We still might not be talking about the same thing, but what prompted this thought were the novels I've recently read, all from my favorite genres; SF/F. One novel was in 3rd person and didn't have a particularly strong style or narrative voice, and it was a post-apocalyptic story written by an 18-year-old (!). I enjoyed it a lot. Two others were urban fantasy novels by two quite popular fantasy authors, both in 1st person with a strong narrative, strong style and voice that irritated the hell out of me, really got in the way of the story and the world, so I only managed to finish one of the 3 I intended to read. But on the other hand, King has a strong narrative in many of his novels, and it still doesn't usually bug me.
To answer Minstrel's question, I usually tend to crit two types of works: ones that I really enjoy, i.e. they "deserve" the crit, or ones that I see I could help with, e.g. if there are some blatant mistakes in areas I know something about, such as hand-to-hand / small arms combat, music, or some such. For the OP, I think it's helpful to cultivate a mentality where you know what you do well and only seek to remedy things you do poorly. That's why I prefer constructive criticism over pats on the back: I know full well what my strong suits are, but I'm more fuzzy on my weaknesses. Otherwise I'd fix them, of course, so hence "negative" comments are far more valuable even if somewhat annoying. Naturally I don't pay any attention to it if someone insists something sucks that I know is good (an "agree to disagree"-situation) or they say something sucks without explaining why it does or how it could be fixed. As for the strong voice vs. weak voice: I think both have their uses and neither carries any inherent merit. A strong voice can work very well (A Clockwork Orange) or it can ruin the story whereas a weak voice can turn out bland or it can give center stage to the actual story and if it's a good one, a certain kind of strong voice could just get in the way.
What you'll notice around here is that the reviewers often give advice in accordance with something they're struggling with. Regardless of whether or not the advice is warranted, their struggles makes them hyper alert to their pet issue. Sometimes it can make something appear where there was otherwise no issue, and sometimes it's exactly what you need to fix the scene. To avoid the feeling of banging your head on a wall, read what the reviewer is writing in their own time. Try to see if it's actual advice or a pet issue. Then, double check to see what the reviewer is writing for other writers and decide whether you agree with the advice their giving the other writer. You'll know you're getting better when you receive less reviews of your work. I know it seems paradoxical, but we aren't here to give you compliments. More reviews of a work typically means the writer has a lot of glaring issues. It's low hanging fruit, and every reviewer loves to pick low hanging fruit. If you're writing pieces that manage to receive 150+ views with only two or so replies, then you know you're doing something right. That or your intro sentence sucks.
I'd say that's sometimes the case. Sometimes, however, good writing gets a lot of reviews even if it doesn't have many glaring issues because at least I (and a few others I know) like reviewing good material even if that means we'll be giving the piece some praise as well. Nothing wrong with that, I think. If you look at Amazon, plenty of great books have lots of reviews (some great, some awful, most in-between with the majority of the reviews giving at least relatively high scores). Come to think of it, I prefer reviewing good writing, something that I could actually see on the shelf of a book store, instead of sinking my teeth on a novice's first draft. It's just that truly good writing is pretty rare, hence it's us beginners who end up stealing a lot of attention in the writing workshop.
There is certainly something to be said for positive feedback. For instance, I gave the novel that I've been working on to several friends whom I knew would be honest with me. They had several suggestions for improvement. At the same time, however, they were courteous enough to tell me what worked, and frankly, I was surprised at points. There were sections that I felt were weak, but that they, as readers, really enjoyed. Their feedback actually made me rethink going back to the drawing board with certain situations, and even inspired me to expand the roles of some characters. One problem is that too many people link the words "critique" and "criticize" too closely. To me, a critique should be rounded, as you can learn quite a bit by looking at what works, what doesn't, and what the correlations are between those items.
Well, critiques could be divided into "review" and "critique", where the review regards the piece as a whole, how enjoyable it was or wasn't. Critique dissects the piece itself, and focus on constructive criticism.
Reviews are for completed works. A review rates something that is no longer subject to change. A critique focuses on how to best improve a work in progress. This is why critiques rarely center on praise. Other than salving a fragile ego, praise only is useful if it points out something that should not be fiddled with in revision. A prospective writer had best grow a thick skin in any case. He or she will get many rejection letters, and they are rarely sugared.
