The OG Reviewers Forum Reviewing Styles

How do you usually review things? Do you just write what comes to mind, or do you have specific guidelines for yourself?

Just so people know - because I'm always afraid people are going to get offended when I give constructive criticism - here's how I review pieces:

1. General emotional reaction to the piece - did I like it or not? How did it make me feel?
2. Something good about the piece. I point out the piece's strengths and usually one or two lines I especially liked.
3. Something that I feel could be improved, including the reasons *why* I think those improvements could be made, and suggestions for how to make them.

If I can't find anything to give *constructive* criticism on, I often don't comment until I do, because I don't want to give a useless comment. The only times I'll comment without any constructive criticism is when a piece utterly blows me away, it's that amazing and has that much impact; only in those cases does a piece get 5 stars. I *rarely* give a piece 5 stars; there's almost always something that could be improved. 4 stars means I think it was pretty damn good.

In other words, please don't get offended if I give you constructive criticism. It might seem like I'm picking your piece apart; I'm not intending to do so. I'm trying to be helpful and give meaty, useful critiques.

i hear ya. i feel feedback is more important than comments. I try as oftena s possible to piece things together, exposing the piece's inner logic (especially if there are flaws). I pay attention to the flow of revealed information, nuances of particular words writers choose (i'm convinced that many choose words they wrongly use), and depending on the narrative voice the use of particular words or phrases.

ex: I have a thing against the words just, so, suddenly (which often read like a teenager's diary).

my reviews are often lengthy, informative, hopefully inspiring or provoking. and about 50% of writers appreciate me. i, in return, appreciate them that much more.

When I can't review someone for lack of being unbias, I don't. No need to make someone else suffer.

I do believe in crafting skills and offering suggestions if any, discussing content - good bad or other - and seeking something that did or didn't work for me.

It's not all about making the writer feel good - but also about making them feel reviewed. (truly)



Search the web for resources on improving your feedback so that it brings value to the writer, in turn you will be grateful. :)

we get three more like you, this place'll notch up its worth while factor...Ed

three isn't enough Ed? Jeez.

Okay - let's recruit three more, we have a group of 86 (hah, which is funny because non participants will be 86d)

anyway

thank you to those who post and review - :)

I absoluteley agree with Makished. I actually came up with a little comic piece on Bad Critics inspired by the Urbis site (in which one actually had to "pay" for bad reviews!) There are two threads on this subject, so I'm just gonna post it on both since I'm not sure which to put it on. Forgive the redundancy...

BAD CRITICS:
...the only thing worse than a bad writer is a bad critic. From my experience, bad critics usually fall into 3 categories:

ONE: The Reactor

These critics are relatively harmless. Usually they just let you know what general impression they got from your work. They like to say things like, "neat piece," "It seems awkward" but cite no specific lines or sections, nor do they even explain why they like or dislike a work, or suggest any sort of remedy to fix a work. Reader responses are a good barometer for a writer to get a decent idea of what his/her work achieves (or not). But if a writer receives these types of critiques exclusively, not much progress can be made.

TWO: The Psychologist

This type of critic automatically assumes that the narrator/voice of a piece IS the author. And based on this premise, sitting high aloft on a golden throne, s/he proceeds to psychoanalyze a complete stranger based on a single work. They tend to say stuff like, "you're not being honest with yourself," "you're a chauvinist," "you have a peter pan syndrome," etc... These Freudian frauds bask in the warmness of their moral, spiritual and artistic superiority. O Where would we be without them...

THREE: The Philosopher

This species of critic is my favorite. S/he lurks in the fog of internet obscurity, making pithy, esoteric remarks that sound something like, " the sweet voice of the poet; sweet voices play far softer on the soul than beating drums; and may be sung with aged or ageless words..." O how they get off on the sound of their own voice or words on the screen. These Nietzschean-Underground Men-Sewer dwellers grace us with such poetic reviews that cost much, but say zilch. If you press them to clarify or spit it out, they will simply respond with even further generalities and human truths that none but s/he could possibly comprehend.

Some may want to add a fourth kind, the "Typo" class of critic who will tell you that it's "alter" not "altar" or are Grammar Nazis who point out "That coordinating conjuction needs a comma before it" or "that run-on sentence needs a period here," but I personally find them helpful and I morph into one from time to time when the technical aspects really get in the way of the work.

I generally find a hard time telling someone how to better poetry. I find myself much more comfortable reviewing short stories. Of course, the problem comes in doing so on the computer. I'm much more of a visual person. I can show somebody how to do things, but when it comes to the art of writing what needs to be done, I always fall short. Which is strange, I know, in an aspriring wrter. But it's true. Anyway, I always tend to fall into the category of grammar Nazi as one reply so adequately stereotyped. But I find lousy grammar and spelling to be one of the BIGGEST turn offs in a piece of literature. If you don't have enough pride in your work to go back and make sure things are spelled and punctuated correctly, then I don't want to read your work. I'll know it was written hastily, clumsily, and more than likely very, very poorly. But, that's just my attitude.

Honestly, I can't help but be a grammar and spelling nazi. I don't know what it is, but it drives me crazy when I see a misuse of a word, (like you pointed out, alter should be altar) or no punctuation, or to two and too mixed up. Just a pet peeve of mine.. but it is also meant to help. Often, they know the difference and just made a mistake that spell/grammar check didn't pick up.

I do the same thing.
I offer overall feeling about it. Something to change and then end it off on a positive note about the piece. I always worry that I am going to make some mad by the things I say so I put something positive at the end so that is the last thing that they see.

Check out the article in poetry magazine

www.pw.org

on critics