# Handling Critique



## kitreshawn (Feb 23, 2009)

In retrospect I am surprised that this thread has not been made before, so I have decided to make it here.  This is actually something that needs to be covered from both perspectives, so I will handle both.  Giving that this is the Writer's Bloc and not the Reader's Bloc I will start off with:

*Receiving Critique*

So you just wrote a story.  You worked pretty hard on it, maybe did what you thought was a good job of editing it or maybe you will readily admit it is still in draft form.  But you are eager to share it so you post the thing and much to your surprise get some comments.  Joy.

Eager to see what people have said about your work you go check out their comment and find that they have some critical things to say about what they've seen.  Oh noes!  What to do.

Receiving critique is always difficult because you will always be emotionally invested in what you have created.  On the internet it can be even more difficult because you don't get all those necessary social cues that normally come with talking face to face (or even over the phone).  Just the cold hard text that someone wrote.  Are they being supportive?  Are they just criticizing?  Who knows.

Here are a couple rules to guide you.



1) Vow to take nothing personally.

If you get a harsh comment there are probably a couple reasons for it.  First, the person is honestly trying to help you by pointing out what they feel are flaws in your story or style.  In this case responding with hostility not only punishes someone who is trying to help you, but gets rid of someone who could actually be quite useful!  Be sure to thank people that give detailed critique and if you think they are being excessively aggressive or negative maybe gently point this out (could you maybe point out a couple flaws at a time so it is easier to deal with?) or solicit what they actually liked (thanks for the help, I was wondering if you might help me find the parts that I am doing correctly as well, so I can make note for the future!).

The other possibility is that the person is trying to get a rise out of you.  Sometimes this will be easy to spot (a simple "YOU FUCKING SUCK AT WRITING" comment).  Other times you may just have a feeling.  In this case their motives reflect more on them then on your writing, so why bother even expending the effort to respond no matter how pissed you are?  Especially since that is the response they want.  If you feel compelled to respond give just a generic "thanks for your thoughts" but honestly not responding is simply the best in this case.


2) Separate your emotions from the work.

Remember how I said it is easy to get emotionally involved with your work?  Unfortunately when handling critique you need to set that aside.  A person giving critique is commenting on the story, not on you.  Getting upset about what they say is counter productive.

This is hard to do because your feelings can manifest in many ways.  Maybe at every suggestion you dig your heels in and refuse to make a change (or insist you are doing it right for this story).  Maybe you just glaze over any comment that suggests a change.  Perhaps you only look for comments that say positive things and ignore the ones that contain negative.  Or maybe (and this you will hear a lot) you just "write for yourself" and don't care what others think (for those of you that think this is true, if it is really just for yourself why post it for others to examine?).

Every writer has to eventually make a choice.  You can either learn to distance yourself from what has been written or you can stop learning.  If you cannot let go and allow yourself to critically examine if maybe you could have possibly done things wrong, or maybe in just not the best way, you will cease to improve.  You need to be honest with your motives, recognize that it hurts to let go and change your hard work, and then take the most painful step to admit it needs to be looked at and potentially redone.  It is traumatic.  It MUST be done.


3) Don't worry if people like your art.

This is connected to the above.  The moment you worry about pleasing everyone is the moment you stop growing.  While you are not throwing your hands up in the air and saying "screw them all" you do recognize that some people will never like your art or style or the topics you cover.  If you have 10 comments saying your story plot is wonderful and 1 comment saying it is crap, you can probably ignore the guy saying it is crap.

Simply another way to distance yourself emotionally from your story and keep from taking things personally.  Not saying you should ignore a dissenter in every case (if they have good points that sway your judgment you may want to consider them!) but don't go out of your way to please everyone who ever looks at your work.  It runs you in too many directions and stunts your growth.  Before you can write a story that others will enjoy you must be able to write a story you enjoy working on.


4) Take notes.

Have a double spaced copy of your story and jot down any critique you get.  Note the relevant places the story will be affected.  Write down how you can alter to fit the suggestion.  Definitely comment on why the person thinks it is wrong.

Much more importaint when you go to a critique group with 10 people for a face to face meeting but can be worth while for online comments as well.  It is easy to forget advice others want you to consider.  Doubly so when doing so would mean more work or changing something you love.  By writing it down it is easier to keep in your mind, and when you go to edit that draft they will be right there, forcing you to pay attention and think about them.


5) Decide if the critique is right.

Just because someone suggested that you did things wrong doesn't mean they are right.  Same goes for suggestions for expanded scenes or new scenes.  Critique is, at its core, merely advice.  Some advice is bad.

This is not a blank check to plow ahead doing stuff "your way" without regard for comments that are being left.  Instead it is merely saying that once you have received the critique, have looked it over, have seriously considered what the impacts of a change would mean and the overall effect on the story, you can come to the conclusion that it is not the right thing to do.  By the same token you should note what is a good suggestion, something that really works, or that opens up ideas you never even considered, and maybe you should consider taking that advice.  You are the final judge, but you need to be an honest one.  In some cases it may be necessary to put a week or more between you and the act of considering critique to be as truthful as you must be.

... there is one exception however.  If you submit a work to be published and the publisher writes back with a list of "suggestions" you are perfectly free to say no to them with the understanding that not making the alterations will result in you not being published.  When a publisher sends a list of "suggestions" it means they like your story, want to publish it, but will only do so if you make the changes they want.  Making the changes does not guarantee a published work, but it is the only way you will have a chance (and the fact they even made the suggestions means they want it!).


*Giving Critique*

So you are reading something.  Maybe you have been specifically asked to read and comment.  Perhaps you saw the link in the critique thread.  Or maybe it was just a story you started to read and decided could use a few comments (either good or bad).  How do you do this in a way that is constructive and helpful to the author?  If you think there is something they are doing wrong (or could simply do better) how can you bring it to their attention without hurting feelings?


1) Give useful feedback.

"Awesome Story!"  The writer thinks: Thanks... though that doesn't really help me.  "This is poorly written."  The writer thinks: Screw you too.  "I want to see more."  The writer thinks: More what?

Short comments are far from helpful.  All they say is that you (probably) read the story.  While this is nice since every writer likes to know someone is reading their stuff it is not very good for improving.  For improvement they need to know specific details.

Why is the story awesome?  Tell them what made you think that.  It may seem silly but they may not realize they did anything special so if you point it out they will be sure to take note.  They may even play with it a little and make it better still, or use similar things in the future.  Knowing what works is probably more importaint then knowing what doesn't work.

By contrast why is a story bad or poorly written?  If the formatting is hard to read give a specific example of why.  If they constantly misspell words or violate the same grammar rule repeatedly also mention it.  Or maybe the plot is too predictable, or the dialogue seems wooden, or the characters are cardboard cutouts.  Or maybe there is a boring scene that should be shortened or removed.  Unless you say WHY something is bad how can you expect the writer to fix it?


2) In general spelling/grammar critique is not useful.

If you see a single misspelled word or the wrong punctuation here and there it is fine, no need to point it out unless specifically asked to do so.  Critique is different from proofreading and when people ask for it they are specifically looking for someone to examine the ideas of the story and how they go together.  They aren't looking for "you misspelled a word" but rather "motivations for character X are not clear" or "this scene right here is confusing to read."

Now obviously if someone continually misspells words, misuses words, or violates grammar you should comment on it.  When it is very common such errors make it difficult for the reader to stay in the story.  You might also point it out if they continually make one particular type of error (you always misspell the word X).  However their ability to perfectly spell and use perfect grammar for the whole story is not at all connected to their ability to come up with a good plot, so hammering on every mistake no matter how rare is not going to improve the writer's story.


3) Ask questions.

If something makes you confused or interests you about the story be sure to ask about it.  Asking a question forces the writer to think to come up with an answer which can really help their writing.  Ask why a character is doing something if it isn't clear.  Or maybe some particular facet of the story world caught your imagination and you want to know more about it.  If anything makes you wonder then it is a good bet you should ask the author about it.

Beyond simply making the author think about their story it also can help them know what they should spend more time on in the story, after all if you asked about it then it is probably something interesting to read!  Or it can give hints that things should be fleshed out more (maybe character motivations are supposed to be obvious).  Sometimes the right question will even cause the author to change their mind about some aspect of the story, or trigger new ideas they wouldn't have had otherwise.


4) Mix positive with negative.

A common trick is to give a positive comment, then a negative one, then finish on a positive.  By mixing the good with the bad you make it clear that you are not picking on the author.  Also you are helping them improve in several different areas at once.  Best of all you are not discouraging the person while you leave your feedback.

It should be said you must be clear if a point is positive or negative, or even if a comment is just offhand.  See above where I mentioned how text comments tend to leave some ambiguity about the poster's intent.  For positive comments use words like: good, nice, I like, interesting.  For negative ones look to words like: could be better/improved, confusing, disliked.  Be especially sure to mark offhand comments as such (this is tricky) so the author knows you are not referring to their piece.


5) Five star ratings are useless.

True FA doesn't have a rating system, but the point stands.  5/5 or 10/10 effectively means nothing can be improved.  If that is really true why should the author even consider trying to do better?

It is more useful to say "I liked everything except for..." than to say "PERFECT AMAZING STORY!"  Even if you cannot think of anything the author did wrong at least tell them specifically what you liked best about the piece you just read.  Things that are done properly can always be done better in the future.


----------



## Poetigress (Feb 23, 2009)

Good stuff.  I would add one thought under the "Giving" section -- based on my experiences both giving and receiving crits on FA, I no longer offer critique on something unless the writer _has specifically requested crits_ (either in the description of the piece, or on the Critique Thread, or directly to me, or whatever).  

For better or worse, not everyone is on FA for critique.  And though it's true that when you post work publicly you can (and should) expect feedback of all kinds, it's a waste of your time and theirs to write out some long crit when the writer is really just looking to know if anyone liked the story.  The critter gets irritated, the writer gets huffy, and I find it's not worth the effort all around.

Just something to consider.

Also, I do point out typos or spelling mistakes if the writing is otherwise polished, assuming there are only a few in the whole text.  It's true that critique and proofreading aren't the same, but I'd still rather someone point those kinds of things out to me in the critting stage, instead of taking the chance of discovering it after I send the story out to an editor (or worse yet, having the story printed with that error intact because the editor's proofreading missed it as well).


----------



## M. LeRenard (Feb 23, 2009)

> Also, I do point out typos or spelling mistakes if the writing is otherwise polished, assuming there are only a few in the whole text.


Along those same lines, you should probably only point out spelling/grammatical errors when you know the end result of your critique is going to be only a few minor adjustments to the work.  Because it's useless to point out comma errors if, during the revision, the whole piece is reworked and that particular sentence ends up disappearing anyway.

You know, there should be a section in this thread about self-critique as well, don't you think?
Also:


> A common trick is to give a positive comment, then a negative one, then finish on a positive.


This is still a bit of a slippery slope.  If the piece is bad enough, all you'll end up doing is fishing for compliments, none of which end up being sincere.  And, frankly, that doesn't do the author much good in the end.  If I see a million things wrong with a piece and only two right, I'll stick those two on the end, but I'm sure as hell not whittling down the million just to make the person feel better.
You can protect peoples' egos in other ways, I would think.  The important thing is to get your critique out there, full and complete and useful in some way.  At least that's how I see it.


----------



## TakeWalker (Feb 23, 2009)

To add two cents in on the proofreading bit, giving editing notes on a site like this is pretty useless (granted, I tend to mention things like "watch your tenses" if I get the feeling the writer has no idea what they're doing). Spellcheck, grammar check, all those things should be saved for the final draft, prior to publication, save for cases in which typos and other errors muddle the meaning of the story. But, in that case, you're more likely to point out the confusion in the first place.


----------



## Poetigress (Feb 24, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> If I see a million things wrong with a piece and only two right, I'll stick those two on the end, but I'm sure as hell not whittling down the million just to make the person feel better.



Here's how I look at it, though -- if you can't say anything positive about a piece, you probably shouldn't be critting it at all.  Critique is to help develop and improve the work, not just to tell the author everything they're doing wrong.  So it's equally as important to say what's right about the draft so it gives them some guidance in that direction as well, in the revisions.  

This is why I admit I kinda hate being asked to crit stuff from strangers instead of just finding it on my own -- I like to crit only work that I feel is pretty good and has potential to be even better, work that I feel I have some kind of connection to (work that I like, frankly).  As I see it, if I can't say something good about the work, then I have no stake in wanting to help the author really improve it.

The other thing is, if there are a million things wrong with it, it's probably not going to be helpful to point out every single thing.  Human nature being what it is, if you're pointing out a million negative things and nothing positive, all the writer is going to think is, "Well, they hated the whole damn thing, so who cares?"  They're not going to listen, and no matter how insightful and wonderful your critique is, it's not going to matter, because you didn't get through.  Positive reinforcement works in animal training and it works with writers just as well.    To me, this isn't about protecting the writer's fragile ego, it's about getting your message across in an effective way -- a way that's meant to be more helpful for them than it is cathartic for you.  So, if there are a lot of basic problems with the piece, I choose one or two that I think are the biggest or farthest-reaching, and focus on those.

I think too many people automatically think "critique" means "find and point out everything wrong with the story."  It's easy to fall into that mindset, and certainly it's very important to point out what could be improved and why, but that's not all a critique should do for the writer.

And, yeah, I wouldn't bother with things like spelling and grammar if I'm told the work is a rough draft that's going to be extensively changed, or if the writer just wants macro crits.  But in something that's obviously meant to be more of a final draft, even if I'm making suggestions that would result in major changes, there's no guarantee the writer will take those suggestions instead of leaving the text as-is.  So, to me, it's still worth pointing out that typo even if I've also suggested they cut the whole scene or whatever.


----------



## kitreshawn (Feb 24, 2009)

I'll think about writing something on self-critique but that is even more tricky and I may not get around to it soon (or at all since I may well forget) so if anyone else wants to take a stab at it go be my guest.


----------



## Poetigress (Feb 24, 2009)

My advice for it is to read _Self-Editing for Fiction Writers_ by Renni Browne and Dave King, and I'd also recommend _Plot and Structure_ by James Scott Bell.  

Bell also has a book called _Revision and Self-Editing_, which would be okay if you can't find the Browne and King book, but I found that most of _Revision_ just recapped a lot of the info from _Plot and Structure._


----------



## M. LeRenard (Feb 24, 2009)

> Here's how I look at it, though -- if you can't say anything positive about a piece, you probably shouldn't be critting it at all.


If I can't find ANYTHING positive to say about a piece, I generally point the writer toward my Attention Beginners thread, because I know I'm not going to want to deal with critiquing it in the first place.  Sometimes, too much work is too much work.  But:



> Critique is to help develop and improve the work, not just to tell the author everything they're doing wrong. So it's equally as important to say what's right about the draft so it gives them some guidance in that direction as well, in the revisions.


Yes, absolutely.  I don't believe I implied otherwise.  I didn't say 'scream in their faces that they suck', did I?  I said I'd include the two things he got right.  Those are just as important.  But honestly, if someone wants to improve his work, he should also know what's wrong with it.  As you said: '*equally* as important'.  Equality generally means you don't discriminate between the two.  You tell them everything that's right and that's wrong with the piece.  That's all I'm suggesting.



> They're not going to listen, and no matter how insightful and wonderful your critique is, it's not going to matter, because you didn't get through.


You could assume that, or you could assume that someone who legitimately wants to improve his writing would listen to good advice, no matter how bad it makes him feel about his own progress.  This is a totally subjective argument, so I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.
But me personally?  I just recently got a thrashing on Critique Circle that made me feel like I've learned nothing in the past five years.  And you know what?  It inspired me to work harder to improve, and it helped me realize something in general about my writing that I really and truly needed to fix.  That was the most useful and beneficial critique I ever got.  Yeah, it made me feel like a total ass, but in the end I'm extremely grateful for it.
So there's a counter-example right there to your argument, proving it's not true in all cases.  Which is why I feel it's just as legitimate not to hold back for fear of scaring the person off.

Note: I am in no way implying it's alright to be a douchebag.  Just wanted to make that clear.


----------



## Shouden (Feb 24, 2009)

This is all really good advice. And HOW you mention what's wrong and write is also very important. You don't want to come off as a jackass when you're really trying to be helpful.

For me, if I find nothing good about a piece, I try to say nothing useless it's requested of me. Or, I will point out the big things that I found wrong.

And remember, writers, you should do some of your own critiquing of your works before submitting it for critiquing. (and I know I've been guilty of not doing this.) That way, the critiquers don't have to wade through a rough draft of a work...The only time this would be acceptable is if you're just looking for opinions on how people liked the story.


----------



## duroc (Feb 25, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> This is a totally subjective argument, so I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.



I tend to agree.  I don't know if there really is a right way or a wrong way because the situation is going to depend greatly on how the person handles critique, but it'll also depend on how the person gives the critique as well.  Let's be honest, not everybody responds well to negativity, no matter how nicely you try to put it.  It's like when I was being coached for football in high school.  Some players responded well to cussing and demeaning remarks, others needed a pat on the back.  That's an extreme case, but it boils down to the same idea.  

MLR gave me my very first critique here on FA, and he basically laid _a lot_ of things out on the table.  Sure, I may have felt bad for a minute or two, but he was right.  I was making a lot of errors, and I'm grateful he pointed them out.  But I'm one of those people who really, really wants to improve, so I don't mind if someone wants to "blast" my work.  I don't take it personally, because I want to get better and it only makes me want to try harder.  

I guess the best thing to do is what Poetigress said above, only do it if the person asks, and try to say something positive or supportive.

Or, maybe just critique those you've worked with in the past because you've built a rapport with them.

But if you decide to actually take the time and critique somebody's work that you're not familiar with, then why not send them a note or email, asking them what they want and how they want it put.  If you're already going to take the time to critique somebody else's work, what's another couple of minutes to ask a few questions.


----------



## ScottyDM (Feb 26, 2009)

When I receive a critique I think it's a great good based on a single criterion: does it offer something I can use to improve the piece? Even if the critiquer was confused by some story element, that confusion tells me something (particularly if several people become confused by that same story element).

S-


----------



## Warnndog (Feb 26, 2010)

Overall I like the post and the advice given. I will probably keep that in mind. Of course I'm desperately looking for some sort of criticism. Which has in general been very tough for me, but I also know that I will not grow as an artist until I have that insight.


----------



## Atrak (Feb 26, 2010)

I can criticize :V . I'm knowledgeable to know some of what I'm talking about, and don't really care enough about your emotions to want to make you a hugbox.


----------



## TakeWalker (Feb 26, 2010)

Warnndog said:


> Overall I like the post and the advice given. I will probably keep that in mind. Of course I'm desperately looking for some sort of criticism. Which has in general been very tough for me, but I also know that I will not grow as an artist until I have that insight.



Make sure you check out The Critique Threads, and be certain to read the rules. :3


----------



## Altamont (Feb 27, 2010)

I love both receiving and giving criticism (always in a friendly form of course ) I'm a literature nut, so any from of discussion/dissection/dissertation I can get is the most fun I can have sometimes, so I love talking with authors and readers about any story and finding out what works, what doesn't etc.


----------



## jinxtigr (Mar 1, 2010)

Here's the deal about critique... nobody starts out with a complete understanding of what they're doing. We start out with an intent, wanting to do something, and understanding so little that we really can't tell if we've done it or not, only that we've tried to do it. The view from the author's eyes is 'this is what I meant to do'.

The main purpose for harsh, negative criticism is to knock you out of that mindset- it's an important growing stage, very common to go through. You can even go through it in a different discipline (visual arts, music, dance, whatever) because it affects you as a person- the state to reach is a state of wariness, not necessarily self-hate but an awareness that you're subjective- you partly see what you meant to do, and it's not automatic that you'll see what you've actually done. It's a mental quirk of stepping back and saying 'did that actually come off?"

Having achieved this mistrust of yourself- there's a remaining step that harsh criticism will not get you, and this is the bit that explains thousands of 'awful' popular works that confound critics.

You have to step forward, into something you want to create- that you want so much it no longer matters if somebody has a problem with it. Because if it's any good, somebody WILL have a problem with it. You cannot achieve a state of errorlessness, this is not accounting or measurement- receiving a creative act is itself subjective.

That's the real secret of critique- things like spelling errors are on one level, but suppose you have terrible purple prose, and your critic is a big Hemingway fanboy? They might need you to be terse, but if your gift is for elaborate, poetic language, you're not their guy. You'd need to not obey that critique, even though it's totally legit and true- or even strike a middle ground.

Once you have some idea what your 'self' IS, you must be true to that self. You don't start out knowing, and this is where the harsh criticism can wake you up- but you do not spend your working life dutifully correcting failings as seen by other people. There are too many of them, saying contradictory things. Wake up, then pick out which voices you want to listen to.


----------



## Atrak (Mar 1, 2010)

Wow, we have more writers than I thought, they just live in the woodwork :V .


----------



## Scarborough (Mar 1, 2010)

jinxtigr said:


> That's the real secret of critique- things like spelling errors are on one level, but suppose you have terrible purple prose, and your critic is a big Hemingway fanboy? They might need you to be terse, but if your gift is for elaborate, poetic language, you're not their guy. You'd need to not obey that critique, even though it's totally legit and true- or even strike a middle ground.



I have a hard time picking out the useful criticisms from the not-useful criticisms. I can pick out thoughtful ones from unthoughtful ones.

But, for example, I was told recently that one of my stories was unreadable. How do you know if your story is unreadable to just that person or if it's unreadable to a large group of people? Especially when you're stuck with small sample sizes and if you can't really tell what the other person likes to read?

Alternatively, what if your "self" is a self that, let's say, a niche of size 10 (out of the 6+ billion people on the planet) would be interested in? The niche of size 10 might be completely enthralled by your writing, but everybody else hates it. How can you tell if your writing's good or not? Is your writing "good" if it satisfies a large number of people? Is it "good" if it satisfies yourself?

And if other people and their interests don't factor into how "good" writing is, how can you tell which critique to take? Or, for that matter, how can you take a right step in making your writing "better"?

(ETA: I'm not sure if this reads like a set of rhetorical questions. They're not; they're real questions that I can't answer.)


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 1, 2010)

I think you know when you're writing is 'good' when you can sit back and honestly say, "This is what I wanted to accomplish with this piece, and I accomplished that."  The rest is finesse, really, which is something you will always be trying to improve.  To make a musical analogy, to play a song, you first need to get all the notes right, and everything beyond that (appropriate vibrato, levels of crescendo and decrescendo, tonguing, etc.) is simply a way for you to express more and do more to entertain the listener.  So I would say, out of every critique you get, look through them for ways to increase your overall competence first, and then pick and choose through the stylistic remarks.



> But, for example, I was told recently that one of my stories was unreadable.


Comments like that are totally useless, for the reason you mentioned.  You can't glean anything from that except that one person couldn't get through your story.  This is the kind of comment you just have to ignore.
Now, if the person gave reasons as to why he thought that way, that's another story.


----------



## Duality Jack (Mar 1, 2010)

I suggest mentioning that people who critique when not asked often should just go away and shove it


----------



## Lazarus (Mar 3, 2010)

As a professor of mine once told me quietly, "Don't be a bitch both ways."

Sound advice methinks.


----------



## Tabasco (Mar 3, 2010)

I just take what criticism I get and consider it. Not even the best writer can please everyone all the time, so it's really nothing pesonal.


----------

