Yikes! My little writers group has their yearly conference tomorrow. We decided to add a mini critique session for those bold enough to try it. We got a few entries and those were apportioned out to the group's members to critique.
THIS is hard. When I don't know the person, have no history with them. How do I critique? With broad strokes or lots of red marks?
I suppose the wisest, caring way to do it is WWIW. What would I want?
I'd like it to be honest. What's the sense of having something critiqued if it's all praise with no substance. On the other hand, I don't want to destroy a person. Nor end up flaunting my own importance/intelligence/ego.
I wrote a bunch of good stuff at the beginning. And ended with a bunch of good stuff at the end. And wished her the best of luck. In the middle, I offered some suggestions, noting that rules change. That some people feel one way and others another. I tried to give her options to do what she thought necessary.
Thankfully, we won't pass the pages over to the author. We get to meet and explain. That, I hope, will help. The story I was given was quite good. Riveting. Something I would not read in my daily life. It affected me.
Life is experiences.