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!"
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!"
◾ Tags:
(no subject)
Me, I'm HOPING my story gets ripped apart, um, next week I think. I really don't want lots of "omg so wonderful" comments, because I know it has problems, and I can't fix them if I don't know WHERE they are.
I just want it to be constructive criticism and, well, not vitriol of the "...did you even READ the story?" kind. Which is also why I'm kinda worried about playing nice and not destroying people's souls. :)
(no subject)
What I really hate is sending fic off and getting a "looks great!" in return. Seriously, there's not NOTHING wrong with my fic, trust me. So I feel your pain there.