The 7 Deadly Reviews

For what it's worth, I think that any review where the poster has taken the time to read your work and give feedback to the best of their ability is valuable. What that value holds to the writer may be variable, but to paraphrase a beloved quote, I will not discriminate against modes of learning, and quite frankly I believe that I can very well learn a little something from anything.

There are all kinds of ways to be gracious.

The thing is, as review focused as this site is, there are many who are intimidated by the process - most of the threads in this sub-forum will testify to that. It's all very well and good to prefer a more focused and constructive review than some of the types that have been listed, but there are other threads and such here that give advice on how to conduct them without being so demanding of it. Beggars can't be choosers and to be perfectly honest, I find this thread a little counter-productive to the initial point. Sorry, but that's just the way I see it.

 

I don't buy that. If my lunch get's spilled on the floor and someone offers a moldy sandwhich, I'll appreciate what they did but that dosen't change the fact the sandwhich tastes bad. Likewise, if a review leaves a writer frustrated without any ray of hope for improving, THAT is counter productive. If a writer wants a response about the general story but get's nothing but a grammar lesson, THAT is counter productive.

Also, someone who is writing should be striving to write exactly what they mean

Shakespseare, considered to be one of the gretest writers in history, had works that even when given an easy to read translation, were up for debate and personal interpretation. It's not the writer's job to make sure the reader understands everything. History shows authors who wrote thingds intentionally to be misleading, and not so they could throw a plot twist in later.

 

Meaning that you don't find it helpful. A reviewer may well feel there is no point in discussing the other shortcomings of a piece of writing before such fundamental issues are corrected. Usually it's more than simply spelling, and often the "spelling" errors are usage errors that spell checkers will not catch.

Here's a thought for you to consider. Is there any benefit in overwhelming the writer with a full laundry list of suggestions at every level, or does it make more sense to go for the squeaky wheel first? For my part, I prefer to pick out a small number of problems, especially ones that appear repeatedly, and have the writer focus on fixing those before trying to move on to something else. If that happens to be a series of SPAG errors that make the piece painful to read, then why muddy the situation with additional unrelated points?

Reviews on this site are intended to help writers develop their styles as well as fix what is undeniably broken. A revioewer need not be "excused" for pointing out an alternative, and you insult both the reviewer and the writer by assuming this is a dangerous or irresponsible approach.

As for your disclaimer that your comments on reviewing approaches are not intended to insult those who give such reviews, that's no more than covering your ass. The fact is, the scorn you have heaped on the various approaches is offensive and insulting to the many members who feel that such reviews are entirely appropriate.

If you'll note, I politely presented counterexamples as to why some of the review types you ridiculed might well be helpful. It was only when you set your heels and decided that no one should be subjected to them that I took you to task on it.

I never said that anyone should give each of those types of reviews. But I refuse to stand by while you insult those who do, because there are valid reasons for those approaches, whether or not you personally find them helpful to you.

Explain to me, if you will, how those categories you've selected to compare to the Seven Deadly Sins are supposed to not be insulting to the members who work hard to present those reviews; reviews which in fact, most of the writers show appreciation for. Explain it to all of us.

 

As for your disclaimer that your comments on reviewing approaches are not intended to insult those who give such reviews, that's no more than covering your ass. The fact is, the scorn you have heaped on the various approaches is offensive and insulting to the many members who feel that such reviews are entirely appropriate.

I thought I said I was done with you Cogito.

I have friends who have ideals I find absurd, they don't take offence. In fact, no one else here has taken much offence. They disagree, which is fine, but you're the one who wants to make this into something personal. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention, however I am not taking back my opinion for it.

I disagree wit Republican ideals generally, even attack them sometimes, but I don't scorn Republicans. I realy should not have responded but I felt I should put the exclamation point that this thread is not meant as an attack on posters but my personal ideals. Cogito is making this too personal so I don't think I should bother responding to the rest of his or any other post he makes in this thread.

 

Mouldy sandwich analogies aside, I'll use myself as an example.

Once, I posted a story on a writer's site.
One poster simply said "I did not like this at all." My response was "Thank you for taking the time to read my story."

Another reviewer - who, in fact, did like it - tore it apart grammatically in a line by line critique.
My response was "Thank you for taking the time to read my story and your carefully considered advice."

I believe that your advice on reviewing strategies was well intended, but I also believe that they were based on personal preferences. The thing is, I actually meant it when I said that I can learn a little something from anything.

The person who did not like my story didn't offer me much in the way of constructive criticism, but it did tell me that what I had written had at least held the attention of someone who didn't even like it. The grammar suggestions were useful to me because I had errors and issues that I was not aware of in the slightest, and I won't begrudge the method by which I learn.

*shrugs*

 

The 8th deadly review…

The Review Review: This is the review in which reviews are reviewed for their adherence to one person’s particular viewpoint of what a review should focus on and what it should pass off as unimportant. This type of review has a tendency to eschew mechanics as unworthy of attention and determines that one can, in fact, build a house upon a foundation of sand. There is a general call within this type of review to homogenize all review methods into one method, thereby limiting the creative, productive, and growth enhancing nature of the review process.

 

Ore-sama, while I don't necessarily think your intention is to attack reviewers, you are making some very broad statements that may be leading to some of the comments about "insult". You speak of the "vast majority of these reviews" are "not helpful". The fact is that there are posters here at many different levels of skill in writing and reviewing. The vast majority of internet reviews are not going to be helpful to the author, no need to go into specifics on such a comment. But that same vast majority gives newer reviewers a chance to practice their own reviewing skills, and find their own style of response. Give a little, get a little; and I don't mean "returning the favor".

That said, I have greatly enjoyed looking at the variety of opinions on this subject, and the simple fact that people can become aware there could be an inherent "danger" in each review style is encouraging, because it means that they can learn the limitations of each method.

It is important to remember that, in the main, reviews are a combination and so there is often a something useful buried deep in the review. The author has the right to discriminate amongst which reviews they will accept, and which parts of said reviews they will heed. If you've never popped in at the Poetry-Free-For-All on everypoet.org, you should; you may discover that there's far more rays of hope here than you thought.


Not everyone is comfortable being part of the community on every site, and there's no harm in taking what you can, or even finding a place more suited to your needs. Don't be discouraged, though; whether or not everyone agrees, unresolved discussions can be very useful in and of themsleves, in their ability to help clarify the opinions of the debaters.

 

We weren't either! But you weren't reading it in the fact we were giving the good and the bad for these! You have made yourself to be quite the fool in this thread in the fact you missed the entire purpose. No one was trying to insult, it was purely informational and we DID give the ways it could work and the ways it can't. Each of the above reviewing methods can be done effectively in the right hands with the right approach, but this doesn't mean everyone does or that they realize what they are doing.

Many of us have had experiences with various types of review styles, and we aren't saying they don't work here. (As you assumed immediately we were throwing people against the wall and jumped to the defensive). In our past, these reviews most likely brought a negative connotation to our experience. I am not going to diss a style if it works effectively for people with writers, but just because they are used doesn't mean they are effective (for the reasons we are stating and giving our opinions about).

 

Bad show, wot, wot! Extremely poor form.

 

I apologize to anyone who has been upset by this exchange. I should have taken it private sooner, because it is a matter of showing respect to the diversity of legitimate reviewing strategies on this forum.

I will also apologize to anyone who feels insulted by being classified in one of the reviewing categories in this thread, and assure everyone that the site and its leaders in no way endorses disrespect toward any conscientious reviewing strategy, nor does it argue that any of those strategies listed are superior to other strategies.

As this thread is clearly generating more heat than light, I will close it with no disciplinary actions against any of the participants.