Where do we draw the line between pointing out a book's flaws and offering suggestions to help improve it? In this article, we discuss the difference between critiquing and criticizing as well as how these two practices often get mixed up (and how to avoid such confusion).
Photo Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/person-writing-on-brown-wooden-table-near-white-ceramic-mug-s9CC2SKySJM
In this day and age, it is (often unfortunately) incredibly easy for someone to go online and hide their identity before pointing out in excruciating detail what they don't like (or even hate) about something—a book, a painting, a movie, an album, a Netflix series, even a celebrity—and avoiding the consequences of their harsh words. The ease with which people criticize various forms of media online not only has spawned discussions on biased judgments and questions on people's levels of media literacy but also bleeds well into the literary scene, where one's taste in books can influence what they deem as "good" and "bad" writing as well as where fair critiques can often be lacking.
"Everyone's a critic," they say, and while some often interpret this quote to mean that nothing should hold them back from creating what they wish (basically, "haters gonna hate"), a lot of people fail to recognize that a good critic isn't someone who constantly harps on about what they detest and dislike. Essay-length reviews full of negative sentiments and complaints of how the classics of old constantly eclipse the contemporary works of the present do not a good critic make; in fact, a critic worthy of attention and respect is someone who both highlights what is commendable about a work and offers suggestions on what can be improved about it.
This is what sets apart the art of critiquing from the act of criticizing—to criticize a work is to focus on its flaws, while to critique the same work is to draw attention to both its strengths and its weaknesses, with the objective to help address the latter for the author's benefit. It takes a smart person to determine what is lacking in, say, a full-length novel, but it takes an intelligent and respectable critic to not only point out areas of improvement but also state why such changes are necessary, knowing better than to criticize the novel "just for the sake of criticizing it."
If you ever find yourself in the position of critiquing (not criticizing) someone's work, we offer a few things to keep in mind as you do so:
Consider the context in which the work was written.
Any piece of literature is a reflection of the human experience, and many tend to forget that such an experience can mean different things for different people. As you critique the work, it's important to ask yourself the right questions, such as "What are the circumstances in which this piece was written?" This is the first step to recognizing that you and the author may have differing ideas of what the work's ideal form should be; the goal is not to have the author conform to your critical standards but for you two to meet in the middle, make compromises, make changes that you both agree on. It reduces conflict and encourages both parties to open themselves up to worthwhile discussions and critical thinking. Another worthwhile question to ask is "Does this piece contribute any meaningful discussion to society?" This can help you determine whether the author wrote the piece with a particular theme or idea in mind or whether they merely intended to write something more insular in terms of theme.
Highlight the positive aspects of the work first.
So as to establish that your role is not to lambast the work but rather to help make it better, point out what you enjoyed about it first. If the work is a novel, for instance, start by mentioning that you liked how the author described the setting and how they revealed the plot's central conflict before mentioning that the development of this or that character could use a bit of work. It's important to remind the author that you, as a critic, are on their side, that your critique consists of positive comments along with suggestions for improvement. Otherwise, if you simply point out everything wrong about the piece, you'd be no better than anonymous online users who post their negative takes and fail to consider how their words would impact their subjects. Always keep in mind that a proper critic is not a bully; it's someone who recognizes what a particular field (and its audience) needs—whether it's literature, music, or visual arts—and whether a work helps to address such a need or else contributes something worthy of any person's consumption and discussion.
As you offer your suggestions for improvement, as much as possible, remove bias from the equation.
In a way, this goes back to the first item, which entails recalling that different experiences breed various works of literature. Yours is not the sole human experience—and neither is the author's, for that matter. Take an all-encompassing approach when you point out what can be improved about the work; consider not only what can be better in terms of the piece's internal components (for a novel, this can be its plot, setting, conflict, characters, and so on) but also how the work might be regarded by its intended audience, not just yourself. Every literary draft benefits from a second reader, someone with an eye apart from the author's who can point out what is missing and what is excessive in the text. The most helpful "beta" readers are typically those who are not acquainted with the author themselves as they are free from any sort of bias toward the latter, unaware of the writer's usual themes and tendencies. If you personally know the person whose work you are critiquing, however, while your critical tone of voice may change according to how you usually interact with this person, always remember to glance at the work not through the eyes of a biased acquaintance but through those of a professional—one who is aware of what the piece needs and what it can offer its audience.
Overall, a proper critique is one that does not sound overly negative or condescending; it is a measured balance of mentioning what a written work has, to its benefit, and what it still needs to be the best version of itself. While anyone can point out what they do and don't like about a particular work of literature, it takes a skilled critic to look at the bigger picture and to recognize the ways in which a work can not only stand on its own but also be further adjusted to create a lasting impact on its readers. In this way, we hope that everyone, not just critics, is encouraged to view any piece of art through an intentional critical lens—not to criticize but to critique, to shed light on what is worth admiring about it instead of heavily focusing on what is "wrong" with it.
Enjoyed this article? Check out our other features below! If you're a writer looking for a professional editor, look no further. Send your book or partial manuscript to themanuscripteditor.com for a complimentary 800-word sample. Let us help you bring your book to life!
Comments