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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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!!!!!! "
and
"Your writing is too sub-par to bother with critiquing. You need to learn how to write first. Read other peoples works and find the flaws and pros. If you want to write seriously, dont 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?
New deals posted everyday, starting Black Friday and running through the holiday season! No hassles, no lines - just awesome savings on art, deviantWEAR, Premium Memberships and more!
Merry Christmas to you out there but don't forget: we are only guests here and so...listen to my favourite words... and look at all these wonderful pieces of art
Daily Literature Deviations is a group that is dedicated to bringing literature to the forefront of the deviantArt community. We attempt to accomplish this by daily featuring Literature artists from around the community that deserve the recognition, but are not getting it.
Each day we will feature 5 deviations from the Literature categories in a News Article. In order to support the artists that we feature, we ask that you the news article as well as check out the individual pieces. We understand that each day you may not be able to check out each and every one of the pieces, everyone has their own things going on. We just ask that you make an attempt to help support the growing Literature community.
^Ikue has been a devious member of our community for almost 7 years and in this time he has proven to be nothing short of dedicated and devoted. Whilst volunteering his time over the last 22 months as a Gallery Moderator within the Community Relations Team, Chris has brought the Vector gallery and many vector artists directly into the spotlight. ^Ikue's commitment to the community is evident in everything he touches and you can always find him reaching out to others with an encouraging word. Chris is a natural leader with a vibrant and empathic personality, and is a role model for deviants everywhere. It's ev... Read More
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