Anatomy of a bad critique

I've given myself a deadline for editing. If I'm not done by March 31, I'm not allowed to go Frisbee Golfing this year. If that doesn't get my ass into gear, nothing will.

Since I'm being so strict about this deadline, I've asked some fellow writers over at Forward Motion to take a look. Got the first one back today, and after reading through the six pages of critique, it was obvious that they just didn't get it. Last time, I talked about the importance of a critique partner. Now, I want to talk about the anatomy of a bad critique.

I'll start off by admitting that reading the critique in question made me mad.

Some of the points brought up were valid, and I plan on addressing.

Example 1 : There are times on each of the missions where both the first and last name of a character are used independently, thus causing confusion. This is a legitimate point.

Example 2 : There is a point where Jana takes off her uniform and bathes in the lagoon. For some reason, I have her unzipping her uniform, doing something, zipping it back up, and then getting in the water and unzipping it to take it off and bathe. Redundant. This is a legitimate point.

Some of the points made it clear that they had no idea what was going on.

Example 3: "Why couldn't they use the drug to stop them?" (This is the actual question she asked, pertaining to a situation in the novel about the terrorists unleashing a biochemical toxin). Seriously? She really asked that? Maybe because it was concentrated stuff, and it was a SURPRISE ATTACK! The medicine she's talking about must be injected, but the toxin's kill rate is a matter of minutes. Not to mention, it's an experimental treatment that when used on Jana made her extremely sick.

Example 4: "Characters are not military enough." This is another example of blatant misunderstanding of the text. There is a very real reason why the characters, military, and government are the way they are. It tells you why.

So what's the difference? A helpful critique will touch on both the positive and negative aspects. Gushing over the good parts shouldn't be so much for the author's ego than to show them what it is they're doing right, what's working for them. The bad comments should be paid attention to if and only if the reviewer's remarks make it clear that they get what's going on, or if it is like the first two Examples.

To compare, I'll use one of J.M.'s comments.

Good Critique: If I were a little girl, and I saw someone holding a gun at my daddy, I'd be scared. The child shows too much indifference. Sure, it helps the plot, but you're missing another chance for more conflict. Kids aren't stupid. They sense tension, it makes them uneasy, and they cry. Even if she didn't know that Jana wanted to hurt her daddy, she would still squirm in her arms, cry, grabby-hand at her daddy, etc. She'd be nervous because her daddy was unnerved and anxious. (This is a legitimate point.)

Bad Critique: "At some point, the sun set and they turned on the artificial lights" Odd for some reason I thought they weren't on a planet. (Note: It is clear they're not on a planet, because it says so in the sentence before it. The station is orbiting the planet like a satellite, so they have night and day to a degree, even if it is only through the windows of the station.)