Reviewing Quick Tips

Adopt a helpful and respectful attitude. Within a workshop, reviews are intended for the creator of a work-in-progress, and not as a warning to the end consumer or a chance to show off how smart you can be with caustic remarks. Remember, too, this is a workshop and not a contest. Writers and Reviewers are here to help each other, not blow each other out of the water. Nominations for the Anthology will not be overdetermined by public ratings.

Read anything you are going to review in its entirety. If it bores you so badly that you can't really finish it, or you find you start "skimming through" just to get to the end, then maybe you are not the best reviewer for this piece, or maybe you should come back to it when you are rested and your mind is fresh.

If you're just trying to get your point values up in order to submit something, I can promise you that this shortchanging of other participants will come back to haunt you. Again, respect and consideration is the key.

Take your time with each review. Think about what you want to say. Consider printing the story if this makes for an easier or more pleasant reading experience. Also, consider the value of this strategy for making margin notes. Capture your immediate reactions to what you read in the margins of the page, as a way of creating an effective "first draft" of your review.

Develop from those first-draft notes a thoughtful review that shows points of appreciation as well as points of concern. A good Workshop review should be 100 words, at minimum, and should not exceed 700 words. It should be focused, concise, balanced, and not rambling. It should demonstrate a willingness to accept the voice or aesthetic the author demonstrates and the rules the piece establishes for itself from its opening--not a blind acceptance or unthinking praise for anything you find unappealing or implausible, but a willingness to receive the work on its own terms and to review it with those terms provisionally held. For example, you shouldn't object to the appearance of alien beings or future technologies in a story tagged as science fiction--but it's fine to be politely critical if those elements aren't handled well.

Likewise, pay close attention to the Authors' Agendas supplied by your fellow writers.

If the agenda states that the author has done her best job of incorporating three specific essays from Chuck as guidelines, then it would be appropriate to focus your review entirely on how well you think the terms of each of those essays have been met.

On the other hand, if the author makes no mention of Chuck's essays, and the story is tagged as "self-assignment," (or simply "prose," in this new workshop,) then it might not be appropriate to rail on and on about how the piece fails by not applying Chuck's distinctions. Look to the author's own agenda, first, as a guide to your reviewing. If you wish to suggest how one of chuck's distinctions might improve the piece, be tactful and brief and non-dogmatic with that, and don't let it consume the bulk of your reviewing effort. Our Workshop welcomes diversity, and multiple agendas should be read, respected, and taken as the principal touchstones in your reviewing efforts.