You're here:
Diplomatic Critiques
Author: Dennis R. Upkins
Ah, critiques. They're a necessary evil for any writer who is serious about honing his or her craft. I've always equated critiques to applying alcohol to a cut or scrape: it may sting initially but you'll be the stronger for it in the long run. Being a visual artist and a writer for many years, I've never had an issue in receiving critiques. You learn that the critiques aren't personal and it's solely about the work. Doing the actual critiquing, however, has proven to be a bit of a balancing act.
On one hand I believe I should be honest in my assessment and point out the problems in a piece. On the other hand, I try to keep in mind that at one level or another, we're all students and we're all still learning. Therefore I try my best to critique others' work in the same manner that I would wish mine to be evaluated.
I've developed a formula which has served me well in regards to tact and diplomacy in my analyses; certain rules that I adhere to when reviewing a piece. Now by no means do I even remotely suggest that these guidelines should be the universal standard. There are many effective critiquing styles and many of you probably already practice some of the tips that I will suggest. But for those of you who may have trouble maintaining your composure after reading a very hackneyed and poorly-written story, hopefully this advice will serve you well.
Establish that the critique is opinion-based.
There's a reason why there are multiple schools of thought on famous authors and their works. We all have our methods, quirks and biases. What may be atrocious for one reader may be absolutely brilliant for five other readers. Instead of stating something to the spirit of, "That was ridiculous," or "The dialogue was too stiff," state that something "didn't work for me" or that "The dialogue was too stilted, in my opinion." Usually at the conclusion of the critiques I remind the writers that my critique is opinion based and that they should take what they can utilize from my review and disregard the rest.Point out the positives as well as the negatives.
When some people think of the word critique, they believe that they have an all-access pass to criticize, nitpick, berate others in order to feel better about themselves or exorcize any childhood demons on unsuspecting writers. Now don't be mistaken. I'm the poster-boy for brutal honesty. How much so? If I'm shopping with a loved one and I'm asked whether or not an outfit makes her look fat, I have no qualms stating, "Yes it does. Please put it back." That would probably explain why my friends never go shopping with me. For that matter, that would probably explain why I don't have that many friends. In any event, it's just as important for writers to know what they're doing correctly so they can continue to do so and perfect their strengths while contending with their weaknesses. I usually make the positive comments after I address the problems so as to end the critique on a positive and encouraging note.If something doesn't work for you, give specific detailed suggestions on how to improve it.
I've always believed that anyone can point out mistakes and problems, but a true craftsman can offer solutions. Recently I corresponded with a novelist and she had some plot holes in her story. Not only did I point them out to her, but I offered her three alternatives plot-wise to improve her novel. She hasn't stopped thanking me yet. More often than not, writers make mistakes simply because they don't know any better and often they need to be taught. It's the only way they'll learn. It's the only way most of us have learned. After all, we're all students on one level or another. Offering alternatives benefits the reviewer as well as the writer. Aiding the novelist in her piece was a great storytelling exercise for me in utilizing creativity and some quick thinking. See, everybody wins.Illustrate in your critiques that you have the story's best interest at heart.
More than once, I've witnessed novice writers become discouraged or even resentful from a heavy-handed critique. They often believe that the critic doesn't understand their vision or what they're trying to accomplish in their work. While reading a chapter from the novelist's tale, I noticed that one of her protagonists, Mal, did something that in my opinion was completely out of character and unrealistic. Now while it would've been much easier for me to simply say that Mal's actions made no sense, I opted for another route. Instead I stated that Mal struck me as a very reticent and all-business kind of guy and therefore I didn't think he would tolerate that kind of foolishness from anyone. In that small gesture, I communicated to the writer that I saw her vision and that this critique is coming from someone who is deeply invested in the story and genuinely cares about improving it. Again, the novelist hasn't stopped thanking me yet. I'm not exaggerating.
So why should someone go through all the trouble of using this formula and being so diplomatic? After all, the writer should simply be grateful for receiving any type of feedback. Well that's true but I always thought the point of critiquing is for us as writers to teach, support and uplift one another. If we have the opportunity to teach our peers how to improve their work as well as keeping them excited and enthusiastic about honing their craft, why shouldn't we do it? Wouldn't we want the same?
I have also reaped some additional benefits from my style of critiquing. I've networked with many authors from my online writing group and have been offered writing opportunities simply because they appreciated my critiquing style. As one writer stated, "It's a no-nonsense approach that left me feeling good after I read it."
Want to tell us what you think about this article?
Email Us | Tweet Us | Comment on FB
Share this page with a friend.