Good critiques and bad critiques

Nyaha wrote:

Thank you for your opinion, although I was really hoping for something more positive. :/ *sighs*

Look at my sig. Now back at me. Now back at my sig. Now back to your post.

What is wrong with this?

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Nyaha wrote:

Thank you for your opinion, although I was really hoping for something more positive. :/ *sighs*

Look at my sig. Now back at me. Now back at my sig. Now back to your post.

What is wrong with this?

There's nothing wrong unless you pick it apart. First of all, I wrote that a long time ago. Second, I was just stating a fact, not saying anything was wrong with what was said.

Although I like your nod to the Old Spice commercial, it sounds like you're nitpicking something that didn't really matter. Leave it alone and it won't hurt you.

I disagree with what youre saying zion. Praising may not be the point of this forum, but downgrading and belittle ideas certainly wont help make this place better.

The purpose of this forum is to encourage new and pertinent good ideas. Because within each ideas lies an underniable light.

Krisexy, this has been gone over before. I don't want you to derail another thread with this.
Valid critique is not downgrading or belittlement.

That's the short of it. If you or anyone else wants to discuss that further; make a new thread.

I will derail the thread if i see its going bullshit.

You have to make a review of what is a valid critique.

I'm not here to teach ya how to make a critique. I think you guys are mature enough to judge. Anime, i read one of your critique you made for Ravana: you were clearly out of the thing. Don't tell me that "Valid critique is not downgrading or belittlement" when you obviously do it yourself. Follow your own advices first before telling the others what they should do.

.

Back off. All of you.

Zion, was it really that important to respond to something from last year to point out you disagree with that? That was a very dumb and self-indulgent thing to do. You might as well have necroposted.

AJ, I thought you were better than this. You should've been. "I won't let you derail another thread with this"? I thought you were better than this, you know.

Same goes for you, Kris. Recriminating AJ about a third party event? That's what private messages are for. I won't even bother to disprove your accusation- that's something personal, and subjective at that.



I'm really disappointed in you. All of you. Shame on all of you.

Krisexy, when AJ critiques, he does it for the sole purpose of helping them improve.

Everytime he posts a critique on this forum, you jump down his throat. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he's pointing out errors so that the artist can fix them? So that it can become a better piece? So that the next person who reads it won't be distracted by them?

Of course, he could just give them blind praise. Say it's perfect. Leave the artist fully oblivious about their errors. That is the worst thing you can do, since the next person who reads it will be distracted by the errors. And maybe the person after that.

Really, I wouldn't think Nyaha would appreciate you using this thread to accuse others of liking to belittle others all the time.

Krisexy26 wrote:

The purpose of this forum is to encourage new and pertinent good ideas. Because within each ideas lies an underniable light.

You're mostly right on that, Krisexy.

One of the main purposes of the forum is to encourage new ideas.

The other main purpose is to help those ideas fit into the setting as much as possible, and to help the maker of the idea to refine his/her idea so that it is better than when it started.

Now onto my own views:

Genuine critique, no matter whether it is harsh or not, is always a good thing. Someone can pick your work to pieces...and I've had this happen on several occaisions...but as long as it helps the author/artist to improve in the end, it was a good thing.

Im not saying to be mean to someone in a critique, but there is nothing wrong with doing a point-by-point breakdown, if the issues are that prevalent. The trick is to be a little sensitive and find a balance. Some people do get hung up ONLY pointing out that bad things, and while pointing out the bad grammar/plot inconsistancies/logical fallacies is certainly important, you really do need to try and pepper your critique with a few positive points in order to keep the tone a bit even. To write a good critique, that the person you're critiquing is actually going to listen to, you have to tread a bit of a fine line.

As long as your intention is to help the writer/artist, and your critique is fair, then it is always a good thing.

...and honestly, most of the critique in this community...especially over on DA...is not that good. There's more than enough praise going around to where a couple people giving long, in-depth critiques aren't going ot crush anyone's spirits.

The goal is to help the author/artist. As long as a critique accomplishes that, it is good. I personally like more in-depth critiques. I take a lot of pride in my work, and I want to put out the best stories I possibly can. I wouldn't want anyone to NOT comment on bad grammar, plot issues or logical fallacies just because they were worried about being "nice" to me. That just keeps me from being able to edit and touch up that story, or to try and make the next one better.

Being able to listen to critiques is just as vital to being an artist or author as anything else. That is why, to write or draw, you need thick skin. You can't let yourself get bent out of shape over critiques. Having other people look at your work and give you feedback is one of the best ways to improve. They catch things that you will miss, things you might have never seen otherwise.

I think I already explained it, but when I give a critique, the point I ramble on the most about is the bad points, unless a good point was particularly good. Otherwise, I generally just say "this is good", "this is awesome". I will agree with Cliff on critiques on dA are not very good. A lot of the stories I read recently, very few people go in-depth, or if anyone who commented before me go in-depth at all. It's usually a single line about one event in the story. It does say that you liked that bit, but not much of anything else. I usually review a story as a written piece of narrative, not how I liked it, such as passing issues, repetitions, weak story elements, etc. I have only seen French-snack and timing2 write in-depth critiques of a story other than me.

If you ask me, I enjoy receiving critique. It means that the reader actually went through the blasted effort of reading in enough detail to find the areas you can improve. I've received a few "this is cool", "nice work", "this part was nice" comments before, and while it really is nice to know I've done a decent job, I really felt honored when Stabs wrote a critique several paragraphs long and sent it to me. That tells me that he not only read it, he read it and paid attention.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that praise is bad, and that you should write ten paragraphs for every comment. What I am saying is that, as a writer, you shouldn't be disappointed or offended by critique. You should seize the opportunity, and thank that person for giving it to you. Trust me, if someone just hates you, they'll just troll you instead of critiquing. "This part can be improved" is NOT equivalent to "you suck and you should stop writing".

That attitude pisses me off to no end. When I see someone act unwelcoming toward good-intentioned critique, I feel genuinely angry. That is an insult to someone who actually took the TIME OUT OF THEIR DAY to not only read your work, but to go over it and then write up a full critique! So when I see a writer or artist start whining about it and calling out the person who tried to help them, it usually takes more level-headed people to talk me out of flaming them so hard they never write again. And I am thankful for those level-headed people (you know who you are).

I'm sorry. I did actually goof up at the beginning of this. I hadn't realized that Nyaha's comment was over a year old. I normally don't pay attention to that subforum, since character critique is not one of my strong points, but it was linked by someone who was going to contribute, and I decided to look. Yes, I jumped the gun as soon as I saw the comment. It was a mistake born from growing frustration and strung-out patience, and I do apologize for not thinking before I acted. I normally try not to be so impulsive, but I failed there.

However, it did bring up a good point. Whether we want to say it aloud or not, there are too many authors who misunderstand the intention and purpose of critique. You know it, and I know it. This should be addressed.

Rcs

Quote :

Being able to listen to critiques is just as vital to being an artist or author as anything else.

I strongly, strongly disagree. Personally, I've never seen a great author fall in the misfortune of agreeing with a critique that comes from a random guy. Just go read what happened to a critique who dared saying that The Void, written by Perec, is just a fail of literature. Just go read it. And I'll mention another few names like Baudelaire and Flaubert (yes, them again), Hugo, the whole romantic guys, the whole realism crew, the whole symbolism crew, the whole dada and surrealism crew.

For me, writting a critiques that only talks about the bad points are useless and just a loss of time. Theres a word that exists in the dictionnary, and its called "Balance"

That's not what Cliff meant, Kris. He meant that pointing out the negative is equally vital, and that if the author can't take the negative part of criticism, then nobody is going to take him seriously.

And I'm saying only pointing negative is bad because (i talk for me and probably for other many people) it is just pissing off.

He never said to point out only the negative.

Krisexy26 wrote:

Rcs

Quote :

Being able to listen to critiques is just as vital to being an artist or author as anything else.

I strongly, strongly disagree. Personally, I've never seen a great author fall in the misfortune of agreeing with a critique that comes from a random guy. Just go read what happened to a critique who dared saying that The Void, written by Perec, is just a fail of literature. Just go read it. And I'll mention another few names like Baudelaire and Flaubert (yes, them again), Hugo, the whole romantic guys, the whole realism crew, the whole symbolism crew, the whole dada and surrealism crew.

For me, writting a critiques that only talks about the bad points are useless and just a loss of time. Theres a word that exists in the dictionnary, and its called "Balance"

We are not talking about professional artists here, Kri.

We are talking about people who write as a hobby. We ALL make mistakes, and often, having someone look over your work and critique it can help catch many mistakes you would have missed otherwise.

Whether you're an artist or author, a critique IS a good thing. It helps you to make your art/stories better, helps you to see things you missed during your own editing.

Quote :

And I'm saying only pointing negative is bad because (i talk for me and probably for other many people) it is just pissing off.

That is just the wrong view to have. If someone takes the time to go point by point through your story, they are doing it because they care enough to help. If you refuse to listen to that help, then it is your own fault. Not all critiques need to have lots of praise (although, putting in at least some praise is usually good as well). What is important is that they point out errors and flaws so that the artist can make his/her work better.

Helping the artist to improve is the most important aspect of a critique. Everything else comes secondary.

Then just don't request critique. Don't jump to the aid of every single person who gets a critique, because, just maybe, they might want critique, so they can do this magical and mysterious things called "fixing their errors."

yep i just re-read and aisu said that "Say it's perfect. Leave the artist fully oblivious about their errors. That is the worst thing you can do, since the next person who reads it will be distracted by the errors"

whats wrong saying its perfect?

(thank you for me back LOUIS , now itll just be a global message to everyone :/)

and to your recent commente aisu, what about pointing the good aspects of their story so they can continu on their way?

Quote :

whats wrong saying its perfect?

Because nothing is ever perfect. Even professional artists and writers still make mistakes.

Nothing is ever perfect. Art and writing are nothing more than a constant process of self-improvement. You should always be striving to be better, and getting outside opinions on your work is one of the best way to find errors that you may have missed.

I'm judging on the capacity of the author himself, not on mine.

Krisexy26 wrote:

whats wrong saying its perfect?

Because if someone had a car that was on the brink of falling apart, and someone told ya "Yeah, you're car is perfect! No need to fix it!" then that someone would risk exploding on the road.

A less dramatic example, you want to submit a piece of art to a contest. If your peers are all like "Yeah, it's perfect! No one could possibly beat you!" without being the least bit constructive, you'll enter that contest and get utterly curbstomped.

I'm gonna stand by a previous statement I made: People who can't take a critique don't deserve the improvements that they are supposed to bring about. Simple as that.

Krisexy26 wrote:

whats wrong saying its perfect?

Because it is a LIE.

Krisexy26 wrote:

(thank you for me back LOUIS , now itll just be a global message to everyone :/)

Actually, I think Louis was pointing out that you seem to be creating a strawman to argue with. One who says to only point out the bad things. I think he has a mean, toothy smile and big horns, too. Maybe a cute fedora? I dunno, it's your construct.

It's a logical fallacy we all fall victim to, so don't feel too bad about it.

Quote :

Krisexy26 wrote:
whats wrong saying its perfect?

Because it is a LIE.

then whats the point of doing a critique if the real purpose is to make it perfect?

I am more for the improvement. and for me, improvement need a perfect mix of good and bad points. If you only say bad points, he'll focus on them and forget about his precedent good points and bla bla bla. it costs nothing to say "Hey, nice job here! Perfectly done, couldnt have imagined a better way to say it." and adding right after "Though you could have done this instead of this. I think it would have added more realism to the perso" add a lil smile at the end, and thats it.

(this is a total useless sidenotes: ive re-read my notes back from my college and para-literature does exist :/)

Krisexy26 wrote:

it costs nothing to say "Hey, nice job here! Perfectly done, couldnt have imagined a better way to say it." and adding right after "Though you could have done this instead of this. I think it would have added more realism to the perso" add a lil smile at the end, and thats it.

So, tell them you couldn't tell them anyway to do it better, then tell them exactly how to do it better?

We want to help writers improve, not explode their brains with paradoxes.

Quote :

then whats the point of doing a critique if the real purpose is to make it perfect?

I am more for the improvement. and for me, improvement need a perfect mix of good and bad points. If you only say bad points, he'll focus on them and forget about his precedent good points and bla bla bla. it costs nothing to say "Hey, nice job here! Perfectly done, couldnt have imagined a better way to say it." and adding right after "Though you could have done this instead of this. I think it would have added more realism to the perso" add a lil smile at the end, and thats it.

Why don't I direct you to the comment I made a page back...

Quote :

Im not saying to be mean to someone in a critique, but there is nothing wrong with doing a point-by-point breakdown, if the issues are that prevalent. The trick is to be a little sensitive and find a balance. Some people do get hung up ONLY pointing out that bad things, and while pointing out the bad grammar/plot inconsistancies/logical fallacies is certainly important, you really do need to try and pepper your critique with a few positive points in order to keep the tone a bit even. To write a good critique, that the person you're critiquing is actually going to listen to, you have to tread a bit of a fine line.

As long as your intention is to help the writer/artist, and your critique is fair, then it is always a good thing.

All of your arguments are doing nothing but repeating what I have already said.