This little community is still quite new to me, I'm not part of a writing group and I don't have any friends who are avid writers, so the notion of critical review of others work is something I've had little practice of (save for casting a cursory eye over my step-kids' homework, something I've learnt not to be too critical of; they tend not to appreciate complete honesty). As a result I find that it doesn't come easily to me.
For those who are experts at it, and there are a few on here: is this something you find comes naturally or have you practised and developed this ability over time? Do you read everything with the same critical approach or can you read for leisure without your proof-reader's eye leading the way? I think it's a useful skill to have, and will become more so as I edit and re-draft my own work, so tips on how to improve in this would be very welcome.
Thanks,
Mark.
A constructive critique should list the good, bad - explain and offer solutions. The critique should always end on a positive note.
A good critic shouldn't write anything they're not prepared to say face to face to that person.
Mark, when you read something, you do it in several different ways, from surface skimming to in-depth analysis. Not everyone goes that far, or has the confidence to do it. You have to have the right sort of mind for it.
I have a degree in English and American Lit, which must have left its mark (in more ways than one!) on the way I read.
I started the kind of analysis I've done here when a friend sent me a chapter from a book she was writing (and should finish!) and wanted feedback. She's married to a publisher and has worked for years as an editor, but had no confidence in her non-business work. She was so pleased with the result, she passed my name on to another friend who wanted help with a sticky patch in her WIP.
I'm a natural proofreader - can't help it! - and when I read a badly-produced book, I feel cheated. What goes out there as a finished work should be as polished as it can be; but it is practically impossible to view your own work to that degree.
It's easier to see problems in a work you don't know intimately, but even then you may not be interested in some genres and therefore won't want to touch them. The hard part lies in saying it right. As writers we are ultra-sensitive; our work is part of what makes us unique, and therefore criticism of any sort hurts. However, if someone else can point out the problems in a respectful manner, and we learn from them, then they have done us a favour.
There is a huge difference between constructive criticism and trashing someone's work. The latter does nothing for anyone. If it's that bad, either tell them privately what you think, if you must (it's only a matter of opinion, after all) or walk away.
Mark,
There is a very critical difference between creativity and analysis. Call it using different sides of your brain, or whatever you like. The point is that the human mind is in very different states when we are being creative than when we are analyzing something. This difference comes in to play whether you are reading a piece or writing one. I think it is critical to only do one at a time.
When you write, let the words flow out and let your creativity run rampant. Then wait, maybe a day or whatever, and go back to the piece with an analytical set of eyes. Reading other work is the same process. Read it once and pay attention to how it makes you feel, then read it again paying attention to the details.
Trying to do both simultaneously, whether writing or reading, weakens the effect of both.
As for responding to others work, all of us know that it isn't easy to throw something we wrote in the pubic eye. It takes nerve. I respect anyone that has that nerve, so taking the time to respond just seems right. Not to mention, that every time I do, I learn something new as well. It makes all of us stronger.
My humble opinion.