How to give great critique

[JT Woody]

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.

i'd say it depends on the reader.... if its a critique partner, i expect discussion (if any of you on here that I know asked me to give feedback or do a critique exchange, I would be more than happy to engage in discussion because I know we both are trying to improve our work).

If the person is a beta reader from Fiverr or a general reader giving feedback (or if any of you say up fron that you dont do discussion), I dont expect discussion or to ask questions. I take the feedback and figure it out myself.... or I come on here and ask for advice lol


Which leads back to my first post on here... the critiquer should be upfront about what they offer
(the example I gave was an instance where the critiquer was not upfront about it and took my questions, explanations, and possible solutions to what they pointed out as me arguing and not being able to accept criticism)

 

[Naomasa298]

i'd say it depends on the reader.... if its a critique partner, i expect discussion (if any of you on here that I know asked me to give feedback or do a critique exchange, I would be more than happy to engage in discussion because I know we both are trying to improve our work).

It's more that, if the reader doesn't understand, then it's an indication that you have omitted some important information from the text.

Of course, you may wish to ask *why* the critique giver didn't understand that particular thing, but it often means the information is in your head and not on paper, and you could, of course, discuss how you should fix it. But the explanation itself shouldn't come in lieu of resolving the issue in the text.

 

[JT Woody]

but it often means the information is in your head and not on paper

exactly this...
if someone says "This character/plot wasnt fleshed out well. I think it could use a bit of work"
thats not helpful because I dont know where I went wrong or what I omitted because, in my head, it all works well. If I didnt ask questions, i could start changing or editing something that doesnt exactly fix the issue.

If I ask, "why do you think it needs work?" the person could say "oh, the element here makes it sound like ____" or "this one paragraph here is what lost me"
and just like that, I have direction!

and, explanation for the purpose of trying to convey where i am trying to go is different from explanation in attempts to tell you what I want you to think.
Its like visiting a new city or place and getting lost. You approach a local and say "i'm trying to get to X. Maps said to go down this street and take a left then go right." (imagine of the local you approach says "I dont need you to tell me where it is, X is right there" instead of "ok, you went too far down. Walk back another block")


(Edit to Add: i understand that I cant do that with an editor or the general population of readers.... but if I am on a CRITIQUE forum, i dont expect to be talking to a professional editor, but a peer who i can have these discussions with)

 

[Also]

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.

There are two distinct schools of thought about this.

There's the "shut up and take your licks," model, basically the high school "grading" paradigm, and then there's the discussion model in which the learning is multidirectional, basically the university seminar paradigm.

In the latter, the important thing is not to get defensive — or so defensive that you're not listening or you're shutting people down. In the group I run, I encourage commenters to ask questions and avoid pronouncements. I've seen too much abuse and dogma in groups to do otherwise as a leader. The grading model seems to attract abusers, in fact.

So much exchange of insight is lost when you enforce a one-way model.

 

[Naomasa298]

exactly this...
if someone says "This character/plot wasnt fleshed out well. I think it could use a bit of work"
thats not helpful because I dont know where I went wrong or what I omitted because, in my head, it all works well. If I didnt ask questions, i could start changing or editing something that doesnt exactly fix the issue.

If I ask, "why do you think it needs work?" the person could say "oh, the element here makes it sound like ____" or "this one paragraph here is what lost me"
and just like that, I have direction!

and, explanation for the purpose of trying to convey where i am trying to go is different from explanation in attempts to tell you what I want you to think.
Its like visiting a new city or place and getting lost. You approach a local and say "i'm trying to get to X. Maps said to go down this street and take a left then go right." (imagine of the local you approach says "I dont need you to tell me where it is, X is right there" instead of "ok, you went too far down. Walk back another block")

Sure. Don't disagree with any of that.

What I mean is, let's say the critiquer says "I don't get why Bob hates John", and your reply is "Bob hates him because John killed his dog" - what you need to realise is that, if it is important for the reader to know or understand this, it needs to be in the text, not just explained to the critiquer. You need to take the question as an indication that there's an issue in the text that won't be resolved by explaining it just to the critiquer.

 

[Naomasa298]

In the latter, the important thing is not to get defensive — or so defensive that you're not listening or you're a
shutting people down.

Absolutely no disagreement with that. What you can't do if you want to improve is to cut off further discussion with just an explanation and end it there.

 

[Also]

I've also observed empirically, though not to scientific ceetainty, that groups run on the bidirectional model have more lively discussion and energy, and a more sophisticated level of commentary, than the one way groups.

 

[JT Woody]

Socrates approves.

 

[Trish]

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.

I have to disagree. I understand the thought behind what you're saying, but a writer can disagree and explain a position without being disrespectful or defensive. And sure, we won't be able to explain to a reader, but we're also trying to get it to a point where it will have the opportunity to be read by a "reader" at all. The rules aren't the same. Should we be eyeing them in the distance throughout? Of course. But we shouldn't be tripping over them 6 miles before we get there.

It's also faulty logic to assume that every crit participant is reading the same way, is your target audience, or even is coming to your story with an open heart and mind. Maybe they have a newborn that's been screaming in their arms for an hour or just got done with a double shift. We all have challenges and bias whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not. If 5 people say this is great and the 6th is coming in with some off the wall misunderstandings, it's fair and reasonable to explain your position in a respectful and calm way. Maybe you'll learn something. Maybe the previous 5 were sugarcoating. Maybe the 1 is having a bad day.

You won't know unless you ask and/or explain. There is not a single one of us in existence who is always right or knows better. Each story is different, and pressure to listen and take to heart every crit, to take your licks, to smile, bow your head, and say "thank you" while someone rips your work apart is toxic. It's why writers quit. It's not because they're "too thin-skinned", it's because they're shoved into the dirt instead of being offered a hand. A conversation. An explanation.

You should say thank you, they did take time out of their day to read and comment, and that is worth appreciation regardless of what they say, but you do not have to smile and bow your head while you thank them. Sometimes "Thank you, but..." is a valid response.

 

[Naomasa298]

I have to disagree. I understand the thought behind what you're saying, but a writer can disagree and explain a position without being disrespectful or defensive. And sure, we won't be able to explain to a reader, but we're also trying to get it to a point where it will have the opportunity to be read by a "reader" at all. The rules aren't the same. Should we be eyeing them in the distance throughout? Of course. But we shouldn't be tripping over them 6 miles before we get there.

You shouldn't respond with the intention that your response *is* the fix that your story needs. As I said above, receiving the critique at all is an indication that something is missing in your text.

Or to put it another way - you shouldn't take the view that it's because the critiquer "just didn't get it". The issue is more likely to be in your text rather than the critiquer's mind, unless you deliberately left it that way to make the reader wonder (which I do from time to time).

 

[Trish]

You shouldn't respond with the intention that your response *is* the fix that your story needs. As I said above, receiving the critique at all is an indication that something is missing in your text.

Except that's not necessarily true. If I were to try to broaden my horizons and jump into critiquing let's say, a non-fiction story about dinosaurs and my crit is that they didn't mention that the dinosaur couldn't fly.

They know (because it's non-fiction and their target audience will know that this dinosaur couldn't fly for whatever reason) that they don't need that there. It adds nothing, it adds filler to explain something that the reader should already know and makes it look condescending.

That's not a good look.

And it doesn't make me right, it makes me "not the target audience".

 

[Naomasa298]

Except that's not necessarily true. If I were to try to broaden my horizons and jump into critiquing let's say, a non-fiction story about dinosaurs and my crit is that they didn't mention that the dinosaur couldn't fly.

They know (because it's non-fiction and their target audience will know that this dinosaur couldn't fly for whatever reason) that they don't need that there. It adds nothing, it adds filler to explain something that the reader should already know and makes it look condescending.

That's different. If it's something that's common knowledge outside your story, then it's not unreasonable to expect your reader to either know, or in certain genres, look up, if they're that interested. I'm talking about something that specific to your characters or your story and setting.

 

[Trish]

You shouldn't respond with the intention that your response *is* the fix that your story needs. As I said above, receiving the critique at all is an indication that something is missing in your text.

Or to put it another way - you shouldn't take the view that it's because the critiquer "just didn't get it". The issue is more likely to be in your text rather than the critiquer's mind, unless you deliberately left it that way to make the reader wonder (which I do from time to time).

To respond to your edit - would you not say to the critiquer "that was on purpose because xyz"?

Or would you just ignore them and let them feel unheard and that their time was wasted?

 

[Naomasa298]

To respond to your edit - would you not say to the critiquer "that was on purpose because xyz"?

Or would you just ignore them and let them feel unheard and that their time was wasted?

Neither of them. If I had already explained XYZ, I would point it out and ask them if that part was confusing or unclear. If I hadn't, and it was something I felt the reader needed to know, then I'd thank them for pointing it out, and make a note to add it in.

 

[Trish]

That's different. If it's something that's common knowledge outside your story, then it's not unreasonable to expect your reader to either know, or in certain genres, look up, if they're that interested. I'm talking about something that specific to your characters or your story and setting.

It's not though. If I post chapter 6 and that was explained in chapter 3 it doesn't make it "missing". It doesn't make the critique correct. How on earth would it be wrong to point that out?

 

[Naomasa298]

It's not though. If I post chapter 6 and that was explained in chapter 3 it doesn't make it "missing". It doesn't make the critique correct. How on earth would it be wrong to point that out?

As I said in the original post:

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.

(emphasis added)

 

[Trish]

As I said in the original post:



(emphasis added)

Okay. What about when critiques suggest you add something that isn't there, but isn't relevant to the story? Because they think it should be in the story, regardless of whether or not it was ever part of the plan?

Devils advocate: you write a fantasy story, magic, cool creatures, etc. You post it. Someone spends a paragraph telling you why there should have been a unicorn at x place. There are no unicorns. What do you do then?

(I wish this was unrealistic, sadly it's something that actually did happen and then 3 other people jumped in about how great it would be. )

 

[Naomasa298]

Okay. What about when critiques suggest you add something that isn't there, but isn't relevant to the story? Because they think it should be in the story, regardless of whether or not it was ever part of the plan?

I also said:

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.

If it isn't, there's no need to include it.

 

[Trish]

I also said:



If it isn't, there's no need to include it.

But what do you DO? The critique has been left. Do you tell them "sorry dude, no unicorns here."
Do you give them a nice explanation of why there are no unicorns?
Do you ignore them?
What?

 

[Naomasa298]

But what do you DO? The critique has been left. Do you tell them "sorry dude, no unicorns here."
Do you give them a nice explanation of why there are no unicorns?
Do you ignore them?
What?

I might mention that there aren't any unicorns in my setting while responding to any other points they made. I wouldn't explain why there are no unicorns. I might even ask them why they think there should be unicorns.

Or just a polite thank you to them for the fact that they read the story at all.