Reviewing Tips
Quick List
- Adopt a helpful and respectful attitude.
- Read anything you are going to review in its entirety.
- Take your time with each review. Don't rush.
- Make margin notes that capture your immediate responses.
- Reflect some and develop first impressions and quick notes into a substantial review of 250-750 words.
- Pay close attention to the Author's Agenda and address those specific concerns.
- You can always focus on the basics: Plot, Narration, Characters, Dialogue.
- You can also focus on Hook, Theme, Exposition, Story Arc, etc. Take some time to learn these terms.
- Read Chuck's craft essays and be conversant with the terms he sets up: Head Authority, Heart Authority, Horses, Burnt Tongue, etc.
- Don't expect more awesome reviews than those you're giving out. But expect our patience if you're new and really here to learn.
- Remember, this is a Workshop, and not a place to showcase finished products. Toughen up. Expect criticism and receive it well.
- Use the 'Not Helpful' rating on reviews you receive to cancel points when someone takes a shallow approach.
- Don't punish with the 'Not Helpful' rating when someone goes to tremendous lengths to give you a thoughtful and careful review that you don't happen to agree with or find flattering.
- Separate you ego from the equation and look for ways to improve your work.
- Hesitate from posting when you're upset or angry. Bring mindfulness to every stage of the process.
- When it doubt, apply the Golden Rule to all your interactions.
___________________________
Illuminations
Adopt a helpful and respectful attitude. Within a Workshop, reviews are intended for the creator of a work-in-progress, and not as a recommendation or warning to the end consumer nor as a chance to show off how smart you can be with caustic remarks. Remember, too, this is a Workshop and not a Contest. Writers and Reviewers are here to help each other, not blow each other out of the water. Nominations for the Anthology will not be overdetermined by public ratings. And since long before and for well after the Anthology Project, we have a Workshop community built on good faith and reciprocity.
Read anything you are going to review in its entirety. If it bores you so badly that you can't really finish it, or you find you start "skimming through" just to get to the end, then maybe you are not the best reviewer for this piece, or maybe you should come back to it when you are rested and your mind is fresh.
If you're just trying to get your point values up in order to submit something, I can promise you that this shortchanging of other participants will come back to haunt you. Again, respect and consideration is the key.
Take your time with each review. Think about what you want to say. Consider printing the story if this makes for an easier or more pleasant reading experience. Also, consider the value of this strategy for making margin notes. Capture your immediate reactions to what you read in the margins of the page, as a way of creating an effective "first draft" of your review.
Develop from those first-draft notes a thoughtful review that shows points of appreciation as well as points of concern. A good Workshop review will typically range between 250 and 750 words. It should be focused, concise, balanced, and not rambling. It should demonstrate a willingness to accept the voice or aesthetic the author demonstrates and the rules the piece establishes for itself from its opening--not a blind acceptance or unthinking praise for anything you find unappealing or implausible, but a willingness to receive the work on its own terms and to review it with those terms provisionally held. For example, you shouldn't object to the appearance of alien beings or future technologies in a story tagged as science fiction--but it's fine to be politely critical if those elements aren't handled well.
Likewise, pay close attention to the Authors' Agendas supplied by your fellow writers.
If the agenda states that the author has done her best job of incorporating three specific essays from Chuck as guidelines, then it would be appropriate to focus your review entirely on how well you think the terms of each of those essays have been met.
On the other hand, if the author makes no mention of Chuck's essays, and the story is tagged as "self-assignment," (or simply "prose," in this new workshop,) then it might not be appropriate to rail on and on about how the piece fails by not applying Chuck's distinctions. Look to the author's own agenda, first, as a guide to your reviewing. If you wish to suggest how one of chuck's distinctions might improve the piece, be tactful and brief and non-dogmatic with that, and don't let it consume the bulk of your reviewing effort. Our Workshop welcomes diversity, and multiple agendas should be read, respected, and taken as the principal touchstones in your reviewing.
Please - learn the distinctions in Chuck's essays and use them well, both in your creative and your critical writing, but avoid the tone of an apostle to the one "right" way, and don't expect quick links to the essays to substitute for your own thinking.
Some basics you can always talk about:
- Plot
- Narration
- Characters
- Dialogue
In addition to the Agenda items, or in the absence of a good Agenda, you can always talk about these story basics. If you're going to assign a star rating to these things, you can certainly devote a paragraph to each one that justifies your rating choice. Breaking it down to a short focused paragraph on each element can help you organize your thoughts and build a coherent review.
Other elements you might consider:
- Hook (Does the opening sentence grab your attention without feeling contrived? Does the opening paragraph reel you in and raise your interest in what will follow? Is the language of the opening strong and unique and question provoking in a good way? Does the story develop in a way that justifies the opening hook?)
- Theme ("Horses" - in the language of Chuck's 2nd Essay. Do the larger ideas or philosophical threads hold your interest?)
- Exposition (this is the order in which story events are revealed, which can stand in contrast to the Plot - the internal logic of story development)
- Story Arc (do the stakes get higher for the characters as the story progresses? Does it rise toward a satisfying climax and then wind down and wrap up within just a few more pages? If a traditional Story Arc isn't present, does the piece hold your interest anyway?)
You don't have to talk about all of these things in every review. Make your effort appropriate to the story under consideration and what you feel are its strongest and weakest elements. Praise the strong without assuming the author "just knows" and attack the weak elements in a kind way. Be ruthless on the prose and kind to your peers. They'll thank you.
Login
