How to Effectively Critique a Manuscript

Introduction

Awhile back I was a member of an online writer's group, a place where authors submitted their work (typically chapters), soliciting feedback (known as critiques) from other members.

It was a large site, with many new members onboarding each week. It had a special forum for newcomers and I happened to notice a particular question appearing again and again. It went something like this:

Here are two answers.

To the first question, Yes, there is definitely a pattern for giving feedback that is most effective for most authors.

To the second question, No, at least for most authors. Rewriting someone else's work presumes a lot of things. It's generally best not to take that on unless the author has specifically requested it.

Note also it's the sentence between the two questions in the citation above that reveals the mindset of the questioner and where the trouble really begins.

Let's go a little deeper.

Brandon Sanderson, Best-selling Author

The award-winning author, Brandon Sanderson, has sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 million books worldwide. That doesn't make him "right” about any particular topic (we wouldn't want to use copies sold or bank balance as a proxy for "rightness”), but it does suggest he's experienced enough to earn some of our attention.

Most years Sanderson returns to his alma mater, BYU, to teach a writing course. Here is the first lecture in the 2025 course.

Near the conclusion of the first lecture, titled The Philosophy of Professional Writing, Sanderson discusses writing groups and feedback. His snapshot guideline for providing feedback is relevant (find it at timemark 1:07:35 ):

Could this be more simple and clear?

Using your personal emotional reaction as the basis, you comment on the work's effectiveness in reaching you. It's about the work, what it made you feel, where it moved you, confused you, irked you. This is often referred to as "reader reaction”.

Notice there's no calling out of "mistakes”. No rewriting. No "You Should Do It This Way".

Description, not prescription.

Next let's turn to a fellow who could, perhaps, be considered a guru of manuscript critique, so much so that he made an entire website for it.

Andrew Burt, Founder of Critters.org

Dr. Andrew Burt is the longtime founder and admin of the SF/F critique site, critters.org. The site has been around for 30 years(!), claims some 15,000 members and a legacy of 400,000+ critiques given.

We're not here to claim bulk volume equals correctness, but Burt's role at the site bears particular attention. Since the beginning, he has functioned as the Complaint Department for author members who claim to have received a critique that is harsh, mean spirited, or even abusive. Over the years he's seen it all which led to his developing the site's strict rules of conduct (to which he attributes the site's success).

The site's conduct policies are described in a series of posts made by Burt himself, available from this page.

I highly recommend reading them (but be warned: they come with a heavy dose of early web styling).

Here are the key points:

1. The overall purpose of critiquing a manuscript is to communicate feedback to the author about the work. If the author doesn't "hear” the feedback, then everyone's time has been wasted.
2. Writing a critique is unlike most other forms of writing. You're writing for an audience of one, with a message that (in almost all cases) will be surprising to the author.
3. Your role as critiquer is not to serve as a teacher, editor, expert, or any other kind of authority figure. It's to help the author improve their piece by sharing your personal reactions as a reader.
4. Your goal as a critiquer is not to persuade the author to see things your way. It's to share how the piece landed for you in the hope your remarks will inspire some reconsideration by the author. If said inspiration doesn't happen, its OK.
5. Write for your audience. This means, without exception, deliver your remarks with tact, restraint, and above all, respect for the author and their effort. In short, be polite. (This doesn't mean only saying nice things. Honest feedback is essential. Just deliver it with authentic compassion.)

Burt goes on to provide a short list of "tactics" to use when critiquing. These make for a sort of tonal checklist we can apply to any feedback we provide to another author.

1. Explicitly say it's your opinion. While in a manuscript critique setting this should be obvious, there's magic in restating it as often as needed.
2. Keep the focus riveted on the work, not the author of the work.
3. Only observe and remark on; don't try to persuade.
4. If there are aspects that could stand revision, suggest them, presenting them as alternatives; don't demand changes.
5. Avoid use of the imperative tone (teacher, parent, boss, expert, etc.) A critique is a request for feedback, not an invitation to expound.
6. Don't cite authorities or (so called) "rules of writing”.
7. Don't state opinions as facts. In fact, avoid stating "facts” as much as possible.
8. Be calm and dispassionate instead of vehement, outraged, personally slighted, or insulted.
9. Avoid using ALL CAPS and exclamation marks(!!!).
10. Refer to yourself as "I” (or me) and the author by their name or "you”.
11. Assume the author has made intentional choices; don't assume they "don't know what they're doing".
12. Reconsider the use of humor or sarcasm. It's all too easy to be misunderstood.

Burt wants us to remember what a critique is not. It's not an editorial (meant to persuade readers to your view), nor is it a critical review (meant to educate others whether they want to read the book, see the movie, eat at the restaurant, etc.) It's a very personal, one-to-one description of your reactions to a work-in-progress piece of art.

The most effective critiques serve the author of the manuscript. To serve others, we must first be heard. And that requires tact.

A Final Thought

No matter how long a writer's career may be, there's always a bit of trepidation in submitting something new for others to evaluate. Exposing our blind spots, errors, confusions, and awkwardness is never fun. Being misunderstood, the same.

That said, getting feedback is crucial. But not just any feedback. We want effective feedback. Specific, as targeted as possible, and not from people who already know us and like us. That means being selective as to who to listen to.

I like to think of it this way: I'm not open to feedback from just anyone. I'm most interested in the reactions of those who don't already like me and have my professional best interests at heart. This includes reviewers who provide critique in a barter-like system for the sole purpose of acquiring it for their own art.

Giving and receiving effective critique builds a writer's muscles. Kind of like eating vegetables, but do so with the utmost aplomb and tact.