Critiquing others' work

      Everyone develops their own style of critiquing, and there are many different formulas for doing so. Victory Crayne has some good tips at her site. My own goes something like this.

      When I'm trying to be thorough, I use a two-pass system.

      First, I read the story through, making note of anything as I read that either I like a lot or I dislike. I think first impressions are important, because normally that is all you're going to get from most readers. Does a phrase irritate you? Jot it down. Did something make you laugh? Make note of it. Is there a grammatical or punctuation mistake? Correct it. If you get to the end of the story and you don't like how it made you feel, write down how you felt. If you get bored, make note of the place in the story where your boredom becomes noticeable.

      Don't try to think about elements or categories or shades of analysis on your first reading. Stick to gut-level reaction, and make your notes short. Don't interrupt the flow of the reading for an extensive analysis.

      Next, from the perspective of having read the entire story, go through the elements of the story and rate each.

      • Hook - Did it grab you? Did the story fulfill its promise?
      • Conflict - Was it strong? Did the protagonist work toward its resolution? Was it significant enough for you to care if it was resolved?
      • Resolution - Was it satisfying? Was it achieved by the protagonist?
      • Characters - Were they interesting and believable? Did you care what happened to them?
      • Setting - Was it appropriate for the story?
      • Technology/Science - Was it accurate?
      • Conversation - Was it entertaining and realistic? Did it move the action of the story along?
      • Technical - Spelling errors? Grammar? Punctuation? Sentence structure?
      • Plot - Did it make sense? Has it already been done to death?
      • Pace - Did it drag in places? Was it too fast? Did it move evenly?
      • Novelty - Was there something NEW in this story? Was the concept interesting? Was there at least one element that you've never seen or heard before, or one character with something DIFFERENT about them?

      Now you are ready to write the critique. First of all, using your notes on the separate elements, write a paragraph or two on what you liked about the story. Even if the story was very bad TRY to find at LEAST one thing the author didn't do wrong. Saying something nice in the beginning helps to cushion the blow of the criticism to follow, and it sets up the author to be predisposed to listen to what you say. If all you have are bad things to say, the author may feel that you are hostile towards him, perhaps for personal reasons of your own.

      Then, write a paragraph or two on each *major* thing which you believe could be improved on. Remember that telling the author what is wrong is only half the critique; you must be able to suggest what he might do to improve it. Be concrete, and be careful not to phrase your criticism in such a way that you seem to be insulting the author.

      Wrong: I thought the characters were dumb and I didn't like them.
      Right:   There were many very obvious clues that should have tipped George to the fact that someone

        was trying to kill him (list clues). That fact that he couldn't see something that was so obvious to me made him seem stupid. Either make the clues a lot more subtle or have George know he was in danger. If he knew and took steps to try to escape, it would heighten the tension and the villain would have to be more clever.

      Wrong: The part where they were talking in the garden was boring.
      Right:   The conversation they had in the garden had no story movement. All they did was talk and

        the talking didn't produce any real reactions in either of them or change anything in the story. Its only purpose seemed to be to tell the readers that there was a rebellion going on (the dreaded Background Disguised As Conversation trap). I'd suggest dropping it out and coming up with a more interesting way to tell the readers about the rebellion. Maybe a wounded soldier rides up and George overhears him gasping out his story to the gate guard.

      Wrong: The ending was obvious.
      Right:   When he saw the snake in the garden and was so afraid of it, that was a dead giveaway
        as to the end. Having the rustling noises was just overkill. I think if you dropped the snake in the garden scene, the rustling would have become a lot more mysterious and intriguing, and the ending not so obvious.

      Wrong: The whole story was boring. Nothing happened.
      Right:   It's a lot harder to come up with a "right" for this one. Try to focus on what
        elements a story ought to have. If a story is boring, it is probably lacking in conflict. It may also be that the characters are unlikeable, so that readers don't care what happens to them. It is much better to comment on specific elements of the story than to give an all-over rating to the story.

       

      Remember to criticize the story but never the author. You have no business drawing conclusions about the writer's ability or personality from his story. It may be that your observations are valid but they are still inappropriate and making them will cause the author to perceive you as being personally hostile and he won't listen to anything you have to say.

       

       

      Return to my Home Page, my Writers' Resources Page, the previous page, next page, or email me.

      Background and graphics courtesy of a very generous and talented lady at