Young Writers Society

Hello, YWS! I haven't been around in a long while, so it's really interesting to see how things have and haven't changed, and one of the things I noticed as having changed was how reviews are received.

Back when I was super active and reviewing everything in sight, I acquired a reputation as being not just a harsh reviewer, but one of the harshest reviewers around, even though I never really tried to be. Back then though, being considered a harsh reviewer was considered a badge of honor because it meant your critiques were thorough, spot-on, and never sugar-coated, and members with reputations as harsh reviewers would get tons of requests to shred an author's piece so that the author could see everything wrong with the piece and fix it. Harsh reviews were a very valuable commodity back in the day.

It seems that nowadays, the reviews most members want are gentler in tone, which is actually pretty nice. I've received my share of really harsh reviews, and they can really hurt, especially if you didn't request any.

The thing is, "nice reviews" are really subjective, as are "harsh reviews". I've seen a few examples roaming around of reviews that have been accused of being too harsh, when all they did was respectfully point out some issues with the work. There's also a general lack of appreciation for reviewers who take the time to write well-thought-out reviews pointing out issues and making suggestions for improvement, because apparently those kinds of reviews aren't "nice".

Something for all sides to remember is that there's a person on the other end. It's something I've always tried to remember and apply, even when I brought the talons out to thoroughly shred a piece (but only ever upon request, since the talons almost always draw blood).

If a reviewer has left you a lengthy, thought-out review, it means they care enough about you as a writer to put in all the time, effort, and energy into reading your work, analyzing it, and then writing up the review. Even if you can't agree with the reviewer's viewpoint and think they're horribly wrong, it's worth making the effort to Like the review and/or say a simple "thank you", if only for all the work they put into the review, and then maybe point out some points where you disagree with their review if you can remain civil.

The discussions that result from review replies are awesome, and not only can everyone involved learn a lot about the intricacies of writing, but a lot of the time, you'll also get a great writer friend out of it as well. It's how pretty much all of my YWS friendships were formed.

On the other side, reviewers should never, ever, ever bring the writer's skills or worth as a person into question in a review. The review is a critique of the work, NOT the person, and any time you criticize the person behind the work, you are being cruel. Writers are NOT their writing, and to assume things about a writer based on the themes and subject matter of their writing is something that should never be done; writing about things we've never believed ourselves, or from different viewpoints, or even from opposite sides of an issue is one of the ways to broaden our writing horizons and skills, so a reviewer can never know for sure if it wasn't just an experiment into a new writing territory or a writer's actual beliefs.

For example, assuming that just because a writer has written a story or several where the main character commits heinous crimes means that the writer endorses the committing of heinous crimes is silly and hurtful. Another similar example involves grammar. If a writer has terrible grammar, there is no need to call them out as being incompetent at writing. Instead, point out the common errors and direct them to informational resources and leave it at that.

Your focus, as a reviewer, should be on the work in front of you and NOT the person behind it.

That aside, there's a world of difference between saying something like "I couldn't enjoy this piece because the grammar errors were distracting" compared to "this piece sucked because the grammar sucked". They both honestly convey the same general idea, but the former is much more considerate of the author, while the latter is the reviewer being a jerk.

Don't be a jerk, reviewers. There's a surplus of jerks in existence.

Don't be a jerk when replying to reviews, either, writers.

My main point in all of this is there's a difference between criticism, which is good and necessary for improving as a writer, and being a jerk. Criticism hurts enough even when packaged nicely, so don't be a jerk when giving it, and don't be a jerk when receiving it, either.

And just in case this super long post didn't provide enough material for discussing and opining on things:

What qualifies as a harsh review to you?
What do you think about harsh reviews?
What are your favorite kinds of reviews to receive?
How would you say you personally review?

What qualifies as a harsh review to you?
A review that leaves absolutely no question this piece needs work, even if all that they did was point out hypothetical places to improve.

Alternatively, somebody who I know isn't enjoying the work simply because I wrote it.

What do you think about harsh reviews?
Give me reviews please.

No, seriously, I have two lists of beta readers. One is my "need encouragement in my writing" list, and one is my "murder it" list. Some people are on both. My writing always ends up in front of my writing murderers before I start editing it. Because I want to get the most honest feedback as possible.

What are your favorite kinds of reviews to receive?
Depends on my mood! Like I said, I have the aforementioned two lists. Usually I prefer honest first reactions to anything else. These can be everything from gushy "wow I love it" to "... this is super confusing." The honest initial reaction is the single purest type of feedback I can get, and it's the fastest way to get a measure on how the scene is.

How would you say you personally review?
Considering I also had the title of "one of the harshest reviewers on the site" right along with you, Kyll... ;P

What qualifies as a harsh review to you?

A review that's negative and useless. I mean, if someone thinks something in my story doesn't work, I need to know! But there's a difference between constructive criticism and being a jerk.

Worst review I ever got (not on this site): I was thirteen and posting my first fantasy novel to a Yahoo writing group, and this person told me that they hated my story, that it sucked, and that "ripping off Shakespeare" didn't make a good book.

(My characters spoke in "thees" and "thous," which the reviewer apparently didn't know was an actual way of speaking at one point in history. Shakespeare didn't make it up.)

I was just like, "Okay, my story sucks. But how the heckles am I supposed to improve my writing if you won't even tell me why it sucks?"

But then a different person on the site wrote me a very long review that let me know everything that needed improvement in my story (it was a lot of stuff) in a respectful and encouraging way.

What do you think about harsh reviews?

Under the aforementioned definition, let us defenestrate all harsh reviews.

What are your favorite kinds of reviews to receive?

The ones that feel the best are well-thought-out "I loved it" reviews. You know, really long reviews wherein the reviewer tells you what things you did well. (It's just as important to know what's working as it is to know what's not working.)

But I'd much rather have a respectful and well-thought-out "this needs a lot of improvement" review than a review that's just "This was good. You should keep writing." Because the latter is just as unhelpful as my definition of a harsh review, although at least it doesn't destroy your self-esteem.

How would you say you personally review?

Even if something is written poorly and needs a lot of work, I will find something nice to say about it. I'm like the real-estate agent of reviewing. (I know this room is tiny and more than a little moldy, but would you look at the view out that window!)

Being one of the older writers on this site and having been writing for about a decade now--like, you've got to try to be a mentor to less experienced writers. You've got to be honest so they know where they need to improve, but you also need to be encouraging so they aren't just torn down by negative reviews. And I try to review with that in mind, although usually if it gets to a certain point at night I think my reviews get a little less encouraging because I'm tired and I'm just trying to get some reviews done.

(I probably shouldn't do reviews late at night, actually.)

What qualifies as a harsh review to you?

A piece that makes a writer feel worthless and like they should stop writing because they're that bad. A review with minimal encouragement and lots of criticism. Usually long, and often full of generalisations and stating opinions as facts (instead of "I didn't like the structure" saying, "the structure is awful".

What do you think about harsh reviews?

I often think that people who pride themselves on "harsh" reviews are egotistic, arrogant and rude. That's how they come across in reviewing. I also don't think that harsh reviews are necessary. At some point or another, all writers will come to the realisation that their writing sucks, or at least isn't perfect. They'll notice this as they develop and grow as a writer, and they read more. They don't need to hear it from your lips.

I think my main issue with "harsh" reviews is with people who don't know when to stop. Priding yourself on ripping something to shreds, unless the person specifically requested it, isn't as virtuous as a lot of people think. I try to limit myself to two or three points of improvement on a piece. As a novel reviewer this is easy because I can stagger my general criticisms about writing over two or three different reviews. But I read some reviews and I just imagine being the writer who has proudly put a piece of writing out there in the world - maybe for the first time - and someone has come along and given them a "harsh" review, because that's what they do. And I just think that if I were that writer, I would do what that reviewer told me, crawl back into the hole from whence I came and never write again. And maybe the reviewer doesn't realise, but that can be the effect they have.

I'm particularly gentle with new members because this is probably the first time they've ventured anywhere for criticism, and I want them to feel safe in YWS. It's basic communication skills really - nobody is going to take your advice until you have developed a rapport with them.

What are your favorite kinds of reviews to receive?

Fair ones. Like any author, I put time and effort into what I write. I like my readers to see what I have written and go, "gee, Stella, you for sure know how to turn a phrase" (I know I do) and then say, "but for real Stella your sentences are way too long" (I know they are). I'll often leave specific queries for reviewers about things that I'm queasy about - pacing or tone or something like that. But I am very happy as well to learn other things that went wrong ("your dialogue was all over the place" - really, I usually consider that an area of strength but I guess you're right!). Equally, I am happy to learn about things that went right ("this scene was great for character development" oh, I didn't think it was, but now I look at it again).

How would you say you personally review?

Polite polite polite. I am happy enough with my own skills and knowledge to not have to put other people down. I would much prefer to take my time running a fellow author through one or two areas I think could use some improvement and suggest how they could do that than list a piece's every flaw. Developing as a writer comes in stages. Isn't it better to teach someone how to punctuate dialogue and depurple their prose in their first short story, and then move onto how to develop their characters in the second?

I have been told several times that I'm a good reviewer, which is something I really value, so I guess other people like what I do!

Also, Kyll/Rosey, I really never counted either of you as harsh

What qualifies as a harsh review to you?
A review that makes it clear the reviewer did not like the way it was written and/or makes it clear that the piece needs work.

What do you think about harsh reviews?
I love them! They are one of the most helpful things on the planet to me. Sugarcoated reviews always feel fake to me.

What are your favorite kinds of reviews to receive?
Harsh, but thoughtful.

How would you say you personally review?
It really depends on what mood I'm in. I wouldn't say harsh, because I've seen how harsh other reviewers are, but I'm definitely harsher than the majority of YWS reviewers today. No matter what though, I will always find something good in a piece. There's always a little spark somewhere in a literary work that makes it worth reviewing. If I don't see that spark, I don't review it. If I know I can't say anything nice about it, well I just keep my mouth shut. I know what it's like to get a mean review.