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

[annienau08.livejournal.com]

I actually took this exact class - minus the sci-fi part. But the 2 a week, roundtable discussion plus written feedback bits were exactly the same. So having been on both sides of the fence, I'd say definitely be honest but ease off on the brutal. At least in the round table. I know it was easier for me to accept some of the harsher criticisms to my stories when they were written out than talked about in class. I didn't feel like I was under a microscope and I was able to get go of my defensiveness enough to absorb the critiques for what they were.

That being said, I appreciate people who were blunt about what they didn't like more than the ones trying to blow sunshine up my ass about my story. Telling me only the things they liked was supremely unhelpful.

[ultranos-fic.livejournal.com]

Huh. Now I wonder if a lot of writing classes are structured this way. :)

And yeah, like I said, I generally do try to be nicer during the roundtable and ease off on the snark and harshness (unless they're good friends who I know can take it in the way its intended, i.e. criticism with humor).

But I know I personally do get more out of people bluntly telling me what didn't work. I always generally try to find one thing I liked and one thing that needed work, at least. Some end up having more on one end than the other, but getting a critique of only what I liked or what I didn't like are both bad in different ways.