What kind of Critiquer are you?

[Frog]

It's rather quiet on here today, so I thought I'd throw this up because I found it interesting:

http://elissadcruz.livejournal.com/15379.html

I've think I've been (and seen) all of these before. 
Aw, well....

[WriterDan]

I do my best to stay "Global" and "Reactionist", but frequently have to pull myself away from being the "Line critter".  I know what will be best in the way of critiques (NOT line critting) because that's what helps me the most.  But I've been through them, that's for sure.  Word to the wise.  If you're critiquing something for someone?  Be truthful.  Tactful, always, but truthful.  Telling an author they're doing a great job when their output is really very poor (in your own opinion) is only be harmful to any kind of development that they might attain to.  Give em the help they need.  Let them know where they can do better.  Or, at least, where you think they can do better.  They'll love you for it.

[Renoard]

I am a canonical critic.  That is to say reader response with a twist.  The world of the story is created in the mind of the reader in response to the author's text.  But the twist is using the reactions of his characters to their environment to verify the quality of the descriptive prose.  Generally a synthesis of Global, Line and Nonbeliever.  Rather than bitterness the non-belief comes into play as a background voice asking the questions:
1) did the author stick to the vision his characters see or has the tone and quality of description wandered?
2) do the author's previously established rules for what is and can be allow what I'm reading in the current scene?
3) has the author used a shorthand from our own world that clashes with the world of the story?
4) is the author using magic bullets to kill plot holes and violations of his own rules, even with a lamp dangling from it a magic bullet is usually a story killer?

But Global is where it's at.  It's far more fun to be allowed to suspend disbelief and immerse in the world of the story.

[maxonennis]

I'm a Reactionist. If something doesn't feel like it's working for me, I say it and usually try to give a reason why and let the author think over it.

[RavenstarRHJF]

Wow.  I think I might be... all of them.  To a great extent my critiques depend on what in the writing is interfering with the story.  If it's grammar, then I do a line by line, if character development, then that's what gets my attention.  If the setting is just not believable... but I don't think I've read a story yet that just wasn't working for me on any level.

[Karl]

I try to remain Global, but I'll cop to having a heavy dose of Researcher in me.