????對寫作的人來說，最難熬的時間莫過于收到編輯反饋的時候。你發(fā)去一篇真情實感的1200字短文，編輯會回復一些意見和不足。他可能會建議換種語氣來寫?；蛘邉h掉那些“沒什么意義的”段落。某些編輯會給你改寫。但很少有一位編輯會反饋說：你的作品“堪稱完美”。

????在開始職業(yè)寫作時，我一心想要立即獲得編輯的認可。我對創(chuàng)作公眾消費文學毫無經(jīng)驗，因此很希望得到其他人的鼓勵，讓自己確信走在正確的軌道上。但很快我便意識到，那些看似傷感情的反饋，從長遠來看反而更有建設意義。這些反饋可以幫我提高。如果我只想聽好話，可以去找我的朋友。一位令我受益的編輯會跟我說：不錯，但我們再試試這樣寫?；蚴牵何颐靼啄阆氡磉_什么，但這里沒說清楚。

????仔細考慮一下如何才能提供好的反饋，這非常重要，因為處理不當可能適得其反。言辭過于苛刻，可能會令對方心灰意冷。而如果你過于委婉，他們可能不會意識到你實際上是在提出嚴肅批評。作為一名年輕的圖書編輯，我曾犯下過這樣的錯誤，我絮絮叨叨地與一位作者討論我認為他的手稿中可以完善的許多小地方，但事實上，我認為他的作品通篇都是拙劣的構想，根本沒有補救的可能——只是我如此膽小，不敢說出這樣的意見。幾個月后，這位作者發(fā)回了一篇精心修改的手稿，解決了我們之前談到的所有小問題，既然他肯定能拿到一份圖書合約，我便不再進行這種忽視整體、繁冗不堪的細微評論了。可惜的是，我沒有給他提供任何可以幫助提高寫作技能的建議。我只是浪費了他幾個月的時間。我們最后都感覺很差，而且我確信他的感受一定比我更糟糕。

????從根本上來說，有用的反饋必須是坦誠的。此外還要：

?????高度具體。

?????包含超越當前項目的建議。其中包含的智慧可以給未來的項目帶來幫助。

?????鼓舞人心。盡管是批評意見，但不要太過尖刻，以至于使創(chuàng)作者決定放棄。

????沒錯，作為一名初入行的圖書編輯，我提供的反饋非常詳細，但卻毫無意義，不夠具體?，F(xiàn)在，我在評論手稿的時候，會在頁邊空白處和跟蹤修訂中標出好的部分和差的部分，提出可供選擇的措辭。相比提出一系列抱怨，這種方式可能要多花十倍的時間。但提供這種程度的詳細反饋，是對反饋者的嚴格約束，因為這意味著你不能偷懶，不能只是簡單地說：“我喜歡！”或“試試看讓它更有趣。”相反，你要準確指出自己喜歡的元素，提醒哪些玩笑的效果并不好。

????如果你能解釋為什么一句玩笑話的效果不佳，你便達到了有用反饋的第二條標準——你不僅在發(fā)表自己的意見，也在分享適用的知識。如果你不能提供一些參考、先例或學識，你應該考慮放棄提供反饋。此時，你可以這樣說：“我這方面的確經(jīng)驗不足。我可以通過其他方式提供幫助嗎？”

????達到第三條標準的難度最大，因為鼓舞人心不能全靠笑臉和溢美之詞。

????我有一位分析力驚人的好友，他有經(jīng)濟學博士學位和多年現(xiàn)場演講的經(jīng)驗。他從效率上對有用反饋進行了思考。他想知道，什么樣的建議可以在最大程度減少爭論的情況下，最快地使對方達到最理想的結果。最終，他得出的結論是，這很大程度上取決于時機。

????當一個人認為快要到了收筆的時候，如果建議他進行大范圍的改寫，對方肯定會生氣，哪怕是好的建議也會被忽視。

????而在項目開始時給出的指導意見更有可能被接受，此時，對方仍有時間和精力大幅調整方向。但任何反饋者都應該從更高層面來考慮時機的問題。有效的反饋者必須要知道，如果不知道就要問清楚：被反饋者的個人情況如何？正處于怎樣的職業(yè)發(fā)展階段？

????當一個經(jīng)驗極少時，很有可能虛心接受他人的指導。假如你在和一個四歲的孩子一起做草莓酥餅。小朋友會將面粉撒得到處都是，而你會糾正他的做法，甚至手把手地教他怎么去做，但他并不會介意這種指導。他很清楚，完全靠自己還無法制作出草莓酥餅。

????For writers, no days drag on longer than days without feedback from your editor. You’ve sent him a 1,200-word document that reflect some facet of your very self, and your editor will be returning it to you with comments and criticisms. He may suggest a different tone. He may suggest you amputate paragraphs that “aren’t doing anything.” Some editors rewrite your sentences for you. Very rarely will an editor remark that what you’ve done is just fine as is.

????When I began writing professionally, that’s what I thought I wanted: an editor’s immediate approval. Creating something for public consumption made me feel naked, and reassurance that I was on the right track was welcome. But it didn’t take long for me to realize that feedback that risked hurting my feelings was more constructive in the long run. It could help me improve, for one. My friends could be relied upon to tell me my work was wonderful. A useful editor would tell me nice try, but try again. Or I see what you’re trying to do here, but it’s not coming across.

????Thinking about how to give good feedback is important because so much can go wrong. Speak too harshly and people might quit their project. Deliver your opinions too gently, too obliquely, and they might not recognize that you’re actually delivering some trenchant criticism. As a young book editor myself, I made the mistake of rambling on to a writer about all the many little things I thought could be improved in his manuscript when the real truth was I thought it was ill-conceived from the ground up and beyond salvaging—only I was too big of a coward to say so. I stopped giving these lengthy but small-bore critiques that ignored the big picture when someone returned months later with a freshly revised manuscript, with all those little things addressed, sure now that nothing stood between him and a book contract. Unfortunately in this case I hadn’t even given him any advice that would help him improve his craft, not really. I’d only wasted months of his time. We both ended up feeling bad, though I’m sure he more than me.

????In the main, useful feedback is honest. It also:

?????Is highly specific.

?????Contains advice that’s applicable beyond the project at hand. It carries wisdom you can apply toward future projects.

?????Is encouraging. While critical, it is never so harsh that the creator decides to give up.

????Yes, the feedback I gave when I was a novice book editor was filled with details, but it wasn’t meaningfully specific. Now, when I critique a manuscript, I isolate exactly which parts succeed, which don’t, and right there—in the margins, in tracked changes—offer alternative phrasing. This takes 10 times longer than just presenting a list of complaints. But delivering this level of specificity is great discipline for a feedback giver, because it means you can’t get away with lazily saying, “I like it!” or “Maybe try making it funnier.” Instead, you point out precisely the elements you like and red-flag the jokes that don’t land.

????If you can explain why the joke’s not landing, then you can fulfill the second criteria of useful feedback—i.e. you’re not just dispensing your opinions, but sharing applicable knowledge. If you can’t provide some reference, precedent, or bit of wisdom, you should consider passing on the job of giving feedback. In such instances it’s perfectly fine to say, “I’m not really qualified here. Can I help you in other ways?”

????Meeting the third criteria is trickiest, because being encouraging isn’t all smiley-faces and exclamation points.

????I have a frighteningly analytical friend who, thanks to a PhD in economics and years of storytelling in front of live audiences, thinks of useful feedback in terms of efficiency. He wants to know what advice will lead someone to the optimal result the fastest, with the least amount of fuss. And the answer he’s arrived at is, it depends—largely on timing.

????Recommend a wholesale rewrite to someone who thinks they’re nearly finished, and there’s a significant chance they’ll be offended and ignore even good advice.

????Guidance given closer to the start of a project (when there’s still time and energy left to undertake big shifts in direction) is more likely to be heeded. But any feedback giver should consider timing on a larger scale. The useful adviser has to know—and if they don’t know, ask—how far along in their development (personal and professional) is this person I’m giving feedback to?

????When someone has minimal experience, there’s less of a chance that a feedback recipient will take guidance poorly. Imagine you’re making strawberry shortcake with a four-year-old. The four-year-old will probably spill flour all over the counter, and you’ll be correcting and guiding, maybe even gently placing your hand over his, but chances are the kid won’t mind that much. He knows he’s less than capable of producing strawberry shortcake entirely on his own.