This is a site for amateur writers. “An amateur” is, literally, someone who loves their calling – writing as a trade, profession, or hobby. If an amateur is someone who has never been paid for anything he has written, then I should leave, and so should quite a few others; if an amateur is someone who does not earn his living from writing but loves to do it, then I imagine most of us should stay. None of the amateurs on here are either idiots or geniuses. Like most populations, we cluster somewhere on the statistical bell-curve around a central mean, but for the brilliant, the good, the totally average, the not-so-good and the hopeful but ungifted, Great Writing offers this function: “sign up, submit a piece of creative writing, and wait for others to offer advice and constructive criticism.”

GW is a site that works by reviews. It does this very well compared to many online sites; post a work and within minutes it will have been read, and within an hour it usually has at least one critique. That is a sobering thought. Wait though – who are these “others” who will pronounce upon your brainchildren? Playwright Brendan Behan once said, “Critics are like eunuchs in a harem. They're there every night, they see it done every night, they see how it should be done every night, but they can't do it themselves.” You can see from this jaundiced remark that criticism can be a traumatic part of the writer’s life. On this site though, because we are all “aspiring writers” it is your fellow-writers, who certainly think they “can do it”, who will be your reviewers.

When I first registered, one of my Forum questions was: exactly how is an author supposed to respond HERE to criticism? (The thread is still there: What we write and where, and reviewing; January 2007.) How well do reviewers review? Whose opinions are worth consideration? I have now seen six months’ worth of GW reviewing from both ends and from the sidelines, so here are some of my thoughts.

Let’s compare a writer posting a new piece to a reviewer offering a critique of it.

Writing a piece ...

Our writer may be a quick creator, or a slow one. He (I’m going to stick with HE, if you don’t mind – please preface it with your own S if you require it from now on)  - he can prepare at whatever speed suits, perhaps over several days or weeks, before posting. With the new editing facilities, posting a reasonably polished work is easier than ever! The infant piece is then laid trembling before the waiting GW world. Will it be acclaimed as a masterwork? Or trampled into the mud with the also rans?

Perhaps someone makes an early comment that the writer takes on board, so that a change is required to the work: “Whether your work is published or not, you can edit it at any time.” So the writer duly edits and re-saves the polished work. More reviews follow as the piece is read by others.

There will be times when strong remarks are made about a work. They ought to be about the WORK and not the writer, and this is usually the case, no matter how it feels to the person concerned. While I accept that it can be hard for a writer to separate his "baby" from himself, we have to remember that a writer joins GW voluntarily and is not forced to put anything up for review. If we really are aspiring "writers" then accepting criticism is a skin we all have to grow. Mine is not yet complete, so I know others must suffer too! But be courageous. If a work turns out to be universally disliked, a writer can remove it from the public gaze at any time and retreat to lick his wounds in private. Surprisingly few do so …


...and being reviewed

How should you, the author, reply to your reviewers? One way is to post another "review" of the piece yourself, in which you thank people and explain, justify or refute if necessary. It’s quite a good way to work and can prompt some entertaining exchanges. These accumulated reviews and discussions are great for latecomers to read when your work’s title comes up in the “Works Awaiting Review” box after its original posting date.  Incidentally, if you look back through the older postings you’ll learn which reviewers are worth paying attention to, and which you might as well ignore with a smile. There are some excellent reviewers who, although not front-rank writers themselves, enjoy being an audience for others’ new work. Very often the most confident reviewers are also acknowledged as “good” writers by the majority of the site members. They are seldom Behan’s “eunuchs in the harem”. Generally, they are well qualified: that is, they have been writing or studying in a genre for many years, and may even have been published (and possibly PAID!).

Another reply method is to send a Private Message. Your reviewer’s name is a live link that takes you to their Profile, where you click the little PM icon to contact them. Sometimes you want your remarks to be private, sometimes you don't! Try it, and see which works for you.

Reading a piece and giving a review

Let’s look next at the task facing our reviewer. If you have never reviewed, but only smarted under someone’s comments, let me assure you: giving a review is not a trivial exercise.

A new work is posted. Now, I suppose a dedicated reviewer might copy the text onto his own computer and critique at leisure, but I don’t know many people who do so. Copying other people’s stuff seems like an encroachment on writing time as well as having a vaguely thieving feel to it.

So, let’s assume that the review is written on-line. It’s a fact of life on GW that a review has to be created in one go (when GW’s demon glitch doesn’t post it multiple times that is!). There isn’t any way a reviewer can save a review and come back to it, other than copying and pasting it onto his own machine and then back at some later date.

The guidelines for reviewing suggest:

“Please try to make your reviews detailed and constructive - the kind of reviews you'd hope to get yourself. While we know it's easy to fire off a quick "great stuff, mate!", most authors would prefer to hear why you enjoyed their work or, more importantly, why you didn't.”

Now a reviewer has not only to read, but to absorb, criticise constructively, and explain his reasons, all in one sitting. Certainly there are clues given under the review box: “key points to look out for and comment on when you are critiquing …”, but it’s still the case that a reviewer normally responds with very little preparation time, compared to the time the writer may have taken over the initial posting.

Complaints about reviews

Let me summarise some of the writers’ complaints that I have encountered about reviews, and see if they are reasonable.

--- reviews are just bland back-patting and therefore are unhelpful
--- reviews are blunt ( = honest, but written fast) and therefore are offensive
--- reviews are too technical or deal with fine points that “the average writer” doesn’t need to worry about, but when line by line reviews are given via Private Messages, this “excludes” the other members of the group
--- accepted “good” writers are given “good” reviews by a “Mutual Admiration Society”
--- when good writing is well received and flawed writing is criticised, this makes the site “elitist”. (Fortunately this is not the same thing as the group having an elite of writers within it; elitism is an attitude, not a characteristic of the group itself.)
--- reviewers who know a writer review him/her with humorous remarks, which can be a touch on the ironic side; but if new writers are treated similarly these remarks are wounding to the sensitive writer’s “soul”; yet reviewers are taking writing “too seriously” when they criticise sloppy drafts

Now, help me out here, aren’t some of these complaints incompatible with the aims of the site, and also with each other? And aren’t some of them completely illogical?

A writer exposes his character, attitudes and knowledge as clearly in his reviews as he does in his personal writing. A review once posted on GW cannot be edited. It’s stuck there, unpolishable, unretractable, with any typos and SPAGS (errors of SPelling And Grammar)  exposed, and if the reviewer expressed a like or dislike in some less than perfect fashion, heaven help him, because anyone will be able to break off a branch to beat him with and unlike the writer of a posted work, he can’t duck.

Complaints have not always been made by the writers who have been reviewed; some reviewers have challenged other reviewers on a third party’s behalf. Sometimes it is helpful but occasionally it can become extremely unpleasant. The moderators will step in to try to cool things down: post a review to indicate they are aware of the behaviour, or PM the protagonists. They will delete really offensive reviews, too, but that is rare. Some pretty hot exchanges are still there in the archives!

Reviewing, therefore, is not quite the same as posting a work for review, and while aspiring writers may need to brace themselves, so too do their reviewers!

The Perfect Great Writing Reviewer

Let’s look at a Perfect Writer-Reviewer made up from the demands implicit in the complaints. He must know what he is talking about (in order to make useful comments) yet not make his reviews too critical. He must divine whether the writer aims to be published and whether he can stand having flaws pointed out, or must be treated with kid gloves. Then he has to guess whether humour is acceptable, yet not be too serious if it isn’t. He must diligently look up the writer’s profile for clues as to whether the writer is exercising a newly found ability to string together a few coherent words in English, or is merely exorcising some personal demon. Then he must write his review. He must be kind, helpful, honest, and give detailed feedback – but not so detailed that it goes over the heads of the less well informed. He must phrase it politely, complete it in one sitting, and post it publicly so as not to exclude anyone who might want to read it.

The review can’t be edited, so if someone takes exception to it, it can’t be retracted. Sometimes the ensuing discussions, refutations and explanations turn into arguments. Writers, like actors, are professionally articulate: we find it easy to give venom full value, and that’s when the normally humorous badinage can turn nasty. Ooops.

When you consider all these possibilities, it seems that to be Perfect Great Writing Reviewers we would need enormous diplomatic skills on top of those we employ as writers. And we’d use them always. Unfailingly. And instantly …

When you put it like that, you realise there can be no such thing as a perfect review or reviewer. So, next time your written work receives a review that is less than ideal, don’t scream – spare a thought for the person who made the effort to create it for you. Remove your gaze from your navel and try doing some reviewing yourself. Truthful reviews should help a writer to grow. Giving truthful reviews should do the same.

Look up the writer’s profile when you don’t know anything about a person or his background. If you find something there that you didn’t expect, what adjustments should you make to your remarks? It’s your call. Just remember that your review will be up there for everyone to judge.

Get out there and make comments, focusing solely on the work you have before you. If it’s a form you haven’t seen before, there’s nothing to stop you asking for information before you try to give an opinion. Practise commenting fairly and fully, even though you’ve only read the work a few times. Be well mannered, articulate and analytical. Comment on the writing, rather than the content or the writer’s attitude. Make helpful suggestions – or even just one – that will improve the work you have just read. Giving the “shit sandwich”, cushioning one really critical observation between two nice ones, usually goes down acceptably. Use humour, if you feel the author will understand that you also mean well.

Honing your critical faculties will not only stretch your understanding of web etiquette, but will teach you a great deal about WHY a piece works or doesn’t work. You’ll learn almost as much by attempting to critique as you will by reading reviews of your own pieces. Ask yourself, too: if the experienced reviewers stopped doing this generous work, how could you ever get feedback to turn your good writing into Great Writing?

Reviews may be difficult both to give and to receive; but you can be blessed either way on GW. Yes, it’s fun to get a rave review on a piece you’ve polished for months; but it’s also fun to read a response from a fellow-writer, “That’s a five-star idea – thanks mate, I’ll try it!”

Give it a go.


Reviews

Written by Phil (3986 comments posted) 5th July 2007
Not a review, just a comment.
 
Well put.
 
Phil

Written by johniebg (460 comments posted) 6th July 2007
Good stuff.
 
We at johniebg towers, having read your website, wondered how long it would be before you were taking a hand in running GW, I lost the bet! My guess was 18 months!
Ta both
Written by fellpony (614 comments posted) 6th July 2007
I didn't canvass for the job, honest. 
 
Just don't start any bonfires, okay? Or if you do, bring a sack of spuds so we can have baked potatoes - it's hardly been the weather for ice creams.

A VIEW FRON THE BRIDGE.
Written by gerardconnolly (1038 comments posted) 6th July 2007
Nice work Sue. Timely and dispassionate. Its good to see somebody dole out some sound and common sense guidance on the wearisome subject of commenting on the work of others. 
 
I can think of nothing to add save to say that I would caution any reviewer to consider that nitpicking over typographical errors, and that juvenile, pigsticking mentality that goes with it is the true preoccupation of the amateur. Some reviews strike me as far more aimed at trying to prove how clever the reviewer is. Slovenly, ill conceived presentation is one thing; but there is not a publisher walks this planet who could give a row of beans for a few typos/spelling mistakes. When giving a review, try to rise above the mundane, would be my advice. And remember what Brecht said : ' It doesn't matter if the scenery falls down, as long as the play stands up '.
 
Again, well worth reading.
 
Slan! 
 
One hand tapping
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (2174 comments posted) 9th July 2007
Blimey, Sue, I almost wish I hadn’t read this. I don’t do any of the stuff that the” perfect reviewer” is supposed to do. I read and give my response to the writing not the writer. I don’t think I have ever looked up a profile before responding.
I'm not sure truth is something to aim for. A review is totally subjective and filtered through the reviewer’s personal world-view and prejudices. In fact rather than know about the writer before reviewing it would make more sense for the reviewer to admit all his details so we know where he is coming from to give some context to the review and consequently how much credence to give it. 
That said there is a lot here that is useful and helpful and I would hope everyone new and old would read this and be encouraged to respond. I use respond, as I don’t claim to criticise. I read and give my reaction, so it is usually more heart than head which is why I never comment on grammar or spelling; that can be learned in an evening, writing talent cannot.
I would say that whether a review is harsh, vitriolic, kind or complimentary it is a good review i.e your writing has provoked a response. The only bad review is a non-review. It doesn’t matter if they hate your work but if they pass it by without comment you need to worry.


Written by fellpony (614 comments posted) 9th July 2007
"I don't think I have ever looked up a profile before responding."
 
This is a fair and honest approach Jane, since we are supposed to be reviewing the writing rather than the writer. It's like marking examinations "blind", with the student's name concealed; it reduces bias. If I were reading as an editor for publication, I wouldn't care two hoots who the writer was or whether he'd be upset by rejection, I'd only look at whether the piece was suitable for publication. An accepted piece would get help to iron out its wrinkles, a rejected one would just get rejected, and almost certainly no assistance to improve. The equivalent on GW is passing by in silence and not reviewing.
 
However, on occasion I have reviewed something here and then regretted a remark when I found the writer was immature, inexperienced or writing purely for therapy. So now I check before I review for someone I don't recognise; I think it gives me useful background info, since the site's about reviewing and presumably is meant to be helpful. However, I agree that in the "real world" out there it wouldn't be done, and even here such a check isn't mandatory.

PS
Written by fellpony (614 comments posted) 9th July 2007
The "perfect reviewer" in this piece is of course totally non existent ... there can be no such thing :)


Written by Bottleblondesurfer (2174 comments posted) 10th July 2007
Now I feel slightly ashamed. I hadn't really thought it through. I suppose some concession should be made for age and immaturity and I know my humour can be a bit sharp. I'll think about it, but on the topic of therapy I do feel strongy. I think you should keep theraputic writing to yourself and not post it up.Write it all out of your system by all means but then youreally need to re-write it with a third party in mind; remembering that you are writing to communicate. You should entertain the reader not make him part of your therapy.Just my own opinion.
Jane


Me too
Written by flook123 (33 comments posted) 11th July 2007
Hear, hear, Fellpony. Good balanced piece. I also agree with what both yourself and Jane say in the exchange. There seem to be a few instantly boring reviewers who spend so much time banging on about a few typos/spelling mistakes. Like GC says its more to make the reviewer look smart than anything else. Reviews are so much more interesting and helpful when they concentrate on the quality of the work not just try to demonstrate how some self appointed sadsack has swallowed a dictionary. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK YOU TWO!! its a shame this piece does not appear on the general reviews board as this advice would be beneficial to all.
 
Well done!
 
Regards Lance.
 
PS Where is GC these days? His reviews were always worth reading and NEVER BORING!!
 


Written by fellpony (614 comments posted) 12th July 2007
Thanks Lance. Erm - which bit of the site do you mean by the general reviews board? - I think Ed was going to put it into "Articles on Writing" but the holidays got in the way. It's a bit long to put anywhere as a preface to any of the forums or writing lists.
 
As for GC, I am going to guess that he is busy earning a living by writing and perhaps doesn't have time to do many reviews on here :) 
 
BTW I agree with Jane that therapy writing is not usually suitable to put in front of others without a severe change of viewpoint and/or tone. By the time you're ready to make that change - speaking personally - you've probably outgrown the need for the therapy.


Oh dear!
Written by Talisker (1156 comments posted) 12th July 2007
Excruciatingly sensible, balanced, reasonable and necessary.
 
Yet, Sue! - have you spent the fory silver denarii yet? If not, give them back quickly, together with your "Cambridge Book of How to Write" - it may not be too late! Your gentle Lakeland soul is too high a price to pay in return for the rod and staff at GW. 
 
Never thought that you'd turn "Central Scrutinizer" - I find life more comfortable out here in the badlands - without the "review by numbers" guide to help me along. No doubt I am one of the betes noir - and this is another of my offensive diatribes - just take the first sentence as serious - and the last.
 
Poacher turned gamekeeper extraordinaire! I for one shall be minding my Pees and Queues! 
 
Oli ;)


hee hee
Written by fellpony (614 comments posted) 12th July 2007
"Central Scrutinizer"? I think that sounds delightfully rude (I got tight 'old of 'is central wotsits an' scrutinized 'em) and shall use it at every opportunity :p



Written by Livinginanattic (277 comments posted) 22nd July 2007
Very thoughtful and well balanced. Can't really disagree with any of the above although I think some of the comments (not the article) are a bit judgemental. Most of us are only trying to be helpful even if we do sometimes get it wrong.
 
Ben


Written by stevetroster (783 comments posted) 23rd July 2007
Yes indeed, it’s good to see somebody dole out some sound and common sense guidance on the art of commenting and reviewing.
It is curious then that this sound advice appears to have been followed by a good measure of nonsense and hypocrisy.
 
It has been said that reviews are so much more interesting and helpful when they concentrate on the quality of the work, and I couldn’t agree more. 
So why is it then that we still have far too many occasions where reviewers find it impossible to review and comment on work without attacking the work of others? With infantile references to ‘the emotionally retarded’ - ‘the work of a student’ - ‘the shock horror brigade’ (James, Stephen, and Anne would turn in their undead graves!).
Attacking the work of ten contributors as a thinly veiled attempt to win the support of one contributor is, in my opinion, a rather asinine balloon-headed way of conducting oneself.
 
The reason that libraries and book shops have thousands of different books in them is due to the fact that the reading public have diverse tastes.
If, when you read a GW submission, you do not like the subject matter of the work, then at least try to concentrate on the quality of the writing.
A perfectly written story about zombies is a perfectly written story, whilst a badly written story is a badly written story. 
 
I must admit that I find it somewhat bizarre that an alleged professional scriptwriter, and an alleged student scriptwriter, can see no merit in reviews that highlight SPAG issues.
I would imagine that any actor would find it of considerable importance to know whether he should be speaking the word ‘pennies’ or ‘penises'.
Are spelling and grammar not integral parts of the quality of any written work?
 
To believe that publishers and agents show no regard to SPAG is a sign of ignorance of the world of professional writing, indeed 99% of rejected work is due to SPAG issues.
 
I accept the fact that many contributors to this site struggle to produce SPAG free work, but there is no excuse for bad spelling.
If writers (and reviewers) are going to take offence at being pulled up on their spelling, then I would suggest that they use their spellchecker before posting.
 
All the best,
Steve.
 

 
reviewing and SPaGs
Written by fellpony (614 comments posted) 23rd July 2007
I see where you're coming from Steve. I entirely agree that reviews should concentrate on the work in question. 
 
A review should be looking at the quality of the writing. Does it have energy, does it carry the reader along, does it build a world that is true to itself? Yes, writers should proof read and spell check, but accurate spelling isn't the be-all and end-all, only an indication of how tidy minded the writer is and how on top of his/her game. I have a dyslexic student (of Computing) whose keyboard work is awful for spellings and grammatical mistakes, but his meaning is still quite clear and usually full of very good reflective and analytical thought (funnily enough when he hand-writes, his errors are MUCH fewer. Go figure.) Should I mark him down for sometimes accepting the wrong word from the spellchecker? Of course not, and I'd be professionally wrong to do so.
 
A good, energetic piece of creative writing, especially a long one, may well be accepted for publication despite a few typos or layout flaws. Those can be edited post acceptance and pre publication, and because of its life it will gain from the editing. A badly written piece that is over-written, full of clumsy, redundant adjectives and adverbs, or simply doesn't make any sense (even zany, off the wall sense) will not survive; it is dead even if it is perfectly spelt and grammatically correct. Which to some extent is what you said at first. ("A perfectly written story about zombies is a perfectly written story, whilst a badly written story is a badly written story. ") 
 
I disagree that spelling and grammar are necessarily integral parts of a good work, although I do prefer to be able to read something that is written precisely. It convinces me that the writer knows what s/he is doing! Of course, a really excellent piece of writing, in any genre, is very often also crafted by someone who has already learnt to do the job well. Reasonably good spelling and easy grammatical English are already second nature to such a writer, and the story rolls on these as on ball bearings. Or heelers or skateboards or whatever takes your fancy. However, I do think the energy of the writing has to come first.
 
To my mind, the place for commenting on SPaGs and offering really detailed reconstructive advice is in a PM.



Written by Janie (265 comments posted) 3rd August 2007
i disagree about spags being highlighted via PM. i have learned no end of stuff about apag issues myself just by reading the crits others have received. (on other sites, not on here, as spag enlightenment is somehow frowned upon) if conveyed via PM then they don't benefit anyone except the recipient. i don't know why some people get touchy when picked up on spags i really don't, i usually ignore minor ones but if someone has obvious difficulties and doesn't know his apostrophes from his semi colons then i think they should be picked up and helped to learn about them AND not get the arse when someone does. there's no shame in being ignorant about spags, we all have gremlins of some kind or another and just because someone isn't so hot on the spag front, it doesn't mean they are crap writers.
 
one example... i befriended an old bloke on the t'inernet who had little education due to his family being travellers when he was young. he's a very intellegent man who has a real gift for telling a story. the only thing that was letting him down was his grammar and punctuation. i have worked with him for a year and he has slowly learned how it all works. his work is now fabulous..it always was fabulous but now it shines. spag does make a difference and is very important. it should not be ignored when critting.
 
great post btw fellpony.



Written by Bottleblondesurfer (2174 comments posted) 6th August 2007
I think my ignorance goes one step deeper as I don't even know what a spag is,never heard of it.
With regard to commenting on punctuation, spelling etc- this is a creative writing site not an English language site. I don't feel it is my job to tutor anyone in English but to react to the content. If the problems are such that they impede understanding a quick mention would do. Some of the"reviews" here go into forensic detail about grammar and spelling and don't mention the content. That isn't reviewing, it's spell-checking. You get the feeling they have read the words but not the story,which is a pointless exercise. It's the story that counts.
Jane


"SPaG"
Written by fellpony (614 comments posted) 6th August 2007
"SPaG" = shorthand for SPelling And Grammar. Funnily enough I hadn't come across it either, until I started joining writing sites. (I'll edit the piece to make that acronym clearer!!)