In which I might need ettiquette lessons

[ultranos]

So, for this sci-fi writing class I'm taking, we write short stories and then every week, two people send out their stories to the class, and the following week we come back and workshop them. Workshopping here means sitting around a table and having everyone say what they liked and didn't like about your story in 2 minutes or less. Authors are not allowed to defend themselves until the end. Also, everyone critiquing gives the author a written half-page to one-page critique.

It's basically beta-ing, only times 10 and with bonus social awkwardness! Or something.

Anyway, I have a question for the ol' flist: in this sort of situation, would you prefer a critique that sort-of sugar-coated things while possibly dancing around problem areas, or one that was brutally honest but didn't care so much for actually voicing these things in public?

Because there's a world of difference between one-on-one critique in private, and a roundtable critique, and I can see how it might be more socially acceptable to sugar-coat things a little more.

For the record, I fear I fall into the "brutally honest" category. I've also seem to have developed a reputation in this class for having an exceedingly sharp tongue. (Basically, whenever the instructor reads selections from our weekly written responses to professional short stories and reads something snarky, EVERYONE at the table now turns to look at me.)

So, yeah, I'm wondering how much do I have to watch my mouth when I call people out on Things That Bug Me about their stories. "I'm not TRYING to be a bastard, I honestly want everyone to write really, really good stories!"

Comments

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

I've had several classes over the last few semesters that require us to peer review papers and I've been beta-ing for so long that I tend to, well, leave a heck of a lot more comments than the reviews I get back from people. Sometimes I worry that I'm being mean or nitpicky or just more than the person was expecting, but I've consistently had people thank me for being so thorough.

I think it's good in this kind of situation to point out things you liked as well as things you didn't and to offer constructive criticism (instead of "this phrasing sucks" say "this phrasing is a bit awkward, have you tried something like...."). I'd also be a little more gentle verbally in the roundtable and save the harsher stuff for the written criticism. It's easier to take criticism while reading it privately than it is while said to you in front of a group.

(that said, at least in the written stuff, I'd definitely prefer brutal honesty, just like you. I'm sure you're shocked)

[ultranos-fic.livejournal.com]

*nod* I asked a friend who's also taking the class if I could nitpick, and she told me she really wanted me to. So I did, and she told me she appreciated it. So I don't know.

Yeah, and I agree with the gentler verbal critique and harsher in the written.

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

The way I see it is that a reviewer/beta/whatever isn't grading me or judging me - they are adding their perspective and knowledge and experience to help me make my story better, and I WANT my story to be better. Getting mad at them after they took the time to help me, or wanting them to hold back and not help as much as they can, is just stupid and a waste of everyone's time. They don't make comments to be mean, they make them to *help* and, yes, some comments are easier to take than others depending on wording, but all of them are useful if the reviewer is doing his/her job.