._ We are a bunch of writers, making stuff up (unless you are a non fiction writer, of course), sitting behind keyboards and speaking to people via a virtual platform. Maybe that is part of the problem. 

@shadowwalker - I agree that when it's obvious someone is just looking for a pat on the back, it's probably not going to be worth doing the critique. 

Just to be clear....I have not seen much of a problem in the critiques here. There have been a couple here and there that seemed to be a bit oerly harsh, but nothing major. The vast majority of what I am referring to is stuff I have seen on other sites. A lot of them are either one extreme or the other. It may be "Great job, Well done!" on a piece of utter garbage, or it will be "Your writing sucks. There is nothing good about it." on stuff that, to me, isn't bad at all.


----------



## Jeko

> If there really isn't anything positive to be found in a piece, why bother saying anything at all?



Because those are the pieces that need honest critique the most.

The idea that a forum is not the real world is also what makes many writers never grow a spine. When I log on to this forum, I like to think that I'm talking to real people with real perspectives and real qualities and real ideas about what is good and bad and real knowledge and experience, mainly because I am. 

This forum isn't a shelter for people who don't want the real world of writing; it's a place to prepare them for it.


----------



## Sunny

shadowwalker said:


> And it's not just publishing. That's the way the world works. I currently have a boss who's a real sweetheart most of the time - but when something comes up that needs to be done NOW and there are already a thousand other things that also need to be done NOW, he's not worried about sounding gruff or barking out orders. He has a job to do and so do I. I can imagine the response if I were to complain that his tone hurt my feelings.



I can see how this is more acceptable in _the real world._ My boss definitely gets more out of me when she treats me nice with encouragement, though.  

But here in this forum there is a difference. You are not my boss. No one on this forum is my boss and I am not reporting to anyone with a position higher than myself. We are all the same, all writers, looking for improvement. 

Yes, sometimes we need to be told we need more work on an aspect of our writing, but as a person critiquing you can make that choice to tell me in an encouraging or discouraging tone. I would rather tell a fellow writer what I did or didn't like about their work with respect and honesty with politeness and as much encouragement as I can give.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Cadence said:


> Because those are the pieces that need honest critique the most.
> 
> The idea that a forum is not the real world is also what makes many writers never grow a spine. When I log on to this forum, I like to think that I'm talking to real people with real perspectives and real qualities and real ideas about what is good and bad and real knowledge and experience, mainly because I am.
> 
> This forum isn't a shelter for people who don't want the real world of writing; it's a place to prepare them for it.



YEah. I probably should have passed on the "real world" part of my post.

Still, though, there are many ways to critique a piece, and be completely honest while doing it, without completely tearing someone down.

In my case (and no, I'm not just being whiny because here I sit, having gotten beaten up pretty good in my two LM attempts) even a small positive comment from that teacher would probably been enough. I know a lot of folks would probably consider that being "weak" or something. But unless they have been in the kind of situation I was, they don't know the mental processes involved in living that way.

Speaking of the LM...for a good example of what I mean about people being honest, yet still being positive in the process, look no further than the judges for that competition.They seem to have mastered the art of _constructive_ criticism. That goes for the CoF judges as well.


----------



## Sunny

Cadence said:


> Because those are the pieces that need honest critique the most.
> 
> The idea that a forum is not the real world is also what makes many writers never grow a spine. When I log on to this forum, I like to think that I'm talking to real people with real perspectives and real qualities and real ideas about what is good and bad and real knowledge and experience, mainly because I am.
> 
> This forum isn't a shelter for people who don't want the real world of writing; it's a place to prepare them for it.


For you, that is what this place is for. For many others too. 

But you have to keep in mind that we all don't log onto this forum for the same reason as you do. 

I log onto this forum to discuss writing and how I can get better. I like to talk about writing with people that are as passionate about it as I am. I like the comraderie that you feel with fellow writers. Most people outside of this forum in my life don't share the same love for reading and writing as I do. 

This is my place to go to share and encourage. I don't need you to thicken my skin and prepare me for the big bad agent. My spine has grown perfectly without the brashness of harsh critiques. 

This place means something different to everyone. I want it to be a positive place for me. I don't personally want to cringe every time I log in because there is someone out there trying to toughen me up.


----------



## LeeC

Firemajic said:


> I recieved a critique that was so on point that it changed the way I thought about my writing forever.




That's happened to me so many times here, that my whole understanding of conveying a story has drastically improved 




Firemajic said:


> As rule now, will not comment on anything that I don't love or understand.




Not sure I read this correctly, but where I might agree with avoiding something I don't adequately understand, I do try to think about and comment on varying content I might not read for pleasure. I've found it helps with my own writing skills.


Beyond this, I've seen this thread roll by and been intrigued by the varying human perceptions and how they're articulated. I believe we're here to help each other improve our skills, and just saying "great job" alone isn't much of a contribution. Of course we all have varying thicknesses of skin, but well-meaning critiquing can get a feel for that in starting off slowly, and in all cases always being respectful of the person. As to those offering up pieces, it sometimes takes some soul searching in realizing just what one is looking for ;-) I've been very lucky in other's pushing me beyond my pontificating to see where my writing is lacking. I always try to see comments as well-intentioned regardless of the writer's skill in conveying such. If there's an obvious personal slight, it's easy to ignore. The person might just be having a bad day, or their personality will land them in more serious problems. As to the latter, on the road of life I try to stay out of the way of such, thinking it better their inevitable 'accident' not involve me


----------



## Jeko

> I don't personally want to cringe every time I log in because there is someone out there trying to toughen me up.



In the same way, I don't want to sigh every time because there's someone mollycoddling me with nice words when I just want the truth. I've had enough feather-stuffed, bubble-wrapped lets-not-offend-the-writer responses to know that 'encouragement' isn't something we need to encourage people to give more of. I'd rather encourage people to do more of what people are doing less - not holding back. Just as blunt critique can hold a sensitive person back, an over-sensitive critique can hold back someone who just needs it straight.

I guess we're arguing for the same thing from different sides.


----------



## Kyle R

There's an author I follow who has a great relationship with her editor—she even has her over for dinners and holiday occasions. When she shows their written discussions about her work, the tone is always encouraging and positive. 

I think there's a belief that all editor/writer (or reviewer/writer) relationships need to be detached, sterile, and/or harsh in order to be helpful. I have to respectfully disagree.

I think it's entirely possible (and applaudable) for an editor/reviewer to be critical *and* encouraging at the same time. 

The implication that being courteous, encouraging, and positive somehow diminishes the quality of feedback is (in my opinion) inaccurate.

Clearly we all have our own ideas on how to help other writers—as evidenced by all the disagreement on this thread.

Me, I believe fostering and nurturing a writer's confidence is the best approach. I believe motivating a writer while they continue on their path of learning and improvement is the most fertile path toward developing a foundation of confidence in their abilities that will take them far.

Writers will be beaten down left and right. They will receive rejections. They will have their work torn apart. They will get discouraged and need support and guidance.

As fellow writers, we can choose to be another source of negative feelings and discouragement, or we can choose to part of the writer's group of guidance and support. Neither choice precludes us from providing helpful and constructive advice.

Just my own perspective on it. :encouragement:


----------



## Sunny

Cadence said:


> In the same way, I don't want to sigh every time because there's someone mollycoddling me with nice words when I just want the truth. I've had enough feather-stuffed, bubble-wrapped lets-not-offend-the-writer responses to know that 'encouragement' isn't something we need to encourage people to give more of. I'd rather encourage people to do more of what people are doing less - not holding back. Just as blunt critique can hold a sensitive person back, an over-sensitive critique can hold back someone who just needs it straight.
> 
> I guess we're arguing for the same thing from different sides.



I'm seeing what you're saying here. I do. 

All I'm trying to get across is, I can give it to you straight. I can tell you what I don't like about your work and what didn't work for me with an encouraging tone. Giving it straight doesn't have to be fired at the author with bullets to make them tougher.


----------



## Sam

Kyle R said:


> There's an author I follow who has a great relationship with her editor—she even has her over for dinners and holiday occasions. When she shows their written discussions about her work, the tone is always encouraging and positive.
> 
> I think there's a belief that all editor/writer (or reviewer/writer) relationships need to be detached, sterile, and/or harsh in order to be helpful. I have to respectfully disagree.
> 
> I think it's entirely possible (and applaudable) for an editor/reviewer to be critical *and* encouraging at the same time.
> 
> The implication that being courteous, encouraging, and positive somehow diminishes the quality of feedback is (in my opinion) inaccurate.
> 
> Clearly we all have our own ideas on how to help other writers—as evidenced by all the disagreement on this thread.
> 
> Me, I believe fostering and nurturing a writer's confidence is the best approach. I believe motivating a writer while they continue on their path of learning and improvement is the most fertile path toward developing a foundation of confidence in their abilities that will take them far.
> 
> Writers will be beaten down left and right. They will receive rejections. They will have their work torn apart. They will get discouraged and need support and guidance.
> 
> As fellow writers, we can choose to be another source of negative feelings and discouragement, or we can choose to part of the writer's group of guidance and support. Neither choice precludes us from providing helpful and constructive advice.
> 
> Just my own perspective on it. :encouragement:



That's a sure-fire way to develop bias between author and editor. 

If I'm going to tell someone bad news, i.e. they're being let go or their hours are being cut, I'm not going to invite them over for a slap-up meal beforehand. I wouldn't want to go through with it then. 

I don't want personal relations with an editor. Encouragement and positivity is not what I'm looking for. I want them to do what I hired them to do: an unbiased and completely thorough look at my work. Otherwise, what's the point?


----------



## Jeko

> Giving it straight doesn't have to be fired at the author with bullets to make them tougher.



Giving it straight is, IMO, what makes them tougher and encourages at the same time. You don't have to think about whether you'll offend or encourage the person with your words if you're remaining objective and focused on the work alone; your honesty alone is all that they need.


----------



## Sunny

Cadence said:


> Giving it straight is, IMO, what makes them tougher and encourages at the same time. You don't have to think about whether you'll offend or encourage the person with your words if you're remaining objective and focused on the work alone; your honesty alone is all that they need.



So we both think honesty is appropriate when critiquing. 

My honesty comes with encouragement where yours comes detached and neutral. 

We disagree which is more beneficial to our fellow writer. Maybe they're both right for different writers! 

Your panda avatar is very cute! Reminds me of my Ping-Ping panda.


----------



## Kyle R

Sam said:


> That's a sure-fire way to develop bias between author and editor.
> 
> If I'm going to tell someone bad news, i.e. they're being let go or their hours are being cut, I'm not going to invite them over for a slap-up meal beforehand. I wouldn't want to go through with it then.
> 
> I don't want personal relations with an editor. Encouragement and positivity is not what I'm looking for. I want them to do what I hired them to do: an unbiased and completely thorough look at my work. Otherwise, what's the point?



Sure, we can view the editor/writer partnership as one of services rendered and received (he writes, she edits, they part ways). Or we can view it as an ongoing relationship between two craftsmen pursuing the same goal—that of elevating the work to its greatest potential.

I don't think having a relationship between the editor and writer automatically threatens the quality of feedback. It _can_, yes. But it can also go the other way, as well. When both parties are on the same page and have a working relationship with each other, one of respect and commonality, they can talk freely about the work at a high level, discussing things not only from an analytical perspective, but from an emotional one as well.

I guess it boils down to a matter of preference at this point. How does the writer wish to relate to their editors/reviewers/critiquers? On a personal level? Or on a purely analytical level?

Some writers may want it one way. Others may want it another. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker

I keep seeing people going back to this idea that being honest is somehow equivalent to being a jerk, that not painting something with flowers is somehow discouraging. I'll say it again - yes, there are jerks out there. But I don't have to worry about hurting feelings in order to be honest and respectful when giving a critique. I don't have to become your best friend to give you constructive criticism and I don't have to become your mentor to help you improve. But dang it, if a writer is going to take a critique _personally_, that's their problem, not mine. At some point, people have to get over themselves. And if that offends anyone, so be it. As I've said, I've done a lot of critiques for people, including trade published authors, and not one of them has complained about my being rude, nasty, or mean - and I couldn't tell you one thing about their personal lives because _it doesn't matter_.


----------



## Gavrushka

One of the things that made me take a step back from this site was where people's attention seems to be directed (and where my attention ended up, not long after I joined...). - As a sweeping generalisation, members would rather talk about the rights and wrongs of how to help a writer than to visit the prose writer's workshop and critique their prose.  Thread like this provoke a lot of reaction, but an amateur writer in desperate need of 'honesty AND encouragement' would struggle to receive half a dozen replies.

Just checked: on the first page in the Prose Writer's Workshop forum, there are *FOURTEEN* writers with threads which have received *TWO OR LESS* responses, encouraging or otherwise. Kinda sad for a writing site.


----------



## Morkonan

Gavrushka said:


> ...Just checked: on the first page in the Prose Writer's Workshop forum, there are *FOURTEEN* writers with threads which have received *TWO OR LESS* responses, encouraging or otherwise. Kinda sad for a writing site.



You're absolutely right! 

I'm pressing my Rededication button. See? I pushed it all the way down! It's lit-up, even... and blinking! And there's a klaxon sounding in the distance!


----------



## Pluralized

> Just checked: on the first page in the Prose Writer's Workshop forum, there are *FOURTEEN writers with threads which have received TWO OR LESS responses, encouraging or otherwise. Kinda sad for a writing site. :sad:*



"Be the change that you want to see in the world." -- Mohandas K. (Justin) Bieber


----------



## dither

Maybe you're all just too nice.


----------



## Deleted member 56686

Gavrushka said:


> One of the things that made me take a step back from this site was where people's attention seems to be directed (and where my attention ended up, not long after I joined...). - As a sweeping generalisation, members would rather talk about the rights and wrongs of how to help a writer than to visit the prose writer's workshop and critique their prose.  Thread like this provoke a lot of reaction, but an amateur writer in desperate need of 'honesty AND encouragement' would struggle to receive half a dozen replies.
> 
> Just checked: on the first page in the Prose Writer's Workshop forum, there are *FOURTEEN* writers with threads which have received *TWO OR LESS* responses, encouraging or otherwise. Kinda sad for a writing site.




I almost left the forum because I got virtually no responses for my first submissions. Not because of the lack of response so much but because of the thought if I wasn't getting many responses then I just might not be worthy as a writer. It got better of course but I think we may need to keep that in mind when a new member is trying to gain some sort of acceptance.


----------



## dale

mrmustard615 said:


> I almost left the forum because I got virtually no responses for my first submissions. Not because of the lack of response so much but because of the thought if I wasn't getting many responses then I just might not be worthy as a writer. It got better of course but I think we may need to keep that in mind when a new member is trying to gain some sort of acceptance.



 most of my posts in the workshop only got a couple responses, a couple none at all. but i just figured it was because my writing was so awesome, people were too flabbergasted to type.


----------



## Seedy M.

"At some point, people have to get over themselves." - shadowwalker
Exactly what I tried to say. I find trying to get to people, particularly lyricists, next writers, is often banging your head on the wall when they're in their teens or early twenties. Experience will change them, usually, though I've encountered people in their eighties who still think some piece of rambling, boring trash is the work of the decade.
I do not believe in an_ unduly_ harsh critique. I always try to make a positive statement, and "This has potential, but needs some serious work." Follow that with "Your flow and connectivity are jerky. Smooth them out. Connect them without jumping from one to another." "You must learn to use your spell checker." "Homonyms can be a problem. To, too, two are not the same word and they're. there. their are not synonyms." My problem is with people who obviously do not want a critique. They want to be mollycoddled. I try for diplomacy first, then the light hint of a 2X4 to the head that they're not going to get it from me. They can be persistent when you have a mutual friend and they want a glowing recommendation from an experienced writer.
About the most extreme answer I gave to one such (who went to an extreme you need not know of) was, "You're asking me to put my name on your blog as someone who thinks this piece of s**t is a work of art. Then they come across one of my books somewhere and think. 'If that "%/(/$/& idiot thinks Jane Doe was a good writer I sure as sunset don't want to read anything he wrote!' Endorsing such garbage would knock my sales below the bottom of the chart. Concentrate on your job at McDonalds. You can eke out a living there."


----------



## Folcro

I'll simply speak to my personal experience and how I felt about it:

I've been through some tough criticism--- the kind that would make certain individuals around here deeply offended, the kind that many would ridicule and opt to have away with. Nothing to the point of "being raised in an abusive household", at least not in my opinion. But it was tough, and got me down for a little while.

But I worked through it: I relaxed, thought about it. Through the harshness, through all the words I didn't want to hear and none of those I did, they gave me reasons, and I pondered them. In the end, I became a better writer for it. I don't think any less than what I received would have made me the writer I am today. And I would not wish to be a part of a society where such criticisms were done away with so that writers who would otherwise give up will feel better about themselves, at the cost of writers like me not improving.

Regardless of how harsh or how easy you chose to be, give reasons. If you are ignored, if you are rebuked, brush the dirt from your sandals.


----------



## shadowwalker

Gavrushka said:


> Just checked: on the first page in the Prose Writer's Workshop forum, there are *FOURTEEN* writers with threads which have received *TWO OR LESS* responses, encouraging or otherwise. Kinda sad for a writing site.



I quit giving critiques quite some time ago - mainly because I grew weary of people with Golden Word Syndrome and total lack of grammatical understanding. I take a LOT of time with my critiques (or did, anyway), not only going over things with a fine-tooth comb but thinking about how to phrase my comments so I didn't sound like a douchebag. That's time away from my own writing and from Real Life events. After a while, it just doesn't seem worth it, especially when the abusive language was coming toward me, not from me.


----------



## Gavrushka

I've long since accepted that you need thick skin to both offer and receive a critique.

Still, I am sure we all have our personal reasons for not offering our time to other writers. - I've a couple of people away from this site who I offer up my time for, and likewise have a few people who I trust to give me a good kicking too.


----------



## Kyle R

Folcro said:


> Through the harshness, through all the words I didn't want to hear and none of those I did, they gave me reasons, and I pondered them. In the end, I became a better writer for it.* I don't think any less than what I received would have made me the writer I am today.* And I would not wish to be a part of a society where such *criticisms were done away with* so that writers who would otherwise give up will feel better about themselves, at the cost of writers like me not improving.



(Bolded portions by me.) I'm glad you brought this up, Folcro!

I view it as a misconception (in this thread, at least) that encouragement somehow diminishes the quality of feedback. As if, by being encouraging, a writer will somehow receive "less" help because of it.

The reasoning seems to be that "encouragement" means "pulling punches."

To me, encouragement is not about pulling punches. 

I believe a quality review will address _everything_ in a piece that needs work. I also believe a quality review will address everything in a piece that works well (after all, learning what works is just as important as learning what doesn't, in my opinion).

Pulling punches isn't what defines encouragement. To me, encouragement is defined by _how those punches are delivered_. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Gavrushka said:


> Just checked: on the first page in the Prose Writer's Workshop forum, there are *FOURTEEN* writers with threads which have received *TWO OR LESS* responses, encouraging or otherwise. Kinda sad for a writing site.



That's probably a direct result of the "quid pro quo" system for critiques that is found here and almost every other writing site.


----------



## Kevin

> *FOURTEEN* writers with threads which have received *TWO OR LESS* responses,





> a direct result of the "quid pro quo"


 If you give, you get. I haven't given much in a while so I don't expect much. Just the way it is.


----------



## Sam

Gavrushka said:


> I've long since accepted that you need thick skin to both offer and receive a critique.
> 
> Still, I am sure we all have our personal reasons for not offering our time to other writers. - I've a couple of people away from this site who I offer up my time for, and likewise have a few people who I trust to give me a good kicking too.



I don't share my work any longer, so I don't critique. I also don't have a great deal of time, which I imagine is a problem for a lot of other WF members as well. 

And, as TSBowman said, there's a lot of it that comes down to quid pro quo.


----------



## Gavrushka

Yeh, I can't argue that. - I received plenty of responses, and did reciprocate.

And, no, I don't feel the need to post work here any more either.


----------



## Bishop

I post work when I have an issue I need resolved, or something that's bothering me that I want a second opinion on. Generally, when this happens, I am sure to include a "will reciprocate on request" into my post, and I stand by the firmly. If anyone ever needs a look from me, even if they haven't given me one, I urge you to PM me, I'm always willing to. The issue is that I read novels for others, betaing for their work as well, and what time I set aside for betaing usually goes to them rather than random encounters on the site. Hence my urging for requests, because then I know and can go to the work and take some time for our members.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Kevin said:


> If you give, you get. I haven't given much in a while so I don't expect much. Just the way it is.



I understand that. I am the same way. I haven't done many and I rarely do something "in depth" as by the time I get there, quite a few other people have already said what I would have been saying anyway.  I usually just let a person know what "feels" right and what doesn't when I read something. Clunky sentences and such are what I usually point out.

As Sam said...it mostly, for me, comes down to time available. With 4 kids in the house and a job, even finding time to write my own stuff is tough. Shorter pieces in the Workshop will usually get my attention and a short critique. Anything over 1200 words or so, though...

The thing is, that's a pretty tough rule (even if it IS an unwritten one) for a newcomer here. Considering that they don't know the "ins and outs" of this site, and the system used here, someone may not find this place as friendly and helpful as we know it can be.


----------



## Jeff C

As a newcomer here, I hope you rip my writing to shreds:friendly_wink:.  I want to get better.  And that's the only sure fire way to do it.  It gives me drive knowing something could be better or I can improve on something.  I just wish I could critique others more helpfully, but as an inexperienced writer myself...it's just a bunch of unfounded personal opinions really.


----------



## Gavrushka

Jeff C said:


> As a newcomer here, I hope you rip my writing to shreds:friendly_wink:.  I want to get better.  And that's the only sure fire way to do it.  It gives me drive knowing something could be better or I can improve on something.  I just wish I could critique others more helpfully, but as an inexperienced writer myself...*it's just a bunch of unfounded personal opinions really*.



It's exactly what many writers are looking to receive. - It'd be a fool of a writer who didn't want to hear what readers have to say! I'd rather write to please a reader than to have a critic applaud. After all, there seem to be a great deal of misshapen books that have won critical acclaim, but far fewer that have gone on to be bestsellers! Yeh, the reader is by far the more discerning... Critics, ten a penny I tell you.


----------



## Morkonan

Jeff C said:


> ...  I just wish I could critique others more helpfully, but as an inexperienced writer myself...it's just a bunch of unfounded personal opinions really.



Then, make them well-founded personal opinions. 

One of the things about giving a good critique is that you often learn something you can use, yourself. But, you can only do that if you support your critique with good reason. For instance, say you're doing a critique for someone and something just "doesn't read right." You know that there's something wrong with it, but you just can't figure it out. If you can't figure it out, you won't be able to see that flaw in your own writing and will be left with the same problem when you start editing. "What did I do here? Why doesn't this read "right?" 

That's the time when you have to sit back and think... That's when you Google _"Help me everything_" and see if you can find out what's wrong. 

When I give a critique, it's probably generally a "groan fest." I'm.. wordy. I know this. I also know that I use too fine a comb, sometimes. But, at least if someone doesn't want to read it all, they might find something of use at a glance. Quantity is a quality of its own, isn't it? 

When working on a critique the other night, I came across an example of "not knowing" why I was uncomfortable with a piece. There was something "wrong" with it, something I couldn't see at a glance. So, I mulled it over for awhile, reread the piece and, finally, discovered what I perceived to be the problem. Because of that, I will take better notice of how I use a particular mechanic in my own writing. It's important. It was something that I had taken as being more or less a natural thing for me, but one I needed to be reminded of if I wanted to write well.

The benefit I received from doing the critique was made possible not by "empty criticism", but by careful reasoning and a desire to offer a cause for my opinion as well as a solid solution, as I saw it, to the problem. It's always best for both the critic and the writer that the critic provides a solution when pointing out a problem. Empty criticism, as you say, doesn't help anyone. So, just don't give it. 

Go out there and offer a critique! Do what you can, make a good argument in favor of your critique's points and present workable solutions where you can. Everyone will benefit by that.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Morkonan said:


> I'm.. wordy. I know this.



*GASP* The hell you say!!! *wink*

The good thing about your wordiness, Mork, is that pretty much every word of what you say is helpful and insightful.


----------



## Nippon Devil

Morkonan said:


> One of the things about giving a good critique is that you often learn something you can use, yourself.



Teach and grow, pretty much what I came here to say myself. Most of my growth has come from me looking at the work of others and trying to figure out why I like writer X more than writer Y. I have a hard time getting people anywhere to look over my work, so I look over the work of others.Being a good critic is an art too however, and I won't comment unless I'm sure my advice is helping you.


----------



## EmmaSohan

This forum is extremely polite. Sam pretends to be a curmudgeon in this thread, he is blunt, but I can't see any problem with that and I never once saw him be negative in his attitude.

I've made my peace with 'say something nice' by only critiquing things that have something I find positive.

I haven't yet made my peace with 'say something useful' -- I don't want to be discouraging, even though they have essentially asked for me to point out a negative. This has been my favorite thread, because I could listen to how other people wrestled with the same problem.

In addition to the other good advice, I try to say what I think about the author can learn. To learn one or two things from a comment is actually a lot. Beginning writers mostly need to write. Right or wrong, I assume SPaG sooner or later takes care of itself.


----------



## saoir

T.S.Bowman said:


> I
> 
> So, while I completely understand that honesty is normally the best way  to go, I also understand that sometimes, just sometimes, being honest  could quite possibly be a final step in someone giving up on his/her  dream of writing.


I'm not convinced about some writers obsession with critiques and this perception of 'honesty', though of course I respect their need and desire to do so. Honesty is a meaningless notion without knowledge of the person delivering their 'honest' opinion. And even then it is only one person's opinion, based on one person's taste and perception of what good writing is and is not.
I have encountered too many pompous writers and editors, and students of 'English' who have a list of 'rules' about writing as long as their arms and a bucket load of personal perception about writing. The only rule I respect is whether it's a good yarn or not. Thirty years ago I asked such a person for an opinion and the result was I didn't write for thirty years. When I think back to his comments I am appalled and ashamed that I listened to the garbage he said to me.
Getting a complete stranger to critique my writing also seems like a complete waste of time imho, unless I have a deep knowledge of that person or a respect for their taste and knowledge across a wide range of genres by which to measure an interpret the comments.
When I was writing my recently published book I approached two people I know well. I didn't ask them their opinion for all of the above reasons. I asked them specific questions about structure, fractures in the story or confusion in how I told it. That was all I wanted to know.


----------



## aj47

Jeff C said:


> As a newcomer here, I hope you rip my writing to shreds:friendly_wink:.  I want to get better.  And that's the only sure fire way to do it.  It gives me drive knowing something could be better or I can improve on something.  I just wish I could critique others more helpfully, but as an inexperienced writer myself...it's just a bunch of unfounded personal opinions really.



First off, thank you.  I saw a poem of yours and left a post asking if you wanted comment or critique.  This answers that.

Second, opinions are based on hunches are based on an understanding of what works and what doesn't.  You might not be armed with the technical jargon, but as a reader, you can tell when stuff works and stuff doesn't.   As you practice critiquing, you'll learn to articulate why stuff doesn't work (or does) and you'll become more aware of the same issues in your own writing.  The best way to turn your unfounded personal opinions into solid critiques is, in fact, practice. Don't throw in the towel at "I (don't) like <this>." Instead, try to find a way to express what you do(n't) like about it.  Even if the reason seems silly, express it.  Because if you, as reader, notice something, good or bad, other readers will, too.  And for authors to improve, they need to know what message is being received. They know what they're sending. Your job when critiquing is to let the author see through the reader's eye.  

</soapbox>


----------



## Jeko

> Honesty is a meaningless notion without knowledge of the person delivering their 'honest' opinion. And even then it is only one person's opinion, based on one person's taste and perception of what good writing is and is not.



It's a case of being honest about your opinion, which will always be subjective. Being subjectively honest is always better than being subjectively dishonest.



> Getting a complete stranger to critique my writing also seems like a complete waste of time imho, unless I have a deep knowledge of that person or a respect for their taste and knowledge across a wide range of genres by which to measure an interpret the comments.



The idea is not to gain insight into the work from the individual, in this case, but insight into the readership from them as a whole. Almost all of your readers will be people you don't know, and if they generally don't like your work, you aren't going to find success with your story. So their overall reception is useful; if you see trends developing in people's feedback, you probably have a problem.


----------



## Jeff C

astroannie said:


> First off, thank you.  I saw a poem of yours and left a post asking if you wanted comment or critique.  This answers that.
> 
> Second, opinions are based on hunches are based on an understanding of what works and what doesn't.  You might not be armed with the technical jargon, but as a reader, you can tell when stuff works and stuff doesn't.   As you practice critiquing, you'll learn to articulate why stuff doesn't work (or does) and you'll become more aware of the same issues in your own writing.  The best way to turn your unfounded personal opinions into solid critiques is, in fact, practice. Don't throw in the towel at "I (don't) like <this>." Instead, try to find a way to express what you do(n't) like about it.  Even if the reason seems silly, express it.  Because if you, as reader, notice something, good or bad, other readers will, too.  And for authors to improve, they need to know what message is being received. They know what they're sending. Your job when critiquing is to let the author see through the reader's eye.
> 
> </soapbox>




haha I'm so glad, you saw this.  I enjoy having my pieces ripped to shreds and combed over.  I come from an art background, painting, sculpting, and such.  Back in school, we literally spent a day a week critiquing everyone's projects.  

I may think something works and is easy to understand...duh, I'm thinking it.  That outside perspective though, is absolute gold sometimes.


----------



## shadowwalker

I think we also need to mention or emphasize that one should never take just one person's opinion as The Word, whether one knows them or not. If seeking critiques, it's always helpful to have several people look at one's work, and to know one's story well enough to see the worth of their comments. If one person has a problem, it may or may not mean an actual problem with the story; if several see it, then there's obviously a problem. One doesn't have to know the people giving critiques; if their comments make sense, then they should be _considered _(not necessarily followed). And again, if they come across as jerks, well, obviously one would have to question if their motives in commenting. Are they just showing off, are they know-it-alls, are they trying to get you to write their story - or have they just failed to master the craft of writing well enough to say what they mean in a way that doesn't come across badly?

One should consider comments made and the way they are made - but never forget whose story it is, whose writing 'career' it is. Good or bad, the decision to act on critiques _in any way _is solely the writer's responsibility.


----------



## InstituteMan

shadowwalker said:


> I think we also need to mention or emphasize that one should never take just one person's opinion as The Word, whether one knows them or not. If seeking critiques, it's always helpful to have several people look at one's work, and to know one's story well enough to see the worth of their comments. If one person has a problem, it may or may not mean an actual problem with the story; if several see it, then there's obviously a problem. One doesn't have to know the people giving critiques; if their comments make sense, then they should be _considered _(not necessarily followed). And again, if they come across as jerks, well, obviously one would have to question if their motives in commenting. Are they just showing off, are they know-it-alls, are they trying to get you to write their story - or have they just failed to master the craft of writing well enough to say what they mean in a way that doesn't come across badly?
> 
> One should consider comments made and the way they are made - but never forget whose story it is, whose writing 'career' it is. Good or bad, the decision to act on critiques _in any way _is solely the writer's responsibility.



Amen. Also, bear in mind that the problems people point out may not be the actual problem. I had a puddle of water in the middle of my basement this summer, with no obvious source. Ultimately, I discovered the intermittent leak and fixed it, but the problem wasn't "there's a puddle there" (that was just a symptom), the problem was a faulty valve. Similarly, a critiquer may be confused by a particular section, or take something entirely different than you intended from a story, and the problem may lay elsewhere in your work. I can't tell you how many times a critiqued has helped me fix a problem, just a different problem than they thought they had spotted.


----------



## Gavrushka

As a writer, one of the things I have discovered is that some comments have more validity than others. - I've learned to trust different people for particular aspects of my writing, and a relationship builds up between writer and reader. - At that point, it becomes more about trust than encouragement.

A newer writer may have never come across honest comment, even if it is encouraging, and it can be disheartening in the first instance. - In future, I'll make a point of leaving the dialogue channel open if ever anyone ends up distressed by anything I've said... - This is what Morkonan did for me many years ago, even though I was quite rude when he'd offered me honest AND encouraging advice.


----------



## TKent

Seriously, I know I've got it bad when I'm at my computer and I say "YES!!!" with such glee that my husband says, "What? What happened, did you get a promotion or something?"...and I say, "No, no, it's better than that!  My synopsis just got 'Morked'" and he says, Uh, is that a noun or a verb?"



T.S.Bowman said:


> *GASP* The hell you say!!! *wink*
> 
> The good thing about your wordiness, Mork, is that pretty much every word of what you say is helpful and insightful.


----------



## TKent

JeffC, I questioned my ability to critique as a newcomer here but then realized, that I'm a very experienced reader, and I have a pretty good ability to find typos, SPaGs, etc. and point our my personal 'speedbumps' in someone's writing so I offer up what I have right now, and I know that over time, my offerings will have more to offer. But doesn't discount what I offer now.  And yes, I want someone to rip my writing to shreds as well.  But I also appreciate the folks who don't have a lot of time, and stop in and give a general impression because that is SO important too..., first impressions like that are what get someone to click that BUY NOW button as much as anything!!



Jeff C said:


> As a newcomer here, I hope you rip my writing to shreds:friendly_wink:.  I want to get better.  And that's the only sure fire way to do it.  It gives me drive knowing something could be better or I can improve on something.  I just wish I could critique others more helpfully, but as an inexperienced writer myself...it's just a bunch of unfounded personal opinions really.


----------



## Jeff C

TKent said:


> JeffC, I questioned my ability to critique as a newcomer here but then realized, that I'm a very experienced reader, and I have a pretty good ability to find typos, SPaGs, etc. and point our my personal 'speedbumps' in someone's writing so I offer up what I have right now, and I know that over time, my offerings will have more to offer. But doesn't discount what I offer now.  And yes, I want someone to rip my writing to shreds as well.  But I also appreciate the folks who don't have a lot of time, and stop in and give a general impression because that is SO important too..., first impressions like that are what get someone to click that BUY NOW button as much as anything!!



I had a confidence boost in my "critiquing" yesterday.  Something in poem that was posted just really didn't sit right with me.  I commented on it, the member private messaged me saying thank you so much, they had felt they "settled" on the line as well.  That alone gave me some confidence to know I can at least help out a bit.  I'm not as strong on finding typos and grammar errors, but hopefully one day as I read more.


----------



## Angel101

Honesty is better 100% of the time. Encouragement and honesty aren't necessarily two separate things. 

I think a writer needs thick skin. If you're just writing for fun and want to share it with your friends and family, that's one thing. If you're actively putting yourself out there on the internet or in the publishing world, you can't gripe about harsh criticism or rejection. It comes with the territory. If someone gives you a blatantly rude critique that offers nothing constructive, just ignore it and see if someone else has something more helpful to say. (Not directed at the original poster. I'm just putting my thoughts together on the issue.)

That said, I don't think it's helpful to a writer to be completely negative. When I go to give someone criticism, I always include something the writer did well. I think a good critique will discuss what works as well as what doesn't. I think that anyone who wants to write should write. I wouldn't want to say anything discouraging. But then, I don't think constructive criticism is discouraging, though it certainly can be if you let it.


----------



## Arrakis

No matter where I am, I merely treat others exactly how _I _prefer to be treated: with pure, unbiased honesty.

In mine opinion, every artist--serious or casual--should be thankful for productive criticism, for it enriches their mind. Everyone has their own method of thought; that said, what should truly matter in the end is whether or not the critique was well-intentioned. I'm not one to chew on others to satiate mine own ego; I prefer a challenge. When I review, mine sole focus is on the piece, not the poster. I try mine absolute best to bring out as many flaws as I can--not to beat up the writer, but to perfect the piece. Personally, if I did not believe the writer had the potential to become something better, I would not have criticised their work in the first place. I'm not concerned about fragile emotions; I'm only concerned about giving sound advice. Mine belief is that for the most part, we _create_ our sensitivities; whether we realise it or not. And I'm not inclined to cater to those sensitivities.

As for encouragement, I usually just say, "keep practising" at the end. I give writers praise when I feel they've _earned_ it, not to cheer them on. Doing so otherwise, in mine experience, usually just inflates their sense of entitlement without actually making significant progress--if any at all.

*[EDIT]* Oh dear. Hadn't realised how old this thread was.


----------



## PiP

Arrack, it does not matter how old a discussion is if you have something useful to add, which you have. 

As far as I am concerned when it comes to critique, I have learned to develop a thick skin because  encouragement alone  will not make me a better writer.

I will also add when I post work for critique I expect honesty. My husband and kids often tell me A poem is brilliant but when I share my offering I am amazed by the numer of errors. I no longer share my work with family and friends.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Something I've noticed over the years. If you write a critique and point to ten serious problems, but end with the meaningless, "But with work, this could be a success," the one getting the critique takes only one thing from it: "He liked it."

Getting a critique is like someone telling you your favorite child is ugly. My first paid critique came after I'd written six unsold novels. I thought I was pretty damn good by then. But I was still working with the belief that we learn to write in our school days, and those skills are adequate for fiction, too. I also believed the reader came to us to learn the details of the story. So when the envelope containing my manuscript sample came back I was expecting lots of grammar corrections, some smoothing, but over all, "It's a really good story."

You can imagine my reaction when I slid the pages from the envelope and was greeted with a sea of blue ink. Every line had comments under it and the margins were swirling with pools of blue, all but dripping from the page. And page two was no better. It was the single most devastating experience of my life, and in shock, I slipped the pages back into the envelope and the envelope into a  drawer.

And there the pages stayed for three days, because I couldn't bring myself to open the drawer—or stop thinking about what was in there.

Finally, I began to read the comments. In minutes my depression was banished by rage that the woman who critiqued the work was so dumb she couldn't see the most obvious of points. So, back it went to the drawer, this time slammed closed.

That lasted a day, till the thought came that perhaps by reading the prose and the comment that went with it, I could see what, in the writing, _allowed_ her to be so mistaken. That was the day I began to learn how to write. Every comment she made was dead on. My characters were plot devices who read the lines I gave them. Their behavior was pop-psychology based, and they were smart when smart was needed, dumb when the plot needed that. I was thinking cinematically and providing an external, camera-based view.

In short, it was awful. But now I knew why, and learned that simply getting the story down to fix later doesn't work, because in the words of the great Mark Twain, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” How can you fix an error of structure in editing if you don't recognize it as an error? How can you write a scene if you don't understand the structure of a scene in our medium?

Eventually, I had my own critiquing service, though I'm retired now. And one thing I learned: there is no nice, or gentle way to tell someone they're missing important techniques and "telling" as a result. And it's made harder by the fact that the one getting the critique is emotionally invested in the story, having spent so much time and put so much of themselves into it.

So in the end, what can you do but warn them that it's not about good or bad writing, or talent, it's a matter of learning the tricks and imperatives our medium imposes on us?

So will some be turned off by a critique that hits them hard? Sure. But Sol Stein, addressing that problem said, "If I can talk you out of writing I've helped two people. I saved you all the wasted nights at the keyboard and helped the many acquiring editors who would would have to read and reject your work." Given that all you can do is be clear they understand why there's a problem, and what can be done to eliminate it.


----------



## T.S.Bowman

Wow. This is the first time I have had one of my threads resurrected.

How cool.


----------



## PiP

The first time I received a harsh crit, and I mean harsh, I was mortified and I nearly gave up. I was writing Pam Ayres/ greeting card style poetry and it was CRAP. Over time I have completely changed my style which has been tough, now I look at poetry in a completely different light and I view every crit is an opportunity to learn.

Circling back to the poem, the feedback did not come with a filter and the words were blunt. I was fine with that but some members would take offensive and run screaming for the hills clinging to their ego. 

However, while honesty is great, if you do not know the member honest crit wrapped in encouragement is a good option.

The biggest problem a writer has to address is not SPaG or plot holes, it is his ego.


----------



## RHPeat

Pip

I was tough on you and you took it pretty well. But you asked, and I said I would be dreadfully honest. As far as the forum goes you have done nothing but improve. And I think every poet on there would agree. 

a poet friend
RH Peat


----------



## Phil Istine

I suppose it's about the difference between saying, "This is crap," and, "I can see ways this could be greatly improved," - while offering a suggestion or two about how it can be improved and the parts with which you struggle.
I learned a harsh lesson on this in the poetry invitation challenge a while back.  My offering scored quite well amongst my peers on here, some of who are seasoned poets.  I would have given myself a pat on the back had I been able to reach. However, when it was assessed by judges who were all professionals, it didn't do very well at all.  It only stung because my expectations had already been raised.  From that I learned that maybe my work needs to be more solid, less abstract.  No harm in playing with the abstract for some fun and wordplay, but perhaps not as a more serious offering.
If I've written something awful, I can take being told that


----------



## midnightpoet

Many famous and successful authors have gotten pretty stinging criticism at times, they all overcame it and kept writing.  I always hope I'm helpful in my crits, but realize sometimes I'm not - and perfectly willing to admit I'm not as smart as I think I am.  When I receive crits, I try to keep an open mind, and evaluate what is said.  Sometimes things help, sometimes they don't - but I realize people are honestly trying to help (if they're not, it's rather obvious) so unless I have a question I just take it and see what I can do to improve my writing.

One time I remember after a dozen failed tries I sent a short story off to a professional critic service, got it back with the comment that outside of some minor problems there was nothing wrong with it - but there was just a heck of a lot of competition out there and just keep trying.  The comment, instead of discouraging me, made me determined and eventually it was published (after, I'll admit I made some changes).  Take what you can use from a critique, ignore any snide comments, and keep trying.


----------



## Sam

PiP said:


> The biggest problem a writer has to address is not SPaG or plot holes, it is his ego.



Modern (read: popular) interpretation of the ego, such as Eckhart Tolle and Sigmund Freud's approach, is associated with the ego being an unhealthy self-importance or -infatuation, when in reality all ego means is 'I'. You are your ego, and your ego is you, and all it really boils down to is self-consciousness. So when someone says, "That's your ego talking," what they're saying unbeknownst of themselves is: "That's _you _talking." 

Thus, too many people make the mistake of seeing their ego as a separate part of themselves, and try to eradicate it because they see it as something undesirable, when in reality not all ego is undesirable. 

The more you try to rid yourself of something, the more you are a prisoner to it.


----------



## Phil Istine

Sam said:


> Modern (read: popular) interpretations of the ego, such as Eckhart Tolle and Sigmund Freud's approach, is associated with the ego being an unhealthy self-importance or -infatuation, when in reality all ego means is 'I'. You are your ego, and your ego is you, and all it really boils down to is self-consciousness. So when someone says, "That's your ego talking," what they're saying unbeknownst of themselves is: "That's _you _talking."
> 
> Thus, too many people make the mistake of seeing their ego as a separate part of themselves, and try to eradicate it because they see it as something undesirable, when in reality not all ego is undesirable.
> 
> The more you try to rid yourself of something, the more you are a prisoner to it.



Indeed, when I worked in a clinic, ego was presented merely as healthy self-interest, though the more common interpretation is a negative one.  I suppose a healthy balance between self-interest and empathy is to be desired.
Latin: ego sum = I am.


----------



## Darkkin

True critique embraces both aspects, positive and negative in equal measure, this is what so many writers and commentors forget.  They want to be nice, offering solely encouragement, but if something receives nothing but praise, how can it be improved?  A writer needs to know the issues before attempting to implement a solution, and as such, if a writer wants to improve they need to be willing to take advise into consideration.  Ego is the Achille's heel of any creative process.

Yes, everyone has or will received a rough critique at some point.  It is what the recipient choses to do with it that matters.  Do you salt the wounds or apply it to the meat?


----------



## Ultraroel

Encouraging someone by saying: "you have talent"  or "this has a future"  when there is none is crueller than being deadhonest.
Imagine you being the person that is said to "have talent"  and you keep putting time and effort into it for a long time, then realize that actually.. you haven't got any talent, it's absolutely worthless.
Yes, its nice that you tried, it's nice to be encouraged. But encouragement cause you are scared to hurt, has never done anyone good.

If I see talent somewhere, I'd encourage it, but also be honest about the process that he/she has to go through to develop it. If someone is failing badly at something and probably never will be "good"  tell him he should do it as a hobby, tell them its nice to try and perserverence can make up a lot. But don't encourage someone into spending time into something they do not understand.

Example. If I see a 12-year old boy trying to skateboard, but constantly falling, breaking things and such. I'll give him tips on how to fall, how to move and what to focus on, but also tell him it will take him a loooong way to go.


----------



## PiP

RHPeat said:


> Pip
> 
> I was tough on you and you took it pretty well. But you asked, and I said I would be dreadfully honest. As far as the forum goes you have done nothing but improve. And I think every poet on there would agree.
> 
> a poet friend
> RH Peat



*laughing* Ron, I was not referring to you - far from it! Your critiques are tough, well-balanced and you always support your suggestions with a logical reason.


----------



## Ariel

There is a way to be honest, fair, and kind while critiquing. It's a difficult balance and, I think, made more difficult the more we critique. We see that the same people make the same mistakes and it becomes "why do I bother?"  It's also difficult to balance when there's a score on the line as in the LM or PiP challenges.

Spelling and grammar are great and easy to critique but they are just the surface of writing. Jane Austen was apparently appalling at both. Writing something creative, thought provoking, and emotional is far better and more indicative of a good writer, in my opinion. That holds true for poetry and prose. No one has a great first draft. Editors can take care of the rest.


----------



## Kyle R

Ultraroel said:


> If someone is failing badly at something and probably never will be "good" tell him he should do it as a hobby, tell them its nice to try and perserverence can make up a lot. But don't encourage someone into spending time into something they do not understand.



I have to disagree here. It's not our place to tell others what they should or shouldn't pursue in life.

Critique the writing, not the writer.

Besides—great writers? They all start out as crappy writers. If we discouraged every struggling writer we came across, the world of literature would be a desolate place. :grief:


----------



## Terry D

amsawtell said:


> Spelling and grammar are great and easy to critique but they are just the surface of writing. Jane Austen was apparently appalling at both. Writing something creative, thought provoking, and emotional is far better and more indicative of a good writer, in my opinion. That holds true for poetry and prose. No one has a great first draft. Editors can take care of the rest.



I have to disagree here. Editors do not exist to 'fix' problems writers leave behind. Read any article by editors or agents and you'll find that they find sloppy SPaG a trademark of amateur writing. They also resent those writers who feel too 'creative' to be bothered with the nuts and bolts. None of us submit perfect copy, but it should always be as good as we can possibly make it. With literally thousands of submission coming in each month, editors need to make rejection decisions very quickly and SPaG is frequently one of the first filters they use.

One of my first short story submissions (way back in the pre-word-processor and spell check days) came back covered with red check marks indicating miss-spelled words. The editor was kind enough to add "Poor spelling is no indication of a writer's ability to write well -- JFK and Hemingway were both notoriously poor spellers -- but is very off-putting for an editor." He went on the discuss the short comings of my story (I tried too hard to be dramatic and ended up sucking the power out of my twist ending), and he commented on a couple of line he liked. I was so new to the writing game that I didn't realize that a one page, personalized rejection was actually quite a compliment. That's still the best rejection letter I've ever received. His combination of honesty and subtle encouragement still color my critiques to this day. I don't critique much, but, when I do, I try to tell the writer just why their story either works for me as a reader, or why it doesn't. I try to find something to compliment, but I won't invent something. I also don't tell the writer how to fix their writing, or tell them how they should have done it. I despise critique that tries to tell me me how I should have written something. That's the mark of a very poor critic, or judge, IMO. I will give examples of how I would try and achieve the same effect I think they are trying for, but I will always preface that with a disclaimer stating that I'm not offering a suggestion, only an example.

To make a long answer longer, I think honesty is the best form of encouragement. Sarcasm isn't honesty (and we've had some LM judges here who like to use sarcasm), insults are never honest, but false encouragement isn't honesty either. Any writer, no matter their skill level, or apparent talent, can be encourage to improve and to learn more about their craft. That's one thing to keep in mind; writing is first and foremost a craft, and the practice of it will benefit from exercise and repetition. Anyone can get better. That is worth encouraging even if the current piece is a steaming pile of miss-spelled, over-written, dung. I know. I've been there. Thank you Nye Wilden.


----------



## Sam

amsawtell said:


> There is a way to be honest, fair, and kind while critiquing. It's a difficult balance and, I think, made more difficult the more we critique. We see that the same people make the same mistakes and it becomes "why do I bother?"  It's also difficult to balance when there's a score on the line as in the LM or PiP challenges.
> 
> Spelling and grammar are great and easy to critique but they are just the surface of writing. Jane Austen was apparently appalling at both. Writing something creative, thought provoking, and emotional is far better and more indicative of a good writer, in my opinion. That holds true for poetry and prose. No one has a great first draft. Editors can take care of the rest.



It's an errant supposition that "editors [will] take care of the rest" when it comes to submitted manuscripts. There a few things editors hate as much as seeing a piece of work laden with careless errors. As Terry said, it's one of the filters they use to separate the wheat from the chaff. The nuts and bolts are just as important as the story. Neglecting one or the other will make you a poor writer in the eyes of editors. 

Yes, historically there are writers who were horrible at SPaG, but that was forgiven back then because there wasn't nearly as many submitted manuscripts as there is nowadays. But that isn't indicative of the norm. Just because Jane Austen could get away with it, it doesn't mean that you should try to get away with it.


----------



## Ariel

_Copy_ editors, beta-readers, workshop groups--if you go through the writing process your SPaG will be found for you. Of course, before submission your manuscript should be as clean as possible.

I was talking in the scope of this website or critique group. I always forget that a pendant will come and tear everything that is said apart.


----------



## bdcharles

amsawtell said:


> I was talking in the scope of this website or critique group. I always forget that a pendant will come and tear everything that is said apart.



Oh-ho, nice work! But my own brand of pendantry is far too precious to squander on this simple trap.


----------



## Terry D

amsawtell said:


> _Copy_ editors, beta-readers, workshop groups--if you go through the writing process your SPaG will be found for you. Of course, before submission your manuscript should be as clean as possible.
> 
> I was talking in the scope of this website or critique group. I always forget that a pendant will come and tear everything that is said apart.



Accuracy is not pedantry. No one was looking to "tear everything apart". I can only react to what you wrote, not what you _intended_. The fact is, many, many inexperienced writers believe just what you implied; that clean copy isn't as important as stunning ideas and that's just not the case. I work in a manufacturing plant where we make products by the thousands every day. One of the functions here is that of a Quality Assurance technician. Those QA techs are much like copy editors, they exist to help catch defects which slip through the manufacturing process. It's a job that shouldn't be needed, but it is currently. We try to react to those defects by examining them to find their roots causes and then eliminate the source of the defects, thereby permanently eliminating the problem. Sometimes the defects are not process, or design related, but workmanship related; defects caused by people not skilled enough, or not caring enough, to do the job properly. That's like basic SPaG issues in writing. If those folks don't improve the quality of their work, they put their jobs at risk. Just as writers do.


----------



## Sack-a-doo

T.S.Bowman said:


> So, while I completely understand that honesty is normally the best way  to go, I also understand that sometimes, just sometimes, being honest  could quite possibly be a final step in someone giving up on his/her  dream of writing.


I've come back from that abyss a couple of times and you're right, it ain't easy. The latest time was last summer when I asked a 'friend' for feedback and, after not hearing from him for a couple of months, asked if he'd a chance to read my novel yet. His reply amounted to, "It's pretty juvenile and since my son grew up, I don't read that kind of thing any longer. But if you want, I'll keep reading." (He'd only gotta through a couple of chapters.)

Needless to say, I was devastated and it took another couple of months before I could pull myself together enough to figure out what to do about it. Had it not been for my wife encouraging me, I might never have gotten back to it. But I did and over the next two drafts, I managed to bring my story and myself back from the edge.

I hope you can do the same.


----------



## LOLeah

I've never read something for the purpose of critiquing it and come away with absolutely nothing good to say. Every writer has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the weaknesses are so glaring that their strengths as a writer are even more difficult to recognize, but I've always been able to find them, and compliment them. I have no problem delivering hard truths but I can do that and be encouraging. And be honest all the while.


----------



## Patrick

Honesty humbly submitted is the best kind of critique. Much that constitutes critique enters the realm of subjectivity, and so opinions should only be presented, with their supporting reasoning, as such and not as fact. It's possible to dislike something that's actually good work, and its antithesis is also true. You're a vain human being with vain opinions.

And writers need to understand that about critique, too. If your primary interest is to improve your writing,  you should listen to what others have to say, but never make it your foundation.


----------



## Jay Greenstein

Terry D said:


> I can only react to what you wrote, not what you _intended_.


That's a point that far too many hopeful writers miss. As David Sedaris observed: “The returning student had recently come through a difficult divorce, and because her pain was significant, she wrongly insisted her writing was significant as well.”


----------



## SilverMoon

It's all really a fine line. Words have to be measured not only carefully but aptly to the writer at hand.

Here's a very informative, comprehensive outline concerning critique. Really think first segments are worthy of a putting a sticky thread into play. Am working on it.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/comm-skills/critiquing-kline.htm


----------

