The words "positive" and "negative" are completely arbitrary, defined by the recipient of the critique. So therefore, writing about "positive" reviews vs. "negative" reviews is pointless, which is why Imp didn't use this language.
Yes, I agree and said as much in my response: "Where we differ is in what you consider 'positive.' I don't think 'positive' or 'negative' ought to have any bearing on a critique." I think we had a communication error here: I did not mean "positive" in the sense of full of praise, and negative in the opposite sense. I meant "positive" and "negative" as relative scales for the value of a critique. What Imp did say is that balance is good, which does imply a scale of positive and negative responses. Still, I disagree with both.
Instead, the critiquer is responsible to make the critique useful to the writer. This was the point of the article.
What I don't agree with is the seemingly arbitrary method for determining the worth of a critique: whether or not you further the reconstruction process, or point out what was done well should not be a basis for determining whether you, as a reviewer, adequately did your job. The value of a critique is determined solely by the author--all we can do, as readers, is offer our own experience and lend our voice to the piece at hand. Since everybody has their own, unique voice, it is impossible for any review which sticks to the piece in question to be any more or less useful than another one.
Best,
Brad
Gender:
Points: 890
Reviews: 915