Welcome to Gaia! ::

A lot of people like to critique, and a lot of people like to think they do it right; however, there are some ways of going about it more effectively than others. If you're a professional editor, responding to a manuscript with sometimes-cryptic one-liners is just as well, but for a forum like this, I think we all want something a little closer to an old-school writing group. Therefore, critique should not be something put out by the critic and then forgotten: it should be a discussion between the critic and the writer about the piece in question, and here's why.

1) No man is an island, and neither is any review.
A single critique can only address so many of the story's potential issues, and it can only be of so much help to the writer. Even the best of critiques can fail to identify the underlying cause of a work's flaws, or be off-base in its assumptions. Even the best of critics can miss errors, or fail to recognize their significance from time to time. Sometimes, a story's presentation can be so dodgy that the critic can't help missing the story's entire point. And even if the critic is spot-on about everything that needs fixing in the narrative, why that's the case, and how best to do it, they can still fail to communicate in a way that the author finds useful or even particularly comprehensible.

In a setting like this, a critic is as useless as tits on a beer keg if the writers they review can't ask them what they mean in their review, or explain what they were trying to achieve with their story and ask for help on how to make it clearer to the reader. And besides, who hasn't ended up acting on well-meaning advice, only to find the same flaws cropping up in their story and the narrative an even bigger mess? By a dialogue with a critic, a writer can get to the root of problems more easily, as well as work out a clear plan for how to proceed in revising and continuing a story.

2) A dialogue cuts down on both assholery and pointless a**-patting.

By focusing on the critique as a dialogue, the writer forces him/herself to look past any unnecessary meanness or uselessness on the part of the reviewer by considering it only their job to extract information on what does and doesn't work in the story. By asking questions only in the spirit of looking to improve their work, the writer can overcome the critic's snarkiness by their genuineness, or overcome a reviewer's halfassery by prodding them for more information. A critic who receives acknowledgement and feedback from the writer will also feel more appreciated - and a critic who feels appreciated is less likely to be snarky and more likely to try to be as genuinely helpful as they can.

3) The ability to communicate with and rely on one's fellow writers fosters a sense of community.

Seeing a familiar face when putting their work up in the forums makes a writer feel more at ease if they know the reviewer behind the face (as opposed to potentially feeling harrassed if they haven't gotten to know said reviewer) - and so will be more welcoming of critiques by them. Additionally, in the course of holding such dialogues with each other, critics and writers learn how to communicate more effectively (and not just on an individual basis, either). By coming to know each other's strengths and weaknesses, not only can the critics and writers better develop a working relationship, but they can also know who to recommend to their friends who may be having trouble with their own stories. And by being able to vouch for each other, writers and critics can facilitate greater understanding and a sense of fellowship in the community as a whole.


So, critics, be sure to drop back by the threads you post reviews in - and writers, be sure to ask your reviewers lots of questions, so they know you want their help.

I agree. What annoys me more is that fact that many many people on here give critiques because, 1) They want to be mean. Since they can't see the person face to face, they think it is okay to do that.
2) People who give critiques act like they did some great and wonderful. Because they give a critique, the author has no right to complain when they asked for help.

Just like bad writings, there are bad critiques.

The problem with forums like this, though, is that they have a lot of children on them - kids who haven't grown out of the "everyone on the internet should appreciate the stories I worked hard on like my parents appreciate the construction-paper cards I made for their birthdays" stage. They don't have any background in art, and they really don't know how to distinguish it from a hole in the ground; so really, with this essay, my target audience is more the writers - I'm hoping to give them some basic guidelines as to how to respond to critique. Giving critics some hope that they're not completely unappreciated is only my secondary purpose.

I hope for everyone's sake said writers will read it then. |D

Depends on your definition of "constructive." xd

There may be no objective reason to be mean, but there are plenty of subjective reasons - starting with the fact that most critics who are jackasses when offering advice are mean about it because they've been flamed far too often by the people they've tried kindly to help in the past, and their default response is to be preemptively snarky because they'd rather deserve it if you're going to pitch a massive bitchfit at them anyway.