Sometime ago, I saw someone post that they needed cheerleaders for their WIP, and specifically didn't want critiquers. My first thought was that it was kind of useless, but their next statement made sense: that they just needed help getting through the WiP so they'd have something to feed the critters.

I realized a couple of things from this.

First, he or she was right in a sense. Second, I don't have cheerleaders. My wife used to read my work, but she doesn't seem as enthusiastic about it--hopefully it's not THAT bad

About the same moment, I realized that I'm more likely to write if I know someone will read it.

So, I think cheerleaders are important. To me, though, a cheerleader is: People who read and may offer some feedback even if it is criticism (especially on the big stuff), but are generally encouraging and supportive in their tone--who seem to enjoy the stuff I write.

I guess this means there are two kinds of (pre-publishing) readers: cheerleaders and critiquers.

(I'm sure it could be broken up more.)

They think they have something magical going as they write whatever it is they're writing. If others challenge them the magic will be gone and Tinker Bell will die.

So Clap if you believe in fairies

Of course if Tinker Bell dies, it will be the critiquers fault.

Nor do critiques need be negative.

In fact I see every magazine editor as a critiquer of sorts. If they buy your work they have given it a good critique, if they reject they gave it a negative critique.

J's wife strikes me as an honest critquer, not a cheerleader.

First, I never said critiquing was unnecessary, evil or in any way wrong. That isn't my opinion, and I don't see anything in my original post that described that, so I don't know why you think that has anything to do with it. Critiquing is absolutely necessary, and its more than just nitpicking.

Second, I'm not referring to blindness or dishonesty. If a piece flat out sucks, a cheerleader isn't going to lie and say its great. If they see a problem, they'll point it out, but they aren't meticulously nitpicking--they aren't there for a detailed critique. I don't think this kind of feedback is vital, unless maybe for some reason one lacks critiquers, but I think it can be beneficial.

quote:

---

Moreover, Cheerleading readers are like your dog. He'll never leave you but he'll never tell you to stop using so many passive verbs.

---

I completely disagree with that, too. He WILL tell you if something doesn't work. (And honest and dishonesty has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.)

It's obvious we're talking about two different things, so I'm done with this.

Myself, I can get by with little or no cheerleading (good thing, too )

A good critiquer is like a good coach; ultimately he is the one who'll help you become a great writer. The cheerleader, however, is the one that helps keep the team's spirits up enough to complete the game. Without a cheerleader, there might be no game and thus the coach's critiques are incomplete.

Can a writer get by without a cheerleader? Sure (just as many sports get by without cheerleaders). But do cheerleaders hurt? Only if you don't have a coach. For some of us, writing is like golf; cheers would be more distracting than anything else. Yet, for some of us writing is like football; the only way you'll run headlong into the offensive line (or writer's block) again and again until you break through is if you feel that someone, at least, thinks you can do it.

Now my writers group I expect brutal honesty and I get it. I was told just a few days ago that with the exception of a few grammar things, the content was good; the slow parts didnt bore her and the pacing was well done. That the dialogue vs. setting vs. plot was excellent. So... I think that they are working well for me.

Those who don't have them... I strongly suggest get a group or some readers that will be honest, even brutally if needed. It has helped me so much, even if I have had my feelings stepped on...

Cheerleader don't fuel the teams, they fuel the crowds.

lehollis, I can see what Matt Lust is saying. Cheerleaders aren't honest. The don't go on the field, do a few cartwheels, and yell "We suck!" if it's true.

That said, I can see the need to also point out "positives" in critiques, as well as "negatives". The last few that I have done, I have tried to employ this method. Critique shouldn't mean criticize, it should be a form of trying to HELP the writer. Maybe, lehollis, by your definition, you mean that a fully-rounded critiquer should not only identify what he/she has a problem with, but also what he/she likes. And, in this rewording lehollis is right: you can benefit from both. You can benefit from what sells/hooks in your prose, as much as what detracts from it.

There are a lot of critiquers who take pride in doing nothing but tearing other writers down. They aren't really trying to help.

A good and honest critiquer will tell you what you are doing well so that you know and can keep on doing that. If they don't say your dialogue is excellent you might go in and change if for the worse, for that matter.

At the same time they will tell you that you have way too much dependence on adverbs and need to look for stronger verbs. Or that you are still using too many passive constructions. Then you can work on what actually needs work.

Obviously my own opinion, which incidentally critiques are also. I have yet to meet a critiquer who is god or always right.

Edit: I also think that most of us can use a cheerleader or two in our lives. But that is quite a different role and has nothing to do with critiquing. If I had no one who was pure and simple cheering for me I would be sad.

To offer an example, a critiquer might tell a writer that he used too many different words for "said" (falling into the trap of "Said" Bookism). However, if a writer did not do that, then what will a critiquer say?

This isn't to say that a critiquer will have nothing good to say, but that the topics that a writer might be commended on are fewer than the topics that the same writer might be condemned for. We can only expect there to be an uneven amount of comments (even for the best of writers).

I am reminded of Scott Kurtz (a fairly well known cartoonist) and his mother. Sometimes, even writers just need someone who believes in them. I would say that writing a book, like war, is succeeds or fails based on morale.

InarticulateBabbler, while one can only stretch an analogy so far before it breaks…

Cheerleaders fuel the crowd but the crowd fuels the team. It isn't like the Cheerleaders are introducing the team to new markets or creating new fans of the team; the people who are cheering already love the team, they just need a bit of a boost to actually get going.

~Joel

I think the last is more helpful for me but there is definate value in the first.

We're getting hung up on terms. "Cheerleaders" for me are the people who get you past the - I don't wanna' stage. They are the sometimes required pat on the back. While a "cheerleader" probably won't say "this sucks" - you'll likely get something on the achievement. "Geez, 200K words. That's awesome."

I think Lehollis is talking more about what OSC refers to as an "educated reader" or something like that, I don't have the book here. That is someone who is going to give you a pat on the back while pointing out what parts they stumbled over. J's wife seems to fall into this group.

Critquers, for me, are the next step in the process. People who are going to get nitpicky and ask me questions about what doesn't make sense or say - I really would like an answer to this SOON. Sometimes the postives don't get pointed out as much but the holes do.

quote:

---

I have yet to meet a critiquer who is god or always right

---

quote:

---

Critquers, for me, are the next step in the process. People who are going to get nitpicky and ask me questions about what doesn't make sense or say - I really would like an answer to this SOON. Sometimes the postives don't get pointed out as much but the holes do.

---

I disagree. The critiquer is nothing but an educated reader and has no right to demand anything -- certainly not soon.

They are not my editor. They are not my agent. They are simply reading and giving an opinion--one that I may or may not agree with and will probably repay by giving my opinion of their work.

If they get snippy and start demanding that I do it their way, much less do it their way soon, they won't crit my work again or get a return crit.

Edit: And I will repeat my opinion that it is as important to me as a writer to know what IS working as it is to me to know what is NOT working. I need to know both to effectively edit my work.

I meant to say that in my opinion, well rounded critiques should accomplish all the High-fiving one needs.

quote:

---

I disagree. The critiquer is nothing but an educated reader and has no right to demand anything -- certainly not soon.

They are not my editor. They are not my agent. They are simply reading and giving an opinion--one that I may or may not agree with and will probably repay by giving my opinion of their work.

If they get snippy and start demanding that I do it their way, much less do it their way soon, they won't crit my work again or get a return crit.

---

Actually, I don't think kings_falcon meant soon chronologically, nor a demand. If my assumption is correct, I think she meant that as a reader he needs to know about something soon within the text. I see, "I need to know about _____ soon" frequently in F&F. I don't think she's saying he needs an actual reply to a question from the author soon.

What i mean is soon in the story.
Sometimes sooner is better sometimes not. But sooner is often better for getting the reader hooked and staying hooked. I always critique for hook harder than when I am reading a book or short story for pleasure.

For example, When I say i need to know about XX "soon" I'm asking for some direct/summary narration or even dialog to tell me within a few lines where/what/who XX is in greater detail than has been included in the first 13.

I was negative towards the idea of a cheerleader too, until I thought about it and created my own writing-based definition of the concept. I thought a cheerleader was pointless, too, until I found my own definition.

Somehow, the word cheerleader conjures up the idea of someone who lies, who says only what you want to hear, who fakes it. Once again, that isn't what I'm saying.

It also conjures up the idea of need. I'm not talking about need. That's far from it, and I'd doubt the potential of a writer who needed a cheerleader in the classic sense, too.

This is what I'm saying: sometimes, positive feedback helps as much as nitpicking. Sometimes, the honest feedback of someone who has a sincere personal interest in your success can help you out as much as a detailed critique. Sometimes, the tone and sincerity of the feedback makes a difference.

Often, this positive feedback-giver gives feedback on the level of a reader. They may also give feedback on the level of a critiquer. They can be both. Often, they are. Rather than a reader, a critiquer seems to give feedback on the level of an editor. (Ultimately, we'd like to have more readers than we have editors, so a reader's opinion can be valuable, too.)

I don't know if that's the same as OSC's Educated Reader. Maybe it is.

I have one person that fits this positive feedback-giver category, and she only recently began reading my work. She reads it because she came across some of my writing, said she enjoyed it and asked to read more.

Like I said, I've only had a little feedback from her, so far. Here's the thing: her feedback was the same as the critiquers feedback. She had one line saying she liked it, same as many of the critiquers, and a 140 words of negative things to say, or "Suggestions." The things she didn’t like, or confused her, were the same things most of the critiquers didn't like. She's a reader, not an editor--she doesn't write herself even--but her feedback was the same, just as valuable as a critiquers. Not lies. Not something I needed. Not faked, insincere or "what I want to hear."

What was the difference? The tone. She's a friend, not a colleague. She has a personal, sincere investment in my success as a writer, the way a friend would.

I just feel there are different kinds of feedback, different levels. They aim at different things, but they can all be valuable to me. Just because someone isn't a writer, doesn't mean their feedback is useless to me. I don't need different levels, but they can help if they're available.

If they're lying, insincere or faking it, they are useless.

So, again, I'm sorry I started this thread off with the wrong word. I'll try to be more careful in my selection in the future.

PS. And I am certainly NOT suggesting that any writer should ask someone to tell them only what they want to hear, or to curb their feedback to just the positive kind. Why would I ask for that? It doesn't make sense to me. That would be the apex of uselessness to me.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together got your point (among others), understood it, and either agreed or disagreed RESPECTFULLY.

Lehollis hit was I was trying to express when I said "People who are going to get nitpicky and ask me questions about what doesn't make sense or say - I really would like an answer to this SOON."

An example would be if an unfamilar an organization is referenced. I probably don't need to know what it does within the first 13 but I'd want to have the reference explained soon and will probably leave feedback to that end.

A crit doesn't demand anything really. It tells the writer what stumbling blocks the Critter had. Even where people rephrase or offer alternate wording - for most of us here it isn't really "demanding (you) do it thier way" - sometimes it is eaiser to show you what we mean rather than express it in another manner.

I don't think anyone here is intentionally snippy. But then tone is hard to convey in text.

BTW - I understood what you meant by "cheerleader." I think it was the image of Chris in a skirt that threw everyone off.

The only problem with this is if the writing stinks, and you try to give the writer a few suggestions like, "Paragraph breaks would help break this up." Or "Maybe put quotation marks around the dialogue." You get flamed by the rabid cheerleaders, and the writer ignores you because fifty other people said she's better than J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien rolled into one. As a side-effect, the authors have a tendency of never letting a story. END.

Having a reader, someone who's a possibly a fan, give feedback is cool (and I think their feedback is just as valid as any editor's), but I don't really see how this person is a 'cheerleader'. The reader isn't encouraging you to write more. But the idea that there is someone willing to read your work as soon as you're ready is highly alluring and encouraging, but I think cheerleader is a misleading title for this person. Maybe enthusiatic reader? Honest fan?

Editted to remove redundant sentence.

It was plainly a bad choice of a word here. Lesson learned

No worries from my end on any of this, by the way--just don't like to be misunderstood.

I recall on Miss Snark or Evil Editor an open discussion of the merits of fanfic. Basically, everyone agreed that they are nice easy ways to excercise your skills. You have premade characters and a well defined pre-existing world to play with. All you have to worry about is the plot. It can take a lot of pressure off the writer and let him ease back into the writing biz or take a break from his current project.

Now I happen to think that ego strokes can be a good thing, but it isn't what is being discussed. That isn't a criters job. But if all a criter can do is tear the writer down, as far as I'm concerned they aren't doing a good critique.

The definition of a critique is NOT to list everything wrong with a work (and preferably have fun doing it).

A critique is supposed to be a detailed evaluation of the work. An evaluation to be true does not say only the negative unless negative is all that the work has. Well, I've seen a few of those and they make being kind difficult, since I don't give crits to hurt people, but to try to help. If there isn't anything positive to be said, then so be it. But if there is at least something positive, then it should be mentioned.

"My understanding of the original posts was that we were discussing whether or not a writer benefits from someone who gives the reader ego strokes and nothing else. I think we all like ego strokes, but is it appropriate to ask for (or demand) this at a site which is dedicated to actually critting work?"

quote:

---

"My understanding of the original posts was that we were discussing whether or not a writer benefits from someone who gives the reader ego strokes and nothing else. I think we all like ego strokes, but is it appropriate to ask for (or demand) this at a site which is dedicated to actually critting work?"

---

I don't think anyone here wants that. I agree it seems like a worthless thing to do. I'd never encourage anyone to do that--and my original post wasn't encouraging that. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

I explained where I got the idea. That person may have meant something like what you explain above. I never asked them. But I took what they said and turned it into my idea, which is not about what you explain here. When I explained the history of this thought in my experience, it may have seemed I was saying that--so sorry for misleading the conversation.

Edit: But at the end of every post you go back to discussing how if someone told you they only wanted to hear the positive, you wouldn't bother as though that were the subject and it is not. So I keep ending up with the impression that you are saying that you don't want to have to bother with pointing out the positive as well as the negative.

If this isn't what you are saying, then I'm sorry that is the impression I'm getting. But I'm getting it from you, not putting it in your mouth.

Obviously, a crit that only gave the positive or lied and said things that needed work didn't would be dishonest. No one ever said otherwise.

Edit: Back to the original topic of giving both the negative and the positive in critiques, I think part of the problem is that gradually critique has come to be associated in people's minds with only saying the negative. I try to think of them as a "review" rather than a critique. That helps me keep in mind that it is supposed to give both sides.

I don't think it's fair to ask someone to spend their time and energy reading, and then telling them exactly what you want to hear and insisting that they give you nothing else.

You said:
debhoag, I don't understand why you are so insistent that giving positive as well as negative feedback is giving "ego strokes."

If anything, the contrary. You made a personal attack in saying I was "ripping you," while I courteously said I disagreed with something you seemed to be stating. Disagreeing with you is "ripping" you? Okey dokey, if you say so.

Let's not get into personal attacks here.

Nor, thank you very much, do I occasionally post on this forum to rip anyone. The last I knew a polite difference of opinion is perfectly acceptable.