Three Styles Of Critique · 2:24pm Jul 24th, 2013
For one reason or another, I find myself critiquing a nontrivial number of horse stories. I've noticed that there are three patterns I tend to fall into. There are a few guiding principles common to all of these:
—Positive feedback is exactly as important as negative feedback. To get better, an author needs to understand what's working and what isn't working. A line is defined by two points, and a path to improvement is defined by something to move away from and something to move towards.
—Know your audience. Some authors are writing because writing is a fun way to spend an afternoon. Some authors are writing because one particular story is burning a hole in their brain. Some authors are writing because they want to understand the intricacies of the craft. And among all these groups (and others), some people are more comfortable receiving criticism than others. Before you let loose, think about what the author wants, and how thick their skin is. If you don't know, then realize you don't know, and act accordingly.
—Reinforce the behaviors you want to reinforce. If asking you for reviews makes people feel good, people will ask you for more reviews. If asking you for reviews makes people feel bad, people will ask you for fewer reviews. Know what other people want. Encourage people to do the things you want. (Everyone feels good when you tell them they're great, and some people feel good when you give them useful tools. If you want someone to use the tools you're giving them, sometimes you also have to tell them they're great, and sometimes you don't.)
—Only say true things. I mean, obviously.
With that in mind, I usually end up in one of these categories:
Courteous: I will point out something your story does well. Then I will point out 1-3 of your story's most serious problems. Then I will point out something else your story does well.
I use this for people I don't know very well, such as when I'm going through submissions to Equestria Daily. (Note to self: start doing that again. You have time, now.)
Professional: I'll go in depth about whatever I find most interesting in the story. Generally I try to put the most important points first, i.e., I'll talk about the pacing as a whole before I talk about an individual scene, and I'll talk about a scene that derails an entire character arc before I talk about a scene that had some vivid imagery. I try to end with something positive, even if it's just a more personalized version of "this story has potential," because the peak end rule is a thing.
I use this for people who I trust will receive constructive criticism in good faith. If I've corresponded with you personally, you're probably in this category.
Nemesis: "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be." I will destroy as much of your story as I can. I will pick the smallest of nits. I will highlight 1200-word passages and tell you to delete them because they are boring. I will tell you that your narrative choices reflect, not merely bad storytelling, but moral cowardice. When I highlight something good, I'll often leave it at "this is a strong paragraph," because I often think you already know why it's good.
This complete disregard for social norms and relationship management requires a stupendous level of trust. These reviews only happen if I know that you care about slightly better feedback more than you care about significantly nicer feedback. It never, ever happens in public. I only do this for members of a particular subculture that operates this way by default, or for a tiny number of authors who I know very well indeed.
I like to think that I would be okay with someone liberally tearing my story apart, as long as they made good, accurate points. I also like to think that I'm a good enough author that I wouldn't write a story that could be torn apart in such a way.
I also like to think that I might actually write something someday, but I'm not holding my breath
1233447
Unless you are literally Terry Pratchett or something, this is... let's leave it at "unlikely." I can think of zero ponyfic authors who are consistently that good, although some of the very best manage it occasionally.
Literally Terry Pratchett? No. Figuratively Terry Pratchett?
Yeah, still no. But really, who is? (other than Terry Pratchett) I would settle for being Jim Butcher. Or even James Patterson. (also, I feel terrible for forgetting who Terry Pratchett is (but I already looked it up, so you don't have to remind me))
This is a good post. I am a beginner when it comes to fiction writing, though I am a technical writer by trade. As with all things, the more I learn about writing a story, the less I seem to know.
At the moment, I am trying to master (or at least wrap my head around) dialog structure and proper grammar. But you mentioned pacing and now I have to wonder if my story has a faulty transmission.
Do you have any resources on setting a good steady pace?
1235006
Wikipedia can outline the broad fundamentals. I expect tvtropes probably has good articles on the subject, as well. Someone I greatly respect recently recommended Orson Scott Card's book on writing as a resource for this, but my copy hasn't arrived yet so I can't vouch for it personally.
EDIT: I've read Card's book and it is amazing. Everyone stop what you're doing and read it.
No wonder you're so good at being a nemesis. You get a lot more practice than I do.[1]
--
[1] Though I guess that stands to reason. The superhero has to save the world week after week after week. The arch-villain only needs to conquer the world once.[2]
[2] The times he's foiled by that pesky hero don't count.