Description: Critiquing is a learned skill and so is not always done properly. Unfortunately, because the word “critique” has the same root as “critical”, many people think they need to focus their comments on what they see as weaknesses in the writing. This means the overall effect of the critique is destructive rather than constructive.

Critique is not criticism. Criticism is destructive. Critique should be honest and use constructive tools.

When it’s constructive, everyone in the group will learn from a critique session, even if their work is not part of the session. This is because to be a constructive critiquer, one needs not only to find the parts of the poem that work well or need work, but also needs to figure out why that part is strong or weak, but remember, each opinion is just that – an opinion.

Leader: judyanne
Moderator(s): weirdelf, Beauregard

Objectives: The goal of this workshop is to promote confidence in in-depth critiquing by encouraging the reader to figure the above out (ie understand why they have come to the conclusion of their critique)

Level of expertise: Open to all

Subject matter: Firstly we will discuss the various things to look for when writing a critique, and also things that spoil a write.

We will then critique each other’s writes, and each critique will be expected to
1. find a strong part and say why
2. find a weak part and say why
3. offer at least one suggestion for improvement and say why

Please note: the AC has changed it so Workshop postings no longer count in the one-poem-to-be-submitted-a-day rule. Members can post as many workshop contributions as they need to and still post a poem a day.