How to give great critique

[big soft moose]

At the most basic level we are all qualified to give critique. You don't have to be Tolstoy reborn, the most useful critique an author can receive is a reader's honest opinion about their work. I liked this because... but i didnt like that because..

when giving critique, good or bad there are few key things to bear in mind

What did you think?
How did it make you feel?
and why did it make you feel that way

Theres a great temptation as writers to jump straight to correcting spelling and grammar like a teacher with a red pen, but by and large that kind of crit is less useful than an insight into a readers mind while reading

Key things to avoid doing include

Being unconstructive. Its fine to not like a piece. "I didnt enjoy this because i felt the plot and setting were shallow and lacking development especially in xyz ways, and the main character was a mary sue", but its not fine to be offensive "this was rubbish and you can't write for toffee"

Arguing with other critics. The relationship in critique is between the writer and their reader, arguing about another readers perception helps no one

Thinking the author must take your advice, as critics we can only offer our opinion, the author chooses not to agree with it that is their perogative , they are required to be polite and accept the crit they asked for graciously, but whether they take it on board is up to them

Please feel free to add your tips on how to give good critique below, but wew would prefer to keep this thread free of clutter so if wecan stay on topic please

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Being unconstructive. Its fine to not like a piece. "I didnt enjoy this because i felt the plot and setting were shallow and lacking development especially in xyz ways, and the main character was a mary sue", but its not fine to be offensive "this was rubbish and you can't write for toffee"

Arguing with other critics. The relationship in critique is between the writer and their reader, arguing about another readers perception helps no one

Agreed! Other people may see the same story in different ways than you do. Arguing with them (or the author, for that matter) just fosters bad feelings, which no-one wants.

The best advice I can give is this: once you write a critique, read it through yourself. Are you happy with it? Would you be happy if someone else gave you a critique like that? If not, rip it up and write it again.

If you're not sure, send the author a PM. Perhaps preface it with something like "I'm very sorry to say this, but ..." etc. Perhaps a character isn't to your liking, or perhaps you think a certain phrase was clumsily put, etc. It's much better than saying "This character makes no sense! And that phrase is ..." etc. How much better is it to say, "I don't understand this character's motivation - why is she doing xyz?" etc.

Oh, and lastly ... "This was rubbish and you can't write for toffee." Thanks for making me giggle!

The worst so-called 'review' I ever saw (on another forum, thankfully) said: "Haha U Suck Go Back To Preschool Nyah Nyah." Thankfully, the person who posted this was almost immediately banned.

Childish 'reviews' like this are not welcome here, even if they might be on Twitter. If you get a review like that, don't feed the trolls.

 

[Naomasa298]

The best advice on how to give critiques I can give is "show, don't tell".

Show people what a good critique looks like by giving them. Give the kinds of critiques that you would like to receive on your own work. Don't tell people what a good critique is. Demonstrate it.

 

[bACK iN mY dAY]

I have made so, so many mistakes in this count, and it only feels right to splurge about the lessons I've learned - even if they make me look stupid.

1: You Are Not Always Right
I think the person receiving feedback always needs to be aware that the person giving feedback is fallible. Example of mine - I once critiqued a script which had knights refusing entry to a vampire. I thought this was ridiculous, as if a vampire could be barred from entry, and pretty much put that in my feedback. Of course anyone with a shred of knowledge about vampires knows that barring entry to a vampires is a well known trope where vampires require permission to enter a persons home, for example. I still feel the burn of that. So critique shouldn't be binary perhaps. If you don't understand a thing doesn't mean that it's wrong.

2: Don't Tell People What You'd Do
Telling people how to replot their book is a no no I think - even if you think you've come up with a brilliant addition to their work. The work is their work, it is their baby, and telling people what to add doesn't help them. Either, they add it and maybe feel like it isn't their work, or they reject the idea because they don't feel it's their idea. Or the idea sucks, which of course will happen often. A writer must find the solution to their own texts issues. I think we can suggest directions to go in which might help, and of course we can paw at holes where maybe a thing doesn't feel right. But the writer KNOWS why they've chosen to do things a certain way, and so they also need to solve their issues in the way that is best for them.

3: The Why Of Your Rules
Feedback should be justified to a degree I think - firstly because you're fallible, and secondly because its useful both to the writer and to you to understand why you suggest certain things. EG. Stephen King's no adverbs rule. He says never to use adverbs (or something to that degree) and I've given that advice to writers before, but it was only when thinking about it when I was writing a piece of feedback to ask why I think that in myself. The answer I came up with is that losing adverbs give us more opportunity to be creative. So instead of 'he said angrily' we can have 'he yelled, banging his fist on the table as he did'. So you can see that maybe the latter allows us to add more flesh where 'angrily' is maybe muddier and vague? This was a nice moment for me because I learned, and the feedback actually got some great comments back too.

I think that'll do for now.

 

[Naomasa298]

giving feedback is infallible

I think you mean fallible.

 

[bACK iN mY dAY]

Theres a great temptation as writers to jump straight to correcting spelling and grammar like a teacher with a red pen, but by and large that kind of crit is less useful than an insight into a readers mind while reading

This is something I did often, and while I do think it's useful to do you are right that it probably shouldn't be the real point of the thing. More lessons!

 

[bACK iN mY dAY]

I think you mean fallible.

Thank you for that, editing now

 

[Naomasa298]

Telling people how to replot their book is a no no I think - even if you think you've come up with a brilliant addition to their work. The work is their work, it is their baby, and telling people what to add doesn't help them. Either, they add it and maybe feel like it isn't their work, or they reject the idea because they don't feel it's their idea. Or the idea sucks, which of course will happen often. A writer must find the solution to their own texts issues. I think we can suggest directions to go in which might help, and of course we can paw at holes where maybe a thing doesn't feel right. But the writer KNOWS why they've chosen to do things a certain way, and so they also need to solve their issues in the way that is best for them.

This. Telling someone to replot is telling someone to write the story you want to read, not the one the author wants to write, unless the author has specifically asked for suggestions. The job of a critiquer is to help the story be the best version of itself, not be something different. If you want to read something else, write it yourself. Otherwise, help the author do what they want to do.

 

[JT Woody]

Person asking for critique: if you want specific feedback or feedback on certain things, say that upfront (i.e. i want to know if the dialogue is believable; i want to stay away from harmful tropes; im looking for feedback on things to cut; etc). Its ok to not have anything specific... but it is frustrating for a critiquer to give feedback and then be told "but thats not what i was looking for" (or something of that nature).

Critiquer: i've found it helpful to give a little disclaimer before hand about your critique style or process. Like, FOR ME, i focus on things that negatively stand out to me. I dont do the "compliment sandwich" thing. This doesnt mean i think your work is bad or that i didnt like anything about it. I will mention what worked well in their work as a comparison to what didnt work well... but it wont be lines and lines of praise.
There are some people who ONLY focus on the good and offer praises. That may be helpful for some... but it wasnt helpful to me.
I think letting people know upfront what kind of feedback they will be getting from you is a good thing so people wont think you're an asshole or just didnt try.

 

[Naomasa298]

I must admit, I'm the same. I can come over as being overly critical. That's because I concentrate on the things that need fixing, not the things that have been done well.

I won't be an echo chamber. It's is true that many people are looking for, and need to know that their work is good, and that's legitimate. But I won't give unwarranted praise. I'll give targeted praise - if you ask if something is working, I'll tell you if it is, and if it's working well, I'll tell you that too.

Unmitigated praise won't help you improve. Focusing on the things that don't work, will.

Also, critiquers - if your critique is going to just run to 2-3 sentences, and just amount to "nice story", or one single grammatical point ("it's spelled 'color' not 'colour'), I'd just say - don't bother posting it, just to bulk up your crit count. If that's the kind of crit you give, then that's the kind your work is likely to receive. Crit as you wish to be critted.

 

[Hammer]

I will add a quick thought; showing different examples of how things could be re-phrased (with reasons) may be helpful. Simply showing how you would have written the piece rarely is.

 

[Also]

I encourage people to approach pieces for critique as naive, untutored readers unburdened by knowledge or bias about shoulds and rules, first reacting organically as target readers would. Then if aspects don't reach you or disappoint or annoy you in non-checklist-y ways, you can apply knowledge of principles to explain why.

In so many groups, it's clear that commenters who are either fresh out of Creative Writing 101 or have attended way too many groups are just working off a checklist of dos and don'ts. The effect is to conventionalize or even standardize submissions.

Interpreting what you get from a character or an action or a scene is often helpful. It's more likely to be believed than outright advice.

But I'm not a good story editor at all. I'm too willing to go exactly where the writer takes me. I'm foremost a surface style editor for people doing final polish before submission or galleys. I focus on what I'm best at.

 

[Also]

And although I have a keen ear for nuance, usage, and especially sentence and paragraph rhythms, my greatest critique skill may be simply my capacity for enthusiasm about what I like in a piece. I'm always liberal in highlighting the specific details, observations, and choices of word or phrase that elevate a submission.

It has been a little surprising how much people in RL say they appreciate that, and how little of it they've gotten in the past. But I'm simply reacting to the dimensions I notice most.

Encouragement is not to be undervalued or belittled. We all play our parts in our respective ways. Specificity is the key.

 

[Naomasa298]

The importance of a critique is to aid the writer, be an extra pair of eyes and to share their experience of what they have read but, for me, reading a story to offer a critique is showing a support to a writer who asked for help, thus when I read a new story and I struggle past the first 'chunk' I will offer a review based on what I have read to that point and why I felt compelled to stop.

See, if I couldn't keep your attention up to the end of the piece, it's important for me to know that. It's fine if you're a forum member, but if you were an editor, that would be a deal breaker.

 

[Trish]

See, if I couldn't keep your attention up to the end of the piece, it's important for me to know that. It's fine if you're a forum member, but if you were an editor, that would be a deal breaker.

and why I felt compelled to stop.

Isn't that what he's saying? That he would tell you? Or am I reading it wrong?

 

[Naomasa298]

Isn't that what he's saying? That he would tell you? Or am I reading it wrong?

Yes, it is. I'm just voicing my support for that stance.

 

[bACK iN mY dAY]

Something else occurred yesterday that I thought I'd throw in.

Ask Questions?
You aren't always going to be right, but I think the right question is very useful to the writer who wants to find their own answers - or if it's a question they didn't consider. It's also useful to maybe draw out intention, especially in a protracted chat - it's very useful to construct thoughts about a thing or a choice or decision in a piece of writing if you know why the author chose to do something in a certain way. Or it was completely unintentional or a mistake - in which case, great feedback that the writer almost realizes by themselves, then everyone's happy.

 

[Also]

Something else occurred yesterday that I thought I'd throw in.

Ask Questions?
You aren't always going to be right, but I think the right question is very useful to the writer who wants to find their own answers - or if it's a question they didn't consider. It's also useful to maybe draw out intention, especially in a protracted chat - it's very useful to construct thoughts about a thing or a choice or decision in a piece of writing if you know why the author chose to do something in a certain way. Or it was completely unintentional or a mistake - in which case, great feedback that the writer almost realizes by themselves, then everyone's happy.

Yes, the greatest value in a critique session is rarely specific advice but rather the thought and discussion that take place. A neutral and curious Why? can be very productive.

 

[JT Woody]

Yes, the greatest value in a critique session is rarely specific advice but rather the thought and discussion that take place. A neutral and curious Why? can be very productive.

I like critique that turns in to discussion. I have encountered people who believe their feedback should not be challenged or discussed, hands down. an "I said what I said. You're just arguing now" kind of thing.
Its not my intention to argue... me asking "what made you see it that way?" and saying "that wasnt my intention, i meant _____" or "I wrote it like this because I wanted to convey_______" and "I mentioned that point above/below" isnt me arguing or telling you how you should read/interpret my work or being difficult. Its me trying to get a sense of where I went wrong, and through the discussion of it, I can figure out where to go next.

Possible responses:

"what made you see it that way?"	you use wordage/symbolism/concepts that point to _____ and so I interpreted it as _____
"I wrote it like this because I wanted to convey_______"	I see what you mean, but those themes were lost in translation. To flesh it out more, I think about ______
"I mentioned that point above/below"	Yes, and it wasnt enough to convey the over all ______. the point needs to be pushed more for the effect you want

(the whole "because I said so" has never worked well for me..... thanks Mom and Dad)

 

[Naomasa298]

A note to critique recipients - you shouldn't respond by explaining something about your characters or plot, unless that is something that appears in part of the story you didn't include.

You won't have that chance to explain to a normal reader when your story is in front of them. If it's important to understand, it needs to be in the text in some way.