“So what do you think?”
What a loaded question. It can be the most effective tool in the pursuit of publication, or it can be the beginning of bitter contention. It all depends on the readiness of the writer asking the question, and the ability of the critic to assess that level of readiness. I’ve learned this from personal experience.
I’ve enjoyed work shopping material with fellow writers on a couple of online communities. I believe the critical feedback I receive is absolutely essential to my future as a published author. I even credit it with the honorable mention I received in a recent writing competition. But, challenging an artist without offending can be tricky.
I have been criticized for being both too extensive and too vague. This has taught me to spend as much time assessing the readiness of the writer, as I do analyzing their work. Only a few months ago, I inadvertently offended another writer with a critique that was intended to challenge the author’s literary technique. However, when the author retaliated on a personal level, it became obvious that I had underestimated his readiness to receive such extensive feedback.
Overcompensating, my critiques became brief and somewhat vague. I became more concerned with the ego behind the writing than the writing itself. That is, until just a couple of days ago when a fellow writer reminded me that this minimalist approach was of no use. He advised me to address issues in greater detail and sight specific examples. After clarifying his expectations, I was able to reassess his ability to receive a thorough review.
So, how can you determine an author’s readiness level? First, see if you can locate any of her critical feedback. How they review others is a good indication of her ability to analyze literature and her ability give and receive constructive criticism. What is the general atmosphere of the writing community she most participates in? This is where she feels comfortable and successful. This will give you an indication of the kind of feedback she is accustomed to. Finally, assess her motivation. You can do this directly, before supplying your critique. Ask her what they hope to achieve from the critique? What is her ultimate goal as a writer? Does she have any particular concerns about the piece you will be reviewing? If you receive vague answers, it’s probably an indication of a low readiness level.
It’s also a good idea to come up with a feedback form that will allow you to give specific, consistent feedback. I found this one for creative writing on the University of Hawaii website:
Paraphrase the plot of the story in one or two sentences.
Paraphrase the theme of the piece in one or two sentences.
Describe the narrator’s point of view. Is the point of view consistent? If not, where and how does it shift?
Describe the tone of the piece. Is the tone consistent? If not, point out where it wavers.
Are the characters believable? Why or why not?
What more would you like to know about the characters?
Were there any parts of the story that were confusing or unclear?
If the writer uses dialogue, is it clear who is speaking? Does the writer describe how the speaker says the dialogue?
Has the writer dramatized rather than summarized the experiences in the story?
What parts of the piece are most vivid for you?
What questions did you have when you finished reading the piece?
Anything else?
At Zoetrope.com a sample review for poetry utilized this format:
Overall Quality:
Originality:
Communication of Theme:
Structure:
Diction (well-chosen words):
Imagery (type/structure):
Use and function of Sound repetition:
These are merely examples, of course. You can develop your own based on the goal of your peer reviews. I recommend sharing your evaluation form with your peers when you first begin working togather. This will give the author a clear idea of what you will be assessing and prepare him for the extent of your feedback. (The author’s reaction to your form may also cause you to re-evaluate his readiness level.)
By evaluating both the writer and their work objectively, you will have a better chance of developing productive peer review relationships, while avoiding the backlash of accidentally bruising someone’s ego.
