# Critiquing the Critic



## Nippon Devil (Nov 1, 2014)

Yea, I'm quite aware it's a *sour topic*, but hear me out.

As writers, our most valuable attribute is perseverance. No one is born great, but so long as we stay the path, we will eventually become great. I don't care what you write and how, as long as you keep doing it, you will get better. Some advice that is heavily pushed on this forum is to listen to others. To be open minded and not get offended. Take no offense, and do not be offensive...

...Why don't we follow this advice as critics? When people dare to talk back to the critics, they immediately get offended. Some even swear off critiquing all together. What, do they get a pass just because this is a writing forum and not a critiquing forum? Why not do what a good writer does and just take it on the chin? What if you really didn't know what you were talking about? Get off your damn soap box and start critiquing like a writer!

I know, I know. You're taking time out of your busy day to read some work, and taking the time to write about it. On top of that we're all here to write, but not everyone wants to read. But we forgive new users for writing bad critique, so maybe we should forgive new writers for giving us lip? At the very least, we shouldn't let a few rotten apples ruin the batch. Not everyone will take your words to heart, but why give up on the few people that will? 

Let's start by talking about what make a good critique. Because quite frankly, there are some really bad ones I pass over on my way to comment for others. The "Good Critic Credo" is something like this:
*
- Be enthusiastic about the work of others.

- Do not comment out of pride.

- Help make the work better for everyone, not just yourself.

- Be a mentor*

Now let me talk about each line a bit.

Firstly, people are going to more easily receive your critique and are less likely to retaliate if they think you're a fan and not a "critic". So, let's observe the start to a few critiques. Here's one of mine, at least the first part of it. It was for the story "Bread":



Nippon Devil said:


> Well, that escalated quickly.
> 
> Firstly, a newby mistake everyone makes on the forum is they tell the  reader before hand that their story isn't any good. Don't do that. Why  would anyone read something that even you aren't proud of? You can tell  them you thought it was bad after the fact. Also, adding a word count to  the title is always a good idea. There are various writing programs  that can count words for you.
> 
> As for the work itself. I like the idea. It could be the beginning of a  story that deals with vampires. I suppose that's also my biggest problem  with it. It's got a nice sharp jab, but no substance. A well executed  plot twist without character development or even a story. If it is the  beginning of a story however, you get a tip from the proverbial hat.



Yikes! I typically have better bedside manner than this. I basically called him a noob, and my one decent compliment was washed into a criticism. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't finish reading my critique. Next post on the same story was by Tkent:



TKent said:


> Oh my. You had me going with this Nash! Man, here I  was about to brush a tear from my eye... I really liked the feel of  this piece.
> 
> I'm fairly new to writing myself, just a couple of comments:



Tkent, have my babies.

Haha, no, but you can see her mile-high enthusiasm for the piece. She even throws in that he's not that experienced with writing to further soften the blow to a feather. If I received a critique from this gal, I would be on my hands and knees praising her regardless of how critical she was. You don't have to be THIS nice, but try not to make your praise come across as an after thought.


Next up is comments out of pride. I don't really feel safe showing you which posts these are, so I'll just discuss them a bit. Not everyone who remarks on someone's story is a critic. Some of them are sore writers who feel better about themselves by slandering other people's work. Some of them just like the sound of their own voice. point is, don't be like those fools. It's not a race, so you shouldn't lay traps for other drivers. 



Now, making the work better for everyone and not just yourself. Sometimes as critics, we have pet peeves. We pick apart something that we hate, but others might not mind or actually enjoy. Here's a critique from a new user on a story "THE DRIVING LESSON"



TIG said:


> I found the 'Grandpa' thing off-putting. I appreciate  that you've written this for your son, but that makes it jar for anyone  else!
> 
> Much of the narrative has you in the moment, effectively, albeit with  the story as a general reminiscence. However, the last two paragraphs  after the accident are peppered with 'I remember' which takes it away  from the overall flow and curtails the mood. It would be much better -  and probably capture the confusion and shock - if it was still in the  moment!



Why is the grandpa thing off-putting and jarring? How can "I remember" curtail the mood in a story that was from start to finish a reminiscing? If you can't explain your idea for a story to a friend, it's not a good idea for a story. If you can't say why you don't like something, it's not a good critique. Maybe there's a good critique buried in there, but TIG has to dig it out of his post for us before it can be of any use to the writer.


Lastly, you're not a critic. I hate that frickin' word. You are a mentor, a teacher, a sensei, someone who wants to see their student take their advise and grow. You critique not to bring people down, but to see they raise to even greater heights. If someone retaliates, then maybe they do not wish to be your student. But don't give up on the whole class.


So, that's my little Saturday blurb. I'd love to hear your comments.


----------



## dither (Nov 1, 2014)

Comment? Who? Me? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Interesting post though Nippon.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Nov 1, 2014)

Well basically you use the critiques that work for you and dismiss the critiques that don't.

And I hate to break the news to you but TKent is a she


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 1, 2014)

Yeah... The writer is asking for a critique of their work; the critic is not asking for a critique of their comments. If you don't like what's said, walk away. And if critics get a bit pissed off by back-talk, well, you don't ask for advice and then snap at people if it isn't what you want to hear. A person would have to be pretty masochistic to keep giving critiques if the writers are snarky in return. Are some critics "better" than others? Depends on what you want from a critique. When you put something up on a forum, you're opening it for anyone who wants to comment, regardless of whether they know what they're talking about or if their style fits with yours. It's why I stick with my betas instead of posting stuff on forums.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Nov 1, 2014)

On the one hand, I think it's great to think about what makes for a higher standard of critique, how to make useful and detailed comments, etc. There are people here who are great about that and people who are still learning. So, awesome, let's praise those who are great and also those who are trying to learn.

On the other, anyone who reads your (general you) story and comments on it is doing you a favor, and it is lame to bitch about their efforts. Take what is useful, ask questions if appropriate and desired, but keep in mind people are spending time on your story to help you.


----------



## Sam (Nov 1, 2014)

It's not lame to bitch about a critic's efforts; it's extremely lame. 

It's very simple: don't submit your work if all you want is to be told that everything is great. If you're unhappy with the way someone has critiqued it, you have to live with it. Either take that parts that you agree and use them, or disregard the critique entirely, but complaining that the critic has not given you the critique you wanted is not only bad form but bad netiquette as well. Doubly so, critiquing their critique is horrible form and strongly discouraged here. If you put your work up for critique, expect it to be given a completely unbiased and thorough examination. If you don't want that, give the story to your family instead. They'll tell you what you obviously want to hear.


----------



## InstituteMan (Nov 1, 2014)

Critiquing is a skill like any other, and some are better at it and some are worse at it, but "it" isn't a single thing.

I have received critiques that were dead on correct but not well expressed. I have received articulate critiques that completely missed the point of what I had written (which often means that I wasn't clear enough, mind you). 

Personally, my most . . . thorough and unpleasant critiques are the ones I give privately at the request the writer. So far, everyone seems to have appreciated those.

So long as all our critiquers abide by site rules and common decency, I welcome them to comment on posts.


----------



## Greimour (Nov 1, 2014)

People bashing critics really gets to me if I am honest.

One of your comments: 





> Get off your damn soap box and start critiquing like a writer!




I have critiqued a lot of work on this forum as well as other places. Only about 80% of those are as a writer. Some people don't want that kind of response and they let you know. One member asked for a critique from a 'readers perspective' ... so my entire critique shown my thoughts as I read the piece. What brought me out of the story - why it brought me out of the story - what I was imagining based on the description, etc. 

Not one part of the critique mentioned prose, alternate word choices, SPaG or anything else of the kind. It was exactly what he wanted and I was thanked way more than I thought was necessary.

So, no. I can't agree with that. Give the kind of response requested (if specified). That doesn't mean good vs bad. If they don't specify, by all means comment on everything; but if they are asking you to check prose, don't tell them that Andy is an unbelievable character. 



> *- Be enthusiastic about the work of others.
> 
> - Do not comment out of pride.
> 
> ...



How about:

~ Be Honest
~ Try to be kind about it (not rude)
~ Explain both the good and bad
~ Add your personal opinion on the piece outside of an academic view.

___________
Be a mentor? 

It is not your job to teach me. If you do, I am glad and thankful... but a critiques job isn't a mentor and so they shouldn't be expected to teach a writer to write.

~~~


I have never (EVER) retorted to a critique about my own work. I have responded to a piece with an opposing view to another critic though. That person and myself went on to discuss the piece and voice our own opinions - but not once did the 'author' respond negatively. He gave nothing but thanks to both of us. (Rightly so)

Equally, I have spoken to people before about their critique responses. Such as when one person said: "This should be A not B" and left it at that. Where I responded to the person saying: "It helps in those situations to say why. You don't have to but if you can then it would be better if you do. That way you won't have to tell them to make the same changes next time."



So as Shadow said: "The writer is asking for a critique of their work; the critic is not asking for a critique of their comments"


~Kev.


----------



## dale (Nov 1, 2014)

critique the critic if you want, but don't expect too many people to want to waste their time reading your work, if you do. 
i wouldn't. i don't like reading fiction on a computer screen. it irritates me and i find it hard to get into. i mean that for even great fiction.
so if i care enough to read your work on here and give it a critique and then you snub me or criticize me for doing what i really ain't too
comfortable doing anyway? i'll basically be like...wow. won't be wasting my time on this one again.


----------



## Nippon Devil (Nov 1, 2014)

Let's just nip this in the bud right now: I am not saying that critics  should be critiqued by the writer. The closest I came to saying that in  my original post is that we should forgive new users for doing this. I  actually invited the critic to not comment on the work of someone who  did this, so I'm a bit confused as to where all this "Dun get POed when  someone tells you your work sucked!" I have never told my critics  anything but that I appreciated their work. I actually do far more  commenting than critiquing. My goal with this topic is not to get  writers to comment on critics, but  to get critics to pay more attention to what they're saying. 

And...better fix that Tkent being a guy bit. woops!



Greimour said:


> People bashing critics really gets to me if I am honest.
> 
> One of your comments:
> 
> ...



I  don't really understand the point here. when I said "critique like a  writer!" I was more saying that you should critique with the same amount  of confidence that you write. Not that you should go against people's  requests. I've personally never been asked to just comment on a single  aspect of a story. the concept seems silly to me.



Greimour said:


> How about:
> 
> ~ Be Honest
> ~ Try to be kind about it (not rude)
> ...



Being honest leaves room for pet peeves, and those don't  help anyone but the critic. If I just wanted opinions, I'd show my work  on other forums.

The other ones I agree with, if they work for you that is.



Greimour said:


> Be a mentor?
> 
> It is not your job to teach me. If you do, I am glad and thankful... but  a critiques job isn't a mentor and so they shouldn't be expected to  teach a writer to write.



Then what is their job? Don't people get critics to look  over their work so that it gets improved? Isn't that sort of in line  with what a teacher does?

I don't have to teach you, but i have  to make sure you understand why something is wrong. it's the only way I  can know my words carry weight.



Greimour said:


> Equally, I have spoken to people before about their critique responses.  Such as when one person said: "This should be A not B" and left it at  that. Where I responded to the person saying: "It helps in those  situations to say why. You don't have to but if you can then it would be  better if you do. That way you won't have to tell them to make the same  changes next time."



See? You taught him/her something... hopefully!



Greimour said:


> So as Shadow said: "The writer is asking for a critique of their work;  the critic is not asking for a critique of their comments"



And shadow seem to skim over when I said the exact same  thing in my 3-4th paragraph. But hopefully we got the whole "OP wants  writers to bash critics" thing resolved I trust?


----------



## Jeko (Nov 1, 2014)

> Well basically you use the critiques that work for you and dismiss the critiques that don't.



No; take them all. As long as they're honest, they are valid opinions. Take them all into account, altogether, and you'll get the overall impression that your readership is getting.

As for the topic:



> Firstly, people are going to more easily receive your critique and are less likely to retaliate if they think you're a fan and not a "critic".



BS. People who are looking for criticism will take it regardless of who it comes from and how. If someone shows enthusiasm for the work, then great. But anyone who discounts a critic because they're acting like one, being objective and honest and critical about a work, shouldn't be asking for critiques - they should be asking for praise.

If your asking for a critique, read it as a critique.



> Not everyone who remarks on someone's story is a critic. Some of them are sore writers who feel better about themselves by slandering other people's work. Some of them just like the sound of their own voice. point is, don't be like those fools



How do you know? I don't think you can, unless you look at what they're saying and it isn't about the text. 

I haven't seen anyone like that on here for a long time; and even when there are people like that, their opinions are still useful as long as you can tell that they're honest.



> Now, making the work better for everyone and not just yourself. Sometimes as critics, we have pet peeves. We pick apart something that we hate, but others might not mind or actually enjoy.



Agree on this point. Again, we should make it about the text, not about ourselves or the other writer, while remaining hoenst. Though asking for clarification is an important part of the process; the right thing to do in the case mentioned is to ask the poster to expand on his opinion. Both the critic and the receiver of criticism should work together to improve the work; that sometimes means helping the critic do his/her job.



> Lastly, you're not a critic. I hate that frickin' word. You are a mentor, a teacher, a sensei, someone who wants to see their student take their advise and grow.



We should try to be all of those things. But we do that as critics. We critique. We are critical. Thus, we are critics. There's nothing wrong with the word; if we remain objective about it, as we should when we're critiquing, it only means what it means.

I think the people who think being a 'critic' is a bad thing are more part of the problem than those that those people think are 'bad critics'. If you're thinking about someone's style of criticism while reading it, you're not reading the critique for what it's there for. It's much easier to casually watch for a more obviously unhelpful critic and ignore them than vet everyone's efforts with a list a qualities you want them to abide by.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 1, 2014)

While writers' critiques are often very useful for making correction, it's the reader's response, her question, her specific enthusiasm, her recount of the reading, which most often inspires fundamental improvement. I love those writers who help me analyse, but it's the casual passerby who specifically doesn't get something who puts her finger on the knot.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 1, 2014)

I believe critiquing is a craft, just like fiction writing.

Practice, effort, and feedback are all helpful ways to attain the skills needed to provide quality critiques, in my opinion. 

Just because you have an opinion and a keyboard, that doesn't automatically make you a great critiquer.

I think the original poster is saying, simply, that critiques shouldn't be immune to *constructive criticism*â€”which is a positive thing, and not at all synonymous with complaining or whining.

In my opinion, *everyone here* (myself included) has room for improvement with their critiquing skills. We can always be better. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 1, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> I think the original poster is saying, simply, that critiques shouldn't be immune to *constructive criticism*â€”which is a positive thing, and not at all synonymous with complaining or whining.



But again, are the critiquers _asking _for that feedback? If someone gets downright rude in their comments, that's a matter of forum protocol, and should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. Otherwise, while I may not like the tone or lack of substance in a comment, it's not my place to tell someone how to critique when the thread is about the author's work and not the critique. Not to mention, I would be a bit pissed if my work were shunted to the side while a critique was discussed instead.

If members want help on being more effective at critiques, start a separate section where pieces of an anonymous work are posted for critique, with the specific purpose of diagnosing why the _critique _would or would not work. But don't open up a can of worms in an area where it's already difficult to get participation.


----------



## thepancreas11 (Nov 1, 2014)

Sometimes I read a critique and think, "How could they not see what I meant?" I'll get defensive and borderline angry, mostly with myself, and my head thickens pretty quickly to the point where I would crumple up my computer screen if I could and shout, "I don't want to!" in the response to someone's comments. Thankfully, before I write anything in return, I remember that:

Anyone who reads my work does so on their time. They volunteered. They care, even if they pretend they don't.

This opens a lot of doors to my closed mind. Most importantly, it means that they do everything they do for my sake, not for theirs. I think we can all identify the ones blowing smoke for their own good, and those we can pleasantly put in our files labeled "Crap". The others, well, they read my piece, and they told me honestly how they felt about it. Turns out, the people on this website represent the people that buy and read books pretty well. If they don't like it, chances are, people won't read it.

There's also the added bonus that they have a collective amount of experience in writing, reading, or life in general. So, I take that into account.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 1, 2014)

Maybe we should be responders instead of critics?

It is impressive how much the people in this forum wrestle with the problem of how to give good responses. This discussion is just one example.

Taboo or not, I have asked judges to explain their criticisms of my stories. Both were willing to discuss issues with me.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 1, 2014)

I'm a critic when asked to do a critique. Not afraid of the word 

I also have no problem asking or answering questions about comments. It's a dialogue, after all. Someone making excuses or arguing - that's a different story.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 1, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> But again, are the critiquers _asking _for that feedback?



Often, the reviewers who need such feedback are the ones who will never ask for it.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> But don't open up a can of worms in an area where it's already difficult to get participation.



I find it unfortunate that a reviewer would consider feedback on their critique akin to opening a can of worms. We should all be able to discuss things openly and freely. But you're rightâ€”often such discussions get out of hand.

Just as reviewers expect writers to respond with maturity and open-mindedness when faults in their writing are pointed out, a reviewer should (in my opinion) show the same maturity and open-mindedness when faults in their critiquing are pointed out, as well.

Respect is a two-way street.

Sometimes you'll come across a writer who is upset by less than stellar feedback. Often it isn't the feedback itself that was upsetting, but the manner in which it was delivered.

Sadly, some reviewers who give such feedback will get offended and/or defensive if questioned, instead of acknowledging that, hey, if you're getting feedback from a writer who is unhappy with your critiquing style? Maybe this is something you should be paying attention to.

In fact, I recommend that if you _do_ find a writer is complaining about your critique? Don't argue with them about it. Don't belittle them by insinuating that they should grow thicker skin. They're complaining for a reason. Learn from it so you can be a better critiquer in the future. :encouragement:

P.S. I really like your suggestion of an area where critiquing skills can be discussed and practiced. I think that's a great idea.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 1, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> I find it unfortunate that a reviewer would consider feedback on their critique akin to opening a can of worms. We should all be able to discuss things openly and freely. But you're rightâ€”often such discussions get out of hand.
> 
> Just as reviewers expect writers to respond with maturity and open-mindedness when faults in their writing are pointed out, a reviewer should (in my opinion) show the same maturity and open-mindedness when faults in their critiquing are pointed out, as well.
> 
> Respect is a two-way street.



The point is not that reviewers might resent comments on their critiques - it's that it's not an appropriate place for it. (See below) When an author requests a critique and someone takes time to do one, they should not be rewarded by someone else telling them how to "improve" their technique. Nor should the critique of the author's work be derailed or side-stepped to do so.



Kyle R said:


> P.S. I really like your suggestion of an area where critiquing skills can be discussed and practiced. I think that's a great idea.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 1, 2014)

ppsage said:


> While writers' critiques are often very useful for making correction, it's the reader's response, her question, her specific enthusiasm, her recount of the reading, which most often inspires fundamental improvement. I love those writers who help me analyse, but it's the casual passerby who specifically doesn't get something who puts her finger on the knot.



That's the thing about critiquing. I usually don't have a whole lot of time to put into writing out a big, involved critique. I don't have the proper skillset to be doing that either. I leave the grammar issues for others to point out. A clunky sentence that doesn't read well to me, I'll point those out. A dangling participle...I wouldn't know one if it bit me on the ass.

I am usually just one of those "passerby" who drop into a thread, check out the story, and let the writer know what I thought of the "feel" of the piece in question and whether or not anything jumped out at me. 

I guess I would pretty much be the definition of a "casual reader", who drops a line to let the writer know what worked for me and what didn't.

- - - Updated - - -



EmmaSohan said:


> Taboo or not, I have asked judges to explain their criticisms of my stories. Both were willing to discuss issues with me.



Emma, I don't believe it's "taboo" to ask for further clarification on a judges or critiquers thoughts. 

Arguing about it with them, though, is just bad form.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 1, 2014)

Nippon Devil said:


> ...So, that's my little Saturday blurb. I'd love to hear your comments.



I like the fact that you have reflected upon your own critique.

However, what if you were right? What if there couldn't have been another way to present what you wrote while still staying true to your intent to give good critique?

Not everything ever created and put up for critique is worth reading. That is the cold, harsh, cruel fact of writing - Not everything one writes is worth reading. Sometimes, a writer might not know if their work is worth reading. Who are the going to go to in order to get feedback and an answer to that sort of question? A fan club? Nope. Writers know that they sometimes write garbage.  They also know that it's sometimes difficult to tell if it's garbage. So, if it's "garbage" then tell them so, but be sure to tell them "why" you think its garbage. (It would also be prudent not to come straight out and tell them it's "garbage" unless you're on very intimate and friendly terms with them.  )

I think there's only one general rule that any critic or author looking for criticism should use to measure the quality of a criticism - If it doesn't tell you why the critic believes something is good or bad or if it points out a deficiency and doesn't offer suggestions on how it can be fixed, it's not really worth reading.

Anyone can offer an "opinion." That's fine. But, a good critic won't just offer opinion, they'll offer something of substance and they'll tell you why they're offering it.

On "Mentoring" while "Criticizing" : There's no particular issue that I can see with someone offering guidance within their criticism of a piece. They're giving you a glimpse into their mind and that sort of thing can be valuable to anyone. You'll also note that writers who are confident in their ability will ask more for "opinion" criticisms than mechanical ones. A good critic can tell when a writer is a well-practiced writer or one who is "new" writer, just by what they have written. That sort of critic will know when basic criticism and guidance isn't needed and will ramp up the quality of their reply with deeper subject matter of interest to a well-practiced writer.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 1, 2014)

> If members want help on being more effective at critiques, start a separate section where pieces of an anonymous work are posted for critique, with the specific purpose of diagnosing why the _critiquewould or would not work. But don't open up a can of worms in an area where it's already difficult to get participation._


So like an CoF of critiques? W/ judges?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 1, 2014)

ppsage said:


> So like an CoF of critiques? W/ judges?



No "judges" I think. After all...who would be the ones to judge something like that? It would be more like everyone could add a critique and there would be an open discussion amongst everyone about how a certain critique would work and/or not work.

Open discussion? Not a bad idea. 

Especially considering how much of a hornet's nest the topic can be at times.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 1, 2014)

The only person who can truly judge the worthiness of a critique is an insightful and humble writer. If they can find value and worth in a critique, then it's a good critique. If they can accept criticism and see its merits, then its a good critique. That's who the critique is meant for, anyway.

A "critique", here, is not like a critique written for the masses by a movie reviewer. That's just "writing for money" and lots of writers do that. But, when you're writing a critique for the author of the piece that you're examining, you're writing it for that person and that person, alone.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 1, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> We should all be able to discuss things openly and freely.



Critique the writer! Critique the critiquer! I think you should be able to say anything to anyone when you feel that you need to (in a respectful way of course!). I also think it's how you approach one another. I don't see why someone would throw their hands up in the air and yell for the critique etiquette police if the author wanted to comment on the way someone said something about their work.  Just because that person took the time out of their day to say something about my story shouldn't mean it's hands off for me to comment back to them about their style of getting their point across to me. 

I would love to be able to critique stories like some do on these forums, just as much as I'd want to avoid how others do it. If I can learn something as a critiquer from a fellow writer, then by all means, tell me! I'm not going to know what I'm doing wrong if no one tells me.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 1, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> The point is not that reviewers might resent comments on their critiques - it's that it's not an appropriate place for it. (See below) When an author requests a critique and someone takes time to do one, they should not be rewarded by someone else telling them how to "improve" their technique. Nor should the critique of the author's work be derailed or side-stepped to do so.



If a writer wants to discuss a reviewer's comments, I believe the writer should be allowed to do so at their own discretion.

I agree that a piece shouldn't be derailed. But I disagree with the notion that critiques should be immune to commentary. 

Sometimes things simply need to be said, discussed, or questioned, and a writer should have full freedom to do so. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 2, 2014)

I've already stated that an author should be able to ask questions about comments - but if you get a writer or other forum member criticising how something is said, pretty soon you end up with a free-for-all with some defending the critic and others attacking. Been there, done that. No one wins, believe me. Particularly when one looks at various discussions already about the web concerning how to critique (the 'brutal honesty' versus 'constructive criticism' ones are particularly enlightening in that regard). Talk about one man's trash... 

One should not, IMHO, criticise the critic or the author. The focus should be the work, and the work only. When I was putting my work up for crits on another forum (and several years ago), I didn't give a rat's behind what the critics thought of me as a person. I wanted to know if I was writing well or not. If someone got personal, I quickly learned to ignore those bits and look at their comments on the work only, or ignore them completely when I realized they were just a-holes in general. I also learned to ignore who the author was when giving a crit - because it would have been very easy to blast those same a-holes to kingdom come otherwise. And if things got out of hand, there is always the report button. If you're hesitant to use it, perhaps the problem isn't as big as you first thought.

Focus on the work. Be polite. Be honest. I certainly wouldn't ask for more than that.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 2, 2014)

shadowwalker said:
			
		

> ... if you get a writer or other forum member criticising how something is said ...



... then there's probably good reason for the criticism.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> pretty soon you end up with a free-for-all with some defending the critic and others attacking. Been there, done that. No one wins, believe me.



That's true in many cases—and that right there highlights the problem, in my opinion.

We expect writers to be humble, to be polite, to be graceful and mature in the face of criticism, even if they don't like what is being said. To learn from what is being said to them.

Critiquers should be held to the same standards, in my opinion. If you don't like how a writer responds to your criticism, don't argue with them. Be humble. Be polite. Be graceful and mature. Learn from what is being said to you.

It's a two-way street.

Just my perspective on things. 

The rest of what you said, I agree with. :encouragement:


----------



## dale (Nov 2, 2014)

i think anyone who takes the time to read my crap and offer a critique deserves respect.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 2, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> ... then there's probably good reason for the criticism.



Not if a bruhaha starts up over it - then it's obviously a matter of interpretation.



Kyle R said:


> Critiquers should be held to the same standards, in my opinion. If you don't like how a writer responds to your criticism, don't argue with them. Be humble. Be polite. Be graceful and mature. Learn from what is being said to you.
> 
> It's a two-way street.



Not really. The writer is _asking _for the critique. Start telling people that if they take the time and effort to critique, they have to expect to have someone diagnose their phrasing, and what do you think is going to happen? 

What's that saying about looking a gift horse in the mouth?


----------



## Pluralized (Nov 2, 2014)

I can think of many instances where a good, salty critique has resounded in my head during composition, but cannot think of a single time when a critique rejoinder has affected my comments or presentation as a critic. Perhaps that makes me somehow callous or bull-headed, but my intent is always to provide honest feedback and help. 

Plus, whenever a writer responds with whiny or ungrateful comments, I'll avoid their work in the future. It's a big game of give-and-take.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 2, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> The writer is _asking _for the critique. Start telling people that if they take the time and effort to critique, they have to expect to have someone diagnose their phrasing, and what do you think is going to happen?
> 
> What's that saying about looking a gift horse in the mouth?


I just provided a critique not too long ago.

Now, if the writer responds negatively to my critique? I could assume the writer is being ungrateful. I could assume that my critiquing skills are perfect and beyond reproach.

Or, I could ask myself why the writer is responding negatively. Perhaps the manner in which I delivered my critique could have been the problem?

Put another way: if my critique upsets the writer, I could choose to blame the writer. 

Or, I could look at the words I used and consider the possibility that, hey, maybe I could have worded this better.

When I say that I believe writers should have the freedom to express dissatisfaction with any critiques they receive, I mean it. I say that not just as a writer, but as a critiquer, as well.

If my critique upsets you, I definitely would want to know about it. I wouldn't consider it offensive if you told me so. I'd consider it helpful feedback—something I can work on.

The way I see it, we're all on the same team. I see no reason why we can't just all talk openly and honestly to each other without people getting offended or defensive.

For some reason, the critique process tends to switch on some sort of "us versus them" mentality.

Who're "them?" Aren't we all part of the same "us?"


----------



## Greimour (Nov 2, 2014)

Nippon Devil said:


> I  don't really understand the point here. when I said "critique like a  writer!" I was more saying that you should critique with the same amount  of confidence that you write. Not that you should go against people's  requests. I've personally never been asked to just comment on a single  aspect of a story. the concept seems silly to me.



Well, that makes more sense (the critic with same confidence as you write thing), but that's not how I read it.
As for asking for a specific type of crit, it is not uncommon. They might know their character needs work or have already been told. Maybe they have had a critique go over their entire piece but not as a reader and now they want a readers opinion as well so they can further improve. Whatever the reason, it happens.



> Being honest leaves room for pet peeves, and those don't  help anyone but the critic. If I just wanted opinions, I'd show my work  on other forums.



What that meant was: Don't say they are the next Steinbeck if their work is sloppier than _Irene Iddesleigh_ by Amanda McKittrick Ros.

Additionally: Pet Peeves and personal opinions have their place in responses. It may seem like nothing to you when a person makes a passing remark, but to me it is something worth giving a moment of thought. Sometimes 'pet peeves' are 'correct but sloppy' methods of writing - they are always welcome in responses to my work. Whether I agree with their view or not I am always happy to know what they* think* of it. Not just what they were taught was 'the correct way'. 



> Then what is their job? Don't people get critics to look  over their work so that it gets improved? Isn't that sort of in line  with what a teacher does?
> 
> I don't have to teach you, but i have  to make sure you understand why something is wrong. it's the only way I  can know my words carry weight.



Maybe because I don't count Literary Criticism as a single field and what you are commenting on appears to me to include way more than what a Literary Critic is/does. 

For example: You said "Be Enthusiastic about the Work"

A literary critic doesn't need that in order to do what needs to be done. A literary theorist might find it easier if they find the work enjoyable, but they don't need enthusiasm either. Then there is the reviewer - that person might be hard pressed to reach their full potential on work they found to be lacking, but again, not necessarily so.

I count all three of those (and more) as valuable feedback and I class all of them as criticism. 

I don't expect a reviewer to tell me how to fix my prose after saying "The prose was sloppy throughout." ...

A critic will always give their personal opinion - even if it is actually a 'hard fact' of writing: Right or wrong, they will tell you what they think is right.
Maybe it is what they understand the 'right way' to be. 
Maybe they were taught different to you what the 'rules' are. 
 Perhaps their teacher said you 'can break the rules' if you know what you are doing and the next person along disagrees.  

To me - All responses are made by equally valuable critics:

Person A goes full out critique and basically acts as a fault finder - giving a lot of negative judgement.
Person B attempts to counteract some of that negativity by giving praise and merit with recognition to the good points.
Person C attempts to balance out the comments by giving equal praise and faults. 
Person D sees the 3 comments covering all aspects of Prose and SPaG so writes their personal opinion on the piece as a whole. The story worth (interesting?), the characterization, the archetypes, etc.
Person E comments on the scenery or lack thereof.
Person F comments on what the characters actually say inside dialogue. The girl is supposed to be an ordinary seven-year-old: why the hell is she smarter than Steven Hawking?
 [...]

Whatever the case: Readers, Theorists, Writers, Critics, Reviewers and Joe Public all get to have a say on my work and I will listen to each of them equally. 
I will count all of their responses as valuable criticism worth listening to.




> See? You taught him/her something... hopefully!



No, I taught nothing. I simply advised. A person can know something and not do it but with a little nudge might make an effort to do so in future. That's all I did. A little nudge so that they didn't need to keep repeating the same corrections every time they commented on a specific persons work.

Like I said, it is not a critiques job to teach. That is why they aren't called 'Teacher' (mentor/professor/whatever). 
A critique might do nothing more than highlight all the terrible parts of your work. They don't have to tell you how to fix it.

~~~~


~Kev.


----------



## Pluralized (Nov 2, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Or, I could ask myself why the writer is responding negatively. Perhaps the manner in which I delivered my critique could have been the problem?



Right, and thank you Kyle -- your critique was sharp, uplifting, and very helpful. What follows is less serious, but know that I sincerely appreciate your efforts on my story.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 2, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Now, if the writer responds negatively to my critique? I could assume the writer is being ungrateful. I could assume that my critiquing skills are perfect and beyond reproach.
> 
> Or, I could ask myself why the writer is responding negatively. Perhaps the manner in which I delivered my critique could have been the problem?



Again, I'm not saying that the writer can't respond negatively - although that depends on how they do it. And you and I are certainly able to consider why they did, and whether it's a legitimate complaint or not. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about saying it's okay for the critique to become the focus instead of the work; about telling the critics that if they take the time and make the effort to read and comment on a piece, they do so with the caveat that their method of comment can be critiqued; that if they run into a Speshful Snowflake, they have to put up with their method being torn apart because they didn't give enough Brownie points; that they way they explained their concerns was either too demanding or too generalized (or both, depending on who commented on their comment). I'm talking about the work being lost in the shuffle of people critiquing the critique (first one, then the second, then the third, because it's not just one person offering critiques - and then, of course, we can start critiquing the comments on the critique). I'm talking about people who merely wanted to help being told they have to meet some undetermined standard or face criticism themselves.

If someone finds a critique particularly aggregious, there are PMs and report buttons. The way someone comments should not be part and parcel of the critique thread. It's not fair to the critic and it's not fair to the author.


----------



## Nippon Devil (Nov 2, 2014)

Oh cool, there's some discussion going on in here now.




Cadence said:


> BS. People who are looking for criticism will take it regardless of who it comes from and how.





 I must remind everyone who comments on the “Good Critic Creedo” that it is simply what I feel is the ideal way to critique. I expect by the time this topic comes to a close, what everyone thinks it should be will be vastly different than how it currently is. HOWEVER! If you're worried about writer backlash or a savvy critic getting all up in your face, this is a great way to deter them.


 FYI, the tid-bit about hating the word critic was for dramatic flair.




Kyle R said:


> I think the original poster is saying, simply, that critiques shouldn't be immune to *constructive criticism *which is a positive thing, and not at all synonymous with complaining or whining.


 

 Exactly!  


 That, and what's the best method of delivering CC to critics.




EmmaSohan said:


> It is impressive how much the people in this forum wrestle with the problem of how to give good responses. This discussion is just one example.


 

 Part of the problem I believe is that the critics are such a mixed crowd. I love having open dialog with the person who I'm reading for, even if they aren't entirely positive about what I have to say. Not everyone shares that opinion however. We need to find something that works for everyone, or at least something we can adapt to.




Morkonan said:


> I like the fact that you have reflected upon your own critique.
> 
> However, what if you were right? What if there couldn't have been another way to present what you wrote while still staying true to your intent to give good critique?


 

 In this particular situation, I simply had to separate my pros from my cons. But I think what your asking is what would I do if there really was nothing good about it. That's simple, I'd praise their idea. All ideas are good, it is always their execution that makes them “bad”. If something is 100% bad however, I wouldn't critique it! If I can simply summarize your work as bad, you don't need a critique, but more experience with words. They need to read, write, read some text books on SpaG, read a book by an author they like, try to imitate their favorite author's style, and then maybe they have something that would be worth a critics eye.




Morkonan said:


> I think there's only one general rule that any critic or author looking for criticism should use to measure the quality of a criticism - If it doesn't tell you why the critic believes something is good or bad or if it points out a deficiency and doesn't offer suggestions on how it can be fixed, it's not really worth reading.
> 
> Anyone can offer an "opinion." That's fine. But, a good critic won't just offer opinion, they'll offer something of substance and they'll tell you why they're offering it.


 

 That's certainly the only hard rule.  




Greimour said:


> A critique might do nothing more than highlight all the terrible parts of your work. They don't have to tell you how to fix it.


 

 Newton had an apple fall on his head while reading a book. Newton learned about gravity that day.  


 The apple did not whisper in his ear “Yo Newton my main man, there's this thing called gravity, and that's what caused me to slam into your head!” But when the apple fell on his head, and he realized there was a force that was pulling everything towards the earth. The apple taught newton about gravity.

I'm simply saying that critics are like teachers in that broad sense, not that they necessarily have to know what a pronoun is, or that they need to know how to fix the work.




Pluralized said:


> Reminds me of a story, this thread. Tony and Big Skittles was out at the Flea Market setting up Big Skittles's booth. Tony just volunteered to come along because he's a nice guy, and has built up some nice glutes from helping carry boxes from the truck...


 

 Cute story.


 Big Skittles and Tony have interchangeable roles as the “Critic” and “Writer”, but the problem is the same regardless: B.S. gets sour and they both suffer for it. Clever use of initials with Big Skittle's name BTW.  






 Now, in regards to the legendary *Kyle R.* VS  *Shadowwalker* slug fest:




 Where you both seem stuck is that critiquing critics will lead to a crapstorm, but said crapstorm would never happen if critics stopped acting like bickering children...


 As a writer, I do think it would be upsetting if two critics decided to duke it out. However, this could easily be avoided by a multitude of ways.


 One possibility is that no one  can post in the thread more than once. If someone comments, then someone else can comment on them, the first person couldn't retaliate. There could be someone else who could comment on that second comment however. Most importantly, no critic is aloud to only comment on a critique. The bulk of whatever is said should be about the work. If critics are that worried about getting their critique critiqued, then they can simply opt to not go into that thread again. Why would they? It's not like they can respond. If the writer has a question about the critique or wishes to give thanks, they can always hit up the critic via pm. That's just one idea.


----------



## Greimour (Nov 2, 2014)

Nippon Devil said:


> As a writer, I do think it would be upsetting if two critics decided to duke it out. However, this could easily be avoided by a multitude of ways.
> 
> 
> One possibility is that no one  can post in the thread more than once. If someone comments, then someone else can comment on them, the first person couldn't retaliate. There could be someone else who could comment on that second comment however. Most importantly, no critic is aloud to only comment on a critique. The bulk of whatever is said should be about the work. If critics are that worried about getting their critique critiqued, then they can simply opt to not go into that thread again. Why would they? It's not like they can respond. If the writer has a question about the critique or wishes to give thanks, they can always hit up the critic via pm. That's just one idea.



That would never work and I see only bad things coming of it. Restrictions like that is more likely to cause members to leave rather than help the community remain peaceful. 

Sometimes it is better to let things play out as long as it stays relevant to the topic. For example, I have 'argued' (for lack of a better term) with various members of this forum regarding views, opinions and teachings/learning. One shoe does not fit all. 

During such conversations I have had my opinions/views changed. I have changed opinions and views of others. I have learned a great deal and other people reading the thread have also learned a thing or two. The most progress is often made during war. Writing can work that way too. By discussing (sometimes heatedly) a subject things can be learned and discovered by all parties involved. 

We aren't all expected to like the same thing, so whilst one person may like the story posted, the next person along has as much right to dislike it. If the two then discuss the merits, demerits, pros and cons of the story - there can be a lot of good and desirable results from that conversation. 

Sure, a lot of negativity can arise too...but putting post limits on threads and such will not stop those problems happening. More likely it will go private messages but that isn't necessarily a good thing. Arguments can happen in pm as much as anywhere else. It wouldn't be the first time nor the last that a member has tried to get around netiquette by abusing the pm system.  

Like I said, I have 'argued' with other members of this forum. I think all of them are still active to this day. Equally, I hold all of them in very high regard and I adore them all. If I disagree with them tomorrow, I will give my comments just like every other time - and the day after that, I will love them as much as I do today. 

(I have never had a single 'disagreement'-cough- in a private message. All my views and opinions are where they can be seen and judged by all.)

Disagreements don't have to lead to hostility, flaming or anything negative. That is down to the individuals. I don't expect everyone to agree with me - but when someone does disagree with me, I expect the freedom to discuss the matter. Might be that a very long discussion gets started with 10 on one side of the fence and 10 on the other, but that conversation can be an excellent learning process. No different to the conversation now happening on this thread.


Where would this thread be if you, Kyle, Shadow, Pluralized or anyone else could not have responded more than once? It wouldn't be a conversation at all. Just a bunch of people giving a single opinion and then leaving. This forum would not be what it is with those kind of tyrannical restrictions.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 2, 2014)

Agree. Limiting comments is disallowing anyone to respond to misunderstandings, questions, and multiple responses by several people. Not workable.

And btw, I would hardly characterize the discussion between KyleR and I as either 'legendary' or a 'slug fest'. While disagreeing (perhaps strongly), I thought we were both being respectful of the other's POV. But that's a very good example how critiques could be perceived and responded to, and why any critique of a critique should be in a separate arena.


----------



## Tom_ZC (Nov 2, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> Well basically you use the critiques that work for you and dismiss the critiques that don't.
> 
> And I hate to break the news to you but TKent is a she



^^^ That mrmustard615 said.  He nailed it.  The worst thing you can do is try to take every piece of advice that's given.  You need to develop your sense of what advice hits home, that is, what can help you improve your writing, versus what advice misses the mark.  

That said, it's important for anyone critiquing a work to make his criticism constructive, not destructive.  Focus on what works and what doesn't, and start with what works.  I've never seen any piece of writing, no matter how ineffective, that didn't have something going for it, even if it was just one good descriptive phrase, a funny line, etc.  Start with that, then move on to what could be improved, and explain that without being insulting.  I did not invent these guidelines, btw.  I'm only restating what's worked for a lot of writers.


----------



## Nippon Devil (Nov 3, 2014)

Greimour said:


> Disagreements don't have to lead to hostility, flaming or anything negative. That is down to the individuals. I don't expect everyone to agree with me - but when someone does disagree with me, I expect the freedom to discuss the matter. Might be that a very long discussion gets started with 10 on one side of the fence and 10 on the other, but that conversation can be an excellent learning process. No different to the conversation now happening on this thread.
> .


 

 Ehhh, the communist-style posting system I suggested was more to break the loop Shadowwalker and Kyle had going on. I don't think I've ever “clearly” stated this, but I think the best solution is to simply create some rules and guidelines for critics, and at the very least allow critics to criticize each other if the need arises. I think there are quite a few mature people on this forum, so I know this won't get abused. I could have actually written that post TBH.




shadowwalker said:


> And btw, I would hardly characterize the discussion between KyleR and I as either 'legendary' or a 'slug fest'. While disagreeing (perhaps strongly), I thought we were both being respectful of the other's POV. But that's a very good example how critiques could be perceived and responded to, and why any critique of a critique should be in a separate arena.


 

 I'm just someone who enjoys their dramatic license. If I felt you were flaming/baiting each other, I'd have hit the report button already. You see, I liken real flame wars to, well, flame wars. Ground covered in napalm, pyrotechnic torching little straw huts, the smell of burning flesh... A boxing match with two people slugging it out feels kind of tame now doesn't it?   


 I feel that Greimour and I are more like school kids in a teen drama. At first we are completely turned off to the other one, resenting their ideas and perhaps even their behavior. We don't understand why the other one keeps teasing us. But as we comment more, we start to understand each other. The space between us closes as we start to understand, agree, or at least accept what we each have to say. We can feel our breath on each others skin, smell the other one's hair. Our eyelids flutter...

SCHOOL BELL!

...But it doesn't really feel like you and kyle are coming to any sort of resolution. There's no intimacy. Greimour and I have more or less said our piece on our last “debate”. We took turns exchanging information and both of our outlooks shifted a little bit. Neither of us thinks the same way we did before the debate. But the two of you haven't really shifted from your original positions, nobody is giving up ground. That feels less like a school drama and more like Rocky.

So that's why I decided to call it a legendary slug fest. Didn't mean to say that you two were literally punching and kicking each other, or necessarily hated each other. Must just be all the anime I watch, friends are always beating each other up!




...Getting back on topic, I'd like to re-state what I actually think is the ideal solution...

- Make some topics that deal with teaching new members how to be a good critic. Pretty much exactly like what we have for writers.

- Allow critics to comment on each others critiques in a way that is respectful and civilised. Part of being a good writer is knowing what good writing is, so improving ones ability as a critic could also help make them a better writer.


Getting off topic again, I'm leaving on a trip and will most likely not be able to comment on WF for a while. I wish everyone luck and happiness as we enter the holidays.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 4, 2014)

Nippon Devil said:


> ...But it doesn't really feel like you and kyle are coming to any sort of resolution. There's no intimacy. Greimour and I have more or less said our piece on our last “debate”. We took turns exchanging information and both of our outlooks shifted a little bit. Neither of us thinks the same way we did before the debate. But the two of you haven't really shifted from your original positions, nobody is giving up ground. That feels less like a school drama and more like Rocky.



People can come to an understanding without changing their views, you know. And personally, while I disagree with the "Rocky", I think I'd prefer that to a high school drama. No, I know I would.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 4, 2014)

> I think the best solution is to simply create some rules and guidelines for critics



We have the latter already, and from what I've seen, they work. I think you're crafting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 4, 2014)

Are any of us here to become better critics? God, I hope not. I'm here to become a better writer, so I'm not going to waste my time critiquing a crit. I'm going to read what it has to say and give it the weight it deserves--the weight of one reader's opinion--and move on from there. When I post a piece I'm looking for what works and what does not. I'm not looking for suggestions on how to fix it. I have the utmost respect for almost every writer on these boards, but no one here is qualified to tell me, or anyone else, how I should write my story. If you've asked me to critique your story, then take the crit for what it is worth to you and move on. Don't waste your time, or mine, by telling me how to better my critiques. You're just going to come off as a petulant child.

If anyone does want help writing a good critique there is a thread pinned to the top of the Prose Writer's Workshop forum entitled 'Need guidance writing a crit? Here it is.' That should be plenty. In my opinion, critiquing a critique is just another way of procrastinating.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 4, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Are any of us here to become better critics? God, I hope not.
> 
> ...
> 
> Don't waste your time, or mine, by telling me how to better my critiques. You're just going to come off as a petulant child.



I guess it depends on the individual. Me, I hope to better myself in every aspect of writing that I can, and being a better critiquer is, to me, a vital part of that.

I made a member here cry, once, because I mocked his/her writing in a critique. I had no idea about it until I was told about it. I didn't consider the member as being petulant or childish in their complaint, though. I considered myself arrogant and insensitive, and learned to pay more attention to the tone and manner in which I delivered my feedback. 

It was a very important lesson for me, one that I'm thankful I received. Writer educating the critiquer.

So maybe that's why I'm on here defending the writer's right to discuss a reviewer's critiquing style. Some reviewers can benefit from it—and it's possible that those who need to hear such comments are the ones who consider themselves excellent at it. I certainly considered myself to be a good critiquer at the time I received that complaint.


----------



## Greimour (Nov 4, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> So maybe that's why I'm on here defending the writer's right to discuss a reviewer's critiquing style. Some reviewers can benefit from it—and it's possible that those who need to hear such comments are the ones who consider themselves excellent at it. I certainly considered myself to be a good critiquer at the time I received that complaint.



I agree with the sentiments. Like I said, I have commented on a critics response before - but not in regard to my own piece. 

For example: Terry D makes post, you respond, I respond to your post rather than Terry D's. 
NOT: I make post, you respond, I go mad at how you responded.

There is a method to the madness. I am all for improving my responses to people. I don't do it for my own gratification, I respond in hope that I can pass on something that will help them in the future. So if someone has something to say about my response, I am happy to discuss it and if necessary change my approach. But if a person I responded to started griping at what I said, I would just tell them: 

"Don't worry about it, forget what I said, I won't comment on your stuff in future. Good luck in your future and best regards."

No matter how much this is discussed, we will all do what we think is right or what we think is best. We can only work on case by case situations. What we do, think and say today may be the same as the past twenty-years. Tomorrow though, a post may make us act different to our 'normal' way of doing things. It might be the only time we ever change our methods and the only exception to the rule... but such things do happen. 

*My view is that:* 

Openly disagreeing with a critiques response to your work is the wrong way to go about things. Of all the options to choose from, that is the one that should never be chosen.


It is unlikely my view will change, but I have seen scenarios where I found myself agreeing with the writer when responding to a critique. One example said something along the lines of:



> OK, I get it. You don't like my work. You made that clear on the first paragraph and I understand what you are getting at. Was the rest of it necessary though? The relentless bashing for a further ten paragraphs mostly only repeated what the first one said. By the end you were getting very irate and a lot of hate was coming across. I am sorry that you didn't like it and that it affected you so badly, but if you ever grace my work with a response in future, could you please keep it relevant to my work and if possible show me more specifically what is wrong with the piece?
> 
> Thank you for the time and response. Hope that your dislike for this piece does not deter you from my future efforts.



That's basically what it amounted to and I found myself smiling at the response. Was such a response so bad? Despite my view, I can't find fault with that kind of response to a critic. There are ways of addressing a critiques response without getting in a rage.


~Kev.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 4, 2014)

If someone is rude, arrogant, or condescending (or mocking) in a critique of my work, I disregard their words and move on. We've had members here (and still do) who are all of those things, and we always will. I'm not going to waste my time trying to make someone less of an ass-hat. I'm not in the people-development business here (I am in real life), I'm in the writing business. When I critique, which I don't do often, I am honest and direct. I tell the author what works for me and what doesn't. I won't be a smart-ass, nor will I be doing any hand-holding. If the author doesn't like my critique I don't care. I don't want to make anyone cry, but, if they do, it's on them, not me. I'm not going to change my style to salve feelings. Being a more author-friendly critic isn't going to help my fiction writing.


----------



## Greimour (Nov 4, 2014)

Terry D said:


> If someone is rude, arrogant, or condescending (or mocking) in a critique of my work, I disregard their words and move on. We've had members here (and still do) who are all of those things, and we always will. I'm not going to waste my time trying to make someone less of an ass-hat. I'm not in the people-development business here (I am in real life), I'm in the writing business. When I critique, which I don't do often, I am honest and direct. I tell the author what works for me and what doesn't. I won't be a smart-ass, nor will I be doing any hand-holding. If the author doesn't like my critique I don't care. I don't want to make anyone cry, but, if they do, it's on them, not me. I'm not going to change my style to salve feelings. Being a more author-friendly critic isn't going to help my fiction writing.



Which goes a long way toward the view that I have about not responding negatively to critiques. 

People critique for different reasons though. Sometimes I am just giving my opinion as a reader, but more often I am hoping to help the writer improve if possible. For that reason I don't mind discussing my critiquing. But that's on me. I think every writer no matter how skilled has room to improve. The limit of a writer is one they set on themselves. 

There are many writers here who I could never hope to help though, because they are at a level higher than myself. Like you, Terry - and Kyle, Cadence, Garza, Cran, Sam, et al. But I will still give my opinion as a reader if it is wanted. 

I get what you are saying, and I definitely agree with you. I can't help but remember instances where my opinion/view has been called into question though. Like I said, case by case for me. Again though, that's on me. 

My point mostly was that this isn't a simple case of adhering to netiquette or vague rules and guidelines... it is closer to each person acting on their own judgement. 
No matter what someones opinion is, when a writer critiques a critic - you get all the letters to spell DOOM.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 4, 2014)

Terry D said:


> If someone is rude, arrogant, or condescending (or mocking) in a critique of my work, I disregard their words and move on. We've had members here (and still do) who are all of those things, and we always will. I'm not going to waste my time trying to make someone less of an ass-hat. I'm not in the people-development business here (I am in real life), I'm in the writing business. When I critique, which I don't do often, I am honest and direct. I tell the author what works for me and what doesn't. I won't be a smart-ass, nor will I be doing any hand-holding. If the author doesn't like my critique I don't care. I don't want to make anyone cry, but, if they do, it's on them, not me. I'm not going to change my style to salve feelings. Being a more author-friendly critic isn't going to help my fiction writing.



I can understand that, Terry. Like I said earlier, I guess it all depends on the individual. I think it's great that we have a community here where everyone approaches things differently. It creates diversity and keeps things interesting and alive.

Personally, as a critiquer, I don't consider my opinion any more valid, important, or better informed than that of the writer whom I'm critiquing. If they want to tell me something, I'm all ears.

I don't see myself in an educator's role when I critique. I used to, but lately my perspective has changed. (Whether or not that change has been for the better or for the worse is up for debate! ) 

Nowadays I see myself first and foremost as a fellow member, a fellow writer, and, hopefully, a friend.

If I give feedback to someone, I'm very interested in what they have to say back to me, in the same way I'd be interested if I were having a conversation with a friend over the dinner table. 

If my comments upset someone, I'm going to say something along the lines of, "Oh, man. I feel terrible about that. Let me try again," not, "I don't care. Grow thicker skin or quit writing. You are not my friend. You are a lowly writer who is lucky to receive my wisdom, and my opinion outweighs yours."

And I know that's not at all what you're saying, Terry. Just exaggerating things to elucidate my perspective. :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 4, 2014)

Greimour said:


> No matter how much this is discussed, we will all do what we think is right or what we think is best. We can only work on case by case situations. What we do, think and say today may be the same as the past twenty-years. Tomorrow though, a post may make us act different to our 'normal' way of doing things. It might be the only time we ever change our methods and the only exception to the rule... but such things do happen.
> 
> ...
> 
> ~Kev



That's very insightful, Kev, and I agree. We will all act in accordance with our own values and perspectives, at least until something shocks us with an epiphany! 

Though, I think this conversation has helped, at least in some way, by drawing attention to the critiquing process. Even if nothing changes, it's still nice to hear the perspectives of various members here (yourself included). :encouragement:



			
				Greimour said:
			
		

> No matter what someones opinion is, when a writer critiques a critic - you get all the letters to spell DOOM.


:grief: lol


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 4, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Agree. Limiting comments is disallowing anyone to respond to misunderstandings, questions, and multiple responses by several people. Not workable.
> 
> And btw, I would hardly characterize the discussion between KyleR and I as either 'legendary' or a 'slug fest'. While disagreeing (perhaps strongly), I thought we were both being respectful of the other's POV. But that's a very good example how critiques could be perceived and responded to, and why any critique of a critique should be in a separate arena.



Slugfest?? 

More like a verbal pillow fight. LOL

But well played by the both of you. I love seeing discussions like this one on this site. There are so many intelligent, thoughtful responses to things people disagree with that it's one of the big reasons I keep hanging around here.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 4, 2014)

Hmm... Interesting. 

I've never had an argument or a "slugfest" on a forum. I have, however, encountered people who were _wrong_ and who I felt it was necessary to allow more interaction so as to better demonstrate that fact to others...  

(That's a joke. Probably.  )

In regards to an honest critique, though, there can be no "argument" or "disagreement." If it's an honest critique, it is what it is. 

However, a critique _should _stand on its own merits. If it's an "opinion" piece, that's not a "meritorious argument", is it? Nope, it's just opinion, without any merit outside of that. That's fine, but I think most writers want more than to know whether or not someone "liked" something they wrote. If one judges merit based on simple "opinion", one might find themselves traveling down the wrong path. A critique that attempts to appeal to more substantive subjects other than opinion and applies those to what the writer has presented is, in my own opinion, a good critique, worthy of contemplation.

_"I liked this."_ - This is an "opinion."
_
"I liked this because I felt that the character in the scene was a very strong character, well presented to the Reader." _- This is an opinion that is focused on a readily observed external variable that can be examined, argued or measured. It's this sort of critique that provides the most benefit to the writer.

It is, consequently, also the only sort of critique that can be argued about...  But, it's valuable to the writer because it _can_ be argued.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 5, 2014)

I think my problem is that I really don't care what others think of either my presentation or substance - _except _the writer whose work I'm critiquing. When I was doing beta work, and running a critique group (online), I never read the other critiques until I had read the piece, written my comments, and posted it. It didn't really matter what I thought of the other crits - I wasn't the author. Questions about comments would be asked for clarity, but there was no "discussion" about anyone's crits. That wasn't the purpose. When someone asks for a critique of their story, they aren't doing it so other people can get feedback on the way they critique, so don't hijack it.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 5, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I think my problem is that I really don't care what others think of either my presentation or substance - _except _the writer whose work I'm critiquing. When I was doing beta work, and running a critique group (online), I never read the other critiques until I had read the piece, written my comments, and posted it. It didn't really matter what I thought of the other crits - I wasn't the author. Questions about comments would be asked for clarity, but there was no "discussion" about anyone's crits. That wasn't the purpose. When someone asks for a critique of their story, they aren't doing it so other people can get feedback on the way they critique, so don't hijack it.



I agree. I try to never read crits before critiquing a piece. The only occasions when I'd do so is when I come across a very active critique thread. Even so, if I read a piece I find I have something I think might be worthwhile to say and someone has already said it, I'll say it again, anyway. I would never critique a critique unless there was a breach of etiquette or a very misleading/harmful bit of advice. Even then, I'd be hesitant and try to address it indirectly, if possible.


----------



## voltigeur (Nov 7, 2014)

When I read this thread or any thread about this subject I keep coming back the responsibility of the writer going into a critique relationship. Regardless if it is a beta reader arrangement or developmental mentoring situation. 

As a writer you first have to decide (and really mean it) that you are coachable. To be coachable you have to at some point decide you don’t know everything. That’s why you are soliciting help. 

When you choose someone to help you, you have to ask yourself what that person can do to help.  They may be just a fan of the genre and can only tell you if they like it or not.  If they are a friend they usually will lie to you on this point. If you discuss it with them you can usually pull out a useful statement like: 

“I had to re-read this section 3 times but I like what you did here, clever.”  Something in there is a problem if they had to re-read the section.  Or they may have missed an important plot point. 

Then there is the person who can help technically. These can be experienced writers, English teachers or English majors.  They can tell you specifically what you did wrong. It’s up to you the writer to put your ego aside and seriously consider what they have to tell you.  Even if you disagree you are well served to still consider it. 

If you are at the point your working with a developmental editor and trying to get published that is an even deeper level of the first 2.  You are probably paying at this point so really consider what those people have to tell you.  Don’t hire someone who you will not respect enough to listen to. 

For me the person who says: “This is just dumb you’re a horrible writer take up basket weaving.”  Is not giving critique they are just being an ass hat. 

 The only people that deserve that are the ones who will not accept any form of criticism. They won’t go to someone else yet they don’t respect the help you’re trying to give them. Then the purpose of the statement is to get you to go away! 

The only time I question someone who is critiquing me is for clarity. If I’m explaining myself the question is: “How can I get this idea across?” or “How do I show the reader this nuance?” of something of that nature.  

Never “You need to understand.” I assume you may be sitting in New York reading my novel, while I live in Colorado I’m not there to explain it. If the writing doesn’t clearly tell you the things you need to understand_ I am_ the one who screwed up.


----------



## Pluralized (Nov 7, 2014)

I'm still learning just like lots of us, that critique can only be helpful if received with open arms.


----------



## Nippon Devil (Dec 2, 2014)

BACK!



Cadence said:


> We have the latter already, and from what I've seen, they work. I think you're crafting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.



Correction, we have guidelines for critics buried in threads designed to make us better writers. Why are they so well hidden? How is a newbie who just wants his/her 10 posts so that they can start posting stories going to find that?



Greimour said:


> No matter what someones opinion is, when a writer critiques a critic - you get all the letters to spell DOOM.



I'm still not sure why everyone tackles this subject strictly writer/critic. I more or less agree with this, as well as a lot of other things said in this thread. I'm more referring to most of the posts after this one instead of this tid bit in particular. 



Alright kids, maybe I can show you what I'm trying to say better if I toss aside the creed and such and just use this simple example. Here are two statements by 2 different critics. Critic A and critic B...



A: I like to critique other people's work. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when the writer rewards me with a thank you! If the writer isn't thankful or someone tries to correct me, well, then I usually get annoyed. It makes me feel like I wasted my time!

B : I like to critique other people's work. I fell that critiquing the work of others forces me to test what I know and actually arms me to be a better writer. If someone has a better way to critique, I'm all ears. Being a better critic will make me a better writer after all. I am an eternal student; always willing to learn.


Who's going to do a better job of critiquing? Who would you want critiquing your work? Who is the better writer? Who is more handsome? That last one was a joke, but still!

This thread was never designed to be a writer's view of critics. We are all writers, AND we are all critics in our own right. This is an invitation to take a closer look at the way we critique as well as the shallow, weak guidelines given to critics.


----------



## Morkonan (Dec 2, 2014)

Nippon Devil said:


> ....Who's going to do a better job of critiquing? Who would you want critiquing your work? Who is the better writer? Who is more handsome? That last one was a joke, but still!
> 
> This thread was never designed to be a writer's view of critics. We are all writers, AND we are all critics in our own right. This is an invitation to take a closer look at the way we critique as well as the shallow, weak guidelines given to critics.



Not sure if I already mentioned this, but:

I don't care what people write about. I don't care about their story. What I do care about when doing a critique is how that story is _told_. There are some stories that I don't critique. I don't do "adult" and I don't do " strict romance." Why? I just don't care about how those types of stories are told. 

Trying to do a good critique does make one a more observant writer, if one manages to learn something along the way. Moreover, trying to explain "why" you may have a certain opinion or "how" you believe a problem can be fixed makes one a better writer because you are actually applying your knowledge in order to communicate an insight or solve a writing problem, rather than just pointing at something and grunting.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 3, 2014)

> How is a newbie who just wants his/her 10 posts so that they can start posting stories going to find that?



A mentor would direct them to the relevant part of the forum. That's part of our job. 

And of the two critics, I'd chose critic C:

C: I like to critique people's work because it helps them become better writers.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 3, 2014)

Critiquing the work of others can lend insight to our own work, but, any time spent worrying about how that critique will be received (beyond basic courtesy) is wasted. I don't care about critiquing better, I care about writing better. Critiquing a critique is, IMO, a fool's errand.


----------

