On Writing: Crits and Feedback

[KillerMuffin]

Not a bad thing to discuss, I think. This is something we do here, crit and feedback! A little discussion about how we approach these things and how we use them is not a bad idea.

The purpose, essentially, of this forum is to give in depth feedback. It differs from the Story Feedback forum in that the people who request feedback here must give it first. It also differs in the quality of feedback. There are a lot of wonderful people who take their time and efforts to give good feedback. Thank you!

Now, on to the discussion.

What do you think are the hallmarks good feedback? If it's easier, what's bad feedback?

Do you think there is any difference between critique and feedback?

When you give feedback on a story, how do you usually do it? That is, do you have a system or technique? What sorts of things do you look for?

When you are actually writing the feedback, do you have any specific goals in mind? Do you write the feedback with a revision in the future in mind? Do you write it with the notion that this is a learning experience so that the author might benefit when they write another story?

When you find something you find to be a weakness in the story or something that's wrong, how important do you think it is to explain your reasoning? This is wrong because...and this is how fix it. That sort of thing. Do you think it's important to explain why something is right or good in the story? When you're on the receiving end of feedback, how beneficial do you find these explanations?

When you receive critique, what do you normally do with it? How do you apply it in general? What are the most helpful things people do when giving feedback?

Of course, these questions are just discussion starters or something to think about. Please, feel free to discuss critique in any way like. You do not have to answer the questions.

 

[Madame Manga]

Now this is something I can talk about. ;-) I won't go into why I find it almost impossible to respond to most of the threads here.

Crit vs. feedback: Feedback can be a two-word note. "Great story!" "Totally gay!" It slides right off my back either way. Crit is detailed, and is never 100% positive. I don't write perfect stories and neither does anyone else. If you show me that you spotted the weaknesses, I'll believe you when you praise me on the better parts. Frankly, I'll kiss your feet for a well-thought-out negative assessment. ;-) It gives me a view from the other side. It's as indispensable to a writer as air reconnaissance is to a ground army.

Good feedback: Two perspectives--feedback given to me and feedback that I give to someone else.

For myself: I don't need much technical editing. Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes I usually manage to correct before I post a story. I expect to take care of that myself, so I don't look for anyone else to do the work for me. Naturally, if someone points out a mistake, I scramble to fix it. I hate seeing a technical error in a posted story of mine.

What I love to hear are discussions of overarching storytelling issues, theme and character. Should this story be told in first person or third? Would this scene work better at an earlier stage in the story, or should it be entirely cut? Is this story about genuine love or about loneliness that grasps at anything to heal itself? Was this character being unfair to someone, and should she be more forgiving under these circumstances?

I correspond for weeks--years--with someone who wants to get into those things. I also want to hear from people who go through line by line and say things like "This word didn't sound appropriate," or "I couldn't figure out when she got her bra off," or "It just doesn't feel like he gives a damn--maybe he needs to get more upset at this point, and then I'll believe it." I may not agree with everything a critic says, but I will always take it into serious consideration. The tiniest aside comment may give me a giant "Aha!" and immeasurably influence the course of a story. I love it when that happens.

Feedback I give to someone else: It depends a great deal on the story itself. I can often tell whether a writer is seriously pursuing the craft or only posting stories as a lark. It comes across in all sorts of small ways other than the bedrock quality of the story. Basic quality can shine through a lot of problems. Some people are content with the level they achieve on their own and aren't interested in doing more. I've seen otherwise excellent stories written in a sloppy manner. I've seen nauseating crap written without errors. There is a hell of a lot more promise in the first than in the second. It's a lot easier to teach POV and tense and even pacing and tone than it is to teach humanity and humor. But I like to know for sure what a writer expects from a critic, and the best way for me to know is for her to tell me flat out.

Obviously I prefer to spend my crit time on writers who mean to improve--and ALWAYS on writers who will listen to someone else's opinions and not bristle. That's the single greatest mistake any writer can make when she asks me for crit. Give me one even mildly sharp word in response to a crit of mine, and I won't bother with you again. Ever. I don't care if you apologize a day later. I have better things to do than have my efforts spat back in my face. It took me a little while to learn that, though I initially learned it as an artist and not as a writer. I hope I learned it good.

If you can't bear to look at your story from someone else's honest perspective, if it's your precious perfect baby of self-expression and you can't lop the limbs from its tender body with your own hands and a pair of dull pinking shears, you are not ready for crit and you won't benefit from it. But letting go of the story so you can improve it is not the same as discarding your ego. If you had no ego, you wouldn't write and you wouldn't show anyone your stuff. Of course you think it's worth the reading, and if I even bothered to crit it, I must have thought so too.

So I never, ever try to score points. I try to take a light tone if I'm making a negative assessment, but that's not the same as making fun of a writer or of her work. Of course that is only going to piss her off. It doesn't matter if I was born with the spelling gene or if I have a perfect grasp of the past perfect. What matters is what I can teach, not what I know. The smartest editor in the world won't do a gram of good to anyone other than masochists if she's arrogant and snide about it.

I always find something to praise. That's the easiest part. It's heartwarming to tell a writer what you liked, especially when she doesn't suspect that she's good at something. I won't talk about this much, except to say that this has got to be as honest as the negative comments. Don't pretend you like something when you don't.

I've critted people who were very green and knew it; I've critted experienced fanficcers who wanted to make the leap to something not based on romance novels; I've critted people with lit degrees who spouted all the theory but tended to ring false; I've critted people who were rock-solid and still wanted to know what they could do to improve a particular story. With each, I dug into different issues and took a slightly different tack. I'm trying to hold up a mirror for you when I crit your story. What reflects back to you is going to depend much more on the story and on your state as a writer than it does on me, I think. I will pay attention to what you tell me you want, but to some extent I will also give you what I think you need to hear.

I have my pet peeves. They include head-hopping, improper changes of tense and run-on sentences. I may leap on those with more fervor than another editor will. But in general, I try to tailor my crit to the circumstances. If with fear and virgin trembling you ask me please to help you with your first story, I will be very gentle and encouraging. It's hard to pass judgment if you are still in the egg. If you are a happy-go-lucky type who would like to settle down and become a better writer, I will get serious and go into major issues. Those are probably my most detailed crits--the early-intermediate stage writers who need a lot of theory thrown at them to organize what they are already doing. Those are also most of the crits I do. If you have been writing for years and can manage something darn near airtight, I will skip the explanations and go straight for the heart of the story. I don't get to do those very often, alas. I get into my biggest and most productive arguments about theme and character that way, though. ;-)

None of this implies a thing about my personal skill as a writer. I don't have to be a better writer than you to crit your story. All I have to be is a thoughtful reader. It helps for purposes of explanation if I can use some words like motivation and voice and perspective, so I have read up on those to some extent.

I don't think about those directly when I'm writing, at least not in the first draft, and I'm not sure anyone should. Stories written that way sound like dissertations, IMO. I don't think about theory when I'm giving a story its initial reading, either. Get honest with me first and we'll sort the theory afterward. That's what I want in my reading and in my crit and in my writing. If I haven't been honest with you, that's the kind of thing I will always try to correct.

MM

Here's a link: The Mannerly Art of Critique, written some years ago by Peg Robinson, a good friend of mine. (Of course I haven't talked to her in much too long!) A classic.

http://www.loony-archivist.com/ptcarchive/crit.html

 

[sweetnpetite]

damn! who can top that!

I would totaly be honored to have you crit anything of mine! that was excellent.


now mine:
Revieving critiqes:

My stories are basicly stroke strories but I still want them to be good. I don't like it when people critique me without keeping this in mind, or perhaps without realizing that its intentional. I hate it even more when they only mention the technical aspects (like one misspelled words) and dont' mention if they enjoyed the story. Well written is important, but if it doesn't turn you on then whats the point?

giving critiques:

I'm new at this but my method is pretty informal. I wouldn't bother to critique a piece if I didn't like something about it, so I'd be sure to say what it was, and what I thought of the story itself and maybe even mention how it might have an impact of my life (ie, I'm really into bondage so I really liked the scene where he tied her to the tree... or I never thought about it before but you made it sound so appealing, I might ask my guy if he'd like to try (fill in the blank))

Then I would probably point out what questions I had or what didn't seem right or what I would have liked to see more of. Or what didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the story.

basicly my crit would mostly be the writing, not the engllish. plenty of other people do that and its not my strong suit anyway.If there where any glaring errors, I'd point them out of course. Probably so would everybody else. Honestly I'm mostly a softy. But I'd be sure to give positives and negatives.

 

[ronde]

Yes, there is a difference between a critique and feedback. Feedback generally runs along the lines of "I liked (didn't like) your story because..., whereas a critique delves deeper into the talents of storytelling and the mechanics of writing.

Before I critique a work, I read it through for a couple of things key to me.

Is the subject something about which I have knowledge? It is unfair to critique an author's storytelling ability when one does not understand the subject. For this reason, I almost never critique BDSM or gay stories.

Is the writing such that I can write the critique about something other than spelling and grammatical errors? It needs at least a thread of purpose and continuity of events.

If a story doesn't have these, I usually won't write a critique. I don't consider myself above these works; my style of writing and my preferences for reading just would not mesh well with the story, and my critique would reflect such. It would probably not be of benefit to the author, and getting better is the purpose of a critique.

When I critique, I read the story at least twice, and look for characters that match the overall theme, story flow, and how well the writing holds my interest. I will find some things I like, and some things that seem wrong or out of place. My critique will be written in the format of:

1. Things done well. Although these may be difficult to find, usually at least one or two is present.

2. Things that could be improved and possibly an idea of how to do so. This would include technical errors, although many of the rules are sufficiently ambiguous as to put this part of the critique into the realm of opinion. I would prefer to concentrate on how the story reads, parts that may be misleading or difficult to understand, and if the characters are believable. I do like to give reasons for my thoughts, because much of the evaluation of writing is subjective and needs explanation to be of value.

3. Some words of encouragment to the author.

This last portion is sometimes overlooked, but I think it means a great deal, especially to a first time author. I still remember reading a critique thread some time ago that made me feel for the author. The first critique after the initial post pretty well flamed the writer, who happened to be new. He/she was attacked on all fronts, from spelling to grammar to the actual theme itself. The initial post was edited an hour after this critique to delete the original text and the link, and I haven't seen the author since.

I refuse to believe that someone who puts the effort into writing a piece benefits from a critique such as this. It is true that not everyone can write, I don't feel that I'm so expert that I can tell anyone they should give up writing. Perhaps a few ideas for improvment and some encouragment to try again would better make the point. If the author is serious about writing, he/she will take the comments as intended, and try to improve. If not, they will not post again. It isn't necessary to subject them to public humiliation.

When I receive a critique, I use the comments in my attempts to become a better writer. There is always good to be obtained from a fresh set of eyes and differing opinions. I don't always change my style, but when I read the work that has been critiqued, I can always see how a reader could form the opinions stated. On the next story, I will adopt those comments that make sense to me because I want readers to enjoy my work.

 

[TheEarl]

Feedback is an ego boost. It's people writing to me and saying 'Your story was brilliant, I came 53 times' etc. I love that. Critiques are always negative as they always show me something that I can improve. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. My attittude is that everybody can learn and the way to get the most out of life is to take the opportunity to learn when it's there (hence me putting so many stories up here).

When I do feedback I go through the entire story bit by bit and pick out all of the bits that I dislike or disagree with and all the bits that I thought were excellent. It ends up as a selection of comments which may seem slightly harsh at first glance, but I think this is clearer for the author. This way they can read through, see what I liked/what I didn't like and why.

Good critique doesn't just say: 'This is wrong' or even 'This is wrong and this is why.' The best critique says 'This is wrong and this is how you can avoid doing it in future.' Critique is useless unless you can learn from it and too many writers do not share their expertise on avoiding mistakes, presumably because they presume you understand already.

Lastly: God bless WSO's little cotton socks. Can't say it enough for someo f the critiques she's given me.

The Earl

 

[KillerMuffin]

When I approach a story for critique I do so with only one thought in mind, the author intends to edit this for paying print publication. It doesn't matter if they do or not. It doesn't particularly matter if they ever planned on it or not. I'm an editor, it's horrible, I can't help it.

I read the story once just to read it. After that I start taking it apart. I look at the various parts of the big picture, theme, plot, character, and rhythm. After that I start looking at the smaller things, descriptive narrative, dialogue, word choice, hook, syntax. I figure that if the big picture sucks, then there's not point in looking at the little things first.

I never consider the author's feelings when I write crits. I focus pretty hard on the story and how to improve it. I do, however, explain myself fully if possible. If I tell someone that they're dialogue was ineffective, then I explain why I think it was weak and offer suggestions on how to improve it.

Some people think I'm harsh, perhaps that is so. Mostly, though, I've had a good response to my crits.

In my non-erotica/porno crits, I will suggest at least one work that exemplifies what the writer is trying to accomplish with his or her writing. Sometimes those things help.

I crit because it teaches me more about writing than anything else I've ever done, up to and including writing itself. I think every writer should.

Editorially speaking, though, my crits are usually all form letters. Sometimes I'll give a writer some added advice, but generally it's a form letter.

 

[the_bragis]

This is an interesting thread Killer Muffin.

For me good feedback is when the reader has obviously taken the time to read my story, enjoy the good bits, spot the not so good bits, and tell me about both. Why pretend? I love getting positive comments. Doesn't everyone? Now I have plenty of room for improvement, so naturally there's lot to criticize. I like to know where I have gone wrong and why. I appreciate gentle but constructive criticism. There are so many ways of saying the same thing, especially in here where good writing is something we all aspire to. "Your story sucks and this is why..", or, "Your story has potential, however.." ?

I don't kid myself I'm good with grammar, punctuation, and many of the other things that make a really great story. I know what I like and don't like, and what reads well to me. Those are the things I draw to the author's attention. Hopefully that's useful.

I like to try keep my feedback reasonably short, although I know I do sometimes go on with too much irrelivant waffling. I can't help myself sometimes... It's me... I know it... I'm doing now.. What was it Winston Churchill said, "Give me an hour to write a five minute speech, and five minutes to write one an hour long."?

Sure giving feedback does help me with my own writing, but never to the same extent as getting it. Maybe better and more experienced authors than me are different?

Now, I want to take this opportunity to have a little whinge. There is an incredible variety of people in Lit, and I think everyone has something to offer in the way of feedback. The number of authors who breeze in, ask for and then accept feedback, only never to be heard from again simply drives me nuts!.

From now on, I'm doin' like Santy Claus, I'm making a list and I'm checkin' it twice...

Have a great day now,

Alex (female variety)

 

[wildsweetone]

great thread KM. thank you

What do you think are the hallmarks good feedback? If it's easier, what's bad feedback?

Good feedback in my opinion, is where the author understands the editor’s comments. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the author will take on board all or any suggestions, but if the author is open minded enough to accept a different perspective on their ‘baby’ then the author is open to learning what fits their writing the best.

I respectfully suggest that two hallmarks of good feedback are thoroughness and consistency. Half measures are not good for the editor or the author. If something arrives on my desktop that is way beyond my time for helping, then I will limit myself to suggesting one single thing that the author needs to learn. It is up to the author to implement the lesson.



Do you think there is any difference between critique and feedback?

I’m still learning all the mechanical terms here… I would suggest that a critique also includes comments regarding the overall picture of a story, theme, premis or plot. Frankly, my general knowledge is badly lacking. If an author puts a story in front of me and expects me to get the reason behind his/her Shakespearean lookalike play, then I can’t do it. But I do work for the author to the limit of my ability, and I'm constantly learning to improve myself, which must help in the long run.



When you give feedback on a story, how do you usually do it? That is, do you have a system or technique? What sorts of things do you look for?

Yes I have a system. It’s not of my conscious choosing though. I open the author’s story and begin reading. Anything and everything that smacks me in the eye gets my comments in bold typeface and in brackets right next to the perceived ‘error’. I need the author’s specific permission to relax and just enjoy the read. Sometimes I can’t even do that. I’m not happy about it, but I’m learning slowly to accept that that’s just how things are for me.

I correct typos, punctuation, grammar. I comment if I discover a piece of clothing was only partially removed one paragraph, and then completely disappears the next. If something doesn’t make sense, then I remark on it.

I also make notes to the author if I ‘feel’ that something isn’t quite right. I ensure that the author questions me more fully and several times in order to pin my ‘feeling’ down to a level where it can be understood clearly. I am now learning to comment on specific questions an author asks me to give my opinion on. As I have a bad memory, this is not an easy task for me… but I’m not giving up.



When you are actually writing the feedback, do you have any specific goals in mind? Do you write the feedback with a revision in the future in mind? Do you write it with the notion that this is a learning experience so that the author might benefit when they write another story?

Specific goals? Hmm to make sure that I don’t miss anything. To ensure I am clear in my thoughts and suggestions. To ensure I don’t offend the author. The last thing I want is to hurt a writer – we are all sensitive underneath, no matter how tough our exterior.

Do I give feedback with a revision in mind? Yes I do, though not many authors re-send their stories to me. Some post straight away after making their changes. At times this has bothered me. Simply because I have gone to read their finished work to discover I’ve been thanked for helping, but in fact I haven’t finished a final editorial. Some authors make changes and the changes aren’t always correct. No offence to anyone intended here. It’s simply something I’ve noticed.

And yes, I write with the hope that I am helping. Putting my editor's hat on takes a lot of effort and time. I always hope that I help in some small way. However, I do understand that what the author does with my suggestions is their own business ultimately. After all, they either want to improve or they don't.

When you find something you find to be a weakness in the story or something that's wrong, how important do you think it is to explain your reasoning? This is wrong because...and this is how fix it. That sort of thing.

It’s very important and I don’t always do it – my fault. Sometimes I feel something isn’t right, but can’t explain clearly enough the first time. If it’s not right then I will comment, after all there must be other readers who will notice it too, right? I find that I explain some things fully on the first going over.

If the same error occurs frequently in the story, then I will make a note the last time I fix it that the author needs to change all following errors as I have not.

Sometimes I will give the author a very quick lesson. E.g. Many authors have punctuation with dialogue problems. A comma instead of a fullstop and vice versa e.g. “Don’t go.” she said. If it’s something that I see more than once, then I give a quick lesson and make the suggestion that the author pins it to his/her screen for next time. Sometimes I give a web site addy to the author if I think they’re open or interested enough to learning.

Do you think it's important to explain why something is right or good in the story? When you're on the receiving end of feedback, how beneficial do you find these explanations?

Yes. It’s very important, both to the author and to myself. I learned the hard way about not sitting back and taking time to appreciate good things. If something in a story sparks my humour, or tickles my fanny (so to speak) then I let the author know. I like sharing the good stuff.

When you receive critique, what do you normally do with it? How do you apply it in general? What are the most helpful things people do when giving feedback?

Initially critique hurts me. My skin is a little thicker than when I first came to Litland, but it’s got a ways to go yet. I find it easiest to handle when the author adds a simple sentence – I don’t mean to offend you, or something to that effect. It simply allows me to tone out my own baggage of years of criticism and accept what a reader/author is telling me.

I read over the critique, I re-read my story and take serious note of the specific points made in relation to the story. I stay openminded when I’m given questions to work through. I believe that’s one of the keys to improving. I also try any suggestions that are given to me. If I don’t use them in a rewrite, at least I will have had the experience of the exercise.


A worthwhile thread KillerMuffin, thanks again.

ps to TheEarl: I enjoy helping, thank you. pps... how do you know about the cotton socks?

 

[reohoko]

hmmm well I am not qualified to do any of that stuff I read, heck I am not even 100% sure I understand it....

I think, I would love to have you all read and critique or even give feedback. I imagine it is sort of a waste of time to come to this site and post on these boards, etc... if you didn't want some response.

However, think I will just stick to my old fashion "I liked because.." and "I didn't like..." and "I think.." you know.

Doesn't require I find my thinking cap
and besides
looks mostly like there is plenty of room for posts on most of these stories *wink
I imagine everyone has been a little busy of late

*giggle
(was thinking about just posting smiley faces and sad faces on stuff but after reading this I am reminded of big red sign with white letters... what is that again? OH YEAH STOP SIGN!!!)

 

[KillerMuffin]

Giving critique really has nothing to do with your abilities or qualifications to write; it has everything to do with your ability to understand yourself as you read. Do you like? Do you not like? That's all that matters. If you can explain why, well, bonus. So you see, you're already a part of the big leagues because you've already figured that out. Giggle fits, smilies, and all.

I think that some of us can be intimidating. We can go on and on with things that sound really, really technical with fully researched or trained reasoning, but that doesn't make a person's gut feelings any less valuable. You don't have to be an expert in plot structure to know that the story needed more plot.

 

[hiddenself]

Some parallels

I've got much more experience with writing/editing of scientific than literary pieces. Still, whatever I've seen, points to quite a few commonalities and very similar rules for critiquing.

What's good editing IMO? Address these key aspects:

1. Facts correct (ie, did the author do his/her research)? Example of problem: a 12-inch cock (for a human character).

2. Correct form (ie, was the syntax, grammar, and spelling correct?). Examples of problems abound in amateur writings (don't get me started).

3. Believable story?

Nothing is totally plausible and nothing is totally implausible in science or in sex or in life in general. However, given the context, some things simply do not sound right. Example: a virginal girl who becomes a total pro as soon as she sees a cock.

If there's such a problem, the editor should try to figure out what is the odd thing that rings hollow, and try to suggest an alternate take. This does not mean that the editor is allowed to twist the whole piece into something the author did not intend. The alternate take should be specific and focused on the offending part. It should enhance the overall message of the story, not transmogrify it.

4. Did the author actually tell a story?

Simply piecing together a bunch of paragraphs that fulfill #1-3 above does not a story make. The story (at a minimum) has to have a theme, a message, beginning, progression and ending. It has to have some structure.

This part is a little tricky, because different writers have different styles and ways of telling a story. So, the editor has to be flexible in this respect.

5. Did the author tell a compelling story?

That's the hardest part of critiquing and editing. I actually don't think that any single reviewer/critic can be relied upon for a judgement on this one. But if two or three reviews agree that something's crap (or masterpiece), it likely is crap (or masterpiece).

In science, this is called peer review and is pretty much accepted. It's not perfect, sometimes it leads to glaring errors and abuses (with all the grumbling that these produce on the part of authors) and all that... But, IMO, it's a good principle.

In art, the game is a little different. A publisher considers not only whether a piece is good but also whether it may or may not sell, ie, whether there's an audience for it (this is also a consideration for scientic pieces, but probably to a lesser extent).

Finally:

6. It is the editor's responsibility to take a stand: is this... crap, might be decent with more work, good story, or Nobel Prize piece?

With respect to literary review, the problem is that reviewers use much more capricious and inconsistent standards, compared to their counterparts in scientific reviews.

Also, literary writers tend to be much less vocal and less willing to point out flaws in others' pieces, than scientists are. A personality trait? Writers (as a group) tend to be much more narcissistic and defensive about bad critiques. They are too quick to dismiss negative reviews with the argument, "but my audience loves it!" Yes, and I reply that that same audience also loves lots of trash. Is this the standard? I don't think so.

Scientists do not have that recourse. They cannot appeal to the general (lay) audience. They stand or fall on the basis of their fellow scientists' judgments.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Some parallels

Writers (as a group) tend to be much more narcissistic and defensive about bad critiques. They are too quick to dismiss negative reviews with the argument, "but my audience loves it!" Yes, and I reply that that same audience also loves lots of trash. Is this the standard? I don't think so.

.

IS that the standard? It depends on what your purpose or goal is. Is your goal to entertain or to become a literary master? Is your goal to sell lots of copy, or is your goal to reach a certain audience? Is your goal to sound educated, or to be understood? Is your goal to have perfect sentace structure or to tell a good story in a readable way?

If your audience loves your work, then why *should* you care about bad reviews?

Just a thought on the other side of the argument.

 

[DarlingNikki]

Re: Re: Some parallels

IS that the standard? It depends on what your purpose or goal is. Is your goal to entertain or to become a literary master? Is your goal to sell lots of copy, or is your goal to reach a certain audience? Is your goal to sound educated, or to be understood? Is your goal to have perfect sentace structure or to tell a good story in a readable way?

If your audience loves your work, then why *should* you care about bad reviews?

Just a thought on the other side of the argument.

Hmm... You list all those things as thought they're mutually exclusive. Why can't an educated person be understood? Or a story with perfect sentance structure be readable? If anything, I would think a story with perfect sentance structure would be more readable.

Would your audience stop loving your work if you began to truly master mechanics and craft? (I don't mean you in particular here, I mean writers in general.)

I hope no one ever holds back in any critique of my work. I see every single "criticism" as helpful. I may not change anything based on it--or I may--but it helps me look at what I've done and really think about why. And in the end I'll be a better writer.

 

[hiddenself]

Hmm... You list all those things as thought they're mutually exclusive.

I second.

snp:

If someone uses "audience appreciation" as the standard and ignore bad (and, in extension, also good critiques), why submit a piece for critique in the first place?

It's often an ego trip. If the critiques are good and the votes low, you (the writer, in general) say the audience is mean or illiterate or whatever. If it's the other way around, you say the critics are a bunch of pompous, pedantic idiots. And if nothing's good, you dismiss everything as irrelevant and say you write for your own pleasure.

hs

PS And if both critics and audience give thumbs-up, oh, then, his/her inflated ego will float the writer up to the stratosphere, I'm sure.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I pretty much read a story and ask myself, "Why isn't this a great story?" And then I give them my opinion.

One thing that's occurred to me just lately is: what standard do you hold Lit suthors to?

Other words: do you just expect them to write a decent, literate story? Or do you expect them to be world class?

I expect them to write world class, which is probably why I seem so rough and why I have absolutely no patience for duffers.

---dr.M.

 

[the_bragis]

Hello Dr. M,

I pretty much read a story and ask myself, "Why isn't this a great story?" And then I give them my opinion.

That's good advice, particularly for anyone unsure of how to give feedback. Now how you give that opinion, in my opinion, is what really matters. Personally I enjoy reading your critiques/feedbacks.

One thing that's occurred to me just lately is: what standard do you hold Lit authors to?

For me it's pretty simple. I have a handful of favourite Lit authors, and they set the standard for what I think is good and not so good.

Other words: do you just expect them to write a decent, literate story? Or do you expect them to be world class?

Well Doc, if it's world class, what's it doing here on a non-paying site? No, that's not entirely fair, there are some truly first class stories posted here, as every author has to start somewhere to get their work read. And every author has to start somewhere, which brings me to my final point.

I expect them to write world class, which is probably why I seem so rough and why I have absolutely no patience for duffers.

Duffer? You mean like someone who isn't 'world class'?

It doesn't matter what the field is, we all have to start somewhere. Whether it's writing, sport, art, or whatever. I have complete admiration for anyone willing to give something a go, give it his or her best, and who strives to improve. I have total appreciation for anyone who respects my efforts, and who's willing to help me to be the best I can be, which unfortunately is always going to be a world away from 'world class'.

Well that's my two cents worth.

Have a great day now,

Alex (fem).

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Alex,

Well, we've been over this ground before. By 'duffer', I guess I meant someone who isn't even good enough to know how bad they are. I'm not going to waste my time critiquing them. You can handle them if you want Alex.

---dr.M.

 

[theowlandtherose]

(First post, god knows what will actually show up on the board)

I agree with dr_mabeuse on the point that you simply don't give feedback when you're unmoved by something. As a matter of fact, I believe most people don't reply unless they connect somehow to a part of the story, a character, or a writing technique. That's why every critique received, however biting, demonstrates the communication process that drives us to write, and most importantly, share.

To expect each writer to be world class is, of course, similar to asking every sprinter to be world class. To not grade on a curve in a voluntary forum smacks of elitism. Not to say this isn't understandable, fast sprinters are more fun to watch and it's natural to compare every other racer to them. Often, I find myself just following the top writers for similar reasons, but eventually I find that I'd missed some very creative minds in rougher packages.

Another question posed by muffin concerns the goals of the reviewer. The editor has a totally different job to do. Cajole, prod, improve, challenge, encourage, and more. Feedback has always been more about connection in my mind. "I love your story, the heroine is simply mesmerizing. But..." connects me to the author so that I may explore their world/art with them in real time. This is one of the unique advantages of this medium.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Hello, Owl, and welcome to the boards.

Maybe I misspoke or wasn't clear when I said that I hold stories to a very high standard. I'm sure we all have our own mental pcture of the typical story that comes to us for feedback and even of the author who submits the work for appraisal and their intention of doing so. Probably most of youpicture an earnest yet inexperienced writer who is really looking to improve his/her craft and has had to overcome a lot of fear and trepidation about posting in the first place. Maybe a lot of you were like that or are like that still.

It's part of my sunny disposition to take a different view of the average person looking for feedback. Unless the tell us otherwise, I generally assume it's someone who's posted something they're very proud of and is basically fishing for praise. The implied message is, "Hey, this writing stuff is pretty damn easy! Check out my hot story." That's not the way to predisose the reviewer itowards kindliness, at least not for me.

Likewise, if I get a request for feedback on a story that is just sloppy, I won't bother with it. Why should I give an hour or half hour of my time to someone who doesn't even care enough to proof it?

Then there is the story that is just so bereft of any semblance to fiction that is just beyond criticism; you just don't know where to start. You wonder whether the author has ever read a piece of fiction in their entire life. They haven't a clue. You know the type: the one-paragraph story, the story without quotation marks where everyone's speaking without attribution, the story with bizarre word choices. These are the stories whose requests for feedback usually go ignored. I'll take these on, partly for the challenge, but mainly because someone should tell the author that he doesn't get it.

I know that a lot of people here look at this site as a place to develop writing skills. I don't. I feel that if you post here you should already be fairly accomplished. I get a lot of requests for critiques off the boards, and if the writer is earnest and has taken the time to email me, I'll do my best to help them out, no matter how bad the stuff is. But when you post in public, you should be prepared to take the consequences.

I wouldn't know how to tell a the writer of a bad story what to do in order to turn it into a mediocre story, so I always criticize against the highest standards I know. No sliding scale. And unlike most of the people in the English-speaking world these days, I don't think there's anything wrong with honest criticism. If someone's so fragile that they can't take advice or criticism, then they shouldn't be asking for it in the first place.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

I see where dr. M is coming from (although I do agree that he is a bit harsh at times). IF he askes "why isn't this story great?" and then finds the reasons why and points them out, then anyone who acts on those suggestions will theoretically end up with a great story!(at least by dr-m's standards anyway) What better help could a writer ask for?

 

[theowlandtherose]

I can't argue with that, Sweetb. Dr. M, we're all agreed that if someone asks the crowd for feedback, they're obligated to take honest criticism. If they prefer a softer touch, or if they simply don't share the taste of the reviewer, they can easily be more selective in their search for improvement.

I do like your method of asking how a story could be as good as it can be. You probably approach each story individually and can easily limit a bias of voice, style, and structure. Assuming of course that these details don't detract from the telling of the tale. And since no story can be perfect in character and plot development, it always allows for criticism.

My fear is that a 'perfect' story to me will only have one way to be told. If you can appreciate a story written much differently than you would have approached it, and manage to offer suggestions in the same voice as the author, then you have become a quite nurturing force (despite the rough edges). Any critique that allows the author to expand their options rather than limit them, and still improves the story being told is a 'perfect' feedback for me as well.

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, it's interesting to see how you all approach feedback. Now if I can figure out how to put erotic art beside our username, I'll get a smooch here for sure.

 

[dirtyjoe69]

Maybe I am different

I guess I must be different because even though I leave the comment portion open to people, I could give two
*&^%'* what someone thinks about how I write.

I am not writing for anyone elses enjoyment. The stories that transform from my thought to the paper are just that "my stories". If you like them great, if you don't I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Now to have someone just rip you because they got nothing better to do or they don't like the "type" of story it is, well they can and need to get a life.

If you read my stories and tell me I need work on my grammar or the plot was a little lame. Perhaps you think it is just "stroke material" (and yes I do write blatant stroke material. Heck isn't that what most people that read Lit. stories are here for?), or tell me context is wrong. I appreciate someone who takes the time to really look into a story but like I said before, no sleep will be lost if I don't please everyone. I know someone out there in reader land will like my stories because I like my stories.

 

[WarLordwrites]

Good feedback or crit is the same

Greetings

Feedback done well should leave the writer willing to write more, that is it should be a positive experience. If it is "critism" that leaves the writer deflated it is a failure and perhaps a cruel one.

By the same token it should offer the writer, one persons thoughts and opinion about the story, its good and its "not so good" points

Feedback should be a balance, not all good and certainly not all bad! I try to equalize it with the thought that a bit more on the good side of the ledger leaves the writer eager to improve in their craft.

Best advice, submerge your own ego in the task, equalize the pluses and minuses especially with a new writer and try to end on a postive so the last thing the writer reads is a PLUS...

As a writer, remember the mantra - its one persons opinion

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

 

[rydia57]

I am reallly glad this thread is here. I've been asked a couple of times to give a critique to someone. I always check to see if their newbies here cos, some people can get kinda angry if they get bad feedback. Especially if they're new at writing. I have to wonder when someone asks me, should I say something good so they won't get ticked, or do I tell them the truth? It's .... scary so most of the time, even tho they say they want the truth, I may humor them. Unless I know they've been writing for awhile. I'm no pro, but I can take criticism. It helps you to write better. Thanx for the thread, KM.