Constructive critiques - a question on tone
I would like to have everyone weigh in on constructive critique style for ~creative. :)
Most of the critiques given so far in ~creative have been very light and amiable. People are feeling their way into what is acceptable, and don't wish to offend. Today we've had an extremely high level critique by Trin (awesome feedback, btw!) And I'm caught between cheering and covering my eyes.
Cheering because having this level of critique in ~creative is worth gold. To have members of the community capable and willing to devote this much care is incredible. It takes a LOT of time and energy to give this sort of feedback. Some people search and pay money for feedback like this, and still can't find someone good enough to give it.
Covering my eyes because many people don't understand or want such thoroughness, and I'm imagining all the new writers/crafters/artists running for the hills and never posting again.
I am extremely reluctant to fling a "critique scale request" out there. That often seems to polarize posts. Also...if someone reads your work, views your art, enjoys your craft enough to give you the compliment of a deep critique...wouldn't you want it?
Let's hear what people want! I personally want all levels of submitters comfortable in ~creative. But I also want it to be a place that encourages growth instead of just ego stroking. :)
@Kat, this is an amazing post. I especially appreciate the point about the author's vision and the critiquer's remake.
I was in a drawing class working on a still life with a skull in it once. Whenever I drew it true to the object and my point of view, it just looked Strange. Sort of a neanderthal type of look. But when I drew it the way that looked right for me composition-wise, it realistically could have only come from a Grey. So I asked my college professor what I should do.
She said that sometimes you just had to go with what "felt right" to you and be happy with it regardless of technical correctness. So I did. Her critique of the piece noted that it was inaccurate from a draftsmanship perspective but excellent compositionally and passed it. :D
I used to post quite a bit in r/WritingPrompts some time ago, and made it a habit to try and give at least one thorough reply listing the things I liked (and the things I thought could be improved upon) to other writers in threads where I would myself participate. The times I myself got actual critique instead of a generic "Great job!" and "Loved it" comments I was ecstatic - it meant that the person replying actually read through and enjoyed my work enough to take the time out of their day to tell me about it. I believe that people who cannot take critique that was clearly made in good faith might not actually be interested in their craft after all, but are rather looking for self-validation through cheap praise, and thus I find it hard to sympathize with anyone not willing to listen to a thought-out reply about something they posted online for all to see.
I basically agree with @Kat. (Really great post~) But I figured I'd still add my two cents. My examples will all be based on writing, since that's what I'm most familiar with.
I don't write a ton at the moment, but my internet background is writing forums, and while I probably learned from the harsh critique culture there, it's not really the sort of climate I'd like to see on ~. Yes, if people simply post things to garner praise they'll be missing out on feedback that could help them improve, but scaring them away and putting a damper on their enthusiasm is just as (if not more) counterproductive. (At least if they're posting things for praise that means they're practicing.)
My first thought was to suggest a critique scale, but after a bit more thought I agree that could be polarizing. (It'd also be easy for people to overestimate what they think they can handle, or lead to people scoffing at folks who choose the "easier" levels.)
Instead, I think it would make sense to encourage people to write a few sentences of context to help others giving critiques tailor what they say. "I wrote this for my creative writing class where the assignment was to practice dialogue" will prompt a different response than "I'm trying to polish this short story to start submitting it to magazines like X, Y, or Z" or "this is my first time trying to write a poem."
(If they want, people could also ask for tips or advice on specific things like pacing or characterization, but making that a requirement could be pretty daunting for people new to something-- sometimes you don't even know what to ask for help with.)
Of course, the next step is encouraging people to post critiques that are appropriate based on the given context (and basically not fall into the problems @Kat outlined). I'm not exactly sure how one does that, though. I think it might be partly by deliberately creating a specific community culture; once it is established, new people dropping in will hopefully take cues from how people are already acting. I think that would probably require some guidelines, a founding group of people committed to following them as best they can to model them for others, and a willingness to enforce them.
I second the idea to encourage people to post context along with critique requests. Maybe we could establish a loose formula like "I have X experience with writing and I'm trying to do Y, Z, and Q with this piece"?
(That would have the added benefit of getting people to think about what aspects of the piece they want critiquers to pay attention to--and even if they don't yet have the technical vocabulary to pinpoint exactly what they want, any focus they could provide would help them get what they're looking for. Something as simple as "I'm trying to write an adventure story. Is everything plausible so far?" says a lot: that they're looking for high-level feedback, that they're most concerned with plot-logistics at the moment, that this is likely an early draft or a work-in-progress, etc.)
And one guideline I'd suggest for critiquers, which I learned in a developmental editing class I took a while back, is to focus your critiques on the two or three most major issues with the piece rather than throwing out a laundry list of every little thing you'd tweak. A focused critique is a lot easier for a writer to process and act on, and it spares them from wasting time on smaller problems that could be fixed in a later draft. And often, particularly with new writers, the majority of the problems in a piece stem from one or two flaws that repeat or ripple throughout it, like pacing issues or exposition-dumping or a flat character. Point out one or two instances of that, and the writer can figure out what to do with the rest. After all, that's the goal of every good critique: to teach the writer how to identify and fix problems in their writing on their own.
I love this. I'm easily overwhelmed by a large to do list of flaws. I'm also prone to forget the good parts of what I've done once the word count is heavy on the to do list.
Yeah, I like your suggested critique guideline. I was thinking about this kind of thing after I posted, and the example I came up with was inconsistency in tenses. Someone just starting out might make this mistake numerous times in a story, but it isn't necessary to point out every single instance. All that needs is a general, "hey, I noticed this" with a single example and perhaps a link to a resource to read more or a brief description of why this generally isn't done.
Context and empathy are both incredibly important when it comes to the delivery and impact of creative criticism. Most people who deliver critiques while failing to contextualize or understand their recipient’s perspective will be engaging in an exercise in futility at best, or an act of cruelty at worst.
If you’re already making the effort to engage with someone’s creative work, it doesn’t take much more to evaluate the situation and the person in question and adjust your feedback accordingly. It reduces the risk of miscommunication and ensures that you’re delivering criticism at their level.
The types of creative critiques I give and receive at work are different than the kinds I’ve given teaching, and those are different than the kinds I give to random strangers on the internet, etc. Beyond those types of delineations, the types of criticism I give and receive obviously change depending on the domain or field I’m working within, like web development vs print design vs branding vs writing, etc.
There’s so much intuitive adjustment that can affect the lasting positive impact of a critique. To that end, I think it’s in every creative person’s best interests to learn to not only give and receive truly constructive creative feedback responsively, but to learn to give feedback for the feedback they receive too if necessary.
I think a critical part of being able to properly set the tone for a critique is knowing which aspects need criticism. In asking for criticism, it helps to present the work in a way that sets the stage. Similar to what @eladnarra talked about with writing a brief description of context. In addition to situational context, it's also useful to know what level of self-criticism the creator has.
As an example, I tend to be painfully aware of the flaws in my work, but also accepting of a certain margin of error. Without keeping it in check, my self criticism would keep me from producing anything. When managed properly by allowing a certain rate of output, I'm able to produce things that may not be perfect but allow for growth. So I don't often look for critiques because my own criticisms are more than sufficient for knowing what to improve next time. Normally, I have more difficulty in identifying what people could possibly like. This usually results in creative gridlock for me. I make what I like, but end up not liking it because of the imperfections so the incentive to keep producing is ablated. In situations like this, hearing feedback about the positive aspects is far more helpful to me.
In other situations where I'm learning new things, I don't always have a solid foundation to perform the same degree of self criticism. As an example, I recently started doing video. My proportion of criticism/acceptance is adjusted to compensate for lack of knowledge. Since my self criticism is lacking experience, I allow for fewer errors. I can tell that I'm growing because I find more issues with previous work with every new episode I produce. This is the type of situation where criticism of errors is much more useful to me.
This might be condensed down to either, "I've been doing this for a living for years, but I could use a hand figuring out aesthetic strong points," or "I'm just starting out and I don't even know enough to figure out what I'm doing wrong." For some purposes, that might be enough to set the stage for a useful critique. But I think these could be way better.
"Apart from the haze in the color and some curves that could be improved, I feel like I should like this piece but it just isn't doing it for me. Does anyone have examples of similar work that might inspire improvements of this form? I feel blind to any positive aspects of this piece, so any insight as to what went right would be really appreciated."
or
"I'm fairly new to video. I had a ton of fun making this, but it feels off to me and I'm not sure why. I know that the timing in these parts could be better, and the focus in this shot is messed up. I can't go back and reshoot those parts, and I'm willing to live with that. But I'm having a hell of time figuring out if the story makes any sense. Is it jumbled and abrasive, or did I spend too long establishing things that don't matter? Are these clips sufficient to set the scene or should I have done more? Or did the scene need to be set for that at all? Any assistance in identifying cringey material and faux pas would also be appreciated."
I feel like this sort of introduction really helps identify skill level as well as a much clearer understanding of the type of criticism the creator is looking for. The creator has to put some effort into attempting to understand the body of work they're presenting, and they'll be more likely to be able to recover from any negative feelings because the feedback was explicitly requested.
Would anyone else be interested in trying out a thread where we critique the critiques based off of how the requests are presented? I realize it couldn't be very scientifically rigorous, but I think it could be interesting to see if/what types of criticism are elicited from what types of requests.
I would personally love that sort of thread. "Watch the watchers"; "critique the critiquers" etc. I think people giving critiques should be trying to be just about as open to feedback as the people posting works for feedback.
Four's enough to get a start on this, imo. @BuckeyeSundae, @aethicglass, and anyone else out there, do you think one will do? Or should there be a few? Poetry/prose, 2d visual, and animation/video/sound?
I think a single all-inclusive thread would be good for doing a little experiment. I think the more variety we have in fields, the more variety we'll have in themes, experience levels, types of requests, and just input in general.
Do y'all think it would be worthwhile to try to have some variation in context? Like maybe have everyone post one piece without context, then one piece with context? Would it be too difficult for the critiquer to separate the two objectively?
I'm having a hard time picturing this. I was going to suggest one thread per work of art to keep the critiques and the critiques of critiques from getting all snarled in my head. Is it better then to have everyone's art in the same thread to reduce spam?
I think we can probably have a thread per work of art. That way makes the most sense to me, especially since it mirrors how we'd probably be asking for non-meta-critique threads to go unless there were a unified prompt or something to the works.
I think I'm gonna go ahead an make a sort of catch-all thread for the sake of keeping it consolidated. There are already a few different feedback threads and I think it'd be good to keep the "critique the critique" in it's own little world.
Totally down for that. I can either provide a piece or critique, or critiquing the critiques. :D
First I want to say that I was so excited to see @Trin's critique. That basically alone actually made me realize that this community has already effectively become a supportive writing community. That was really cool to see.
I feel like I've come the long way around on this topic. My background is largely in rhetoric, a tad of history, and then writing. So I end up paying about as much attention to the attempt to persuade as I do the actual substance of a thing. That can be a problem all on its own, but it's where I'm currently at in The Journey Of Writing (the form of creativity I'm most at home with).
Used to be that I was a persnickety little shit that would call out the inconsistencies between an oxford comma usage and lack of oxford comma usage ("be consistent" my Catholic trained style would yell, right alongside the stalwart insistence that Jesus doesn't need the extra s). I hope that I've eased up on that level of asshole critique just after reading a lot, thinking a lot about a lot of work, and getting a better handle of what general qualities make a "good" work (spoiler: it had nothing to do with an oxford comma).
I'd second the observations that @kat, @eladnarra, @silva-rerum, (<-do you see this shit) and @aethicglass make when it comes to helpful critique. Focusing on the positive, trying to help the artist deliver their vision on their terms (not yours), understanding the context of a work to be reviewed, demonstrating that you've read the thing you're critiquing, and making sure you tailor your feedback to what the author/artist needs are all super important. I honestly didn't know if I'd have much to add to this discussion because of how important each of those points are.
If I had any guideline to add to what y'all have already been suggesting here, it'd be some concepts that I've often had to remind moderators of in that other life I had moonlighting as a subreddit topmod:
As a general rule, I typically will look for what stage a work is in before thinking about offering feedback. Not to beat this point too harshly because @eladnarra has already covered it so elegantly, but I want to know how many drafts something has been through before I've seen it. I'm often pretty actively editing anything I write as I'm writing it, so I typically will be effectively two drafts in by the time I've finished the first. Some people stawartly refuse to edit on the first run through a draft, and that's fine too. I've never had that much self control myself.
For a lot of people (myself included) a work isn't really where an author wants it until the fourth or fifth draft. So knowing at minimum how many drafts a work as been through is important to have a better guide on the type of feedback to give. If it's a first or second draft, more holistic feedback is probably more important because the author will be more likely to want to know whether the central ideas of the work are good enough to keep playing with. If it's a fifth or sixth draft, we're looking at something an author is maybe practically sick of and just wants fresh eyes to check for things the author might not be able to see anymore.
Critiquing is in itself an art form in creative empathy, figuring out what the needs of an artist are, and speaking to them effectively. I think it makes perfect sense to treat critiquers as much as artists as the critiqued.
Obviously, whether the original poster is seeking critique is a major factor. As for the scale of critique, whether the work is commercial or for pleasure plays a significant factor in how in depth of critique is appropriate. If I post some photography (a hobby) asking for feeeback, I’d be expecting less in depth critique than if I post an app design (I work in user experience design professionally). Every person who uses an application will have feelings on whether the app is easy to use, logically organized, appropriate colours and fonts, etc., and are likely to be vocal with their opinion. When I’m seeking critique for my professional work, it’s against a backdrop of “anything negative you can say is something I’d hear a thousand other people say if I launch as is”. So the context I present my work in is important.
Part of professional creative work is that it’s ultimately for other people to enjoy/use/consume, so if you want to maximize that, you’re better opening yourself up to the most in depth feedback early on, and accepting that other people may feel very differently about your work than you had been. I think some fields may be more innurred to accepting critique dispassionately than others. One of the core principles of user experience design, for instance, is that it’s all about the end user, and their needs / desires / opinions are not the same as the designer’s, and thus the designer is not a good stand-in for deciding what works well for users. Everything needs to be tested and evaluated. Something like music will have a lot more subjective elements.
Part of opening yourself up to critique is that you can expect that the critique will vary—some will imply your work is flawless, and others will critique in contradictory ways. Part of the reason why Trin’s feedback was so good is because it thoroughly explains the reason behind the feedback and even offers advice on how to avoid issues even if the person being critiqued disagrees with the individual aspects of the feedback (e.g., re-reading it the next day).
Wow, I'm so happy to see my critique resulted in so much discussion! (Also extremely flattered, you guys are making me blush!)
I can't overstate how much I agree with the point everyone made about context. The critique I wrote was made under the impression that this is someone creating art because they want to become better at it, not for a school project as it was later revealed - had I known that, my tone would probably have been different, if not the content. I always try to give an honest critique that focuses on positives as well as the negatives, and I don't want to scare anyone away from writing. But as a proofreader/editor, I'm pretty much used to going over a text with a pen and doing whatever it needs to make it shine, thus the disclaimer at the beginning. So for all writers looking for feedback: please, please, include a lot of context. Let me know how experienced you are, what the text is, and how you feel about it. As a writer myself, I know how annoying it is to receive comments on something you already know needs to be improved, and this can be prevented by telling us about it.
Thank you so much for acknowledging this. I used to do a lot of critiques back when I started on Reddit, but I stopped because I realised so many would-be writers put less effort into their story than I did into my feedback (this is also why the first thing I pointed out in that particular post was the lack of proofreading). Asking people to critique your work for free, while you couldn't even be bothered to run a spellchecker over it, feels almost insulting. It often felt like I spent more time on the feedback than OP did writing the text! The only reason I even wrote this particular critique was because ~ is not Reddit, and the text itself was really short. (By the way, I do edit/proofread/critique longer texts professionally - so if anyone is looking for this kind of thing, feel free to contact me.)
I went ahead and made a thread for putting this into practice if anybody wants to experiment around with context, critique the critiques, or even just share some of their work for others to critique.
Let's play "Critique the Critique"