A friend of mine just had a disheartening experience when she asked several people for constructive criticism on a short story she'd written, and it got me thinking about the concept of criticism. When someone asks for a critique/analysis of their work, so often they just get torn down, ripped to shreds. This wouldn't make anyone comfortable with the idea of putting more work out there! And I wonder if people just don't understand how to be constructive in their criticism. While it is true that, in asking for critique, we as artists are asking to be told what is wrong with our art, what isn't working with it. But that doesn't mean we're giving people carte blanche to tell us how much we suck. Instead, I strongly feel that it is important to make mention of what people do accomplish well, while pointing out areas that need improvement. Instead of "I think your story is boring" say "I really like your idea, but . . ." or "I think your characters are really well-developed, but . . ." etc.
I'm certainly not saying that people should pussyfoot around the issues they see. I'm just saying that it's good to mention the positives along with the negatives for a more balanced opinion.
Anybody else have any thoughts on this one?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is always a touchy issue since we are--in a sense--our writing. So criticism always feels like something personal!
That said, you've nailed exactly what a good critique should be: constructive but not shy. No piece is perfect, no piece is above fixing, no piece couldn't stand another edit or two or three or...
Someone who just rips a piece to shreds ultimately says more about the critic rather than the work itself. It's one thing not to like a work (I'm in a rare category in that I think Jack Kerouac's classic On the Road is dull and not well written.) But to attack without noting potential merit or where the writing can be improved is the reflection of a petty mind more interested in putting down than building up. And unfortunately the world is full of those types!
Bottom line: give your work to someone you trust. If he/she violates that trust with scathing remarks, move forward, not backward.
I agree. I hated On the Road and thought it was self-involved tripe, but that's neither here nor there.
My feedback has been described as brutal (I was once exempted from doing group critiques in a writing class because the teacher thought I was too hard on the other students' works--I told one boy his story was bad, don't bother trying to fix it, go home, drink several shots, cry, wake up in the morning and try again) and I've been told I'm pretty good at this feedback thing. Part of the trick is taking it seriously.
I never respond on the first read through other than general notes to myself. In the first reading I'm a "reader", who gets caught in the emotions, the baggage, the boredom or the excitement of the story. It takes a second or third time through for me to really start to see the mechanics of the story and why this is or is not working. Once I get that objectivity, then I have something real to talk about. Until then, it's all still an emotional reader talking. Good for notes on "I love this part!" not so good for notes on why this character just doesn't seem believable.
There is such a thing as too much praise, after all. In high school, when teachers tended to be overly enthusiastic for fear of turning you off writing, I would hand them my absolute worst story. Something I'd written in middle school with all the bad cliches and horrid, florid writing of someone who read too much old science fiction. After the story received constant praise from all others, the one teacher, an old substitute name Mr. Smith, who smiled sadly at me and said this story wasn't very good, was life. I wanted desperately to get better and to have someone really sit down and tell me why this or that didn't work, even in a bad story was illuminating. The way he said it was graceful and tactful, and I knew he was on my side, even if my story was bad.
Maybe that's the trick as a critiquer. To always be on the writer's side. To always take it seriously. And to always give the writer your due respect and attention, even if the story isn't much good.
Post a Comment