Critiquing...

[Saeltari]

What makes people decide to critique something? I see some posts in the critique section with thirty views and maybe two critiques and others with two hundred views and about twenty critiques. I was curious what all the people who are viewing but not critiquing are doing? Is it because something is good and doesn't need a critique or because some one else critiqued it and pretty much said everything that needed to be said, or is it because the material is pretty bad and people can't get through it?
I personally have found that a lot of times when I end up just passing through it is because the material is not that interesting to me. It is not necessarily bad, just not my cup of tea. Is this the same for all the rest of the people just viewing the posts?
Oh(that indicates I just had a thought.), does it count the people who are not registered and can't actually post?
Well, lots of questions but I am full of them so don't worry about me, I shouldn't run out

[Paradox 99]

Personally, I try to critique as many posts as I can.
However, there are quite a few that come through so I tend to set myself certain criteria by which I decide which ones to take a look at and comment on. (I don't count myself as an expert btw, I just like to stick my nose in. )

Here are the primary factors that cause me to pass something by...

1) My primary motivation is how much interaction the poster has already had on the forum. Posters that jump straight in asking for a critique without first having the courtesy to take a look at other peoples' work is just bad manners IMHO. I'll skip those without a second thought until they've spent more time at Chronicles. "The life and loves of Larry Love Heart" is one such example. I don't feel the desire to look at that work because, as far as I can see, there has been no effort on that writer's part to reciprocate. Not a rant against that writer, just an observation.

2) It might be too long. Anything over 500 words and it I tend to priorotise it lower (though i do eventually try to get around to it).

3) I clean forgot it was there and got too busy doing other stuff. I've probably taken a look at it, but felt that it was worth more than a quick line of critiquing and wanted to say more about it later.

4) Like you, Saeltari, it might not be my thing (though I still usually try and make the effort).

I don't know if unregistered views are counted - interesting question that.


BTW, I'm pretty sure I haven't critiqued your entries yet. That would fall into category number 3. I read through the first part earlier, liked it, wanted to comment but got sidetracked on other stuff.

[Paradox 99]

Oooh, almost forgot... one other criteria that causes me to skip something for a while.

5) I might be looking at something that's part of an ongoing series of which I've already missed most of. Cornelius's Chronicles is an example of that. It looks great, but I just haven't had the time to go right back and read it from the beginning.

[jackokent]

I have to agree with Paradox about ongoing series. I would love to have the time to go back and read them all but I don't. Conversly, if I have started critiquing a part of a series I would try to carry on with the next posts.

If something has already had a lot of critiquing I would tend to avoid it on the premis they won't need my 2 pennies worth.

Somethings are so different from own stuff that I find it hard to know what to say. This true of Operator Exchange. I find it far easier to spot the mistakes I make myself.

Some things aren't very good and I don't want to be overcritical; some things are too complicated and technical.

Mostly for me however there is no ryhm or reason. I stumble about until something grabs me. I find the critiquing itself is extreemly useful both to give and to receive. It has to be one of the best exercises a writer can do.

I think you have asked a really good quesion. I am now going to go back and search through Critiques by number of replies and re-read all the ones with none.

Thank you.

[chrispenycate]

Since I started critiquing, I've tried to read everything posted analytically and in detail, and comment on as many as possible (unless specifically requested not to). Unfortunately, my technique is laborious and slow, and I can't actually manage them all, so start with the ones I feel could benefit from my comments, rather than the ones with the fewest comments till now. Equally, I'll be more use with robots than fairies, though I can punctuate either. I'm only sorry it's not possible to do them all, but I can't.

[Marky Lazer]

I'm a bit busy so can't critique too much at the moment. But normally, I read the first few lines and if it appeals to me, I keep reading and try to help out the best I can.

If I hate it, I normally won't comment. I don't want to put someone off writing who put a lot of time and pain in his/her story.

[Green Knight]

I get the general impression that on the Critique forum there is a lot of emphasis on checking the grammar and syntax of the pieces posted, but less on what you might call true criticism.

Things like grammar are of course essential, but (to use a musical analogy) it is like hitting all the right notes on a piano keyboard. Hitting the right keys does not make you a musician - the crucial thing is how you hit them, and how many in your audience turn into weeping jellies when you do :-)

I am going to try and resolve that on my next critique, I won't make any grammatical comments at all, no matter how tempted I am... instead I will give it the e e cummings treatment and comment purely on the message, not the medium. A bold resolution, will be interesting to see if I can stick to it...