How to give great critique

[Homer Potvin]

I tend to filter my critiques through what I perceive to be the author's ability level. It doesn't do much good to highlight the finer points of subtext or the structural pitfalls of narration vs narrative summary with a novice writer. Though I wouldn't say the opposite is true, as the simple things are easy for advanced writers to miss.

 

[Naomasa298]

when I make a reply, I do not look at what others have said because that will influence my reaction. If everyone were scathing to a piece but I really enjoyed it... then it isn't because they are right and I am wrong... this is after all a reaction.

This is, IMO, really important.

If ONE person says "X is wrong" or suggests something like "make this more visceral", then it might be personal preference on the part of that critiquer, If three people say it, then you know there's a potential issue there.

 

[Jay King]

There are conventions in literature, not rules for writing it. There are many conventions that speculative fiction defy, so I don't critique it, and I don't read it.

Most criticism is usually highly subjective. Though I haven't critiqued any stories in this forum, in other forums I let it be known that I have preferences that may be largely stylistic.

 

[Kintsu Kuroi]

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.

This is so important. There is nothing worst than you being happy with something you have created, only for someone to shoot you down in flames, just because someone thought they were better than you.

 

[JT Woody]

I took a leadership class on Wednesday and for one of the modules, it was about giving descriptive feedback and criticism to facilitate growth.
And one of the first things i thought of was how well this would work for giving feedback on writing!

 

[Socks Fox]

Objectivity is crucial. Whether giving or receiving critique, leaving space is essential and takes practice. A majority of the time, critique is not personal. (Yes, trolls can happen, but they are relatively rare on decent forums like this.) If someone says they struggle to relate to a narrator, take it with a grain of salt. It isn't that a narrator is poorly written, it might be something as simple as the perspective and perceptions of the narrator are novel and completely alien to the reader's functional context. (e.g. A double empathy autistic reading memoir about a diagnosed sociopath.) Decent critique can highlight this. It is an indicator that it makes a reader pause and think about the context, something effective writing does.

Go in with realistic expectations. Your skill set is not going to be the same as someone else's. Saying this piece was nice is a cop out on both sides. Sure it makes a reader feel nice, but it doesn't offer anything constructive. Vanity post type two diabetes is a very real pitfall. A balanced diet of constructive insight and moderate practice (exercise) is necessary in any type of creative endeavor. A majority of writers are not looking for the efforts of a balanced critique. An even larger portion of writers don't actually know how to critique. This is a statistical reality.

At its most basic, critique comes down to what works and why. What didn't work and why. This takes time and effort to develop, but it makes one a more conscious writer over time. It is one of those hands on things that can teach far more effectively than any text book or course can.

If the why (explanation with examples and/or reasoning) is not present, process the advice with caution because that slides dangerously into the realm of lost objectivity. The fourth wall is not only there to protect the reader, it is there as a shield for the author, as well.

Critique isn't about nice feelings or a quick reply. It is the active engagement of critical thinking skills and articulation of one's observations. Keep it fair, objective, and balanced. If you read something and can't find anything constructive to offer, step away.

 

[TrevorD]

DO NOT: don't try to change the author's voice into your voice. Recognize there are differences and offer evaluations based on His/Her voice.
DO NOT: Do not offer the same cliche shit (i.e., show don't tell). Well, no shit. Perhaps if the person wrote the entire novel already, they don't need to be treated like they're just starting out, lol.

 

[big soft moose]

DO NOT: don't try to change the author's voice into your voice. Recognize there are differences and offer evaluations based on His/Her voice.
DO NOT: Do not offer the same cliche shit (i.e., show don't tell). Well, no shit. Perhaps if the person wrote the entire novel already, they don't need to be treated like they're just starting out, lol.

first one totally, second one depends on if their work is riven with telling. if someone wrote an entire novel packed with telling things that should be shown then they need ironically to be told

 

[Homer Potvin]

DO NOT: don't try to change the author's voice into your voice. Recognize there are differences and offer evaluations based on His/Her voice.
DO NOT: Do not offer the same cliche shit (i.e., show don't tell). Well, no shit. Perhaps if the person wrote the entire novel already, they don't need to be treated like they're just starting out, lol.

To a point. There are some writers who will run marathons with the telling. There's a reason it's chapter one in every writing book

 

[Naomasa298]

And for grud's sake, don't just rewrite lines because you think your version is better.

Explain WHY you think the line needs to be rewritten, and WHY your version fixes the issues you have identified. Otherwise, that's your ego talking - "my line is better that yours".

 

[Mogador]

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.

Personally I appreciate a critic giving the context of themselves as a reader, and possibly writer. Such as, "I'm unfamiliar with this genre," "I might be a bit high but even if I weren't I have a bias against long flowery prose so bear that it mind," "On this read through I focused on pacing and didn't worry too much about plot consistency because as a writer that's my strength so I'll leave plot consistency critique to others."

 

[Kallisto]

I have a lot to say about the topic of critiques. Keep in mind, I haven't read any of the other's statements on the topic.

I think it's worth understanding the limits of a critique. For the most part, a critique is NOT going to be able to tell you whether your story is good or not. There is of course an exception if the person critiquing did stick around and read your whole work, but for the most part it's only going to be a chapter or two. It's just not possible to make any kind of conclusion about the plot, the themes, the characters, or anything really from a chapter or two. It's just not fair to expect that it ever would. And that was one of my biggest mistakes when it came to critiques was not understanding that asking the question, "How do you like the main character?" isn't really something the person is going to be able to answer. So it's wrong to get frustrated at them not getting into how the story is on a whole, when they're not reading it on a whole. I didn't present the whole story.

What they are good for is calibration. This involves more the technicalities of writing that is very often overlooked, particularly in younger writers. Do you use a lot of run on sentences? Are you using words properly and effectively. Does your prose do what a prose is supposed to do? These are things that are highly, highly important and things that a critique is highly effective at pointing out. Because the person is not looking at the story as a whole, they can point out things that are technical errors and repeat habits, which you can then go back and apply to the rest of your writing. They can tell you whether something is an info dump or not. Can't tell you how to fix it, because that would take reading the rest of the story, figuring out what is actually important, and suggesting how to better apply it. But they can say it's not effective in that it's boring or not engaging.

But any advice on how to change the plot or story, or whether or not a character should turn left or right? Throw those critiques away! They're entering territory that a critique is not designed for.

So, basically the TLDR version of my statement is this: A critique can fix your writing, but not your story.