A Qa Guide To Giving Criticism

[Imperator]

Any and all authors are encouraged to give input here. I'm sorta mixing advice for critics, and giving constructive criticism so bear with me.

So "How to write constructive criticism", or alternatively "How do you become a good critic"....ironically written by a novice in both categories. ;)

1.) READ DIVERSELY! I think the #1 rule to giving good reviews, critiques, and advice is that the more well read you are, the better. Read a large variety of novels and poems across a broad spectrum of genres so that you can better analyze someone's writing style, and the elements within a particular genre. Critiques are like anything else; the more knowledgable you are in an area, the more ability you have to judge a work.

2.) Critique objectively. Just because you don't like murder mysteries does not make the novel poor. Try to judge a work under the natural category or genre. This can be a lot harder said than done, especially if you are not accustomed to reviewing under different genres.

3.) Be specific in your complaints or your praises. Give an opinion with a strong basis for having one, and use specific examples from the text you are reviewing. Highlight issues upon which the writer can clearly see, and follow your train of thought. If the author cannot understand where you are coming from or how to improve based on your advice, you are not being constructive. Be as detailed as possible in reviewing the work as a whole, specific elements, and both major and minor issues you find with the work.

4.) Make sure the objective of your review is to improve the quality of the work. Anything said about a work should be designed with an improved version in mind. If the author cannot come away with improvement methods or ideas from your review, your review is garbage. A good critic will be able to influence what an author does in the future; If your criticism is taken and lowers the quality of the work or the author, you are not giving good advice or constructive criticism. The best policy here is to simply ask, "Would I take my own advice if I were a writer?". If not, change your criticism.

5.) Harsh does not mean good. There is a tendency for some critics to be excessively hard and nitpicky, which does not necessarily correspond to constructive or helpful. Even bad works have good moments, so it is important to highlight what you feel an author does RIGHT just as much as what an author does WRONG. The opposite of this is also true, lenient does not mean good. I am guesing authors generally find it is harder to get good and constructive criticism from family or friends than it is to get praise.

6.) State your POV. Authors write for an audience, as do critics. It is important to state to the author where you feel your criticisms stand. Whether you are reading from a specialized or specific POV, eg someone who only reads certain genres, or you feel you are reviewing on behalf of everyone it is important to make sure you are addressing your starting position. If you don't read poetry or write poetry, state so. The poet can then see you represent people that are new to poetry. The Harry Potter series is popular to kids as well as adults; good critics will comment on these works as "fun for everyone", bad critics will comment on them as "children's books". Whether you recommend one read the work or one not waste money on it does depend on the audience you feel the work is geared towards.

This is something you can see in movies especially. Critics may rate a movie low and tell you "don't waste your money", but the movie can end up being a cult classic, or wildly popular. This can be because the critic is looking through a different lens than the average movie goer.

7.) Avoid simple scoring. Whether this is letter grade, numerically, or other, judging something complex like a poem or novel with a simple grade grossly misguides the work and underrepresents it.

8.) It is easier to be critical than correct, a great man once said. You are not a weatherman. Being wrong about a review is not a way to win an audience or reputation as a trustworthy critic. Works you review favorably should show; they will win awards and reach a large audience. Works you review poorly should show as well; they will not be thought of highly by anyone else. While you should have an independent opinion, you should know what other people think about the work as well; if most people disagree with you there will more than likely be good reason and cause for it.
.
.
.
.
Brief survey of what I feel good critics do, and what good criticism and reviews look like. I encourage people to add their own, or comment on the ones listed above. Agree, disagree. An informal Q&A if you will. I will compile the results once all is said and done.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

At 2/18/10 11:46 AM, Imperator wrote: 8.) While you should have an independent opinion, you should know what other people think about the work as well; if most people disagree with you there will more than likely be good reason and cause for it.

I agree with all of these except for this one. Your critique doesn't really have to go along with everyone else's as long as you say "I think" instead of "I know." If you're well read and you have a good eye for spotting problems in certain aspects of a story, odds are you'll be a lot more critical of someone's piece than another person who hasn't had as much experience. Even if there's six people saying that they think there's enough detail in the story, if you don't think there is, say so. Because it's certainly possible that those six people aren't advanced enough in their writing skills to spot the problem that you see. Besides, the author doesn't have to take your advice, so there's no harm in giving it.

Anyways, here's a pointer that I have:

If you're unsure of what to say, break down your review into parts. If you're going reviewing prose, there's genuinely seven broad categories to cover: plot, pace, setting/descriptions/detail, accuracy, mood, characters and flow/style (mechanics go without saying). Ask yourself these questions:

Plot
Does the plot make sense? Can you follow the storyline without too much trouble? Is it interesting and unique, or is it the same old thing? Is it predictable or cliche? Is there suspense and a good conflict? Are there any plot holes? If there are problems, what can the author do to address them?

Pace
Does the story move along at a rate that makes it enthralling, or is it too short or too long? Do subplots or backstories seem to get in the way of the story's pace, dragging it out and taking away from the action? Does dialog drag on too long? Does the climax come too soon? If there are problems, what can the author do to address them?

Setting, Descriptions and Detail
Do they describe their setting and characters adequately, or should they add more or less detail? Are their descriptions clear and do they make sense? Can you really get an image in your mind of what's going on in the story? If there are any problems, what can the author do to address them?

Accuracy
Is there any point in the story where the facts don't add up? That is, do they have something happen that's factually inaccurate in a way that hinders the story (ie. describing an eagle as being a foot tall with no explanation as to why, describing a real illness with the wrong symptoms, etc)? Do their descriptions reflect what would actually be happening under the story's circumstances (ie. the physics of motion, politics of a certain time period, etc)? Have they contradicted themselves on their descriptions (ie. a character has blue eyes in one paragraph and then green in the next)? If their story is set in a read time and place, is it historically and geologically accurate? If there are problems, what can the author do to address them?

Mood
Do characters, names, sequence of events, setting, writing style and pace reflect the mood of the story? Does it reflect the topic? Does it reflect the time period? Is there anything in the story that takes away from the mood? If there are problems, what can the author do to address them?

Characters
Are the characters dynamic with good, unique and intriguing personalities? Does the author have any canon "Mary-Sue" type characters? Do the characters have interesting backstories? Are there any cliches? Do they have names that reflect both their role and the mood of the story? If there are any problems, what can the author do to address them?

And last but not least, Flow and Style.
Does the author consistently have awkward sentences? Is he/she repetitious with his/her wording? Are there varying sentence structures, or does the writing seem choppy? Does the word choice fit the story? Does the author get lost in vocabulary or have writing that's too simple? If there are any problems, what can the author do to address them?

[Ravariel]

Oh, and stylistically, if you want your criticisms to be taken seriously by the author, sandwich them between praise. Start and end your reviews with things you liked, with things you didn't in the middle and people will be much more receptive to your ideas.

My cent-and-a-half :P

[tigerkitty]

I actually think this is a pretty good guide! #2 especially is a sort of pet-peeve of mine when going through reviews.

Just because one dislikes a genre or type of story, doesn't mean that story is poorly written. Really, if you find yourself reading something that isn't interesting to you, just stop reading and move on. Don't bother commenting, because chances are your comments are going to be slightly biased.

... it just grates on me.

Well, anyway, like I said. I think it's a good summation of what people should consider when they're attempting to critique work. It's not a necessity to address every single point in every single post you make about a piece of work, but if you want to give a good in-depth analysis, then this is a great guide :)

Don't worry, this post is written by a novice too!

I also think this is a good summary of what I expect from critics, on this forum at least. As amateurs of course, not all of us will have easy access to certain materials, but if you're serious about criticism or about creating your own work, you should at least try to make an effort to take some of these points in.

I'll just add in some additional thoughts. There's not much, but it's something.

At 2/18/10 11:46 AM, Imperator wrote: 1.) READ DIVERSELY! I think the #1 rule to giving good reviews, critiques, and advice is that the more well read you are, the better. Read a large variety of novels and poems across a broad spectrum of genres so that you can better analyze someone's writing style, and the elements within a particular genre.

I'd also add watching films, TV shows, theatrical performances, original web material, etc. to this point, especially if the piece you're critiquing is being written with the intent of it being performed in some way. It's applicable to reviewing other forms of writing because there are always questions of narrative and style, form and content that are also present in literature. Look at how a type of film tells its story or displays its images for example; then you're more knowledgable about what you can put into your review.

Reading non-fiction may also be important, especially if you want to develop yourself as a critic...

2.) Critique objectively. Just because you don't like murder mysteries does not make the novel poor. Try to judge a work under the natural category or genre. This can be a lot harder said than done, especially if you are not accustomed to reviewing under different genres.

Sort of related to this is the ability to be mindful of contexts when reviewing something. Now, this isn't something that's essential per se - in fact, as any critic will tell you, it sometimes help to do a close reading of something so you don't bring in contexts and so on. If you have access to the material, check out the thoughts by Russian Formalists such as Tzvetan Todorov - most critics here are probably familiar with Roland Bathes' 'The Death of the Author', which should be checked out if you're considering writing a review that focuses on the author and his or her contexts or biographical details: ask yourself, is the review actually reviewing the work?

However, I think that you should bear an overall thought of the context behind the piece of writing if you want to comment on an external factor, like genre, using stylistic regression to your advantage, and so forth, because otherwise the review is going to be relatively useless. Trotsky gave a critique of formalism in 'Literature and Revolution', calling the approach 'necessary, but insufficient', citing as a Marxist that reading something alone can enrich your knowledge of it, but you won't have anything on the neccessary conditions behind its production.

A perfect example in genre would be that of the western. Westerns in film have fallen out of grace with some, firstly for being somewhat representative of the mechanical Old Hollywood from the pre-'60s or for representing a downfall in story-telling at the start of the '80s (see Heaven's Gate). However, it's pretty indubitable that the western is the genre must obviously associated with American history. Bearing that in mind alone can greatly help your reading of a western.

Under context also, remember that since this is the Internet, there are works by people from all over the world available. Some readings will, inevitably, be somewhat inappropriate under different cultural conditions. An example I hear often is psychoanalytic criticism being incompatible with older Japanese material...

... but if that's true now, why does this monster from Hitoshi Matsumoto's 2007 film Big Man Japan entertain so many viewers (you should bear in mind that its eye is useless in the dark)?. As a critic, make up your mind with what to draw from something.

Finally: a trap that no one wants to fall in to is the lure of using contexts to explain everything in a work. Walt Disney is possibly the best example, especially since a lot of Disney feature-length productions are adaptations that hold some sort of ideology to begin with. On NG, this problem could be signified in this made up post:

'I read your post in a thread the other day and noticed that you were very critical over executives and MPs for cheating the system to better themselves. I think this story is about communism.'

No, which brings me back to your original well-made point.

This is something you can see in movies especially. Critics may rate a movie low and tell you "don't waste your money", but the movie can end up being a cult classic, or wildly popular. This can be because the critic is looking through a different lens than the average movie goer.

Like you say, the need to read the audience is important, but it will never be something that everyone will think is essential - see close reading above for possible alternatves. People can construct their reviews accordingly.

7.) Avoid simple scoring. Whether this is letter grade, numerically, or other, judging something complex like a poem or novel with a simple grade grossly misguides the work and underrepresents it.

This, this, this.

I'm not going to say that my comments on NG will always be brilliant and immensely useful to the artist. One thing I like to think I always avoid however, is just giving a numerical score. Seriously, it doesn't really help a developing writer at all. I'm happy you put this in - I just thought I should underline how important I think it is.