Christian Speculative Fiction discussion

What are some ways you've found to give constructive criticism in a way that is honest and fair, but doesn't contribute to the writer feeling crummy about their work and discouraged? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, because I think it's an important topic.

When I was younger, I thought giving constructive criticism was pretty straightforward: all you had to do was tell somebody everything that was wrong with their writing so they would know what to fix. Right?

BZZZT. NO. WRONG.

Anyone who has been on the receiving end of that sort of criticism knows what's wrong with it. Despite your best intentions, you are basically making the other person's writing sound irredeemably terrible. And you are also very much giving off the vibe of "look how much more about writing I know than you" which is also not helpful.

Back in college, I had some writer "friends" who used these sorts of tactics on me, and while they did help me improve on a technical level, they also left me feeling like my work was inherently bad, and I should just give it up, stop bringing literary travesties into the world, and let the "real writers" (i.e. them) enjoy being perfect at their craft, as though you only have the right to do something if you are good at it. In fact, I think it's safe to say I would have started writing novels earlier if I hadn't had such low self-esteem about it.

And even worse in my eyes, because that was the critique style I was exposed to, that was the only way I in turn knew how to critique others' work. I'm sorry to say I hurt a lot of feelings with my brutally honest critiques before I finally realized what I was saying wasn't working for the people I was trying to help.

Nowadays, I want to be able to give people helpful feedback when they ask for it--not just helpful on a technical level, but helpful to them as writers and as people. I want to be able to give diplomatic criticism. In the years between college and now, I've had some very good editors who have known how to say things in a way that actually made me excited to dive back into the manuscript and start fixing things. I've been trying to figure out how they do what they do so I can apply it to my own feedback techniques.

Here are some good articles I found about giving constructive criticism:

https://www.writerscookbook.com/givin...

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/how-to...

And here's some of the key points that I liked from these articles:

- Being empathetic. We all know how it feels to put a piece of writing out there and ask for feedback on it. It's tough and requires vulnerability, and I also like that the Grammarly article addressed impostor syndrome because I struggle with that a lot. (I've published six novels and I still have a hard time thinking of myself as a "real" or "professional" writer, or "as good as" the rest of you.) I think it's wise to, before starting any critique, take a moment to remember and respect the writer's feelings and realize that they are likely feeling as insecure as you do. How do you like your work to be addressed by others?

- Compliment sandwiches don't work. Be sure to check out that Harvard Business Review article linked to in that section of the Grammarly article. I think it's fair to say that nearly all writers would rather a critique get to the point and be straightforward. I always appreciate sincere praise for something someone honestly thought I did right, but if they're just throwing out superficial compliments to try to cushion the blow of what they really want to say to me, it really doesn't change how I feel about the actual message they're giving me.

- Ask questions. I love this idea because statements can seem so final sometimes. "This character is one-dimensional" has sort of a vibe of closing the door on the idea of the character ever being anything but one-dimensional. On the other hand, "Is there anything you can do to add more depth to this character?" does suggest the possibility of improvement; not only that, but I find as a writer, questions like this get my creative gears going and give me direction.

Something I really appreciate when receiving critique is not just being told when something isn't working, but being told how to improve it, because a lot of the time I just don't know that (and if I did know, I probably would have done it better in the first place). I remember one very helpful beta reader who pointed out that my prose in combat scenes wasn't flowing well, but I had no idea how to fix that. I told her this and asked for specifics, and she very kindly gave me an in-depth explanation of how to choreograph combat prose in ways that made more sense and gave a better visual of the action, and did a line-by-line breakdown of one of my combat scenes and how I could polish the writing. Her advice still helps me to this day.

- Help the writer feel safe with you. Perhaps this is more important for some people than for others, but for me, I greatly prefer receiving feedback and even editing from people who I trust to be nice to me and have my best interests in mind. Even if you've never been introduced to the writer before the feedback session, I think it's a good idea to give off the vibe of "I'm here to help you and I want to see you succeed in your writing". People can and do pick up on that.

- The point of a critique is not to show off how much you know. That doesn't help the writer and it's not healthy for the critic, either. Writing is not a competition. There is room enough in this world for everyone and their writing. I believe God has special and unique missions for every writer, and that's why He gave so many people a talent for it. I think critique should always come from a place of sincerely wanting to help the other person improve as a writer and make their story into what they want it to be and what message they want it to impart.

So yeah, what's your take on all of this? I'd love to see a world where we're all better at - and kinder about - helping each other grow as writers. I don't think the focus of critique should be your ability to successfully identify flaws; I think it should be to help the writer say what they want to say, and say it well.

Excellent article...I do think it is short on the addition of the power of the Holy Spirit, and of prayer. But as general advice, it' very good and I'll use it—even if I didn't do it well with this response.

David wrote: "Excellent article...I do think it is short on the addition of the power of the Holy Spirit, and of prayer. But as general advice, it' very good and I'll use it—even if I didn't do it well with this..."

I'm glad you mentioned that! I also think it's very important to try to go into any critique with the Spirit with you and a prayer in your heart. I need to improve on this!

David wrote: "Excellent article...I do think it is short on the addition of the power of the Holy Spirit, and of prayer. But as general advice, it' very good and I'll use it—even if I didn't do it well with this..."

Well said. The world is full of academic advice, but the Bible offers something more. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12

Like with all things, we should approach critique with love. That doesn't mean we won't be truthful, but it does mean we consider the feelings of the person receiving the critique. "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;..." 1 Corinthians 13:4-5

We're not to approach critique looking to exalt ourselves at the other person's expense. Nor are we to be rude, or jealous, or lashing out because someone was less than kind with us. Love purifies our critique and makes our compliments sincere.

It's good to remember these things also if someone doesn't believe as the scripture commands. Their critique isn't coming from a place that has your best interest in mind. Neither are their compliments. We should ask the Lord for discernment in these cases, gleaning what good we can, recognizing and appreciating honesty and actual attempts to help, and not letting hurtful or selfish contacts bother us.

There are definitely people out there who have expertise in their fields, including writing, and are certainly capable of teaching. We should humble ourselves and learn what we can from these people. In all other cases, I personally find it best to take the critique as what that person thinks - nothing more - and grow from it if I can.

As for giving a critique, I take basically the same stance. I come from the direction of "this is my two cents," and try to recognize that what I have to say isn't the be all and end all of the matter, even if I feel strongly about it. For one thing, everyone has a different style, and they may want to adhere to a style that doesn't personally suit me. The story they want to tell may not suit me, for that matter; I may find it boring, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

I've come to believe the important thing in writing is that the author tell the story they want to tell, and say it the way they want to say it. When I read it, I try to appreciate what they did, because this is how they wanted it done. It's like looking at a painting. My only concern - and this is where critique comes it - is that they put me, the reader, in the position they meant to put me in, and that their message, whatever it may be, was received loud and clear.

To me, critique is communicating whether or not I "got the point." Unless the point was that the point was supposed to be unclear, I try to highlight where a story loses me in terms of logic or contradictions. These are normally things the author overlooked, and can be fixed with time and thought. If the author is open to character critiques, I'll try to look at the characters from the standpoint of whether or not they seemed soundly written and fully realized for the world they're in - not so much if I liked them, or they annoyed me, or whatever. That's the realm of opinion.

I believe that critique differs from opinion in that critique is meant to build up and help a story be the best it can be. Opinion is whether or not it appealed to me personally on every level. Everyone has an opinion. It's hard to find a good critic.

J.K. wrote: "David wrote: "Excellent article...I do think it is short on the addition of the power of the Holy Spirit, and of prayer. But as general advice, it' very good and I'll use it—even if I didn't do it ..."

I appreciate your insights! I agree that critique should come from a place of caring for the other person. And I also agree that that is something to keep in mind when reading others' critique of your work. I've gotten some pretty scathing feedback, and while the critic did make some points that I agreed with and that helped me in my work, I didn't appreciate their overall attitude toward my writing. I like the idea of having God help us discern what can be learned from that sort of feedback, and what can be disregarded as someone being grouchy.

I also appreciate you mentioning to ultimately take a critique as an opinion. I've gotten a lot of critique that contained a lot of opinion disguised as authoritative statements. One editor took issue with the fact that I used exclamation marks. In a story with a lot of shouting and several very enthusiastic characters. That feedback just made zero sense to me, so I disregarded it.

I find it also helps to get second opinions if someone says something you're just not sure about. I asked my proofreader about the exclamation mark thing, and she said it was not only not problematic at all to her, but changing them to periods would make the story read incorrectly. She's a big fan of my work - as opposed to this other editor who has no attachment to my work - so I trusted that my proofreader understood better what I was trying to do with the story.

I agree that critique should be about helping the writer do what they're trying to do with the story, whatever that may be. I think beta critics should definitely resist the urge to try to use the opportunity to mold the story into something they like more on a personal level, because it's not about them, it's about the author. If you want to craft the perfect story for you, by all means you're free to go ahead and write it yourself. 🙂 (Actually, I think many beta critics fall into this trap because they're insecure about their ability to write a story all by themselves, so they try to be content with backseat-driving someone else's work in progress.)

And I like the idea of focusing on whether or not you got the point of a story. That's really the most important part of good writing, when it comes down to its core--the ability of the author to effectively communicate to readers. If there's a disconnect between what the author was thinking and what the reader is understanding, there's a problem with the writing. (Unless, like you mentioned, that was intentional--but even then, it's important that the writer finds a way to communicate to the reader to expect ambiguity.)