Young Writers Society

Hey guys! I would love to receive some input from different types of reviewers, just to be able to write about strategies anyone could use to really help people on this site. Thanks so much for your help!

I always have two tabs open, with one focusing on the work and one focusing on the review. I review as I read, since I find that a lot easier when trying to touch upon each part of the work. I start my review by saying hello and then listing any grammar nitpicks I find, then I talk about the work itself and any issues with the work like inconsistencies or character flaws, etc. I wrap it up with what I liked about the work, give it a quick read over, then submit it.

Thanks @Iggy for your input! I just might have to review that way one day xD. That makes a lot of sense.

My way of reviewing is perhaps controversial, but I stand by it:

I read until I have enough material for a review (3-5 paragraphs) and stop reading once I do. This means I'm reviewing anything from the first paragraph to the whole thing, but usually it's somewhere in the first third to half of the work.

If you don't have a good beginning, nobody's going to take your work. Slush piles are very large and agents can only take so many books a year, so this method of reviewing is how they narrow it down. If the beginning is good enough they want to keep reading, they request more. If it's not, they send out a rejection.

It doesn't matter if everything gets sorted out later. You need a good "now." And for me, I'm going to stop reading when I feel like I stopping to read, because how else can you learn where the weakness starts if you don't learn that information?

Thank you very much @Rosendorn for your input! Your way makes a lot of sense even if it seems a little harsh. That’s a good way of setting the writer up for the future. Good for you!

I just write my reviews straight in the text box under the work, though I usually drag it to make it larger.

I start out just by reading the work, but if I find something I know I'll want to comment on, especially if I'll be quoting that part of the work, I go ahead and c/p the quote and often write a paragraph comment on it. I'll admit that if the work is very long and has a lot of flaws I can comment on, I don't always read the whole thing, but usually I do.

After I finish reading, I go ahead and write a short introduction and launch straight into the overall things the author could improve. Usually this is a discussion of plot, pacing, characters, and sometimes dialogue problems. I don't have a template, so at first, it's very much stream-of-consciousness, but as I work out how the problems connect to each other I move around and rework paragraphs until it flows smoothly. Sometimes what I think are just nitpicks wind up being used as an illustration of a broader problem.

My final structure is usually separated by overall topic, with a small section at the end for nitpicks. I always start with something positive - something I liked or something that worked. Since my brain usually jumps straight to critiquing, I often (particularly if the work is uninteresting or difficult to read), have to go back and add the positive comment. I also usually end on a positive comment, or at the very least some encouragement. Add a "good luck, and keep writing!" and you've got my average review.

The main time my method changes is when I'm reviewing someone who's work I'm familiar with or who asked me to comment on specific things. I tend to be more harsh in my reviews if I know the author well, and I narrow the focus of my critique a lot more. I'll also spend more time just giving reader reactions if I'm reading multiple chapters of a longer work.

Thank you @Mea for that nicely explained method. I find myself just typing in the text box as well, simply because I’d rather organize my thoughts on there than add another tab. Thanks for your input!