How do you see your role as a critiquer?

[jongibbs]

Using a good critique group is an excellent way to get  an appraisal of your work. 

Comments

[musingaloud]

My job as a critiquer is to look for story or personal trait inconsistencies, misspelled/misued words and grammer, and to not when I'm totally confused so the author may understand that perhaps they've not explained things enough (although I always note that it may just be me, being confused). I do not feel it is my place to try to re-write the author's story. Although I may suggest ideas in a brainstorming way if I see gaping holes in the plot that need fixing (always IMO, of course). If I can tell it's a new author, however, I will focus more on grammar and spelling and punctuation sometimes, depending on how many errors there are, of course. I don't know why I do that, except I feel more experienced authors will find their errors in a next proofing.

[musingaloud]

errrrr... and do NOTE when I'm totally confused!

[jongibbs]

Good points all. Thanks for sharing :)

[alaneer]

I've only done online critiquing, but I always ask the writer first what kind of crit s/he wants and do it accordingly.

[jongibbs]

Great point. There;s nothing more embarrassing than giving a full critique when they only wanted a overall likedit or didn't opinion (or vice versa) :)

[marshallpayne1]

I think the best way to give a crit is to spend time on it before the session, though I usually do them by email. And I do treat each writer differently, and it doesn't always have to do with their skill level. I've worked with a few ESL writers writing in English and their needs are different. Since they're trying to write in English I'll spend time on English idioms (for example) and explain them a bit if I think that's what the writer was trying to get at but missed. Also, the subgenre a person is writing in will influence my crit. If a writer is a fan of chill-inspiring horror, then their ending that lacks thematic resolution might be right for the story if it's only purpose is to titillate. Not that more attention to theme would hurt the story, but perhaps the market they're trying to sell to just wants titillation. Everyone's needs are different. And though it would be nice if we all could, not everyone agrees on what exactly a good story is. Readers have different tastes

[jongibbs]

'...Everyone should always be treated with respect '

I agree 100%. Too many times I've seen or heard people take way too much enjoyment in tearing someone's work apart. When it comes to critiquing it's tact and diplomacy at all times.

I also agree with the idea of catching them doing something right :)

[debikm]

I've done a bit of both, but these days I find myself a bit more of a cheerleader than anything. I'll point out discrepancies and mistakes but I haven't done a line by line crit in a long while. I guess maybe I try to give each writer what they're looking for, heavy duty or just commentary.
I myself enjoy the feedback, even if someone doesn't like something or thinks I can do better, as long as the extent of the crit is "This sucks!" I wouldn't go that to someone's work and hope they wouldn't do it to mine.

[jongibbs]

I don't mind 'this suck' providing it's followed up with a 'because' and a 'here's how you can fix it'. Otherwise it's no real help at all.

Thanks for sharing:)

[edithspage]

Hmmmm... interesting questions. I guess I see my role as both critiquer--one who helps the manuscript be the best it can be--and encourager. Because writing a book is super hard and if you just tear the person down I'm not sure what that accomplishes. I probably do treat different writers differently depending on my passion for their work--even though I don't mean to. I tend to give more comments on pieces I like because I love it so much I want it to succeed. If I'm less enthusiastic, sometimes that means less feedback. Weirdly opposite of what might seem intuitive.

[jongibbs]

'Encourager' I like that one :)