A Preface to Techmod Critiques.
So people like to come to me for critique. It usually goes pretty smoothly, sometimes there are bumps in the road. I’ll explain that in a moment, but first I’d like to explain the process I use for critique. Because understanding the process can help you understand the critique better. And help yourselves give critiques to others too—which in turn can strengthen your own writing. The best way to show you know something is to teach it, after all.
So when asked to critique a piece, be it art, media, writing, Techmod is going to read it… probably more than three times. Each of those times is going to accomplish something different, and leave me with a different impression.
First Reading (First Impression)
This is where I take the role of a fresh reader and just read through it once, taking mental and sometimes physical notes on my first reactions, responses, even facial expression and words I say vocally behind the screen. Being a first run-through, you wouldn’t think this important, but this impression is what’s going to give you a gauge for how new readers are going to respond to something. This is also the stage where you have to hook in new readers. If new readers aren’t impressed, the chances of them reading through and working things out is little-to-none.
This is also the most likely area where I’m going to hurt your feelings.
I take note of my first reactions so that I can tell you. Because if I verbally say “what the fuck” behind the screen, there’s good chance new readers will too. Which is probably kind of important to know about. And to know exactly how they might react.
Second/Third Reading (General Impression)
So after reading through a few times, making diacritical assessments, reading the nuances—both in objective and subjective areas. It’s where I begin to piece together what I’m looking at to see if it works both in a micro and macro level. If I had a good first impression, this is also where I begin to see if that impression still holds water now that I’m looking deeper.
This is the real meat and potatoes of a critique, as it were. I’m checking not only for coherence, originality, theme, but also inconsistencies, clichés, subversions, technical aspects. I’m looking at the piece both from a big-picture perspective and finer details.
Further Readings (Lasting Impressions)
Having read it multiple times now, taken into account first and general impressions, this is where I look into whether or not this piece has stayed with me; whether or not it has created a lasting effect. Or if not the piece, then aspects of it. Memorability is something that is unfathomably important. It is memorability that can stay with us for a lifetime and change a person.
I do have some guidelines and rules that determine how I respond to something given to me to critique.
Ethics and Etiquette of Critiques
And this probably needs some explaining.
The sandwich method (Steph doesn’t do it): for those who’ve had to critique in class before, you probably learned the sandwich method, in which the more difficult to swallow parts of a critique are sandwiched between two nicer things. “I like what you’ve done here. You need some work here. This though is good.” I do not use this technique, because I consider it disingenuine. Sure, it goes down easier, but sometimes? The things we make are just 90-100% shit and needs to be tossed. And attempting to “sandwich” this fact between two nicer elements just appears as sugarcoating. Granted, if there are nice things to say, I will say them. We should all know what we’re doing right. But if there’s a whole lot of crap, then you need to know that, and it is my duty as a critique to be honest with you. Dishonesty will not help you as the person receiving the critique—as much as it might make it go down easier.
Distance between the product and worth of the individual creating the product: You are not your product. Your self-worth is not based on what you make. When I critique something, be it a character or piece of writing or art, what have you, I am not critiquing you. … That said, you bet I’m going to absolutely tear into what you’ve made if it needs to be torn into. Because I recognize that you and what you’ve made are not the same. I would hope you do too. I am ready afterward for a hug if you need it (won’t take back what I said though. :3).
Professionalism: I will not insult you. Nor will I insult your work. I phrase my critiques so as to be the most accessible as possible to you. While I could use purely academic language, I likely will not—partly because, especially on tumblr, others will see the critique and can possibly learn from it. But as I said before, I am also not about to be dishonest to you. It is why critiques are often worded very firmly and very cut and dry. My goal is to make this critique as informational as possible for you.
That said, there are some… things to keep in mind when receiving critiques.
Arguing with the critique: This is kind of the biggest thing I’ve come across when giving critiques, which I just do not understand. When you come to me for a critique, it is for my semi-proficient opinion of what you’ve made. Arguing with me forces me to then critique your explanation, which completely draws away the fact that I am critiquing something you made—not your explanation of it. Clarification questions are wholly encouraged if you do not understand something I’ve said. But critiques are not where you explain yourself or try to persuade me of something—otherwise you weren’t actually looking for critique; you were looking for me to say what you wanted me to say. They are where someone gives you an outside opinion of this thing you made because you seek improvement, or because you need a perspective that is not attached to this thing you made in order to find out if you’ve done what you set out to do. Even if you don’t agree, you need to realize I kinda went to a lot of work to give you that critique. Time that I can’t get back or could have spent somewhere else. You don’t owe me for it, but please do recognize I don’t do these whilly-nilly or flippantly. If you don’t agree, then just set it aside. That is the professional thing to do.
Work on that self-esteem: Again, a critique where I basically say you need to scrap something is not a reflection of you or my opinion of you. How you react to that critique tells me much more about that, frankly. But really, if you get a “bad” critique, just take it as a stepping stone. You’re still a good person even if you sometimes make crap art/writing/media/whatever.
Not perfect: Really, I’m not perfect. I know a lot o’ stuff! But I make mistakes too.
That said: we clear on how I do things?
