Critiquing with a Purpose

In order for you as a reviewer to critique your pod mates’ writing and be genuinely helpful to them, you need to acknowledge that the purpose of your critique is to help them become better writers. Destructive criticism has no place in that goal. But neither does a whitewash job of reviewing. Be honest, but always be courteous and respectful.

Learning to review and to critique is not something that comes easily for most of us. That could be because we feel uncomfortable or inadequately skilled to suggest edits on work from someone we know, someone in our pod, or it could simply be that we never thought about how to read and comment on a piece critically.

Remember, your pod mate can always reject your suggestions. They are only your opinion, after all, and nothing you say carries any more—or less—weight than anyone else’s comments. There are no experts here—no bosses. Even the published authors in our midst want feedback. So, take your job seriously; be invested in your role as a reviewer. Provide some pointed, but always kind, suggestions about what, in your humble opinion, would improve the writer’s submission. And be specific!

To that end, here are some questions to ask yourself:

What was your overall impression of the piece? Was the story compelling? Were you invested in the story and curious about what comes next? Was there something you specifically liked? If so, point that out. (You might like that the sister and brother are snarky with each other, and it made you laugh. Say so.) A good review should be about 100 words, not simply a “Nice job.” Put some thought into it.

In a story, something happens. Did something happen? Was there tension or conflict or struggle?  Was this conflict expressed through action, internal emotion, and dialogue? Is the plot believable? Do you feel that what happened couldn’t possibly happen, even in a work of fantasy fiction? (A character can’t walk in off the street and perform open-heart surgery; I don’t care how smart she is.)

How about pacing? Did the story get bogged down in “precious” writing that felt more like showing off than actually telling the tale? (Do you have the nerve to comment that it sounds to you as if the submission is demonstrating the author’s amazing craft rather than moving the story along?) To help with pacing, was there a nice balance of exposition with dialogue? Exposition is necessary, but sometimes there is too much of it. Dialogue moves the story forward and gives it color. Do different characters have unique styles of speaking? Are there overlong monologues? Do the conversations sound real?

How about setting? Was there enough description to help you see what was happening and where it was taking place? (You have to feel that you’ve been there when you finish reading; you should be able to see it. If you can, or you can’t, you should let the writer know that.)

What about characterization? Did the characters seem real, or were they stereotypes without unique “humanizing” qualities? Would the story be improved with more details about the protagonist’s beliefs, habits, abilities, tastes, and preferences? Was there just enough physical description without it feeling false and overdone? (Did you really need to know the exact color of her hair and the shape of her eyes and that her teeth are so very white? Would less be more?)

Did you spot repeated words in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence? (Let your pod mate know that. It’s easy to make that mistake. Suggest an alternative.)

Did you get a chance to interpret what the characters were feeling without the author telling you directly? Did the writer show the character reacting and feeling instead of just telling what the character feels? (Did the writer say one time too many that Mark was excited to see his girlfriend?)

How about POV? If it’s from one person’s point of view, has another character revealed a thought, an opinion, or a feeling? (Reviewers need to catch those things.)

Was there too much backstory, and did the story get bogged down in what happened before, or was there just enough to help you ground yourself in the scene?

There may also be grammar issues such as verb tense. (If the piece is in past tense, and you spot a present-tense verb, point that out.) Are there too many dashes (where commas would do) or ellipses? How about missing or misplaced commas, improper use of semi-colons, quotation marks, and italics? Also, be watchful for clichés. Orphaned pronouns are those that need to more clearly refer to their antecedent. Also, when characters are talking, they sound stiff and unnatural without contractions. (If you noticed, let your writer know.)

Formatting: Is it easy to read? Is the font tiny? Is the spacing convenient for review?

Miscellaneous bugaboos: Sense words. Did the writer expand the distance between the reader and the story experience by relaying what the protagonist realized, remembered, saw, heard, observed, and noticed? “Jane noticed that the flowers were all dead” becomes “The flowers were all dead.” (Can you find these instances and point them out?)

Does the writing have rhythm with varying sentence lengths? (Can you tell your pod mate that his sentence would make Faulkner proud?)

Finally, has the writer used/overused the following words?

• Very, really, much
• Great, nice, good, pretty
• Maybe, perhaps, just, almost
• Suddenly
• Noticed, wondered, guessed, knew, began to, started to
• State of being verbs (am, is, are, was, were, etc. Find some action verbs.)
• ! (You get one per every five thousand words. That’s right, just one.)

I borrowed some of this from: Silver Pen Writers: Guidelines for Review, Suzan Lauder’s 100-word Editing Checklist, and other sources from workshops, seminars, and articles found online over the years.