Collaborative criticism definitely feels different from adversarial criticism. I try (and don’t always succeed) at doing the former unless the author wants the latter.
Collaborative v. adversarial are not categories I’d use for feedback—but do you not sometimes succeed because of what you’ve written, or is it the way the recipient receives it?
I aim to be factual and fair. But also honest and direct. Which can come over as harsh sometimes but it comes from a position of wanting to help.
How much time do I spend framing ‘less than congratulatory’ feedback?
How is the author going to take that feedback whatever I write?
A lot comes down to the author’s reaction rather than the feedback given.
I get the impression that there’s bloggers that want to write stuff and bask in their glory of great thinking, and then there’s other authors that are developing thoughts and ideas. Who wants feedback?
Collaborative criticism definitely feels different from adversarial criticism. I try (and don’t always succeed) at doing the former unless the author wants the latter.
Collaborative v. adversarial are not categories I’d use for feedback—but do you not sometimes succeed because of what you’ve written, or is it the way the recipient receives it?
I aim to be factual and fair. But also honest and direct. Which can come over as harsh sometimes but it comes from a position of wanting to help.
How much time do I spend framing ‘less than congratulatory’ feedback?
How is the author going to take that feedback whatever I write?
A lot comes down to the author’s reaction rather than the feedback given.
I get the impression that there’s bloggers that want to write stuff and bask in their glory of great thinking, and then there’s other authors that are developing thoughts and ideas. Who wants feedback?