Types of critique

[altariel]

Very good post by elissadcruz on The Different Types of Critiquers, the strengths and the weaknesses of both. It's helpful to know not only what kind of critiquer you are, but to recognize what kind of critique you're getting, and where that person is coming from. I'd like to think I was the fourth type, although after years of proof-reading it's impossible not to notice typoes. I don't really think of it as critiquing, more like house-keeping. The difference between washing-up and deciding what colour to paint the kitchen.

The third type of critique used to drive me nuts. Do I care whether I've got a minor detail wrong? Not one bit. It's fiction. It's made up. At the same time I know that this is simply a cover for the fact that I'm a lazy researcher and would rather just invent things instead.

Comments

[jhall1.livejournal.com]

A good piece. I'm afraid that I'm a mixture of types two and three, good with detail but not so good at seeing the broad picture.

It's a pity that "criticism" and "critic" have acquired such a negative connotation. I can live with "critique" but "critiquer" is such an ugly word. (Which is probably a typical type 2 comment!)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

LOL! I often talk about 'readers', because I think it alludes to how we read things in very different ways. (I guess it's like any kind of advice, isn't it?: there are people I turn to for unqualified support, others I turn to for emotional guidance, others for practical advice.)

As I learn to be less protective of my writing, I increasingly value readings that are different from my own. At the moment, I'm striving for more precision in my writing (because I know this is where I'm weak), making type 3 readers even more valuable to me.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

That lady does need a Line Critiquer. In fact she would find one grammically indespensible (sic).

I think Tanith Lee's assertion that her 18th-century London in Piratica was an alternate 18th-century London was very wise, indispensable in fact. Then you can happily sneer at nitpickers.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

For me, the ideas in the post outweigh any typo, not to mention that LJs are interesting hybrid between public and private space, between draft and polish. I often post, reread, and tinker.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I had to bite my tongue not to tell her how to spell indispensable. The other errors were clearly literals, the sort of thing any of us might do, but two mistakes in one word suggested she just didn't know. But I've had a friend get quite angry when I pointed out spelling mistakes in her stories; I was baffled, because, if she'd written something really good (which in my opinion she had), why would she not wish to remove the minor imperfections guaranteed to set some of her readers' teeth on edge?

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I've had a friend get quite angry when I pointed out spelling mistakes in her stories

I think people may feel embarrassed about making spelling mistakes because they think (wrongly) that making a spelling mistake is a sign of ignorance. My instinct is that this is probably down to judgemental early schooling and, as a result, many people sadly feel ashamed about bad spelling.

I think that spellcheckers and also a much more sensible discourse about dyslexia are beginning to alter this. Students these days are frank about discussing dyslexia with me, and it's a long time since I've had anyone "cover" for their fear of being thought stupid by making spelling mistakes.

Still, in a fanfic context, when I'm less likely to know what schooling has gone on, I tend to talk about "typoes" (rather than "spelling mistakes"), which suggests a slip of the finger (rather than an "error"). And I generally ask whether people would like any typoes pointed out, or whether they have that side of things covered.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Whereas I would argue that it is ignorance, and what's wrong is regarding such ignorance as a character flaw or moral defect. Either they haven't been taught properly, or they haven't the sort of mind that retains that kind of knowledge. It doesn't really matter, because people like me exist to fix it. What's irritating is that, in their defensiveness over the possible implication of character defect, they sometimes try to turn it round into my character flaw for being unable to ignore the errors.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

What's irritating is that, in their defensiveness over the possible implication of character defect, they sometimes try to turn it round into my character flaw for being unable to ignore the errors.

Yes, I'm sure that happens, and I think that's very sad, and demonstrates again the complexity of emotion that can surround this issue.

But I still wouldn't call it ignorance. As I said in my other comment, I think we are dealing with different types of cognition and information processing. You and I are lucky to live in a world in which competence at processing orthographic information happens to have a high value attached to it and which, in recent history, has often been conflated with intelligence.

In a different context, however, I for one would be no use at all - I have poor spatial awareness and find it difficult to orientate myself, to map myself onto terrain. Someone I once worked with was very dyslexic but was able to drive a route once and remember it in detail years afterwards. I know which one of us I'd prefer to have navigating a plane!

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Yes - what I want is for people to acknowledge their areas of ignorance and/or cognitive difficulty, or whatever you choose to call it, and acknowledge the ability of those who are competent to help them through it. But I know that admitting ignorance/cognitive difficulty is frequently regarded as a sign of stupidity and weakness. For instance, I am completely unable to give a technical description of anything that happens on a cricket field (eg "the ball pitched off then straightened and he chipped it to mid-on" - I recognise the words, but can't apply them, and don't even know whether the sentence above makes sense or whether some element makes it technically impossible). And I know that a lot of people I meet despise me for this; fortunately, the ones I have to deal with appreciate my other abilities enough to recognise that they can usually depend on those while taking care of the technical stuff themselves.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'd add: for people who find spelling very easy, it can often be hard to understand why other people misspell. But we're talking about very different patterns of cognition.

I happen to spell very well, but I have to stop and think about which is east and which is west on a compass, and I can't process long strings of numbers given verbally (e.g. phone numbers) without having them said to me slowly, one by one, and me repeat them back, one by one.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I get all that; I have to think about east and west* (I still do it by Soviet Union/USA), and wasn't very good on left and right until I learned to drive (when I realised I had to speed up on recognising them or risk the examiner misinterpreting my hesitation). And I have no sense of distance, except as a measure of time - ten minutes' walk, half an hour by bus, three and a half hours by train.

But I often notice that people like to boast about their blind spots, under the cover of self-deprecation; for instance, they say "I'm so bad at maths!" (meaning arithmetic, though no doubt they're not very good at the rest of maths either) in a manner that conveys "because it's a waste of time (so why are you bothered about it?)". And I've a political colleague who airily explained to me that "they told me about punctuation at school, but I decided it wasn't important", and I have to try to persuade him that that's fine for his personal correspondence, but if we're putting out leaflets in one of the most literate wards in the country then coherent English with correct spelling, grammar and punctuation isn't optional. It's exasperating because I'm not asking him to be good at it, just to acknowledge that it matters enough to run it by someone who is.

* Though oddly enough if you say north-west/north-east, or even south-west/south-east, I have no difficulty. Again, it's a question of regions on maps; I have a very clear sense of the North West, because that's me, and the other regions of England have sufficiently clear identities for me to place them at once, but I have no mental image of East and West except in a global context.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I entirely agree with this. I had a student who spelled "hierarchical" "higherarchical". I happen to really like this spelling, because it showed the student had thought about the word and understood it. But I advised memorizing the conventional spelling, because spelling was judged in the exam, and therefore mattered - particularly as the subject matter was bureaucracy!

[emeraldsedai.livejournal.com]

I've been reading and thinking about the so-called Dunning-Kruger Effect, and your example of the proud semiliterate reminds me of it. Your frustration with the tendency in society to disparage as useless the cognitive abilities one lacks makes me think you might enjoy reading the Wikipedia article on this "effect". I did.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting idea, though I don't think it's quite the same thing - my friend would admit he's not very good at punctuation (though it's possible he doesn't know how bad he is), but his reaction is that it doesn't matter. Whereas you and altariel clearly wouldn't dismiss the value of navigation!

[emeraldsedai.livejournal.com]

I knew that if I stopped back by this post, I'd find more interesting comments! Like you, I have almost perfect spelling (and English is HARD!) and no sense of direction whatever. I can glance at a whole page of text and spot a misspelled (or misspelt) word--which makes the internet a very annoying place sometimes. Spelling is clearly a visual process, the correct "shape" of a word being firmly fixed in my visual memory, so that an incorrect shape fails to slot into its place and almost literally stands out from the text.

Navigation and orientation seem to involve a completely different sense, and it's not surprising that I can only get around by landmarks and visually familiar signs (such as the setting sun); even then, to work out which way is north from the obvious west, I must either picture a map, or do the "Never Eat Shredded Wheat" rhyme while turning to my right.

It's mad. And yes, I've been ashamed and embarrassed all my life about my orientationlessness, which is widely considered a form of stupidity. Only the fact that I was clearly a huge brainiac in other areas kept me from a serious self-esteem problem over the issue of intelligence.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

So much in this I can identify with, from my eye immediately seeing the misshapen word, to using that "Never Eat Shredded Wheat" rhyme to work out where the hell west is! Like you and kalypso_v, I also orientate myself by thinking where a place that matters to me is on the map: in my case, Gondor! This is why phone numbers, given verbally, are so hard for me: single numbers are disconnected packets of information that have no context or visual cues to help me contextualize them with each other and to me. (When I get people to repeat them to me slowly over the phone, I'm often treated like an idiot, but since I understand why it's hard, it doesn't bother me particularly. I also memorized a lot of STD codes in the past, which helps make the first batch of numbers make sense: "Oh, that's an Oxford number...")

My spatial orientationlessness is compounded by physical timidity, which makes driving a no-no. It amazes me watching people drive. I don't know how they do it. (And yet I used to be able to manage the keyboard, stops, and footpedals of a church organ quite happily. But of course, you can't crash a church organ at high speed into other church organs, or not easily.)


English is HARD!

Yes! So much easier if we were all writing Italian!

[emeraldsedai.livejournal.com]

I don't think I knew you were an organist! That is an AMAZING thing to be able to do. I once had the privilege of singing for a guest choir director who was the organist of (if I recall correctly) Winchester Cathedral. (My choir director had some astonishing connections and it was a really great choir)(Yup, just checked. David Hill, that was him! Lovely man.) I remember how much more music he could wring out of the house-built organ at St Pat's than had ever been heard there before.

The hand-foot coordination and sheer massive musicianship required to play that instrument is astounding. You must feel kind of god-like doing it! Your image of driving one into another one at high speed is fun--maybe they do that in "Angels and Demons"...?

So I'm a little surprised about your string-of-numbers limitation because to me they're like musical notes. I just hear them and sing them back, kind of.

The human brain. What a cool thing. It thinks about itself. It's doing it right now!

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Oh lord, I don't want to overstate it! It was just the organ for services at the local church, when I was teenager! But, yes, it did feel like being god, particularly when the church was empty and you could, well, let all the stops out! (If I'd known the word BWAHAHAHA at the time, that's what I would have been shouting.)

I remember a group of us going for instruction at another local church, and there was a boy (aged about ten) attending who was astonishing: hands, feet, the whole thing... and then partway through the second session, the tutor realized that the kid couldn't in fact read music, and was doing it by ear...

[hafren.livejournal.com]

I know. The real trouble is that the presence of those errors stops you from being the other sort of critic, the one who sees the big picture. I've had students say "don't tell me about the typos, tell me how the story flows". But of course it doesn't flow, because at every turn one is brought up short by one of these things....

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I honestly would not be brought up short by a spelling mistake - although, as I said in my post, I'd notice it (and mark it up, since the exam is going to judge them on this, and it's probably a good idea to spell the names of technical phrases or important writers accurately!).

But what really throws me out of an essay is exactly that, flow: disconnected sentences, paragraphs that don't develop an idea, no guiding principle(s).

Oh well, as kalypso_v points out, takes all sorts!

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

Yep. I try really hard to be a four, and cover the story style and pacing as well as the detail. But I will always, always be a grammar nit too.I don't mind if people abuse grammar for style, I do it myself often enough, but I mind when it's a mistake rather than deliberate!

I'm afraid I am one of the detested detail pickers. I try to get as much fact as I can when I make a statement, and I've been known to spend a whole day googling for what ends up being a single sentence in a story. (Recently, a friend of mine wrote a fic in which people were keeping cats to reduce the rodent population on a goat farm, and I had to point out that if they did that, the goats would get toxoplasmosis and abort. It's something that maybe one or two of her readers would ever have picked up on, but fortunately she's a nitpicker too and was glad to work around it!)

[emeraldsedai.livejournal.com]

I, too, have been known to spend a whole day poring over the web to be sure that a single statement in a piece of fiction is at least plausible. I'm hard on myself that way so that my betas don't have to be--because they won't be anyway! Nobody's as nit-picky as I am.

And of course, it's that very trait that makes it hard for me to get distance on the work and see flaws in areas like pacing. I'd pay someone to give my work a read for that, because a real "global" critique or beta is hard to find, especially for long pieces.

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

'm hard on myself that way so that my betas don't have to be--because they won't be anyway!

I know that feeling XD I'm always on the look-out for betas who'll pick everything to pieces as much as possible, because I live in fear that they're letting things pass.A friend of mine, who writes excellently herself, once returned to me a 65,000 word piece with comments on three sentences - I mean, I know I'm good, but I'm not that good!

[emeraldsedai.livejournal.com]

Ah the curse of perfectionism! When I get "feedback" like what you describe--and I've done so--my only conclusion is that the beta reader got bored, or hated the piece so much that in order to maintain whatever other relationship we might have, she decided "let us never speak of this again."

On the other hand, my perfectionism prevents me from asking for a beta before about the 14th draft, so it's true that the only thing left to be caught are the broad errors of pacing and the deep, fatal flaws of an unworkable plot, I guess. Finding three jangling sentences or a couple of typos at that point is actually kind of an accomplishment!

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, my perfectionism prevents me from asking for a beta before about the 14th draft

Ah, a fellow spirit indeed!

[glitterboy1.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the link, A. I enjoyed reading it. Though, given how much time I've been spending on Dante recently, I kept slipping into reading it as a list of categories of the damned. :-)

My natural inclination is for detail, and for consistency of detail over the big picture. But I'm sort of resigned to that by now, and becoming comfortable with my inner pedant.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I kept slipping into reading it as a list of categories of the damned. :-)

:-D

I'm trying to read more for detail (and write it more), because I know that's where I'm weak, and I want to be better. But I'm very lazy.

[emeraldsedai.livejournal.com]

I'll trade you a little of your insouciance for a little of my OCD about details. I know that as a reader, if I'm enjoying the story and the characters, I'll gloss over a fairly high degree of implausibility, historical inaccuracy, and so forth. But as a writer, I can't seem to let go.

At this very moment, I'm stuck on a scene because I can't find a historically-plausible reason to put my characters into it, even though a) it could be the linchpin I've been searching for that will couple my two plot-cars and b) it's fanfic for chrissakes and nobody will care if A would never go into a place like that and start a fight...

*sighs*

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

I'm now curious as to which class of critiquer you think I am. (I'll take "bastard" as read.) My approach is basically just read the text a couple of times, then to jot down all the things I thought of as I went through it, however big or small.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Discussion in the comments has brought up a new type which seems to cover what you're describing: The Reactionist: "They essentially give you their reactions. They tell you who the characters are as they go along (were they jerks, suspicious, sympathetic?, and not just at the end) and they tell me what their visceral reaction to sections are. [...] That sounds a little like the global, and there is overlap, but it's much more sequential and gut first reactions. [...] HIGHLY VALUABLE, and anyone can do it (and be asked/trained to do it), no writing/English lit experience necessary. I've written characters that I thought were sympathetic, I get a couple comments that say "What a spoiled brat" and I know I've gone over the top with his whining."

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Had you identified as a particular type from the original group, or had you not been able to see yourself there?

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

I'd sort of seen myself as somewhere betwwen the third and fourth types, but neither seemed a terribly comfortable fit.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I suppose the only time I've done much of this sort of thing was when steverogerson used to send me his stories. I generally went through three phases:

(1) I have nothing at all to say.

(2) Hang on, you need to add commas in the following 63 places, and to cut them in the following 17.

(3) Also I think the story would be more interesting if you deleted the whole of that section and expanded this minor scene to make it the main focus. (Sometimes he did it, too.)

So I suppose that's a combination of Non-believer, Line Critiquer and Remodeller. But the punctuation was always my way in.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting type. Perhaps it's line critiquing done by global critiquer?

[katlinel.livejournal.com]

Fascinating post and comment thread both there and here, thank you. I see you as a critiquer as mostly number four with a large side helping of number two, fwiw. I can't imagine you not seeing the big, oceanic picture. :-)

As for getting minor details wrong, why not declare everything to be AU, to a greater or lesser extent? That takes care of that, very nicely. :-)

From a slightly different perspective, I recall getting specifications from one developer who was strongly dyslexic. PHB, who was purely and simply, and often wrongly, a number two, would red pen that developer's specs all over. Whereas I wouldn't because, despite all the typoes and errors, they were admirable models of logical clarity in conveying exactly what the software was supposed to do and what underpinned it. And his software generally did what it was supposed to. Whereas there was another developer who produced specs that were mostly grammatically correct and completely incomprehensible. The software that developer wrote was very buggy and slow and ungainly, and a nightmare to fix as I was told by M who had to fix it.

As a reader, fanfic or otherwise, wrong details will be the last straw, but that's usually because I've already switched off from the story. I recall a Jane Austen fanfic in which the hero was injured by being thrown off his horse while riding it across a beaver's dam, beavers being extinct in the UK by Austen's era. I gave up with that fic at that point, but the author had already lost me. Another fanfic, also Jane Austen, referred to Darcy wearing a ring on his pinky finger, very much not as Austen would have written it, but that bothered me far less, because I was already engaged with what the author was doing with the fic - retelling P&P from the POV of Mr Hurst, and very entertaining it was too.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

why not declare everything to be AU, to a greater or lesser extent? That takes care of that, very nicely. :-)

Hurray, yes, everyone and everything is alternate!


a beaver's dam

CS Lewis has a lot to answer for! I will also use small errors as an excuse to bail, and will forgive if not. There's a gorgeous (and very hot) F&E fiction somewhere that's stuffed with spelling mistakes, but - phew!

(Can't find it. Blast.)

[katlinel.livejournal.com]

Ta for looking for the F&E fic and if you do ever find it again, send it my way. :-)

C S Lewis's beavers are quite charming, especially Mr Beaver with his pride over his dam, so that is quite forgivable, I think.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Found it! The Ride Home by Maledisant.