There has been a lot of discussion on how to give a critique and yet in all of the discussions I've participated in or listened to, there is one aspect that seems to get ignored quite a bit. The aspect I'm referring to is the motivation behind giving out critiques.

Before I get too far along and carried away, I wanted to discuss this first:

The words 'critique' and 'criticism' are often used interchangeably today and many people don't realize that there is a difference (albeit an extremely fine one) between the two.

To better illustrate my point and just to satisfy my own curiosity, I visited dictionary.com and found this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=critique

To quote a portion of the usage note:

"Usage Note: Critique has been used as a verb meaning "to review or discuss critically" since the 18th century, but lately this usage has gained much wider currency, in part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense." [their italics]

I agree. Nowadays, when someone is criticizing, they are -- more often than not -- on a fault-finding mission, as opposed to critiquing, which involves analyzing the good and bad aspects of a body of work. Critiques are supposed to contain a certain degree of objectivity.

With that out of the way, I'll move on to my main point.

There's a lot of advice floating out there on how to write a good critique, all of which contain sound advice. Yet even with all these suggestions on how to critique an author, the single aspect that cannot and should not be ignored is the intent of the person delivering the critique or criticism. In my travels around the Internet I noticed that there were only one or two essays that touched upon the manner in which the criticism is delivered to the target author and the motivation behind it. It is precisely this shallow treatment of manner and intent that made me feel that the issue needed to be underscored and given more air time.

So why is the motivation behind a critique or criticism so important to me? It is important because it colors anything and everything that comes from either my mouth or my fingers.

We may often take them for granted, but words wield incredible power: the power to destroy and hurt, as well as the power to nurture and heal. A very good friend of mine once told me that correcting someone -- even though that someone is badly in need of correction -- is a delicate operation, one that shouldn't be treated lightly. Hence, I have never believed in the saying "You've got to be cruel to be kind." I find that a lot of people have used it and still use it as an excuse to rip someone to shreds. There's a right way and a wrong way to help someone realize their mistakes and help them grow; bashing or ridiculing them is not the way to do it. It's not that that anyone who has made a mistake should be mollycoddled -- that isn't the point. The pertinent question is: will verbally abusing someone make them want to change? I don't think so. Put yourselves in their shoes: if you had to be corrected about something, would you like to browbeaten for it, or would you rather be treated like a human being? The answer to that should be obvious.

People who are verbally abused usually don't end up having any love or respect for those scolding them; only resentment that grows and festers. No matter what that author did to piss you off, he or she still does not deserve to be insulted or be subjected to condescension by you or me, or worse -- to be delivered to others for a group beating and ridicule. Then too, there is a question of whether the offense even needed correcting in the first place, but that's a separate discussion. Treating someone with respect while critiquing them does not mean being lax with them. It also doesn't mean they will become weak individuals who will never learn. Given all that, instead of saying "You've got to be cruel to be kind" it would be better to apply the Golden Rule: "Treat the person you're critiquing as you would want yourself to be critiqued."

While we're on this point, I'll digress a bit and touch on the phrase "personal attack." I noticed that there are a few fault-finders who like to post disclaimers to the effect that their 'reviews' should not be misconstrued as personal attacks against the target author. To me however, when the reviewer's intent is fueled by hatred and the reviewer resorts to calling the target author a "no-life bitch whose hands should be cut off" or "her computer infected with a virus," that reviewer cannot -- without insulting the intelligence of those around her -- say that she wasn't delivering a personal attack. It is a personal attack as well as a threat, regardless of whether it's a serious threat or not. No two ways about it. Sure, I've seen statements from some fans who seriously advocated inflicting physical harm on those who dared to write something they didn't like. Last time I checked, it's illegal to threaten someone -- even on the Internet. Moreover, it's one thing to vent in private and quite a different matter to rally a mob whose main objectives are to punish, force or harass the target author into taking down his or her stories. That's a lynching, pure and simple. Unfortunately, for every aspiring "author" who refuses to improve their skills and acts like a jerk, there is another (perhaps more than one) novice writer who may be making mistakes but is a hardworking, essentially decent person; with the proper encouragement, the latter can realize their true potential. However, by lumping the good with the bad under one label and treating them all like pariahs, it often happens that the bad flourish while the good stop writing. Even seasoned, published authors make mistakes. The thing to remember is that pursuing a creative life means being in a state of perpetual learning, of trial and error. An artist or writer can never have too much practice.

Okay, back to the main discussion.

Therefore, I personally try to be careful with the things I write or say, especially when it comes to someone else's hard work or creative efforts. I have to ask myself if it would benefit me to hurl a sarcastic remark at a person whose way of looking at things may be vastly different from my own. I ask myself if the reason why I am so desperate to critique this person has anything to do with a genuine desire to help or whether it's because my anger at some perceived offense needs an outlet. Look, I've felt angry about certain fan fics before. Despite that, my policy has always been to simply stay away from authors whose work I don't like because I know deep down that I wouldn't be able to leave the sarcasm out of any critique I might make. In the end, it isn't worth my time, health and sanity to get embroiled in a flame war over fan fiction. Certainly, my favorite books and shows are important to me, but not so important that I'd feel the need to trade insults with a fellow fan or go to court because that fan doesn't see things my way. It's all about maintaining the proper perspective, in my opinion.

I cannot end this essay without devoting at least a short paragraph to those who are new to dealing with critiques. No doubt there are a lot of you who may be feeling somewhat discouraged because you've come across your first set of negative reviews. I know it's difficult, but please just don't give up! After a while, you'll be able to tell which are meant to help from those which are merely meant to punish. Take the good, examine the bad, and just keep on working on making your writing the best it can be whether you are aiming to be published or not. In my case (and I'm not saying this works for everyone), the only critiques I pay attention to are the ones from people I can respect. I'm not talking about people who give constant praise; if it's one thing I can't stand, it's a yes-friend. I'm talking about a person who has a sincere desire to help me improve. So if it's at all possible, find and surround yourself with supportive friends and colleagues. Once you do, you'll be more than halfway to a superlative creative experience.

Good luck!

Vicky