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

[shutthef-up.livejournal.com]

I'd try to coat criticism with a little sugar. At least until you get a feel for how people are going to react. Especially since you already have a reputation for a sharp tongue. Everyone's threshold is different for it and a roundtable can be pretty intimidating in itself.

Take care and I hope this helps!

[beanpot.livejournal.com]

I'd figure out how to say it constructively because I know I tend to ignore "brutally honest" criticism. Primarily because if the person giving it doesn't seem to care about how I will react, then I can't be bothered to listen them.

I'd start out with what you like about a piece followed by what you don't like, framed in a way that makes it sound like your pieces of advice will help.

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if you've already got that reputation, hmm.

I'd not necessarily sugar coat the flaws, but highlight a spot you liked and when it's your turn at roundtable, expand on that. "You used great symbolism here. Did you think of making it a recurring theme in the fic?"

Be more expansive in the written analysis but be sure to include your highlight reel notes along with the (are you really sure you want to put THAT there?!)

[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)

[holdouttrout.livejournal.com]

I think that being harsh is more about how you say it, and less about what you say. I definitely agree with the nicer in the rountable and more critical in the written approach, and personally, I wish people HAD been harsher in my critique groups, since it might have made me a better writer (after the intial soul-crushing depression phase). *g*

[havocthecat]

Brutal honesty FTW. Because otherwise, how can I possibly improve as a writer, y'know?

[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.