FAQ: CRIT guidelines (February 1997)

Location: http://web.mit.edu/afs/mbarker/www/faqs/critfaq.html

Don't forget to read the companion piece, FAQ: SUB guidelines (February
1997) for some thoughts on how to make a SUBmission.

CRITiquing, responding to the SUBmissions of others, is a vital part of this
workshop. However, it is important to realize when you are writing a
critique that it is not enough to simply be critical. In fact, the most
important part of the critique is saying what worked well, not just pointing
out problems.

CRITical nits

  1. Where do I send a Critique?

     Critiques may be returned by private email directly to the writer or be
     posted to WRITERS@mitvma.mit.edu. Use the subject line from the
     original submission and change the SUB: to CRIT: to identify this as a
     critique. For example, the subject line might look like

     -Subject: CRIT: Scribed in Jello (Romantic Farce)

     Some reasons to use private email for crit:
       1. to avoid embarrassing the author
       2. to keep lengthy, individual comments or discussion offline
     Some reasons to use the list for crit:
       1. to allow others to comment, especially on questionable calls
       2. to provide mutual education to the entire list
       3. to encourage insights and debate

  2. What Should Be in a Critique?

       1. Answers to Specific Questions

          If the poster had specific questions, try to answer them if you
          can.

       2. Quick Responses

          These are fine. Say you liked it, disliked it, couldn't finish it,
          couldn't sleep after reading it.. whatever accurately reflects
          your impression of the piece.

       3. Would you buy it?

          A little bit more - when possible, you may want to note whether
          you would read it if you saw it in a magazine. Would you buy a
          magazine to finish the story if you started to read it at the news
          stand or bookstore?

       4. Points to fix

          Yet another slice of skin - Describe any points to fix, as clearly
          and accurately as possible. Some people can do this with a short
          comment, others do better with a line-by-line comment. e.g.

          > comment, others do better with a line-by-line comment

          comment at the end is the second time you've used the word, and
          isn't exactly correct. how about "format for commenting"?

       5. Line-by-line editing

          If you do this, indent the copy from the writer and mark it with
          "> " or "- " (many email programs and editors can do this
          automatically - see your manual). Add a blank line where you are
          going to comment, then insert your comments on a blank line
          between the copied parts (i.e. put a blank line before and after
          your comments to make it stand out from the copied material).
          REMOVE the extra copied material that isn't needed to understand
          your comments.

          If you have general comments, you can include those either before
          or after the line-by-line edited parts.

       6. Positive Points, Too!

          Whenever possible, point out positive points. Let the writer know
          when they have done something good!

       7. At least a clue about solving problems

          When pointing to problems, suggest alternatives and ways to
          correct the problem. This is where I think actually rewriting a
          section can be very helpful in making both the problem and the
          solution clear. I also find that having pointed out a problem and
          tried to work out a solution myself helps me to understand the
          problem better, which means I have gained from doing the critique.
          However, be aware that some writers do not want to see rewrites
          (this doesn't mean you can't do them for your own education - just
          don't send them to writers who object to your efforts.)

  3. Be wary of technical terms

     If you want to use technical terms, this is appropriate. However, be
     aware that the person you are critiquing may not have read the same
     books on writing that you have (Jardon's Comments on a Theory of
     Mathematical Solutions to Conflicts isn't everyone's favorite
     reading?). So if you use special terms (or even common terms in special
     ways), you may want to include either a brief explanation (preferred)
     or a reference (less helpful, but better than nothing). You may include
     both.

     You may also (when Jardon's forgotten tome is good enough) want to
     summarize and post a separate TECH: note explaining the terminology and
     system you know. Again, we are engaged in mutual education and
     development of creative potential. Your knowledge may be just the spark
     needed to help someone else - don't be afraid to let us know about it
     too...

  4. No personal attacks

     Personal attacks and similar behavior are NOT critiques. If you want to
     say something is poorly written, you must also suggest how it can be
     improved - and not simply accuse the writer of being a bonehead. Always
     critique the writing - don't assume the writer has a problem, they may
     have been deliberately using inner-city rhythms and wording no matter
     how difficult you find it to read...

     Some Related Pieces on Critiquing

       1. TECH: How do you critique? one method of critiquing
       2. TECH: An Editing Trick editing by reading aloud
       3. TECH: How to write wel, critique god, and revise bettor
       4. TECH: Some Guidelines For Critiquing
       5. TECH: Critiques (esp. of poetry)
       6. TECH: Help with Critiquing
       7. TECH: The Earthquake Test more notes on critiquing
       8. TECH: Re: critiquing a flame about critiquing
       9. TECH: On Critiquing - Twice-Told Tales Again Again? (Michael O...)
          reusing stories