The twitterdickian Review Methodology

Since I'll probably make these weekly reviews for a while to add some flavor to my bland and tedious academic life, I've decide to spell out my critique methodology for those unfortunate receptacles for my reviews. I just want everyone to know what they're getting into.

FIRST AND FOREMOST:

I will assault the shit out of your work. I will rip at it viciously and mercilessly. I will never directly attack you as a person, even if you ask me to. I don't know you. I also believe that no critic should be unwilling to suffer that in which they shove upon others, so feel free to kick the shit out of my work. I'm open to criticism on my work, my reviews and my methodology.

Now, when I create a review I am essentially deducing what the story was trying to accomplish and judging how well it achieved that aim on me personally. I try - I reiterate try for those of us that write romances - to go into every review without any preconceived notions or judgements of it's premise.

TERMS AND VOCABULARY AS I USE THEM:

Parts of a story:
Premise - The idea that starts a story
Story - A combination of narrative and plot
Plot - The events that happen
Narrative - How those events unfold and revealed to the reader
Exposition - The primary information needed to understand the story
Substance - Themes and ideas behind the story
Overarching Plot - The main sequence of events, the end goal
Plot Device/Plot Point - An event or character used solely to propel the plot
Story Arc - The way the story (narrative + plot) changes over time
Character Arc - The way a character grows and adapts over time
Presentation - The organization of words; The way in which words are used to present the story

Lower Brain - This part of my marvelous thinking box judges the story objectively and within the context of only itself. It deals with judging your story a purely mechanical level.
Higher Brain - This is the part of my brain that focuses on deeper meaning, themes, emotion and how the work effected me personally. It deals with judging your story on an intellectual and emotional level.

Intrigue - The level of interest I have in your story overall, usually in terms of plot and narrative. (Upper Brain)
Engagement - How well the story is presented, usually in terms of word choice, grammar, etc. (Lower Brain)
Immersion - If and how well I lose myself in the world and story you've constructed. If you pull this off, your work is mediocre at worst. If you cock this up, your work is mediocre at best. (Both)

Good words to see; interesting, intriguing (obviously), expectation upheaving, unique, unpredictable, imaginative, absorbing, etc.
Bad words to see; bland, boring, predictable, cliched, uninspired, like every X and also their dog, flat, dull, insipid, etc.

TWITTERDICKIAN AXIOMS (tentative. I just started this, give me a break):

1. Every idea, no matter how terrible, can be great if it's presented well.
2. Characters propel the narrative.
3. All lines must, apart from provide information, either reveal character or advance the action.
4. Juxtaposition! Juxtaposition! Juxtaposition!
5. Characters are the firmament of any story
6. The villain should be just as deep and complex as the hero.
7. People will always remember how your story made them feel.
8. There's always an exception. (except when there isn't)

"Dream-Whisper-Story-Syndrome": The antithesis of axiom 1. The phenomenon in which a story with admirable ideas and an admirable story is brought down by it's own presentation. The two major symptoms are dull-first-person-perspective and "tell, don't show". This syndrome cripples immersion by hindering imagination and engagement, and therefore renders your work mediocre at best.

THE TWITTERDICKIAN DICHOTOMY:

I argue that there are two distinct aspects of creating a good story: storytelling and writing. While these two terms are ostensibly silly and capricious, they are ever so important. Here's an explanation.

"Storytelling" is the ability to weave a believable and engaging story fueled by complex characters and palpable depth. The ability to tell a good story transcends the medium by which the story is presented. One can be a good storyteller but a bad writer. Example.

"Writing" is more mechanical and objective - it refers to the composition of prose and the effectiveness of language. Shit like grammar, diction, connotation and all other forms of English teacher snobbery apply here. This is the ability to draft effective prose and presentation. One can be a good writer but a bad storyteller. Example.

I admit that I hold a bias to the former. I am a sucker and huge critic for storytelling and am less concerned with the individual mechanics of writing. I'm not so good at correcting grammar, sentence structure or proper formatting and frankly have little interest in any of that shit - that's the job of an editor, not a critic. I'm all about the story and that is what I will build the vast majority of my opinion around. Alas, Axiom #8 applies and the two concepts I place under the "writing" category that I will actively criticize are "show, don't tell" and word choice because of their profound effect on the ability to tell stories.

I do not mean to down play "writing" as a skill, for the best stories will have the best of both worlds. I merely wish to spell out in big, hairy bronze letters that I personally care more about the story itself over the way it is presented. I'm also do not purport to be a good writer - I think that I'm rather terrible - so I don't want to openly criticize something that I'm not so good at. That is my bias, and I wear it like a crown.

"The cruelest thing you can do to an artist is tell them their work is flawless when it isn't."
-Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

tl;dr - You're not getting a positive review, buddy.