Guidelines for Writing a Critique

"An evaluation of a written work by a person who, through experience and

knowledge of the marketplace, has acquired expertise to judge it objectively.
Valuable criticism comes from editors and writers skilled in pointing out strengths
and weaknesses in fiction and nonfiction technique. A part of receiving criticism is
tied up with being able to distinguish between helpful comments from professionals,
and well-meaning but useless or possibly harmful comments from other people who
may read the manuscript -- and in using the significant remarks accordingly." 1
A good critique benefits both the writer and the critiquer. The benefits to the writer
receiving the critique should be obvious. There is no place for derision or ridicule of
either the work or the writer within a critique. The writer submitting his work for
critique has placed his intellectual child in the hands of his critiquer expecting his
work to be respected.
Critiquing the work of others helps you become a better writer. There is no mystery
to writing a good critique. The following pointers may help improve your skills with
this important element of the craft.
Read the submission. Read the submission. This redundancy is intended, not a
typo. Read it at least twice to be sure you have not misread or misunderstood any
part of it.
Read it the first time as a reader. After your first reading write down your general
impression from a reader's perspective. Did it makes sense? Did you enjoy it? What
kind of reader would enjoy this piece?
The second time through, read as a writer. Begin making notes to yourself.
Start with the main focus of your critique. Remember that your purpose is to give
feedback on what needs changing and how to make it better. A "that's nice" or
"enjoyable read" comment alone is not constructive. The writer has submitted this
work for critique because he believes there is room for improvement. If he had
wanted an "atta boy--that's nice" comment, he would have asked his mother to read
it. Such comments are nice to hear but do not serve the reason for the critique.
Praising the writer when you have enjoyed the work is appropriate, when done
separately from the critique.
Begin your notes with something you really liked about the piece. Describe for
yourself why you liked it. The more specific you can be, the more it will help the
writer, and the more it may help your own writing.
Focusing on what you don't like about a piece is usually a dead end. It annoys the
writer. It is perceived as an attempt to make the critiquer appear superior. Superiority
is something a good writer can rarely afford to feel, without doing violence to his/her
own writing. Honesty without compassion is cruelty. 3
"I sometimes think his critical judgment is so exquisite it leaves as nothing to admire
except his opinion." Christopher Fry, "The Lady's Not For Burning" (1948), Act 1.
Remember whose writing is whose. If you find yourself saying "I wouldn't have

written..." remember that you didn't. The writer submitted this work for critique, not a
hatchet job or proof reading. Separate, as best you can, your own preferences and
choices from your attempt at an unbiased critique of the work at hand. Each writer
strives diligently to use their own unique writing voice. Do not expect them to use
your voice. Respect the courage each writer has shown in laying the work bare for
your inspection, while still unfinished. Admire what there is to admire first, and from
that basis, begin to offer comments and suggestions about what seems to be
missing, what doesn't quite flow, what remains puzzling about the work.
Try to imagine to understand the person that did want to write the piece the way it's
written. Try to understand your fellow writer's goals, interests, and quirks, and why
the work is in the shape it's in. With some degree of empathy you may then hope to
offer something truly useful to your fellow writer, and gain a useful shift in
perspective for yourself as well.
Your critique should include information about the following points.
1. Characterization: Did the people seem real? What did the writer do to make
them come alive? If the characters appeared shallow, what might the writer
do to more fully develop a character? Is too much time spent inside the
character's head? Excessive internalization slows the story. If the character is
thinking or wondering about every action, the writer foreshadows the plot and
alienates the readers desire to continue reading.
2. Continuity: When you finished reading, were there loose ends that were left
unresolved? Was there anything that needed further explanation? Were there
any inconsistencies? Did the writer intrude himself into the story?
Do the characters plod through the story? It's not necessary to record each
step a character takes. Can some details be deleted allowing the reader to
take an active role through imagination and inference? Example:
John went to the refrigerator, opened the door, and took out the milk carton.
Closing the door, he went to the cupboard, reopened the cabinet to search
for a clean glass. Finally after finding one, he carried the carton and clean
glass to the table where he pulled out a chair and sat down. It had been a
long, hot, tiring day, and, eager to quench his thirst, John poured drank the
milk.
By the time a reader finished this paragraph he would be screaming, "For
Pete's sake, John, get on with it." Unless the glass of milk is poisoned and
will play an important part in the story, the reader will be justifiably
dissatisfied. The reader will be equally as aware of all that went before if he
reads: After finishing a glass of milk, John.
3. Techniques: Was the English readable? Were there typos, grammatical
errors, misuse of punctuation, run-on sentences, or any other errors that
need correction? You should indicate the kind of errors you found and give
the writer credit for sufficient intelligence to make the appropriate corrections.
While there is no need to point out every error, some should be noted. Be
careful of eyes. Does the writer have a characters eyes dance around the

room or fall to the floor? Does he mean "gaze"? Watch for pet words and
phrases such as: began to; sort of; kind of; very; just; only; that; there;it; a
little; some; laying; I guess; I think; I began; I started. Most of these are
qualifying or non-descriptive words.
4. Format of the Text: Was it easy to read or too difficult to follow? Were the
paragraphs too long or too choppy? Did the author use too many long
sentences making it difficult to follow? Were transitions used skillfully to move
from one point to another or did you have to play catch up to find out where it
was going? Was the point of view (POV) clearly established and maintained,
or was a scorecard needed to keep track of the POV shifts?
One of the common problem areas many writers have is falling in love with
their words. They lose sight of the clutter caused by their verbosity.
Regardless of whether you write short fiction, novels, or nonfiction
contemporary publishers will not accept obese work. It must be lean, trim,
and tight. Emerging writers often feel the need for a prologue or introduction.
The critiquer's job is to help the writer whittle away the excess until the story
emerges as a finished sculpture.
A little boy sat on a stump, contemplating a chunk of wood in his hand. "What
are you going to do with that?" his father asked. "Going to carve an
elephant," the boy said, confidently. "Do you know how to go about carving
an elephant?" "Easy," the boy replied. "All I have to do is cut away everything
that does not look like an elephant." 2
5. Dialogue: Did the words seem natural to the characters and fit their
personality? Was there too much or not enough dialogue? It's okay to tell the
reader some of the thoughts of the main character, but we should only know
the thoughts of other characters through their words and actions, i.e. did the
writer show us the story or did he tell it to us? Whose story is it? If dialect is
used, is it used effectively and appropriately? Were there enough/too many
beats in the dialogue. Was the dialogue used to move the plot forward or as a
weak way of cramming in backstory?
6. Plots: Was the main plot clear and believable? If it is a short story, were there
too many subplots? If it is part of a novel, could it be improved by more
attention to the subplots? Or should it have more subplots? If nonfiction, was
the work organized clearly and succinctly? Did it end where it should?
7. Pacing: Did the plot/subplots move fast enough to keep your attention? Did it
skip around too much to keep track of the characters and plots? If nonfiction,
can it be tightened? Are there enough examples? If so, where and how does
the writer need to improve the pacing?
Are action and dialogue balanced? Characters should be somewhere doing
something while they speak; actions alone will keep the reader at a distance
outside looking in. Pages of description can make your reader lose contact

with the characters. Static dialogue is no better than empty space. Speech
that neither defines character nor moves plot can be deleted. In general no
more than four lines of dialogue should be written without a break: some
action, even a gesture.
8. Conflict: Did the conflict and tension in the fictional plot(s) and subplot(s)
come to a reasonable conclusion? Were you left hanging still unsure of how
or what happened? Was the resolution appropriate for the character
development? Did the writer use an appropriate denouement?
.

When critiquing a piece of writing, consider the following elements:

You may find it easier to put your critiques into the headings below, and give your views on each topic.
Some members prefer to break the story down into parts and refer to each element in the story that they
feel needs further work.
What can be problematic is when a member writes about how the story has affected them personally
and/or offers praise. Although praise and sentiment are very worthwhile they are not what a writer needs
most when trying to "polish" their work to perfection. In the end, it is ultimately whatever you are most
comfortable with, but at all times consider what would you most want for feedback on your writing.
CHARACTERISATION:
Do the characters seem real with depth and
emotion, or are they recognizable stereotypes? Are the motives of the characters understandable and
logical to the story? Are the good guy(s) likeable and the bad guy(s) really bad?
The characters are very important to any story and they must be believable. There is room in any critique
for characterization.
DIALOGUE:
Does the dialogue seem realistic? Can the reader imagine real people talking as the characters do?
SETTING:
If the story is, for example, about the rich and famous, details of wealth must be included. If about poor
people, the reader has to see that they are poor. Is there atmosphere in the story allowing the reader to
experience what the characters experience? Can the reader imagine the location around the characters
clearly?
POINT OF VIEW:
Is the POV first or third person? If it is third person, is the narrator able to see into the heads of the
characters? Is the POV consistent throughout the piece?
DEVELOPMENT:
Does the story develop logically, so that the reader can follow the specific changes which occur in the
story, or does the story make sudden leaps which cause the reader to lose the direction of the narration?
Is the progression of characters and events logical, or is the whole story too confusing?

PACING:
Pacing is a key to appeal; how well does the reader get involved in the story? Does the action progress
slowly or quickly? How long does it take for the story to be set up? Is the reader drawn into the story from
the beginning? Is it non-stop action or character development? Different readers prefer different paces in
what they read.
MECHANICS:
A beginning writer often has trouble with mechanics and needs help. Sentence structure, verb agreement,
and aspects of basic style are considered here. If a reader feels that there are problems with mechanics,
s/he will specify the problems seen, rather than simply stating that they are there.
Readers react to what they read. Sometimes the gut reaction to the story is more important than anything
mentioned above--especially when the writer is more experienced. Gut reaction can negate nearly
anything, with the exception of flaming another writer.