I've notice a recurring problem with the critiques people post on this site, (and others like it,) and I'd like to address it. Maybe it will help people improve. Because all of us here are writers, when we critique someone's work, we have a tendency to try to write their story for them. We do this in various ways, and I say "we" because I'm guilty of it too. But we need to be careful with this behavior; these stories we read are not our stories. They are writers too, and we need to let them write their own story. Here's an example I'm just making up: Let's say you are reading a story that has no name for the protagonist, and you object to this. Your objection doesn't matter; this is the kind of story they are writing, so you need to accept that this is what the story is. At no point in your critique should you ever say that they need to have a name for the MC. Now you are welcome to point out problems that may occur because they have no name for the main character; this is part of the critiquing process. You can point out how it might impact the story, but ultimately, it is up to the writer to decide how they fix that problem. Maybe they will decide that it isn't worth it to have a nameless MC; but maybe they might find a way to resolve the problem or shift the story in a way that the problem isn't really relevant. How they address the problem is their decision, but you as a critic need to take the story as one with a nameless MC. Also, you are welcome to state that you personally don't like stories with nameless MC's, but be sure to phrase it in a way that states that as your opinion, not a fact. Something I see happen a lot with critiques on writing forums (this one and others) is that the readers start getting ideas for "how to fix this," and we start describing things that are basically how we would write that story. I get it, I've done it too; I get sparked with an idea and I want to share it. And fundamentally, this shouldn't be a problem; maybe it IS a cool idea, and maybe it would make a better story if the author went that way. There shouldn't be a problem with sharing such an idea. But I've been on the other side of that, too. Those suggestions just don't work because they are not in line with where I am bringing the story. They shift the characters in ways that won't work with the conflicts and events coming in the later chapters. Or they just take things in a different tone from what I really want. And when I see these suggestions that try to take the story in a different direction, I feel like that reader is missing the point of what I am trying to accomplish, and after that I have a hard time trusting their advice. Not just that one piece of advice, but all of the advice and critique that reader has given. I don't feel like there is an easy answer to this process, but I think it would improve our critiques if we tried to remember this. Whatever another writer writes, accept that as being the story they are writing, and look for ways to improve THAT story. Don't try to write a different story for them; help them write the story they shared.
See, right here is why I don't critique on the forum. Sometimes I'll glance at some stuff, but I think if I really tried to help a writer it via the workshop, it would probably piss them off and maybe some other people. So, I refrain from leaving comments. It's not worth it if the writer doesn't actually want help and is looking for more praise and acceptance them criticism or an honest discussion of what's on the page not added explanations in the comments section. I think every character who plays a major role in a story needs a name. I think writer and especially aspiring writers should be aware of that. Revision step1: name your characters, and your story has instantly improved. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. But I think 99.9 percent of the time. It is important to name your characters. If the goal is to help people write better and possibly publish, it does the writer no good not to tell them their character needs a name. If the reader is missing the point you are trying to make, you didn't make your point. You don't have to trust any advice you get, but what it's early reactions to your story and your writing. You can't really tell people how to comment on your work if you really want to know what they think of a piece. I think you have to leave that open to the person giving the feedback. I think some of the workshop seems too nice and polite. I feel like people might hate me for trying to help so I just stay out of there. Also, I hate reading first drafts, and I don't think anyone should post them ever. Ever.
This will be a good thread, but I'm spitting out my cornflakes - and it's because this struck me as a straw man. I hope he's absorbent. Lots of stories have worked without any name for the protagonist (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jul/24/ten-best-nameless-protagonists-mullan) - but a critic should be criticizing the ones that haven't made it work. And they shouldn't not be criticizing them. The OP isn't saying not to remark on the protagonist being nameless, it's not to "object" to it Object, object, and object again if it doesn't work - otherwise the critique isn't reaching conclusions If we fuse our fingers to the keyboard we must hold things in our fangs Critique isn't somebody's court papers or a science article. It's a fiction genre that conventionally moves around the spectrum between opinion and fact whilst signalling this to readers. The imperceptible shifts are part of the fun. I didn't start this remark with imo because it went without saying. Another peculiar thing about critique is that what we intend as opinions can end up becoming facts if we put them so powerfully or widely that we shift the pillars of whatever genre-conventions the input-writers were trying to follow. I don't have an exact example, but hasn't this been happening with girlbosses and mary-sues? The Critical Drinker and others have clobbered Rey so thoroughly that since The Force Awakens (2015) we often see Workshop submissions with flaws tacked-onto their strong female characters Critique doesn't depend on the other authors' input-work for its validity. It's common to say stories have taken wrong turns (https://www.bustle.com/p/11-incredible-books-with-deeply-disappointing-endings-39267) It's even open to us to say: George Lucas shouldn't have started Star Wars. By the third episode his true aspiration, of mumbling in a swamp, was obvious. If only he'd realized before the first episode. And we've got to be free to try steering people out of vampire fiction and isekai into something else. Perhaps if we're excited by someone's talents and want them for lit-fic. Or because we'd like to make the shelves in Waterstones slightly brighter. Or just for a power-trip. That is: so long as we always make the case for it and back it up with evidence from their text. (Which the OP certainly does.) And with the proviso that: on WF it must be constructive and follow forum rules. (Which the OP certainly is.) Writers' intentions are often stupid. Sometimes they are even evil - such as when people come here to test out suicide-stories. Being constructive doesn't mean leaving people in states of ignorance, but it usually requires breaking it to them gently. "Have you considered telling the vampire's driver's story instead?" I get the most enjoyment crafting the nastiest possible barbs and sneakily sticking them into Establishment writers - but there is also satisfaction in being the soul of diplomacy, and delicately guiding people with gossamer-skins. This is developing my writing. And what's more: it's making me a nicer person. The freedoms and respect the OP demands for writers ("let them", "accept that") aren't injured by delicate critique, and they are also owed to critique. We only re-write others' drafts vicariously - through them. I agree it's discourteous to scrawl a story I'd like to write over the top of someone's workshop submission: but it's absolutely on the table when the other writer seems like they might learn-by-example. When I try this approach, I usually switch over into parody - to make it not just enjoyable for myself but also as jarring as possible beside the original. There is a dilemma: if we don't self-indulge at all, our worked-examples are insincere and falling short of the creative standards we're trying to impart. And a safety factor: often it's hard to know if workshop posters want someone else to do the hard work for them. Parody sends those ones away empty-handed ~ Retrieving the disparate threads of my cornflake chew, I see that the OP is relevant and well-argued. And I very much applaud the OP for starting a new thread on the topic. It's just the direction it's going in: critique as an industrial troubleshooting "process" ("worth it", "suggestions just don't work"), versus critique as an art-in-itself. And it's not to say I think the overall state of critique is currently very good or that people don't need advice anywhere they can get it. To the oft-repeated problems-list should be added:- - not writing enough critiques to develop any subtlety or nuance. You know: people who've done under 10 of them and think they're Harold Bloom - forgetting to entertain and educate the wider audience as well as the original writer - bitty, dull critiques that are accurate but lack sweep and passion - centering on surface shit like "how the work made me feel" - Workshop posts with hundreds of views and few comments because people don't realize that although critique is a demanding, freestyle genre it's a key to developing style in all other kinds of fiction. It's the PvP in an MMO. - going deeper into the nuts-and-bolts of the workshop passage but then stopping without relating any of it back to their craft - critics telling the other writer that they know how to write, but not showing - overuse of the word "I". As well as this being suggestive of psychopathic tendencies, critics are supposed to tamp down their own prejudices and internal resentments and speak for the Art - critiques that are far too short - critique that hasn't received enough critique - critics who don't study any critical theory - sheer bloody brazenness. You know: people who don't mind that the paltry sum of what help they've offered others is on full display in their user profile 100% agree Critique evolved over millennia to have a specialist diet of finished, published works. It's only since the internet that people have been able to force-feed it diarrhea Even if physical writers' circles don't gatekeep their memberships, the format makes it embarrassing to bring unedited writing to the meetings I suppose there might have been some proto-beatnik ones where that was encouraged - but probably their critical methods were very strange
One difficulty is what is required in critique depends on the level and ability of the author as an experienced writer I only need to be told what people feel doesn’t work and crucially why, I don’t by and large need to be told how to fix it. but someone who is new to writing won’t know how to fix it unless they are told and quite possible shown with examples The same is true of “ no one should ever post a first draft” This is generally good advice it is always better to self edit first, but someone who is very new to writing may not know how to self edit and may need to post their first draft for advice on how it should be edited
Great point, and isn't this what this thread is really about? I've never submitted anything for critique, in large part because I haven't critiqued anyone else's work (mostly because by the time I get there, a dozen others have been there before me and I can't imagine having anything fresh to say (and the fact that I'm such a prick about SPAG errors I can't even read some of the stuff that shows up in the Workshop)). If I ever do submit, what I'm looking for is, 'you did this wrong', not 'do it this way, like I would have, you idiot'.
Critique is a form unto itself, sure, but at peak it drives the cutting edge far enough to leave a majority audience behind. I don't want to read or write a Pulitzer winner. As far as the Workshop here goes, there should be less pretense. People are worried they will give bad advice, or say what's already been said, or impose too much of their own opinion, and it results in quite the absence of critiques at times. The fact that a critique or basically any forum post contains largely opinion is an implicit one, and a variety of opinions is the best thing the author could hope for in the first place. I prefer: show up, write what you think, then leave. Read the other critiques if you want to learn from them, but do that afterwards.
Saying what's already been said is a really important thing to do, though. That's how the author can tell that this isn't just one guy that thought this way.
When I offer a critique, what I am offering is the opinion of one reader, and hopefully the poster will take it as such, figure out what resonates with them, and what doesn't. When I consider all the input I have gotten for the stories I have posted, I can honestly say the vast majority of it was helpful, but you have to be open to it. For example, if I write a character reaction that isn't in accord with what I have written so far, I'd like to hear about it.
But is the others suggesting how they'll write the story really a problem? To me, this isn't a problem. It's just input from another writer as to how they'll do it. And maybe the way they're suggesting to do it is better than mine. So, it's useful, and worth considering. At least for me. Clearly, you don't welcome such feedback. I'm of the opinion that the critic should be free to say anything as long as it is done respectfully and in a constructive, useful manner. The only time the critic should refrain from making comments about a specific element within the written piece is when the author explicitly states otherwise. I do this often in 'introductory messages' in my workshop posts, where I tell my thoughts around the piece. This helps the critics focus on what I actually need help with. And even then they might comment, which I still welcome. The more feedback, the more data. The more data, the broader your viewpoint is, and the better. A while back I had written a short story with very good potential that I wasted because of the ending. The workshop helped me realize that my 'way of writing' the story was terrible. And a certain member went out of their way to explain how they'd write the story to be more effective. The suggestions changed the story quite a bit but I didn't mind. Now I could have gone on a rant about how my version was better and how none of them really understood what I was going for originally. But I didn't do that. In the end, I'm interested in learning how to write more impactful stories, and I'll sacrifice anything to do that. If 3/5 critics make a point out of something, that is an immediate red flag I must address. With the power of hindsight, I can reassure you that if it wasn't all of that feedback, I would be a worse writer today. So, what's a problem for you isn't necessarily a problem for others. And that's okay. Things work for some people and for some others they don't. The workshop's regular critics are respectful, and I imagine they'll be happy to offer you the kind of feedback you're looking for if you just state so.
Less pretense and more fiction? Which isn't to seize on a surface word-choice for rhetoric. It's to call out a fundamental point-of-difference If critique is a genre of fiction: critics' pretences and pretensions are part of their characters Each collision between a Workshop submitter and a responder is unique, but in the background isn't there:- the aspiring author who has been stopped on their way to the mountaintop by some spectres of self-doubt, and now quests for advice inside a password-protected community of medal-covered, likes-receiving Gandalfs And if the Gandalfs weren't windbags and didn't have foibles, they wouldn't just be implausible - they'd be dangerous Because they'd make people think it's easy - which they're prone enough to thinking at the best of times As well as there being something of an absence of critiques, and much of the mainstream audience having been left behind in inferior websites, many of the Workshop submissions are early drafts by new writers Who would need a professor sat next to them for weeks on end even to win a place in the bargain bin in The Works - nevermind a gold star But one of the great things about critical theory is it's cheaply available, and even just a few essays of it can be enough to level someone's playing-field against the Creative Writing graduates What better way to sugar-coat that than to make the essays about their WIP The corresponding doubts of writers would be:- "(1) I'm worried my story will be bad, or; (2) it isn't original, or; (3) nobody wants the perspectives of someone like me" - to which the pat response is it's in the execution But in the Workshop these phrases are often more like polite signals to new visitors that:- (1) this community has an ethos of trying to give good advice, (2) I don't have time to write much, or (3) you're the writer and critique doesn't change that Another problem for the list:- - there's never any follow-up. Did they finish the story?
It's not so much how someone else would write the story that bothers me, but when someone tells me how they would rewrite a sentence without saying why. "It sounds better" is not a valid reason - if you're going to rewrite a sentence, you need to be able to explain *why* it sounds or is better. What does it add, or do, that the original version doesn't? The same goes for explaining the way you (the critiquer) would write something - you need to explain *why* you would do it that way.
the problem is also generally when they change the style, e.g the original line is 'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife' and the critic wants to change it to "rich men get all the chicks"
I can understand the frustration, but as was said above, beginners won't always know how to properly explain the suggestions they're making. This is especially a problem if a beginner critic critiques a beginner writer (which the workshop has plenty of). I don't really know what the solution to this is. If someone doesn't explain an edit they make, I try my best to understand why it's there, and then I move on. But this isn't really what OP is talking about: What OP basically says is that the critic shouldn't criticize the story for what it is (having a nameless MC). The critic shouldn't state a suggestion about how they'd execute the author's idea, even with well-supported and well-explained suggestions. Instead, the critic should only write about why the nameless MC isn't working, and nothing beyond that. Which is fair as I said, but again, I appreciate the critic explaining how they'd do it and why. In fact an experienced author explaining to me their method of execution is an absolute goldmine.
That's a beginner struggling to learn how to express the ideas. It's the beginning of knowledge. They continue to struggle with it and eventually get better at expressing the idea, which means they've improved either their understanding or articulation of the concept. Or both. When we first begin to see new things they're vague and nebulous, and it's only by wrestling with it through the medium of language that we become more adept at seeing it with clarity. Until you have the right words for an idea and can express it clearly, you don't understand it. This is another important thing to keep in mind—critique isn't only helpful for the one who submitted the story, but for the critiquers as well. I've deepened my understanding of many things, and my ability to express them, by giving critques. Example—when I first got here I had an intuitive understanding of showing and telling, but had never run across it anywhere and had no idea there was a name for it. I tried to express it (rather clumsily) in a few critiques, and saw that it's something many beginners don't understand. I gradually got better at expressing it, and then I started seeing people discussing it by name. Then I could look up articles and videos about it and really sharpen up my rather vague understanding.
Absolutely. This is why I did so many critiques a while back. I did research online about various writing topics to use in order to support the points I was making. Learned quite a bit about SPaG this way. It's a pattern of learn/apply/relate, which is perfect for me. These days I have taken a backseat in the critique game. I'm not sure why. It just happened gradually overtime. But sometimes I really do question whether my critiques are helpful to the person, even if they're well-constructed, so I suppose that's part why. Sometimes even if I spent hours in a critique that makes a good point, I never hear anything back. Beyond myself, I wonder if all those critiques actually meant anything to people. Well, certain members in the past appreciated what I did, which is why I always get back to them no matter what. I know that my effort won't be akin to shouting in the void.
I've been keeping a watching brief on this thread, reflecting back over critiques I've given and realise I do do most of the don'ts and don't do enough of the dos. I've said before that putting ones writing out there for critical examination changes the relationship with writing. While identifying specific areas of concern in a workshop post is fine, it's not reasonable to demand specificity in responses. Reviewers will review as they see fit and otherwise would be pointless. Take on board what is useful and shelve what's not (maybe not discard entirely, you never know). Wasn't it Gaiman who said critics will be correct when identifying problematic elements but incorrect in detailing how to fix them? That's another thing worth bearing in mind, though suggestions can spark the author's remedies. People write for different reasons and measure success in vastly different terms. Similarly, posting in the workshop can serve diverse functions depending on the poster. Sad as it may be, just having someone read something one has written and taking the time to bother with a response can be gratifying. Good advice might make the poster a better writer in some senses, but actually detract from their own tier of priorities in others. The advice should still be acknowledged and may well be incorporated into future efforts in some shape or form. A critical review is not nearly as gut-wrenching as silence. Sometimes the workshop is too observant of etiquette, too polite. Care is required when responding to critique for fear of coming across as argumentative or unappreciative. That can be limiting and opportunities for bringing energy to the process can be lost with a take-it-or-leave-it mentality. Care should still be taken but there is scope for a more dynamic approach, including respectful but negative reviews. The workshop is also a two-way process. By posting their own efforts, the member who offers critique allows an opportunity for workshop poster to gauge what shit they're peddling. It can help weigh the value of advice given. There are members whose contributions to the workshop will immediately spark interest, that we are all likely to read and from whom derive benefit, regardless of the subject mater. The rest of us can fumble around, doing the best we can as honestly as we can.
Okay... never done this, but I'm thinking of posting something I don't plan on trying to publish for the experience of trying out the workshop. It will be a flash piece. Years ago I did critique a few pieces by other writers here, but I never posted any of my own writing. Do I have credits from those to post? How do I know the credit system and where I'm at with it?
If you click on your profile picture it'll bring up a dialogue box with your details. You'll see your workshop credits there.
But do be aware that the credit engine is not reliable, last I finger banged it it was cointing posts in some forums other than the workshop and not for all workshop fora it’ll give you a rough idea of how many Crits you have but we’ve turned off the auto disallows of posting if you drop below 2 for 1 because it wasn’t working properly we currently deal with that manually and enforce the spirit more than the letter focusing on new people with no crits who merely named the rules explained, and the outrigh mick takers with numerous posts but no crits the problem being that I only have partial access to its controls, sorting it out properly would require the capture of the lesser spotted Daniel
What I mean by less pretense is I think users shouldn't worry about giving a 'wrong' or 'repeat' critique. Does it translate to more fiction? I don't know, and I'm not sure in which sense you mean. The furthest peak reached from feedback in the Workshop will be scene craft. Which, don't get me wrong, incorporates a lot of writing principles, and is the thing most beginners are struggling with when they come to this forum. That's why there's little follow-up except for perhaps flash or short stories. For novel construction, that has to go into beta read territory. It could be possible those new writers don't even realise what an early draft is. They come with questions of "do you like this character" and "would you keep reading" and if they're responsive to critique they learn about POV, tense, conflict, sentence structure, so on. If they only post for validation, well the joke's on them: our validation won't pay any bills, boost reader count, or get them an agent.
It doesn't usually come from beginners, but from more experienced writers. The point of doing a critique is to help the author improve, and while rewriting a sentence might help improve that particular sentence, it doesn't help the writer unless they understand why it's being done - or, indeed, if they should or should not agree with the rewrite. And as Xoic says, it also helps the critiquer understand their own ideas. And sometimes, that also helps them realise why their suggested rewrite is not a good idea. Not to mention - a critique isn't just for the benefit of the author and the critiquer, it's also to benefit anyone else reading the thread and hoping to learn. To take this example - it's fine to object to this, IF you a) can explain why having a name would improve the story and b) understand that your objection may not be accepted, and may not be right.
The first draft of anything is shit, but critiques are nearly always a first draft. It's assumed the original writer will lift what they want, whilst for the reviewer there's no point coming back a few weeks later since the text will have changed by then. Which means it's ephemeral - doesn't it? I'm interested in the way battle raps condense lit crit and at the same time impose a biographical approach (if you criticize my work, you must also insult me) and a historical approach (critiques must come from the same milieu as the original). I wonder if constructiveness is analogous to sympathy. Like: Newspaper Reviews (sympathetic) -- Writing-Circles (constructive) -- Battle Raps (sympathetic)
Interesting. I definitely did that on my first battle rap (on your lyrical challenge thread). But on my more recent ones I moved away from it and just concentrated on lyric writing (in the musical sense). Critique is definitely a delicate balance between pointing ouT mistakes and that spoonful of sugar. I often feel like the sugar is blatant and overly obvious (and often too gratuitious). I often find it sounds a little condescending (or a lot) if it isn't done skilfully and blended in well. But I aalso think that simply by taking the time and effort to critique we're showing a certain concern (unless it's done just to earn the necessary Workshop points). So it seems any real effort to help is a kindness, if not sugar. The attention and advice is itself already a salve, the sugar (the bread in the sandwich) is more like 'I've said some things that might hurt your feelings, so now I'll kiss up to you for a while.' It often comes across as insincere and obvious. Though it might not to the OP, and might soothe some feelings. My usual problem is that I do such in-depth crits, it takes so long and requires so much thought, that I have nothing left. And as I've said several times before, I honestly do believe what's said in all the Creative Writing books—that we have two modes of thinking. One constructive and one destructive. Criticizing is destructive mode. And destruction is a necessary part of the process, make no mistake. You must blast areas of your prose first before you can insert better ones. Making the omlette begins with cracking the eggs. I think when I do critiques I get fully engaged in editing mode (destructive). I often don't realize until after I've posted it (and am exhausted from writing up small novellettes) that I forgot to sprinkle in any sugar. And I've been on the recieving end myself. I know some critiques can hurt or wound. I also know that's a temporary state, a matter of hurt feelings, and you'll get over it quickly and realize it hurt partly because it was right, and then you'll accept it and learn from it. I think a big part of the critique. process on sites like this is aimed at developing thicker skin. Just as guitarists have fingertips callused like leather, we walk around all scabbed up and scarred. It toughens you, like the way practicing Karate causes micro-fractures in your fingerbones, which makes more bone tissue grow in and thickens and strengthens them. It's the same principle on which exercise works. You break down muscle tissue destructively, and as it regrows it comes in denser and thicker. So I think the sugar coating is necessary mostly for the absolute newbies, who maybe haven't heard from anyone yet except for family and friends. But when the praise is heartfelt and sincere (not artificial) it does help a lot. I've largely stopped doing critiques because I tend to forget the praise.
