You suck. = bad.

This line sucks because (insert reasoning) = good.

Criticism should be directed to a piece but NEVER the person

--

Taintedbliss

_{I'm a warrior child.}

[link]

I honestly don't think saying this line sucks is the best way to critique anything. I'll tell you what I would do regarding line/stanza X or Y would sound much better and, well, wouldn't be rude.

Giving honest advice based on your 'experience' as a writer and surgeon of words is different than saying you suck; visit my gallery, my poetry > yours.

--
_{^{Do I dare disturb the Universe?}}

I was trying to put this in a more extreme circumstance.

Lord knows - We've got A LOT of rude people in the world and sugar coating stuff ain't gonna help a thing in helping an artist grow.

But yes, I usually go "Hmm... I'm not too sure about this line/stanza/paragraph/whatever because..."

What this whole thing was suppose to mean is a good critique attacks an art. It shows the strengths AND weaknesses of the art without attacking the artist.

Good arguments are based on these points without getting personal.

I chose that way to express myself to make a point stick out.

--

Taintedbliss

_{I'm a warrior child.}

[link]

my rule is that the message should always feel positive to the writer. Consistent negativity is going to make the person reject the piece and not redraft it. I'd like to think I was a fairly good critic and that I do that- there is no point ripping a piece to shreds if you are not going to offer something positive to help the writer pick those shreds up to put it back together improved.

Does that make sense?

--
*Writers-Workshop I =DailyDeviants I *WordCount

Debate the fantasy forum!
(Sometimes I write too!)

Agreed.

--
Clearfield Review - Prose Editor

Perfect sense.


--
Clearfield Review - Prose Editor

i suppose you can only criticise if you have correct reasoning to back it up.
so im agreeding with the 'you suck (because)' comment.
of course a certain delicateness doesnt go astray.

I think I could have elaborated more.

I'm sorry work usually screws my mind up a bit.

"oMg! ThIs So ToTAllY RoX maH SoCKS!" = Ego boosting yes - but not exactly constructive.

"I really like this line/stanza/part of a picture because of _____. You did a fantastic job with the lighting/amount of noise/metaphors through *insert methods*. Keep up the good work! = Ego boosting constructive criticism.

--

Taintedbliss

_{I'm a warrior child.}

[link]

It comes down to a very simple teaching philosophy. Focus on positives.
Tell them whats good, and by inference where they need to work, and how they might find the answers, dont focus on failures, because it demoralises

Oh, and hello

--
"Hugh Mann eh? Now theres a name I can trust!"
Me Loves Futurama

Like any criticism, it's meant to offer another person's perspective on one's work. As young writers, we are still trying to find our way through language, plots, dialogue, form, etc.; it's a time when subjectivity is paramount. That additional perspective is vital in the creation of our writing.

Thus, good constructive criticism leans neither way of overly negative or overly positive.

Here are a couple comments I've found on dA:

"WWWWWWHHHHHHOOOOOOAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!!!! "

and

"Your writing is too sub-par to bother with critiquing. You need to learn how to write first. Read other people’s works and find the flaws and pros. If you want to write seriously, don’t ever write fanfic. Keep studying other people's work, before starting your next piece."

We need not cut through cryptic critiques here. These are just bad. What these critiques don't do is help the writer in the creation of their work. That's why it's called constructive criticism.

What we need to understand is that we are, in fact, a writing community. Our attendance is wholly voluntary and we do not want to discourage others from writing. It's a wonderful joy, this writing is, and I don't want to be a part in the complexes of discouraging people from writing or anything else for that matter. Critiques of a truly shark nature attack one's facilities for writing without helping one re-write the piece. As Carver said, "Writing is re-writing," but if a critique discourages a writer from writing altogether, how constructive is that?

'Nuff said, yo.