On Critiquing

[PeterL]

Below are some web pages about critiquing:
http://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/critiquing-in-a-workshop-context/
http://www.crayne.com/howcrit.html
http://www.crayne.com/articles/succeed.htm
http://www.therthdimension.org/FictionWriting/How_to_Cope_with_Critiquing/how_to_cope_with_critiquing.htm
http://critters.org/c/text.cgi?f=tips.asterling.txt
http://critters.org/c/lib.ht

I have read most of these, and the advice is good.

[hillwalker]

This has to be the most blatant example of self-importance and patronising your fellow-writers that I have ever read on here.

I'll probably get my wrist slapped by Admin but it had to be said.

I suggest you critique your own stories from now on since you are obviously the expert and the rest of us are mere amateurs.

H

[PeterL]

This has to be the most blatant example of self-importance and patronising your fellow-writers that I have ever read on here.

I'll probably get my wrist slapped by Admin but it had to be said.

I suggest you critique your own stories from now on since you are obviously the expert and the rest of us are mere amateurs.

H

You probably would profit greatly from reading what I posted, which is not well done and from reding some of the pages to which I posted links.

I doubt that I will post anything else her, since I have better resources available, but it would help many people, if they could get good feedback. Thus, I didn't post this for myself as much as for other people.

[Jack of Hearts]

This is not quite technically sound enough to be presented as a comprehensive guide to critiquing. The mechanics of it are much more similiar to a personal blog or journal. Either way this reader feels it to be misposted given the forum category 'Short Story Sharing.'

The fundamental error is that the post doesn't start from a sound foundation geared toward learning or intellectual discourse. There is overtly another agenda at play and it completely ruins the overall credibility of the 'style guide.' Such agenda is evident when you refer to critiques you were given for your poorly received story 'Agnosticism.' It is no feat of intellect to deduce even before this post is read what source is serving as this post's genesis.

Mostly this is an expression of generalities to provide cover underneath which you opine that the reviews you received for your unanimously panned short story 'Agnosticism' were unsound. The style is mostly implicit to give the effect of imitation academia. This style and the reflections upon the critiques for 'Agnosticism' come to form the essential and primary function of this piece.

The secondary function is the statement of generalities to improve the readers' critiquing abilities (as previously mentioned). The generalities themselves are not bad. However, this quickly becomes a case of 'telling' rather than 'showing.' There are no concrete examples, the concepts are never pulled into a particular focus or nature and where one might expect these things instead they find ruminations on critiques you were given that you deem unsound.

The formatting is not considerate of LitNet's medium. Line breaks between paragraphs would not go amiss. There are various small typo's and faults in basic grammar.

A few edits would really bring out the best in this piece.



J

[AuntShecky]

Please take what I am about to tell you with the proverbial grain of salt, but also please keep in mind that what I have to tell you is the result of over three decades of writing--

The main thing is to have another person or people actually read one's work; to have him or her actually to offer a comment is even better. Believe me, though, it is much better to receive so-called "negative" criticism than to have the work totally ignored. If the beginning writer consistently bristles at a bad review, then sooner rather than later he will discover that the critic will not bother to read his work at all rather than to "defend" his comments.

The point is that it is crucial for the writer to acknowledge the fact that a so-called "negative" comment on a work is not an insult to the writer as a person. The time-honored trait of sensitivity is certainly part of an artistic psyche; yet at the same time he or she must be realistic enough that perfection does not materialize overnight, that writing is a process.

For the past three-and-a-half years that I've been visiting this site, I have on several occasions seen notices from the administrators to the effect that by you are posting your work with the understanding that other members are free to post replies or comments to your work, as long as they follow the forum rules:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/announcement.php?f=5830

Some of the criticisms may lack the praise or accolades you might be looking for. That's the chance one has to take-- but it's worth it.

On the other hand, if one is serious about writing, either as a possible vocation or avocation, then he or she is absolutely willing to accept all comments, both positive and negative.

Otherwise how can he make the specific work better, or improve his craft in general?

[PeterL]

This is not quite technically sound enough to be presented as a comprehensive guide to critiquing. The mechanics of it are much more similiar to a personal blog or journal. Either way this reader feels it to be misposted given the forum category 'Short Story Sharing.'

The fundamental error is that the post doesn't start from a sound foundation geared toward learning or intellectual discourse. There is overtly another agenda at play and it completely ruins the overall credibility of the 'style guide.' Such agenda is evident when you refer to critiques you were given for your poorly received story 'Agnosticism.' It is no feat of intellect to deduce even before this post is read what source is serving as this post's genesis.

Mostly this is an expression of generalities to provide cover underneath which you opine that the reviews you received for your unanimously panned short story 'Agnosticism' were unsound. The style is mostly implicit to give the effect of imitation academia. This style and the reflections upon the critiques for 'Agnosticism' come to form the essential and primary function of this piece.

The secondary function is the statement of generalities to improve the readers' critiquing abilities (as previously mentioned). The generalities themselves are not bad. However, this quickly becomes a case of 'telling' rather than 'showing.' There are no concrete examples, the concepts are never pulled into a particular focus or nature and where one might expect these things instead they find ruminations on critiques you were given that you deem unsound.

The formatting is not considerate of LitNet's medium. Line breaks between paragraphs would not go amiss. There are various small typo's and faults in basic grammar.

A few edits would really bring out the best in this piece.



J

Then why don't you edit it to your liking? You could post it somewhre as your own.

I didn't claim that this was anything more than some notes.

[cyberbob]

When I said the thing about sexual advances I was referring to the fact that the man purposely sat next to the woman, asked to hold her hand to help her, then when she leaned against him in the elevator he made some reference to having sex with her in his head.

I'll admit I was wrong and I hope you can admit that your writing is about as good as that of a remedial English student.

[Delta40]

The first thing is that a critique is a collection of opinions, so the critique is not either right or wrong, but it may be misguided

This line is your rabbit hole, isn't it? It is here that you invite people in to give personal feedback so you can defend your mediocrity by insulting their generosity. I have no doubt you believe you are a good writer but in my opinion you are misguided :smilielol5:

Trying to read Agnosticism was like getting my toenails ripped out. I gave up, thankful that I did not have to subject myself to further self-inflicted torture. On a positive note, the rising conflict in the subsequent posts were very exciting, riveting actually!

I totally agree that you should not bother posting again. As Hill said in your other thread, keep your writing in a drawer.

[MatthewFarlow]

Don't be afraid to comment. I'm too far away to get my hands on you. I just got the first feedback, and that person thought the story was O.K. - PeterL

This is slightly misleading. . .

[Jack of Hearts]

Then why don't you edit it to your liking? You could post it somewhre as your own.

I am writing this to clarify my thoughts about the critiques I received for a story I’ve recently submitted. Some items may be almost duplicated.

The first thing is that a critique is a collection of opinions, so a critique is not either right or wrong in an objective sense. I recall getting back one critique, so I sent my thanks to the critique writer. That can happen when one emails critiques with another person. Just today I saw a critique. Gross errors are good to politely ignore (in my opinion).

The reviewer should be definite about which facets of the story he (or she) is addressing. Different people will concentrate on various things. I have a general pattern. One can't address every point for every story, but it is usually possible to touch upon most.

Critiques in a paragraph are useful, and critiques amount to a statement of whether the reviewer likes that story. It may be useful to let the author know whether you like the story. But even if the reviewer does not like a story, it is still possible to write a good and useful critique.

After a reviewer gets through the general comments he or she can comment on the plot and whether it worked.

A reviewer can make many useful comments. A good characterization involves showing how the character operates in the world of the story.

A bit on dialogue; good dialogue is good (as per the fundamental property of identity), while bad dialogue gets in the way.

Suggestions for improvement should be meaningful. Suggesting that an author improve the characters might be as good as one could do.

You’ll have to experiment. One item that I don’t hate to deal with in critiques is grammar and style because they are fundamental. I might make a general comment that the story could use editing. There are people who will jump into that with enthusiasm, and some are good. I just recently got some comments about bad grammar.

There are people who claim that it is best to avoid citing authorities or directing authors to authoritative sources, but I usually suggest that they read Mark Twain's scathing article "The Literary Offenses of James Fenimore-Cooper".

Below are some web pages about critiquing:
http://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/critiqui...kshop-context/
http://www.crayne.com/howcrit.html
http://www.crayne.com/articles/succeed.htm
http://www.therthdimension.org/Ficti...critiquing.htm
http://critters.org/c/text.cgi?f=tips.asterling.txt
http://critters.org/c/lib.ht

I haven’t read any of these. I hope that others will find value in them.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Much more readable. Thanks, Jack!

[PeterL]

I am writing this to clarify my thoughts about the critiques I received for a story I’ve recently submitted. Some items may be almost duplicated.

It is impolite to cite someone's work without giving credit, even it the work is in the public domain. You should have rewritten this paragraph so that it fit you.


The first thing is that a critique is a collection of opinions, so a critique is not either right or wrong in an objective sense. I recall getting back one critique, so I sent my thanks to the critique writer. That can happen when one emails critiques with another person. Just today I saw a critique. Gross errors are good to politely ignore (in my opinion).

The reviewer should be definite about which facets of the story he (or she) is addressing. Different people will concentrate on various things. I have a general pattern. One can't address every point for every story, but it is usually possible to touch upon most.

Critiques and reviews are very different. It is deceptive to call one the other.


Critiques in a paragraph are useful, and critiques amount to a statement of whether the reviewer likes that story. It may be useful to let the author know whether you like the story. But even if the reviewer does not like a story, it is still possible to write a good and useful critique.

One paragraphs critiques are worthless. Here again you ocnfused reviews and critiques.


After a reviewer gets through the general comments he or she can comment on the plot and whether it worked.

A reviewer can make many useful comments. A good characterization involves showing how the character operates in the world of the story.

Are you talking about reviews or critiques?


A bit on dialogue; good dialogue is good (as per the fundamental property of identity), while bad dialogue gets in the way.

Not a useful sentence.


Suggestions for improvement should be meaningful. Suggesting that an author improve the characters might be as good as one could do.

This is also not useful.


You’ll have to experiment. One item that I don’t hate to deal with in critiques is grammar and style because they are fundamental. I might make a general comment that the story could use editing. There are people who will jump into that with enthusiasm, and some are good. I just recently got some comments about bad grammar.

There are people who claim that it is best to avoid citing authorities or directing authors to authoritative sources, but I usually suggest that they read Mark Twain's scathing article "The Literary Offenses of James Fenimore-Cooper".

Below are some web pages about critiquing:
http://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/critiqui...kshop-context/
http://www.crayne.com/howcrit.html
http://www.crayne.com/articles/succeed.htm
http://www.therthdimension.org/Ficti...critiquing.htm
http://critters.org/c/text.cgi?f=tips.asterling.txt
http://critters.org/c/lib.ht

I haven’t read any of these. I hope that others will find value in them.

If it weren't for you confusing of critiques and reviews, this is almost as good as as what I wrote. You really should make it clear whether you are discussing reviews or critiques. While the two forms are similar in nature, a review is an overview, while a critique is a detailed evaluation.

[hillwalker]

Yawn!

[Jack of Hearts]

This is correct as is.

Good luck with your writing, PeterL.



J