z

Young Writers Society


How to Review Poorly Written Works (The Spotswood Way)



User avatar
29 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 1356
Reviews: 29
Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:35 pm
View Likes
Spotswood says...



So, I wrote this article the other day and shared it with the members in my club and, at the request of @RobinSparkles, I decided to post it here in the forums! I hope you enjoy this unique outlook on reviewing.


Let's face it; there are some very crappily written pieces on here. I do not mean to judge, as I think everyone has potential, but, even though I believe some people are born writers (this guy ), some members, mainly the younger ones, are innexperienced and do not have a very good control over the English language...yet. I won't even speak of the ten year olds who think that they're amazing and come to this website, lying about their ages. And then there are those people who don't belong here, period.

But I know we all can't help messing with the ten year olds from time to time. I still haven't found one yet that I can mess with. If anyone has any names, I will take them .

Some can be arrogant and, if we review poorly written works and give false compliments to be nice, we are not helping them at all. It doesn't help a young, potentially grandiose writer to stroke their ego.

I refer you to this right here...


http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=204236

Yes, that was me at thirteen. While I wasn't bad for a thirteen year old (I probably wrote at a fifteen year old level...or at least the average fifteen year old), I was by no means good. I look back and just laugh at myself, my arrogance, and stupidity. Their cynicism was percieved as bullying by me at the time (Yeah many of them were jerks), but it helped motivate me and I am glad they did that to me now!

And so, now moving on to the "Spotswood Method". I see it as being the snarkiest, but most effective and even constructive, style of reviewing. Honestly, it can be extremely enjoyable and fun to write these snarky reviews.

To that end, don't stroke their egos, be honest, be humorous, and be judgmental without being an arse.

I know it sounds cynical, but it is true. Of course we do not tell the author that, but we do not tell them that it is good either or compliment them for something that isn't worth complimenting just for the sake of being nice.

But you don't discourage them either...just offer a new kind of constructive criticism that does not require any complimenting at all. Don't tell them that their writing sucks just because they have a sucky command of the English language, they have a sucky storyline, they have sucky grammar, and they don't know how to write...yet.

Don't discourage them! Tell them that they have room for improvement, but that doesn't mean that you can't jokingly make fun of fallacies and things that make no sense.

For instance, if someone is writing a story and a character is referring to the spread of a zombie disease, a character might say, "We need to stop the spread!" and they do not clarify what the "spread" is.

You can reply. "The spread of what? Butter on toast? Do they have something against toast? Or is it jelly on toast, or possibly even both? What spread are they trying to stop? I can't believe it's not butter? Clarify!"

See? Humorous, fun, snarky, but not necessarily offensive. If the author sees it as such, it isn't our fault that they percieve it in that manner.

I know it might be a bad example, but I am in a hurry, but still, it gets the point across.

So, that is my method of reviewing certain stories, but it does help more than offering false compliments...substantially. If you aren't able to embrace cynicism and cannot give honest advice (without being a jerk), don't give compliments to make the author feel better. We aren't here to make them feel better; We are here to review and, ultimately, help offer advice to improve the author's writings!
"Often, the best way to improve is swallowing your ego and realizing you're a terrible writer in all aspects of writing, then working to improve it."
-R.U.
  





User avatar
384 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 14918
Reviews: 384
Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:10 am
View Likes
eldEr says...



Hey there! You've got a pretty interesting article written up here, but I'm going to skim through it, bit by bit, and try to make some counters. I'm also going to use it as an example to show anyone who may be reading it exactly what you mean. Ready? Okay!

I'm going to put corrections in unerlines, my own comments about the phrasing and whatnot itself in bold, omit unnecessary bits with strikeout, and then go on to summarize all of it below each individual quote. :)

So, I wrote this article the other day and shared it with the members in my club, and, at the request of @RobinSparkles, I decided to post it here in the forums! I hope you enjoy this unique outlook on reviewing.


No offense intended whatsoever, but this isn't necessarily a unique reviewing method on YWS. We've been doing the snarky/harsh thing for years, and a few of us have, in fact, mastered the craft. It's always nice to have a topic dedicated specifically to teaching the ways of the snarky reviewer though, so props to you for that! Wish I would've thought of it.

Let's face it; there are some very crappily This isn't a word, and it certainly doesn't sound intelligent (or relatively snarky, for that matter). I would replace with something more refined, like "poorly" or "unintelligibly" written pieces on here. I don't not "do not" here sounds very, very clunky, and almost makes you sound like someone who's trying to be intelligent, as opposed to someone who actually is intelligent mean to judge, as I think everyone has potential, but, even though I believe some people are born writers (this guy ), some members, mainly the younger ones, are innexperienced and do not have a very good control over the English language... yet. Ugh, please get rid of the ellipse (...) here. People use them in a manner totally unbefitting of their awesomeness all the time, and this is one of those cases. Adding it doesn't add suspense; it just makes you look like someone who uses ellipses in bad places.


Here you go on to state that there are "crappily written pieces," which in and of itself is a rather unintelligent way of stating that there are some poorly written pieces on YWS. It's downright rude, for starters, and besides that, 'crappily' isn't a word (which I would excuse because I make up words in my writing all the time in such a manner, but I read your entire article, and it would appear that you're very pro-technicalities). Also, I'd like to point out that by saying that you are a born writer, you're already shaping yourself up to be one of those "arrogant, young writers" that you mention later. And I doubt that you are, so we don't want to give off that impression, now do we?

I won't even speak of the ten year olds who think that they're amazing and come to this website, lying about their ages. And then there are those people "people" is unnecessary. YWS doesn't typically have members who are animals or insects, or really anything but people, so when you say "those", we'll know who you're talking about. Adding "people" tosses in a word that you don't need, and thus bogs down your writing who don't belong here, period.


You won't speak of them? But you did already! This is a very contradicting statement, and then to polish it all off, you finish with another statement that's just not true. Everyone belongs on YWS, and everyone can at least improve their writing abilities on the site. That's what the forums are here for- to help people improve. Just because they don't live up to your standards doesn't mean that they have no place being here.

But I know we all can't help all can't help? that just sounds clunky and amateur. I'd suggest rewording this bit messing with the ten year olds from time to time. I still haven't found one yet "still haven't found one yet"? Really? That's extremely redundant and should probably be trimmed. If you have "still haven't" before, you don't need the "yet" after that I can mess with. If anyone has any names, I will take them .


This bit is entirely irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your article. You go on to talk about the ten year olds that you said that you weren't going to talk about, and then you throw in a request for shredding purposes. And besides that, it doesn't make sense. I would suggest omitting that altogether.

Some can be arrogant and, if we review poorly written works and give false compliments to be nice, we are not helping them at all. It doesn't help a young, potentially grandiose writer to stroke their ego.


I wish that I knew where to put my bolds and italics and underlines here, but I don't. It's just the way you phrased it altogether. It sounds weak and amateur and, again, like you're trying to give off a false impression that you're extremely intelligent (more so than most people from the site), and failing. Which is kind of depressing, because once again, I doubt that you're unintelligent.

Yes, that was me at thirteen. While I wasn't bad for a thirteen year old (I probably wrote at a fifteen year old level...or at least the average fifteen year old no, you wrote like a thirteen year old. Sorry to burst your bubble, but as you said, it doesn't help potentially grand writers to stroke their egos.), I was by no means good. Oddly enough, you sound like you're trying really hard to say that you were good. You were better than the average kid your age, were you not? (the answer to that is still no, I'm afraid). This is a contradicting statement, and could probably be removed. It also sounds really quite arrogant I look back and just laugh at myself, my arrogance, and stupidity. Their cynicism was perceived "perceived", not "percieved", as you had as bullying by me at the time (yeah many of them were jerks), but it helped motivate me and I am glad they did that to me now! This last bit is awkward. I would suggest changing it to, "but it helped motivate me, and now I'm glad that they did it!" There aren't any unnecessary words, and it's easier to read


Okay, so here you say that you were good (for a thirteen year old), but that you weren't good, and then that the former you (who you now laugh at for their arrogance and stupidity and blah blah blah) is now being laughed at by your current you, and it's all just very egotistical-sounding and self-centered. You've got a bunch about how you sucked, and then at the same time, you're bragging about how excellent you are. Why even add that you were "good", unless the entire point of this article is to say that you're someone who is good, and who doesn't require these snarky reviews yourself? I don't know, it's just the impression you're giving off. I'll say more about that later.

And so, now moving on to the "Spotswood Method". I see it as being the snarkiest, but most effective and even constructive, style of reviewing. This entire sentence is clunky, and full of unnecessary words and phrases. It's also arrogant. Your method is not, by any means, the snarkiest reviewing method I've seen out there. Snarky, yes. The snarkiest? Not really. Honestly, it can be extremely I really dislike the use of unnecessary "ly" adjectives/adverbs. When they're necessary and add something to the piece, by all means, use them! But it doesn't here. It's an adjective that doesn't need to happen, and your point can be made more clearly by omitting it from the piece enjoyable and fun to write these snarky reviews.


Ding ding ding! This is another piece that, more so than the others, makes you sound like you're a little bit full of yourself. You can't back up your claim (the one stating that your method is the snarkiest and one of the most efficient methods), so it' probably unwise to state it. Like I said, snarky reviewing isn't unique to you. Trying to claim it as a thing of your own is disrespectful to those who were here before you, and downright untrue. It's probably also something that will have people who used this method without ever reading your article rolling their eyes, so I feel like this warning will be at least relatively useful.

To that end, I'm sorry, but why is "to that end" here? It doesn't make sense in context, and takes away from the punch of the next half of the sentence. I'd take it out completely. Don't stroke their egos. That's a comma splice. If you don't know what those are, I'd strongly suggest looking it up. They're a very amateur mistake Be honest, be humorous, and be judgmental without being an arse.


Well, if you're reviewing something in a snarky, honest manner, it should be a dead giveaway that you're not going to pepper them with dishonest compliments. Really, this paragraph is kind of unnecessary. The only part that's of any value is saying that it won't do a young writer any good to stroke their egos, and you've already stated that.

I know it sounds cynical, but it is true. Wait, what's true? That you shouldn't stroke their egos? If so, this sentence should probably be bumped up to be right after that one. With the last sentence being what it is, jumping right into this doesn't make a whole lot of sense Of course, we do't not Again, "do not" sounds arrogant, and little bit patronizing. I'd switch to to "don't", just to give you a more casual, down-to-earth sound. tell the author that, but we don't not and again tell them that it's is again good either or compliment them for something that isn't worth complimenting just for the sake of being nice. Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. This entire last bit is, again, very clunky and poorly-worded. It's awkward to read, and I would strongly suggest rewording and restructuring it


Pro-tip: As well as using "do not" and "it is" and "I am", etc, etc, in the stead of "don't," "it's" and "I'm" etc, etc, making you sound patronizing and arrogant, heedless placement of phrases such as "should not", "should", "and remember," etc, etc, can do the same thing. You do this quite often in your writing, judging from this article, and I'd just keep an eye out for it. You don't want people to roll your eyes at you. You want them to take your advice (and it has nothing to do with respecting or acknowledging your intelligence; you do just sound a little bit arrogant).

But you don't discourage them either... NO! No ellipses! Get rid of that. Replace it with either a period or a semicolon, because it makes more sense, is more grammatically correct, and packs a better punch just offer a new kind of constructive criticism that does not require any complimenting at all. Don't tell them that their writing sucks just because they have a sucky command of the English language, they have a sucky storyline, they have sucky grammar, and they don't know how to write...yet. Again with the ellipses. They just sound amateur and... not good.


Okay. You take a really long time here, and in the next paragraph, to get to the point. There's a lot of unnecessary sentences, a lot of unnecessary information, and a lot of pointless drabbling that goes on before you actually tell us what to do. You don't want to lose your reader, and you lost me a long time ago.

Also, that really isn't a "new" kind of constructive criticism. That is constructive criticism. You can't critique something with a bunch of dishonest compliments.

And after that, I'm not going to quote you anymore until the end. It's a bunch of what I previously stated- taking far too long to get to the point, and to tell us what you want to tell us. You're redundant, and you keep swinging us back to what you've already said. I'd read this entire bit over and make the necessary cuts to the writing.

I know it might be a bad example, but I am in a hurry, but still, it gets the point across.


This entire sentence is unnecessary. You're obviously just making excuses for your own poor writing, and the "but still" that you stick in there should be a new sentence.

The Impression I got From This Article:

The entire article gave me one impression: that you think very highly of yourself, and very lowly of other people and their own abilities. You didn't teach so much as you patronized, and you word choice only proved to reinforce this egotistic light that you're placing yourself under.

The writing itself was also weak. Sentence structure was terrible, and so was your use of punctuation. Your word choice could have been so much better, and your false sense of "I'm new and original with my awesome-tastic reviewing methods!" didn't help impress.

So, what I would do with this piece is:

Use it as a rough draft! Read through it, recognize when you're coming off as arrogant and prideful (which is basically throughout the whole piece, and it's a shame to get that impression of someone you don't know), and polish your writing itself. Play with sentence structure. Do some research on forming proper clauses, and using punctuation. Don't fear writing advice blogs, for they are your friends.

This article has a lot of potential to be a good teacher about "writing snarky articles," but it is not your own, unique method, and it could have been laid out better and more intelligently. Keep working at it, and you'll have one spic-and-span article for young writers everywhere ;)

Good job and keep writing,
~Ish
Guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurl.

got trans?
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:35 am
View Likes
Rosendorn says...



One very thorough review deserves another, I believe. Isha did quite a wonderful job on the technicalities, and I'd like to add a little bit more on the content.

I do not mean to judge, as I think everyone has potential, but,


Adding "but" to this sentence switches the tone right into judging, which has unfortunate side effects. If you're going to judge people, be honest that you are. If you're not, be encouraging, or at least don't say something is awful simply because it isn't what you would do exactly. After all, if everybody has potential, all they should need is some encouragement and good advice to get themselves off on the right track. No "but"s about it.

Don't discourage them!


Yet I have found being judgemental is the worst thing you can be, and with how extensively you degrade writers, especially the youngest writers on the site (the people you are trying to help), it's hard to follow both pieces of advice at once.

Personally, I tell people that I'm not fond of certain things but educate myself on why those things might be used, so I will not influence them based on my own preferences. Not everybody has the same style and respecting other styles has been the single best thing to improve my writing, because I learn to appreciate what I don't do, and often add elements of whatever works for me into my own style.

That isn't to say that if something doesn't work for you, you should be quiet about it. But simply acknowledge what you think they were trying to do. Somebody who raided the thesaurus in their writing probably wants to create a very vivid picture for their description; your job as a reviewer is to help them find a better way to reach that goal. Everybody's writing goal is different.

--

One caution I would have about your method is to avoid personal attacks. Those are the single biggest detriment to a writer, and you have unfortunately flirted with the line of attacking in your opening statements (which I will not point out twice, seeing as Isha has been so kind).

Saying people shouldn't write, shouldn't hold the opinions they do, calling them names can all count as personal attacks on writers who are simply experimenting with a new way to express themselves. If your goal is helpfulness, then remembering that everybody starts somewhere is paramount.

Kindness and snarkiness are not opposites, even if snarkiness isn't always perceived as kindness. One comment in a review I received years ago was "of course cities don't move, silly -.-". Very snarky, but he had still been encouraging and pointed out very bluntly what I needed to work on. I had my own ego and he burst it, but he did not burst it in a way that made me feel I couldn't write.

As Isha said, use this as a rough draft. I would personally study other methods of reviewing and see the value in them, because sometimes snarking isn't the best way to go. Not all writers, after all, have an ego the size of Jupiter, and not everybody needs to be taken down ten pegs. Some do, but those are by far not limited to writers under 15. In my experience, it is often writers in their late teens, who've gotten just enough practice to think they know everything, but not enough for them to know they have so much more to learn, who need to be knocked down the most. I was in that camp, and I got snarked at as much as I deserved.

A little bit of experience is just that: a little. All writers (past a few miraculous first timers) start out bad, and even the miraculously good improve as time goes on. Everybody, absolutely everybody, has room to improve, and that is the single most important thing to remember.

You have potential, and this has room to improve.

Good luck.

~Rosey
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





User avatar
29 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 1356
Reviews: 29
Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:43 pm
Spotswood says...



Isha wrote:The writing itself was also weak. Sentence structure was terrible, and so was your use of punctuation. Your word choice could have been so much better, and your false sense of "I'm new and original with my awesome-tastic reviewing methods!" didn't help impress.


I couldn't agree with you more. It was by no means my best work. And I still cannot recall if the grandiosity was intentional or not. I read over it again and saw it as being quite juvenile, possibly to the same caliber as something I would have written at thirteen or so, as I was not the best of writers.

Many people (on this website even) tell me that I am a very strong writer with an equally strong command of the English language, but they could just be stroking my ego. As you and I well know, there still are quite a few people our age who are still very poor writers, but, as I stated in the article, there is always room for improvement, even in the best of us.

The whole "born to be a writer" thing was more of a jest than anything, but I do realize that it is hard to understand the overall context of such over text.

And, in regards to the snarky method of reviewing not being a new thing, I have actually, believe it or not, seen any snarky review on here before.

If I had the time and written from a far less grandiose position, hopefully I would have done much better (at least I would like to think so).

I guess this piece did not give my writing ability any justice, but I don't want it to sound like I am trying to defend anything here, which I probably still am :P

And I guess this work did not give you the best impression of my writing. Thank you for not stroking my ego. I absolutely hate that. But still, being a competitive person, I'd like to prove to you otherwise at some point, if this piece hasn't scared you away.

Now that you have called me on all of my errors, grammatical and otherwise, I am quite embarrassed, but embarrassment is one of the most useful ways to improve one's writing. In a sense, I like the feeling. Thank you so much for being honest.

I must also commend you on your snarking and harsher method of reviewing. I am pleased to know that someone else shares my ideology.

The irony of this is also that I tried to be as un-pretentious as possible.

And I didn't initially intend this to be a rough draft, as this was a forum post that took me about five or so minutes to write, but now, due to your urging to do so, I think I will transform this into a legitimate article! Thank you for giving me the idea.

Finally, all in good spirit, I would like to point out that, while it is still a word, "whatnot" is not the most intelligence choice of words (at least according to my PhD English teacher :P )

Thanks for the "review" and I appreciate the snarkiness!

- Spotswood

PS: Since your review was so "kind" (brutal honesty is an awfully kind thing), I was wondering if maybe you could have a look at some of my other pieces of self-proclaimed...ahem..."literature" and give some honest reviews of them as well, that is, if you have the time.
"Often, the best way to improve is swallowing your ego and realizing you're a terrible writer in all aspects of writing, then working to improve it."
-R.U.
  





User avatar
662 Reviews

Supporter


Gender: Male
Points: 11195
Reviews: 662
Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:40 pm
View Likes
Messenger says...



And, in regards to the snarky method of reviewing not being a new thing, I have actually, believe it or not, notseen any snarky review on here before.

I think you are missing the word I typed in bold. And I can't believe that you've never seen one. They are all over the place. Most of the oldest and smartest users on here write reviews that.
I'm really not sure how you could have never seen any.

Finally, all in good spirit, I would like to point out that, while it is still a word, "whatnot" is not the most intelligence choice of words (at least according to my PhD English teacher :P

I love the word whatnot. It encompasses a lot of things at once. :p
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:06 pm
View Likes
Rosendorn says...



Your liberal first person language indicates you have not really taken the review to heart. Claiming such things as "my ideology", especially in this context, indicates to me you are still trying to claim ownership of snark, which is physically impossible.

Whether or not you have seen snark before, its commonality on the internet and the age of YWS should lead to a certain thought process that ends with "wow there have been a lot of snarky reviewers on here before I came along, and they've had more practice than me so would be better at it." Simply because you do not see something does not mean it doesn't exist, after all. It should only make sense that an internet full of snarky people would take this snark to reviews on an internet forum.

To put it bluntly, there are no "best of us"s in writing. Every single person you could hold up as "the best" will have a group of people disagreeing. Tolkien is held up as one of the greatest writers ever, and a theologian who can't write at all. Name a famous author and they will have people who wonder why in the world they're famous.

Claiming bestness is a detriment because that is the root of the ego you so disdain. People stop looking critically at anything they consider the best, which in turn hamstrings their ability to take criticism and improve. Confidence is important but anything in the area of "best" is where confidence turns to arrogance. Claiming to be good is safer, although if you treat good as a related term to best (ie- good enough that there is no critique) then it is once again arrogance. Good is a word that allows room for humility if you let it.

The longer you write the more you realize you know nothing about writing. You can have a certain amount of aptitude, and gain the ability to give advice that will lead to better results, but writing is just as much of an art as it is a science and you will always have parts of your writing to improve on. You can know every ounce of theory about description and still have your first draft have too much or too little by your audience, and that is a fact of writing.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





User avatar
560 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 30438
Reviews: 560
Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:40 pm
View Likes
Tenyo says...



Looks like your critiquing method got critiqued ;]

Being honest and humorous is a hard one to get, but I agree it's a great way of reviewing. Piesaresquared does this, and no matter how much my work gets ripped apart I always feel better and enthusiastic to improve afterwards.

It's an interesting idea! I wrote an article on Reviewing The Gentle Way, and this is the total opposite.

Maybe you and I can team up and get this to KB standard? Let me know if you're interested =D
We were born to be amazing.
  





User avatar
133 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 2296
Reviews: 133
Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:04 pm
View Likes
PiesAreSquared says...



*has nothing else to add*

*beams down luxuriantly on all the moderators*
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. C. S. Lewis

I used to be ZLYF
  








There is only one success: to be able to spend your life in your own way, and not to give others absurd maddening claims upon it.
— Christopher Darlington Morley