Guide to Good Critique (Literature)

NOTE: You are most welcome to use this as a guide. But it's important for me to mention that I have changed my position somewhat on the writing of 'good critique.' If you are interested, I've rewritten a new essay here.


Introduction

One important goal for the literature community is to foster a culture of critique. Critique improves writing — it’s as simple as that. But there is always some confusion about what critique is, how it should be done, and how one should respond to it. Since I wasn’t able to find a how-to-critique article specific to writing on deviantART, I’ve decided to tackle the subject myself.

Much of the advice I offer in this guide comes from experience at online workshops, interacting with some of the best writers and critics on deviantART, and general observations on how this site functions. In short, these are tried and tested methods. However, this is my opinion on the matter — it is, therefore, subject to revision; it is also not the word on the matter; opinions differ and I welcome any discussion that will help improve this guide.

But why should I critique? After the first draft of this guide was put up, someone pointed out that, while it would be useful for those who were already interested in critique, it was unlikely to attract those who were completely uninterested in this practice. There are some difficulties in doing this: how do you convince someone that sushi tastes good if they've never tried it? (Oddly enough, I haven't tried sushi myself, but it works as an example, I think.) Yet I think it worthwhile to dwell on this a little. Why is critique so important?

For one, critiquing others is likely to get you readers. This is an arguably selfish act, but not necessarily a bad one. After all, in your bid to get readers, you are bound to help someone out with your critique. In turn they might critique you back, and this should, ideally, help you improve your own writing.

However, critiquing also has another function, one that people often don't realise. When you critique someone's writing, you are not helping just them, but also yourself. Since critiquing involves careful reading and attention to detail, the critic (you, hopefully) often notices the subtle and fantastic things that words can do, and s/he is likely to learn which techniques work where and how. This kind of recognition means that the critic, when s/he gets back to writing, will have learnt something, something that may feed back positively into his/her own work.

Extra Reading:
The Top Seven Reasons to Crit Lit, a journal by `SparrowSong
A discussion at `Beccalicious's journal about why people critique others





Contents

1. Defining Critique
2. Commenting versus critique
3. Training yourself to be a good critic
4. What to critique
5. Organising your critique
6. Harshness and critique
7. Finding your own style
8. Being a writer versus being a critic




1. Defining Critique

Following is a definition of critique taken from `tangledweb’s essay, CRITIQUE:

A critique is an honest, subjective opinion about another’s creative work that covers a variety of issues including, but not limited to, subject matter, representation, and technique, with the intent of: a) assisting the artist in his or her personal development, b) helping to develop the attitude and discerning eye of both artist and critic, and c) beginning or continuing a constructive discourse beneficial to the general art community.

This definition explains quite succinctly what I believe to be critique. For the purposes of this guide, let’s not get confused with dictionary definitions and etymological roots. A couple of things:

A critique is not a review. A review is an evaluation of the artistic merit and/or entertainment value of a product; it is written to help an audience, whether it be readers of a particular magazine or listeners tuning into a radio show, decide which product to purchase/rent, and while it does allow the artist or manufacturer to know what the flaws of the product are, this is not its intent. “This story is boring” is a review. It does not become a critique until it is followed by explanations and/or suggestions of how to make the story more interesting.

A critique is not literary criticism, although it includes elements of it. Literary criticism is largely an academic venture. It is not required to make a good poem/short story or to critique well. However, it is useful to be familiar with various literary theories. Close reading (also known as New Criticism and explication de texte), in particular, is handy when one is critiquing poetry: reading metaphor, allegory, symbolism, and so on, are as important to critique as they are to close reading.

[Please note that “critique” and “constructive criticism” are taken to mean the same thing in this essay. The word “critic” is used to describe a person who offers critique to someone else.]

Extra Reading:
CRITIQUE by `tangledweb
Close reading, a wikipedia article
How to Do a Close Reading




2. Commenting versus critique

Most online writing workshops have very specific guidelines about what is acceptable as critique and what is not. But let’s face it: deviantART is not a workshop. Some people just leave comments that say, “Great work! I love this”; others explain what they feel when they read the piece; some indicate exactly what they liked or didn’t like about the writing. There are still others who take critiquing seriously and consistently offer other writers constructive criticism. In brief, styles of commenting vary greatly.

To make things simpler, let’s say that there are three major kinds of comments seen on deviantART: a) the this-is-great/this-sucks comment, b) the I-like/don’t-like-this-here’s-why comment, and c) the critique-comment. Then there are variations of these. The first one is not a critique, and although often irritating, can be of use in letting the writer know what his/her audience thinks. The second one is also not a critique, but is a step towards a critique, and is therefore important; its significance in letting the writer know what works in a piece cannot be undermined. The third is what this guide will focus on.

The question still remains: when should one comment and when should one critique? Firstly, it is virtually impossible to critique every deviation you read on deviantART due to time constraints and the sheer volume of writing produced here. Moreover, it is simply not required. Therefore, choose when to critique.

Pointers:

*Check to see whether the deviant has asked for critique — in the author’s comments section, at the Literature Workshop or a group such as *Writers-Workshop, ~critiqueme, etc., or using the “Advanced Critique Encouraged” option. This step is important especially if you are not familiar with the deviant whose prose piece/poem you are critiquing. It respects the writer’s wishes, but if you are like me and dislike drama, it will also prevent, to some extent, anger, arguments and other such unpleasantness from the one being critiqued. Once you are sure s/he wants critique, go ahead.

*If you are unsure about the deviant’s desire for critique and are afraid of the all-too-common, “Well, who asked you for your opinion?” then ask. Leave a comment asking the deviant if they are interested in receiving an in-depth critique of their piece. Once you have your reply, you will know what to do and the writer has no right to complain.




3. Training yourself to be a good critic

To be a good critic, you need to have a keen eye for all kinds of things: grammatical and spelling errors, logical consistency, symbols, metaphors, repetition, cliché and so on. You will not start out being an excellent critic. Much like writing, your critiquing skills will grow. You need to hone these skills.

Pointers:

*Practise. If you are new to critiquing, don’t be afraid, and most importantly, don’t put it off. Plunge into the world of critiquing. You will make a few mistakes along the way; learn from them. Don’t stop.

*Read. This advice goes for both writers and critics. Read all kinds of material; this includes: a) novels, short stories, poetry collections and the like, b) reviews and critical essays — yes, critique is neither, but they will train your eye to look for the things that make good writing, and c) critiques written by other people — this will introduce you to different styles of critiquing as well as to various elements of writing that a critique should explore; try to find the best, the most comprehensive critiques possible so that you learn the maximum.

*Change the way you read. As readers, we may skip pages, descriptive passages, read the end first, and do all kinds of idiosyncratic things. This is perfectly acceptable. But as a critic, avoid speed-reading. Speed-reading a poem is the worst thing possible. Read a poem at least five times; space your readings to make your interpretation of the poem richer and more varied. Speed-reading a novel or short story can be remedied by reading it again — this time, slowly. You may not want to slow read all novels a second time — it is, after all, time consuming. Pick something that you feel has been crafted well, something that you are bound to enjoy; study it and find pleasure in doing so. Slow reading will make you aware of subtlety, patterns, rhythms, and other nuances in writing.

Extra reading:
Slow reading, a wikipedia article





4. What to critique

Let’s get down to the meat of it. The first rule is — and this is probably the only rule you should follow rigidly — don’t criticise the writer. All critical attention must be focused on the writing and nothing outside of it. “You write like a twelve-year old” is rude, damaging, and most of all, it is not critique.

The rest of it is up to you, but ere are a few things that you can focus on:

Spelling, grammar, punctuation: This is not necessary because a critic is not a proofreader. However, since poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation can negatively affect the overall appeal of a piece, it is wise to point out errors in any of these areas. For example, if the writer has typed “their” instead of “they’re”, it makes a big difference, and indicating the mistake will help the writer correct the mistake. But if it is clear that the writer has not bothered to spell check/proofread their work, listing every single error is pointless. Suggest that they proofread their work; if they don’t agree with you, too bad. Look out for incorrect tense changes as well.

Genre/form/structure: Choosing the right genre/form/structure for the content is important. As a critic, feel free to question the choice of the writer in this matter. Would this poem work better as a short story? Should this drabble be lengthened to a full-fledged short story? Should the writer have chosen the limerick form instead of the senryu? Alternatively (and this may be the better option), suggest that the form chosen has not been utilised to the maximum and offer ways to remedy the problem. For example, if a poem is sounding too much like prose, explain why this is so and suggest different line breaks, use of language and so on.

Language/diction: Is a child character using too many big words without being a prodigy? Shouldn’t the member of a gang be using more slang? Are the words in a poem too prosaic? These are the kind of questions you should be asking.

Flow: Do ideas flow easily in the piece? Are there too many gaps in the narrative? Is the reader left confused by the organisation of an essay? At this point, I would also like to mention logical consistency and progression of thought. In a surreal or stream-of-consciousness piece, this may not be very important; in an essay, it is vital.

Intent: In the world of literary criticism, authorial intent may be of little consequence. But a writing draft is in a stage of fluidity — it still belongs to the writer. By offering your opinion on what you think the piece is about can be of great use to the writer. This is where your ability to close read will come in handy: do you read something as a phallic symbol? Do you think the piece is an allegory of Christ’s resurrection? Mention it. If your interpretation bothers the writer, s/he has the opportunity to revise the piece.

Elements of prose: This includes a vast number of things, such as plot progression, narrative technique, point of view, setting, dialogue, and characterisation. If you decide to focus on one or more of these areas, offer reasons why the choices made by the writer are not working. For example, you may think that a story written in the third person could function better if narrated by the protagonist; ask the writer to consider changing the story accordingly, if you are convinced of this.

Elements of poetry: Let’s say that the two main components of poetry are meaning and sound/sonics. Under meaning, you can focus on clarity, use of imagery, metaphor, personification, other figures of speech, enjambment (also known as line breaks), stanzaic/strophic organisation of content, and so on. This does sound like a lot of jargon, though, and it would be pointless to use these terms unless you were focusing on what these elements do to the poem. Is an extended metaphor doing its job or is it losing the reader after a few strophes? Is the writer confusing too many images into something that makes no sense at all?

Under sound/sonics, consider alliteration, assonance, consonance, and (end or internal) rhyme. For a metrical poem, you will need to scan the poem, that is, read the stresses in a line of poetry. This requires a considerable amount of training and a good listening ear. You may not want to jump into this without prior experience.

Other: Pointing out clichés, abstractions (in poetry), and problems with showing/telling is also useful. Feel free to suggest new techniques to the writer, if you feel they would improve the piece.

At this point, you may be thinking one or both of these things:

That’s way too much. Why bother critiquing at all? – To this, I say, you don’t have to critique every single area of writing. Pick the major issues and focus on those.

But I don’t even know what most of those things mean! – Well, that’s why I said that reading is important. When you start out, don’t be too worried about using technical terms or sounding professional. But make sure you don’t stagnate: read guides, tutorials, textbooks, wiki articles, whatever helps. You will get there. Some resources are mentioned at the end of this section.

Pointers:

*Read the piece several times. Poetry may require more readings than prose.

*Adjust your level of critique to the level of the writer. Sometimes it can be easy to lord it over a fourteen-year-old who doesn’t know all the technical words you do. Be kind; explain concepts in simple words. If someone is unlikely to know what is wrong with using abstractions, or even what an abstraction is, give an example. Or else, point them to a helpful resource. At the very least, if they respond asking, “What is this abstraction business you’re talking about?” you should be able to answer the question adequately.

*Offer suggestions. Many critics don’t regard this as essential. In my opinion, it is. As far as possible, give the writer solutions to the problems you point out. Sometimes you may detect a problem, but don’t know how to solve it. This is okay. Tell the writer so. Hopefully they find out a way to correct it themselves.

*Be honest. If you’re not sure, you’re not sure. Your job as a critic is to help the writer. If you pontificate about the appropriate themes for a ballad without knowing what they actually are, you are giving wrong information, resulting in a bad critique. If necessary, research what you’re unsure about; express your doubt about the opinion you are offering. In short: don’t pretend to know things you don’t know. It can be very embarrassing if it backfires.

*Don’t be vague. “The poem is very simplistic/black-and-white/childish.” – These are good points to make, but back them up with examples from the text, so that the writer knows what kind of writing gives that impression to readers.

*Respect the style/genre/form/structure chosen by the writer, if appropriate to the content. Sometimes you may feel like trashing a perfectly decent sonnet simply because you don’t like sonnets. This is a bad idea.

*Mention the good with the bad. This is not necessary, but usually, it is the best way to go. If a piece has nothing good about it, however, don’t invent good things. Be honest and genuine (almost the same, but not quite).

*It is best not to command (i.e., use the imperative tense) in a critique. Instead of saying, “Cut out this paragraph,” suggest that such-and-such paragraph is not necessary. While this tone of suggestion is useful, it is not a hard-and-fast rule. I find it applicable to deviantART because you run the risk of offending the writer quite easily.  

However, this should not be done merely to placate the writer — there is a better reason: you may not be right about cutting out such-and-such paragraph; other critics may have different ideas about what can be done to improve an unruly section of writing. By suggesting, you are admitting to the possibility of your being wrong. It’s called humility — hugely important in the somewhat crazy world of writing.

*Don’t be pompous/pretentious/condescending. I admit I am not very happy with this pointer, mainly because I have received this complaint from a couple of writers I have critiqued, and I am yet to find a solution. For the most part, I think that the previous pointer reduces your chances of appearing pompous. Another way to avoid this problem is to keep away from giving examples from your own writing.

On the other hand, I can’t remember having done any of these things, so I suppose that one can be called pompous even after following those rules. The key is to be careful; perhaps pretend to be in the writer’s position and see how it works. This is for those who are overly concerned with not getting into arguments. Should an argument arise about pomposity, just say, “I didn’t intend to be. I’m sorry if you took it that way,” and ignore the person henceforth.

*Don’t be offended if the writer does not use your critique. It may hurt, but don’t react to it. The writer may have, for whatever reason, not found your suggestions useful; or else, s/he might have received more helpful critique from others. On the other hand, I can understand being offended if the writer hasn’t at least acknowledged your critique.

*Don’t criticise previous critique. This is complicated and I need to go into some detail here. Firstly, it is best not to create conflict by saying things like, "That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Listen to me." Secondly, you are free to disagree with critique that has already been offered to the writer, but you need to express this with discretion. For instance, don't directly attack the previous critic; don't say, "So-and-so is wrong and I am right" because in the subjective world of critiquing, you can always be "wrong"; in fact, try not to reply (that is, by hitting the reply button) to the previous critic at all. Instead, make clear the fact that you think otherwise in your own post.

Example:

Critic 1: I find that your use of stream-of-consciousness is not working in this story because you lose out on the descriptions of the beautiful valley that the characters are living in. At some point, the author needs to step in and explain the setting of the story.

Critic 2: I actually think you were right to use s-o-c. It is the minds of the characters that is important and not where they are living.

Note how Critic 2 disagrees with Critic 1 without making a mess of it. In some cases, critics (especially if they already know each other) may be able to argue their cases with each other respectfully, and such a discussion would benefit the writer. These are rare, but good, cases, and one goal we should keep in mind is to try reaching this stage of amicable debate.

There is also the case of bad information, where a critic has told the writer something that can objectively (or more or less objectively) be called wrong. This could perhaps be a bad grammatical or punctuation correction or the critic could have scanned a metrical poem poorly. In such cases, it would be wise to outright say that this is wrong information and explain why, especially if the writer is likely to accept without question what the erring critic has said.

*Most importantly, take your time. It is not easy to write a good critique. If you don’t have the time but feel that you should say something, leave a placeholder and come back the next day; or, ask the person to remind you about critiquing their piece; you can even write a part of the critique on one day, save it as a Word document on your computer, and come back to it another day to post the complete critique. Another thing that works is taking a printout of the piece, if it is not too long, and making notes against it. This way you can take your hobby of critiquing with you and come back to it once you are logged in again.

An excellent online poetry workshop says that it takes at least half an hour to write a decent critique. I agree. This is one of the main reasons why critiquing every deviation you read is an impossibility.

This rather long time frame for writing a critique might make you think: how long should my critique be? There is no right answer for this. A short, pithy critique, which concentrates on a couple of problems, can sometimes be of more use than a 2000-word essay. Let your ideas for improvement of the piece dictate how long your critique should be. If the writer has already received a considerable amount of critique, you should probably restrict yourself to a few things that haven’t already been mentioned by other critics. There’s no maximum limit, but more than 2000 words is a bit much, in my opinion.

*Proofread your critique. You don’t want to tell someone that his/her story is full of spelling errors and then have your critique filled with typos. There is room for mistakes, however. Some sites allow you to edit your post; dA does not. In this case, you can always apologise afterwards.

*And lastly, read the piece you are critiquing and your critique once more before hitting “send”. In case you have misread something or were unclear about a particular line, it may come to you at the last moment, and you can edit your critique accordingly.

Extra reading:
A Verbose Guide to Critiquing by ~Mavyrk
Resources for Writers, a list compiled by *Writers-Workshop




5. Organising your critique

Organisation is essential for all kinds of writing, and that includes critique. Following are three major kinds of critique I’ve read:

The essay critique: This is self-explanatory. You need to make sure that the critique fits the usual criteria for essay. You can’t afford to spend that much time in perfecting it stylistically, but make sure that the ideas proceed logically, that you don’t repeat yourself, and that you give examples wherever necessary.

The in-line critique: Here, the piece is copy-pasted into the comment box and the critter gives his/her opinion on each line/stanza/strophe/paragraph at a time. In the case of prose, each sentence need not be examined, just the problematic ones. In an in-line critique, format your comment such that it is clear which parts are the copy-pasted prose piece/poem and which are your suggestions/critical comments. This can be done using italics, bold, quotation marks, asterisks, and so on.

Examples:
An in-line critique of a prose piece
An in-line critique of a poem

Critique with headings: Each major issue is listed as a heading; critique is offered under each heading.

Example:
Repetition
<comments with examples and suggestions>

Cliché
<comments with examples and suggestions>

Enjambment
<comments with examples and suggestions>

and so on.

Pointers:

*Writing an introduction and conclusion is a good idea. Even a line each will do.

*For poetry that is not unusually long, an in-line critique seems to be the best bet. In your introduction, you can explain what you liked about the poem, what it reminded you of, what it evoked in you and so on, and the in-line portions can be kept for the critical comments.

*For prose, a mixture of the in-line and essay type critique works best. In the in-line section, you needn’t dwell on every line, just the ones that need work.

*Using headings in critique is useful for very long prose or for a prose piece/poem that needs a tremendous amount of work and has recurring problems.

Again, these are not rigid guidelines, but merely suggestions.





6. Harshness and critique

This is an unending debate. Let me begin with what I consider to be absolutely unacceptable: personal attacks, racial comments, sexist remarks, and other such idiocy. This is called rudeness. Rudeness is bad. It is different from harshness, because harshness usually has a point and if taken in the right way, can work wonders.

Now, should you be harsh? No, I don’t think so. Firm is better than harsh, but a very fine line separates these two. My rule so far is: if you can’t take someone giving you a critique that is harsh, you certainly shouldn’t be offering a harsh critique to someone else. This said, I would say that harsh critique is acceptable. “Go read a book,” is critique and good critique at that, no matter how much it stings. I would suggest not phrasing it in the same way, and in the event that you feel it is necessary to gear the writer towards better writers, suggest it carefully. Ask what kind of books they read, how often they read, and so on. Suggest books that you think can help them.

A couple of things to consider:

The maturity of the writer: It is important for you to know beforehand whether the writer is capable of taking your criticism or not. Since this is hard to gauge over the Internet (unless you are already familiar with the person whose writing you are critiquing), it is safer to avoid harshness of any kind.

We’re talking about deviantART: There are no moderators who will come swooping down to defend your harsh critique. There are GMs, staff members, and other influential types, yes, but the vastness of the site prevents them from noticing every little quibble.

In conclusion, be honest and firm; try not to be harsh, unless absolutely necessary.

Extra reading:
A discussion at *Amberlouie's journal about harshness in critique; this is my rather personal opinion on the matter





[A note on how to respond to critique: This guide is about giving critique, but discussing harshness has made me realise that it is also crucial to know how to respond to critique, especially if it is harsh or disliked for some reason. For me, there are three golden rules:

Build rapport with your critic. I don’t mean that you have to be excessively friendly. I mean that you should thank him/her politely. If possible explain what you found useful about his/critique. If you have doubts, try to clarify them. If you have worked on a revision, ask him/her if s/he is free to have a look at it. S/he may not do it, but it is likely s/he will remember you as someone appreciative and willing to learn. More than just appearing as someone who likes to learn, you are bound to actually learn something new.

Thank your critic even if you don’t want to. You may find a critique excessively harsh, pointless, or lacking in helpful comments; you may be sure that not a single suggestion will be used. Still, thank the critic, because they have spent a good deal of time reading your work and responding to it. You don’t need to go overboard with fake gratitude. A simple “Thank you for your time” will do.

Don’t get defensive. This is almost a crime, because defensiveness prevents you from seeing what is wrong with your writing. It can, however, be highly amusing and/or frustrating for the critic. This does not mean that one should agree with everything the critic says. It means that you should not respond to comments with which you disagree, unless you feel you are capable of carrying on a healthy debate on the subject.]






7. Finding your own style

Like writing, critiquing has a style too. It may not be as recognisable as your creative writing style, but it’s there, and it is bound to evolve over the years. Your experiences with giving and receiving critique, reading books and other resources, researching, and studying will determine this style. You may find that ten years ago, you were kinder, suggested more, commanded less, but that now, you are harsher and often say, “Cut this out” or “Your use of cliché is atrocious”. The latter is often acceptable coming from someone learned, experienced — perhaps a college professor.

I have no advice here; this is just an observation that I think is important.




8. Being a writer versus being a critic

Ever heard of this: “Those who can’t do, teach”? Or even better: “Those who can’t write, critique”? My opinion on this is that it’s largely BS. It is unfair to create a divide between writing and critiquing—they are symbiotic.

To be a good writer, you need to be a good critic, because you have to be able to recognise flaws in your own writing before redrafting/revising it. This is difficult to achieve, especially for young writers. Here is where critique comes in: it’s easier to be critical of someone else’s work; critiquing gives you ample opportunity to find fault with others’ writing in a healthy atmosphere; once you get hooked to critiquing, you find it easier to revise your own work. Sounds good, right?

To be a good critic, however, it’s true — you don’t have to be a good writer. This doesn’t make it any less worthy, if that’s what you’re worried about. Sometimes critics (and editors and proofreaders) are terrible or mediocre writers. But they don’t choose their profession because they aren’t good writers, they choose it because they are good at critiquing, reviewing, proofreading — whatever it is that they do. Appreciate this and respect it.

Critique and critic are not bad words. I intend to be adamant about this. Good luck writing and critiquing, everyone! I hope this helped.