A Question About Giving Crit

Not being worth the effort to revise is a subjective assessment, and that's not helpful. The amount of effort you might be willing to put into any given story has no objective bearing on how much effort someone else might be willing to put into it. That's true even from story to story by the same author.

If you believe in a story enough, you might be willing to put incredible amounts of effort into making it work.

You might also have a story you care so little about you wouldn't bother editing even if it just needed one more pass.

What does have value is pointing out the flaws and even offering the opinion that the story needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

Those are subjective opinions about the story, not whether or not it's worth the effort to fix it.

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I also try to be both compassionate and straightforward when I critique. But I would never tell anyone a piece had so many fundamental flaws it should be scrapped. What I do in that case is point out the basic problems and suggest they get another pair of eyes on it. (I also suggest another pair of eyes if I really like something, but I'm guessing it won't fly for most people.)

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

starrykitten said:

I just think the writer is attempting to take on way too much for this piece and that they would be better off letting some of these ideas inspire other works where the big ideas have more room to breathe.

Click to expand...

Then say that. You don't have to say it like they're idiots and can't accomplish what they're trying, but if you see that you believe that they're uncomfortably going past their limits and is affecting their writing, then say so.

As a once-beginner writer, some of the best critiques were cold smacks to the face.

Oh, and as long as you're trying to be constructive and helpful, and not mean or spiteful, then any critique is good.

GeekTells said:

Not being worth the effort to revise is a subjective assessment, and that's not helpful. The amount of effort you might be willing to put into any given story has no objective bearing on how much effort someone else might be willing to put into it. That's true even from story to story by the same author.

If you believe in a story enough, you might be willing to put incredible amounts of effort into making it work.

You might also have a story you care so little about you wouldn't bother editing even if it just needed one more pass.

What does have value is pointing out the flaws and even offering the opinion that the story needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

Those are subjective opinions about the story, not whether or not it's worth the effort to fix it.

Click to expand...

What if it's one of a thousand stories I've read that can't be fixed, regardless of effort. It's a serious mistake to think every story can be fixed. Most can't. Even many of the ones that theoretically could be fixed stand no chance of being fixed by the writer who wrote it.

It's easy to say something is subjective, but more often than not, such things are not. Good is always arguable, but really bad is not.

What do you say when everything is wrong with a story, and when saying it needs rewritten from the ground up still means it's going to be bad?

You don't have to be cruel, but false niceness, false praise, is the most unkindest cut of all.

ETA: When something is 'objectively bad' and there's nothing good about it at all ... maybe the writer does need to hear it from someone, but most posters that I've seen at least respond to those with suggestions they get a mentor, or join a more intensive critique group, etc. rather than 'bin this and start something else instead'. Except in QLH

If I see something that I think is 'too much work', I don't bother critiquing at all. It might be partly a 'not for me' type thing and there's always someone else willing to put in the constructive effort. Sometimes, admittedly, I'm lazy.

There are times when several posters have given the OP raves and it's been something I didn't even remotely connect with; I'm not sure adding my two cents to something would have been useful for anyone.

I dunno, we all have our pet likes and dislikes and so on, and I'd rather spend the time on something where I see some potential. That doesn't mean the writer or the story doesn't have potential, just that I personally am not seeing much precious metal in the all the ore.

I don't think that it's never true that a story can't be made to work no matter what. I've seen (and written myself) many stories so flawed that there's really nothing that can be done to fix them.

What I do believe is subjective is whether it's helpful to say so or not.


I've not seen the story, so I can't comment on that specifically. But what might be helpful is picking out some of the major flaws and saying something like: "I think you'd be well served to take a break from this story and work on these issues" (with examples, if you can find good ones).

Perspective

Like so many things here, it depends. Critiquing a manuscript is not for everyone and one person cannot be effective in all areas.

I try to point out what "I" perceive as problems, but then offer suggestions. It does no one any good to say there is a problem, but then not be able to articulate the problem so that the other person can see it.

I could say, "Too many characters, get rid of most of them."

Or: Your point of view shifts between Bob, Sue and Ted every three or four paragraphs. To me, this gives a choppy read and I get pulled out of the "narrative spell, " with the frequent shifts. This is sometimes called head-hopping.

It takes more time on my part, but it gives them something to work with. If, as you say, it seems pointless, I will at least try to summarize why it feels that way to me.

To summarize, if I got that reaction, I would at least want to know why, even if I did not fully understand. You can't do their work for them if they are not willing to do the basics.

It is my opinion that one of the reasons we are here is that we do not want to "reinvent the wheel." If one is able to learn from the mistakes of others, it is a good start to being where we want to be as writers and human. HTH

I think the responses here have been good ones. It would be just hurtful to hear, "This is so bad it's beyond redemption." But if I had someone tell me what aspects were that problematic, and at least some clues as to why--even if it's not a detailed 50-page manual on how to dig myself out of this massive problem--that would help. It would allow me to reflect on what I can do and whether or not this particular story is worth it for me.

I don't think it's a harsh idea, but I think it might be a bit general for someone who might be a newer writer. I would have read that 10 years ago and said, "Okay, but what do I do now?"

You could start with the general statement: "This needs a lot of work. There is so much going on here and core issues that need addressing first."

Then, pick three things. Maybe something grammar/syntax-related, something plot-related, and something character-related. (Just an idea.) Maybe they're being too long-winded. Maybe they don't really have a plot or a conflict. Maybe the character is coming off as flat.

So, I might say something like this:

"This needs a lot of work (blah blah, fundamentals, blah blah). But it's a good start and I noticed how much work you put into this. I can make three suggestions that will help some of the core issues. First, the sentence structure in some areas is a bit long-winded. Consider X_spot on page 10 where you modify every noun with an adjective. Using more dynamic verbs can help you be more efficient with language. Second, there isn't any conflict in this piece. (Give example of where conflict is being avoided, or where there was a missed opportunity, or whatnot.) Third, I'm not getting an idea of who this character is internally. She is a cypher to me. (another example, blah blah)"

Make sense? I think the worst thing someone can do in this situation is give the writer 75 different things to fix right away. I might focus on grammar/spelling if it's so bad that it's completely distracting me from the story. I might focus on something like adverbs if there are 20 on each page. Small bits. Examples.

Then, perhaps end with, "When you're done with those things, I'd love to look at it again and we can go from there. We'll knock out a few at a time."

Someone who is hungry, willing to learn and has checked their ego at the door would do the work and get back to you. (IMHO)

Good luck!

starrykitten said:

When I am giving crit, whether it's here or in another context, I try to be both compassionate and straightforward. I don't know if I come off as a hardass or not.

I was just reading a piece and thinking of what crit I had to offer. But I kept going to the same thought, which was that in my opinion (again, just speaking for me here), it would not pay off to put more energy into revising that piece, which seemed fundamentally problematic from the ground up.

I don't mean that to be cruel at all; I just think the writer is attempting to take on way too much for this piece and that they would be better off letting some of these ideas inspire other works where the big ideas have more room to breathe.

So now I am wondering if this critique is fair or too harsh or what. If I were the writer of a piece with this problem, I'd like to know that that reaction is out there. But not all people want to know, and it may not even be fair to pretty much say "give up on this one."

What are your thoughts on giving crit like this? Or receiving it?

Click to expand...

1. it will depend somewhat on the writer; some folks will flounce over you saying "he sprinted quickly" could probably lose the last word, because this is artistry, dammit! Some won't blink, and will start over.

2. If you're giving reasons, in terms of your perception of effort, coupled with the return, that's probably going to go better in most cases than "this stuff can't be fixed, toss it." How you say things helps.

personally I think most things are fixable, but at the same time I'd rather get the honest crit, even if I disagreed.

Mm, I have never told anyone their MS isn't worth working on, partly because I'm not confident of being right. For example, if I were E L James's beta, I probably would've thought, "Oh dear lord, no." (I tried reading the excerpt on Amazon and couldn't get through it.) There are many other best-sellers which I couldn't finish, and all of them for different reasons. I didn't finish Wolf Hall, for example. If I were Mantel's beta, I would've struck out so many passages because they bored me, and I would be dead wrong. And I'm not the only one making these mistakes in judgment. Who can forget the publisher who told JKR that Harry Potter was "unpublishable"?

So yea...I don't feel comfortable telling anyone to give up on their book...and if I were to receive a crit telling me I should give up on my book, I probably would still continue working on it.

However, I think what you've said here:

I just think the writer is attempting to take on way too much for this piece and that they would be better off letting some of these ideas inspire other works where the big ideas have more room to breathe.

Click to expand...

is a great crit. I'd just be more specific with it. For example, when I handed my agent my last book, she pretty much gave me the same crit. She said there are way too many things going on. "The basic premise is good, but there's cheating, cutting, murder, suicide, drugs, and alcohol," she said. I had to cut back on a few of those ideas so the book could be more focused. So we decided to change it from a stand-alone into a series, and worked on new outlines. I ended up coming up with an outline we both really loved, which had me chopping 50% of the book and expanding on the remaining material. The rest are being saved for the sequel.

So maybe you could point out some of the big ideas which are crammed into the book, and the problems that they're bringing. When it comes to receiving crit, I find that the more specific, the easier it is to sink in.

Jamesaritchie said:

What if it's one of a thousand stories I've read that can't be fixed, regardless of effort. It's a serious mistake to think every story can be fixed. Most can't. Even many of the ones that theoretically could be fixed stand no chance of being fixed by the writer who wrote it.

It's easy to say something is subjective, but more often than not, such things are not. Good is always arguable, but really bad is not.

What do you say when everything is wrong with a story, and when saying it needs rewritten from the ground up still means it's going to be bad?

You don't have to be cruel, but false niceness, false praise, is the most unkindest cut of all.

Click to expand...

Hi James,

I wasn't (in any way) arguing that all stories can be fixed. And just in case the last sentence was in response to me, I most definitely wasn't advocating that false praise or a willful denying of reality is a good thing. It isn't. At all.

What I was arguing is that one writer can't know how much effort another writer should or could be willing to put into a story. I stand by that assertion.

I see a big fat line between these two things:

1.) There are no redeeming qualities to your story.

2.) You should give up because it's not worth any more of your effort.

The first is the opinion you were being asked for. The second is a subjective opinion about how another person should value their own time and effort. The first has merit, the second has no relevance.

I'm also a big believer in being honest with feedback. I want honesty and I give it. I'll point out everything I have an issue with—grammar, wording, plot, pace, characters, dialog, setting, whatever—but only the other writer can know how much effort they should be willing to spend improving it.

Lastly, there are some lessons people usually need to learn on their own. Until you've gone through the effort of pointlessly trying to fix an unfixable story, how will you learn to recognize it on your own?

There are lots of unfixable stories out there. Everyone has written something unfixable in their time: it could be a whole novel, or it could be a rotten sentence, or anything in between.

If someone has asked for a critique by posting in SYW, then what they want is advice on how to improve that particular piece of work. They must know they need help with it, or they wouldn't have posted it there. So give them some help.

That help doesn't have to be, "Just quit. There's no point." It could be, "These are the three biggest problems I can see."

If we don't get help, we don't improve as writers. We need those comments to make our work better. Share what you know.

Agreed. And I, like most folk, also try to pop in the occasional 'I can see/I feel' qualification to prevent our opinions being taken as global statements.

Worth considering, also, that your critique is simply another opinion (unless you're talking about at mechanical flaws, of course). Just because you don't like something, that doesn't mean a dozen others won't adore it, and it doesn't mean it needs fixing.

Honesty is the way, of course, but it must be constructive. Explaining why something doesn't work for you, as opposed to simply writing it off as poor writing. Ahem.

I believe the only obligation you have , when giving a critique , is complete honesty .

Old Hack said:

That help doesn't have to be, "Just quit. There's no point." It could be, "These are the three biggest problems I can see."

If we don't get help, we don't improve as writers. We need those comments to make our work better. Share what you know.

Click to expand...

This! Focus on the issues, even if they're big ones.

If you give them concrete suggestions, they can do something with them. If you say "This would take too much energy to fix" they can't do anything about that. The only solution to "this is a lost cause" is to give up, and that doesn't help anyone. It's emotional and non-productive.

It sounds like you think the author's taking on too much. You can say that. Just tell them "I think there are too many subplots" or "I think [these elements/characters/themes] distract from the core conflict."

I mean, if you tell someone the biggest issues are that there are too many subplots, the POV needs fixing, and the character development is unclear, the author will understand they have a massive amount of work to do. They may very well decide that they should start over or do something else. But at least then you're being completely honest while still being compassionate.

I wouldn't tell someone they should give up on a piece, even if I think it has some serious flaws. There are a few reasons for this:

1. I'm not an industry professional, or even (yet) a published author. I have an opinion about the kinds of stories I personally like to read, but there are plenty of books I think are just awful that not only get published, but sell well. At the end of the day, I'm just one person, and there are many genres (and even subgenres within my favorite genres) that I can't judge objectively. And there are books I love that some people loathe too.

2. There are stories that break fundamental "rules" of writing that turn out to be brilliant, yet critting buddies may have had some serious doubts about these stories when they were in the rough draft stage.

3. Almost every story can be rewritten and improved, even if they really do contain serious and real flaws that most readers would agree on. Some may take more work than others, and some writers may prefer to trunk a novel and start over rather than do this. Others are really invested in a given world, story or character, and they're willing to do a lot of work in order to get things right.

4. Writers vary a great deal in the amount of emotional investment and "self" they put into their work and in how invested they are in any one project. Some writers are naturally polyamorous--they have tons of ideas and have a hard time picking one. When told that one idea or story has serious issues, they may just shrug and take it as an excuse to start something new. Others fall very monogamously in love with a particular idea. It's easy to say writers "should" be of the former bent, but it's impossible to dictate process.

5. Honesty stems from the feedback itself and describing how you reacted to the work. It doesn't mean telling the writer what to do as a consequence of my reaction. I really don't think it's my place to tell a writer they "should" trunk a novel, even if I'd trunk it in their place. All I can do is describe the flaws as I see them and leave it to the writer to decide how to proceed.

starrykitten said:

I was just reading a piece and thinking of what crit I had to offer. But I kept going to the same thought, which was that in my opinion (again, just speaking for me here), it would not pay off to put more energy into revising that piece, which seemed fundamentally problematic from the ground up.

I don't mean that to be cruel at all; I just think the writer is attempting to take on way too much for this piece and that they would be better off letting some of these ideas inspire other works where the big ideas have more room to breathe.

Click to expand...

I think it's important to be honest about what the piece makes you think. But, good critique is never couched in terms of what the author should or shouldn't do. You tell them what you read, how you felt about it, what you suggest, but your job is never to tell them what to do with that information.

If that's how you geniunely feel about the piece, then I suggest saying that. Something like:

"I find myself wondering if this idea is sustainable in this form at all. What occurs to me is that this piece is attempting to take on way too much and that it might be better to let some of these ideas inspire other works where the big ideas have more room to breathe.

For example:{Quote from text}"

I've read so much slush that I have been convinced some writers should never even write so much as a shopping list again.

But then I've seen those hopeless writers go on to write astonishingly good things, and have realised I was wrong.

So when people ask for a crit, tell them of the problems you've seen, and how you think they could fix those problems. You don't need to tell them about all of the problems: just the ones you think you know how to fix.

They can ignore your advice, or they can take it. But they can't take it if you don't give it in the first place.

It's also perfectly acceptable, and often done, to say "this piece didn't hold my interest past...." and say why you didn't read further, or some of why, and leave it at that.

There are no requirements to address all of the issues, or even whether or not the piece seems worth working with. (I think that's been said more clearly by others already.)

starrykitten said:

I kept going to the same thought, which was that in my opinion (again, just speaking for me here), it would not pay off to put more energy into revising that piece, which seemed fundamentally problematic from the ground up.

Click to expand...

Honestly, unless you are a teacher or an editor or in a specifically close relationship with the writer, I think that would be far too damaging a response to give. (And I wonder if it could be called a "crit" at all. It doesn't seem helpful, and it doesn't progress the work.)

If you have been specifically asked to crit by the writer, I'd say your reaction would be better served by something along the lines of "This probably isn't a piece I can help you with," followed with a specific comment to the fact that there is a problem in the set-up. But if it's just a piece that's been put out for general crit, then I think a response that says it isn't worth working on is neither compassionate nor helpful - it's just mean. Perhaps you plan to phrase it more gently than that - but why phrase it at all, unless you are planning to work on the piece? - in which case, "Had you thought that perhaps you have two or three books here? You might want to consider dividing the threads" would be much much more helpful.

But perhaps that's what you were intending to say, anyway?

I always remember starting out and someone offering to crit a chapter for me. I was pleased and grateful and sent it to them.

They sent it back with 80% of it struck out and a recommendation that I start over.

I nearly cried. But luckily, a couple of other people had critted the same chapter and given me both criticism and encouragement. And I'd had crit on here about previous chapters. But if I'd only had the first crit, I'd have probably given it up.

Be careful with new writers. Try not to crush them.

Personally, I don't think it's up to the critiquer to decide if it's salvageable. Tell them why it's flawed. But it's up to the writer to decide how much work they want to put into fixing it, or even taking the thing into a whole different direction based on the feedback. But whatever the case, it's for the writer to decide if they want to continue on with it or not.