how to not critique

[cacian]

The idea of this thread is to talk about the dos and donts of critiques and also discuss how one may approach works of others without upsetting the balance.
The critiques may elaborate on how they may approach work and why and the critiqued can explain how they wished their work to be approached.

Literature is a learning curb and so is feedback.

The priority for me would is to not interfere with the changes of the piece for obvious reasons. In other words I would not rewrite it as I see it and offer it as the next best version. Many may take offence and some simply do not enjoy their work to suddenly look terribly different. That is only because they took time effort and hardship to put it together.
My aim as a critique is to focus on the good and elaborate for the best.


what about you?

[osho]

The idea of this thread is to talk about the dos and donts of critiques and also discuss how one may approach works of others without upsetting the balance.
The critiques may elaborate on how they may approach work and why and the critiqued can explain how they wished their work to be approached.

Literature is a learning curb and so is feedback.

The priority for me would is to not interfere with the changes of the piece for obvious reasons. In other words I would rewrite as I see it and offer it as the next best version. Some may take offence and some simply do not enjoy their work terribly different.
My aim as a critique is to focus on a good piece and elaborate from there.


what about you?

The interesting part of your post is you are a prompt speaker and you raise so many issues and though they may lack sheen and luster. Not that you did not raise fascinating and enlightening things. You are doing it amazingly one after another tirelessly and endlessly. You seem to shallowly drawing attention but when I read your article the most fascinating part is you give vent to our sudden and innate inquisitiveness.

Well, critique is inevitable. There are some indispensables if we consider ourselves writers since writing comes and flourishes if there are readers who not only read things but also do comments. As you have a question on perfection in another thread and I boldly but negatively at times argue that both perfection itself runs with an imperfect drive.

[cacian]

Hi osho I think it is all in the manner and the approach. One is to understand that there are ways one approaches another. Professional is what I am after.

[F.E. Michael]

I think the worst kind of critique judges your plot and story as a whole because of a cliche, a weak start, or had bad structure. I may have a good idea, but didn't capture the start of it so well. When you let someone know you've quit reading on paragraph three, it's great advice to tell them why and even express your preferences. However, it's not good form to tell them the whole idea is bad when you had just told them you got to the ninth sentence out of a hundred.

[Grit]

A bad critique is someone who tells you your story is "good." The end. How can you improve upon that? It's the most frustrating thing to put time into a project and know that it could be better only to have a reader say that it was "good."

You wait for them to continue but that's all. It's "good."

[F.E. Michael]

If that person were a known figure in the literary world, my ideal reader, or a trusted person's opinion I can't say I'd complain. Although I'd agree that there ought to be something explained as to WHY it's good. Guess you're right.

[cacian]

If you were to chose a famous writer critique who would you chose and why?