Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44551
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44551
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

The main thing to remember about critiquing somebody's writing is to not critique the person. What the piece is **about** is not a topic for criticism; what you think it says about the person that wrote it is not a topic for criticism. If they write something dark and depressing, a _writing_ critic must assume that this is the intended effect and critique it on that basis; how effective is it as a dark and depressing piece? Are there parts that seem out of place? Has it strayed into comic-black?

If what they write is erotically explicit homosexuality, presume that is their intended effect; it doesn't mean _they_ are homosexual or horny. Even if they are, you aren't there to critique their life choices! You are there to critique whether their writing is effective.

Don't confuse what is written with the content or character of a person. If that is difficult (e.g. I couldn't fairly critique a racist creed) then put it down and say you cannot fairly critique the work.

That said, what you are looking for is, at minimum, the basics. Plurals and pronouns that agree, enough grammar so sentences are not confusing. You are looking for literary cul-de-sacs that did not add anything. An overuse of superlatives.

Writing that says pretty much the same thing multiple times for emphasis; e.g. _"a big, huge, giant man."_ The same thing can be done with sentences: _"I was confused. I didn't understand. I couldn't comprehend it."_ That is bad writing; in both cases you want something more concrete, a comparison or simile or metaphor, a more detailed description. Repetition means the writer is trying to emphasize something, or get a point across, and hasn't yet found words to convey that completely (so they try from multiple directions).

You are looking for pacing: What is the mood of the piece, and do the sentences and description fit it? If we are describing a battle, long drawn out sentences make it seem like a lazy battle. In battle things happen fast, so sentences should be short and sparse on adjectives and metaphors, to make it seem like things are moving quickly. If you are describing a person at rest watching the sun set, the sentences should NOT be short and fast, the description should be expansive, reflecting their contemplative thoughts.

You are looking for verisimilitude. When everything else is correct, do the characters seem _realistic_? Do their thoughts, actions and words let you sustain your reading immersion, or do they yank you out of it?

The same could be said for prose; if a piece is medieval fantasy, then saying something is going "a hundred miles an hour" is out of place. "Miles per hour" in general, much less 100 mph, is out of place in a medieval mindset.

Beginning writers may have a tendency toward ignoring refractory or recovery periods; people don't go from angry with each other, to happy with each other, in a minute or two. Strong emotions, particularly negative ones, take time to get over.

A great deal depends on the level of the writer you are critiquing; if they are a beginner, stick to basics, like "show don't tell", and getting the spelling and grammar right, and making the piece less confusing. On the border, verisimilitude.

If the technical aspects are good, then step up. Look for the fine differences in word choice and connotations of the words chosen: did they pick the perfect word? Look at the pacing and atmosphere of the piece, whether transitions are smooth. Whether scenes have a beginning/middle/clear end. If questions are raised in your mind that deserve answers. Is the writing "tight", packing punch in a few words, or is it too loose, using more words than it needs?

When it comes to description, what is **missing**? Not every sense needs to be described; we don't have to tick off all of them. But are we missing color when we could have described it? Are we missing sounds that should be there? How about the temperature, the humidity, and what it feels like? In most descriptions we only want to read about two or three elements, not a long list. But it should not be the SAME two or three senses every time. (I saw this, I heard that. I saw this, I heard that.)

It is easy to forget that characters have bodies and bodies feel things. Discomforts, like hunger or thirst or tired legs. Warmth from the sun. Pain in the face from a frigid wind, aching fingers from the cold.

Seeing what is missing can be a real service to the writer.

Original score: 8