Critiquing

You know how everyone says that we're our own harshest critic?

Well, sometimes it doesn't feel like it when you take your baby project and give it to other people. So I'd like to go through what I feel is constructive criticism and what is destructive criticism.

First, destructive criticism:

• Tears the writing (or writer) down. Things like "This sucks," or "You did this completely wrong" are the worst things an author can hear (in my opinion). I think writers tend to be insecure about their work anyway, and when someone comes along with this kind of "feedback," people are understandably injured by it. This is more likely to get the writer to stop working more than anything else.
• Is vague. When someone points to a chapter and says "this doesn't make sense," it's hard for a writer to understand what the reviewer is talking about. Is it in the wrong place in the story? Is it redundant? Is it poorly written? There are dozens of questions a person can ask because of this single comment, and there are no good answers because you don't know what the reader means specifically.
• Is confusing. I've seen feedback where a reader comments that something is great because of a certain reason, then they say that it's the reason I should change it. Huh? So should I edit it or not? I know these things aren't done intentionally, but when a comment like this comes up, the only thing you can really do is to ignore it or look for other advice regarding the same thing.
• Is non-existent or an ego-stroker. I've had both these come up. I turned in 5,000 words to be critiqued, and I got a lot of really good feedback, but there were two that stuck out to me the most. Here they are in their entirety:
• "I really liked it."
• "I loved it! This has big-screen potential and I'm not just saying that! I hope to read more from you soon!"

Now on the other hand, constructive criticism:

• Invites a dialog. The ideas in the critique are good, and they invite the author to come back to the reader and clarify some ideas and comments for the good of the work.
• Is harsh, but kind. The best editors and critique partners are ones that buy red ink by the gallon. The very best critiques I've ever gotten have nit-picked every aspect of my work. Things like voice, concept, research, character, dialog, word choice, redundancy, repetition and simple mechanics are fair game. But just because you're giving or getting a "brutal butcher" critique doesn't mean you have to be a jerk. These take a lot of time, but they end up being better than any three critiques put together.
• Is specific. Just the opposite of vague. The best thing I've seen is a comment directly on a sentence or even just a word in a word processing program that points out exactly what a reviewer is thinking at a given moment.
• Praises. We're not looking for someone to give us glowing reviews. This isn't Amazon. We're not all going for high reviews. We are looking for something that is balanced and lets us know what we're doing well, not just what we need to improve. If something is funny, has emotional impact or was a twist in just the perfect way, praise is certainly in order. If you're the person reading, be sure to emphasize these! They give the writer not only a slight ego-boost, but the comments also give him/her the chance to see that they've done something that gives readers a strong reaction. Everyone deserves to hear something positive.
• Doesn't recommend. Don't recommend a fix. Don't recommend a fix. Don't recommend a fix. Let me reiterate. DON'T RECOMMEND A FIX! And one last thing: don't recommend a fix. If you, as a critic, start telling the writer how to fix something, it's not the writer's book anymore. This isn't usually a conscious thing—critique partners and readers are supposed to suggest things. But that's what they should be: suggestions. It's not helpful to write "I don't like what [character] says here. He should say [...]." Instead, use a tone of advice and suggestion. "I don't like how [character] says this. I'd consider reworking this dialog to make it sound more natural to his/her voice." You're saying the same basic thing. The character is saying something they might not normally say, or in a way they wouldn't. But you're giving power back to the author and letting them change it, rather than holding onto that power and recommending a certain fix.

Critiquing is hard. Doing it effectively and constructively is even harder. But as readers and writers, it's vital that we raise the level of our critiques if we hope to get better. If we give better advice, we will naturally get better advice. 

That's all I have for now. Thanks for wreading!

Jeff