Forums / About Writing /
Honesty or Diplomacy?

Is it better to be honest when commenting on someone's work or to spare someone's feelings and be diplomatic? Assuming that the two don't go hand in hand. I would say it's better to be diplomatic.

Gosh, that's a toughie. Usually it's a no-brainer for me to point out ways I think a story might be improved or polished up, but not always. Sometimes I get the vibe that the person who wrote it won't bother to correct any mistakes, so I don't point them out. Some of the writers are very young, and I'd rather encourage them to keep writing, anything at all, rather than accidentally make them feel bad enough to stop trying this hobby. Other times, I've read a rant or a spilling of emotions that is pretty sincere, raw even, and stuff like that doesn't need to be addressed in a "you misspelled 'cheating boyfriend'" sort of way.

It's more an exception that I don't actually go for that full honesty about the story itself, but it happens enough that I came up with the above examples.

I think I agree with Marta. Although people state 'yes, I want critiques' most just want to be told how good they are. I've had issues where I would leave a very critical statement pointing out flaws and what-nots only to be rated a single star for the comment! I think the best thing to do is to point out somethings gently and just encourage the writer to continue working.

Sorry Marta! I've got to disagree with you up to a point.

By all means be polite, but why faff around? If writers just want to be told how good they are then why not just stay at home? there'll be plenty of friends and relatives to give pats on the back.

If something is wrong with the story why pretend otherwise? They won't thank you when they receive the rejection slip from someone in the real world, that's if they actually get a reply.

I write purely for fun and if I should at some stage write anything remotely publishable then how will I know?

Anyone who takes criticism as an affront should also take a reality check, either that or state they don't want any comments on their work.

The majority of stories I read on this site are written by writers far, far better than I will ever be, but that doesn't mean I can't critique their work. Critiquing is, after all is said and done, subjective; I may think a story is great, someone else will think it's okay and someone else will think it's rubbish - that's life!

If someone is diplomatic with me, I THINK there must be something wrong; if someone is honest, I KNOW that something is wrong and can then try, to the best of my ability, to correct the mistakes made.

Look at the state of the world today - that's diplomacy at work.

I agree with you Lawrie but, I have resolved not to offwer any critique unless it's specified because, really it gets tiresome after a while to have people whine and complain that you were mean to them.

Let the real world bang them on the head--too bad for them. I will never, ever rewrite someone's work for them nor make any suggestions as to what they should change to make their work read better nor do anything involved like that. It's not worth the headache.

I will read other people's work for content--the way in which they tell the story and not form--how it's written. people have been going off the deep end lately, literary (sp?) suicide just about.

I don't mind suggestions but, I see red when I am rewritten, so I know how it feels. My take on the matter is who the heck am I to rewrite someone else's work? I am not an editor. And my comments aren't always appreciated.

People here want diplomacy--I say, kill them with kindness. Pat them in the back, make 'em feel good. Why not?

Seems to me that either way I am lamblasted--so, why not take the high road and be kind and friendly and keep the tone light and cheerful. (a win-win situation for me)

For me it's either be that way or pack my bags and leave the forum for good. So that'it...consider me the Storywrite Diplomat.

For those who really want an honest critique then I will give them constructive criticism and only up to a point for the rest of them I am going to be Dr. Feel-Good.

Hang, the state of the world...I can only work one side of the street and this one is it.

why do we assume that both can't be attained?

honesty hurts no one who has been honest with themselves.
diplomacy is only the tone you use with your honesty.

for example: "your story is boring. you can't spell and your grammar is amateurish."

say that another way and you're still being honest but also diplomatic:

"although your story lacked a certain spice to it, it shows that you made an effort. your characters are detailed and the plot grabs you. I noticed some spelling errors and a place where a comma could be placed instead of a conjunction but I enjoyed the story and would like to see more."

which one would you rather hear?

I think both are necessary. honesty is why we're here on this site asking for and giving critiques to improve ourselves. diplomacy is the voice we use when critiquing. while they aren't both necessary, they should both be appreciated.

Ego stroking can only go so far before it comes off as fake. If everyone is pointing out errors in a story, and one person is praising it, then they're either too afraid to leave a truthful comment, or they don't know how to word it properly.

I've told people that their writing needs work in such a way that I end up with 5 stars and a thank you. Example from a couple years ago "I've never seen a methaphor used in quite that way before. There are a few spelling errors, as well as grammatical mistakes, and when you have the time to run this through a spell check, and proof read, you're going to have a top notch story! I'd be honoured to read this once you edit and fine tune, so please IM me with the link once you've done so... or reply to the comment so I can come back and read your finished story. " I've told them that the methphor use was odd, and that their story needed work... but, I asked to be invited back to read, so 9 times out of 10, I get an IM with a reminder, and I go back to see that they've actually worked on the story.

Social Design (AP, SW, SP, etc) is set up for feeback from your fellow authors, whether good or bad. Some people here are teachers, former teachers, published writers, and so on, and give honest critiques. But.... the most important person here who gives feedback on your story is --- the reader. If all someone wants is to be patted on the head and told how good their writing is, then that's up to them. There are some on the site that want to be told, in all honesty, how good or bad the story is.... and they cringe at the thought of receiving an ill-gotten praise of a comment.

Basically, if you're not sure what type of comment to leave, take a look at the other comments, and the comments that the author leaves in response. If they seem to enjoy the good and bad, then it might be okay to leave an honestly, yet diplomatically written comment.

Years ago, on these sites, there used to be a small link above each comment box, which said something about leaving a dimplomtic critique, and linked through to http://allpoetry.com/column/189427 . I wish that link was still there, since that column is full of a lot of helpful hints and information that a lot of people could benefit from reading.

Thank you all for your comments, I have certainly learned something new about critiquing although; I guess that i will still be a bit reluctant when it comes to doing so. Just so that you all know, I'm not big on the wordy comments so if i do say 'good work' or 'this could use some work' don't get bent out of shape. I might make a suggestion or two but that's about it.

I normally suggest rephrasing for bits that I found awkward (which somebody was ranting about the other day) but I try to do it diplomatically. And I also find myself apologising if I don't like something. If I hate it, I'll tell somebody "this really wasn't my cup of tea, because of the style/subject matter etc, however, I'm sure readers who are into this kind of material would love it. Your grammar and spelling is good, and this flowed well." Something like that.
I sometimes leave comments longer than the actual story I'm critiquing, and nobody has ever told me I'm too harsh, or they didn't like it. I don't expect them to change everything I pointed out (unless it's all grammar and spelling ) but I do expect them to actually think about what I say.
If I get a comment from somebody saying they really didn't like a certain character's attitude, or they thought paragraph 17 was really badly phrased, I'll look back over it.
As long as it's constructive, honesty is fine. But there's no point leaving a comment saying "I thought this was a load of rubbish and I wasted my life reading it". I mean, if you've wasted so much of your life reading, surely it won't hurt to give a little bt of advice? Just not "never write again"!

My critiques fall into two categories "This needs Work" or "This was well-written". If you want to know what needs work and specify then I might be inclined to offer some suggestions.

If I wrote "This was well-written" then it suggests that it was well written....but, some people want the in-depth commentary/review and start assigning homework questions:

Why do you think it was well written? What did you like/dislike about it? Characters/Scenes.Colors used/words used......Etc.

I am not Tom Brokaw and don't work for CNN.

Anyone who gives me that kind of review I am considering a stalker and placing on my ignore list...back off dude!

Don't "Hound-dog" me either...read over my shoulder and wait until I post a chapter so that you can devour it and comment on it...that kind of readership I don't want nor need.

It seems people here go to two extremes and some need to find a "healthy" balance.

Now, if I got a comment like "This really sucks and I wasted my time reading it." Or "You should stop writing immediately and get a civil service job."

My first reaction would be to laugh. ( I can be silly that way sometimes), Then I would go to your page and read your bio and (laugh) and read something you wrote and leave a comment, and I may even take the high road and say something nice--so, that I can consider myself the better person. (win-win)

That works for me.

You do have a good point there, a few actually.

Normally, I do read people's bios before I read their stories, to get a feel for the person.

When I read their stories I keep their bios in mind and sometimes, both the bio and the stories complement each other.

When it doesn't then something is off: either the person hasn't been honest in their bio or left something out and if shows in the writing.

I can pretty much guess what a person might be like with good accuracy by reading their stories even if their bios are short and not very informative.

The writer gives himself/herself away in not only what they write but, how they write it and the subject matter.

I am more skeptical when someone praises my work then when they don't because, I know when I am writing at my best or when my writing doesn't have the usual spark and energy.

I would rather have honesty then diplomacy although, I am more inclined to be diplomatic than honest. I know that I can sometimes, be too over-the-top with the honesty and offend.

Which is why I myself, don't believe that the two go hand-in-hand. Other's opinions may differ on this matter and that is a-okay, that's what makes the world go round.

No good has ever come of being DIShonest. One can be honest AND constructive...helpful and Instructive. One need not revert to a cowardly, disingenuous policy of DIShonesty. Would YOU wish someone to be DIShonest with you? Would YOU wish to be set upon the wrong path?
The philosophies and conclusions of some of the members of this site continue to surprise me.

I know the question goes for that the commentor has to 'assume' to only choose one: honesty or diplomacy. But, why not both? Why can't a commentor find the good in a piece, yet be honest and point out the errors as well?

I believe in helping a writer improve, but at the same time you also don't want to be harsh and crush them either. If there was something in the piece that you genuinely liked, state it. You can be both constructive and polite without sounding like a total jerk If you didn't like what you read, and it needed a lot of improvement, perhaps you could say, "It needs some work and really not my style in reading." (if you were going to take the time to comment)

Some people don't want constructive criticism, so sometimes, you may have to be careful with that. Simply look out for ANs, backread through some of their comments/responses to comments to see their reactions, etc.

I believe honesty is the best policy... However, throw in some diplomacy I think in your constructive critiques. Usually, I always will find the things I like in a piece (whether it's the descriptions, style, language, characterization, etc.) and make an effort to point that out, before I get down to the wire and begin my review of the grammar/spelling/awkward areas if I need to.

(P.S. Don't forget- your honest comments can't go as far as actually insulting the writer )

I like to give honest constructive critiques but, would rather have sugar-coated comments rather then honesty.

Praise is good. I like praise, the more the better. Tell me I am wonderful, and that my work is great. In short, lie to me and make me feel good.

I want this forum to be my "feel good place" to feel free to write anything that comes to my head, good or bad, and feel the acceptance; bask in it's glory.

It's a priviledge that I am gladly paying for, and I am willing to give stars and points for. So read me, love my writing and get rewarded for it.

That's my win-win situation that I have going here.

If the system allowed it I would give clappy hands/applaud myself, but unfortunately it doesn't. Lol.

Clappy hands & applause to everyone for agreeing with me.

**And truly I am not being sarcastic, I would like to really get pats in the back, it makes me happy. It might not be honest, but I like sugar-coated phrases.