Laughing Limerick Forum Critique vs Review

I would like to point out to all and sundry that I do not do Reviews.  A review is something without substance.  It's "wow a great story" or "I didn't really care for this piece, no offence."

The review has no intrinsic value.  It's whole purpose in life is to pump up a writer's ego or to shatter it.  In the case of a review done by a famous reviewer it's to make or break someone's career.

Critiques are completely impersonal.  When I critique, I often don't remember weather the author was male or female, young or old, married or single.  I forget the writer completely and focus on the writing.  I look for flaws based on the specific criteria of the poem or the basic premise of the story.  If a line or lines don't measure up I say so, and I try to give a way to fix it.

Critiques also work to make the whole piece better.  Not every clinically correct poem is a masterpiece.  I try to give my feelings or impressions as I read the first time through.  I'll comment on a line being especially well placed or how I hate "Grimwauld, the butler".  BTW, don't ever name a butler Gruimwauld.  A grimwauld would have committed the murder if he was comatose and unable to fit through his bedroom door.

Back to the critique.  The second read through is to find the dust on the floorboards.  Grammar mistakes, spelling and typing errors.  Like these two last sentences of the paragraph.

Third time through is to focus on what works and what doesn't from a fellow writer's point of view.

If you're someone who likes to give reviews, I have no problem with it.  None of us are sufficiently powerful enough to do anyone's career in, and a kind word every now and then can be very encouraging.

If you like to get only reviews you may want to leave this group.  I for one am ALWAYS going to give critiques.