My daughter was in the Creative Writing program at Columbia College in Chicago. I went to orientation and didn't want to leave. Seriously. My enthusiasm annoyed the hell out of her. The curriculum was designed to support the emerging artist. All the required courses related to their major. For example history courses were about how to conduct research to write a historically based fiction piece. I almost cried from happiness. (You see how she might have been annoyed) But what made me almost stand up and holler was their critique method.
At this same time my son was in the acting program at University of Illinois and it was brutal. They tear students down until they feel as if they are not worthy to exist and then reconstruct them. This is they way most academic programs are done. It’s a common belief critiques must be harsh or they are worthless.
Columbia College doesn’t agree. Their goal is to help the young artist find his/her voice. They do not want student's writing to reflect the teacher’s style. That is what they saw happened from severe critiques and remembered from their school experience. For thirty years they have done it a different way.
The student reads their work to the class, other students give feedback on what they saw or felt or experienced or noticed. They are instructed to be specific. The teacher does the same. What IS working and NOT working becomes clear to the writer. If the feedback indicates most thought the piece was serious and it was intended to satire, that is valuable information for the rewrite. If the writer expected comment on what he/she thought was brilliant and it was completely ignored, that says something too.
Students have private meetings with the teacher and are given suggestions to consider. But if they don’t agree with the suggestions, they don’t have to take them. It won’t affect their grade. The grades are based on assignment completion and demonstrated effort.
One of the parents in the orientation expressed concern. (Imagine how annoyed his daughter was). He worried mistakes would not be corrected. The Columbia College staff member nodded. It was a common question. The method is counter intuitive. What they have seen is through focusing on the strengths, the work improves. The student doesn’t feel defeated and deflated and is open to advice and seeks it.
Giving feedback to other students increases their ability to reflect and evaluate. Just because they don’t say out loud what didn't work, doesn’t mean they don’t notice. Participating in this process helps them become more reflective on their own writing. It helps them develop self evaluation skills. That is a vital part of the work of finding your own voice.
This method was not new to me. I’ve seen it work in other settings. A teacher finds the one good thing a student does and genuinely praises him for it. You see something in him change. It may be a quick smile, or a more relaxed body. The next minute he may do something horrid again, but finding that one strength opens possibilities.
Many of us are our own worst critic. It doesn’t take much negative criticism from others to convince us we were right. I think our spirit knows this and puts up a fight on our behalf. Some call it defensiveness. I prefer its synonym: protection.
There is nothing wrong with being kind while giving a critique. I think it can work miracles. I will not embarrass the writers here at OS who have improved and grown through encouraging comments. You know who you are.
I know I am one of them.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
jlsathre
Survivant
Ted Zeppelin
V.Corso
jmac1949
PatienceP
Salon.com
Comments
Lezlie
When I worked with the WIER program, leaving our "ego" outside the door was one of the things we did in order to accomplish the excellence that we achieved. Civility, on the other hand, was never in question. Those two are often mistaken and one is often not even recognized because the other overpowers the latter.
A thought provoking post, thank you, Sharon.
♥R
Students/writers more willing to write from their un-trampled-upon spirits and imaginations.
Con/In/structive and criticism are a team, either without the other fails.
Rated for firestorm potential ;).
Reading is good prep for being a good writer.
And we also need to teach kids basic writing, too. I find teachers obsess over split infinitives, but don't give a rat's ass whether or not their students even make sense, can convey ideas, or similar rudimentary concepts, things that even pre-literate oral societies understood the importance of.
Today, we have many "good writers" in a technical sense, but few of them communicate anything worth reading.
Susan CJ will surely agree with me when I say that the best way to critique others is to do a parody post!
*YELLP*
(I did that a year ago, while writing as Cindy. Thought I could get away with it, but a few people recognized themselves! I've become much more humble in the last year, honest.)
Even those critics deemed most knowledgeable of the writing craft disagree in assessing the quality of writing--just as in all the arts. I will betray my pedestrian tastes in literature when I confess that I consider James Joyce the most overrated writer of all time, but just think how boring literature would be if it were all written in the style of my beloved Dickens.
I've asked for critiques in the past, both as Cindy and as Snippy, and have found the comments and PMs thought-provoking. The best critics are humble critics, though. We all must realize that we are NOT the final word, and a valid disagreement with our assessment is not only possible, but likely.
I will never change
HUGGGGGGGGGGGG
Her parody of my (then) style was painfully spot on but the fact that I had not previously known her and was quite new to OS made it 'feel' like an ambush and I was hurt and embarrassed - my initial reaction being "My God! I'm SO bad even STRANGERS are mocking my efforts!" and I questioned whether I should even continue writing here. (Oh yeah, I am one of those 'sensitive' types about certain things but I'm learning....:))
However, we dialoged, resolved it, became friends and in addition, she graciously spent quite a bit of time taking one of my posts - line by line - (offline) giving me the most thorough, objective, eye-opening and beneficial critique I have ever had. My writing has never been the same - for the better - and neither has my enthusiasm. All because someone took the time to help me without injecting and air of superiority or squelching my confidence but by providing a solid, professional assessment. She allowed me to see what was wrong but left it entirely up to me how to best resolve it.
We each learned a great deal from the experience and have allowed it to inform our lives and enrich our respect for one another. Critiques of this sort are necessary and welcomed, and even though they do take a diplomatic hand to execute, they are something I am certain we can all handle here. Thank you, Cindy:))
In my experience, what matters most is attention, as both reader and writer (and in every other role I assume in life). I've heard it described this way: "What we give our attention to prospers."
I've seen that dictum at work in my life. I became a better writer when I began paying attention to whatever aim I'd set for myself (let's say, to break out of journalism's cliched tropes). I've been aided in that and other efforts by fellow writers (most of whom reside here at OS) who have over the years read my posts attentively then have written comments that reflected the resultant understanding.
Frequently, an attentive comment here at OS will tell me things about what I've written that will surprise me. Those surprises are never unpleasant; they'll tell me a variety of things, about whether a post has succeeded in the ways I'd hoped it would, as well as those comments that tell me I've succeeded in ways unexpected. What writer could ask for more?
A final word about "kind critiques". I dislike both words when applied to writing. Kindness may be a virtue, but it's a watery word that, if used as a basis for understanding a work, can dilute the value of that estimation. And the fancy-schmancy "critique " in its guises as both noun and verb should hop a boat back to France and stay there.
Thanks for the post and the prompt.
(snarls viciously displaying 11 remaining teeth)
Seriously, Susan, you are a sweetheart, and your comment says far more about your own generosity and graciousness than it does about any skill I have. Group hug!!! Where's Linda when we need her?
how a critique is delivered in so important...when my writer friends critique my work, its a necessary bloodfest...brutal but so very helpful. they can do that because we have had long, supportive & loving relationships with one another & they know how much i can take and what my boundries are.
here on OS and in classrooms, where we dont have those relationships, brutal bloodfest critique just seems cruel and not so helpful as it doesnt get 'heard' above the din of hurt feelings.
that cute lil white snippy dog said it best: "The best critics are humble critics..."
I like Jeremiah's comment, too, that we learn best from the things readers say about what we write, what they get out of it, how they interpret it. I don't mind the words "kind" or "critique" in this context because I consider them part of a shorthand I immediately understand when discussing the process of writing and learning. Other words, such as pedantic, harsh, condescending, superior and mendacious are also immediately recognizable. In this context.
"People who think in terms of positive/negative can never help you grow. It's about honest/dishonest reactions, are you relaying your true feelings? Holding back your true feelings is the ultimate insult to the original creator."
Searching out and commenting only on the positive aspects, in an attempt to 'manage' the listener is disrespectful. However good the person feels, you have essentially lied by omission.
I spend 2-3 hours every day looking at and commenting on photographs, helping people see their pictures as others see them. IMO, again, the important quality in very critique is respect for the artist and his/her work by telling them the truth as I see it in a civil and helpful manner.
The oreo method of packaging negative comments between positive ones unfortunately leads, in my experience, to false equivalency and a tendency to forget the things one doesn't want to hear in favor of the things that make one feel good.
And yes, I had a great time with the grandkids. It's not over yet...just taking a break while they nap. And thanks for the compliment Wendy. I've been accused of not being a real grown up and take it as a compliment. I have 6 incredible grandchildren. But they don't make me feel young. They make me feel tired. I think I'll join them in the nap.
as the old saying sort of goes.
Honey bees dance to communicate where it is, yes/?
"They tear students down until they feel as if they are not worthy to exist and then reconstruct them"
no doubt in their own images. Fearful of fucking up forever.
I live that way always
Discussions were lively but never denigrating. Suggestions were heartily offered but the tone was supportive. Nobody took on a superior tone, including the teacher. Nobody left in a snit, nobody left humiliated, everyone was enthused to keep writing. The improvement in the writing was sometimes dramatic.
I have nothing against saying good things about people's work if you honestly believe that there are good things, but the unspoken element in all the current discussion at OS is that nobody really wants to hear anything but unqualified praise unless it's delivered in exactly the way the recipient wants to hear it, and in private. Real life doesn't work that way. Bosses, editors, publishers and writers who aren't your close personal friends ARE going to respond genuinely to your work and it isn't always going to be gushing praise. I can count on one hand the number of writers I've met in more than 30 years as a writer and writing teacher who actually show improvement on a stteady diet of "that's wonderful."
I'm familiar with the model you write about Mimetalker, and it works in controlled environments. But as we all know, life is not a giant classroom.
Thanks.
I appreciate all of it. Even the crazy bidness! My piece "My Mother's Body" was reposted on Big Salon, and the comments were often strange and hurtful -- but illuminating too. I realized I had written it for OS (for you guys, my friends, who know me and who approached with good will and knowledge of my past writings) and that the piece would have been better if I had stepped back and tried to read it as if it were being read by someone reading my prose for the very first time. That's a valuable lesson. Don't get lazy! Don't count on continuity of emotion from frequent readers. Approach every piece as if will stand alone -- does it represent you in the way you want to be represented?
From another angle, my daughter is 21, an art student. She is learning to take criticism -- to sift it, accept and reject with grace -- but she isn't really there yet. I have to be very gentle with her, as I've had to be very gentle with writers or songwriters of all ages in some of the groups I've joined over the years.
As commentors, we're always in a precarious position, and I think it's better to approach a piece from the viewpoint of a reader than as an instructor, or as an exercise in a writer's group, than to assume a writer wants an in-depth critique. That said, I've passed on commenting if I found a piece to be genuinely bad.
@ Captain America--that's the saddest story ever and you told it so well. I went through a lot with you in the space of just one paragraph...nice work!
With art, if you locked someone alone in a room and did not let them out until they'd completed one hundred paintings, they'd emerge much more accomplished than when they went in, and with a stronger sense of their own voice than if they'd made twenty paintings followed by critique. Still, people believe that their improvement depends on active criticism and evaluation, even as most suffer and cringe through it, kind or harsh.
At OS, comments are often cheer-leading, which can spur writers to write more prolifically, and as a consequence, improve. Like the folks who stand along the marathon route and offer cups of water to the runners, this kind of response has its own benefit.
I can't speak for anyone else, but what seems to be the consensus in comments is that we should strive for diplomacy and a reciprocity based in respect.
There is quite a difference between saying, "This sucks!" and "This needs a lot of work but has potential if you are willing to put in the effort."
I've worked with editors and for editors in the book publishing business and while it was a given that those manuscripts that came in unsolicited and wound up in the "slush pile" were largely without any potential whatsoever, that was never stated outright in the rejection letter to the author. Always a window of hope was provided. I mean, who really knew whether one of those authors might keep improving (which some, in fact, did) and become publishable one day?
Of course, it is different once an editorial relationship has been established. At that point hard, bottom-line critiquing is crucial but also by that point, it is something expected and welcomed--sort of:)
Yes, the world is hard and harsh and, no, we don't want to be falsely assured we have skills when, perhaps, we do not. But why use the worst aspect of the world as a template for truth-telling here? Personally, I enjoy being able to come to a place like OS where I know that while not everything I write will be met with praise or agreed with, at least I will be made aware of my shortcomings in a supportive vs. a captious manner.
I love your analogy of the "snowflake" people and agree that the general sense of 'specialness' and 'entitlement' has contaminated our collective ability to interpret and separate out what is truly extraordinary from what is merely 'different', but that shouldn't stop us from accepting that we each are unique and providing one another with the respect that should accompany that truth.
For me it all comes down to this: "It ain't what you say but how you say it." Being frank is good. Being compassionate is better. Being frank and compassionate is best. At least I think so.
When I teach drama/mime I rarely tell kids they are wonderful. I can tell by their reaction they are "snowflake" kids. Instead I ask them to do it again in a different way and brainstorm possibilities. Then do a comparison on which one was better and why. And what to do to improve it.
My son has been working as an actor in Chicago for 5 years since he graduated. He's been fortunate to be in cast quite a few shows including Chicago's premiere theaters: The Goodman & Steppenwolf. He said his college teachers warned them the real world of acting was cruel and vicious and that is why they needed to prepare them for that. He found the real acting world to be far more supportive, directors encouraging and the professional acting classes respectful to students and work collaboratively to find and discover the truth of a piece or character. It was a pleasant surprise.
One other thing, for those I've seen commenting that critiquing publicly rather than via PM is not cruel it's constructive for both the writer and the readers. Not necessarily.. critique of an individual article/post is tailored to that article/post by nature (or should be). The premise that others are going to learn by another's mistakes/corrections assumes that the reader is aware that they are producing the same fault/s in their own work. They may indeed be but if they're not aware of it witnessing the correction of the work of another is going to be lost on them.
And public correction more often than not simply makes the witnesses uncomfortable (and sometimes sets off a firestorm of defensive responses from a writer's friends ;). Honest response to a piece is a good plan, as others have said, or no response at all if you personally consider the piece trash. To honestly critique a piece (my opinion) should actually go via PM here at OS, if for no other reason than it has the potential to establish a working mentor/apprentice relationship off the public 'radar'
As Lorianne mentions, relationship should determine the appropriate level of criticism. If a writer has openly invited critiquing of their work then by all means go to town with it, they've asked, they'll listen or not and you'll have done your bit for the cause. If they haven't asked for public critiquing and you still care enough to make the effort, clicking on the PM button is only one more step ;).
This whole thing makes me think of Simon Cowell.. 8-O.
"But why use the worst aspect of the world as a template for truth-telling here?"
Who do you know that's giving out a steady stream of “that’s wonderfuls” to aspiring writers? If it’s a writing teacher, he or she should be fired.
And any student who is lapping up a steady diet of “that’s wonderfuls” without questioning it is an idiot and should find another hobby because surely they’re not making any money at writing.
Often, criticism is a matter of opinion. I don’t always agree with the great Michiko Kakutani or other high-powered critics. What inspires one reader may leave another wondering how the hell the author got a book contract.
The answer is, no one. Ultimately, it’s up to me to decide what to do with that paragraph and I have a lot to think about. But the good thing is, I didn't leave feeling discouraged. I'm looking forward to tinkering with it instead of dreading the process. That's because the writers in my group know how to critique without turning a session into a slashfest. "Show, don't tell" doesn't just apply to writing, it also works regarding criticism.
Criticism is an art and it can be done well or poorly. To a large extent it's also a matter of opinion. That's why I don't understand why anyone would open themselves up to OS or any public forum and basically ask, "Do you like me?" then get their feelings hurt. The writer isn't the only one who's risking something; the person who responds is setting himself up as an "expert" (or pompous ass because many are going to take issue with what he says).
Soliciting opinions this way is laziness, in my opinion. The best way to get better at writing is to write. And read. Read authors you admire and figure out what they're doing that appeals to you. There are so many good books out there on craft and technique that a writer who is serious about improvement can get the equivalent of a quality MFA education for little or no money, just by reading and doing the exercises.
The method employed in your daughter's writing program is the best way to get results not just with writing but almost anything. I've seen it in action. It works. Some of the responses here, mentioning how cruel and negative the real world can be, thus get used to harsh comments, don't take into consideration that most people have already experienced "the real world" in some fashion by the time they're adults. They already get it.
Everyone's a critic, but some get off on being one more than others.
Great post!
R
Rate for wisdom!
Rated!
As Margaret suggests, learning from affirmative comments is good, but praise always leaves an aftertaste of "were they just shining me, because I'm such a cool, warm dude?" It beats a poke in the eye with even a dull stick, but it's not as good as reading the really good writers here, such as Margaret, Mimetalker, Bellwether, Susan Creamer Joy, Joan H, Aim, Lezlie, Amy Abbott, Snippy, Cranky, Ann Nichols, Greg Correll, Kim Gamble, Torman, Linda, Alysa, Wendy, RW00rg, Seer, Fernsy (subtle, clever wit), Tom Cordle, Nikki, Jeremiah, Hawley, Reflections from a Shallow Pond (really, really, really funny - really), Tink (of course), Foolish Monkey (so modest, yet so shimmering with insouciant brilliance), Emma (who keeps me honest), Stellaa (Stellaaaaaaaaa, come back!)... I could list three times this number, if you'd like, and be earnest about every name. These were just the first to pop into my head and I apologize profusely to any whom I love whose names are hard to spell. My point: an abundance of truly talented writers here and all of them with such distinctive voices I could identify them without seeing their avatars.
From these people, from you, I learn more each day reading your posts and comments than I learned in college and in my 35 years as a newspaper reporter and struggling unpublished writer of fiction. What do you teach me? Pacing, timing, sequence, how to use just enuf detail to bring a scene or person alive without drowning the reader in so many metaphors and similes he/she forgets what the hell the story's about, when to leave spaces, breathing room, the pause for the rimshot, how to waive grammar and syntax rules for just the right effect, when to drop in the reveal, how to tag off, timing, pacing, finding that almost perfect word and then replacing it with an even better one and then going back to the other one, maybe, opening new accounts so's you can rate your own stuff multiple times to keep it in the feed longer so's others will think, hmmmm, this must be worth reading, commenting critically on your own work with an alter ego to maybe, if you're really lucky, start a huge fucking dustup so that people will really really want to get to know you better...I know, the coffee's too strong, but I'm hoping you're catching my drift. OS - youz guyz - are the best teachers I have ever had, not just for writing but for living. Thank you from the bottom of my caffeine jittery heart. I know this is a good comment, but it could be a great comment, couldn't it. OK, let's sit down together then and take it from the top, line by line.... (rimshot)) ;-|
I ALMOST agree with the premise of this writing program. The only way to avoid flaws is the learn to recognize them oneself. And a lot of carrot is way better than the stick. But what to do with someone who just keeps making the same mistakes over and over?
I think the toughest thing about learning/teaching writing is that you can't hear what you need to until you're ready. But when you're ready, the right gentle criticism can make all the difference in the world.
I'll be thinking about this post all day (even though I'm supposed to be working.)
That's how I feel about critiquing the writing that I am not qualified to critique anyway.
But in criticizing here, what kind or criticizing are we talking about? I've seen arguing about viewpoints, correcting of facts (valid or otherwise) and on occasion some variation on the old "Jane, you ignorant slut" routine. I see less criticism of writing per se, though. Someone writes a poem and people talk about how they liked it or how it reached them. I've seen them select a particularly good line for attention and that falls under your description, not necessarily focusing on a generic strength but focusing on an example of when you get it right. Now that I think about it, I've seen the same approach to political stuff once in a while - picking the most successful line out of a case or description.
Thanks to Lezlie for being the best practitioner of that on political stuff. Now I understand what she's doing.
G-A-B-B-Y A-B-B-Y
I don't comment on the writing on other people's posts, all I can say is I liked it or not, sometimes it's just "thank you." Sometimes I get the feeling my comments are annoying so I rate and run or just stay away so I won't annoy the writer, perhaps I'm wrong. I wish most of the writers who left stayed because I miss the posts. The variety took me out of my own problems and I was learning new things. Sometimes when I think I can't handle life someone comes along and leaves comments saying "keep going, you can do it." Maybe they also say nice things to the grocery clerk after she handles a really nasty customer. Writer or not, I appreciate their kindness and don't see how it hurts anyone else, even if they like something I wrote and I don't understand why.
Bellwether Vance is right, there's no way to tell who wants suggestions or critiques. Every writer who has commented on my posts has been courteous and not one has criticized me not remembering things I learned 40 years ago in school. I don't mind if writers who want to improve don't read my posts, why should they? It's all I can do to figure out how to be okay, if I was trying to figure out how to write I might go off the deep end. I wish the few who criticize my personal thoughts and feelings about my life weren't judgmental or bossy in comments on my posts but I tune them out because they're not helpful.
One thing is for certain, after having been here for two years I'm grateful I don't enjoy writing and don't want to be a writer. Thank you for inviting me to comment on your post. I wish I had something useful to offer about the methods you wrote about or how to comment about writing.
Lezlie
By the way, I think Emma has a point. The only problem with exercising her point here is that this is a community of peers, not of authority figures and students, meaning there is a pretty serious diplomatic component at work here. If you make someone too defensive, they won't be open to changing because they'll either be too busy defending themselves or get their feelings too hurt. Frankly, I find criticism useful, as long as it is presented with reasoning and as long as it is reasonably surgical, meaning it is directed at a specific fault rather than being presented as an overall insult. If someone tells me that my writing sucks, that won't help me improve my writing (and it will lead me to conclude that the critic probably didn't learn manners anywhere they think manners are important). If, on the other hand, someone tells me that I ought to replace the vast majority of my semicolons with periods, I might be tempted to do that. (If, on the third hand, someone tells me Enough With The Numbered Lists Already and Stop With Those Damned Distracting Parenthetical Asides - say what you mean In Order and Edit yourself, Dammit! I'd probably say "You're right, but I'm probably not going to change to any significant degree because that's how I think.")
I learned some time ago to examine my own purposes in evaluating and critiquing anyone. Whether it be considered positive or negative, I needed to understand my motivation in critiquing someone else AND suggesting they hear it. I need to consider their motivation for seeking the critique, praise or blame. In a world where we run around banging out our opinions thinking they matter (they do, to us mostly), we need to consider the clanging and repercussions of our thoughts. Opinions are not all equally valid nor even equally useful, and we must know when to edit those as well.
The only way I can explain this dichotomy is that I was in the journalism class because I wanted to improve professionally -- and I was willing to listen to anything that would help me get there, no matter how harsh. In my riding class, I'm doing it for pure pleasure, so I'm not interested in being "beaten down to build me up." OS for me is more like horseback riding -- I post for pleasure, and because of that, I am not looking for critiques of my writing style(s).
Wonderful and provocative piece. R
What a sensible-sounding program! I'd love to attend as well, it's easy to tell why you were so enthusiastic.
I say this approach ought to be taken across the board in education, there is enough criticism in the world today-- is it a learned reactive response from what we learned in schools ? Even elementary education can be fraught with the thoughtless critique...
As for my own writing experience, I've been helped by all the positive support I've received as well as the one former OS writer who lambasted my post, then wrote, "But I know you can do this!"-- I understood the meaning behind the lambaste, was encouraged by the trust that I could do better, and I have gotten better as a writer. I also was sitting at home not needing to feel defensive by the call out, whereas in class I would have been mortified at best, given up writing altogether, at worst.
It's like the competition between the Wind and the Sun to get the man to take off his coat. The blow-hard doesn't win, the warmth of the sun does.
I love all the thoughts you present here.
I was fortunate during my days in Tuba City to hook up with another experienced teacher who thought this way and become part of a team that coordinated our efforts to teach writing (without the usual easy reliance on Wariner's Grammar exercises)--the general approach we took on writing:
1. Lots of "free writing" to just get students to write quantities of prose without it being judged
2. Lots of writing assignments
3. Not grading ever single paper... but having personal conferences with students that had a standard "formula"
A. Begin by discussing the elements of the writing that are especially good
B. Find one or (maximum) two main items to work on -- and NOT be focused on grammar details that tend to correct themselves the more a student actually writes (especially in second language situations)
C. Give students an opportunity to interact during conference--it's a consultation and not a lecture situation
D. End with hope and encouragement...
Most often I found that students were at first intimidated and fearful that their writing was really weak and lame... but it was amazing to see very quick transformations of confidence... and virtually all the students that went through the process improved remarkably.
The success that we had with our students did spread to a number of other teachers in the department and made a significant improvement in our reservation school's writing proficiency. In fact, one year the state was experimenting with statewide proficiency tests in core language/math areas...and one portion was based NOT on the usual multiple choice / fill in the blank tests most common ... BUT ... on actual written compositions... that would be graded with rubrics by teachers from other districts who had been trained on how to do these more consistently and reliably.
The year they tried this, our school scored better in the writing portion than all the other schools in northern Arizona, including the high schools in the Flagstaff district (home to Northern Az. University)
Naturally there was a backlash--outrage that Flagstaff schools could score worse than a high school from the Navajo reservation...many felt that this only proved that the test evaluations were invalid.
Well... I just got off the subject so will stop here ;-)