View single post by erslyman
 Posted: Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 02:29 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
erslyman

 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I understand the dislike of a critique that doesn't explain much about why something failed. Leaves us guessing.

On the other hand, such a response, however negative, is a legitimate response. The critique may not know how to improve a work. And not a flame. Flaming is another thing altogether

I am grateful for any critique because it's a response. No response gives me nothing. I'm grateful because I've been critiqued before. A too polite critique often may come off polyannish, sweetly cloying.

I'd rather hear the harsh critique response. Critiques are just responses. Very little else. Our reponse to a critique varies from playwright to playwright.

Disagreement about a play's worth occurs. We should try to identify more specifically why we find a work shallow or not whole.

Though the critiquer isn't perfect. And critiquing critiques is rather worthless. I see you posted guidelines. I thought they were good. I also thought they were wishy-washy in some instances.

The real writer hasn't got a thin skin. He/she's capable of enduring responses of every kind. It's all grist for the mill.