How can you critique a story without being overly critical?

Defining your purpose before critiquing a story is crucial for both the critic and the author. As a critic, your purpose shapes the nature and tone of your feedback, ensuring it serves a constructive role in the writing process. Here are a few perspectives on why defining your purpose is important: Clarity in Feedback Efficient Communication Encouraging Growth Respecting Intent It not only guides your evaluation process but also contributes to a more fruitful and collaborative exchange between the reviewer and the writer.

In my experience, Simplicity beats Complexity. I always focus on the same thing whenever I critique a story and make sure I'm not being overly critical. 1. Always start with strengths: I kick off my critiques by acknowledging the story's strengths and setting a positive tone. 2. Cultural sensitivity: I always am mindful of cultural nuances and make sure my feedback is universally respectful and inclusive. 3. Encourage iterative improvement: Mostly, I focus on suggesting iterative changes, allowing storytellers to refine their craft gradually. 4. Note : Very Important Always Provide Alternatives, Not Just Critique Offer actionable suggestions. This empowers great storytellers with diverse approaches for improvement.

It's always necessary to go easy on the writer, when you see a copy that lacks at something; Identify the missing parts, highlight the right approach and make sure the copywriter acts on the feedback. In this way the writer will rethink and come up with a better copy.

I would say to handle all of the accuracy issues first, to break the ice and clean it up. It’s important to know critique emotionally, keep it professional. After that the list from defining issues, purpose and so on should go easily since the write is hopefully more at ease.

Critiquing a story should focus more on uplifting the writer's work as opposed to just pointing out the weak areas. I give a detailed outline of what I love about the work before I delve into the aspects that need improvement, with clear guidelines and examples on how to improve.

Más que criticar, es enseñar donde está olvidando, contar su estilo en la historia, sugiriendo, corregir lo que sobra y siendo sincero, crudo, pero sincero. Porque eso hace que el redactor crezca. Claro está siempre desde el respeto, sin ofender ni el trabajo, ni la persona.

Talk to me like we are both humans. Understand that there are positive and negative aspects of the critique and tell me how I can improve to be better.

A sandwich of negative feedback cushioned by two positive findings is easier for an aspiring writer to swallow. Writing is a personal journey. The work may never find another reader. Be kind. This journey into writing can be filled with discouragement and disappointment. Contribute something of value.

Ojo con el método del sándwich porque nuestro cerebro tiene la capacidad, bien de enfocarse en lo bueno o, sobre todo, de escuchar lo malo. Mi sugerencia es que ordenemos muy bien el discurso y nuestro receptor entienda muy bien qué es una y otra cosa para conseguir el efecto que deseamos.

I personally hate the sandwich method. When someone does it to me, it feels formulaic and contrived. I'd rather someone get to the point. If you give your criticism in a constructive way, things like the sandwich method aren't needed.

Many years ago, I was told about the 'sh!t sandwich' method, and I still use it today. Essentially, it's two parts praise to one part critique. For example, if I were conducting a review of a CV, I might say; Your formatting is well laid out and easy to read (praise), but the content is far too generic (sh!t). However, you do have some impressive achievements that we can feature prominently, so I don't foresee any trouble in turning this into an excellent CV (praise). It's a great way of softening the blow of what may be seen as harsh criticism if taken on its own.

Writing exposes you very publicly-your thoughts, situation, opinions, history, expertise. It requires being thick skinned and getting feedback is part of the gig. But it should be constructive, clear, no faff, honest feedback that as suggested outlines what’s missing and how to fix it. The key for writers is to imagine they’re telling a friend a story. Then they’ll naturally include details, context, background and an ending.

I totally agree with this approach. I find writers appreciate feedback when it comes with a reason shared kindly. I focus on the product or goal and thoughtfully express the suggested change. I make analogies to express feelings I want the creative writing to evoke. I love teaching and sharing… helping people grow in their writing and I love to learn. This makes critiquing easier as I’m joyful while doing it.

To be clear is to be kind - but as an a former writer now managing editor it’s important to be super specific with edits and feedback and of course let them know you are happy to work with them to nut out any really tough bits.

I find the Stop, Start, Continue method works well for me in all aspects of my life. It FORCES you to be balanced in your feedback. - Maybe you could try to stop doing X. - Instead, explore ways to do Y. - I really enjoyed Z, so please keep doing that.

Feedback should be 'constructive', i.e. help them to improve. As someone who mentors new writers, constructive feedback is the way to go. Meet them where they are - be curious about what prompted them to choose a specific technique. What impact were they hoping to achieve on the reader? E.g if the intended effect is to deepen the emotional connection for a character, you could ask the writer: "Have you considered deepening your main character's backstory to enhance emotional connection? Here's why I'm mentioning that..."

It's all about coaching your writers. I am a fan of sharing the 'so what?' technique. When you write or explain something, ask yourself 'so what?'. This helps the writer learn to drill down on the point they're looking to make, be more discerning in the information they share, and gets to the value of each statement. I've found this method helps cut down on a lot of 'filler' content.

Asking questions isn't just beneficial to the writer but also me, the editor. I like to ask the simplest of simple questions, which leads to conversations with the writer, and growth in both perspectives.

In 30+ years of being an editor, I have found that it's helpful to remind the writer that they invited the critique. When working with folks pre-publication, I remind them that the goal is for everyone to succeed: 1) for the piece itself (the story) to be as successful as possible 2) for this to be a successful step forward in the writer's work 3) for the publisher to successfully be able to promote the piece

If you find obvious plot holes / errors, ask whether those were intentional. Was the writer trying to mislead the reader or present a metaphorical situation? Did they forget an important bit of info, or give a piece of info that should have been held back? Give them the benefit of the doubt before tearing them apart.

It can take courage for a storyteller to share a story with someone. They asked you because they respect your opinion. Reward their trust and be kind. Balanced, constructive feedback will earn you deep appreciation from many people. Focus on the story rather than the storyteller. Be honest. Express interest and enthusiasm for a story when it's genuine. If the story or execution don't appeal to you, politely explaining why is a gift to the writer whether they recognize it or not.

Understand your relationship with the writer. How long have you been working with each other? Is there a history, both good or bad, between you two? For those with the luxury of having had many projects together, you'll likely have a higher level of trust. Critiques and responses may be more sharp but will be understood to not be attacks or ripostes. For those still in the first steps of establishing a relationship, remain professional and cordial as you define clear standards for what works or doesn't work. Regardless, guard against becoming antagonistic with each other. Don't be afraid to confront difficult choices. Listen to each other and advocate for your position. Work towards a compelling resolution.

1. Use emotional intelligence. Everyone behaves differently to feedback but as long as you respect the other party, they'll feel that your words are supportive in their journey. 2. Provide tips and alternate perspectives so they can add to their own work.

Remember, at the heart of every story is a writer who has invested time and effort. Respect their work. Ensure your feedback is supportive, acknowledging the strengths of the piece while guiding them on how to improve.

1) Focus on the message. Is it clear? Does it resonate with the intended audience? 2) Pay attention to the tone. Is it consistent throughout the piece? Does it align with the brand's voice? 3) Look at the structure. Is it easy to follow? Does it engage and hold the reader's attention? P.S. The goal of critique is to encourage growth and improvement, not to tear down the creator.

Call me old school, but why is this even a question? The first thing I learned as a creative - many, many centuries ago - was to stop taking everything so personally. A critique, or let's call it 'feedback', on your work is feedback on your work. Not on you. Of course, being an emotionally fragile person like any creative, it took me a while to figure that out. Oh, the times I cried in the toilet after a particularly brutal review. But once you get it, feedback is just feedback. The only thing I expect is there is a reasoning behind it. Then you have a basis for discussion. The briefing will be the guide in that discussion. Of course, it helps if you have a discussion with someone who is not a dick. That's really all there is to it.

Be kind: You will see a better output. In the b2b space, feedback and criticism are common. I see the failure of outputs as directly proportional to the "relationship between workers." P.S. - Before everything, ask yourself if you know what you need. (Most often client isn't clear about the objective lol)

One thing we've learned in UX Design is how to pad our feedback with context. Too many times in a rush to just have something to offer, we give feedback with no thought of if our feedback is aligned with the goals of the project. This simply means before offering an opinion, ask the writer what their goals are. Then give feedback that aligns with those goals. If your feedback isn't aligned then maybe consider it won't be useful.

Critiquing a story constructively is about balance and empathy. Acknowledge the strengths first; highlight what worked well, whether it's the plot, character development, or writing style. This sets a positive tone. Then, move to areas for improvement, but frame them as opportunities rather than flaws. Be specific about what didn't resonate and why, and offer suggestions for enhancement. 🌠Always remember that behind every story is a person who put in effort and creativity. 🌠 Your goal is to help them grow, not discourage them. End on an encouraging note, expressing interest in seeing future work. This approach fosters a constructive and supportive environment for growth.