Join for FREE | Take the Tour Lost Password?
Shop deviantART for the
holidays and save BIG!
Click here! :holly:
[x]

deviantART

:flirty:
 

Comment on chi ku + EDIT by `Amberlouie

:iconlovetodeviate:
I think if you really want to improve your writing, you should be able to take the rude stuff. I don't mean that as a critic one should be rude, but that as a writer, even a rude comment should be accepted--as long as it's about the writing and not the writer, i.e., "This is terrible writing" is rude, but it's better than "You suck."

When I crit, I try to be polite. In many ways, I'm afraid to be too nasty, especially if I'm critiquing someone who is clearly just starting out. This is mainly because I'm chicken and have, in the past, been hurt terribly by some comments I've received and don't want others to feel the same. I've always gotten over them though and I've learnt to tell whose "rude" criticism I should accept and whose should be ignored.

For example, I once got a comment from someone on a poem I posted at an online workshop, saying, "The remainder is frankly boring, leaden and dully declarative." Sounds awful? It stung, but I took it anyway, because before that he said, "This has some minor possibilities. Consider cutting S1,2,3,5 and the last two lines of S7." which is neither kind nor encouraging, but it's helpful. I've made up my mind not to ignore comments of this kind (especially coming from this critic) because they're informed opinions. One way of telling whether someone's being rude just for the sake of it or if they're telling you what they genuinely think is to read crits given to other writers, or to read their poetry, if possible. It's a bit sly, but effective.

Once someone else said that I was a mediocre poet. There were a few other adjectives used and a self-preserving part of my brain has eliminated them from immediate recall. But luckily he also called me obnoxious, boring, a feminist (in a derogatory way) and various other things; "luckily" because I realised that his criticism had more to do with disliking me than with disliking my writing. In fact, much before he began disliking me he told me my poetry was good. So hmm. A few days after his nastiness, a friend linked me to the rude guy's blog; it was filled with misogynistic "fiction"--explains why he hated "feminists" so much.

So, this my long winded way of saying: mean criticism is okay as long as it helps the poem and doesn't insult the writer.

--
Literature Gallery Moderator

For Writers: Resource Central: Part One | Resource Central: Part Two

Devious Comments

:icontaintedbliss:
You suck. = bad.

This line sucks because (insert reasoning) = good.

Criticism should be directed to a piece but NEVER the person :)

--
:heart:
Taintedbliss

I'm a warrior child.

[link]
:iconthelemaj:
I honestly don't think saying this line sucks is the best way to critique anything. I'll tell you what I would do regarding line/stanza X or Y would sound much better and, well, wouldn't be rude.

Giving honest advice based on your 'experience' as a writer and surgeon of words is different than saying you suck; visit my gallery, my poetry > yours.

--
Do I dare disturb the Universe?
:icontaintedbliss:
I was trying to put this in a more extreme circumstance.

Lord knows - We've got A LOT of rude people in the world and sugar coating stuff ain't gonna help a thing in helping an artist grow.

But yes, I usually go "Hmm... I'm not too sure about this line/stanza/paragraph/whatever because..."

What this whole thing was suppose to mean is a good critique attacks an art. It shows the strengths AND weaknesses of the art without attacking the artist.

:) Good arguments are based on these points without getting personal.

I chose that way to express myself to make a point stick out. ;P

--
:heart:
Taintedbliss

I'm a warrior child.

[link]
:iconbeccalicious:
my rule is that the message should always feel positive to the writer. Consistent negativity is going to make the person reject the piece and not redraft it. I'd like to think I was a fairly good critic and that I do that- there is no point ripping a piece to shreds if you are not going to offer something positive to help the writer pick those shreds up to put it back together improved.

Does that make sense?

--
*Writers-Workshop I =DailyDeviants I *WordCount

Debate the fantasy forum!
(Sometimes I write too!)
:iconamberlouie:
Perfect sense.
:heart:

--
:bulletred: Clearfield Review - Prose Editor
:iconalice-ophelia:
i suppose you can only criticise if you have correct reasoning to back it up.
so im agreeding with the 'you suck (because)' comment.
of course a certain delicateness doesnt go astray. :)
:icontaintedbliss:
I think I could have elaborated more.

I'm sorry work usually screws my mind up a bit.

"oMg! ThIs So ToTAllY RoX maH SoCKS!" = Ego boosting yes - but not exactly constructive.

"I really like this line/stanza/part of a picture because of _____. You did a fantastic job with the lighting/amount of noise/metaphors through *insert methods*. Keep up the good work! = Ego boosting constructive criticism. ;)

--
:heart:
Taintedbliss

I'm a warrior child.

[link]
:iconkheradruakh:
It comes down to a very simple teaching philosophy. Focus on positives.
Tell them whats good, and by inference where they need to work, and how they might find the answers, dont focus on failures, because it demoralises :)

Oh, and hello :)

--
"Hugh Mann eh? Now theres a name I can trust!"
Me Loves Futurama
:icondgregory:
Like any criticism, it's meant to offer another person's perspective on one's work. As young writers, we are still trying to find our way through language, plots, dialogue, form, etc.; it's a time when subjectivity is paramount. That additional perspective is vital in the creation of our writing.

Thus, good constructive criticism leans neither way of overly negative or overly positive.

Here are a couple comments I've found on dA:

"WWWWWWHHHHHHOOOOOOAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D"

and

"Your writing is too sub-par to bother with critiquing. You need to learn how to write first. Read other people’s works and find the flaws and pros. If you want to write seriously, don’t ever write fanfic. Keep studying other people's work, before starting your next piece."

We need not cut through cryptic critiques here. These are just bad. What these critiques don't do is help the writer in the creation of their work. That's why it's called constructive criticism.

What we need to understand is that we are, in fact, a writing community. Our attendance is wholly voluntary and we do not want to discourage others from writing. It's a wonderful joy, this writing is, and I don't want to be a part in the complexes of discouraging people from writing or anything else for that matter. Critiques of a truly shark nature attack one's facilities for writing without helping one re-write the piece. As Carver said, "Writing is re-writing," but if a critique discourages a writer from writing altogether, how constructive is that?

'Nuff said, yo.

Site Map