Nightmare1
I do try to consider the author when I critique, and I adjust my bluntness-to-sweetness meter in accordance with it. I will be nicer to someone how is just starting, or at a lower skill level. I will a lot more blunt with someone who claims to have experience...
It seems like a lot of us do this.
What about the level of critique as well as how blunt you are? Are there any signs that a writer isn't ready to have their work picked apart and analyzed for... I don't know, pacing, for example?
I ask because I've found it can be hard to strike a balance between pointing out everything and being helpful enough that you don't overwhelm them if they are just starting out. My goal is always to help other writers improve, and I've seen some critiques that take the stance of basically showing off how blunt they can be and how much they can tear apart the work. Putting writers on the defensive or overwhelming them with comments on everything can mean you've just wasted an hour of time critiquing them because it won't be useful to them yet.
I've had similar experiences as Desert, which is why I'm pickier about who I critique these days.
And I want to add that I don't think just being straightforward and blunt causes this, and I've seen tons of critters who do a great job. But for example, I know I'll go into more detail when critiquing a writer who's more experienced, and I tend to point out a lot more nit-picky stuff along with the overall comments. But for someone who is just starting out, I think nit-picking them to death can be really discouraging.
