Besides looking at who is saying what, try to look at why they are saying it. Do they have a problem with how you have written something, or are they reacting to the story?

Consider the source. What else have they had to say? Do their comments tend to make sense in other areas? Do you respect their opinions in general?

Two and two or five and five, though, I think it boils down to the same thing: flip a coin. Or go with my advice, because I'm always right. <cough>

Seriously, though, go with your own gut on this one. It is interesting that so many people, whether for or against, chose to comment on this point and so you definitely want to give it some thought, but in the end it's just going to be up to you and your own vision of the story.

One other thing that might help is to take a look at the naysayer's specific comments. Is it possible that their problem wasn't with the sentence in question, but rather with something else that the yeah people didn't catch onto?

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I've found that most critiquers are woefully unable to figure out what it was that really bugged them about a piece, so it's something ot keep in mind.

Yes, some critiques can be lacking in tact, and some stray dangerously close to verbal abuse, but one must try to remember that a grain of truth frequently rides somewhere along the crest of even the most unnecessary of waves. It's just a matter of ignoring potential or perceived belligerence and going after the reality (even if it's just a tiny granule of wisdom).

Then again, there are some critiques that fail to do anyone (or the story) any good. I'm not talking about polite conversation within a thread...that shows that a thread is alive. I'm talking about unending, unadulterated ignorance coupled with an antagonistic goal.

However, I believe most critiquers truly want to help the writer. If they come across a bit gruff, there are usually reasons. I can't fault people for being a little blunt at times (no matter how much it ruffles my feathers). After all, while we do develop and value relationships in online communities like this, most of us do not have true personal investment. That can lead to some ugly words being flung across screens. That's something I try very hard to avoid (though I'm sure I've been guilty of it in the past). Anyhow...that's my take on critiquing. In a nutshell.

[/rant]

Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous

First I broke the critiques into broad groups, so that I could limit myself to considering 3 or 4 general concepts, instead of trying to synthesize 20 all at once.

Then, I gave significant consideration to the people who just didn't get it. Surely I was unclear. So I rewrote.

Then I checked back in with some of the people who loved the first version. I was afraid I'd killed what I loved about the first version. Unfortunately, they agreed - I'd dumbed it down and opened it up to all kinds of questions and just lost the magic.

So I sat back and I looked at it and I thought about what I was trying to do with the story, and ultimately I decided that if the first version limited my target audience, so be it; that's the story I wanted to tell and the way I wanted to tell it.

In the long run, a lot of the critiques I got did not lead to final changes in the story - but by forcing me to try alternative approaches and really dig down and think about what was important *to me* about the story, I am absolutely confident that I ended up with the story that I wanted to, and I learned some things about my target audience for the piece. Sometimes it is as useful to reject advice as to accept it.

but oh, man, I never want to get 20 crits again. That is way too many to be useful.

1. People who just didn't get it. Not getting it isn't always a matter of being unclear. I've even run into a couple of people who I won't send stories to because I've figured out they're too stupid to read them. Listening to these people got me into the habit of overexplaining things and that's now how I want to write.

2. People who don't sympathize with your characters. I don't know why, but inevitably someone won't like your character(s), if you send it out to enough people. This is one of those times when knowing the critiquer helps. My dad has never liked any of my young, female characters. I finally figured out that he just doesn't have a clue what teenage girls think or feel, so I no longer take his criticism in that area seriously. (Although I do still listen to his opinions on male characters.) Of course, you don't always have the luxury of knowing the critiquer. I'd say that if your characters were resonating with some of the people, then you're doing ok. We'd like to think we can write characters that resonate with everyone, but we're wrong.

3. People who dont' like your style. We all have a unique style, and there are many authors (even published) whose style puts me off. My style puts other people off. I first realized this back in school essays. Depending upon the teacher, I would make an A in English class or a B. (They couldn't honestly give me lower than a B and sleep at night.) Were my English skills lacking? Nope. Every comment in the B years was a matter of personal preference and style. Nowadays I don't get graded, but I still get a lot of comments that boil down to not liking my style. I ignore EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE WITH NO EXCEPTION> In fact, this is one reason why I don't like in-line comments as much as I used to, because they lend themselves to comments on how I worded this or that sentence. Grammar errors are one thing, but I'll pick my own wording, thanks.

4. People who think your idea is cliche. You send it out to enough people and someone is going to make some connection in their mind, sum up your entire story in about three words that doesn't do it justice, and tell you it's been done before. Something like, "It's just a boy meets girl story." Or maybe they'll have seen a movie you haven't, even one that almost no one else went to see. Or read some obscure book published twenty years ago that no one else read.

5. People who are incredibly harsh/negative. They go out of their way to look for problems, word their responses hatefully, and tell you things like, "You'll never sell this." By the way, one of my sales got two responses saying I'd never sell it. Toss these in the trash. Even if they have a bit of insight that could have been sueful, the chances of you seeing it are slim. The chances of you seeing it without suffering some emotional trauma first are zip.

6. People who just pat you on the back. Unless you've know their critiquing style and know that they've made an exception for this work (which I've seen before, and it's a great feeling), then toss these in the trash with the negative ones. They may give you a feeling of temporary satisfaction, but they are utter rubbish.

I ended up roaring with laughter after I got over the shock, and tossed the critique. If they liked as much about the story as they said they did, I find it hard to believe that the idea is that unworkable. Besides, the other 4 people who critiqued it like or loved it, including the idea.

At least I got a laugh out of it though.

Heresy

My mother in law is probably the captain in this case. She reads more than anyone I know. Her library in her house has its own climate control system. While this sounds ominous/psychotic, it is mainly due to the fact that it was converted from space that was not on the house's original climate control system.

Oh yeah, I was once in a face to face crit session and the part of the story I thought was absolutely unfathomably bad was someone else's favorite part. While I had been content to just highlight what I did like about the work, I came to that crisis of whether to say what I really thought. I didn't.

I wrote a story in one sitting and turned it into the teacher for submission. His comment, and that of the other students who read it before it was submitted, was that it didn't touch strongly enough on the themes of the contest, that it was a nice story but not nice enough or within the rules enough to do well at the contest.

No one critiquing anything fully is one-hundred percent correct about your work unless they are offering you a paycheck and publication if you make the changes they are specifying. In that case, they are probably right

Look at what they are focusing on, Are they focusing on the mechanics of your work or the artistry? Are they even trying to grasp the characterization or are they checking to see which puntuation you put inside the quotes.

A good critique will usually be very harsh but your writing doesn't need to be perfect in every way so change what you feel or can be convinced to feel would make the story better. Grammer/punctuation should be perfect as long as the narrator would be. Even so, punctuation errors will lower the quality of work. So don't think badly on those who just focus on your semicolon.

quote:

---

You are reading to see what their state of mind is, what they really know and what they think.

---

GOOD GOD, NO!

I mean that in all caps too.

When you critique, you are reading for story. You are paying attention to how YOU (the critiquer) feel about the story and reflecting that back to the author. You are reacting to events and characters in such a way that the author can discover if he is relaying his/her message correctly.

You are under NO circumstances reading a story to make any commentary on or judgments about the author, his state of mind, or his intentions. This is irrelevant and goes beyond making commentary about the story to making commentary about a person, which is not in the nature of a critique.

Basically my point was that not everyone looking at your work would critique it like you would. They are looking with a distinct personality that will affect how they judge and they may or may not be your target audience.

I also don't mind the why and the constructive suggestions, but that initial, "I don't like this." made in that first draft can be far more useful...especially if you're more specific by saying, "I don't understand this." or "I'm bored here." or "I don't buy this." You can try to tell me why and I'll look at that, but these impressions are far more valuable in the end for my understanding of how the story affected you and therefore how I need to change it to get the proper affect.

I was not quite recommending a procedure for critiquing, just explaining how I do it. Everybody's entitled to decide how to go about it the most responsibly.