THREE STEPS TO GOOD CRITIQUING:
1. First, tell the author what EFFECT the words have on you, the reader.
2. Second, only speculate on a CAUSE if the author asks you to. Let the author figure out why it had that effect and whether that's the effect they wanted.
3. Finally, only suggest a SOLUTION if the author is totally stuck on coming up with one him/herself.
I know I jump to #2 or #3 too soon sometimes. How do you all feel about this?
quote:
THREE STEPS TO GOOD CRITIQUING:
1. First, tell the author what EFFECT the words have on you, the reader.
I have no idea what that means. Am I supposed to say: I really like how you used "the" in that sentence. It made me happy.
quote:
2. Second, only speculate on a CAUSE if the author asks you to. Let the author figure out why it had that effect and whether that's the effect they wanted.
CAUSE of what? Number 1? If I see something that I feel is clearly wrong, I'm going to say precisely why I think it is.
quote:
3. Finally, only suggest a SOLUTION if the author is totally stuck on coming up with one him/herself.
Ultimately, it's up to the author to decide and write their own story. But if someone is unaware of their error, I'm going to point them in the right direction.
Again, it's only my opinion. It may be worthless to a particular author. Or it may not be... That's the thing with critiques.
But if I can identify the problem, I'm going to comment on that as well. "The opening was boring because you didn't introduce the main conflict until page 15, and you never give the protagonist a name."
There is value in both approaches, for me.
Here's my understanding with an example:
Step One: I feel like that action is really picking up and this section is building to some sort of climax, but then it doesn't happen.
Step Two: The short sentences and desparate nature of the character's internal monologue led me to think this.
Step Three: Link the sentences and don't over-exaggerate the effect these events are having on the character.
As for the effectiveness of this strategy, I think it's very useful to have feedback that reflects the critiquer's first impression. However, sometimes knowing the cause (step 2) at the same time will help the author put that impression in perspective. I think a good critique mixes all three elements.
BUT without diagnosis, prescription is useless.
Let me explain:
"I don't like your main character" is a simple, useless reaction. As the author I'm thinking, "Ok....?" There's something missing in that statement. I want to know what is wrong with the main character. Why didn't you like him.
"I don't like your main character. I think it is because he dumped his girlfriend the night before prom. That's a low thing to do, even when she's a *itch." And the author thinks, "Oh! I can see that." The author then has to decide what to do about this, including, if this scene is particularly important to the story, nothing at all.
Prescription goes something like this: "I suggest having your main character dump his girlfriend after prom." Now, taken by itself, this is just as useless as "I didn't like your main character." Why would you want him to dump her after instead of before? In fact, the gut feeling and the prescription without the diagnosis are also useless. The author may not be seeing things the same way as the critiquer, and he needs to know exactly what connected the reaction and the prescription.
But it's not wrong to prescribe, as long as you have completed the process leading up to it. The author can take or leave your suggestion, but what does it hurt to give it, as long as you have explained it properly?
So I guess in the end I'm going to have to disagree with the above suggested method of critiquing. In fact, the most valuable step is step 2, even if the critiquer is wrong. After all, it is only opinion.
Which brings me to the real trick to an effective critique:
"In my opinion..."
"It seems to me..."
"I wonder if..."
"Have you considered..."
"It might be better if..."
I tend to give examples of what I'm talking about. They're not good mind you as that would be doing the writers job for them. But I just want to give some sort idea what I'm talking about.
I personally like critiques that are deal with effect and cause and tend to do that when I'm critiquing. I also tend to use OSC's wise reader method, which is pretty much the same thing but broken into more specific areas of concern.
A wordsmithery problem has to be fairly egregious for me to comment on it. But that just goes back to the basic problem of being pulled out of the story. Again, I try to comment on effect and diagnosis while trusting the author to come up with the solution. As a writer, nothing makes me quite as crazy as when people rewrite my words without telling me why they think it's an improvement. "It scans better," doesn't cut it anymore than "I like it this way" would or "Change the character's eyes to blue, because that's my favorite color." On the other hand, "This line pulled me out of the story. I think it's because it is inconsistent with the rest of the narrative voice," would be useful.
There have been times when the only way I could explain something was through demonstration, but I always ask the author before I do it.
I don't always diagnose. I've learned that dominance relationships are important. I would probably be a better person if I had more drive to be dominant or simply ignored dominance relationships. As it is...I'm not my brother's keeper. And I'm okay with that.
If you can't quite put your finger on it, then don't try. Bring the author's attention to the section and leave it at that, because the wrong diagnosis and remedy can also be frustrating for authors.
quote:
1. First, tell the author what EFFECT the words have on you, the reader.
I take this to mean you should read the story first as a reader. Don't think about critting, just read it and see how it feels.
If you're stopping at every other word with your little red pen, you're missing the story as a whole, how it flows, how it comes together (or doesn't). Don't start off with the mind set of having to find problems!
Then go back and look for the trouble spots, etc and make your suggestions.
Susan
Being a serious-minded group, I think it's safe to say this would never become a "rah-rah" site (not much value in a critique without some honest and informed diagnosing of problems), but I don't think I've seen this discussed much, except in passing. How important do you feel this is?
Survivor's comment above almost certainly applies here, albeit in a slightly different form: I am not my brother's therapist, either. But, it would seem we have a certain responsibility in this if we choose to critique.
Personally, I don't think there is anything anyone could say about my work that would discourage me from writing and attempting to get published, but I realize this isn't universally true. Maybe this is an attrition process summed up by the quote; "Those who can be discouraged from writing, should be." I don't know. I DO know, that after a particularly tough crit (particularly an insightful, spot-on crit), I tend to feel a little wooden. But I find that even a small comment to the effect of, "This was interesting," or "that was engaging" or anything that seems to connect with some aspect of the piece that I love too, dramatically reduces that initial frustration.
It's silly to think that I'm that easily manipulated but...well, I am.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
[This message has been edited by Isaiah13 (edited June 24, 2005).]
I also try and give suggestions(although I don't know if it proper to do it)on how to make things a bit more clearer and the such.
Is that a proper and correct way to do it?
Also just my opinion
-Monolith-
[This message has been edited by Isaiah13 (edited June 24, 2005).]
By the way, that's not true. I mention good points if I think they're worth mentioning, but there are certain positives I just never mention. Like, if a document is well formatted or the spelling is perfect...I don't mention that (some of you might have seen the kind of critique from me where "your document was in proper submission format/properly spelled" would simply have stood out as "damning with faint praise").
My strategy is to be totally blunt, and try and put my unique strengths (and weaknesses) as a critic foremost. Most times, I do a direct edit on the document as I'm reading it, I have "[]" in red saved to the clipboard and anytime I feel like commenting, I Shift+Insert (or Ctrl+V, though that's not yet totally natural to me) and say whatever's bugging me. Occasionally I'll go back and edit a comment or at a retro, when an error (or bonus) occured earlier that only became apparent later in the text.
Then, I sum up my overall impressions at the end. Sometimes, I judge that the amount of red and the content is too horrible, even for me (there are also cases where I was simply too busy enjoying the story to stop and make comments in-line). In a case like that, I sum up the summation.
But I have to strive for clarity above all. The writer is already confronted with a world full of bland rejection notices. That's the one thing I want to make sure I avoid when I offer a critique. Maybe I'm wrong...or rather, maybe most people would like their rejections as bland and uninformative as possible. But, you already know where to get one of those. And you might have a chance of making a sale that way.
Sure, my critiques don't work for everyone. That's okay, a lot of stories fall outside of my "field", so it's a fair balance. Also, I'm not the only person giving critiques here. But if I'm the only one trying for clarity rather than politeness, a lot of that benefit is lost.
This one is connected to a good basic grammar site, as well--http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/misspelled_words.htm
This one (a list of commonly confused homophones) is particularly good for the spellcheck dependent--http://www.swic.edu/successcenter/handouts/CommonlyMisspelledWords.pdf
Survivor, your point is well-made. I didn't mean to suggest that encouragement should be the main thrust of any crit. That should be, as you've said, a clear diagnosis of the story's weakeness(es). I only meant to suggest that encouragement is an effective way of focusing someone's attention. It's just a lot easier to confront fixing a major problem if you think the project still has some value.
All that being said, I also think the value of a large healthy group like this is that you WILL find some readers who are more blunt and honest than others. But, just for the record, it was one of your crits I was thinking about when I posted the above. You dug into some plot and character points that were sore spots for me (sore because they were wounded to begin with), but it was a quick comment about a particular passage that I happened to like being engaging that kindled my desire to fix the piece. I don't think I would've been so anxious to dig back into the story had the comments from you and others been entirely negative. That was the only point I was trying to make.
Besides, if you started handing out happy feel-good crits, a lot of people here would waste a tremendous amount of time contacting physicians and your family members out of concern for YOUR well-being. No sense going there either.