Young Writers Society

Okay, I am normally a very patient person, but I am getting a little frustrated. In the poetry section, I come across a piece that is one of the worst poems I have ever read on the site. I scroll through the reviews and people are gushing over how wonderful it is!

I'm not saying that we should be really mean or anything, but if we just tell the author how good their piece of work is, what good is that going to do for them? We need to find a comfortable median where we are kind, but helpful and firm.

Oh, this post is scaring me. When I read it, all I could think is 'I hope it isn't mine!'
But, even if it is, I agree with you. I feel that sometimes I'm too nice. I just feel that a person should not get all bad reviews, simply because the one piece they submitted may be bad, but their writing may be actually good. No one should be discouraged by anything anyone says, but just improve themselves from it.
~Classy

It's a natural consequence of having people with no experience of good poetry critiquing poetry. That's why you have to be better informed and more convincing. Welcome to the world of telling people what they don't want hear while everyone else says the opposite. I believe it's called 'life'.

Actually, it does a lot of good.

I'm not sure what poem you're talking about, but I can probably imagine the type of reviews you're talking about. In fact, I bet they're not that much different than this particular review:
post416914.html#p416914

As I repeatedly tell the mods and JMs, don't critique reviews. For one, it's just plain bad manners. For another, what's the objective? Is your opinion really that much greater than theirs? And besides, as the above post shows, people get better at it. It's just plain stupid and egotistical to go around critiquing reviews.

And as I said, such reviews do actually achieve good. Writers don't get better because you made an excellent critique. Indeed, if your critique discourages the writer from writing again (or causes them to leave YWS), then your critique actually made the writer worse off than before.

Rather, writers get better because they keep writing. As long as you continue to write, you'll inevitably improve.

That's not to say critiques aren't important. They are. Critiques can help a writer notice flaws in his/her work that he/she may not have noticed before. However, their main importance is in helping the critiquer improve in their own work. Read my latest blog entry on Writing Gooder to understand what I'm saying.

In this same vein, a lot of hardcore reviewers really need to tone it down and gain some perspective. A writer is more likely to pay attention to a well-written, concise review than they are to a rambling list of what they did wrong.

Besides, as Bob said, it may be that those reviewers just haven't read enough poetry to know what's good and what isn't.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

I repeat what the others have said. Reviews, no matter how much detail they have (or lack of it), must stay realistic.

Being nice is great. An ego boost for anyone. They're worthless for improving but the best thing to get you to continue writing. They are what motivate people because there us only a small percentage of people who improve when under constant harsh comments. But don't lie, please. It is not helping anyone improve. If you feel something needs work don't ignore that and say 'oh I love it! It was great!'

Touching the issue about tough reviews:

You are not going to change someone's entire writing style through one review. You can be tough, not let the smallest thing pass but stay polite about it. There are different ways to say things, harsher and friendlier ways. Personally, I like to say something positive about the piece at the beginning, give some suggestions, then recap what I said in a more general manner. I usually close off with a 'good job' or anything along that line. It shouldn't matter if you despise the piece with every inch of your soul. Just be smart about it and be able to tell the good in something.

Overall, I think the best reviwers are the ones who are friendly. If they have tough reviews in a pleasant tone, well suddenly they aren't as tough. Also, another thing that bothers me. If you do not know what you are talking about, do not say it.
It makes your review completely worthless and can just confuse a writer and discourage them more. This site is great but tough, meant to have you improve. If you talk about something you don't understand, just because you saw some other reviewer talk about it, don't. Please please.

The people who don't understand exactly what a review is, will get the hang of it. Eventually.

Kamas

Concisely put, why critique if you are not critical of anything? I guess I'm more in the position of 'writers should suck it up' than 'reviewers should ooze niceness'. Writers should post their work accepting the fact that every shred of it can be torn up, and will be, and probably should be. Is a fear of discouraging people or being perceived as mean actually justified? Or are people to busy being nice that they are forgetting the most important thing, the writing? Sure, be friendly - we all know what they are going through - but remember that nothing should interfere with critique.

Okay, I'll admit, two years ago someone being critical of something I wrote damaged my ego considerably, but in a while you remember that the devil's advocate reviews were the ones that helped you the most. If something about your writing is bad, you should catch it before it has time to fester.

Yeah, so its probably just me, who can spend hours laughing at how silly people's profiles are, and their blogs, and at the ending of Boy in the Striped Pajamas. But I stick by my guns. No writing is perfect, so let people have it. Its actually nicer than "I loved it!!!"

The goal, i think we can all agree (maybe?) is to be positive, while constructive. I am guilty of what was being said above; more so in poetry than fiction-- where it's easier to give a complete thought on the piece.
I personally get annoyed when people gush about my work. I really enjoy tough or honest reviews (especially when it ends on a slightly positive note, it's like saying "despite all that, I liked the piece, so pat yourself on the back"), probably because I'm masochistic. But I don't think other people feel the same way.

Along with critiquing critiques, writers of the piece arguing with or attacking a reviewer really bothers me. And the review usually wasn't all that harsh, but the person is so used to getting comments like the ones I give that they weren't ready for something that was honest, or tough. So they snap back.

Critiquing is a really weird and delicate thing around here. I think everyone has room for improvement, especially me.

Critiq wrote:Okay, I'll admit, two years ago someone being critical of something I wrote damaged my ego considerably, but in a while you remember that the devil's advocate reviews were the ones that helped you the most.

QFT. A year or two ago, I asked for critique from a reviewer I know. He couldn't even finish reading my work - he criticised everything I'd always assumed I was good at: description, characterisation, emotional impact. It was crushing, and I spent about the next three months bleeding from the ego. But the feeling of triumph when I finally won his approval - that was awesome. It hurts to get a tough critique, but once the pain and bleeding ends, I find them incredibly helpful.