Long ago (a bit scary, how long it's been!), Vrghr wrote this piece for a furry writer's website called "FurRag".

Wuff thought he'd post it here on Fur Affinity. Hopefully, some will find it a useful exploration in providing feedback and critique for the artists' work on this, or any other site.

A few things to add to the original document posted here:
1st - Though this is written specifically for Writers, the fundamental principals apply to all art forms. Just substitute the appropriate terms for artist, musician, videographer, etc., and you'll catch the gist of it

2nd - Not every artist likes or wants to receive a critique on their work. ASK FIRST! Or check their home page for any info on that subject. If the answer is "no", politely REMAIN SILENT no matter how much you want to provide constructive feedback on their work! If you feel positive about their entry, perhaps just "I liked it!" type feedback is all you can do.

3rd - Though the post goes into detail on this, it is worth repeating here: Even the best constructive feedback can be destructive to an artist if presented in a way that tears down instead of building up!

Remember, artists can be very emotionally invested in their work! These are their "children"; born of inspiration and imagination, and delivered via a lot of time, effort, and dedication. No one really wants to hear that they have an ugly baby (sometimes even more-so if it is true!)! Be Gentle and diplomatic when offering your suggestions and feedback.

In any event, below is wuff's submission from so long ago. And, in reading it over again, it still seems as relevent now as when Vrghr wrote it all those years before.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Art of the Constructive Critique

Vrhgr thought he'd post this discussion of (hopefully) helpful hints, tips, and techniques on how to provide useful inputs to the writer.

Note, this is NOT an attempt to reduce or discourage friendly "Good work! I loved it!" responses. Quite the opposite in fact! Vrghr finds those quite heartening and would encourage readers to let their authors know when they've enjoyed a story! Most writers won't stop writing without them, and the FurRag counter does let authors know when folks read their works; but actually "hearing" from their audience is a real boost to the morale for most folks. Don't feel shy in providing it if you really liked the work!

However, if you want to provide constructive reviews to improve a writer's story or skills, there are a few techniques that can improve the results. That's what this post hopes to provide.

The key word here is "Constructive!" A Constructive Critique provides a basis for improvement, either in story quality, writing skills, or related areas.

A response like "Gee, that sucks!" is neither a review or a critique; it is an act of literary vandalism, akin to walking by a sculpture and smacking it with a bat because you don't like the looks! Such a reply does nothing but anger or discourage the author. It tears down instead of building up.

To provide the basis for improvement, the Constructive Critique needs to provide two basic elements: specifics and solutions. Let"s take those separately - -

Specifics: Let the author know WHAT, WHY, HOW, WHERE, etc. Not "Your writing is awful.", instead "You can't spell." Sure, the latter is still harsh (and we'll get to that), but at least it provides a focus, a specific, on an area of improvement. This is the first step of successful Constructive Critique.

The more specific you can be, the better the chance of improvement. At the very least, it serves as a means for the author to examine your input and evaluate it against their work and their intentions and either incorporate or reject it (or, more properly, the solutions that follow).

For more esoteric or complicated issues, examples can be useful. Not everyone is familiar with all the technical grammar terms and conditions. Sometimes just quoting a passage and illustrating the issue through that means will go a long way toward understanding.

Solutions: "For every problem, there must be a solution." Okay, it's trite. But, if an author knew they were making mistakes or had room for improvements and how to correct that, they would likely have already DONE it!

Some Specifics already include an implied Solution. In our example ("You can't spell.), the solution is already implied; either learn how to spell or use a spell-checker before submitting the work for publication. However, not every specific is so straight-forward.

For instance, "The plot suffers from lack of focus." is a Specific, but there's a huge gray area on this one. How much is "too much" detail or sub-plot? Perhaps the author can't see where the reviewer thinks they are straying too far a-field? This type of input requires more explicit Solution. For this instance, "You spend too much time developing the background of secondary characters and their goals, but never work those into the story. Without resolving them, they detract from the primary plot and leave the ready either confused or unfulfilled." This provides some implied solutions--resolve the sub-plots or remove them.

A Solution can be specific (i.e. Use "too" to mean "also" or "excessive", not "to"; as in, "I went to the beach too."). Or it could also be something more general, on the order of, "Read a bit of Douglas Adams for some good examples of humor in an adventure or fantasy setting."

That covers the first, key aspects of Constructive Critique. If you only use those two, you are well on your way to providing useful information for improvement for those stories/authors you review. However, if you ONLY use those two, folks may end up looking forward to your reviews about as much as looking forward to pouring peroxide into an open wound; sure, it's beneficial, but folks still hate it anyway!

This brings us to a third aspect of the Constructive Critique Method. You can present your critique in such a way that it discourages the author. This is counter-productive! The objective of a Constructive Critique is to improve things. There is no improvement if an author stops writing! There is only an absence; a potential unfulfilled.

In our original example, "You can't spell." is harsh, but it fulfills the two key aspects: Specifics and Solution. However, it is presented if very discouraging form! "Your story would be easier to read if you ran it through a spell checker, or had someone proofread it for spelling first." Provides the identical Specifics and Solutions, but does so in a far more palatable fashion. That old cliche about "honey versus vinegar" became cliche for a reason!

This is especially true for a writing community like this one. The purpose of FurRag is to promote and encourage furry writers.

Encouragement should be part of the Critique process as well. Presenting your critique in a positive manner not only promotes and encourages the writer, it will make you a more appreciated reviewer. And that's not a bad thing either.

***

Though Vrghr has been reviewing documents since (Egads, has it been THAT long?) around 1982, that doesn't mean this wuff knows every trick and tip of the trade! (Just that he's got more gray in his fur than he likes to admit to. *grins*)

Most of those documents have been technical manuals in one form or another. Its one thing to do reviews of technical documents, and quite another to review a literary work!

What wuffy is getting to is PLEASE provide your own ideas, tips, etc., in the replies to this post to help the FurRag reviews do a better job of reviewing your works! We all improve this way.

Thank you!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Addendum: "Critique" vs. "Feedback"

In reading another thread, this wuff caught a comment to the effect of, "I can't really provide more of a critique than 'I liked it.'", and wuffy thought this would be a good place to pursue that idea and have some discussion on it.

First, this brings up the difference between "critique" and "feedback". "I liked it." is the latter. And (lets face it) authors appreciate feedback as much as any artist. Feedback, especially positive, provides a great drive and incentive to continue producing the appreciated outputs. However, as a learning tool, it is normally less effective than a positive critique. The difference is in the specifics: the feedback is emotional, but the critique provides technical detail on just what is being done right.

Thankfully, "I liked it" can very easily become a positive critique and provide the extra detail which lets a writer continue to perfect their craft by continuing to deliver those aspects that someone enjoys.

The first step, when one has the emotional response of "I liked that!" is to take a moment of contemplation and ask yourself, "What about it did I really enjoy?". Perhaps it was the humor in the character's dialog. Maybe it was the way the author made the scene really come to life in your mind; you could practically taste the buffet or hear the roar of the enemy's guns. Maybe it was the emotional content. Or perhaps you just liked the characters themselves.

In any case, when you first encounter that "Oh yeah!" feeling, you'll generally find a reason underlying it.

To turn your feedback into a critique, all you need to do is write that second portion down after that first line. To whit: "I liked it! The hero's constant jokes really cracked me up! I'm going to have to try a few those lines on my friends."

Bingo! You've provided something specific for the author to add to their skills set, and you've taken the first step in critical reading - understanding the 'why' of how a story affects you. Not only have you helped the author, but now that you've realized just what it was that you appreciated, you can add that to your own criteria when you search out future stories, knowing that this aspect is something specific that you'll enjoy.

Remember, even if a reviewer doesn't feel qualified to judge someone's work on technical merits of grammar and syntax, they can still provide that positive reinforcement in a manner that advances an author's skills.