Do's and Don'ts of Story Critique

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I said I was gonna do this so long ago, but I never found the time! Well, no time like the present!
Like Debate Etiquette Tips, I just wanna list a few important guidelines for objective story critique and invite everyone to contribute their own! It's a good thing to think about.

1. Read the story
There is no shortage of people who think they can critique a story when they only read half of it. Or half a chapter. Or half the summary. Or they didn't read it at all but they know the author, and, well, it just sounds bad.

NNnnnno. That's not allowed. You don't get to pretend to give an informed opinion on something you actually know nothing about. Read the material, THEN form judgments.

Although, I think there's leeway when it comes to special cases, like if you didn't read the book series but you watched the movie adaptations. If they're similar enough, you can use them as a basis for your opinion of the universe as a whole. Just a BASIS, though.

Besides, a movie adaptation is often a narrative of its own. You can say something like, "I don't know how it went in the books, but in the movies this character's development was handled rather poorly." That's a fair and valid statement.

2.Your world isn't THE world
"Before making judgments, ask other readers what they think, especially those coming from other cultures. You may be surprised to see how their reactions differ from yours." -Me from the past

If you're a fairly open-minded/educated person, you may not need to do this. Some people don't have trouble imagining how something that's taboo in their community could be okay in another community, or vice versa.

Unfortunately, many people do. :[ And if you're one of them, you've gotta take whatever steps are necessary to keep your biases out of your critiques. If you find yourself saying something very definitive or damning, like "this character is unrealistic" or "this character is wrong", step back and ask yourself why you're saying that. Is it because what they're doing doesn't fit into the story's universe, or is it because it doesn't fit into YOUR universe?

Get help from other people if you need to. The hardest place to escape from is the confines of one's own mind.

3. What you like doesn't actually matter
This is kind of an extension of #2. Not only is a story NOT required to apply to your reality, it is also NOT required to appeal to your tastes. You are not the one true judge. Just because you don't like a story doesn't mean that it's a bad story. That is why this topic is about "objective" critique.

Is there such a thing as truly objective literary critique...? I don't know. There may not be. But we can at least strive to be as objective as possible, and by that I mean striving to make a story into the best version of itself. Not the best story ever, not the best example of the genre. The best version of itself.

4. Watch your words
"In the world of literature criticism, words like 'flat', 'boring', 'uninteresting', 'strong' (as applied to story) ARE objective terms, and you actually DON'T have the right to fling them around as you please. It's like calling a researcher's study 'untrustworthy'. If you don't have a legitimate reason for saying that, you're basically just slandering them. Not cool." -Me from the past

So, yeah. Learn the definitions of the words you're using to talk about stories, and use them correctly.
"Flat character" does not mean "character I don't understand".
"Weak character" does not mean "character I wouldn't enjoy writing".
These words have largely agreed-upon meanings; they're not just insults! Do some research if you don't know.

5. Be suggestive~
Good critiques often include suggestions. A critic that actually has something to offer tends to look more credible, after all. AND it's easy to judge the objectivity of your critiques by examining the suggestions you give, or might have given.

Do you often suggest that entire characters be removed? You're probably not being as objective as you could be. What that sounds like to me is a knee-jerk "Ew, I don't like that, get rid of it" response. Many kinds of characters can work in a story, even if it doesn't look like they could on the surface. It would be better to suggest ways in which the involvement of certain characters could be scaled or modified.

Are your suggestions supported with lots of "I" statements? "You should change that character's reaction because I don't like how..." "I've seen lots of people do this, so it would look..." Again, you're probably not being as objective as you could be. Your experiences as a reader are NOT invalid, but they're also not the be-all and end-all. Which brings me to the last item on my list...

6. Read a lot!
You can't be a good food critic if you've only ever eaten your mom's cooking. Likewise, you can't be a good story critic if you only ever read certain kinds of things. This is probably the golden rule of any critique: expand your horizons!

The more you read/watch, the more you learn about what does work, what doesn't work, and what just needs a little work. You also learn about how things are seen by readers over time, and how things will be seen upon publication: maybe it's not a good idea for Author #2987 to tout their story as a groundbreaking, never-before-seen idea when it's actually incredibly similar to something Author #14 did, and Authors #27-60 parodied. ^^;

Mmf, that's all I got. This was a really hard list to make...I hope other people can give more and better guidelines. :]

[nostalgicroxas]

If you're new to giving critiques vs feedback, go with the Oreo Method: sandwich in the "needs improvement" or "bad thing" between two compliments.

A general rule from my college classes - if you cannot think of something good and nice to say about it, you have no right to say what's bad about it, because clearly you aren't looking hard enough.

An example is a film B&W photography class I took. Blacks had to be BLACK as sucking your soul, and whites had to blind you. A "good" photo has both in equal amounts, with the grays leaning to either side more than the other - before you even get to composition. A photo can be of an amazing subject and angle and all that other jazz, but if it's washed out, burned, or too dark, it'll catch no one's eye.
The same is true in writing and one good thing to look for are words you use too often. I use the word "though" a lot, and I've realized it, so I'm on an automatic filter looking for it on a page, and it's gotten to the point where I try to use it once on a physical page, and not for the next few pages - or not at all. Think about how you write dialogue: he said, she said - BORING as nails, but sometimes acceptable when you want the reader's eye to move faster. If you want to elaborate: how did he say it, did his air flow smoothly out of his lungs and hitch on his lips, did he cut off a word short due to his accent, or if he said it bluntly or flatly (not the same thing), SAY SO. "He said in a flat tone" or "he said flatly" or "he flatly stated".

That's all little stuff to look for when reading to give critique. Generally, you want to be broad and focus on one or two things.
Example:

• I read The Iliad
• Overall, it's engaging like a roller coaster, but it's a long read.
• I really like that one scene near the middle where Zeus flirts with Hera in the sky and he has such wit about him and just flat out seduces her like a cute couple, and they ...

You start broad, then work smaller.
This is also why reading reviews of movies in magazines are boring junk food reads, and don't tell you anything about the actual film:
"This was Jack Black's best performance yet!" <- opinion
"Jack Black did a fantastic job harnessing his vocal range to tune the viewer into manic anger without raising the volume of his voice." <- still opinion, but more objective

Summary

The blue text in this is the suggestions and feedback, the black text is the original. This is just some writing feedback I gave to someone.

[vfinnigan]

I'd suggest avoiding the word "suggestive" in a discussion on how to give a book critique, because it has sexual connotations. While I think everyone would like a critique that offers helpful suggestions, leaving a suggestive "critique" could count as sexual harassment.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

That was...a joke. ^^; I'm a native English speaker, I know what it means.

[ratscout]

So, my general rule to critiquing a peer's work is to be extremely kind even when I'm being critical. I think it's important to keep in mind while critiquing someone how you, yourself would want to be critiqued, and more importantly, understand how it feels when someone is saying nothing but negative things about your work, even if they say it in a kind way. I mean, how could you not come away from a critique that only says really negative things about your work feeling like you have no talent? Okay, that's an exaggeration. There are a lot of people out there with thick skin who can take a critique like that, but you get what I mean. So, my general rule of thumb is to always say at least ONE kind thing about a work during a critique. Preferably a lot more since telling someone the things they do right is just as important as telling them the things they do wrong.

It's also important to remember that getting a critique makes people REALLY defensive, and understandably so because people are so attached to their works and it is extremely like bearing your soul to someone. So, if someone gets told one negative thing about their work in the proper way, they'll probably be really receptive to it and think to themselves, 'yeah, I can see that'. But then if they get told two more negative things twice in a row, they tend to get really defensive or just downright sad about what you said and odds are they won't implement the critique anyway because they're so defensive or so sad about it--which is why you need to tell them positive things as well.

As a funny aside, in my creative writing class, some arrogant woman read my work and in her written critique she said she really liked it, but she also said, 'you remind me of me and how I used to write'. LOL. That is not how you critique someone. Everyone else's critique was super awesome though

When it comes to critiquing works that are already published from like, movies to books, to TV shows, etc. it's a lot different, mostly because the writer is not in the room, and you'll most likely never even be able to meet the writer. So in the case of famous things that are already published, I feel like you can sum up your feelings about it a lot easier and it doesn't really matter how positive or negative you are because when you're critiquing something that's already published, your critique is most likely not for the author, but either for people who are considering reading/watching/playing the work, or maybe just for sharing your opinion on it with other people.

That being said, I'mma have to disagree with you on no. 4, and partly on no. 5.

I don't see how flat, boring, uninteresting, and strong are objective words? When someone is expressing how they feel about a work, I feel everything they say about the work is subjective just based on the fact that there will always be differing opinions on the work. I don't think comparing it to someone saying a researcher's study is untrustworthy is a good comparison either; some researcher's do have unreliable studies after all--especially when it comes to statistics. I also disagree on the idea that people don't have the right to express how they feel about a story or character by calling it flat. People have the right to say and feel however they do about a story even if people disagree with them, and saying that you thought a character was flat or boring is not slandering the author at all. They're just saying that they didn't much care for the character the author wrote, not for the author themself.

I assume you're referring to our conversation on The Hunger Games a while back here

So, yeah. Learn the definitions of the words you're using to talk about stories, and use them correctly."Flat character" does not mean "character I don't understand"."Weak character" does not mean "character I wouldn't enjoy writing".These words have largely agreed-upon meanings; they're not just insults! Do some research if you don't know.

Just because we had a disagreement on whether Katniss is interesting or not does not mean I don't understand what the word flat means. Flat in story critique usually means that the critiquer found that the character was one-dimensional--as in, the character experiences little, if any growth, lacks depth, and seems just a little too perfect much of the time. Just because we disagreed does not mean I did not understand the meaning of the word.

The reason why I partly disagree with you on 5 is mostly because of this, right here,

Are your suggestions supported with lots of "I" statements? "You should change that character's reaction because I don't like how..." "I've seen lots of people do this, so it would look..." Again, you're probably not being as objective as you could be. Your experiences as a reader are NOT invalid, but they're also not the be-all and end-all. Which brings me to the last item on my list...

Once again, the problem here is that critique is subjective, and all you can really do while critiquing is just tell the author what you thought, personally, needed to be improved upon or what you thought was working well. For example, in my creative writing class, I got two different critiques on a character: One person said that they liked how kind the character was, and one person didn't. Because there was only one disagreement on the character, I decided to keep her kind because that's what my gut told me to do. The character was not objectively bad because she was kind, however, because there were disagreements about it. Now, if I had gotten a few more critiques on the character being too kind, then that would make her a little more of an objectively bad character, but it would still be subjective because there would be disagreements on it.

Anyways, this was a little too long of a post, but it's always fun talking with you~!

[DokiDokiTsuna]

all you can really do while critiquing is just tell the author what you thought, personally, needed to be improved upon or what you thought was working well.

I really don't believe that. That's why I started this topic in the first place. If the only point of giving critique is to tell an author what you did and didn't like about their work, that isn't actually very valuable in the long run. What two people think 'works well' can be worlds apart, and unless you can get that kind of review from a statistically-significant portion of the population, what you'll end up with is merely a hodgepodge of different responses that may or may not reflect accurately on the quality of your story.

There are things that make stories successful, and there are things that do not. Just because they aren't easily isolated and defined doesn't mean they don't exist. It's like human culture, or psychology. The concept itself is very subjective, but by gathering data (6. Read a lot!) it's possible to create rules and guidelines to identify stories that are appealing to people, and the qualities that make them so.

When I write a story, I want it to be something that keeps people interested and makes them laugh. How do I do that? Are the stories I'm currently writing accomplishing those goals? THAT is what I believe critique is for. Not merely to share your opinion of a story in the nicest way possible, but to help get it to where it should be. To make it the best version of itself.

The fact that people can disagree on how to do that does not make any endeavor of judgement pointless. People can disagree on how to treat a person with depression; that does not make psychology as a whole completely subjective. There are things that will help a depressed patient, and there are things that will not. The point is to figure out what the helpful things are, based on what's helped other depressed patients in the past, and based on what the current patient wants to achieve.

That is where the objectivity comes from. Drawing conclusions from data and applying logic. I don't know any simpler way to put it...

For that matter, I'm starting to think we should just agree to disagree on this? I mean, coming into a topic specifically about objective story critique with the aim of convincing me that such a thing cannot exist is a little on the pointless side. If the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think I would bother.

[AVXP]

I think you need to start with the definitions/differences between a Critique and Review and consider whether you mean professional or peer or ....or....

Weirdly, this all reads like a subjective opinion of what an objective critique should be.

You say this**"into a topic specifically about objective story critique with the aim of convincing me that such a thing cannot exist is a little on the pointless side."**
When earlier you said " Is there such a thing as truly objective literary critique...? I don't know. There may not be. "

I'm confused too.
I know we have a world full of sensitive people. but catering to that sensitivity isn't helpful either. If you are not ready for a review/critique don't ask for one. If you're a beginner then ask for TECHNICAL help. The first thing a would-be artist needs to do is get past the technical concerns. Those are things that keep people from understanding whatever it is, you're trying to show/convey.

After that, you worry about THE WHAT- as in what YOU CHOSE to say and HOW you chose to say it. That's where all the subjective parts come in. There's a huge world between seeing what a creator failed at, could do better and what the person reviewing it- would have done if it was their property.

Other than that, what opinions? Everyone has one. That's why you need to know your reviewer. And most (professional) reviews, if they are not heavily established give you a line or two about where they are coming from so you have a context.

Overall, this list sounds like a rebuttal to a bad review and a narrow scope- so a reviewer can't say a bad thing...about anything..

[JBrentonParker]

I want to second "What You Like Doesn't Actually Matter"!
If you are critiquing someone's work in order to help them grow and improve as an artist or writer, you need to leave your personal preferences at home. If you've ever taken a creative writing class, you'll have had to do this. Everyone likes to read/write in different genres, but we all appreciate help with critiques for things like character development, plot threads, narrative flow, sentence structure, readability, tone, mood, themes, etc etc.

A personal one for me: include the good with the bad! A lot of people interpret a critique as only pointing out the things that don't work or need to be improved, but an important part of critiquing a work is mentioning the things that are done well, that do work and succeed at what the author/artists is trying to accomplish. The author/artist needs to understand what they are good at as much as they need to know what they need to work on. Mentioning the good stuff can also make the rest of the critique easier to handle, especially for a new artist/author who is not used to receiving honest critiques from strangers and still needs to build up their thick skin.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

You say this**"into a topic specifically about objective story critique with the aim of convincing me that such a thing cannot exist is a little on the pointless side."**When earlier you said " Is there such a thing as truly objective literary critique...? I don't know. There may not be. "

Just because a TRULY 100% objective critique MAY NOT exist doesn't mean ANY objectivity in critique CANNOT exist. I was trying to refute the idea that all critique is completely subjective.

Overall, this list sounds like a rebuttal to a bad review and a narrow scope- so a reviewer can't say a bad thing...about anything..

What does that mean...? I don't understand what you're trying to say. I think a list of ways to do a review correctly would inevitably sound like a rebuttal to a bad review, although I didn't have any particular review in mind for every item on the list, if that's what you're thinking.
Also, I never said a reviewer can't say anything bad about anything...if that's even what you mean (I really don't know)...

[Pandastrophic]

I don't really think it's possible to give a fully objective critique when stories themselves are mostly subjective.
Of course there are technical things you can critique, story and plot structure, anatomy in the art, etc. but then you're not giving a full critique, part of reading a story is immersing your self in the world and the characters and how that makes you feel, how you connect with them and talking about that in a critique is also important especially if the type of story you're critiquing is the type that evokes emotions.
If that's not something that you're looking for in a critique then okay that's fine but then I personally feel like that's not the full picture, for me at least a good critique is something that offers a balance between objective (technical and factual) and subjective (opinion, feeling and suggestions).

Are your suggestions supported with lots of "I" statements? "You should change that character's reaction because I don't like how..." "I've seen lots of people do this, so it would look..." Again, you're probably not being as objective as you could be.

The problem is not the "I" statements, it's the reasons that are provided that might be bad, a good critic would explaining what they feel and more importantly why they feel that way. It's proving you with a perspective that might improve the way you write characters as long as it's explained properly. I would be interested to hear what a critic feels about the characters experiences, providing feedback that is based on their own subjective feelings while supporting that with more technical objective evidence.

In general I think point.5 on your list is a little confusing especially if you're trying to create a critique that's as objective as possible.

1. Be suggestive~Good critiques often include suggestions. A critic that actually has something to offer tends to look more credible, after all. AND it's easy to judge the objectivity of your critiques by examining the suggestions you give, or might have given.

Suggestions are opinions, so suggestions as whole are subjective no matter how good or bad the suggestion is.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Suggestions are opinions, so suggestions as whole are subjective no matter how good or bad the suggestion is.

...No one's denying that. =/

All I was trying to say before was that critique doesn't have to be completely subjective, and that it's usually more helpful when it's more objective. It's a SPECTRUM, not an either/or scenario.

On that note, if anyone else would like to put up an argument that subjectivity in critique exists, please keep in mind that you are preaching to the choir and thus derailing the topic for no reason.

[fattackycats]

Sure, one of the few definitions of the word "Suggestive" is synonymous with sexual remarks, however in this regard they clearly were using it as suggesting an idea or evoking an idea. They were not referring to "suggestive" as sexual...Context, my friend, context. No one would interpret that any other way unless the word choice surrounding that word was obviously "suggestive".

[Freemints30]

I have heard there are 3 types of critiques.
1) "F you, you suck,you are just sick like you comic, KYS
This tells the writer nothing. They don't tell the person what is wrong with story, and just personally attack the creator and not touch on any flaws. This can be simply dismissed.
2)I don't like fantasy stories it would be much better if it was a science fiction
This critique thou it may occasionally have some merit, it still heavy bias. Every story has a target demography and person writing a light hearted ecchi harem is definitely not aiming for the Dark fantasy audience. If you are writing for a specific audience and some outside that dislikes it, look at what they have to say but keep that fact in mind.
3)the pacing in this story is too fast for me to connect, that scene was not even touch upon why is that there, the art needs a brighter palette for this scene to stand out more
This critique actually tackles flaws and is generally not held down strong bias. They may not all be polite and they may not all be valid but they should be listen to. Anyone into critiquing should aim for this and try to avoid the ones above.

[vfinnigan]

I know that. You know that. But if you think everyone knows that or even cares, you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do, which is fine. For me, being a woman in traditional comics often has involved fielding targeted harassment veiled as "critique." And yes, some of that is suggestive or worse.

[Rodimus13]

Ouch! I'm sorry you've been a part of that sort of thing @vfinnigan. I can see why you'd be concerned about the wording there.