Helpful aids for critiquing.

It's Prez again.

I'm gaining the feeling (both through direct comment and observation) that some of the things I'm writing might be a little over the top in my critiques, especially poetry. So, I though I'd give a few helpful pointers for critiquing.

1. On grammar: everyone knows how to do this one fairly well. Clearly the intelligence level I'm seeing is one-up, and people are pretty spot on with their grammar editing (I even got busted already. :P ) That being said, there's more to it than grammar. It's only one part of the show, so to speak. Here's a few more.

2. Allegory, Metaphors and Analogies: These are critical elements that separate weak pieces from awesome pieces, but I'm not sure everyone is familiar with them or even knows what they are. (Example: I noted "A Familiar Tune," as an allegorical piece, and I keep getting criticism that it's "not original." Allegory is another word for being symbolic in a way. An homage is giving tribute to. I was giving a tribute to something, and even titled it as such. "A Familiar Tune," = not original. :) I think if I would've made that more clear, we'd be less redundant in calling it "not original." :P

Anyway, allegory, metaphors and analogies: study them up. Look for them. Does a written piece have any? Once you are familiar with these things, stories read almost as though it's through completely different eyes. Think of this: it's like spicing up food. Without them, they can still taste good. With them, they're even better. Used wrong or too much, it tastes bad.

3. Get familiar with form. Poetry has over a hundred different forms, for example. Look for connections to forms, and whether a piece can be aided, "spiced up," with form. In writing, juxtaposing is great for sci-fi and fantasy (which seems to be very popular here). (Juxtaposing = placing two separate entities in n with each other to highlight their differences.) Many might think "But I see that already." Merely saying "This guy is good, this guy is bad" isn't enough though. Look for subtleties to highlight the differences. If you're the writer, ADD subtleties. The good guy has a little idiosyncrasy (some small, character trait) that separates him from "ordinary folk." But don't just write it, blend it in. Camouflage it a bit.

Maybe this will help with the redundant posts of "Not original," "very nice," "deep," "good stuff." Writing's like being a chef or wine taster. Anyone can say "this tastes good." But an experienced fellow can say "Nice, I can taste the hint of lemon juice you added to make it your own." Hope that helps.

Prez

First, no need to apologize, but I'll explain.

The title, "A Familiar Tune." I called it allegorical and an homage, which is another way of saying "this piece isn't original" before I even posted the link! Then, people proceeded to say "Hmm, nice but not very original."

So, to me, that says "skim reading, not paying much attention." That's a bad way to go to for good critiquing.

I wasn't mad at all, just found it kinda funny to hear those things, saying what I already pointed out.

I hope that clears that up. I tend to muddle things up the more I talk. Outlines, Prez! I need outlines (another great thing to have for good story writing.)

Excellent tips. One thing that I notice on a rampant scale around here that you didn't mention is passive voice. For those who don't know, passive voice is when you make the object of an action into the subject of a sentance.

For Example:

Passive Voice "The horse galloped away from me because I farted in its mouth."

Active Voice (The Good One) "I farted in the horses mouth and it galloped away."

There are also times where passive voice is acceptable. Passive voice should be used when the reciever is more important than the do-er.

For Example:

"The Child was struck by the car."

Wait a minute! Isn't an allegory when the whole text is about something else than it looks like? I once read a poem where the author was talking about how she picked up her daughter from kindergarden, and it turned out the poem was really about dying and how the author wanted to be "picked up" when she died.

After that definition, I still don't see what is allegoric about A Familiar Tune.

3. Get familiar with form. Poetry has over a hundred different forms, for example. Look for connections to forms, and whether a piece can be aided, "spiced up," with form. In writing, juxtaposing is great for sci-fi and fantasy (which seems to be very popular here). (Juxtaposing = placing two separate entities in n with each other to highlight their differences.) Many might think "But I see that already." Merely saying "This guy is good, this guy is bad" isn't enough though. Look for subtleties to highlight the differences. If you're the writer, ADD subtleties. The good guy has a little idiosyncrasy (some small, character trait) that separates him from "ordinary folk." But don't just write it, blend it in. Camouflage it a bit.

mprezzy

I don't know how to judge poetry at all. :(

Wait a minute! Isn't an allegory when the whole text is about something else than it looks like? I once read a poem where the author was talking about how she picked up her daughter from kindergarden, and it turned out the poem was really about dying and how the author wanted to be "picked up" when she died.

After that definition, I still don't see what is allegoric about A Familiar Tune.

waZelda

Um, not exactly? Your first line is close...but the example is not allegory- it's irony. From Bakersfield College English website of literary terms: irony (i-RAH-nee): a literary term referring to how a person, situation, statement, or circumstance is not as it would actually seem. Many times it is the exact opposite of what it appears to be.

Allegory: (from Webster's Collegiate dictionary) 1. the expressions by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations of such expression. 2. a symbolic representation.

Wikipedia: a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than literal... Allegory communicates its message by symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation.

I'd be interested in knowing from where your definition came from; whether from a teacher or an internet source or book. If it's a teacher...they're somewhat misinformed and giving wrong information.

[QUOTE="mprezzy"]

3. Get familiar with form. Poetry has over a hundred different forms, for example. Look for connections to forms, and whether a piece can be aided, "spiced up," with form. In writing, juxtaposing is great for sci-fi and fantasy (which seems to be very popular here). (Juxtaposing = placing two separate entities in n with each other to highlight their differences.) Many might think "But I see that already." Merely saying "This guy is good, this guy is bad" isn't enough though. Look for subtleties to highlight the differences. If you're the writer, ADD subtleties. The good guy has a little idiosyncrasy (some small, character trait) that separates him from "ordinary folk." But don't just write it, blend it in. Camouflage it a bit.

aliblabla2007

I don't know how to judge poetry at all. :(

Poetry is quite hard to judge if you don't have much experience with it. Let me tell you how I judge a piece so you might get a weeee bit of an understanding;)

The Idea of the poem

This is the most important part for me. Sure someone can just take a bunch of cool sounding words and turn it into a poem that has no emotional substance; but poems like that aren't poems. When I first read a piece I search for the general idea. It could be an image, it could be an emotion, it could be a state of mind, and it could certainly be all three. I try and look for interesting and abstract ways an Idea can be described.

Grammar

If a piece feels like it needs some punctuation, it probably does. But sometimes poets prefer to leave their work unpunctuated so if they clearly left out a comma for effect than there is no need to comment on it.

Flow

A good poem can easily be read from start to finish without having someone stop and go "hey that didn't really fit." There are ways to make flow more interesting and free verse uses the natural annunciation of the words to create a rhythm.

[QUOTE="waZelda"]

Wait a minute! Isn't an allegory when the whole text is about something else than it looks like? I once read a poem where the author was talking about how she picked up her daughter from kindergarden, and it turned out the poem was really about dying and how the author wanted to be "picked up" when she died.

After that definition, I still don't see what is allegoric about A Familiar Tune.

mprezzy

Um, not exactly? Your first line is close...but the example is not allegory- it's irony. From Bakersfield College English website of literary terms: irony (i-RAH-nee): a literary term referring to how a person, situation, statement, or circumstance is not as it would actually seem. Many times it is the exact opposite of what it appears to be.

Allegory: (from Webster's Collegiate dictionary) 1. the expressions by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations of such expression. 2. a symbolic representation.

Wikipedia: a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than literal... Allegory communicates its message by symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation.

I'd be interested in knowing from where your definition came from; whether from a teacher or an internet source or book. If it's a teacher...they're somewhat misinformed and giving wrong information.

Interestingly, my definition comes from "Grip teksten", the book we use to learn Norwegian in high school. And the example I used was also used as an example in that text. Maybe there are differences between the Norwegian word allegori and the English work Allegory, but I would think it was the same.

Awesome thread! I think all of us can improve in our critiquing skills. Great discussion. 

You've mentioned a lot about the smaller parts of prose, but what about the overall effect? I think, if the reader usually has to hunt through the piece of work to search for an idea or a sort of symbol that isn't immediately obvious, then it isn't really a piece of good writing. If we can instantly pass on to the reader, through a short piece of prose or other, an idea without smacking it in their faces, and yet without having to try to fill every nook of the words with a deeper meaning, then I think that we're on the right track. After all, it's the initial read of a piece of literature, the instant effect that it has on the reader, that makes the reader want to read more. What I'm getting at is that the overall effect, the instantaneous feeling or idea that gets across to the reader is ultimately the most important thing in prose. I don't believe that it's fundamentally necessary to have a piece of work packed full of literary devices if the effect produced is not engaging. I believe it's the other way around - first, we need to have a piece of work that is engaging - simple is fine. Then, once we have made something that we believe is a good read, we can add in more symbolism, more metaphors and the like. However, simply writing something once and expecting it both to be effective during the first read-through and to be packed full of literary devices and deeper meanings is just asking too much.

...did I go off-topic over there? :P

Awesome thread! I think all of us can improve in our critiquing skills. Great discussion.

You've mentioned a lot about the smaller parts of prose, but what about the overall effect? I think, if the reader usually has to hunt through the piece of work to search for an idea or a sort of symbol that isn't immediately obvious, then it isn't really a piece of good writing. If we can instantly pass on to the reader, through a short piece of prose or other, an idea without smacking it in their faces, and yet without having to try to fill every nook of the words with a deeper meaning, then I think that we're on the right track. After all, it's the initial read of a piece of literature, the instant effect that it has on the reader, that makes the reader want to read more. What I'm getting at is that the overall effect, the instantaneous feeling or idea that gets across to the reader is ultimately the most important thing in prose. I don't believe that it's fundamentally necessary to have a piece of work packed full of literary devices if the effect produced is not engaging. I believe it's the other way around - first, we need to have a piece of work that is engaging - simple is fine. Then, once we have made something that we believe is a good read, we can add in more symbolism, more metaphors and the like. However, simply writing something once and expecting it both to be effective during the first read-through and to be packed full of literary devices and deeper meanings is just asking too much.

...did I go off-topic over there? :P

helios_rietberg

No, no. You're spot on with what you say; I didn't explain a few things well.

First, those things I wrote are as pertaining to critiquing skills, not just reading. Unfortunately, an editor or critic must plod over works rather than just read, and look for elements that are good, elements that are lacking, and elements that are bad or missing.

Secondly, when I do talk about looking for those things, if you become familiar with form and such, those things will find you, you won't have to actively seek them out. It's like "Hey, that's a fine metaphor!" dings in your head without even looking for it, and it makes the story all the much more enjoyable to find depths in the writing you may not even first notice. (Sometimes people write them and don't even realize they are there themselves= hidden depths.)

Hope that clarifies some.

Ultimately, like you said: the most important thing in writing is how it makes the reader feel when they read it. But, like the analogy I used earlier, it's important to broaden the horizons. You can eat a bologna sandwich all your life because you like it, but if you don't learn about other foods, you may never find that maybe bologna doesn't taste so good compared to something else. Writing=same. You can initially like something, but read a thousand better books and go back and say "eh, this wasn't as good as I thought."

I babble too much. I'm working on it. :?

No, no. You're spot on with what you say; I didn't explain a few things well.

First, those things I wrote are as pertaining to critiquing skills, not just reading. Unfortunately, an editor or critic must plod over works rather than just read, and look for elements that are good, elements that are lacking, and elements that are bad or missing.

Secondly, when I do talk about looking for those things, if you become familiar with form and such, those things will find you, you won't have to actively seek them out. It's like "Hey, that's a fine metaphor!" dings in your head without even looking for it, and it makes the story all the much more enjoyable to find depths in the writing you may not even first notice. (Sometimes people write them and don't even realize they are there themselves= hidden depths.)

Hope that clarifies some.

Ultimately, like you said: the most important thing in writing is how it makes the reader feel when they read it. But, like the analogy I used earlier, it's important to broaden the horizons. You can eat a bologna sandwich all your life because you like it, but if you don't learn about other foods, you may never find that maybe bologna doesn't taste so good compared to something else. Writing=same. You can initially like something, but read a thousand better books and go back and say "eh, this wasn't as good as I thought."

I babble too much. I'm working on it. mprezzy

Man, you really like food as an analogy, don't you! :P Bologna sandwich, huh? Don't think I've ever had one...

But, yeah, that clarifies lots. Thanks. 

[quote="mprezzy"]

No, no. You're spot on with what you say; I didn't explain a few things well.

First, those things I wrote are as pertaining to critiquing skills, not just reading. Unfortunately, an editor or critic must plod over works rather than just read, and look for elements that are good, elements that are lacking, and elements that are bad or missing.

Secondly, when I do talk about looking for those things, if you become familiar with form and such, those things will find you, you won't have to actively seek them out. It's like "Hey, that's a fine metaphor!" dings in your head without even looking for it, and it makes the story all the much more enjoyable to find depths in the writing you may not even first notice. (Sometimes people write them and don't even realize they are there themselves= hidden depths.)

Hope that clarifies some.

Ultimately, like you said: the most important thing in writing is how it makes the reader feel when they read it. But, like the analogy I used earlier, it's important to broaden the horizons. You can eat a bologna sandwich all your life because you like it, but if you don't learn about other foods, you may never find that maybe bologna doesn't taste so good compared to something else. Writing=same. You can initially like something, but read a thousand better books and go back and say "eh, this wasn't as good as I thought."

I babble too much. I'm working on it. helios_rietberg

Man, you really like food as an analogy, don't you! :P Bologna sandwich, huh? Don't think I've ever had one...

But, yeah, that clarifies lots. Thanks.

:lol: Well, I was taught once that food is a great way to clarify things for people, because it's something everyone knows and loves.

@aliblabla2007: Eh, only tryin' to help, only tryin' to help.

I'd also like to add that presentation and organisation are very important. A large passage without any para breaks looks dreary. And closely correlated points spread over paras containing non-related points is also very confusing,.

Prezzy, I think you can put this better. God, I'm awful at explaining

Well, it's like pizza :lol:

No, really. I get your point, you didn't say that too badly I think...but I can give an example in case others don't.

Think of a response in this forum versus a blog response as an example. You tend to put breaks in between different lines of thought, as I'm doing here. It separates your thoughts nicely, and is pleasing to the eye.

Sometimes in GS's blogs, however...the separations mysteriously disappear.

And when that happens you tend to read this giant blog response from somebody that gets so muddled up and contains no clauses for separation or any hints of grammar plus the most ridiculously long run on sentence that you've ever seen that you can't even look anymore because it just goes on for ages and ages and ages and ages and you think that it's never going to stop so finally you just have to look away and then the person gets mad because you didn't respond to their response and you're like well if you hadn't written that big chunk then I might have actually looked at it. Even with the person having good diction, the large chunk of paragrah can be visually unappealing. Usually, in the cases of blogs, you hope that the person uses emoticons; because they at least can give some semblance of breakage in between the separate thoughts going on. Unfortunately, some people never use emoticons, and thus you are once again stuck with the giant, enormous, never-ending, block of text that makes you sleepy or disinterested- regardless of what the person is saying.

See the difference? Ugh. Aesthetics (how things look) are just as important as what is written. But.

Don't.

Overuse.

Breakage.

Find

the

happy middle ground.

As far as correlating points; that's when it's nice to have an outline or storyboard about what you are writing. Example:

I like donkeys. They are gray, and have a funny second-name that makes me giggle. The funniest thing about a donkey is the way it honks when it makes a sound. This sound is called a "bray."

I like apples. They are red, sweet and very delicious. I like to peel them and dash them with salt. Other times, I like to slice them and add sugar and cinnamon.

Donkey ears are very long...etc.

See the discontinuity? (This example is extreme to highlight the differences in non-related points.) If it's very bad, it's like reading work from a schizoid author; muddled and confusing. Unless the title is "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," that's bad.

Well said thank you. Maybe we should create a guide in TWL after this thread is exhaustedsandyqbg

What?

[QUOTE="sandyqbg"]Well said thank you. Maybe we should create a guide in TWL after this thread is exhaustedEtherTwilight

What?

So there is one already? And ether where have you been so long?

Kinda like real ethers. Glad FFXII added some MP recovery; that's what I'm trying right now. :P

If you're wondering wtf I'm talking about, Just Don't.

FFXII is an excellent game! Well... this coming from a sucker for RPGs, so, there's your bias balance...

Seriously though, the gameplay is awesome. How're getting on with your gambits? I know ETHERS are always a pain to find...

FFXII is an excellent game! Well... this coming from a sucker for RPGs, so, there's your bias balance...

Seriously though, the gameplay is awesome. How're getting on with your gambits? I know ETHERS are always a pain to find...

helios_rietberg

Since, this is the right topic for this, I'm quating your post from 'Nevox-The Antropol Project' here

Firstly, I know you're a bit pissed off, and we're sorry for not listening properly(maybe it's human nature to defend like that?), but I'd like to clarify some points(Get to know better, perhaps)

Rather than fill this thread with one enormous quote block, I'll just reply at points. :P

1. It doesn't bother me one way or the other (on sounding contradictory). I'm not the Zen Buddha of All That Is Right On Grammar. Just speaking from a whole lotta experience. Besides, it is called discussion, not "Listen to MPrezzy and Bow Down." :)

mprezzy

Whoa! Chill mate!

 

3. I probably wrote wrongly by saying people were being "defensive." It's too strong a word. Still, it goes back to "How serious does this person feel about writing?" Not just this particular story, but many I've read. It's easy to say "Hey, I got my own style, my own groove. Screw grammar." Well, that just gets you booted out the door if your writing anything not called Poetry. And that's just the truth. Either in college or by publishers. Believe me, I really like the idea of "story first, writing rules second." I think I posted somewhere that I wish we lived in the days of telling yarns instead of worrying about writing. But we don't. If people are serious, if you are serious about writing, they'll just HAVE to get up to snuff on grammar and rules, because books out are NEVER published without stringent grammar.

mprezzy

Looks like not many ppl came out with how strict they liked it

  

4. You're right about one thing 100%: critiquing is tough, hard work. I'm not sure Flash knew to just what extent it IS hard work when he said he wanted to see nothing but this month. I've spent up to three hours looking over some of the works on here, reading and re-reading before I post my thoughts. (NOT to win the silly competition, by any means.) And maybe I've rocked the boat too much by trying to do things the "right way," instead of the "Lounge way," and I need to back off some. That's why I asked "who's serious about writing, and who just wants to have fun?"

mprezzy

You haven't posted in a lot of threads yet. Anyway what you've posted is really helpful and personally I don't think you've overdone it. Of course, I'm not qualified to speak for the whole union

mprezzy

mprezzy

mprezzy

mprezzy

mprezzy

:P