How Not to Critique, Part II: The Counterattack

So, my short-story “Long Live the Fish” went through its second round of critiques this week.  They were really useful!  Gods I love the Critters group.  They’re a lot of work, but the best fiction crew online by a long shot.  And I never fail to make friends there.  (I still talk to some people that I met doing Critters last time, years and years ago!)

Last time, I got a slew of negative critiques, and only one really convincing positive one (some are always “oo, I liked it”, but you know they’re just saying that to meet the 200-word limit and get their credit for the critique).  This time, I got almost entirely positive responses — several that made me blush! — and only one really nasty negative one.

But AGAIN this time, my worst critique also came from the worst critiquer; i.e. someone who just has no freaking idea how to do it.  I don’t mind critiques that didn’t like the story; especially since I know my stories are a little…odd, or at least nonstandard.  But the purpose of having your story professionally critiqued is to get advice you can USE, and badly-presented good advice is about as useful as good food cooked in radiator fluid.

Last time I ignored the critiquer and shook off the critique…but this time I thought I’d perform a bit of a public service and offer a metacritique. If you do or receive any critiquing, you may benefit from reading it, either for your own education or, you know, schadenfreude. ;)

(It’s under the cut — clicky!)

Hi [Him],

Thanks for your critique.  You actually made several really useful points in your line-by-line crits, and I’m grateful for them.

I feel obligated to tell you that your critiquing skills need a LOT of work.  As a professional, I’m able to put aside the insulting and unforgiving tone you use here, and pull what’s useful out of it; but forcing writers to do that in order to benefit from your advice is the exact opposite of the idea here.

Perhaps [the Critters moderator]‘s admonition on every single manuscript he sends that “phrasing things as your opinion is demonstrably crucial” isn’t enough to really speak to you, in which case I strongly suggest that you go to the critique.org site and read the vast quantity of material there on how to write a critique — because you’re doing it the very definition of wrong, here.  You’re probably a very good writer, but being a good writer doesn’t by itself make you a good critter; the latter is a separate skill, and it’s one worth learning.  Doing it properly means respecting that this is art, that the person you’re talking to has the right to absolute control over it, and that there is no objective right and wrong for you to appeal to or argue over here.  If you continue to write crits like this, you’re going to get a lot of negative feedback and nobody will want to listen to you anymore.  And there’s a good reason for this:  This kind of critique, which doesn’t shy away from being personally insulting and neglects to remind the reader that what’s being shared here is a reader’s opinion, is not at all helpful to most writers.  It creates self-doubt and clouds our ability to clearly see what the story needs (which is something that only the writer, not you, can determine).

So again, thank you for taking the time to read this, and for discovering several things that I’m glad to know could use work.  Since you’re so willing to dispense unvarnished advice, I hope you’re also willing to take it:  Learn to critique properly.  You’re not helping anyone by doing it this way, and the writers in this group deserve better.

Thanks again,
[Me]