# Giving critique and analysis



## panzergulo (Aug 15, 2009)

I checked the collection of collection this other day, and a thought came to me: "There isn't really a thread about giving critique here." There is a good tutorial for giving critique in the 'Tutorials and Critiques' sub-forum, but I thought we could do well with our own. As the Bloc has been rather quiet a couple of days, I thought to start a new thread, hopefully to make people to give their own views about critiquing and giving feedback as general.

First things first: Nobody is really an expert in giving critique. A critique is always on opinion. That's why, whenever I'm writing _real_ critique, I try to tell the person I have critiqued: This is only my opinion, you can disagree with me, I don't mind, and if you really want to improve, get other opinions.

I try to use one old method, I think it is called "the sandwich" or "the hamburger". I start my critique with something positive, what I liked in the story, what was good in it. After the start I continue with the negative critique, what I didn't like, what could maybe need some more work. Then, I end my critique into something positive again, I write I enjoyed the story, I had good time reading it. If I don't like something I read, I don't comment at all.

We all have a bit different tastes and because of that we might view a story in a very different ways. Therefore, it's better that a person would get more than one critique. I have tried to be gentle even with stories which I have liked, but which have had something that has shocked or disgusted me. I don't have to use it often, but one phrase has become handy many times: "Well, I'm not really a fan of this theme/fetish/motive/whatever..." A feedback based totally on one tastes wouldn't be a good feedback. "This story sucks because I don't like the thing in it."

What I often do, is not giving critique at all, but doing an analysis. There are so many things to use in analysis as there are sub-parts in a story. The plot, characters, themes, motives, references to other literature or movies or culture in general, relation to history or recent happenings... I don't know about other people, but I have found it most educational when another person has analyzed something I have written. Sometimes I have seen my own stories in a completely different light. Unfortunately, analysis seems to be a dead skill, the people practicing it are pretty scarce.

Anyway, these were my thoughts about the subject. So, tell me about your thoughts: What are good techniques when giving critique? How do you give critique? What have you found most helpful, both as a critic and the one receiving the critique? Do you have any thoughts about literature analysis? Do you have any general thoughts about giving feedback in general?


----------



## duroc (Aug 15, 2009)

There was a thread from some time ago.  It should help add something to this.
http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=37535&highlight=critique


----------



## panzergulo (Aug 15, 2009)

duroc said:


> There was a thread from some time ago.  It should help add something to this.
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=37535&highlight=critique



Why didn't I notice that? Oh well...

Talk about analysis then. Why don't you people know how to analyze writings? I think analyzing literature is taught in schools, even in America.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 15, 2009)

I was going to find that one, so thanks, Duroc.  I remembered somewhere I argued about the whole 'compliment sandwich' approach with PT, which I still have many reservations about.
I notice kitreshawn never expanded on self-critique, though.  We just got a couple book references from PT.


----------



## duroc (Aug 15, 2009)

panzergulo said:


> Talk about analysis then. Why don't you people know how to analyze writings? I think analyzing literature is taught in schools, even in America.



Depends.  I know in my schooling, especially when it came to English and literature, it wasn't very good.  And I only finished one full semester of community college, so I don't have much experience when it comes to how it's taught in higher education.  But just like everything else, it really depends on the person and what they want to accomplish.  If they want to improve and learn, then they will, even if that means they have to do it on their own. 



M. Le Renard said:


> I notice kitreshawn never expanded on self-critique, though.  We just got a couple book references from PT.



If anything, that's what a writer really needs to learn.  Self-critique, in my opinion, is very, very important.


----------



## panzergulo (Aug 15, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> I was going to find that one, so thanks, Duroc.  I remembered somewhere I argued about the whole 'compliment sandwich' approach with PT, which I still have many reservations about.



The sandwich has it pros. It's mainly a way to avoid drama. Some are very touchy about critique. To those who can't take it, sandwiching the negative part between positive will be soft enough for them. It's their own fault if they don't want to learn from the feedback. Those who can take critique, will read the negative part and learn from it.

If a story is so horrible you can't give any positive critique, I would suggest not critiquing it at all. Giving critique to someone who is posting stuff that has nothing good is probably quite useless. Or, you can try to point some guides about writing for them or something. Suggest they could visit the forums, maybe.

In my opinion, critique has to have both something positive and negative. Otherwise it isn't worth it.



duroc said:


> Depends. I know in my schooling, especially when it came to English and literature, it wasn't very good. And I only finished one full semester of community college, so I don't have much experience when it comes to how it's taught in higher education. But just like everything else, it really depends on the person and what they want to accomplish. If they want to improve and learn, then they will, even if that means they have to do it on their own.



You don't really need that much education to analyze literature. Let's take analyzing a character for example. A character can be many things: Protagonist, antagonist, side-kick, comedy relief, support character... hero, anti-hero, good, bad, ugly... a character might have virtues, valors, sins, vices... they might be brave, mad, evil, crazy, coward, conflicted... they might have interesting details, habit, dialect, belief or some superficial characteristic... a character relates to other characters in the story. You can compare a character to other characters in the story or famous characters in literature or popular culture. There's a lot things you can nitpick and analyze. And this was about _only_ a character.

Really, analysis isn't that hard. I can't really teach it to anybody, but I can come up with examples, analyses people have written, both my own and other people's. I remember writing a long comment about just one character, discussing whether the character was a coward or not and is he just a victim along the others or does he do the bad things in free will. We had long and fruitful conversation about that one character with the original author. I think they might have seen the story in a bit different light after my analysis.


----------



## duroc (Aug 15, 2009)

When it came to analyzing, I was thinking more about basics(proper grammar, sentence structure, word usage, etc.).  But I should probably spend more time analyzing things like characters and plot.


----------



## Poetigress (Aug 15, 2009)

Just dropping in to say that I do have a few how-to-crit links in the first post of the Critique Thread: 

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=14238


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 15, 2009)

panzergulo said:
			
		

> The sandwich has it pros.....


We've been over this in that other thread.  This is kind of funny, because it actually seems like we've switched sides from where we usually stand on issues like these (me being the blunt harsh guy and you being diplomatic).  But yes, if a piece has no merits at all that I can see, I just link the person to one of the various threads on this board and call it good.  Mainly because I know pointing out every single little thing would be incredibly time-consuming.

So far as analysis comes into play, it's something you do for writers who want guidance on how to solidify a work, to bring everything together logically and to make everything believable, etc.  I rarely do it for works here because most of them aren't to that level yet.  They still have to get past the whole 'this sounds awkward, comma goes here, Paulliera is a stupid name' kind of stuff.


----------



## panzergulo (Aug 16, 2009)

duroc said:


> When it came to analyzing, I was thinking more about basics(proper grammar, sentence structure, word usage, etc.).  But I should probably spend more time analyzing things like characters and plot.



I hardly ever say anything about grammar or spelling. Not my place to say anything. Hell, I ain't even a native user of English! In my opinion, English is rather silly and ugly language. I can write it, I don't know how well, but I can, but after starting to use Skype, I have learned I can't speak it at all. Your phonemes are just damn too weird in my Finnish mouth. On the other hand, any English-speaker has been in trouble when I have tried to teach them just a word or two Finnish...

Analysis is something I can do. They taught that a lot in Finnish school, so it is something I have practiced. So, now and then, I do that.



M. Le Renard said:


> We've been over this in that other thread.  This is kind of funny, because it actually seems like we've switched sides from where we usually stand on issues like these (me being the blunt harsh guy and you being diplomatic).  But yes, if a piece has no merits at all that I can see, I just link the person to one of the various threads on this board and call it good.  Mainly because I know pointing out every single little thing would be incredibly time-consuming.



The forum brings out the worst in me. You have seen my comments on the main site. Completely different person. I have FA/FAF schizophrenia... But yes, I agree, if the story is just too horrible, it's better to give them a chance to help themselves, before using half of your afternoon writing a note list.



M. Le Renard said:


> So far as analysis comes into play, it's something you do for writers who want guidance on how to solidify a work, to bring everything together logically and to make everything believable, etc.  I rarely do it for works here because most of them aren't to that level yet.  They still have to get past the whole 'this sounds awkward, comma goes here, Paulliera is a stupid name' kind of stuff.



So far, only one person has analyzed my writings. Well, it isn't fair to say that, quite a few analyze, but in smaller extent. One storyline of mine created a lot of speculation in my readers, I call that small analysis. They analyzed the characters' personalities to predict the outcome of the storyline. But good, long analysis... that is something very rare. Why are you always so keen to improve other people? Sometimes, analysis is just an analysis, it isn't meant to say: Tighten up and get rid of your plot-holes. Sometimes it's just a synopsis, a summary, a way to show you have really thought about what you have read and you want to share your thoughts. In a story, you must sometimes read between the lines, predict, analyze, and in a site like FA, you actually have the chance to ask the original author: "It doesn't say so in the text, but this is what I thought you meant with it..."


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 16, 2009)

panzergulo said:
			
		

> Your phonemes are just damn too weird in my Finnish mouth.


They're weird in every mouth but an English-speaker's mouth.  We have some rare sounds.  And then there's the usual spelling/pronunciation disconnect making things even harder.  It's tough to find rules that apply to everything.  (Like how that word 'tough' is pronounced 'tuff', but looks like it should be 'towg-huh'.)
I don't know if I've ever even heard Finnish spoken, so I'm sure I'd butcher it horribly if I tried, say, reading one of your poems out loud.  Took me a few years to get the French phonetics down well enough that French people can't guess my nationality by my accent.  It all becomes very ingrained in us as we grow older.


> Why are you always so keen to improve other people?


Because that's usually what they're asking for when they want someone to read their works.  Plus... I don't know how much I can generalize this, but I know all my friends and most of the people I know are not real keen on literary analysis.  I got horribly turned off of it when my high school English teacher decided to go through *every single fucking page* of John Knowles' _A Separate Peace_ in minute detail.  Made me sick, listening to him drone on and on and on.  It took me years to get over that... phobia, or whatever you want to call it.  So I'm hesitant to give people actual analyses of their work unless they (for whatever reason) specifically ask for it.


----------



## panzergulo (Aug 16, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> They're weird in every mouth but an English-speaker's mouth.  We have some rare sounds.  And then there's the usual spelling/pronunciation disconnect making things even harder.  It's tough to find rules that apply to everything.  (Like how that word 'tough' is pronounced 'tuff', but looks like it should be 'towg-huh'.)
> I don't know if I've ever even heard Finnish spoken, so I'm sure I'd butcher it horribly if I tried, say, reading one of your poems out loud.  Took me a few years to get the French phonetics down well enough that French people can't guess my nationality by my accent.  It all becomes very ingrained in us as we grow older.



Written Finnish is very logical compared to spoken Finnish, the folks creating the rules to write Finnish decided to make the spelling/pronunciation relation very logical. I thought quite long that English just had different system of writing, but after seeing even natives doing rather silly spelling mistakes, I just decided your writing is somehow messed up. One of my English teacher said English is "unphonetic language". One of my favorite examples is "vegetable". It's pronounced "vedzdebl" but looks like it should be pronounced "veh-dzee-table". Now that I think about it, it should be written "wedge-table".

Another hard word for me is "strategy". It looks like it should be pronounced "strÃ¤-tÃ¶-kii" or "stra-teh-ghii", if you prefer English style of written phonemes, but is pronounced "stra-teh-dzii".

Ooh boy... I probably messed up those phonemes really well... Anyway...

I have a couple of Finnish audio submissions if you want to listen spoken Finnish. The other one is even recorded for educational purposes, I read the poem two times, once in regular pace, then very slowly and clearly.



M. Le Renard said:


> Because that's usually what they're asking for when they want someone to read their works.  Plus... I don't know how much I can generalize this, but I know all my friends and most of the people I know are not real keen on literary analysis.  I got horribly turned off of it when my high school English teacher decided to go through *every single fucking page* of John Knowles' _A Separate Peace_ in minute detail.  Made me sick, listening to him drone on and on and on.  It took me years to get over that... phobia, or whatever you want to call it.  So I'm hesitant to give people actual analyses of their work unless they (for whatever reason) specifically ask for it.



Ah, how I laughed. But yeah, I can understand. Another person said to me they became sick of analysis, when their literature teacher every time tried to ask them: "Why did the author write this?" trying to get the students to figure out some message or moral in the story and they just wanted to say: "Because the author wanted to tell a story." I find analysis cool, but I can understand education has beaten the phobia of analysis into many.

Also, another thing came to my mind... If there was a thread about critique already, why hasn't anybody recommended it for the collection of collections? I can't have eyes on every page, and there are folks who have been much longer here than me. If you know a thread that could be useful to us all, you can recommend it for the list, you know?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 16, 2009)

panzergulo said:
			
		

> One of my English teacher said English is "unphonetic language".


That about hits the nail on the head.  Another good example is 'business', pronounced 'biz-ness', even though it goes first a 'u' then an 'i'.  It's a peculiar language, to say the least.  Very long history... you go back and read the oldest version of it people can find, it reads more like modern-day German.  
And, of course, there are many varieties of it.  Europeans all seem to learn British English, so they have a hard time understanding American English unless they're really proficient in it.  I know most of the French people I met say it sounds like we're just mumbling, and I can totally see that.
I will say, though, in defense of English, that you can do pretty much anything with it.  I know in French, I feel constricted because of the set way everybody seems to speak, the set rhythm sentences want to have (monotone monotone monotone UP), things like that, but with English... it's incredibly dynamic.  So I like that about it.


> I have a couple of Finnish audio submissions if you want to listen spoken Finnish.


I listened to those, and then looked up a Finnish news cast on YouTube to compare.  It's got a real rhythm to it, doesn't it?  Even when it's not poetry.  And some of the sounds are pretty similar to Dutch (though maybe not quite as absurd).  
I LOVE the way you roll your r's.  That's something else.  I think more languages need that sound.



> Also, another thing came to my mind... If there was a thread about critique already, why hasn't anybody recommended it for the collection of collections?


My excuse is, I forgot it existed until you made this one.  It wasn't real long-lasting.


----------



## TakeWalker (Aug 16, 2009)

panzergulo said:


> On the other hand, any English-speaker has been in trouble when I have tried to teach them just a word or two Finnish...



Had I more time/privacy for Skype, I would so take you up on this. :3 I love the hell out of Finnish.

Also, I like that bit about English being "unphonetic". I need to remember that.


----------



## Tiarhlu (Aug 16, 2009)

I should probably never read something if any of y'all are worried about American English sounding like we're mumbling. I've got such a low, soft voice to begin with, plus a southern accent. I have been told that you can't tell, but I certainly hear it.

Anyway, I have no specific methodology for critiques. I just read through the story and comment on what I'm thinking and feeling at the time. I do my best to offer suggestions on what I think could make it better, and then WHY I feel that way. I try to get an idea of what the writer is really wanting to get across and then think of ways to help them accomplish that.

How much and what I say tends to vary depending on the level of the writer too.


----------



## panzergulo (Aug 17, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> I will say, though, in defense of English, that you can do pretty much anything with it.  I know in French, I feel constricted because of the set way everybody seems to speak, the set rhythm sentences want to have (monotone monotone monotone UP), things like that, but with English... it's incredibly dynamic.  So I like that about it.



English has its pros. For example, you get understood throughout the western world and in many other places. English has just superb vocabulary, because it is a language used in every profession and branch.



M. Le Renard said:


> I listened to those, and then looked up a Finnish news cast on YouTube to compare.  It's got a real rhythm to it, doesn't it?  Even when it's not poetry.  And some of the sounds are pretty similar to Dutch (though maybe not quite as absurd).
> I LOVE the way you roll your r's.  That's something else.  I think more languages need that sound.



I have received some very weird comments after I uploaded those. Some just commenting my voice, for example. This is _not_ one of those comments. The rolling R is a feature of Finnish language. I can't really pronounce the weak R of English at all. Either I replace it with my R or don't say it at all. One online friend said the people in Maine have nearly dropped the R from their dialect.

Paak the caa on the yaad - Park the car on the yard



TakeWalker said:


> Had I more time/privacy for Skype, I would so take you up on this. :3 I love the hell out of Finnish.
> 
> Also, I like that bit about English being "unphonetic". I need to remember that.



Did you listen my Finnish audio submissions?



Tiarhlu said:


> I should probably never read something if any of y'all are worried about American English sounding like we're mumbling. I've got such a low, soft voice to begin with, plus a southern accent. I have been told that you can't tell, but I certainly hear it.
> 
> Anyway, I have no specific methodology for critiques. I just read through the story and comment on what I'm thinking and feeling at the time. I do my best to offer suggestions on what I think could make it better, and then WHY I feel that way. I try to get an idea of what the writer is really wanting to get across and then think of ways to help them accomplish that.
> 
> How much and what I say tends to vary depending on the level of the writer too.



Why are you sidetracking the thread, Tiarhlu? This was supposed to be "everybody say something random because panzergulo failed to present anything new" thread. None of that "let's keep on the subject" bullshit, dammit! 

But yeah, your method sounds like half analyzing, half critiquing. If people have thanked you, I guess it's a good method.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 17, 2009)

Well, I've got a language degree, so if you get me talking about it, I don't want to stop, derailed thread or no.  I really think phonetics and such things are fascinating as hell.


			
				panzergulo said:
			
		

> The rolling R is a feature of Finnish language.


I'm aware.  The 'you' was general: you Finns.  I just like that sound... it's sort of like the 'rr' in Spanish, but a lot more mellow.


> I can't really pronounce the weak R of English at all.


It's unnatural, is why.  You listen to English or American kids, or people with speech impediments, they often pronounce it like 'w' until they learn better, because it's just not a simple sound to make.  The back of your tongue goes down while the tip goes up almost to the roof of your mouth.
English-speakers often have a hard time adjusting to the r's of other languages because they effectively have to unlearn the crazy r they've been doing their whole lives.  I know it took me a while to master the French r, which is more like an extended k or g sound.

Anyway... to get back on topic (thanks Tiarhlu), I was thinking about critique etiquette a little.  And not etiquette from the critiquer's point of view, but from those requesting critique.  We should discuss that a bit more, but I think the general issue is, how important is learning basic grammar and style before you start asking people to critique your works?  Because I know if I open up something that someone posted in the critique thread, and the first two sentences have a comma splice and an I that's not capitalized (or something like that), I just close it and move on because I'm certain I won't be wanting to deal with that one.  I hate critting a piece where I have to point out some small error in every single bloody sentence, because then I'm not so much reading the story as fine-tuning an instrument I can't see through all the clutter.
So, like, what's an acceptable level for people to get to before they really deserve a critique, rather than just a notice to go find a proofreader first?


----------



## TakeWalker (Aug 17, 2009)

panzergulo said:


> Did you listen my Finnish audio submissions?



It would appear I am not actually watching you. :| But I will go look for those!


----------



## panzergulo (Aug 17, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Anyway... to get back on topic (thanks Tiarhlu), I was thinking about critique etiquette a little.  And not etiquette from the critiquer's point of view, but from those requesting critique.  We should discuss that a bit more, but I think the general issue is, how important is learning basic grammar and style before you start asking people to critique your works?  Because I know if I open up something that someone posted in the critique thread, and the first two sentences have a comma splice and an I that's not capitalized (or something like that), I just close it and move on because I'm certain I won't be wanting to deal with that one.  I hate critting a piece where I have to point out some small error in every single bloody sentence, because then I'm not so much reading the story as fine-tuning an instrument I can't see through all the clutter.
> So, like, what's an acceptable level for people to get to before they really deserve a critique, rather than just a notice to go find a proofreader first?



Grammar and spelling isn't a matter of critique, in my opinion. People who can't master the written language don't need critique. They need a grammar book and spelling guide. I think it's outright offensive to make somebody to read text that lacks a lot on basic things, like formatting, grammar and spelling.

I don't take my writing too seriously, I write because I like telling stories. But even I try to use as proper English as possible and make the text at least readable. A grammar or spelling error per line is far from the level I try to reach. I have a proofreader, and it seems I am reaching 1-2 errors per thousand words... and zero errors per thousand word isn't that uncommon either. It has happened. I have still problems with articles and particles and word order in English... and my Finnish brains just form quirky sentences now and then. 



TakeWalker said:


> It would appear I am not actually watching you. :| But I will go look for those!



Well, I'm not watching you either. So, we are even. Nothing to do with your writings, mind you, I just have a principle: I watch a user only if I have read _everything_ from their gallery. A watch isn't just a way of saying: "You write good stuff" to me. I regard it as a sign of commitment: "I hereby promise to read everything you have uploaded, are uploading and will upload." I take watching writers seriously.

I think I have watched only _two_ writers before I read everything from their gallery...


----------



## Tiarhlu (Aug 17, 2009)

Panzer, your English grammar might be better than a lot of ours actually. Probably because you had to learn (I'm assuming) the rules. We get that in grade school, but it's kind of glazed over, at least from my experience. I'd say most of us are content knowing we can communicate and don't really pay attention well, and then when the teachers don't get too fussy about it, that further convinces us not to bother. 

I never noticed anything off from your writing. If I hadn't seen you were Finnish, I never would have known. I had a friend from France who could write the language very well, but he'd occasionally have an odd diction error, choosing a word with a connotation that he probably didn't want. For example, using odor for scent or smell. I don't think he wanted his character to have a delightful "odor." I haven't seen any of that from your work.

I pretty well won't read anything, like Renard said, that has poor grammar and formatting. I've tried, but the story telling ability tends to match the same care put into the text itself. Sometimes it looks like someone took one of those sets of magnetic letters and threw them at random on the fridge, then asked me to read it. 

Now that my head's a little fresher (long weekend on the road), I think it's useful to step back after reading and ask oneself what the writer was trying to get across. What was the mood of the scene (or story?) Are the characters what they should have been? Was word choice appropriate for the desired feel and style? You don't want to write like Tolkien if you're trying to do a cheap romance story. You don't want to write like Paolini if you . . .wait, you don't want to write like him at all.

I've found that critiquing others stories helps me as a writer because I have to think about it a lot more, and I become better at editing my own work because then it's easier to put myself in the role of the reader and ask the appropriate questions.


----------



## TakeWalker (Aug 17, 2009)

panzergulo said:


> Well, I'm not watching you either. So, we are even. Nothing to do with your writings, mind you, I just have a principle: I watch a user only if I have read _everything_ from their gallery. A watch isn't just a way of saying: "You write good stuff" to me. I regard it as a sign of commitment: "I hereby promise to read everything you have uploaded, are uploading and will upload." I take watching writers seriously.



Same here, actually.  And as my circumstances are now, the last thing I need to do is watch another writer. :| I'm still trying to slog through the backlog of stories I've been collecting over the last almost-year. I'll put you in the list somewhere, though, maybe we shall meet again one day!

Also, liked the audio subs, the poem especially. (They're just kinda quiet.)


----------



## StormKitty (Aug 17, 2009)

My $.02 on this topic:

1. I don't believe any story is so bad you can't find some redeeming qualities in it, nor so good you can't find anything to suggest as a potential improvement.  If you ask me for a critique, you will get neither a whitewash nor a slam dunk.

2. Including some positive in the critique is not just to make the writer feel better or to counterbalance the criticisms.  It's also to let the writer know what they did right.  Sometimes it's not obvious to a writer what they did well, or whether something they did came across as intended, until they hear it from their readers.

3. If something you are critiquing has a lot of problems, pick the three that you think the writer should work most on improving, and don't worry about the rest.  This is especially true if the writer relatively inexperienced and still developing their skills.  Three is about how many areas most people can focus on improving at a time, and trying to think about too many others at once tends to get overwhelming.  When they focus on improving two or three at a time, quite often some of the others will take care of themselves.

4. Checking spelling and grammar isn't critiquing; it's proofreading.  Make sure you know which you're doing.  But if the spelling and grammar are enough of a problem to impair the overall readability of a piece, it's fair game to recommend it as an area for improvement.

5. Some writers say they want their work critiqued when all they really want is to be told how great it is.  If you're critiquing a writer you don't know very well, try to get a feel for how they handle constructive criticism before you invest a lot of time in critiquing their work.

6. I've read a lot of stories that I found highly enjoyable even though I found problems with them, sometimes even serious ones.  Remember that when someone finds problems with your story.  When a reader points them out, quite often what they're really saying is "I liked your work enough that I want to help you do better next time".


----------



## panzergulo (Aug 17, 2009)

Tiarhlu said:


> Panzer, your English grammar might be better than a lot of ours actually. [...]



It's a lie! It's all lies! Okay, some seriousness again... Yes, learning to speak and write at the same time truly has some nice effect on ones handling of the language. One must actively _not_ use the structures of one's own native tongue to be able to use a foreign tongue. So, I kinda have to admit that you're at least partly right...



Tiarhlu said:


> I pretty well won't read anything, like Renard said, that has poor grammar and formatting. I've tried, but the story telling ability tends to match the same care put into the text itself. Sometimes it looks like someone took one of those sets of magnetic letters and threw them at random on the fridge, then asked me to read it.
> 
> Now that my head's a little fresher (long weekend on the road), I think it's useful to step back after reading and ask oneself what the writer was trying to get across. What was the mood of the scene (or story?) Are the characters what they should have been? Was word choice appropriate for the desired feel and style? You don't want to write like Tolkien if you're trying to do a cheap romance story. You don't want to write like Paolini if you . . .wait, *you don't want to write like him at all*.
> 
> I've found that critiquing others stories helps me as a writer because I have to think about it a lot more, and I become better at editing my own work because then it's easier to put myself in the role of the reader and ask the appropriate questions.



Ooh, that was nasty! ...well, it would've been, if it hadn't been so true... By the way, I found a writer who is also a fan of Paolini in FA... it was weird... but then again, I have never read anything from them. Okay, back to the topic... Good points about critique. I try to read a lot. I believe analyzing and critiquing other people can help my own writing.



TakeWalker said:


> Same here, actually.  And as my circumstances are now, the last thing I need to do is watch another writer. :| I'm still trying to slog through the backlog of stories I've been collecting over the last almost-year. I'll put you in the list somewhere, though, maybe we shall meet again one day!



Great! We are  friendly non-watching each other in harmony and mutual respect. Anyway... It is a bit annoying when I get watched and never hear about the watcher again. That's why I try to be different, at least towards my fellow writers.



TakeWalker said:


> Also, liked the audio subs, the poem especially. (They're just kinda quiet.)



Blame my cheap microphone. You can adjust the volume of your speakers, I presume? 



StormKitty said:


> Everything.



These points could be named as 'The Ethic of the Critic'. Good points, all six of them.


----------

