Young Writers Society

A question: when you recieve a critique from a younger member, do you dismiss it as immaterial because they're younger than you and obviously have less experience and/or can't possibly understand the complexity and maturity of your writing?

Also, when you read a younger member's work, do you automatically assume that the piece will be...childish or beneath you?

Do you feel there are age barriers here on YWS?

Personally when I critique or recieve critiques, I ignore the member's age. Jeez, Sam is a testament that even the youngest of us can be smarter and more literate. I think that when people make a big deal about age they should be given a tight knot and a short drop.

This is a line I absolutley despise, "I like this. It's well-written for someone your age." I don't give a frick about age. I want to be treated on the same plane as everyone else. Tell me if my work is good by all age standards, I say.

What say you?

-Kylan

Well said. I completely agree.

Of course you have to take someone's age in account. You can't expect a thirteen-year-old to write as well as someone who's eighteen.

That having been said, you should still point out any flaws you find in their work -- that's what you're supposed to do when you critique. But you can't apply it to as high a standard as you would an older person; the younger one has a lot more time to learn. You have to scale it.

But no, I don't think you should make a big deal of it. It should be a factor in your tone towards the author, though.

can't possibly understand the complexity and maturity of your writing

You'd have to be pretty egotistical to think that way. XP

Prokaryote

she has a point though. I never look at the age when I am reading or critiquing. It's important to judge everything evenly so everyone can increase evenly. If you are harsher or cut slack out of anything for any reason, especially age, it can have a heavily negative effect on what critiquing is about in the first place.

I never look at the age of the person who posted the piece unless it is absolutely horrific, or I'm just amazed at the eloquence. More often than not, atrotious writing belongs to younger people, and "good" writing (because "good" is subjective) usually belongs to older people. Every so often, someone will break the mold.

Age plays only a minute role when I critique. It's used only as a reference as to how nitpicky I get when critiquing. I obviously won't point out every little thing that's wrong with a piece that a 12 or 13-year-old posted, but I would with an 18 or 19-year-old.

Well, everyone's got things to say, no matter what age they are. And sure, some things might not be terribly helpful or accurate (heck, I once got a review that told me that waves couldn't have humanlike characteristics), but it's the author's choice on what changes are made.

I personally take every critique I'm given and pick and choose what I want to change. If there's a point that I don't agree with, I don't change it. It doesn't matter how old the author of the critique is. If they bring up a good point, I'll take it into account. If they start spouting nonsense that I don't see the logic of, I don't.

Seems pretty simple to me. *shrug*

(Then again, I am one of the younger members of the site. )

When it comes to receiving critiques, I don't even look at the age - I just read the crit and do like St. R. said. I make corrections as I see fit.

When it comes to giving crits, though, I do check the age of the author before I start (this is typically after I've read the piece, though). The reason for this is chiefly that I won't be as hard on a younger author (say 10-14) as I would be on an older one. I admit I can be a bit ... er, thorough sometimes. But I try to make things simpler and less intense for younger authors on the general basis that they can't be expected to know as much or (at least) have as much experience as an older author. And because they can sometimes be a bit more sensitive XD

I don't really see age as a barrier though *shrugs* Half the time I'm surprised that some people are so young/old when they don't act...their age...er...*coughs* You know what I mean

When it comes to reading/critiquing on this site, I never look at the author's age. I think it is irrelevent. If their work is posted they obviously want a good and helpful critique so I'm as thorough as I can be regardless of age. When receiveing a a critque I only read the critique and don't even look at the name of the user who posted it until after I've read it so I might be able to return the favor some time. Like Razorblade, I take what suggestions I like and disregard those I don't agree with.

I look and am usually surprised at how well these people are writing compared with the balderdash I was trotting out when I was their age. I dislike the "for someone of your age" line as well. It's so patronizing. But I think I might be tougher on someone who's older and been on YWS longer, than I might be on a younger newcomer. Because if you've been on here long enough, you should have a skin like a rhinocerous, and your writing should be better. But I try and say what was good as well, regardless.

I think it is natural to be less critical to those who we think can take it. I always glance at the writer's age before I critique because that's the easiest way of gauging it. And yes, I do know that age isn't always indicative of maturity/ability to take harsher critiques, but I also try to judge the critique on how well the work is written.

Easy steps. Sometimes it's better to help bit-by-bit, rather than diving in, guns blazing. Even so, a harsh critique given to the right person at the right time can be the right thing to do.

So, basically, it depends!?

Charlie

There are only age barriers if people make them out to be there. Personally, I don't think it's age so much as how well-read a person is.

I wouldn't dismiss a critique because of a member's age, but I would dismiss a critique if it read something like "I found no errors. I don't really know much about/read [insert genre here], so I don't get it. But this is good. Good job. Keep writing" because not only does it make no sense, but it shows that the person doesn't have any idea what they're talking about; hence, it seems like they haven't even thought about what they read. And it's the thought that is important. This has a tendency to happen with younger members, but it is not caused by their age, so don't glare at me, as people in the past have when I've made that statement. I'm not going to pretend I write mature and complex things, so when I get a critique, regardless of what the critiquer's age is, it's all relative. If I agree with something, I'll make the edit. If I don't agree with something, I leave it as it is.

I despise the "this is good for your age" line. Because that seems to give little incentive to improve, and when it is no longer good for their age, the person will wonder what has happened.

When I critique, I ignore the poster's age. Simple as that.