The examples given in the article are black and white in tone, this is true. But all of the statements are like general templates. It just won’t do, at least for me, to say you like or don’t like a character or any other element of the story, because I want to know why. I think this is important for the one critiquing, because when you recognize what works, and where it takes the story, then you can look at what parts of the story aren’t helping it get there and why and maybe even what to do about it.

But perhaps I’m digging unnecessarily, and that the examples were left as general statements so that the reader could focus on how things were being said. An interesting question, then, is how to consider what we say as being helpful or not. On second thought, that question seems so enormous that it frightens me to laziness. Anyways, the article is written so gently that it took me a while before I realized that it’s a constructive critique in itself.

Let’s brainstorm for a moment.

Will everyone be using your approach when they participate in a critique group? If not, doesn’t your own article suggest that what you are calling an “honest” review will have greater impact on the writer being critiqued? Since it is unlikely a group of people will all both adopt this single approach, and do it with the requisite level of skill, what can you realistically expect as an outcome?

Are you making the best and most accurate use of terminology? For instance, the word “candor” by definition requires openness and frankness. Are your “instead” examples really being either? If for example, a writer is honestly told a plot doesn’t work and has been done a thousand times before, they are probably capable of recognizing that basic truth. Then someone says they “are intrigued” by a plot the writer has just admitted to themselves is nonfunctional and overused.

Doesn’t this instantly devalue the writer’s perception of the “candor” critique being offered?

Doesn’t it suggest insincerity or lack of expertise by the person critiquing?

Would I, as the writer, likely feel patronized under such circumstances?

Is it possible you mean to convey a system for working one-on-one with a writer, rather than in a group? If so, might “nurturing” better capture your essential meaning, versus the questionable use of “candor?”

Nurturing is one of many tools is a writer’s/critic’s kit. Are you suggesting that one tool works for all people in all situations?

What if you, as a critic, have tried “nurturing” and it doesn’t work in terms of helping/encouraging the writer to grow?

I have also been beaten for my writing. I am currently in the “recovery” process from what is in a reality a relatively mild “reproach,” yet it has been enough to derail my project for about a month.

Did it “hurt?” Yes. But it also made me search for what the actual flaws in my writing, and my answers, the lesson learned, together with the soul-searching introspection, has much greater impact on me and my learning process than a “nurturing” approach *seems* likely to have had. And when I “recover,” I will be a stronger writer for it. Perhaps the question is not whether I was “hurt,” but what I walked away with from the experience?

I think there is a time and place for all review critique approaches, provided they are not done with malice. Different people will respond in different ways at different times. I doubt there is a “best” way, or that you can claim one method “actually helps” as opposed to the alternatives. JMHO.

Correct. You definitely understand empathy, Catherine. Writers who share their work with you are lucky to have your insights.

Yes, and those critiquers often defend their lack of sensitivity by saying ‘I’m helping you to toughen up and grow a thicker skin.’ But in my experience the best way to help an author to gain confidence and become more resilient to criticism is through positive encouragement and support.

I’m glad you agree, Catherine. It’s interesting because as writers, you would think that we KNOW our words have a profound impact on others, so we would choose them more wisely when giving critiques.
Alas…

Thank you, it’s always nice to get a positive comment on a comment!