From Brian Dolton (tchernabyelo)

Critiquing, like the quality of mercy, is twice blessed; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

There are many approaches to critiquing, but the golden rule is simple: it is the work that is being critiqued, and not the writer. Comments should always be written and read in that light; and also in the light that what is said is opinion, not fact (it doesn't hurt to keep referencing this, by stressing “I feel” or “I thought” or “It seemed to me…”). Bear this in mind, when writing critiques of other work, and when reading critiques of your own, and everyopne will be a lot less stressed.

Aspects to consider when critiquing a story are manifold. You can consider the grammar. You can consider the vocabulary. You can consider the plot, both in terms of its base idea and its structure and flow. You can consider dialogue. You can consider characterisation. You can consider the cadence - the ups and downs, the rhythm of the story. You can consider the emotion in the piece. You can consider the way the point of view is handled. You can consider all of these, but that is an enormous workload - even for a flash story - and in general the best approach is to concentrate on the things that stood out most for you. As you read it, what jumped out at you? It may be anythign from misplaced apostrophes to an unbelievable plot twist. There may be several elements. Where did you stop and stumble? Where did you have to re-read to see what was being said?

Note, however, that you should consider what DID work, as well as what did not. You should always be honest, but it does no harm, even in a piece you disliked or felt deeply flawed, to highlight the areas that were strong - and it will be a rare piece indeed that does not have something to commend it.

Finally, why do I say critiquing is “twice blessed”? because just as your critiques will help the person you are critiquing, they will also help you. As you start to analyse what does and does not work in other people's stories, you will learn much, much more about your own writing. So the critiques are not just a matter of being “good form” and paying back the favour for other people who are taking the time to critique you; they are also an important part of the learning process in their own right.

From Aliette de Bodard (Liloo)

Brian's post already covers most of the bases, but just to add my grain of salt: the most helpful critiques I get are from people who are not thinking as writers. This means a lot of things, but the main one is that just reading a story diminishes the risk that you'll rewrite it as you'd have written it (as opposed to giving advice that will help the writer write the story they had in mind). The second one, of course, that ultimately your audience isn't other writers but readers.

My standard critique method is the following (given with all the usual caveats of “take what works, discard what doesn't”): I read the story a first time, focusing mostly on writing down my impressions at the time of reading. I stop whenever I have a problem in the following areas: general understanding (“I just don't understand what's going on, or what this word means”), suspension of disbelief (“Ah, come on, I just don't believe this”), and emotional involvement (“I just don't care what happens to those lousy lowlifes”). I also stop whenever I see something that leaps at me, even if it's not categorisable. I make quick line-edits notes if I see anything, but I general do those in a third pass.

The second pass is general impressions: sometimes, I'm capable of doing those immediately after reading the story; other times, there's something that's nagging at me and that needs to be worked out before I can give a critique.

The third pass (which is generally the most time-consuming) is line-edits: it's when I flag everything that seems to be wrong grammar, or wrong usage, or just awkward sentences. I make this separate, because unless something sticks out and really needs to be modified, line-edits require a finer grain of reading: it's like going through the manuscript with a toothcomb, whereas before you were taking a step back and seeing the big picture.

If you have no time for all those things, you can probably get by on just the first pass, adding a brief summary at the end of your crit to recap how the story felt to you.

Anyway, that's what works for me, but of course there's hundreds of other ways to proceed.

go Home