I guess the long and the short of it for me is that we should all be equally supportive and critical at the same time. One without the other just plain sucks.

Find something redeeming in the story, explain why you liked it and how the entire work could benefit if it fell more in line with that...

If you can't find anything redeeming in the work, your probably best off not commenting. Exceptions to that would be if the individual wants a brutal evaluation.

I know when I have posted in the past it wounded me if my work was not well received, but I recognized that it was constructive and my work benefited from it. As I've matured I find myself far better at accepting matter of fact and blunt critiques.

I also think this is independent of the choice to comment on the first 13 lines. Even after making constructive comments, or giving brutal origami instructions, the offer to read the whole story is still the critic's option.

After the offer to read, I think there is an obligation to reply. There's also the obligation to be constructively honest. I've found it difficult, in some instances, to like the whole thing, mostly because of phrase or word choices. One had a good plot that I wanted to see finished. Another had an ironic ending. Those were positive things I could say. Those got a replies that said just what I thought about the good and the bad, with specifics that I hope proved to be constructive. In one instance, the story went over a line where I could not objectively go. I couldn't give an honest critique, so that's what I said in the response.

[This message has been edited by JeffBarton (edited August 09, 2007).]

I would say if you read a 13 and offered to read a full based on that, and the full stank to high heavens...well, a somewhat useful constructive thing to say was "this didn't live up to the promise I saw in the first 13."

I have seen people be quite blunt and brutal lately, and I think this is appropriate (brutal in the "brutally honest" sense - not in the "being mean just to be mean/lord it over you how much smarter I am than you are") for Hatrack, where there are writers of all walks/experience levels. I think that one thing that happens here is that people are pushed toward the mean, which (hopefully) is a somewhat high bar. Maybe not quite as high as needed for us all to get published, but close to it, in my opinion, since many here have published some works.

Should you lie? NO! Should you say nothing? well, I have skipped first 13s that I just couldn't even come up with a place to START w/my critique...I didn't have time to help that writer. I'm generally relieved to see that others DO have the time, and I'm glad for that. This site is only as good as the participants in it, and if we dis some writers but support others, well, shame on us! Everyone deserves the feedback, even if the feedback is sometimes hard to hear. I'm sure it was here or one of the other writers forums I participate in where the strong suggestion to read Strunk & White was presented more than once. Sometimes people need to hear that, and they need to hear it more than once for it to sink in sometimes. <shrug>

Anyway - Back to the "should you say nothing" question - skip a 13 if it isn't your cup of tea or you don't have time to spend on the details that the writer needs someone to point out to them or what have you. But if you've volunteer to read a longer piece and honestly can't get through it because it's lacking in the basics, I think saying you were not able to finish because the glaring issues with X, Y, and Z were too great is perfectly appropriate. If you're feeling particularly big-hearted, you could offer to re-read when they've worked on those issues. But even that is not necessary, just a nice thing to do if you think they CAN correct the issues.

I would say, in brief, that it depends on what you thought was bad. If it was strictly a matter of taste, for example the setting or the genre, then you say "not my cup a' tea." but if there are actual places where you stumble as a reader, or things you find implausible, or basically anything in the work itself that gives you, as the reader, the gag-reflex, then yes you are doing a disservice if you don't say it. And if people can't handle that, they ought not to loan out their stories.

For example, if someone's biggest problem was that it had a plot that floundered, I would point that out and recommend the book Plot & Structure by James Scott Bell. If there problems were mostly about style and grammar, I'd recommend some improvement and practice in that area. Even if they were completely awful, I'd try to find something that they did well.

I also think it's a good for developing writing discipline to learn to write crits that encourage improvement and don't cause the writer to give up. After all, we write to have an effect on our readers, so it helps to learn how to write in order to provoke the desired effect -- in readers of a story, shock, awe or wonder; in the reader of a crit, understanding and the energy to improve the story.

I'm trying to discipline myself to write critiques that always include something positive as well as the dark stuff of what did not work for me. If I can think of nothing good to say, I try to steer clear of that thread. If it's empty or full of negative stuff, I try to find something encouraging to say. And no, I don't always succeed.

If a story I've offered to read fails to live up to the first 13, then at least I can say something positive about the first 13 (because I won't offer to read if the first 13 do not attract me) and then I can discuss how the story subsequently went wrong.

Of course, one can say, 'Just by spending the effort critiqueing your story, I show that it has something positive.' But I think it helps to say so too, because we forget.

If you can offer specific advice about why it's not any good, then it will help the author--even if it might take some time swallowing tears to reach that point.

Anyway, NEVER LIE. That doesn't mean you have to tell the whole truth, but don't pander. If a story sucks, don't say it's all right or that maybe it's just not your type of story. Whatever else is true, this writer put their work out there on the line and they did it because on some level they know they need feedback to improve. There's probably a level that hopes for praise as well, but trust me....praise feels much better when earned.

The trick here is going to be in how your word the feedback. Obviously, "You suck, don't quit your day job." is right out. But even something that uses all the right I-statements but says this: "I felt that this was a bad story with innumerable problems." might not be a good idea.

The point of the crit is to help the writer improve and if that means you have to lie by commission, then so be it. Start with something -- the biggest thing (in you opinion). For example, I once read a story with such atrocious grammar and punctuation that I simply couldn't get through it to the rest of the story. So I told the author, nicely I hope, that I thought that was an area they might want to concentrate on for a while.

On the plus side, I've done literally hundreds of critiques at this point and I can count on one hand the number that were so bad that I couldn't think of anything legitimately nice to say. Even the most problem-rich stories usually have a bright spot. If you can find it in this story, that would be great. If not, well, like I said, it doesn't come up often.

If you ever want the cold hard truth, I'll take a look at something but if I don't respond at all it means I had a hard time with it and find it hard to even know where to begin.

If I respond with little direct criticism it means it was more or less serviceable and I could find little to change plus/minus any general criticism I might have provided.

If I respond in detail I either a)liked the story but found some glaring mistakes or b)disliked the story because of the glaring mistakes. You won't have to guess about this because I'll tell you.

When I actually critique a story it is rarely a judgment on style or the author's talents but rather on the way that an author presented certain information to the reader.

In my opinion, writers write for readers just like singers sing for an audience (as RMatthewWare mentioned American Idol provides many wannabes with a much needed dose of cold water). If you don't like that cold truth then find a warmer person than I to get a critique from.

Clearly, we can and likely have submit things that truly truly suck, and weren't aware of it, and it hurts to have your baby poked in the eye over and over again by hordes of people who mean no good whatsoever. I believe it is our responsability as writers submitting our work to not only respond to all forms of criticism the same way (Thank you) but to be aware of who is submitting and what we can expect from them.

By reading the rest of the posts here, we can see some people who are naturally more murturing (debhoag), and some who are naturally more harsh {Inarticulatebabbler, who by the way hasn't chimed in yet). Knowing that IB, and Matt Lust, and others, are more blunt with their critiques, we can take what they say with a grain of salt - tone wise. Similarly, when Deb tells me something about a piece I've written, I view her criticism through my past experiences with her on these boards. I think it is encumbent on us to learn and recognize these differences.

Personally, I also have a bias to pay more attention to the critiques from people I know to be better writers than others. If you give me a scathing critique and, when I look into who you are a little more I see that your writing is still at a fourth grade level, I have a tendency to dismiss your comments out of hand, particularly comments that tend to diverge from what everyone else is saying. Conversly, if someone I know to be an excellent writer points out something no one else has, that comments immediatly carries more weight. Then again... that's just me.

I think the moral of the story here is that you should read as many critiques from others as you can, if only to get to know your peers a little better.

Jayson Merryfield

quote:

---

If you give me a scathing critique and, when I look into who you are a little more I see that your writing is still at a fourth grade level, I have a tendency to dismiss your comments out of hand, particularly comments that tend to diverge from what everyone else is saying.

---

Ouch, man. Just, ouch.

But I agree with that, too.

I often do in-depth analyses of other people's work, and I try quite hard to balance what I say with how I say it. And I always, always, always find at least one thing that I can congratulate them on--even if it isn't the best characterization in the world, I can tell them that I liked what direction they're taking the character in.

I believe that I'm doing a writer a disservice if I don't mention what can be worked on--because I would feel that a disservice was being done to me if everyone ignored how crap I was.

I've had experiences before where a writer did not like my critiques. The problem was that she walked into the critique thinking that her writing was incredible, and was fully expecting me to say, "Wow, that was amazing!" As a general rule, I don't ever say that. Even if the writing blows my mind, I try to find where it can be improved. So, when I told her in no uncertain terms that there were several problems with the flow and structuring of the piece, she flipped out on me.

I never give judgemental critiques. I simply state what worked or didn't work for me, and I offer suggestions for what I think might help. There are only about six elements that make up a story that is at least solid, so at worst I offer suggestions in six areas. I try to always offer to answer follow up questions.

I participate on another site where there is a subset of members who who are, well, snotty when they critique. I don't even bother to read there critiques anymore. I expect to have my work's flaws pointed out, but there's no reason to be too blunt, especially with someone that's obviously a beginner.

But to each his own.

One of the skills that I have to teach in Performing Arts and Drama is evaluation (the government actually recently decided it should be an equal part of 7 - 10 marking with actually creating something.) In teaching year 7s how to give good feedback I follow a simple structure:

3 things they liked
3 things they would suggest if they were the groups director (in our case, if you were the person's editor I guess.)

All my students know that we won't move on to constructive criticism until they can give me 3 things they liked. Try to give 3 postivie comments before you move onto constructive criticism and it might help.

quote:

---

...and some who are naturally more harsh {Inarticulatebabbler, who by the way hasn't chimed in yet). Knowing that IB, and Matt Lust, and others, are more blunt with their critiques, we can take what they say with a grain of salt - tone wise.

---

Wolfe_boy, I'm sorry that I have been remiss. About two weeks ago, my mother passed away, and I haven't had my head straight since.

However, I will chime in now.

I'm not going to coat the pill with sugar because too much sugar entirely masks the problem. I try to be HONEST not MEAN. However, I can see how the lack of sugar-coating makes the comments feel derisive.

I have tried to -- especially with my recent critiques -- point out something that I liked in the prose. I can usually find Something. I have critiqued two stories, since joining this community, that have been absolutely atrocious (and I don't use that word lightly). I won't mention any names.

One had worked a thirteen lines to the point that it interested me, so I offered a full read. (Incidentally, I made comments on that thirteen before it sold me -- so I should have had a clue what I was in for.) The story read like a summary, and it wildly switched from a space-opera story, to a sci-fi type story, to a political rant. I didn't slather on the insults. I took the time to explain what it read like, and why. I didn't tell him/her how to write the story; I told them what I liked about the first thirteen, what it led me to expect, and how the rest was "unfinished". I made suggestions on how to use what had been written as an outline. Now, I don't know how that story is faring today, but, I do know that some other hatrackers read it afterward.

The other, had an interesting thirteen that promised a tasty mix of genres. It took a little work, but the author made that thirteen sell me. I found that the biggest problem was with writing in PoV. The author didn't understand the concept of writing immersed in character, and that greatly helped them.

I'm a little bit Old School, in that I believe in looking for the simple solutions before the violent overhaul. I think it's amazing how many people offer reading advice instead of a true critique. Just because somebody reads something, doesn't mean that they will understand it, or put it into practice. I'm willing to bet that a percentage of the new writers don't have the patience or interest needed to peruse some of the suggested reading. They are looking for advice in short snipets from a live person (who can answer a direct question that a book doesn't).

And that's My take.

If I feel that way, I do try to stop and look for something good to say as well.

The more time I spend here, the less time I'm writing.

Personally, I don't find InarticulateBabbler to be harsh. I value his opinion. The same with many others here. Maybe I've become more jaded than I thought?

I send all blessings, positive waves and happy thoughts your way that my tiny brain can mention.

I dispise "brutal" crits and don't have a high opinion of people who do them. I am personally convinced they do not have a good motivation. Being honest does not equate to being mean.

I refuse to do a crit unless I can say something that at least I think will help the author improve the piece. If the best I can say is I don't like it, what does that do for the author? Absolutely nothing. It may make me feel superior, but I haven't helped the person who has asked me for help in their writing.

This doesn't mean the author is always happy to hear my opinion, but I have at least tried to help and not just tear down.

I do a lot (A LOT) of critting over at Critter's Workshop where the rule is that you tell people both what they have done right and what they have done wrong. And I have torn some stories to pieces over there, but always ones that I thought if work was done on them that they would be worth reading.