So, an article critical of criticism is fraught with difficulty from the beginning. Fall into the same potholes as it discusses? Hopefully not.
What on God's green earth is a good critique and why?
Like most things, critiques based on a certain balance are more helpful than those without it. Bad balance means worse falls. One can have lovely bladework in a fencing bout, perfect parries and lightning ripostes--but if the feet don't move, none of it gets to the target.
So, like lovely bladework, I've seen--and am certain to have given--some critiques that poke holes in all that needs poking. They tear the tatters of ill-conceived or hastily scrawled stories to shreds. But do they move to help rebuild?
Criticism is cutting. Of course it is, and in that aspect alone, it's hardly helpful or worth the time to type. To be bluntly honest and sharp enough to pick out flaws is an excellent start.
But a good critique tears down so as to build.
A question to keep in mind at the end of each critique: With what I've pulled apart, what have I left?
If the answer is dejection with no reasonable hope of ever seeing the light of day, you've left extremely cutting criticism. And you've obviously forgotten something. You haven't aided any truly diligent writer if you haven't moved your feet--criticism is yelling from the sidelines. A critique ought to add how? why? what?
Keep in mind the flip-side. Any problem has a solution. Inept use of dialogue is a chance to compare with perhaps, a good use of description. Bad form but good concept can always be contrasted. Strong characters and weak plot can always be brought back to characters are plot.
Gender:
Points: 10092
Reviews: 459